• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Fixing the opposition

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Lee Hsien Yang ordered to pay damages to Shanmugam, Vivian for defaming them over Ridout Road rentals​

yulhycollage2511k.jpg

The High Court has granted default judgment in favour of ministers K. Shanmugam (centre) and Vivian Balakrishnan (right), after Mr Lee Hsien Yang failed to respond to their defamation suits against him. PHOTOS: ST FILE, ZB FILE, BLOOMBERG
natasha.png

Natasha Ann Zachariah
Correspondent

Nov 27, 2023

SINGAPORE – Mr Lee Hsien Yang will have to pay damages to ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan for defaming them in Facebook comments about their rental of state bungalows in Ridout Road.
The High Court has granted default judgment in favour of the two ministers, after Mr Lee failed to respond to their defamation suits against him. The amount of damages to be paid will be assessed at a subsequent hearing.
Justice Goh Yi Han also granted an injunction restraining Mr Lee from further publishing or disseminating the false and defamatory allegations, which stated, among other things, that the ministers had acted corruptly and for personal gain by receiving preferential treatment for the rentals from the Singapore Land Authority.
In a written judgment on Nov 27 that followed his decision in court on Nov 2, Justice Goh said he granted the injunction as there were “strong reasons” for him to conclude that Mr Lee will repeat his defamatory statements.
The judge noted that Mr Lee had refused to take down his July 23 Facebook post despite having been issued a letter of demand by the ministers on July 27.
The post stated, among other things, that “two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations”.
Mr Lee had continued to refer and draw the attention of readers in Singapore to that Facebook post, noted the judge. He also repeatedly posted about the lawsuits that were under way, which again drew attention to his remarks that were the subject of the court proceedings.

In his ruling, Justice Goh said the two ministers had met the requirements for a default judgment against Mr Lee.
Mr Shanmugam, who is Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, who is Foreign Minister, had filed separate defamation suits in the High Court against Mr Lee on Aug 2.
Mr Lee is the younger son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

As Mr Lee was outside Singapore, the ministers applied to the court and were given leave to serve him court papers by Facebook messenger, which they did on Sept 15.
While there is no need for the ministers to prove that Mr Lee saw the documents served on him, Justice Goh noted that Mr Lee had put up a post on Sept 16 which confirmed that he had seen the papers.
Mr Lee then had 21 days to respond to the claims, but did not do so.
Justice Goh said the ministers’ suits raised a novel issue of the extent of the court’s power to grant an injunction during an application for a default judgment.
Updated court rules which took effect in April 2022 meant that claimants could seek an injunction when applying for a default judgment, he said. Prior to the change, claimants could only seek an injunction at a later stage, after a defendant persisted in not filing a defence.

Even so, the ministers still had to show why the injunction should be granted, the judge said, noting they were not entitled to such an order just because they had applied for it and Mr Lee did not respond to their claims.
“In my view, given the potentially draconian effects that an injunction can have on a defendant, a court needs to be independently satisfied that it was appropriate to grant injunctive relief,” he said.
The judge said he was satisfied in the present case given the facts, and thus granted the injunction. This included that the Facebook post in question “remains published, accessible, and available”.
Following the judge’s decision on Nov 2, Mr Lee said in a Nov 10 Facebook post that he was made aware of the court order, and that he has “now been compelled to remove the statements from my Facebook page”. His prior posts were edited on Nov 10 to remove those statements.
In his Nov 27 judgment, Justice Goh added that there was good reason to gather that Mr Lee would “repeat the defamatory allegations by continuing to draw attention to them and/or publish further defamatory allegations against the claimants”.
He said he would have found an enforceable claim under defamation law if Mr Lee had decided to challenge the ministers’ claims.
This is as a reasonable reader would have understood Mr Lee’s Facebook post to mean that trust in the People’s Action Party had been squandered because of the ministers’ allegedly corrupt conduct, from which they gained personally, he said.
It was also clear that the post referred to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan, though they were not expressly named, and the posts continue to be accessible to the public, he added.
The implication of Mr Lee’s decision not to respond to the suits was that the court was unable to take into account any countervailing materials regarding the claims, said the judge.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

WP leaders awarded costs for appeals in AHTC case​

aiwp291123.jpg

The apex court rejected Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s argument that it was the successful party in the appeals. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO
thamyuen-c.png

Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent

Nov 29, 2023

SINGAPORE - Workers’ Party leaders Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang will be able to recover some legal fees in the long-running case involving the party’s town council, after the apex court found they had succeeded substantially in their appeals and awarded costs to them.
The Court of Appeal also agreed the trio could claim for the costs of using more than two lawyers in some instances – an exception to the usual rule – as the case had high stakes for all parties involved and dealt with complex issues of both law and fact.
The Nov 29 ruling followed previous judgments in July 2023 and November 2022 in which the apex court overturned several findings of the High Court, while confirming that senior WP leaders were liable to Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) and Sengkang Town Council (STC) for negligence in certain respects.
Following the July decision, parties made written arguments on the costs to be awarded for the appeals.
In all, $351,965.62 in costs were awarded to Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Low, as well as other town councillors, FM Solutions & Services (FMSS) and its employees. They were also awarded $36,817.01 in disbursements for out-of-pocket expenses such as photocopying and filing fees.

WP town councillors largely succeeded in their appeals: Court​

In its latest judgment, the court said the WP town councillors did succeed substantially in their appeals. This included that they were found to have acted in good faith in the hiring of FMSS as AHTC’s managing agent without an open tender.
In July, the apex court overturned an earlier finding by a lower court that Ms Lim and Mr Low had breached their fiduciary duties, and instead found that they had been negligent in allowing control failures to happen at the town council and in other miscellaneous payments.

The court also found that Mr Singh cannot be held liable for negligence in AHTC’s payments process, as he was not given the chance to defend himself against the claim.
As such, the court rejected AHTC’s argument that it was the successful party in the appeals because some WP leaders were found to have been grossly negligent, and that it was thereby entitled to costs.
This argument “cannot be sustained on the facts because most of the issues in the appeals... were not found in AHTC’s favour”, it said.

