LEE KUAN YEW'S LAST WILL, FEUDING FAMILY, AND THE COMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Oh dear, the 38 Oxley Road saga that shamed our nation is back in the headlines again. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean from the Prime Minister's Office, revealed on Mar 2 that Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and his wife, prominent lawyer Lee Suet Fern (LSF), have left the country to avoid a police interview. Singaporeans were told the police wants to interview LHY and LSF in connection with the judicial proceedings in the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges. The investigation by police relates to claims of perjury by the couple. Both the timing of this police action, and the legalities, are very disconcerting. So the couple had to flee from the safest country in the world.

A presidential election is coming up. The way a president is elected in Singapore is anything but democratic. Firstly, candidates are vetted and approved by a special commission, and the way Singapore Inc works, there is a public perception approving members are beholden to the ruling party. Secondly, to qualify, a candidate must have been a CEO or chairperson of a company with paid-up capital of not less than S$500m. That stringent criteria all but block out 99.9% of the population and ensures the president will always be a stooge of the ruling party, whichever that may be.

With PM Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) due to retire, the grapevine says his wife Ho Ching, ex-CEO of Temasek, is a foregone conclusion to be a shoo-in. Ho Ching certainly has admirers, but there are equally many who dislike her, and many more who hate to see a Lee dynasty continuum even though the President is merely a ceremonial role. It had been whispered before that LHY had been persuaded to make a run for office should Ho Ching's candidacy be confirmed. The PAP is in panic mode as a LHY run will very likely derail their plan to place Ho Ching on the throne. Their only way out is to relitigate the past and charge LHY for lying at the Court of 3 Judges, thus disqualifying him.

What I heard was LHY has no interest in the job. But he was persuaded by some groups to take on the challenge should Ho Ching run. That to me, I see some moral fibres in the man. It was a decision not for self, but interest of the common man.

Perjury is a serious crime liable to jail time. Senior minister Teo and many PAP supporters mocked LHY for running away instead of simply attending the police interview to sort matters out. Simple for many to say who have never been on the receiving end of a political machinery whose vindictiveness are well known, especially for those with long memories. More so for LHY, who has for decades been on the inside of that machinery, to understand how it functions. It's just like in national service, when the brass is out to get you, there is no escape route. You fall in line with the best polished boots, well-pressed uniforms, clean-shaven, all ready for inspection, and the brass will zoom in on one single button that showed a tiny frayed thread protruding out. It's guard duties for you this weekend.

Bare bone synopsis of the Will :

- LKY wants his house demolished after his death.
- LKY was under the impression the house has been, or will be gazetted as heritage site.
- Will #1 had a conditional demolition clause. House to be demolished, but if gazetted, house should not be open to public.
- LHY and sister Lee Wei Ling want to honour their father's wish, LHL wants to retain it.
- LHL said Cabinet and public wants the house retained as a heritage site.
- The Will underwent several revisions. The demolition clause was dropped in Will #5 and #6. This was due to LKY having learnt from LHL the house has been gazetted as a heritage site.
- In time, LKY learnt there was no gazette. But he was aware LHL being prime minister, can gazette anytime.
- LKY asked for final revision of his will. Due to travels, LKYs lawyer Kwa Kim Li could not draft the new will. 
- LSF was asked to handle the revision.
- Will #7 basically reverted to will #1, ie the demolition clause re-inserted.
- Probate was approved in 2017.
- The flame of controversy was lighted. It swirled around the claims of professional misconduct by LSF in her handling of will #7.
- The Attorney General (who had been LHL's personal lawyer), brought the case to the Law Society.
- The case went before the Disciplinary Tribunal which preferred 2 charges against LSF for misconduct.
- The case went before the Court of Three Judges where LSF was found guilty on one lesser count of misconduct and suspended for 15 months.

