Over this period we have disclosed a wide range of evidence.
For clarity, we provide here a summary of what we have shown to date:
1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath -- some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private through improper means.
2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.
3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.
4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.
5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.
6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.
7. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes.
8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.
What Has Happened to the Values of Lee Kuan Yew : https://goo.gl/G71SrX ( scroll down )
Page 1
1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents' wishes in private through improper means.
Lee Hsien Loong in his own words.
IN PUBLIC
LHL states in Parliament: "There is no immediate issue of demolition of the house, and no need for the Government to make any decision now."
IN PRIVATE
A secret committee of ministers is set up to investigate and make recommendations about the house. Official media now says LHL is "not involved".
IN PUBLIC
Probate for Lee Kuan Yew's will is granted on 6 Oct 2015. The will is recognised as final and legally binding. LHL raises no legal challenge.
IN PRIVATE
LHL writes to the secret committee claiming. "there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the demolition clause had been re-inserted into the last will. LHL swears this under oath (a statutory declaration).
IN PUBLIC
LHL quotes the demolition clause to Parliament and then says "Mr Lee's position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values. (April 2015)
IN PRIVATE
LHL tells his committee: "Mr Lee then took a number of steps which put beyond any doubt that he came to accept Cabinet's position.
IN PUBLIC
LHL writes on Facebook, I "hope the government will allow the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish for the demolition of the house to be honoured"
IN PRIVATE
LHL tells his committee: "He [Lee Kuan Yew] would accept any decision to preserve it."
When was he lying?
Lee Hsien Loong's speech to Parliament, 13 April 2015
"Most importantly, how we honour Mr Lee must be faithful to the ideals he lived by and fought for. Mr Lee made it very clear throughout his life that he did not need and did not want any monument. [...] Mr Lee was very careful never to allow a personality cult to grow around him, much less to encourage one himself."
Lee Hsien Loong, through his personal lawyer Lucien Wong, 18 Sep 2015 letter addressed to lawyers of Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling
Mr Lee never said that he was in principle opposed to any monuments to himself after his death. On the contrary, Mr Lee felt that it was necessary for Singapore to have appropriate monuments / memorials which would commemorate Singapore's founding fathers, including himself, and had given careful thought to how this could be done. As he told our client: "This place needs heroes".
LHL again misrepresents his father's wishes.
Page 2
2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.
From 2010, LHL improperly misrepresented to our father LKY that gazetting of 38 Oxley Road was either "inevitable" or that the house was already gazetted. We now know that no decision had been made. In doing so, LHL improperly represented the government’s position, and acted under a clear conflict of interest.
In Parliament, LHL claimed that, because LKY “considered” alternatives to demolition, citing the renovation plans by Ho Ching as proof that LKY wavered in his demolition wish. The contradictions are many.
As the email below reveals, LKY and we were in fact very skeptical about the renovation plans, as these were inconsistent with LHL’s insistence that the house would be gazetted. The evidence also shows that LKY considered alternatives only because of LHL’s misrepresentations to his own family. Finally, it contradicts a claim made by Lee Hsien Loong through his lawyer that no decision had in fact been made on the house and that he never informed LKY that 38 Oxley road was to be gazetted as a national monument.
Ultimately, is it even proper for Hsien Loong to be making decisions on a matter where he has a direct personal interest?
Lee Hsien Loong misled even his own father.
Lee Hsien Loong told Lee Kuan Yew that, LHL in his capacity as PM had decided to declare the house at 38 Oxley Road a heritage site.
Lee Kuan Yew stated this in an e-mail on 3 Oct 2011. LHL was copied on this e-mail, and did not reply. LHL could have objected to the statement, but did not.
From: Kuan Yew LEE (PMO) [mailto: Kuanylee@pmo.gov.sg]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 07:28 PM
To: HO Ching
Cc: Hsien Loong LEE (PMO)
;
Lee Hsien Yang;
Lee Wei Ling;
Subject: RE: Architect
Message Classification: Unclassified
Yes.
But Loong as PM has indicated that he will declare it a heritage site. That will put an end to any rebuilding.
On 23 July 2015, LHL's personal lawyer, Lucien Wong wrote to us, claiming,
"It is not correct that our client ever informed Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, or anyone else, that the House at 38 Oxley Road ("the House") was to be gazetted by the Government as a national monument". He added, "the Government had (and has) not made any decision on what (if anything) should be done with the house."