Instead, it agreed with the WP leaders and other town councillors involved in the case, who argued they should be awarded costs as the majority of claims against them by AHTC and STC were dismissed as a result of the appeals.
This is although liability for some serious breaches was found to have been established even after the appeals, it noted.
Overall, the court said the town councillors were “successful in overturning the outcome reached in the court below on the majority of the issues” and should be entitled to claiming costs.
The costs due to the WP leaders and others are to be borne by both AHTC and STC. STC inherited the case from Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) after Punggol East SMC was subsumed into Sengkang GRC in 2020.
PRPTC had initiated a civil suit, parallel to AHTC’s lawsuit, to recover losses incurred by Punggol East when the constituency was under the WP and managed by the WP-run town council from 2013 to 2015.
An independent panel appointed by AHTC had taken the WP leaders, several town councillors and the town council’s managing agent to court over $33.7 million of improper payments made by AHTC between 2011 and 2015.
Central to the case is the WP leaders’ hiring of FMSS, which was set up by Ms How Weng Fan and her now-deceased husband, Mr Danny Loh, who were later appointed deputy secretary and general manager, and secretary of AHTC, respectively, while remaining FMSS shareholders and directors.
The High Court found in 2019 that Mr Low and Ms Lim had breached their fiduciary duties to AHTC, and Mr Singh had breached his duties of skill and care, among other findings. The WP leaders then appealed against the judgment.

Reasonable to use more lawyers​

In its Nov 29 decision, the court agreed with the WP leaders that their use of more than two lawyers to fight the appeals was warranted, due to its exceptional nature and complexity.
Typically, claims for the costs of more than two lawyers are not allowed unless the court grants a certificate that allows for it. This raises the amount of costs that can be claimed from the other party, in this case by 50 per cent.
The apex court noted that the appeals raised the important question of whether a public servant exercising statutory duties under public law is also subject to fiduciary and equitable duties. That a five-judge bench heard the appeals reflected the need for the assistance of lawyers with requisite knowledge and experience, they added.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon led the panel, which also comprised justices Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Andrew Phang.
The court said the numerous claims made by the town councils also necessitated careful analysis of evidence to put them in proper context, so as to determine the propriety of the contracts awarded by the WP town councillors.
In addition, the appeals involved voluminous materials comprising 206 bundles totalling 52,694 pages, the court said.
The stakes in the appeal were very high for all parties involved, with serious allegations against the WP leaders and town councillors, strong media interest and important questions of public interest raised.
“Viewed in its entirety, we agree... that the use of more than two counsel was reasonably necessary for the adequate presentation and preparation for the appeals,” the court said.

Separate cost orders warranted​

The court also made separate cost orders against STC, which argued against this.
STC had accepted that costs orders should be made against it as the WP town councillors, employees and FMSS had succeeded on key issues in their appeal.
But it submitted that it should be subject to a single costs order, even though the different parties were represented by different law firms.
The court noted that implicit in STC’s argument was the suggestion that the case did not justify separate legal teams.
To this, the court said that while it was true that there was some degree of shared interests between the parties, this “cannot be taken too far”.
The interests of the town councillors and FMSS employees were aligned insofar as they relied on the same broad arguments, such as in the interpretation of laws and regulations.
“However, that in and of itself does not lead to the conclusion that the... decision to engage separate counsel was an unreasonable one,” said the court.
It noted that there were some nuances and differences between the parties’ positions and interests. For instance, the town councillors and employees made different arguments about the correct interpretation of the Town Councils Act.
Unlike the other parties involved, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Low were also elected MPs, and as such had to face potential political consequences on top of the legal consequences from the claims against them, the court said.
The parties also acted in rather distinct capacities in relation to AHTC’s affairs, it added.
In determining the quantum of cost orders, the court said it took into account that there were issues found in AHTC and STC’s favour, such as that the WP leaders and town councillors owed a duty of care and skill to the town councils and were thus liable for some of the claims.
Broadly, it applied a 15 per cent discount to the costs awarded due to the findings in AHTC and STC’s favour.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Kenneth Jeyaretnam barred from profiting from website, social media accounts under Pofma​

fhken300823.jpg

Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s website and social media accounts will have to carry a notice stating that it is a Declared Online Location. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO FILE
jean_iau_0.png

Jean Iau

Dec 11, 2023

SINGAPORE – Opposition politician Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s website The Ricebowl Singapore (TRS), and his accounts on Facebook, Instagram, X and LinkedIn have been earmarked as Declared Online Locations (DOLs) under Singapore’s fake news law, preventing him from benefitting financially on these platforms.
For two years starting from Dec 12, each online site will have to carry a notice stating that it is a DOL so that visitors will be warned that Mr Jeyaretnam has a history of communicating falsehoods on these online locations, said the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on Dec 11.
While the declaration does not mean that the online locations will need to cease operations, they must comply with actions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) that would prevent their operator from financially benefiting during this period.
MCI said the declaration order was made following multiple falsehoods communicated on the online platforms, for which Mr Jeyaretnam, the secretary-general of the Reform Party, had been served Pofma correction directions on July 16, Aug 2, Aug 22, Aug 30 and Nov 2.
“In the last six months, Mr Jeyaretnam has made false claims and repeatedly shared falsehoods about various government policies and processes, such as fiscal and manpower policies, the Singapore Police Force’s and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s investigation practices, and state property rentals,” added the MCI.
Under Pofma, an online platform can be declared a DOL if it has carried three or more different false statements of fact that have been the subject of Pofma directions within six months of the declaration.
It will be an offence for the operator of the DOLs to derive financial or any other material benefit from operating them.

