Lee Kuan Yew and his son responded forcefully to Restall’s article. On July 13, 2006, their lawyer sent Restall and FEER two letters , one on behalf of each. Five of the article’s paragraphs, wrote Attorney Davinder Singh, implied “that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is unfit for office because he is corrupt and has set out to sue and suppress those who would question as he fears such questions would expose his corruption.” Furthermore, because Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong appointed his father to a cabinet post, and as chairman of a government investment corporation, the article implied that the prime minister was unfit for office because he condoned his father’s corrupt behavior. Restall’s article, Singh complained, further implied that Prime Minister Lee (like his father) “has set out to sue and suppress those who would question because he fears such questions would expose the truth of such corruption and/or condonation.” Such allegations, Singh wrote, were “false and baseless,” and were clearly published “maliciously and recklessly.”

The article, said Singh, constituted a “grave libel” against the current and former prime ministers. As remedy, he demanded that FEER remove the article from its website, and that the Review publish an apology—the terms of which he enclosed—both online and in its next print issue. The web version of the apology would have to be “prominent” and remain on the website for the same number of days as the offending article. Singh also demanded the Review pay Prime Minister Lee damages and any legal costs. He set a deadline for a response of July 18.