Further details:
Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY : https://goo.gl/VRhwiC
Page 3
3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.
LKY’s Final Will of December 2013 was a reversion to his 2011 will on his express instructions.
On 16 Dec, 2013, Lee Wei Ling wrote to Lee Hsien Yang:
Subject: Re: Papa says to go back to 2011 will
To get a notary public not from Lee n Lee to witness his signature n that settles it
Stamford Law, was called upon to witness the execution of this will simply because LKY’s lawyer, Kwa Kim Li was not contactable at the time. This was also at the express instruction and insistence of our father, who did not wish to wait. Lee Kuan Yew in an email on 16 December 2013 (the day before the signing of the final will):
"OK. Do not wait for Kim Li.
Engross and I will sign it before a solicitor in Fern's office, or from any other office."
LHL stated in a letter dated 15 September 2016 to the Cabinet committee and in a statutory declaration dated 24 February 2017 that this will of 2011 had been drafted by Kwa Kim Li, with clause 7 drafted by Lee Suet Fern. LHL: “Whilst the First Will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, the Demolition Clause was drafted by my sister-in-law, Lee Suet Fern.” The 2013 will was essentially a reversion to the 2011 will.
Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer and well knew the sanctity and finality of a will. He gave clear instructions for the execution of the will. He carefully read his final will before signing it, and he continued to review and reflect after signing to put his affairs in order. Two weeks after signing his will, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted a codicil to his will and executed it.
All three children were kept fully apprised of the signing of the final will and the codicil. No objection was raised at that time and indeed Hsien Loong has affirmed the will in public and in private. At the end of the day, only a court-proven final will is the legally binding will. Lee Kuan Yew’s final will was confirmed by court on 6 October 2015.
Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were unhappy with Wei Ling’s right to live at 38 Oxley Road and sought to push back on this in LKY’s wills 2 to 6.
Further details:
Drafting and Witnessing of the Will : https://goo.gl/TqiMqu , https://goo.gl/q9CUZo
Wei Ling’s Right to Live at 38 Oxley : https://goo.gl/CkFc2d , https://goo.gl/gFApyD
See also Section 7.
Page 4
4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.
These items were part of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate, and not owned by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under Lee Kuan Yew’s will, the executors (not the beneficiaries) have absolute discretion over these items. To take them without prior permission constitutes both theft and intermeddling.
Ho Ching took the items on behalf of PMO, despite having no official position in PMO. Neither PMO, nor LHL had the proper standing to authorize the removal of these items or loan them.
Ho Ching, unofficially "PMO", takes LKY's things whilst he is dying
Loan items for ME List 3
S/N ; Description ; Image ; Lender/Source ; Dimensions ; Receipt No. ; Date Received ; Current Location ; Remarks.
1 ; Red Ministerial Box and key with key pouch ; 🗃 ; Prime Minister Office (PMO) Istana, Singapore. Point of Contact: Ms Ho Ching ; 45 x 30 x 18 cm ; NMS-R116 ; 27/03/2015 ; Red box Glass Atrium level 2 (Memorial Exhibition), Key Pouch -NMS/Transit Room 2 ; Collected by D/NC Loh Heng Noi.
2 ; Cambridge University Reporter, 18 June 1949 ; 📃 ; Prime Minister Office (PMO) Istana, Singapore. Point of Contact: Ms Ho Ching ; Open: 29.1 x 45 cm, Closed: 29.1 x 22.9 cm ; NMS_RO117 ; 06/02/2015 ; Glass Atrium level 2 (Memorial Exhibition) ; Collected by SC/NMS Chung May Khuen.
3 ; Memo from Director of Posts, Singapore, 11 Feb 1952 ; 📃 ; Prime Minister Office (PMO) Istana, Singapore. Point of Contact: Ms Ho Ching ; 16.9 x 21 cm ; NMS_RO157 ; 06/02/2015 ; Glass Atrium level 2 ; Collected by SC/NMS Chung May Khuen.
4 ; Letter to Mr Lee Kuan Yew from J. Laycock and Laycock & Ong, 13 April 1953 Envelop ; ✉️, 📃 ; Prime Minister Office (PMO) Istana, Singapore. Point of Contact: Ms Ho Ching ; Envelop: 15.2 x 9.4 cm, Letter: 25.5 x 20.4. cm ; NMS_RO157 ; 06/02/2015 ; Glass Atrium level 2 ; Collected by SC/NMS Chung May Khuen.
