• PM Lee questions the role of brother Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern in making of final will
• Clause to demolish 38 Oxley Road house re-appeared in Lee Kuan Yew's final and seventh will having previously been removed from his fifth and sixth wills
• Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Yang threatened to air dispute during 2015 General Election
• PM Lee agreed to sell Oxley house to resolve dispute
• 'Nothing secret' about ministerial committee on Oxley Road home: Committee chair DPM Teo Chee Hean
• Lee Hsien Yang unhappy over delay and uncertainty in demolishing Oxley Road House: Goh Chok Tong
• Singaporeans 'sick and tired of endless' Oxley Road allegations: Shanmugam
• Lee Hsien Yang says wife's firm did not draft Lee Kuan Yew's final will
• Lawyer Kwa Kim Li says she did not prepare Lee Kuan Yew's last will, so who did?
• PM Lee Hsien Loong apologises for dispute with siblings, will deliver ministerial statement in Parliament on 3 July 2017
• Lee Kuan Yew's final will 'accepts' Oxley house demolition may not take place, says Indranee Rajah
• Identify lawyer who drafted Mr Lee's final will: Indranee
PM Lee Hsien Loong details 'deeply troubling' way Lee Kuan Yew's will was made
He says last will prepared in haste with help of Hsien Yang's wife, conflict of interest an issue
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday raised serious questions about the way his father Lee Kuan Yew's last will was made, and whether there was a conflict of interest when his sister-in-law Lee Suet Fern helped prepare the will.
In a statement issued by his lawyers at Drew and Napier last night, PM Lee set out in detail the "deeply troubling circumstances" surrounding the seventh and final version of the will, and said he has "grave concerns" about whether the late Mr Lee was "properly and independently advised" on its contents before he signed it.
PM Lee's five-page statement, which he later uploaded on Facebook, raised a notch the long-running dispute with his younger siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, over whether to demolish their father's house at 38, Oxley Road. In it, PM Lee also questioned if Mr Lee knew that a clause to demolish the house was reintroduced in the last will. He noted that this demolition clause first appeared in his father's first will dated Aug 20, 2011.
It was removed in the fifth and sixth versions of the will, but "somehow found its way back into the last will", he noted.
The dispute spilt into the public sphere on Wednesday, when PM Lee's siblings released a statement saying they had lost confidence in him and feared the use of state organs against them.
The two siblings alleged that PM Lee and his wife Ho Ching wanted the house preserved for their own political gain, and said their brother had abused his power by making extensive representations to a ministerial committee, raising questions over the last will.
Last night, PM Lee refuted his siblings' claims that he had motives for raising questions about the will in a statutory declaration to the ministerial committee. Noting that his siblings continued to make allegations, he said: "This makes it untenable for me not to respond publicly to the allegations and to explain why I have serious questions about how my father's last will was prepared."
PM Lee said the family dispute first arose when the last will was read on April 12, 2015. Mr Lee Hsien Yang had repeatedly insisted on demolishing the house immediately, and the discussion ended only when Dr Lee said she wished to continue living in the house.
PM Lee recounted that during the reading, Mrs Lee Suet Fern volunteered that Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the last will, but she got a lawyer from her law firm, Stamford Law Corporation, to do so instead as she did not want to get personally involved.
PM Lee later learnt that Mrs Lee had e-mailed Mr Lee on Dec 16, 2013, about the seventh will, which would give the three children an equal share of the estate. The sixth will had given Dr Lee an extra share.
PM Lee said Mrs Lee helped prepare the new will in haste that same evening, and sent two lawyers to 38, Oxley Road on Dec 17 for Mr Lee to sign it.
He noted the two lawyers were at the house for 15 minutes. "They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him," he said.
There is no evidence Mr Lee even knew the demolition clause was re-inserted into the last will, PM Lee said. He also expressed concern about Mrs Lee's involvement in the preparation and signing of the last will, when her husband stood to gain from the removal of Dr Lee's extra share in the last will.
As to why he had not challenged the validity of the last will in court, PM Lee said he had hoped to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family.
His siblings hit back at his statement via multiple Facebook posts last night. Mr Lee Hsien Yang reiterated that the will is final and binding, and said: "Hsien Loong should not use a committee of his subordinates to allege what he did not dare to allege in court."
But PM Lee said questions had to be asked about the circumstances surrounding the last will. "I believe it is necessary to go beyond the last will in order to establish what Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes were in relation to the house."
