The letters, while addressed to Restall and FEER, did not long remain in the magazine’s Hong Kong headquarters. As editor-in-chief, Restall was responsible for all the editorial content in the magazine. On legal matters, however, FEER reported to Dow Jones and its in-house counsel, Stuart Karle. Karle was an experienced lawyer who had been with Dow Jones since 1992, representing each of its publications.

Within days, the letters from Singh on behalf of the Lees were on Karle’s desk. As at most major US newspapers, the general counsel’s office typically reviewed in advance of publication any article thought to be sensitive, especially those which could be libelous. Whether this article went through pre-publication vetting was unclear.

On July 18, five days after Singh sent his first letters, Karle replied on behalf of FEER . In an effort to anticipate the usual government demand—an unedited right of reply—Karle suggested that, while he investigated the matter, FEER post both of Singh’s original, unedited letters on the FEER website. This would “get your position in front of readers as soon as possible,” Karle wrote, since the next print issue of the Review would not come out until September. Posting the letters would not preclude “any future publication in the magazine... of a letter to the editor or any other item, if any, the Review believes is appropriate,” he added.

Singh responded the next day . Rejecting Karle’s suggestion as a cynical “attempt to republish the offending words (which appear in our letters),” he explained that the matter could not be settled with a simple letter to the editor. Singh gave the Review an additional five days—until July 24—to meet his original demands: removal of the article, an apology, and payment of damages.

Karle tried again to smooth things over. He answered the same day , July 19, and said that FEER would happily omit the offending paragraphs quoted in Singh’s letter, and simply refer to them as “the 9th through the 13th paragraphs of the item.” His offer to post Singh’s letter and to link it to Restall’s article were an attempt, Karle said, at “mitigation,” and not “aggravation.”

On July 23—a day before the deadline—Karle submitted a full response to Singh , who had not yet responded to Karle’s previous letter. FEER disputed Singh’s interpretation of Restall’s article. Karle wrote that FEER did not believe that “any reasonable reader of the Far Eastern Economic Review would have understood those words to bear such a meaning.” In pointing out the example of corruption at the National Kidney Foundation, Restall mentioned neither the minister mentor nor his son. It could be said that, in asking what lay behind the veil of official opacity, the answer could just as well have been “nothing.” There was no need, therefore, to assess and pay damages. Though the Review “did not intend... to convey the meaning to which your clients object,” FEER was still willing, Karle said, to publish a clarification on its website and in the magazine’s September issue. He proposed text for the clarification which used language found in Singh’s initial complaint. It read:

We have been informed that the item published in our July/August issue under the headline, “Interview: Singapore’s ‘Martyr,’ Chee Soon Juan,” has been read by some as an allegation that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is corrupt, that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is unfit for office for retaining and condoning the Minister Mentor’s corruption, and that the Prime Minister has himself set out to sue and suppress those who would make such allegations because he fears such questions would expose the truth of corruption or his condonation of it.

The Review did not intend to make any of these allegations in the article. To the extent any reader saw such allegations in the article, that is regretted.

Publishing the clarification would not, Karle wrote, preclude the possibility of an additional letter from either the prime minister or the minister mentor, or both. The Review “also remains interested in interviewing the Minister Mentor, which also could serve as a means by which he could express his views to the readers,” Karle added. He called for “patience and calm,” and tried again to reach a compromise with the Lees. He reminded them, as he had in his previous letter, of the Review ’s decade-long history of publishing responses to its articles from government officials. The Review would gladly have published this clarification, as well as any additional letter, “without the intervention of any legal counsel,” Karle wrote.

The following day, on July 24, Singh sent back a terse, bulleted reply in which he rebuffed all of Karle’s suggestions, including an interview with the minister mentor (“another avenue to profit from their libel”). He interpreted Karle’s response as one of disingenuous arrogance. “Your suggestion,” he wrote, “that our clients exercise ‘patience and calm’ implies that our clients have acted irrationally.” The clarification that Karle proposed was, in Singh’s words, “designed to be condescending, and... to convey the impression to the reader that the Review and Mr. Restall have decided to humour our clients.” He charged that the Review was not taking the Lees’ claims seriously. The Review , he alleged, was trying to dismiss as a mere matter of perception the Lees’ conviction that their credibility and character had been impugned. Singh signed off with the news that the Lees would begin legal proceedings, and requested the name of a Singapore lawyer on whom to serve papers.

Karle replied the same day with assurances that the clarification was written in good faith. He asked that the Lees reconsider their decision to bring suit. But he also requested that, should they choose to serve papers, they do so in either New York or Hong Kong. The Review could not name a solicitor in Singapore because the magazine had no legal presence in Singapore, and thus no need for a lawyer. This time, the Review did not hear from the Lees’ counsel.