5 ; Telegram from Lee Kuan Yew, 26 Sept 1958 ; 📃 ; Prime Minister Office (PMO) Istana, Singapore. Point of Contact: Ms Ho Ching ; 16.9 x 21 cm ; NMS_RO157 ; 06/02/2015 ; Glass Atrium level 2 ; Collected by SC/NMS Chung May Khuen.
Further details:
NHB Receipt of Items taken by Ho Ching: https://goo.gl/TXQKxX
The NHB discovers a “clerical error”: https://goo.gl/gkbrWS
Page 5
5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.
Lee Hsien Loong received confidential documents in his public capacity as PM, and used these in his personal legal disputes with the estate of Lee Kuan Yew.
Documents were passed to Lucien Wong, Lee Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer and now Attorney General.
3 days ago, we asked: Did PM Lee Hsien Loong acquire the
Deed of Gift in his public capacity, or in his private capacity?
We already knew the answer.
When we asked the government how LHL acquired the Deed, the Attorney-General's Chambers explained that
LHL acquired the Deed in his public capacity as PM.
Queries relating to the Deed of Gift
2. Your assertion that the Deed of Gift had been improperly given to others is not correct. Any major public exhibition concerning Singapore's founding leaders or founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is a matter for deliberation by the Government. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth has oversight over NHB and in turn is accountable to the Prime Minister's Office for such matters. Hence it is neither surprising nor improper that the latter would subsequently receive a copy of the signed Deed of Gift.
Letter from AGC, 25 June 2015
When other ministers receive confidential documents in their official capacities, are they also allowed to use these documents to fight personal legal battles with family?
The NHB had chosen the items it wanted. Lorries came to collect the furniture from the house. The agreement specified that Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish had to be displayed as part of the exhibition. Nonetheless, because of LHL’s unhappiness over the display of the demolition wish, NHB tried to backtrack on the agreement. This was a major gift by the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew to the people of Singapore. LHL should not have involved NHB or AGC in his personal disagreements with the Estate of LKY. He should have raised his issues directly with the Estate. (DPM Teo in Parliament on 4 July 2017: “If the NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through this Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement.”)
Further details:
Letter from Lucien Wong/LHL challenging gift : https://goo.gl/yeMzBr
Explanation from PMO on using information for personal use : https://goo.gl/ELaoc6
LHL acquires Deed of Gift in Public Capacity as PM : https://goo.gl/KPpXsJ
NHB attempts to backtrack on gift after collecting items : https://goo.gl/UhqsRW
Page 6
6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.
A committee of the highest-paid ministers in the world has been set up in secret "to get a clearer sense of Mr. Lee's thinking on the house." (DPM Teo Chee Hean)
Since they seem to have forgotten, we would like to remind them.
Lee Kuan Yew: The house "should not be kept as a kind of relic."
Lee Kuan Yew: "I've told the Cabinet, when I'm dead, demolish it."
Lee Kuan Yew: "it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife Kwa Geok Choo, that [our house] be demolished immediately after my death, or if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the house." ~ Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will and Testament
Hsien Loong: "Mr Lee's position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values." ~ LHL's Speech to Parliament, 13 April 2015.
Do they remember now?
Five facts DPM Teo hasn't told you about the secret committee.
●It refused to reveal the identity of its members, and its terms of reference.
●It refused to list the options under consideration.
●It focused primarily on LHL's attacks on Lee Kuan Yew's demolition wish. (In five letters dated 9 Dec 16, 16 Dec 16, 13 Jan 17, 27 Feb 17, and 25 Apr 17.)
●These were repetitions of earlier attacks made by LHL's then-personal lawyer, Lucien Wong.
●It involved the Attorney-General's Chambers over LHL's "private family matter."
7. The Committee has been consulting AGC and will consider the various points and responses, both of which will be treated as having been made in official confidence, subject to the Committee and AGC's right to use them in their discretion. ~ Letter from committee, 9/12/16
A committee of LHL's subordinates should not judge a private dispute between the PM and his siblings. A secret committee is not the right forum to 're-examine' a will that the courts have declared final.
The secret committee refused to disclose details about itself, despite many requests from the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew.