He says last will prepared in haste with help of Hsien Yang's wife, conflict of interest an issue
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
In a statement issued by his lawyers at Drew and Napier last night, PM Lee set out in detail the "deeply troubling circumstances" surrounding the seventh and final version of the will, and said he has "grave concerns" about whether the late Mr Lee was "properly and independently advised" on its contents before he signed it.
PM Lee's five-page statement, which he later uploaded on Facebook, raised a notch the long-running dispute with his younger siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, over whether to demolish their father's house at 38, Oxley Road. In it, PM Lee also questioned if Mr Lee knew that a clause to demolish the house was reintroduced in the last will. He noted that this demolition clause first appeared in his father's first will dated Aug 20, 2011.
It was removed in the fifth and sixth versions of the will, but "somehow found its way back into the last will", he noted.
The dispute spilt into the public sphere on Wednesday, when PM Lee's siblings released a statement saying they had lost confidence in him and feared the use of state organs against them.
The two siblings alleged that PM Lee and his wife Ho Ching wanted the house preserved for their own political gain, and said their brother had abused his power by making extensive representations to a ministerial committee, raising questions over the last will.
Last night, PM Lee refuted his siblings' claims that he had motives for raising questions about the will in a statutory declaration to the ministerial committee. Noting that his siblings continued to make allegations, he said: "This makes it untenable for me not to respond publicly to the allegations and to explain why I have serious questions about how my father's last will was prepared."
PM Lee said the family dispute first arose when the last will was read on April 12, 2015. Mr Lee Hsien Yang had repeatedly insisted on demolishing the house immediately, and the discussion ended only when Dr Lee said she wished to continue living in the house.
PM Lee recounted that during the reading, Mrs Lee Suet Fern volunteered that Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the last will, but she got a lawyer from her law firm, Stamford Law Corporation, to do so instead as she did not want to get personally involved.
PM Lee later learnt that Mrs Lee had e-mailed Mr Lee on Dec 16, 2013, about the seventh will, which would give the three children an equal share of the estate. The sixth will had given Dr Lee an extra share.
PM Lee said Mrs Lee helped prepare the new will in haste that same evening, and sent two lawyers to 38, Oxley Road on Dec 17 for Mr Lee to sign it.
He noted the two lawyers were at the house for 15 minutes. "They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him," he said.
There is no evidence Mr Lee even knew the demolition clause was re-inserted into the last will, PM Lee said. He also expressed concern about Mrs Lee's involvement in the preparation and signing of the last will, when her husband stood to gain from the removal of Dr Lee's extra share in the last will.
As to why he had not challenged the validity of the last will in court, PM Lee said he had hoped to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family.
His siblings hit back at his statement via multiple Facebook posts last night. Mr Lee Hsien Yang reiterated that the will is final and binding, and said: "Hsien Loong should not use a committee of his subordinates to allege what he did not dare to allege in court."
But PM Lee said questions had to be asked about the circumstances surrounding the last will. "I believe it is necessary to go beyond the last will in order to establish what Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes were in relation to the house."
PM Lee Hsien Loong questions the role of brother, wife in making of final will
Document differed markedly from its previous version, which did not have a clause on demolition of Oxley Road house
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised questions about the role of his brother Hsien Yang and sister-in-law, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, in preparing the seventh and final version of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, in a lengthy statement issued by his lawyers on Thursday (June 15) night.
The document differed markedly from its previous version, in that it gave equal shares of their father's estate to all three of his children.
This was a reversal of a decision that the late Mr Lee had made in his second-last will, in which Dr Lee Wei Ling, his only daughter, was given an extra share of the estate.
The other key difference was the inclusion of a clause stating that the late Mr Lee wanted his house at 38, Oxley Road demolished after his death.
The clause had been in the first, second, third and fourth wills, but was not in the fifth and sixth ones.
In his statement, PM Lee quoted e-mails exchanged by his family members, and recounted the series of events that "led him to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the last will".
He also disclosed his sister Wei Ling once held "grave suspicions" that the removal of her extra share of the estate was "instigated" by her brother Hsien Yang and his wife.
PM Lee said his father changed his mind on giving Wei Ling an extra share after discussions with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
Unlike all the previous wills, the final one was not prepared by their cousin, Ms Kwa Kim Li, a lawyer at Lee & Lee, the firm co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo.
Instead, it had been prepared by lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm.