My 2 comments on this :

(1) On the conditional demolition clause, some Facebook comments deride LKY for his contempt of the public. It seems the suggestion came from LWL and LHY. Since LWL had a live interest to reside in the house, a show piece house means a total surrender of her privacy. Both LKY and his wife dreaded the thought of turning the house into a museum. The conditional demolition made a lot of sense. But in my opinion, I think the wily old fox could have seized the very idea as a politically correct response to LHL's intention. Let me express it in crude Hokkien to the tik tok generation : "knn, the dishonourable son wants to gazette to conserve. Limpeh insert this condition of no public visitors".  Of what good is a national heritage house if the public has no access. Chess moves. That's what it's all about.

(2) On LSF handling Will #7 - the task was rushed and done in a harried way. LKY lawyer Kwa Kim Li was out of town, LSF was on the way to Paris, LHY was flying to Australia. Some things were handled by LSF staffers. LSF made one critical error. She sent the draft copy of Will #1 instead of the signed copy to her staff. Thus Will #7 had the conditional demolition clause re-inserted, which was apparently what LKY wanted. Witnesses attested to the fact LKY read through and signed every single page of Will #7. Draft Will #1 had a minor point that was not in the draft but in the signed copy. This related to the inconsequential gift of 2 pieces of carpets to LHY. (LKY was a very thrifty man. He felt the carpet would be wasted on LWL or LHL both of whom would not take care of it). After Will #7 was signed, LKY made a codicil to include the carpet gift. Ironically, this mistake of LSF strengthens the argument that LKY knew exactly what he was signing.The fact he noted the trivial carpet clause was left out puts all discussion to the lucidity of LKY and validity of his final will to rest.


The Parliamentary debate :

When the family feud came into the open in 2017, the public discourse did huge political damage to the prime minister. LHL soon earned the nickname of "dishonourable son".  There was a parliamentary session to debate on whether there was misconduct on the part of LHL. They maintain that LHL as head of government, the record had to be set straight and his integrity ascertained. Was anyone really surprised the outcome of the debate was a "Hell No". There was no misconduct. 

Politically, the parliamentary debate did more harm than good. The public felt the prime minister had utilised state resources for private and personal purposes. A mis-use of power.

Old timers may well recall Minister for National Development Teh Chiang Wen committed suicide in 1986 by poison the day following a visit by LKY. Teh was under investigation for corruption. Rumours swirled. Was he encouraged to go the "Oriental gentleman" way? Who provided him the poison? But there was no debate in parliament to set the record straight then.


Sudhir Vedaketh's e-book :

Sudhir wrote an e-book on  The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will which I recommend everyone to read. Just click the link. It's well researched, quite comprehensive, with lots of email extracts, footnotes. Sudhir presented the facts, with his rational comments. He remained non-partisan as best he could. It's too bad he was unable to conduct any interviews as no character in the play would acquiesce to it and save for LHY, questions raised went unresponded by the few that Sudhir sent his requests to. 

My 2 comments on this :

(1) I think Sudhir missed out on mentioning that in Jan 2016, the two brothers had decided to each contribute half their share of the value of 38 Oxley Road to charity. Based on market value of S$24m at the time and their 1/3 share, that would mean a donation of S$4m each. See Straits Times 19 Jan 2016.

What is the significance of the pledge of donation? To LHL who has been upfront saying that he does not want to be seen as profiting from any financial transaction out of the house, the publicity of the donation served his purpose. To LHY, I think he felt he gained the prime minister's commitment to demolition and disposing the property. However, LHL left the option open by cunningly saying in public he wanted to honour his papa's wish, but it is left to the government of the day if they so decide to put it up for conservation.

The prime minister sat on the high horse and passed the buck to a cabinet that he controls with an incredibly big purse. But don't we know that for 5 decades, all important decisions in Singapore are made by one man.  We remember too the 4 hour-wait for the decision to use helicopters to rescue people trapped in the Sentosa cable car incident in 1983. As the cable cars swayed in the strong wind, Singaporeans prayed in agonised suspense waiting for the rescue that everyone who has watched television knew would be by use of helicopters. It was a certain general's call. The helicopters came 4 hours later.

(2) Sudhir mentioned that he was prompted to write the e-book partly due to suggestions from some PAP members. He has sworn to reveal names only over his dead body. It is apparent that there indeed are PAP members who have taken the red pill. This revelation points to a deep schism within the ruling party. It would be interesting to see developments post-LHL at the helm.


Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean's comments on Sudhir's e-book :

In reply to a parliamentary question last week, Minister Mr Teo said : “The book is not credible, as it totally ignores the facts and findings which had been established, after an objective and thorough examination of the case. It is clear that the assertions in his book are calculated to mislead, as they are completely at odds with the findings and conclusions of the Court of Three Judges and the disciplinary tribunal.” 

Assertions - These are opinions. The minister is saying none of us can have opinions not aligned to their narrative. Sudhir in fact made few non-partisan opinions. He laid the facts and explained what they meant.

At odds with judicial findings - These are facts. It is unfortunate the minister made a claim but never follow up listing which are the facts that Sudhir had twisted. Teo fired a loose canon.

I suggest you read Sudhir's e-book pages 63-67. Sudhir put together all the facts relating to the Ministerial Committee of 2016 to look into what to do with 38 Oxley Road.  What Sudhir pointed out are most certainly inconvenient for Minister Teo who chaired that committee.


The disciplinary case against LSF:

Many on social media and probably in coffee shops, discussed and argued on the case for years. It is good to have debates and arguments if it serve to educate. Unfortunately, from my observation, almost 100% of comments got into the obfuscation of whether LKY was lucid and LHY/LSF monkey-tricked a brilliant old man into signing a revised will. I wrote a blog on this in 2020.

Read : "A different take on the Disciplinary Tribunal case against daughter-in-law of Lee Kuan Yew" ... Chempost blog 3 Mar 2020

The case had nothing to do with the state of mind of LKY nor the validity of Will #7. Probate was granted in 2015 and LHL did not contest. By estoppel, he can no longer contest the will, unless there is new evidence of fraud. The will is valid, period.

The case against LSF in the Court of 3 Judges boils down to 2 charges :

(1) Gross improper conduct {as LKY lawyer}
(2) Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor

The Disciplinary Tribunal had found LSF guilty on both counts. Court of 3 Judges found her not guilty of (1) but guilty of (2).

(1) is the question before the courts of whether LSF was acting as a lawyer of LKY and if not, whether as 'implied lawyer'. The court found there was no lawyer-client relationship, whether actual or implied. The court agreed LSF was merely acting on instructions of her husband to help out to prepare the will. LKY knew LSF took instructions from LHY. Not reaching this conclusion is to insult the brilliant mind of LKY that they were treading on a legal minefield to use LSF as lawyer.

(2) the misconduct concluded by the court that LSF blindly followed the directions of her husband by rushing through the execution of the will, sent draft instead of signed Will #1, never check with LKY if indeed he wanted to revert to Will #1, did not keep LKY's lawyer Kwa Kim Li in the loop completely, and that she was not  “alive to the real danger” that it was her husband, a major beneficiary of the last will, not LKY, who was in a hurry to have it executed. 

The preparation of Will #7 was done during a time when LKY lawyer Kwa was out of town, LSF was leaving for Paris, and LHY was going to Australia. It's no excuse for shoddy work, but understandable for slip ups. The judges did not belief that LKY wanted the task done fast. Obviously they have never worked directly under the old man before. LHY said he was doing what everybody does when asked by LKY - they jump on it. (Go research the story of LKY and Bernard Chen in London - it's instructive of the way LKY works).


What is the perjury all about :

When you engage with an opposition hater, uno numero is Critical Spectator and his echo chamber, they all yell in unison LHY and LSF are liars. They lied, lied, lied, as The Quest would have it.. Yet none has actually read the court documents, nor really understand what are the lies. 

A judge's opinion when he refuses to believe, does not necessarily make the evidence a lie. A mistake of law is unforgivable. A mistake of fact is pardonable so long as it is made honestly, reasonably believing it to be true and with no intent to deceive. For example, the defendants said there was difficulty reaching Kwa, but the judges deduced that not to be so. Was that fact or opinion?