Page 7
Amongst others we had also raised specific concerns on the possible membership of Shanmugam and his conflicts of interests and ethics, having advised LKY and us on options to achieve LKY’s wishes, and in the drafting of the demolition wish. This was brushed off by Lawrence Wong: “Nothing you have stated precludes any member of the Cabinet from taking part in the Committee’s work or its deliberations, with the exception of the PM.” Only now do we find out he is a member of this Committee.
[ From: Lee Wei Ling
Date: 29 July 2011 at 18:55:57 GMT+10
To: Shanmugam, Lee Hsien Yang
MM thinks Loong asked him to speak to the cabinet because Loong wanted cabinet to tell father they want it preserved.
He is agreeable w your suggestion. I told him after u meet w Yang n me, then we decide how to draft his will w regards to this house. ]
As part of LHL’s settlement agreement with the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew (December 2015), he affirmed Lee Kuan Yew’s will, and promised to recuse himself from all matters concerning the house. LHL also made clear the reason he did so was to leave the Executors free to deal with the house: “One reason for transferring the house to you is so that you are free to do what you want, and I need not get involved.”
Nonetheless, this secret ministerial committee was set up in July 2016 to examine the house, even though the government’s position had been that no decision needed to be taken and it was for the government of the day to decide some time in the future. Despite his ‘recusal’, Lee Hsien Loong made extensive submissions to the ministerial committee. In these submissions, he sought to undermine Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish and will.
Is it an abuse of power to have PM Lee’s subordinates act as secret judges on what he claims is a “private family matter”? How can PM Lee at his whim ignore his legal obligations under our settlement agreement? How can such a committee of subordinates ever be impartial in a dispute where the Prime Minister has clear vested interests? How can a secret ministerial committee be the correct forum for re-examining the validity of a court-declared binding will?
Further details:
Was LHL’s Cabinet Committee a secret?: https://goo.gl/4Qfsb6
Committee was neither transparent nor proper : https://goo.gl/7sT17S
Private family matters and secret committees : https://goo.gl/ZxZujD
Page 8
7. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes. The ministerial committee’s correspondence to us focused almost entirely on attacking Lee Kuan Yew’s Final Will rather than examining options about 38 Oxley. LHL’s statutory declaration to the committee claims that “there is no evidence” that Lee Kuan Yew was aware of the demolition clause. This is false. Lee Kuan Yew initialed directly beneath the demolition clause.
[ 7. I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 ("the House") be demolished immediately after my death or, if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out. If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding that the rest of my Will is private.
LKY .]
At the time of the signing, Lee Kuan Yew was a sitting MP, alert and of sound mind. As a Cambridge-educated lawyer, he was more than capable of understanding a four-page document.
In January 2014, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted a codicil (legal addendum) to his will, which was witnessed by his secretary and bodyguard. Again, he kept his children informed. Lee Kuan Yew understood entirely the contents of his will - he was mentally sharp enough not only to read his will, but to draft new parts without assistance. He subsequently also executed an Advance Medical Directive.
It is improper for LHL to use a committee of his subordinates to try to undermine the will. The correct place for such objections was during probate hearings. Probate for Lee Kuan Yew’s will was granted in Oct 2015, so the will is full, final, and legally binding.
If LHL wanted to object to our father’s will, the correct time and place to do so was during the probate process. He chose not to at the time, and indeed urged the executors to file for probate.
Lee Hsien Loong now claims : “I did not challenge the validity of the Last Will in court because I wished, to the extent possible, to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family.” Objections to probate are regularly heard ‘in camera’, away from the public eye, so a desire for privacy is no excuse. The courts have found that Lee Kuan Yew’s will is final and legally binding. By now trying to undermine the court ruling via a committee of his subordinates, Lee Hsien Loong has disregarded the separation of powers. Is everyone allowed to attack their father’s will through secret committees, or is this privilege reserved only for the PM?
Page 9
8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.
Why are we speaking up? : https://goo.gl/Nah2ra
Parliamentary Whitewash : https://goo.gl/c1a5SG
Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY : https://goo.gl/VRhwiC
Conclusion
We have disclosed evidence that warrants serious concern. We have done so carefully after considerable thought and review, including consideration of our parents’ integrity and values. This is just a brief summary of evidence to date. There is much evidence we have yet to show. Some of this evidence is too complex to be well-suited to social media. We reserve this to show to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one.
