Connect with us

Current Affairs

Lee Hsien Yang: “What in the world did I stand to gain out of my supposed elaborate deception?”

Published

5 years ago

on

“What in the world did I stand to gain out of my supposed elaborate deception?” asked Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) in a Facebook post on Wednesday evening.

Mr LHY, who is the brother of the current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) wrote that Mr LHL and the Attorney General, Lucien Wong had alleged that he engineered, with Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), his wife’s help, his father’s final will “final will which gave his children equal shares in order to get a larger share of his Estate”.

LHY and LHL are children of late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY).

“In the course of the Disciplinary Tribunal, undisputed evidence was presented that LKY decided to revert to equal shares after discussions with his lawyer KKL, rebutting this.” wrote Mr LHY.

The Disciplinary Tribunal that Mr LHY is referring to, was brought about last year when Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) referred Mrs LSF to the Law Society for a possible professional misconduct case.

The AGC stated that Mrs LSF had prepared the last will of Mr LKY and had arranged for Mr LHY to execute it despite her husband being one beneficiaries. The last will resulted in Mr LHY’s share in the late Mr Lee’s estate being increased.

AGC’s complaint followed the debate held in Parliament in 2017 in which Mr LHL denied allegations put forth by Mr LHY and his sister, Dr Lee Weiling (LWL) in a public statement.

The Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings released last Friday, made damning remarks upon Mr LHY.

One of which states, “Having procured the last will through these improper means, [they] then fabricated a series of lies and inaccuracies, to perpetuate the falsehoods that Ms Kwa Kim Li had been involved in the last will, and hide their own role in getting [Mr LKY] to sign the last will and their wrongdoings,”

The DT in its conclusion wrote, “Mr LHY’s conduct was equally deceitful. He lied to the public, he lied to the MC, and he lied to us. He tried to hide how he and his wife had misled his own father, Mr Lee, on the Last Will. He had no qualms about making up evidence as he went along. We found him to be cynical about telling the truth.”

However, it is to note that the Law Society did not subpoena Ms Kwa for the hearing because of the matters arising from section 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Evidence Act.

Mr LHY refutes the claims by stating that he and his wife played no part in his decision to revert to equal shares. Noting that Mr LHL benefitted equally from this change and the final will got his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling’s right to live at Oxley Road reinstated — “something that she wanted badly”.

He further went on to state that his father and sister, along with himself were led to believe that the house had been gazetted and could therefore not be demolished.

“In 2013, LKY came to a view that the house would be “degazetted” and therefore discussed degazetting with his lawyer, KKL. If it were degazetted, his unwavering wish for the house to be demolished might be realisable. This wish, as everyone knows, mattered greatly to him and my mother.” wrote Mr LHY.

He also noted that no one complained after the signing of the will before LKY died, stating that the probate of the Will was obtained in 2015 on the urging of Mr LHL and his then-personal lawyer, Lucien Wong.

What did Lee Hsien Yang benefit from changes in will

The sixth will of Mr LKY had split the portion of the estate to 3:2:2 with Dr LWL being given three parts and the other two with two parts. The seventh and last will states that all three will receive equal parts of the estate.

While Mr LHY would have gotten more from the change, Mr LHL would also have gotten more as well.

Also Dr LWL who is supposed to be at the losing end of the change, wrote back last year that it was a lie to say that Mr LHY “somehow swindled our father to get more in his final will.”

She wrote that the allocation of equal shares was always their parent’s intention and agreement between them and with the children.

In 2015, Mr LHY bought over the 38 Oxley Road property from Mr LHL at market value. Before this, Mr LHL had offered to transfer the house to Dr Lee for a nominal sum of S$1.

As to why there was a change in arrangement, Mr LHL responded to Mr Low Thia Khiang’s question over what transpired during the Parliament sittings held in 2017 over the allegations made by his two siblings.

Mr LHL said, “So I (told my I siblings that I) will sell you the house if you undertake to stop these allegations. They said, in that case, you, Lee Hsien Loong, undertake to help us get the house knocked down. And support us in getting the house knocked (down). I said, I cannot do that … There was an impasse.”

Even after he “became troubled” by how Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will was drafted, Mr Lee said he held back from raising the issues with his siblings as he “still hoped for an amicable settlement”. But Dr LWL and Mr LHY issued an “ultimatum” to “accept their terms” by 1 September 2015, which also happened to be Nomination Day, said Mr LHL.

Lee Suet Fern’s response to the DT’s report

Mr LHY in a Facebook post on Sunday, shared Mrs Lee’s comments regarding the tribunal’s report.

Mrs LSF’s comments were: “I disagree with the Disciplinary Tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court.”

“Any member of the public can obtain the entire record of the closed-door proceedings of the Tribunal from the Law Society. I urge the public to look at these and come to their own independent conclusions,” she added.

Mrs Lee’s case will now be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which is Singapore’s apex disciplinary body in dealing with lawyers’ misconduct.

The lawyer may face a fine, or be suspended or disbarred from her profession.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
2 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

2 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending