The younger brother of Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, has expressed his disappointment with the way the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is handling his son’s case regarding what is perceived by the AGC as “contempt of court”.
In a Facebook post today (3 Sep), Mr Lee Hsien Yang pointed out the apparent unfairness in the AGC’s treatment of his son, Mr Li Shengwu, stating that despite “much stronger criticism of Singapore courts has recently been published in some international media and widely shared public posts”, the AGC, in his view, has not taken any legal action against such entities for publishing and spreading such posts.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also highlighted that proceedings are unjustly held against his son over “his private communications”, as the Facebook post was “shared only with his friends”, unlike the public criticism often aired by international media and even other individuals.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also wrote that Mr Li’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his previous application to challenge AGC’s order to serve him papers outside Singapore will be heard today.
On 21 Aug last year, Justice Kannan Ramesh’s ruling permitted AGC to commence contempt of court proceedings against Mr Li, which Mr Li has decided to dispute against.
It is understood that Mr Li was ordered to pay costs of about S$6,000 for his challenge.
In a Facebook post dated 15 Jul last year, Mr Li wrote that “the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system”, which he explained referred to the constraints surrounding what the media is allowed to or able to report regarding the high-profile dispute of his paternal family.
Responding to AGC’s demands for an apology, Mr Li reiterated that while his specific post was clearly intended to be private and limited only to his friends list, and thus should not be distributed or shared without his prior permission despite being on a public platform such as Facebook, he has also agreed to amend the post to provide greater context and clarity in meaning.
The AGC deemed the post to be an “egregious and baseless attack” on the judiciary.