Page 10 ( END )
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO LEE KUAN YEW'S VALUES?
We feel extremely sad that we are pushed to this position. We are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's current prime minister and the role of his wife, Ho Ching. We have seen a completely different face to our brother, one that deeply troubles us. Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, on 23 March 2015, we have felt threatened by Hsien Loong's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system has few checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.
We feel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against us and Hsien Yang's wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feels compelled to leave Singapore:
"It is with a very heavy heart that I will leave Singapore for the foreseeable future. This is the country that my father, Lee Kuan Yew, loved and built. It has been home for my entire life. Singapore is and remains my country. I have no desire to leave. Hsien Loong is the only reason for my departure."
If Hsien Loong is prepared to act thus against us, his younger sister and brother, both contributing members of Singapore's establishment, to advance his personal agenda, we worry for Singapore. We question whether able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be side-lined to ensure Hsien Loong's grip on power remains unchallenged.
This is by no means a criticism of the Government of Singapore. We see many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout the public service, but they are constrained by Hsien Loong's misuse of power at the very top. We do not trust Hsien Loong and have lost confidence in him.
Since Lee Kuan Yew's death, there have been changes in Singapore that do not reflect what he stood for. Nobody ever doubted that Lee Kuan Yew always held the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. He was authentic and spoke his mind. The same cannot be said for our brother, Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching. We believe, unfortunately, that Hsien Loong is driven by a desire for power and personal popularity. His popularity is inextricably linked to Lee Kuan Yew's legacy. His political power is drawn from his being Lee Kuan Yew's son. We have observed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching want to milk Lee Kuan Yew's legacy for their own political purposes. We also believe, based on our interactions, that they harbour political ambitions for their son, Li Hongyi.
Page 1
Singapore has no such thing as the wife of the prime minister being a 'first lady'. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, his wife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwart supporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly, and set a high bar for the conduct of a prime minister's wife. She would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in government, her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview.
Throughout his entire life, Lee Kuan Yew's sole focus was on Singapore and its future. He was a strong opponent of monuments, particularly of himself. On suggestions that monuments or 'what-have-yous' be made for him, he replied "Remember Ozymandias". He was referring to Percy B Shelley's sonnet about the Egyptian Pharaoh with a penchant for self-aggrandising monuments. The boast etched in a plaque below his statue commanded lesser mortals to "look on my works". Only the vastness of desert sands remains: no empire, nor monuments, no great works. Lee Kuan Yew wanted none of these honours as edifices. Much more important to him was that what he had done should last.
It is for this reason that Lee Kuan Yew made clear throughout the years in public and private his wish that his home at 38 Oxley Road be demolished upon his passing. In his last Will and Testament of 17 December 2013, he again reiterated his wish and directed his three children to ensure that it be fulfilled. Indeed, his opposition to monuments was so strong that he had made clear that even if the house were gazetted (against his wishes), it should only be open to his children and their descendants.
However, we believe that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are motivated by a desire to inherit Lee Kuan Yew's standing and reputation for themselves and their children. Whilst our father built this nation upon meritocracy, Hsien Loong, whilst purporting to espouse these values, has spoken of a "natural aristocracy". Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching, have opposed Lee Kuan Yew's wish to demolish his house, even when Lee Kuan Yew was alive. Indeed, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching expressed plans to move with their family into the house as soon as possible after Lee Kuan Yew's passing. This move would have strengthened Hsien Loong's inherited mandate for himself and his family. Moreover, even if Hsien Loong did not live at 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital.
What has been distressing are the lengths to which Hsien Loong and Ho Ching have gone and are willing to go to get what they want.
On Hsien Loong's insistence, Lee Kuan Yew met with the Singapore Cabinet on 21 July 2011 to discuss the fate of his personal home. Wei Ling met Lee Kuan Yew on the steps of their home as he returned from that meeting. He was anguished and
Page 2
despondent and told Wei Ling "I should not have listened to Loong and gone to meet Cabinet." He was pained that Hsien Loong, his own son, opposed his wishes in this manner.
Lee Kuan Yew believed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were behind what was represented to the family as a government initiative to preserve the house. In due course, Hsien Loong himself made his position clear to Lee Kuan Yew. On 3 October 2011, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: "Loong as PM has indicated that he will declare it a heritage site."