Service providers, such as digital advertising agencies, must also take reasonable steps to ensure that their paid content on these DOLs is not available in Singapore.
Members of the public and companies must not financially support DOLs if they know they would support, help or promote the communication of falsehoods in Singapore on the platform in doing so.
MCI said: “Members of the public are advised to be alert to Mr Jeyaretnam’s history of communicating misinformation on these online locations, and to fact-check information published at these DOLs.”
The Online Citizen Asia’s (TOCA) website, Facebook page, Twitter account page and LinkedIn page were also earlier made DOLs with effect from July 22, 2023 to July 21, 2025.
Other social media pages that were previously declared as DOLs include the States Times Review Facebook page, Singapore States Times Facebook page, Alex Tan’s Facebook page and National Times Singapore Facebook page.
These pages were operated by Mr Alex Tan, according to MCI. As Mr Tan did not comply with the DOL requirements, Access Disabling Orders were subsequently issued to Facebook to disable access to these pages to people in Singapore. Facebook complied with the orders.
A provision under Pofma allows the Government to order an Internet intermediary to disable access to a DOL if the owner of the DOL does not comply with the declaration and paid content on the site continues to be displayed to users here.
If an Internet intermediary fails to comply and is convicted, it can be fined up to $20,000 for each day that the government order is not fully complied with, up to a total of $500,000.
The owner or operator of the DOL, or any person with editorial control over the online location, may apply to MCI to vary or cancel the declaration. If the minister refuses the application, an appeal can be made to the High Court.
A registry of current DOLs is available here: https://www.pofmaoffice.gov.sg/registry/declared-online-locations/
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

WP chief Pritam Singh charged with lying to Parliament over Raeesah Khan’s case, pleads not guilty​

1 of 5
rrpritamsinghcourt1903.jpg

Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh is under a police probe in relation to a controversy involving former MP Raeesah Khan lying in Parliament. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Tham Yuen-C and Nadine Chua

MAR 19, 2024

SINGAPORE – Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh was charged on March 19 with two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee, two years after the police opened investigations into his conduct before the Committee of Privileges.
The charges relate to his testimony before the committee, which had been convened in November 2021 to look into a lying controversy involving his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan.
The committee called Singh as a witness and said later that he had not been truthful during the hearings while under oath. It recommended referring him to the public prosecutor for further investigations with a view to consider criminal proceedings, which Parliament later endorsed.
Standing in the dock on March 19, 2024, the 47-year-old opposition politician, who was unrepresented, pleaded not guilty to the two charges under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and claimed trial.
He requested for a four-week adjournment to engage a lawyer. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for April 17.
Lying in response to questions posed by a parliamentary committee is considered a criminal offence under the Act, and carries a maximum fine of $7,000 and a jail term of up to three years or both.
Singh arrived at the State Courts at 10.45am, clad in a black suit. When asked why he was at the courts, he replied: “Why do you normally come to the State Courts?”

When asked if he had anything to say after being charged, he said he would be releasing a statement later.
The committee’s recommendation for Singh to be referred to the public prosecutor had come after it investigated Ms Khan for lying in Parliament.
During a debate on empowering women on Aug 3, 2021, Ms Khan, then MP for Sengkang GRC, had claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim again in the House on Oct 4, 2021.

This was later found to be untrue, and Ms Khan eventually told Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, that she had been sexually assaulted herself and had heard about the victim’s experience at a support group session.
She resigned from the WP and her parliamentary seat on Nov 30, 2021.
In the charge sheets, Singh was said to have given a false answer to the committee’s questions on December 10 and 15, 2021.

On one occasion, he had said after an Aug 8 meeting between him, Ms Khan and WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap, that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify that she had lied in Parliament on Aug 3.
On two other occasions, he had said that during a meeting with Ms Khan on Oct 3, he had asked her to come clean about her lie if the issue was brought up in the House on Oct 4.
The eight-member committee comprised seven People’s Action Party MPs and one WP MP.
They were then Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Manpower and Defence Zaqy Mohamad, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Law Rahayu Mahzam, Hougang MP and WP organising secretary Dennis Tan, and Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Don Wee.
rrraeesahpritam1903_0.png

Former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan (left) and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh giving evidence before the Parliament’s Committee of Privileges in December 2021. PHOTOS: GOV.SG
After a total of 31 hours of hearings held over several weeks, the committee found Ms Khan guilty of abuse of privilege and recommended that she be fined a total of $35,000.
It also recommended that Singh, along with his fellow Aljunied GRC MP Faisal Manap, be referred to the public prosecutor for further investigations – Singh for not being truthful in his testimony under oath, and Mr Faisal for his “flagrant and inexcusable” refusal to answer relevant questions.
In a joint statement on March 19, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and police said Mr Faisal will not be charged. He has been issued an advisory to familiarise himself with conduct expected of Members of Parliament under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, and to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it.
WP chairman and Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim had also been called as a witness by the committee, but was not referred for further investigations.
At the crux of the matter was the three months that elapsed before Ms Khan confessed in Parliament on Nov 1, 2021, to lying.

The committee concluded that Singh had played “the key and leading role” in advising her not to come clean after she first lied, and said he had lied when he asserted during the hearings that he had asked her to set the record straight in the House.
Singh has consistently denied the allegations. Though he acknowledged that he had given Ms Khan too much time to clarify the lie, he said he had done so as he was sympathetic to the fact that she had been a victim of sexual assault.
In its 1,180-page report presented to Parliament on Feb 10, 2022, the committee said it was beyond its purview to recommend that any penalty be imposed on both opposition politicians.
The committee added that while the default position is that Parliament should deal with matters that arise in a parliamentary context, it appeared best in this case that the matter “be dealt with through a trial process, rather than by Parliament alone”, given the seriousness of the two WP leaders’ actions.
In February 2022, after debating the committee’s report, Parliament voted in favour of the committee’s recommendation. The Attorney-General then referred both men to the police for investigation.
rrpritamside1903_1.jpg

In the charge sheets, Singh was said to have given a false answer to the committee’s questions on December 10 and 15, 2021. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Political watchers and observers have been watching for updates to the case, with some wondering if Singh might end up being more heavily punished than Ms Khan.
Singh had posted in February 2022 about the prospect of losing his seat as an MP or being disqualified from standing for election, since this could happen if a person is jailed for at least one year or fined at least $2,000. The disqualification lasts for five years.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act was amended in May 2022 with the fine quantum for disqualification increased to at least $10,000.
In response to media queries, an AGC spokesman said if Singh is found guilty, it is for the Court to decide what the appropriate punishment should be.
The spokesman added that they will be asking the Court to impose a fine for each of the charges, if Singh is convicted.
This is based on the “evidence presently available and considering the totality of the circumstances”, said AGC.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Shanmugam, Vivian seek aggravated damages from Lee Hsien Yang over post on Ridout Road rentals​

wgt-shanvivyang2-020524.jpg

The High Court previously granted default judgment in favour of (from left) ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, after Mr Lee Hsien Yang failed to respond to their defamation suits against him. PHOTOS: ZB FILE, ST FILE
selinalum.png

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

MAY 02, 2024

SINGAPORE – Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan are seeking aggravated damages against Mr Lee Hsien Yang for defaming them in a public post on his Facebook page about their rental of state bungalows in Ridout Road.
Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan appeared in court on May 2 at a hearing to assess the amount of damages they are entitled to get from Mr Lee.
They took the stand briefly to affirm the contents of the affidavits they had filed to the court.
Mr Lee was absent.
After the 20-minute hearing ended, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who is acting for the two ministers, told reporters that they did not specify the amount of damages sought. They were leaving it to the court, he said.
Mr Singh argued in his opening statement that Mr Lee’s conduct had aggravated the injury caused by his defamatory post.
He said Mr Lee had refused to apologise for his post after receiving a legal demand to do so, and instead “proceeded to wage a public campaign to gain sympathy and support from Singaporeans” against the two ministers.

The lawyer noted that despite making numerous Facebook posts drawing attention to the defamatory post, Mr Lee “has never once said” that his statements were true.
“That is very telling. He has also not come to court to claim that they are true. The inference is compelling that he knew and knows that the offending words are false,” he said.
Mr Singh cited Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit against blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian.

In 2021, PM Lee was awarded $100,000 in general damages and $33,000 in aggravated damages.
Mr Singh compared Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s conduct to that of Mr Leong, who was sued for sharing, on his Facebook page, an article from a Malaysian news site falsely linking PM Lee to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad corruption scandal in Malaysia.
He noted that Mr Leong removed his post after three days, but Mr Lee’s post was available for more than 3½ months.
Mr Singh said Mr Lee had “continued to double down” on the false allegations, although it was widely known that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s investigations found no evidence that the ministers received preferential treatment or had abused their position for personal gain.

Mr Shanmugam, who is Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, who is Foreign Minister, had filed separate defamation suits in the High Court against Mr Lee in August 2023.
The legal action arose over the post on Mr Lee’s Facebook page made on July 23.
Mr Lee is the younger son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and brother of PM Lee.
On Nov 2, 2023, Justice Goh Yihan granted default judgment in favour of the two ministers after Mr Lee failed to respond to their defamation suits against him.
In his written grounds of decision, Justice Goh said the two ministers had met the requirements for a default judgment against Mr Lee.
As Mr Lee was outside Singapore, the ministers applied to the court and were given permission to serve him court papers by Facebook messenger, which they did on Sept 15, 2023.
202405021016222S5A0464-01_2.jpg

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam (in the back seat) leaving the Supreme Court on May 2. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO
While there was no need for the ministers to prove that Mr Lee saw the documents served on him, Justice Goh noted that Mr Lee had put up a post on Sept 16, 2023, that confirmed he had seen the papers.
Mr Lee then had 21 days to respond to the claims, but did not do so.
The judge had also granted an injunction restraining Mr Lee from further publishing or disseminating the false and defamatory allegations, which stated, among other things, that the ministers had acted corruptly and for personal gain by receiving preferential treatment for the rentals from the Singapore Land Authority.
Justice Goh said he had granted the injunction as there were “strong reasons” for him to conclude that Mr Lee would repeat his defamatory statements.
On May 2, Mr Singh noted that Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan are “public leaders and persons of the highest integrity whose standing are beyond question”.
Mr Singh argued that the higher the claimant’s standing, the heavier the damages.
As for Mr Lee, he is a well-known figure in Singapore, with 89,000 followers on Facebook.
The greater the standing of the defamer, the greater the impact of the defamation and the degree of injury, Mr Singh said.
He also noted that as at 7.11am on April 5, 2024, Mr Lee’s post had received 2,765 reactions, 489 comments and 402 shares.
The greater the extent of publication and republication, the higher the award of damages, said Mr Singh.
IMG9910_8.JPG

Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan leaving the Supreme Court on May 2. ST PHOTO: AZMI ATHNI
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Psychiatrist Ang Yong Guan found guilty of misconduct over prescriptions that deviated from guidelines​

aidrang130524.jpg

The current case concerned a series of prescriptions Dr Ang Yong Guan had given a former patient, which did not conform with guidelines issued by MOH. PHOTO: ST FILE
selinalum.png

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

MAY 14, 2024

SINGAPORE – Psychiatrist Ang Yong Guan has been found guilty of three counts of professional misconduct for departing from the relevant guidelines in prescribing various medications to a patient.
Dr Ang is also assistant secretary-general of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and contested the Marymount seat in the 2020 General Election.
The current case concerned a series of prescriptions Dr Ang had given a former patient, Mr Quek Kiat Siong, which did not conform with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health (MOH).
Mr Quek died of multiple organ failure four days after the last of these prescriptions was issued in 2012. He was 50 years old.
The final prescription included a daily dosage of 60mg of antidepressant medication mirtazapine, which Dr Ang acknowledged went to the “edge of the killing range”.
The patient’s sister lodged a complaint with the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), which brought three disciplinary charges against Dr Ang.
But a disciplinary tribunal acquitted Dr Ang of professional misconduct and instead found him guilty of failing to provide professional services of the quality which is reasonably expected of him.

On May 13, the Court of Three Judges overturned the tribunal’s decision, and found him guilty of professional misconduct.
Dr Ang had appealed against his conviction on the alternate charges, while the SMC appealed against the acquittal and argued for a three-year suspension.
In its written judgment, the court ruled that Dr Ang’s departures from the relevant guidelines in relation to various prescriptions amounted to misconduct because he was unable to justify those decisions.


The patient had concurrent prescriptions of multiple benzodiazepines, concurrent prescriptions of benzodiazepines with opioid painkillers, and excessive dosages of mirtazapine and a controlled-release form of zolpidem.
Benzodiazepines are depressants, while zolpidem is used to treat insomnia.
The court, which comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Belinda Ang and Justice Tay Yong Kwang, will hear arguments at a later date on the appropriate sanctions to be meted out.