There was something troubling with the way Kwa was kept out of the loop at some point, as the judges rightly pointed out. LHY and LSF need to come clean with this. But these do not tantamount to lies. I have no evidence, but my gut feel on this is it has something to do with trust issues. Subsequent charge of misconduct against Kwa brought by the couple provides a hint. 

From media reports that I have gleaned, I could not determine what are the lies. Sudhir had access to the court papers and he pinned down to one single circumstance where the court said LHY "was not telling the truth.". This relates to the question of how the draft copy of Will #1 got to LKY. In the Disciplinary Tribunal, LHY had said he sent it to LSF, who used that as the basis for Will #7 which was then sent to LKY. But in the Court of 3 Judges, LHY or LSF said LSF had a copy of Will #1 which she sent to her staff to prepare Will #7 and then sent to LKY. On this point alone, the court said LHY lied. Sounds like that damn frayed thread from my national service days.

If this was a lie, to what purpose? Where is the gain? Sudhir had sought LHY's comment on why is there no email evidence to show he sent the document to his wife. The explanation was they both periodically delete unimportant messages in their email account. A convenient explanation or the truth, who knows. They have my benefit of the doubt for the simple reason there is no profit to this 'lie'. And if this is of paramount importance for their honour, I wonder if they have tried a forensic recovery.

The fact the draft instead of the signed copy of Will #1 was used was of particular concern to the judges. The point, and absolutely correct, there could have been potential severe harm had it not been “fortuitous” that the contents of the Will #7 signed were materially similar to Will #1 that Lee Kuan Yew wanted to revert to.

Having said that, our 3 dear judges were not privy to the contents of the wills and that it was not accidentally "fortuitous", but that the draft Will #1 was something the family had already agreed to. Per Sudhir, the draft was agreed and to be executed the following day. Unknown to LHY, in the final Will #1, LKY inserted an additional clause of the carpet gift.

Taking all in, the perceived 'lie' is a tiny molehill compared to the lies of Khaw when he said in parliament that the PAP owns AIM, or Charles Chong's libellous claim of the $22.5m missing funds of the Workers' Party. These are inconvenient issues that opposition haters do not discuss. Sure, these were not lies in court, but these are mountains on the morality scale.

What is the Prime Minister's motive not to demolish :

I finally found what I think the answer is. In 2012 LKY said in an e-mail that 

“...the cabinet has opposed tearing it down and rebuilding, because 2 PMs have lived in the house, me and Loong". 

It is a huge ego trip. The man wants his place in history.


Conclusion :

My personal feelings about the judicial proceedings is the Court of Three Judges got it absolutely right. My opinion does not come from some pseudo legal finery, just what a reasonable man with his feet firmly on the ground feels. LSF fell short in professional prudence, but there was no deceit. The circumstances surrounding the hurried manner the task was executed and the non-physical presence of key persons are no excuse but contributing factors to the confusion. In closing, I quote from my 3 Mar 2020 blog :

"One can only wonder how 3 luminous minds of the Lee family, LKY himself, son Yang and Fern, could have overlooked the illegality of having a testator's daughter-in-law to draft the Will."

Where do I stand on 38 Oxley Road? Personally I would have like it to be a heritage site. However, my personal preference is subjugated by a moral obligation to respect the wishes of a dead person.  

Let me try to go pseudo-philosophical and quote Alexander Pope (Of the Nature and State of Man, With Respect to Society -  Epistle III) :

So drives Self-love thro’ just and thro’ unjust,
To one man’s power, ambition, lucre, lust:
The same Self-love in all becomes the cause
Of what restrains him, government and laws.
For, what one likes if others like as well,
What serves one will, when many wills rebel?
How shall he keep what, sleeping or awake,
A weaker may surprise, a stronger take?
His safety must his liberty restrain:
All join to guard what each desires to gain.
Forc’d into virtue thus by self-defence,
Ev’n kings learn’d justice and benevolence:
Self-love forsook the path it first pursued,
And found the private in the public good.

The message is even kings who are learned in justice and benevolence must act morally because natural laws govern all individuals and society. One needs to restrain self-interest. Seek it within the wider interest of society.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.