Lee Kuan Yew specifically inserted into his will his wish for 38 Oxley Road to be demolished so as to make it difficult for Hsien Loong to misuse the Cabinet to preserve it. He also removed Hsien Loong as an executor and trustee of his will. The wish, which was instructed to be made public as needed, was Lee Kuan Yew's direct appeal to the people of Singapore. It was his only request of them on his passing.
At the reading of Lee Kuan Yew's will, Hsien Loong was very angry that the will gave Wei Ling the right to remain living in the house and that it made clear Lee Kuan Yew's wish for its demolition immediately upon her passing or relocation. Hsien Loong threatened us and demanded our silence on our father's last wish. He wanted to assert in Parliament that Lee Kuan Yew had changed his mind, hoping to inherit the faith Singaporeans had in Lee Kuan Yew through the visible symbol of the house. We refused and fought to release our father's wish to demolish the house as instructed. We succeeded in making Lee Kuan Yew's wish public in Singapore only after the international press carried the news. Hsien Loong was therefore forced to state in Parliament that, as a son, he would like to see the wish carried out. He wanted to appear filial in public whilst acting to thwart our parents' wishes in private.
However, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching did not abandon their plans. Hsien Loong took steps to try to frustrate our publicising Lee Kuan Yew's wish. We executed a Deed of Gift in 2015 with the National Heritage Board for the donation and public exhibition of significant items from our parents' home, with a stipulation that Lee Kuan Yew's wish for the demolition of 38 Oxley Road be displayed prominently at the exhibition. However, after the gift's acceptance we soon received letters with spurious objections from Hsien Loong's then personal lawyer, Lucien Wong. Lucien Wong was made Singapore's Attorney-General in January 2017. We were shocked to see that Hsien Loong had used his position as Prime Minister to obtain a copy of the Deed of Gift from Minister Lawrence Wong, which Hsien Loong then passed to his personal lawyer to advance his personal agenda. The exhibition only proceeded months later in a diminished format after considerable struggle on our part.
In 2015, various letters were sent by Hsien Loong's then personal lawyer making accusations and misrepresentations on his behalf regarding the circumstances under
Page 3
which Lee Kuan Yew's last will was executed and the inclusion of the demolition wish. These were refuted in detail by us through our lawyers. Hsien Loong knew that he could not establish his accusations in a court of law and raised no legal challenge. On the contrary, he was likely concerned that the fact that the gift of the house to him had been obtained by him through misrepresentations to our father and the family might be made public. Probate was granted on 6 October 2015 and Lee Kuan Yew's will, including the wish to demolish 38 Oxley Road, became the full, final, and legally binding word on his intentions as to his estate.
Hsien Loong initiated a settlement with us in May 2015; the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew was contemplating a challenge of the disposition of the house to him based on his misrepresentations. Hsien Loong represented that this sale of the house would give us a free hand to demolish the house. Final agreement on the settlement was reached in late 2015. Hsien Loong insisted that Hsien Yang should pay him full market value for the house (and donate an additional half the value of the house to charity). In exchange for this, we asked for and obtained a joint public statement issued by all 3 children of Lee Kuan Yew in December 2015 that we hoped that the Government would allow the demolition wish to be fulfilled and that all Singaporeans would support this cause. We also obtained an undertaking from Hsien Loong that he would recuse himself from all government decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and that, in his personal capacity, would like to see the wish honoured.
We had hoped that through this settlement, he would not hinder us from honouring our parents' wishes. However, we were disappointed that despite the settlement and Hsien Loong's undertakings, in July 2016, Minister Lawrence Wong wrote to inform us that a Ministerial Committee had been set up to consider options with respect to 38 Oxley Road and their implications. This also directly contradicted Hsien Loong's statement in Parliament in April 2015 that there was no need for the Government to take a decision in respect of 38 Oxley Road until Wei Ling no longer resided there, and that it would be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter.
Hsien Loong, despite his undertakings to recuse himself, proceeded to make extensive representations to the Committee. He is conflicted. His political power is related to being Lee Kuan Yew's son and thus he has every incentive to preserve Lee Kuan Yew's house to inherit his credibility. He also sits in a direct position of power over the Committee comprised of his subordinate ministers, thus wielding considerable influence for any outcome he desires.