Under the Medical Registration Act, doctors found guilty of professional misconduct can be struck off the register, suspended or ordered to pay a penalty, among other things.
Dr Ang, who runs his own practice, Ang Yong Guan Psychiatry, began treating Mr Quek on Feb 8, 2010, for various conditions, including insomnia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessional ruminations and anxiety.
His final prescription was issued on July 31, 2012, four days before Mr Quek died on Aug 4 that year.
The cause of death was certified as “multi-organ failure with pulmonary haemorrhage, due to mixed drug intoxication”.
The concentration of drugs in the patient’s blood was found to be “elevated beyond the therapeutic concentrations found in living subjects”.
After Mr Quek’s death, his sister sued his insurers, which had denied liability under two personal accident policies. She argued that he died as a result of accidental drug interactions, but the insurer denied that the death was accidental.
In 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Ms Quek and ordered the insurers to pay out the sums under the policies. The court found that the most likely scenario was that Mr Quek had taken his medication as prescribed.
Ms Quek then filed a complaint with the SMC against Dr Ang in April 2017.
The first charge brought against Dr Ang pertained to prescriptions issued between Feb 8, 2010, and Dec 31, 2011, while the second charge concerned prescriptions issued between Jan 1, 2012, and July 31, 2012.
The third charge concerned the final prescription issued on July 31, 2012.
It was for a daily dosage of 60mg of mirtazapine, which exceeded the permitted maximum daily dosage of 45mg; and for a daily dosage of 25mg of controlled-release zolpidem, in excess of the permitted maximum daily dosage of 12.5mg.
It was not disputed that Dr Ang had made such prescriptions, and that these prescriptions were inconsistent with both the guidelines issued by MOH and the package inserts in the medication.
The SMC’s disciplinary tribunal had concluded that Dr Ang’s conduct did not amount to an intentional and deliberate departure from the standards of treatment, as he had shown “care and concern” for the patient and had “attempted to meet the standard” expected of him.
In its judgment, the court said that while doctors may depart from codified standards adopted by the medical profession, the burden falls on them to demonstrate that the departure is objectively justified in terms of the risks and benefits.
The court added that in cases where there is significant risk from the patient’s perspective, the doctor would have to show that the patient had been informed of the risks, even if they were objectively outweighed by the benefits.
The court found that on the first two charges, Dr Ang had shown that some of his decisions to depart from the guidelines were objectively justifiable, while others were not.
As for the third charge, the court said Dr Ang was unable to demonstrate that his prescription of mirtazapine and zolpidem in excess of the stated maximum dosages was objectively justifiable.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Ridout Road rentals defamation case: Lee Hsien Yang ordered to pay $200k each to Shanmugam, Vivian​

yusedamagescoll2405.jpg

Mr Lee Hsien Yang (from left) had falsely alleged in a post made on his Facebook page on July 23, 2023, that Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan had acted corruptly in their rental of state bungalows. PHOTOS: ST FILE, LIANHE ZAOBAO FILE
selinalum.png

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

MAY 24, 2024

SINGAPORE – Mr Lee Hsien Yang has been ordered by the High Court to pay $200,000 each to Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan for defaming them in a public post on his Facebook page about their rental of state bungalows in Ridout Road.
Mr Shanmugam, who is Law and Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Balakrishnan, who is Foreign Minister, had filed separate defamation suits in the High Court against Mr Lee in August 2023.
Mr Lee is the younger son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and brother of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The legal action arose over the post on Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s Facebook page made on July 23.
The post falsely alleged that the ministers had acted corruptly by having the Singapore Land Authority give them preferential treatment.
In a written judgment on May 24, Justice Goh Yihan set out the factors that pointed towards the award of higher damages.
The judge noted that Mr Lee had “consciously chosen” not to respond to the defamation suits, which meant he cannot contest his liability at an assessment of damages hearing.

Justice Goh said the case must therefore be decided on the basis of evidence from the two ministers, who took the stand on May 2, and arguments from their lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.
The judge found that Mr Lee’s defamatory allegations against the two ministers were “of the gravest kind”, as they referred to their personal integrity, professional reputation and honour, as well as core attributes of their personalities.
He noted that Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan are public leaders and persons of the highest integrity who have a high standing, while Mr Lee is well-known in Singapore.

The judge said it was well-established that the higher the standing of the claimants and of the defendant, the higher the damages that will be awarded.
Justice Goh added that there has been and continues to be substantial publication and republication of the defamatory allegations in Singapore.
The judge said it was significant that Mr Lee did not apologise or remove the post despite being given an opportunity to do so.
On July 25, 2023, two days after the post was published, Mr Lee edited it to include a correction direction that had been issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
Lawyers for the two ministers then wrote to him on July 27 that year to give him a chance to apologise, to remove the post, and to pay $25,000 to each minister.
However, Mr Lee did not comply by the July 31 deadline. The defamatory words were removed only on Nov 10 that year.

Justice Goh also found that Mr Lee had acted with malice because he “knew that the offending words were false, that he published them recklessly, and/or without considering or caring whether they are true or not”.
The judge said malice in defamation means any ill will, spite or some wrong or improper motive, and justifies the award of not only higher damages but also aggravated damages.
In assessing the quantum, Justice Goh considered two separate defamation suits brought by Mr Lee Hsien Loong when he was the prime minister, both of which involved statements on Facebook.
In one case, financial adviser and blogger Leong Sze Hian was ordered to pay $100,000 in general damages and $33,000 in aggravated damages for sharing an article falsely linking the then Prime Minister to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia.
In the other, chief editor of The Online Citizen Terry Xu was ordered to pay $160,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages over an article published on the news site and posted on its Facebook page.
The article falsely accused Mr Lee Hsien Loong of misleading Mr Lee Kuan Yew into thinking that his Oxley Road house had been gazetted by the Government.
Justice Goh found that the defamatory allegations in the current case were more serious than those in the case against Mr Xu.
The judge took into account that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was “as, or slightly more, well-known” than Mr Leong or Mr Xu, while the standing of a Cabinet minister was slightly lower than that of a prime minister.
Justice Goh said Mr Lee’s conduct and malice was worse than that of Mr Leong, who removed his post after a few days.
“In the present case, the defendant took to social media with the offending words and repeatedly drew attention to them with subsequent posts,” he added.
Justice Goh awarded $150,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages each to Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Lim Tean found guilty of practising as a lawyer without valid certificate​

btlim20240726.jpg

Lawyer Lim Tean was convicted of three charges under the Legal Profession Act after a trial. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
shaffiq_alkhatib.png

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Jul 26, 2024

SINGAPORE – Lawyer Lim Tean attended court hearings on behalf of his clients on 32 occasions without a practising certificate between April 1 and June 9 in 2021, the court heard.
On July 26, Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun convicted the 59-year-old opposition politician of three charges under the Legal Profession Act after a trial.
The judge said that it was not disputed that Lim was issued a practising certificate dated June 10, 2021, which came into force that day.
With this conviction, the founder of the Peoples Voice party still has pending charges for offences that include criminal breach of trust. These other charges will be dealt with at a later date.
Deputy public prosecutors Edwin Soh and Bryan Wong stated in their submissions that over a period of more than two months, Lim attended court hearings and submitted many documents to court while not having a valid practising certificate.
They added: “Instead of pleading guilty as a sign of remorse, the accused claimed trial. His conduct during the trial was demonstrative of his guilt. The accused had no valid defence to his charges.
“He elected to remain silent and chose not to call any witnesses when the defence’s case was called. Further, he repeatedly attempted to delay the proceedings using... irrelevant constitutional arguments based on him being ‘singled out for prosecution’ by the public prosecutor.”

The DPPs also stressed that his criminal trial at the State Courts was not the proper forum to determine his constitutional arguments.
The prosecutors said that that Lim had made several attempts to delay proceedings.
For instance, they highlighted that the trial was scheduled to begin on Aug 29, 2023, but did not proceed as he had discharged his earlier defence lawyer, Mr Sankar Saminathan, that day.

Lim had told the court that he decided to discharge Mr Sankar as they had “fundamental disagreements” on how to handle his defence.
The court then granted the adjournment before that trial proceeded later in 2023.
During the trial, the court heard that Lim did not obtain his practising certificate for two months in 2021 as he had not paid his professional indemnity insurance.
According to the Singapore Courts’ website, lawyers must apply for their practising certificate every practice year, which runs from April 1 each year to March 31 of the following year.
The Law Society of Singapore’s website states that lawyers need to fulfil certain stipulations to get a practising certificate.
These include having professional indemnity insurance and fulfilling continuing professional development requirements.
The compulsory professional indemnity insurance covers lawyers against civil liability when providing legal services.
DPP Soh had said that Lim had paid the professional indemnity insurance only in June 2021, and his practising certificate for the practice year of 2021 to 2022 was issued only on June 10, 2021.
According to the prosecution, Lim sued out of a writ of summons on April 1, 2021, and carried on or defended court proceedings in the name of his clients on 32 occasions.
The DPPs told Judge Ong that Lim also prepared documents and instruments relating to court proceedings in Singapore on 32 occasions.
On Dec 27, 2023, Ms Rejini Raman, a former assistant director at the compliance department of the Law Society, who had communicated with Lim during that time, testified that applications for the certificate open on March 1 with the final application deadline on April 30.
To apply, lawyers would need to get their professional indemnity insurance from a company called Lockton, she added.
Referring to a WhatsApp exchange between Lim and Ms Rejini, defence lawyer Patrick Fernandez said she had emboldened his client to go to court without a practising certificate.
The exchange Mr Fernandez was referring to occurred on March 31, 2021, during which Lim had asked Ms Rejini for an ad hoc waiver of his continuing professional development requirements.
Lim asked Ms Rejini if he could appear in court in the meantime.
She replied that he could and to let the judge know he was waiting for the waiver approval before submitting the practising certificate approval for the new practice year.
Ms Rejini told the court on Dec 27 that she did not know Lim had not paid his professional indemnity insurance until or around May 11, 2021.
She said the Law Society does not have powers to grant exemption for lawyers to practise without a practising certificate.
Ms Rejini later clarified she was trying to assist Lim and not authorise him to go to court without a practising certificate.
She added that the responsibility for practising certificate renewal falls on the lawyer, and not on the Law Society.
Lim’s mitigation and sentencing will take place in November.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Lee Hsien Yang pays Shanmugam, Vivian over $600,000 for defaming them in Facebook post​

wgt-leeshanvivmain-011024.jpg

(From left) Mr Lee Hsien Yang was taken to court by Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan for defaming them about their rental of two black-and-white bungalows in Ridout Road. PHOTOS: ST FILE, ZB FILE
thamyuen-c.png

Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent

Oct 01, 2024

SINGAPORE – Mr Lee Hsien Yang has paid Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan more than $600,000 for defaming them in a social media post about their rental of two black-and-white bungalows in Ridout Road.
The payment comes after he was taken to court by the two ministers in August 2023.
He had accused them in a July 23, 2023 Facebook post of getting the Singapore Land Authority to grant them preferential treatment, including cutting down trees and funding renovations on the two state-owned properties.
On Sept 29, Mr Lee, who is the youngest child of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and brother of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, wrote on Facebook that he had paid the ministers a total of $619,335.53 over the defamatory statements.
He noted that the amount was “equivalent to 13.6 months rental for the two Ridout houses”, and added that it was unfortunate the ministers did not pursue the case in the English courts.
He also said the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s family home at 38 Oxley Road is his “significant asset” in Singapore. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he paid the ministers “in order to try to honour my father’s wishes in connection with his home and to allow Wei Ling, who is ill, to continue to stay at 38 Oxley Road”. He was referring to his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling.
Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan rebutted Mr Lee’s claims on Oct 1 in two largely similar Facebook posts.


They said he had no answer when they previously pointed out that his libels were published in Singapore and were primarily meant for, and concerned, Singaporeans.
“Now, he says that ‘it is unfortunate that the ministers chose not to pursue the case in the English courts’. That is still not an answer,” they wrote.
“We urged him to cross-examine us and be cross-examined, in the full view of everyone, so that he can show Singapore, and the rest of the world, that he is right and we are wrong.

“However, on the first day of the trial when we took the stand, ready to be cross-examined, he was a no-show, deciding not to take us on.”
In 2023, Mr Lee had received a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act two days after he had put up the offending Facebook post.
He then put up a correction notice alongside the post, but also stated in another post that he stood by what he had said.
Both ministers sent him legal letters, asking him to apologise, withdraw his allegations and pay damages of $25,000 each, which would be donated to charity.
But he did not do so and they filed separate defamation suits against him in the High Court.
Mr Lee did not respond to the lawsuits and did not appear in court to defend himself, and the ministers were granted default judgments against him in November 2023.

