Opinion
Evidence contradicts government claims of manipulation in Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will
The Singapore government has repeatedly claimed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will was executed under misleading circumstances, alleging that he was misled regarding his final wishes. Evidence in correspondence between LKY and his lawyer, however, challenges these assertions and suggests alignment with LKY’s intentions.
The Singapore government has repeatedly stated that Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), executed his Last Will, dated 17 December 2013, under misleading circumstances, alleging that LKY was misled regarding the execution of his final wishes, accepted that the property need not be demolished, and provided his views on how the property should be preserved.
An unnamed government spokesperson informed the media on Friday evening (25 Oct) that LKY’s son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), were found to have lied under oath.
The spokesperson added that the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges described their conduct as presenting “an elaborate edifice of lies… both on oath… and through their public and other statements.”
“The affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant,” the government spokesperson stated, adding that “Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s continued allegations must be seen in this light.”
According to a document shared by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in Parliament, the government asserts that LHY and LSF attempted to perpetuate the falsehood that Ms Kwa Kim Li (KKL), LKY’s lawyer, was involved in preparing LKY’s Last Will, while concealing their own role in persuading LKY to sign it.
However, the government seems insistent on overlooking certain facts regarding KKL’s involvement in LKY’s Last Will.
Following the conclusion of LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal and the verdict by the Court of Three Judges, another Disciplinary Tribunal concluded in May 2023 that KKL falsely claimed she had received no instructions from LKY to make changes to his Will and misled the estate by denying her involvement in drafting the Last Will or in reflecting LKY’s final wishes as conveyed to her.
Email correspondence between LKY and KKL in November and December 2013, as well as the contents of the Last Will signed on 17 December 2013, indicate that the provisions of the Will largely correspond to their discussions.
Aside from the re-inclusion of the demolition clause for the Oxley Road property, the details in the Will reflect topics and terms previously discussed between LKY and KKL.
These emails also show that KKL had contacted LKY regarding matters related to the Oxley Road property, consistent with his stated intentions.
Furthermore, communications involving both LSF and LHY with LKY suggest that LKY was fully aware of the Will’s content, expressing a desire to finalise it without delay.
This alignment between the correspondence and the final provisions in the Will challenges the government’s assertion that LKY was misled, as it suggests that his instructions were clear and consistent with the document he signed on each and every page.
Additionally, KKL kept a copy of the Last Will and could have advised LKY to make revisions if he had been misled about his intentions, given that LKY had revised his Will multiple times in the past. Yet no changes were made to this version before his passing in 2015, and probate was granted to the Will in October 2015 without contest.
Given these details, the government’s repeated insistence that LHY and LSF misled LKY about his Last Will could be perceived as character assassination and a deliberate manipulation of facts.
It should also be noted that everything said and done by LKY was based on his belief that the Oxley house had, in some form, been gazetted by the Singapore government, despite his preference for it to be demolished.
This is reflected in his emails with KKL, where she references his thoughts about the house potentially being “de-gazetted.”
To suggest that LKY changed his mind about the 38 Oxley property or was open to other options only serves to muddle the truth with misleading statements.
Unfortunately, POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) cannot be applied to scrutinise these statements made by the government.
(Emails and Will were obtained from LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal records.)
Fullscreen Mode