This happened after Ms Kwa was removed from an email list regarding the last will on Dec 16, 2013, by Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He told his father he could not get in touch with Ms Kwa and believed she was away.
He also said he thought it was not wise to wait for her to return and suggested having lawyers from his wife's law firm, including a partner of the firm, prepare the will and witness the signing.
On Thursday (June 15), PM Lee questioned the decision, saying that it was unclear what efforts his brother had made to get in touch with Ms Kwa.
Ms Kwa had also said to Mrs Lee that she did not receive an email sent by her immediately before being removed by her husband from the email chain.
PM Lee said it was not clear why his brother thought there was an urgency to the signing of the last will.
"It is however interesting that he suggested that his wife, clearly an interested party, and her partners would prepare the new will," he said.
He also cited emails showing that in the space of 41 minutes at night, Mrs Lee had seen to the preparation of the new will and had one of her colleagues to be on standby to get it signed by the late Mr Lee.
The next morning, he signed the final will in the presence of two lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm, then called Stamford Law Corporation. It is now known as now Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC.
PM Lee noted that the two lawyers, Mr Bernard Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong, were present at his father's house for "15 minutes only, including the time for logging into and out from the property".
"They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him," he said.
Neither he nor his sister were copied in the emails on the last will.
PM Lee also questioned the re-insertion of the demolition clause into the final will, when the change the late Mr Lee had wanted only concerned the share of the house which Dr Lee was to get.
He also recounted how he went to look up old family emails, after he and his brother disagreed over whether the house should be immediately demolished during the reading of the last will.
At PM Lee's request, his brother forwarded him copies of other emails which had nothing to do with the last will.
But PM Lee said his brother "cut out and did not send me the incriminating exchanges in the email chain that followed".
These deleted parts showed Mr Lee Hsien Yang's and his wife's involvement in the making of the last will in December 2013.
PM Lee said that he continued to have grave concerns about the events surrounding the last will.
Document differed markedly from its previous version, which did not have a clause on demolition of Oxley Road house
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
The document differed markedly from its previous version, in that it gave equal shares of their father's estate to all three of his children.
This was a reversal of a decision that the late Mr Lee had made in his second-last will, in which Dr Lee Wei Ling, his only daughter, was given an extra share of the estate.
The other key difference was the inclusion of a clause stating that the late Mr Lee wanted his house at 38, Oxley Road demolished after his death.
The clause had been in the first, second, third and fourth wills, but was not in the fifth and sixth ones.
In his statement, PM Lee quoted e-mails exchanged by his family members, and recounted the series of events that "led him to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the last will".
He also disclosed his sister Wei Ling once held "grave suspicions" that the removal of her extra share of the estate was "instigated" by her brother Hsien Yang and his wife.
PM Lee said his father changed his mind on giving Wei Ling an extra share after discussions with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
Unlike all the previous wills, the final one was not prepared by their cousin, Ms Kwa Kim Li, a lawyer at Lee & Lee, the firm co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo.
Instead, it had been prepared by lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm.
This happened after Ms Kwa was removed from an email list regarding the last will on Dec 16, 2013, by Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He told his father he could not get in touch with Ms Kwa and believed she was away.
He also said he thought it was not wise to wait for her to return and suggested having lawyers from his wife's law firm, including a partner of the firm, prepare the will and witness the signing.
On Thursday (June 15), PM Lee questioned the decision, saying that it was unclear what efforts his brother had made to get in touch with Ms Kwa.
Ms Kwa had also said to Mrs Lee that she did not receive an email sent by her immediately before being removed by her husband from the email chain.
PM Lee said it was not clear why his brother thought there was an urgency to the signing of the last will.
"It is however interesting that he suggested that his wife, clearly an interested party, and her partners would prepare the new will," he said.
He also cited emails showing that in the space of 41 minutes at night, Mrs Lee had seen to the preparation of the new will and had one of her colleagues to be on standby to get it signed by the late Mr Lee.
The next morning, he signed the final will in the presence of two lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm, then called Stamford Law Corporation. It is now known as now Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC.
PM Lee noted that the two lawyers, Mr Bernard Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong, were present at his father's house for "15 minutes only, including the time for logging into and out from the property".
"They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him," he said.
Neither he nor his sister were copied in the emails on the last will.
PM Lee also questioned the re-insertion of the demolition clause into the final will, when the change the late Mr Lee had wanted only concerned the share of the house which Dr Lee was to get.