In May 2024, the High Court ordered him to pay each of them $200,000 in damages, including $50,000 in aggravated damages, with High Court Judge Goh Yihan noting that Mr Lee had acted with malice as he knew that the defamatory statements were not true.
The ministers had said the money would be donated to charity – a point they reiterated on Oct 1.
They called Mr Lee’s claim that he had paid damages to allow Dr Lee to continue staying at 38 Oxley Road extraordinary.
“Mr Lee Hsien Yang knows that the defamation cases have nothing to do with Mr Lee Kuan Yew. They also have nothing to do with 38 Oxley Road, which he carefully describes as his ‘significant asset in Singapore’,” they said.
“We did not once say that we intended to enforce our judgments on 38 Oxley Road.”
They noted that Mr Lee had “conveniently omitted to mention” that he owns at least one other asset in Singapore, based on public information.
The value of this asset would have been “more than sufficient” to satisfy his debt, they said.
“If he did not pay on the judgment, that asset could have been subject to enforcement,” they added.
Mr Lee had put up the defamatory post a month after the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau released findings on the rental of the Ridout Road properties, stating that there had been no wrongdoing or preferential treatment given to the two ministers.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had also conducted a review of the matter, and found that the two ministers had taken appropriate steps to avoid any conflict of interest and had conducted themselves properly in the rental transactions.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

WP chief Pritam Singh’s trial over alleged lies to Parliament to start on Oct 14​

hzsingh111024a.jpg

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh leaving the Supreme Court on Sept 9 after the result of his application for a High Court trial. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG
Wong Pei Ting
Correspondent

Oct 13, 2024

SINGAPORE – The trial of Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh is set to begin on Oct 14 at the State Courts.
Singh, the secretary-general of the Workers’ Party (WP), is expected to contest two charges over alleged lies to a parliamentary committee convened in November 2021 to look into the lying controversy involving former WP MP Raeesah Khan.
The committee had found Ms Khan guilty of abuse of parliamentary privilege and recommended that the former Sengkang GRC MP be fined $35,000. It had also recommended referring Singh and WP vice-chairman Faisal Manap to the public prosecutor for possible criminal charges.
This was as Singh had not been truthful in his testimony while under oath, while Mr Faisal had refused to answer relevant questions that had been put to him, said the committee.
Singh was charged on March 19, 2024, for giving false answers to the committee’s questions on Dec 10 and Dec 15, 2021, and the WP chief pleaded not guilty. Mr Faisal was not charged, but was issued an advisory by the police to familiarise himself with conduct expected of MPs.
This is the first time in post-independence Singapore that a person has been prosecuted under Section 31(q) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (PPIPA), which makes it an offence to lie in response to questions posed by Parliament or its committee.
For each charge, Singh faces a maximum fine of $7,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both.

In December 2021, Parliament’s Committee of Privileges held hearings into an Aug 3, 2021, claim by Ms Khan, who said she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated insensitively. She repeated the claim before the House on Oct 4, 2021.
This was later found to be untrue, with Ms Khan admitting to lying in Parliament and resigning from WP and as an MP in November 2021. She said she had been sexually assaulted herself, and had heard about the victim’s experience at a support group session.
Singh is alleged to have lied to the committee that after an Aug 8, 2021, meeting between him, Ms Khan and WP leaders Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal, he wanted Ms Khan to clarify in Parliament the untruth she told on Aug 3.

The WP chief is also alleged to have provided false testimony that at a meeting with Ms Khan on Oct 3, 2021, he had asked her to come clean about her lie if the issue was brought up in the House on Oct 4.
An Attorney-General’s Chambers spokesman had earlier said that it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh’s charges if he is convicted, adding that this was based on the “evidence presently available and considering the totality of the circumstances”.
The Constitution states that a sitting Member of Parliament will lose his seat if he is jailed for at least one year, or fined at least $10,000.
In 2022, the Constitution was amended to raise the fine quantum for disqualification from $2,000 to $10,000. This was to account for inflation and to correspond to sentences handed down by the courts in Singapore for relevant offences today, the Elections Department said then.

Ahead of the trial, Singh had made a bid in August to have his case transferred from the State Courts to the High Court, citing the case of former transport minister S. Iswaran, which secured a transfer on grounds of strong public interest considerations.
The Aljunied GRC MP also argued that his case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court judge”, who would not be “swayed by the political atmospherics that surround this matter”.
The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, objected to the application. Justice Hoo Sheau Peng dismissed the application on Sept 9, stating that the issue in Singh’s case was a straightforward factual one, of whether he had wilfully given false answers before the parliamentary committee.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan will preside over the trial, which is fixed for 16 days until Nov 13. Singh’s lawyers are former prosecutor Andre Jumabhoy and Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, from Mr Jumabhoy’s law firm.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

‘I am a political refugee,’ says Lee Hsien Yang; reveals he sought asylum in 2022​

rrleehsiengyangasylum2210.jpg

Mr Lee Hsien Yang left Singapore on June 15, 2022, after the police asked him and his wife Lee Suet Fern to assist in investigations. PHOTO: ST FILE
ng_wei_kai.png

Ng Wei Kai

Oct 22, 2024


SINGAPORE – Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in a social media post on Oct 22, said that he has become a political refugee from Singapore under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
He said: “I sought asylum protection in 2022. The Singapore government’s attacks against me are in the public record. They prosecuted my son, brought disciplinary proceedings against my wife, and launched a bogus police investigation that has dragged on for years. On the basis of these facts, the UK has determined that I face a well-founded risk of persecution, and cannot safely return to Singapore.
“I sought asylum protection as a last resort. I remain a Singapore citizen and hope that some day it will become safe to return home.”
Mr Lee added: “In 2017, my sister Wei Ling and I declared, ‘We do not trust Hsien Loong as a brother or as a leader.’ We stated that we feared the abuse of the organs of the Singapore state against us and against my family. Because of that risk, I was unable to attend Wei Ling’s funeral.”
Mr Lee, the younger son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, did not clarify if he has been granted asylum, which will allow him to stay in Britain for a minimum of five years, and open the door for permanent settlement there after this period.
Mr Lee left Singapore on June 15, 2022, after the police asked him and his wife Lee Suet Fern to assist in investigations.

The pair have not returned since.

To apply for asylum in Britain, one must fear returning to their country of origin or nationality, according to a British government information booklet on asylum applications.
Applicants become refugees once they are granted asylum, it adds.
The document also says to be recognised as a refugee under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, one must have left their country and be unable to go back because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of five reasons.

