Mr Lee Hsien Yang in a 2012 interview by Singapore Global Network

“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.

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

租户被指无视房规、拒搬迁 房东气到心脏病爆发

我国房东和租户纠纷本就不是新鲜事,但是房东开口要求租户搬迁已经五个月了还不成功,甚至被租户气到心脏病爆发,房东儿子报警求助就真的是新鲜事了。 事件的主人公为75岁的梁女士,以及两名来自香港的女租户。而据梁女士的儿子,叶先生(50岁)指出,原本租户只有一名时,并没有发生过这么激烈的摩擦事件,一直到第二名女子入住后,才开始从小摩擦变成大摩擦,导致梁女士心脏病爆发。 叶先生指出,梁女士自三年前丈夫逝世后,就独居在四房式组屋单位内。她之后认识了来自香港的女教友,了解到对方正在寻找落脚处,因此将一间睡房以500元月租的价格租给她。 香港女学生搬入后产生摩擦 两人相处不错,女租户就在第二年介绍了一名香港的女学生过来。 据叶先生指出,其母亲在女学生搬过来后首个月就开始“有意见”,指女学生无视母亲禁止煮食的规定,继续煮食还将厨房弄得很肮脏,还很浪费电,可以将冷气开足整日。 梁女士当时曾要求女学生搬走,岂知女教友当时却和女学生联手,无视条规,被梁女士指责还会顶撞,甚至将住家弄得乱糟糟。 忍无可忍之下,梁女士在去年12月开始要求两人搬迁,但是两人继续无视,还出言伤人,导致梁女士被气得精神压抑。 叶先生指母亲是在今年4月尾向他哭诉,要求他帮忙“赶人”。然而叶先生于5月8日晚上尝试和她们交涉时,就遭到对方拒绝见面。他等了一小时后,就先行离开,随后传简讯要求两人在24小时内搬走。 两名女租户在当天晚上就去敲其母亲的房间,将后者吵醒后质问为什么要让叶先生介入他们的纠纷,甚至一度不让后者休息。其母亲费了很大力气将两女推开,才得以关上房门休息。 要求出钱修冷气 事情过了一段时日,两名女租户却在周二(5月19日)给叶先生发简讯,指冷气坏了,要求他找人修理。…

Dr Gomez on SFD’s Dissolution

By Kumaran Pillai – Kumaran Pillai, the Chief Editor of The Online…

将上诉市镇会诉讼判决 林瑞莲指王瑞杰提动议“言之过早”

上月11日,高庭法官加南拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)宣读判词,指工人党主席林瑞莲、秘书长毕丹星和前秘书长刘程强,须为阿裕尼-后港市镇会蒙受损失,承担法律责任。 故此,副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰,于今日在国会提动议,要求刘程强和林瑞莲回避一切和阿裕尼-后港市镇会相关财政事务。 不过林瑞莲也回应,他们将对有关市镇会诉讼判决提出上诉,且截止日是在下周一(11日),故此王瑞杰的动议似乎“言之过早”。 她提醒不满判决一方有一个月期限可提出上诉。她也指出,他们仍在和律师研究有关判决,也向议会报告,他们将对此诉讼提出上诉,要求议员们拒绝王瑞杰的动议。 王瑞杰充重申议员应保持高标准诚信和责任感,在发言时多次引述高庭判决中对工人党的指责,也要求该党不该躲避,应对此做出解释。 “将近四周已过,但工人党仍保持沉默,未对此作出道歉,以及如何解决失误。”他也把问题抛向现任阿裕尼后港市镇会主席费沙和其他工人党议员,包括费沙会否对阿裕尼和后港居民道歉,以及解除林瑞莲作为市镇会副主席的职务。 他认为,如果直到上诉前什么都不做,那么可认定工人党实际上默许“不诚实和违反信托义务的行为”,甚至是共谋的。 有关市镇会从2011年7月至2015年7月间,支付了FMSS公司多达3370万元。这段期间,林瑞莲为市镇会主席,而刘程强当时为工人党秘书长。至于毕丹星当时担任市镇会招标与合约委员会成员。 去年10月初,高庭展开对工人党市镇会诉讼审讯,阿裕尼—后港市镇会(AHTC)和白沙—榜鹅市镇会(PRPTC)指责刘程强、林瑞莲、毕丹星等八造,必须对2011年5月至2015年11月期间,对第三方承包商的不当付款行为负起责任以及索偿。  

民主党:王惠楠始终是触动人民良知的声音

资深反对党人王惠楠医生于前天(9月7日)逝世,享年72岁。 民主党昨日在官方脸书发文哀悼,对于王惠楠医生的逝世感到悲痛。 该党指即便恐惧笼罩着这个岛国,王惠楠“始终是能触动人民良知的一把声音”,他大胆而明确的道德原则,为众人带来光明。 民主党指多年来他已成为该党年轻党员的导师。他在2011年大选差点成为民主党候选人,不过在最后一分钟基于家庭因素未能成事。而他也积极参与竞选活动,为该党同仁带来力量。 他毕业于莱佛士书院和新加坡大学,是名执业医生。此前也曾在新加坡武装部队、卫生部和国大任职,并积极在保障撰写评论,针对政经文教和医疗课题抒发己见。同时,也常借鉴中国经典作为新加坡当代发展的教训。 民主党指出,王惠楠医生忧国忧民的观点,也影响着民主党的政策提案,特别是在医疗政策方面。 许多网民也发文或留言悼念王惠楠的辞世,一些人忆起他过去在金文泰开诊所时,全家人都到他那看病;而王医生总是有耐心和轻声细语。 网民Simon Lim说,他已故的老奶奶不良于行,而每次到诊所请王医生上去为奶奶看诊,他都从不推辞;他说家里穷无法缴足够看诊费,医生也从不介意。 “新加坡失去一位杰出的子女。对于那些知道他的,回深深地怀念他。” Corinna Liang:第一次遇到王惠楠医生,是在锦茂一组屋楼下,那是2011年选举后的傍晚,当时他和一位看不起病的居民交谈,他文静的言行举止令我留下深刻印象。