Singapore denies Lee Hsien Yang's persecution claims, omits tribunal findings on LKY’s lawyer

The Singapore government has strongly rejected Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) claim that he and his family have faced political persecution.

In a statement issued on 22 October 2024, the government responded to reports that LHY has been granted political asylum in the United Kingdom, emphasising that legal actions against him, his wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), and their son, Li Shengwu, are based on legitimate findings, not politics.

The government reiterated that LHY and LSF are under investigation for alleged perjury related to the preparation of Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY) final will. It cited court rulings which found that LSF had acted improperly in rushing through the execution of the will and disregarding LKY’s legal interests.

The government also stated that the police investigations into the couple were initiated after they allegedly provided false testimony during these proceedings.

However, the government’s response notably omitted a key development from May 2023, when a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found that LKY’s own lawyer, Kwa Kim Li (KKL), had engaged in professional misconduct during the drafting of LKY’s final will.

This tribunal ruling confirmed earlier assertions by LHY and Dr Lee Wei Ling, LHY’s sister, that KKL had misrepresented her role in the will’s preparation and withheld critical information from the executors of LKY’s estate, Dr Lee and LHY.

The DT concluded that KKL had misled the executors by failing to disclose crucial instructions from LKY about potential changes to his will in late 2013. Despite KKL’s claims that she was not involved in the final draft, evidence showed that she had been in direct correspondence with LKY about these changes.

The findings against KKL:

1. Misleading omission: KKL's omission to disclose the emails from 30 November and 12 December 2013 in her 22 June 2015 email was considered misleading. Additionally, her statement in that same email claiming she had not received instructions to change the Testator's Will was found to be false.


2. Subjective vs. Objective view: KKL's personal belief that the omission of the November/December 2013 communications did not render her email misleading was not in line with an objective analysis of those communications.


3. Lack of due care and diligence: Despite no evidence of deliberate deception, KKL was communicating with the beneficiaries on important matters. She was aware of LWL’s unhappiness regarding the reduced share in LKY's last will. As such, KKL had a responsibility to provide a complete and accurate response. The Tribunal concluded that had KKL exercised due care and diligence, she should have disclosed the November/December 2013 communications and not falsely stated that she received no instructions to change the Will.

As a result, the tribunal imposed penalties on KKL, including a fine of S$8,000 and costs payable to the Law Society of Singapore.

This ruling cast doubt on the government's assertions that LHY and LSF had acted improperly or deceived LKY in preparing his final will.

The omission of these findings from the government’s statement raises questions, as it was KKL’s misconduct that corroborated LHY and Dr Lee’s position on LKY’s clear wishes regarding his estate, including his stance on the controversial demolition clause for 38 Oxley Road.

The DT’s findings demonstrate that LKY had communicated his intentions directly to his lawyer, undercutting the narrative that LHY and LSF had manipulated LKY’s decisions or acted against his wishes.

In its response, the government maintained that LHY and his family remain free to return to Singapore and that there are no legal restrictions preventing their return.

The statement also denied that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has had any involvement in the legal proceedings, noting that he has recused himself from all decisions regarding 38 Oxley Road and other matters involving his family.

The government further emphasised Singapore’s commitment to the rule of law, citing the country’s high rankings on global indices for the impartiality of its judiciary and the absence of corruption. It also pointed out that LHY's son, Li Shengwu had settled his contempt of court case by paying the court-ordered fine and is similarly free to return to Singapore.

Despite the open invitation to return, LHY indicated that he fears his passport may be impounded or that he could face arrest upon re-entering the country. This fear was shared by Li Shengwu in his 2017 interview, where he said, "My friends had warned me that they were concerned for my safety if I remained in Singapore."

While the government sought to highlight its judicial integrity and transparency, the failure to address the tribunal’s findings about KKL’s role in LKY’s final will raises concerns about whether all relevant facts have been fully acknowledged in its response to the ongoing family dispute.