These are: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and/or membership of a particular social group.
An applicant must also have failed to get protection from the authorities in their own country.
The issue of Mr Lee’s ability to return to Singapore re-emerged following the death and funeral of his older sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on Oct 9 at age 69, four years after being diagnosed with a rare brain disorder called progressive supranuclear palsy.
Mr Lee had earlier said he would not be returning to Singapore for the wake and funeral, and that his son Li Huanwu would be helping with them.
On Oct 11 – in response to queries from the media – the police said there are no legal restraints on Mr Lee and Mrs Lee returning to the Republic.
“They are and have always been free to return to Singapore,” they said.

Mr Lee has in the past hinted at a permanent departure from the country.
In 2023, Mr Lee said in a Facebook post that he may never return to Singapore amid the ongoing police investigation, the root of which is a legal disagreement between Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his younger siblings over the fate of their late father’s house in Oxley Road.
The statement added that the police had asked the younger Mr and Mrs Lee to assist in investigations in June 2022 by attending an interview. It said: “They had initially agreed but in the end did not turn up for the scheduled interview, left Singapore on June 15, 2022, and have not returned since.”
Among the differences was a demolition clause – relating to the demolition of the 38 Oxley Road house after Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death – which had not been in the sixth or penultimate will but was in the last.
This clause became a sticking point among the late Mr Lee’s children.
In 2020, the Court of Three Judges and a disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee, a lawyer, over her handling of the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
The police then became involved.
 

LITTLEREDDOT

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Lee Hsien Yang has turned ‘personal vendetta’ into international smear campaign: Govt​

IMGLeeHsienYang116B3D9E0.jpg

The Government has refuted Mr Lee Hsien Yang's claims that Singapore has become more repressive and that corruption here has worsened. PHOTO: ST FILE
Kok Yufeng

Oct 31, 2024

SINGAPORE - Mr Lee Hsien Yang has turned a “personal vendetta” into an international smear campaign against his father, family and country, said the Singapore Government on Oct 31.
Responding to an interview that Mr Lee Hsien Yang gave to the Associated Press (AP) - his second with international media in slightly more than a week - the Government refuted his claims that Singapore has become more repressive and that corruption here has worsened.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who was granted political asylum in the UK in August 2024, claimed in his interview with the American news agency that the authorities here has “weaponised” the country’s laws against critics, and that a growing number of Singaporeans are fleeing abroad to seek protection from the government.
He had earlier aired similar grievances against the Republic in an interview with British newspaper The Guardian. He has also been vocal on social media about the Government, especially in relation to 38 Oxley Road, the site of his late father Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s house.
Questions over the fate of the house resurfaced after the death of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on Oct 9. Dr Lee, the younger sister of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, lived in the house until her death.
Releasing its full response to the AP to local media on Oct 31, the Government said Mr Lee Hsien Yang is a major beneficiary of the Singapore system.
“(He) knows all these facts,” it said in its response to AP. “All the examples of alleged corruption that (he) cites have been thoroughly addressed, either through the courts or in Parliament,” it added.

It said that what AP should consider when assessing the credibility of his claims were conclusions from a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT). It found the Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Mrs Lee Suet Fern presented “an elaborate edifice of lies” on the execution of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, that they had misled the late Mr Lee in its execution, and lied under oath.
The Government pointed out that he seemed to have alleged in his asylum application that one reason why he and his family were being persecuted by the Singapore Government was to prevent his son, Harvard economist Li Shengwu, from being Prime Minister.
“That he would go so far as to allege this —though his son has repeatedly said he has no such ambition — shows his campaign against Singapore is not based on principles,” the Government said.

It also addressed the money laundering and corruption scandals that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had cited.
  • On the billion-dollar money laundering case that came to light in August 2023, the Government said 10 of the offenders have been sentenced in court, and had their assets seized. Another 17 individuals who left Singapore have also had their assets frozen and seized, with warrants of arrest and Interpol Red Notices issued against four of them. Interpol Blue Notices were issued against the remaining 13.
  • On the 1MDB case, the Government said it took “robust actions” against banks and individuals that failed to discharge their anti-money laundering obligations. This included the closure of local units of Swiss banks Falcon Private Bank and BSI Bank, financial penalties imposed on eight banks, and lifetime bans on six individuals.
  • On Keppel Offshore and Marine’s corruption case in Brazil, the Government said this was addressed in Parliament in February 2023. Full payments of fines were made to the Brazilian authorities, and Seatrium, the merged entity of Keppel Offshore and Marine and Sembcorp Marine, is currently in discussions with the public prosecutor on a deferred prosecution agreement.
  • On the Wirecard fraud scandal, the Government said this took place in Germany. But on Singapore’s part, financial penalties were imposed on four financial institutions found to have inadequate anti-money laundering controls. Former Singapore-based Wirecard employees have also been sentenced to jail for criminal breach of trust
  • Finally, on the scandal involving Singapore-based global commodity trader Trafigura, which is facing up to US$1.1 billion in losses over a Mongolian oil scandal, the Government said it will take action against the company should it conduct illicit activities in here.
The Government cited the case involving former transport minister S. Iswaran, too. The 62-year-old was sentenced to 12 months’ jail on Oct 3 for accepting gifts as a public servant and obstructing justice.
“Singapore has always acted firmly and decisively against those who break our laws… If he had been a minister elsewhere, he would not have been charged for accepting such gifts, let alone sentenced to a year in prison,” the Government added.
“Just as Mr Lee Kuan Yew acted when he was Prime Minister, neither Mr Lee Hsien Loong nor his successor Mr Lawrence Wong prevented their former colleague from being investigated, prosecuted and convicted,” it said.
The Government also pointed to Singapore’s good performance in various global rankings, including the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, as evidence of its firm stance against corruption.

Finally, in response to accusations of repression, the Government noted that, post-independence, Singapore has been the only country in South-east Asia that has held regular elections, without ever suspending its Constitution or imposing martial law.
It also noted that Singaporeans are free to vote for whichever party they think can better serve them, and about 40 per cent of citizen vote for opposition parties.
The Government said Mr Lee Hsien Yang, too, has freely participated in politics, pointing to his membership with the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had also considered contesting in the 2020 general election under the PSP’s banner.
It said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang continues to fund and support the opposition from afar.
“(He) is not a victim of persecution. He and his wife remain citizens. They are and have always been free to return to Singapore,” it added.
 
Top