Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Apex court reserves judgment on whether contempt of court papers can be served to Li Shengwu

SINGAPORE – Lawyers for Li Shengwu and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) battled it out on Friday (Jan 18) as they argued over whether contempt of court laws could be applied retroactively by the AGC to serve papers on Mr Li while he is overseas.

One key issue argued in the Apex court was whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers can rely on a new law on contempt even though Mr Li’s alleged contempt of court offence was committed before that law was introduced.

One key issue argued in the Apex court was whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers can rely on a new law on contempt even though Mr Li’s alleged contempt of court offence was committed before that law was introduced.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Lawyers for Li Shengwu and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) battled it out in the apex court on Friday (Jan 18) as they argued over a lower court’s previous decision that allowed the AGC to serve contempt of court papers on Mr Li while he was overseas.

A key issue raised by the Court of Appeal was whether there are any available written laws that allow the Singapore court to exercise substantive jurisdiction — in contempt of court cases — over an individual located overseas.

Another issue was whether new contempt of court laws could be applied retroactively to serve papers on Mr Li while he was overseas.

The AGC argued that it does have the power to do so, as Mr Li was in Singapore when he made a Facebook post in July 2017, saying that the Singapore Government was “litigious” and has a “pliant court system”.

It pointed out that it had relied on existing, and not new, contempt of court laws being applied retroactively, when it served the court papers to Mr Li.

Mr Li’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that as the new contempt of court laws only came into effect in October that year, it should not be applied to this case.

Mr Li, the son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is a United States-based assistant professor of economics at Harvard University.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who presided over the case alongside Judges of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong, said the Court of Appeal reserved judgment on the case.

It is expected to pass its ruling at a later date.

THE CASE

In July 2017, Mr Li wrote a Facebook post, which he claims was shared only with friends, saying that the Singapore Government was “litigious” and has a “pliant court system”.

The comments accompanied a Wall Street Journal article he was sharing on the public dispute that his father and his aunt Lee Wei Ling had with PM Lee over the Oxley Road family house that belonged to the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who was Mr Li's grandfather.

In August that year, the AGC started contempt of court proceedings against him.

Mr Li’s lawyers applied to challenge the order that the AGC had obtained to start those proceedings, arguing it cannot personally serve him papers outside of Singapore.

In March last year, the High Court dismissed the application. Mr Li was also ordered to pay costs understood to be about S$6,000.

Six months later, the apex court allowed Mr Li’s lawyers to appeal against the lower court’s decision, which culminated in the Friday’s hearing.

THE PROSECUTION: THE AGC

The AGC is represented by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Francis Ng.

  • He argued that the AGC relied on existing laws and not new laws being applied retrospectively to serve the contempt of court papers to Mr Li.

  • A new procedural rule, introduced in Oct 2017, could theoretically also have been used to enable the papers to be served to Mr Li, he added. Although the rule came into effect after Mr Li made his post, Mr Ng noted that “its wording does not preclude retroactive application”. However, the AGC's position is that it had never applied for leave to serve the contempt papers under this new procedural rule.

  • He also argued that contempt of court laws allow the AGC to serve papers on someone outside of Singapore where “the claim is founded on a cause of action arising in Singapore”, and that Mr Li was in Singapore at the time he made the Facebook post. He also made the point that Mr Li has not refuted this.

THE DEFENCE: LI SHENGWU

Mr Li is represented by lawyers Abraham Vergis and Asiyah Arif from Providence Law Asia.

  • They argued that the basis of jurisdiction lies under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

  • One of the provisions stipulates that the High Court only has jurisdiction over a defendant outside Singapore if the defendant submits himself to the High Court.

  • They also argued that the procedural rule which gives the court power to serve papers on someone outside of Singapore, under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, cannot be applied retroactively in this case, because the “legislature manifestly did not intend for the provision to apply retroactively”.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.