Hsien Loong has asserted to the Committee that Lee Kuan Yew would "accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road." This play on words is not only dishonest, but nonsensical. Lee Kuan Yew accepted, as he had to, that the Government had the power to preserve 38 Oxley Road against his wishes. But this does not mean that he wanted 38 Oxley Road preserved.
Page 4
In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew's clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and his supposed support for the demolition of the house as Lee Kuan Yew's son.
In his representations to the Committee, Hsien Loong seeks to call into question the circumstances which led to the execution of Lee Kuan Yew's last will and its inclusion of the demolition wish. He and Ho Ching are unhappy because the demolition wish gives Wei Ling an unfettered right to live in the house. These queries he raised to the Committee were already fully refuted in 2015. Except this time, of course, they are being raised to a Committee comprising Hsien Loong's subordinates.
The reality is that there was nothing suspicious or untoward at all about the execution of Lee Kuan Yew's last will. Indeed, Hsien Loong chose not to raise any legal challenge. The simple truth is that Hsien Loong's current popularity is tied to Lee Kuan Yew's legacy. Preserving Lee Kuan Yew's house would allow Hsien Loong and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew's authority.
Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer and well knew the sanctity and finality of a will. He gave clear instructions for the execution of the will. He carefully read his final will before signing it, and he continued to review and reflect after signing to put his affairs in order. Two weeks after executing his will, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted unassisted a codicil to his will and executed it. All three children were kept fully apprised of the signing of the final will and the codicil. No objection was raised at that time and indeed Hsien Loong has affirmed the will in public and in private.
Ultimately, it is not difficult to see that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. There is full alignment between Lee Kuan Yew's final wish and the people of Singapore, since there is overwhelming support among Singaporeans for the demolition of the house. An independent YouGov survey published on 22 December 2015 showed that 77% of Singaporeans supported the demolition of Lee Kuan Yew's house and only 17% opposed it.
"We are private citizens with no political ambitions. We have nothing to gain from the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, other than the knowledge that we have honoured our father's last wish. Hsien Loong has everything to gain from preserving 38 Oxley Road - he need only ignore his father's will and values."
"The values of Lee Kuan Yew are being eroded by his own son. Our father placed our country and his people first, not his personal popularity or private agendas. We are very sad that we have been pushed to this. We feel hugely uncomfortable and closely monitored in our own country. We do not trust Hsien Loong as a brother or as a leader. We have lost confidence in him."
Page 5
Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang
Joint Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew
14 June 2017
https://www.facebook.com/38OxleyRoad/
https://www.facebook.com/LeeHsien YangSGP/
Page 6 ( END)
Drafting and Witnessing of the Will
Lee Kuan Yew's final will of December 2013 was engrossed on the basis of Lee Kuan Yew's express instruction to revert to his first will from 2011. On the basis of this instruction, we took what we understood to be the final version of the 2011 will, without realising that a gift over clause had been in the executed version of the 2011 will. (The gift over clause provided that in the event any of his sons predeceased him, their share would go directly to Lee Kuan Yew's grandchildren.) This was then engrossed without amendment.
Lee Kuan Yew's final will was simply Lee Kuan Yew's first will of 20 August 2011 re-executed on his instructions.
Lee Hsien Loong stated in a letter to Cabinet dated 15 September 2016 and in a statutory declaration dated 24 February 2017 that this will of 2011 had been drafted by Lee & Lee, with clause 7 drafted by Lee Suet Fern:
"Whilst the First Will was prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, the Demolition Clause was drafted by my sister-in-law Lee Suet Fern."
On 16 Dec, 2013, Lee Wei Ling wrote to Lee Hsien Yang:
[ Subject: Re: Papa says to go back to 2011 will
To get a notary public not from Lee n Lee to witness his signature n that settles it ]
Two solicitors, Bernard Lui (a notary public) and Elizabeth Kong, were then asked to witness its execution. They were called upon simply because Kwa Kim Li was not contactable; Lee Kuan Yew in an email on 16 December 2013 wrote (the day before the signing):
[ "OK. Do not wait for Kim Li. Engross and I will sign it before a solicitor in Fern's office, or from any other office." ]
Their role was purely one of attestation.
Lee Kuan Yew read the final will carefully and initialled every page, including just below the demolition clause.
The final will was subsequently given to Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer, Kwa Kim Li, for safe-keeping.
No comments:
Post a Comment