He also recounted how he went to look up old family emails, after he and his brother disagreed over whether the house should be immediately demolished during the reading of the last will.
At PM Lee's request, his brother forwarded him copies of other emails which had nothing to do with the last will.
But PM Lee said his brother "cut out and did not send me the incriminating exchanges in the email chain that followed".
These deleted parts showed Mr Lee Hsien Yang's and his wife's involvement in the making of the last will in December 2013.
PM Lee said that he continued to have grave concerns about the events surrounding the last will.
He also said he was not aware of any facts that suggested his father was informed or advised about all the changes that were made when he signed the last will.
"In fact, there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the demolition clause had been re-inserted into the last will," added PM Lee.
In his statement, he listed a series of questions he had, including whether his father gave specific instructions to re-insert the demolition clause in the last will, and if so to whom.
He also asked about what role Mrs Lee played in the preparation and signing of the last will, and whether she, her fellow lawyers, and her law firm had a conflict of interest.
Said PM Lee: "Without proper and complete answers to these questions, the serious doubts about whether Mr Lee was properly and independently advised on the contents of the last will before he signed it cannot be cleared."
"The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee," he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will. Ms Kwa is his cousin and managing partner at Lee&Lee, the firm his parents had co-founded.
But when contacted last night, Ms Kwa told The Straits Times: "I did not prepare the last will."
She declined to comment further.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had three posts on Facebook throughout the day in response to a statement issued the night before by his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the dispute between the Lee siblings over their father's house at 38, Oxley Road.
In the statement issued through his lawyers, PM Lee had said their father's final will was made in troubling circumstances, and asked if there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee helped prepare it since her husband Lee Hsien Yang stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share in the will.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said the will's seventh paragraph, in which his father stated he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, "was drafted at LKY's (Lee Kuan Yew's) direction".
It was "put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will", said Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He did not explain how this clause, drafted earlier for previous versions of the will but subsequently deleted, came to be reinstated in the final will.
His account was at odds with that given by PM Lee in his statutory declaration made to a ministerial committee. PM Lee has questioned why the clause was in the final will when it was not in the fifth and sixth will.
He also said he had "grave concerns" over the way in which the final will came to be made, and the role played by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
PM Lee detailed the e-mail exchanges his brother and sister-in-law had with Mr Lee on the evening of Dec 16, 2013, and wondered at the haste with which they had moved to get changes made to the will, rather than waiting for these to be done by Ms Kwa, who had worked on the earlier wills.
Said PM Lee: "Without proper and complete answers to these questions, the serious doubts about whether Mr Lee was properly and independently advised on the contents of the last will before he signed it cannot be cleared."
Lawyer Kwa Kim Li says she did not prepare Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
The question of who prepared the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew took a new turn late on Friday night (June 16) when lawyer Kwa Kim Li denied that she had a role in it.
Ms Kwa, the managing partner of the Lee&Lee law firm, had prepared the previous six versions of the will of the late Mr Lee who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
When contacted on Friday night, Ms Kwa, who is currently overseas, told The Straits Times: "I did not prepare the last will."
She declined to comment further.
Her statement contradicts an earlier one made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who is her cousin and the younger son of the late Mr Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang made three posts on Facebook throughout the course of Friday in which he responded to a statement issued the night before by his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the dispute between the siblings over their father's house at 38 Oxley Road.
In the statement issued on Thursday night through his lawyers, PM Lee said that the late Mr Lee's final will was made in "very troubling circumstances".
PM Lee raised the question of whether there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee Suet Fern - Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife - helped prepare the final will since her husband stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share of the estate in the will.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a Facebook post that his wife's firm, Stamford Law Corporation - now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC - did not draft any of the late Mr Lee's wills.
"The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee," he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will.
He added that the will's seventh paragraph, in which the late Mr Lee stated that he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, "was drafted at LKY's (Lee Kuan Yew's) direction".
It was "put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will", said Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He did not explain how this clause - drafted earlier for previous versions of the will but subsequently deleted - came to be reinstated in the final will.
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
The question of who prepared the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew took a new turn late on Friday night (June 16) when lawyer Kwa Kim Li denied that she had a role in it.
Ms Kwa, the managing partner of the Lee&Lee law firm, had prepared the previous six versions of the will of the late Mr Lee who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
When contacted on Friday night, Ms Kwa, who is currently overseas, told The Straits Times: "I did not prepare the last will."
She declined to comment further.
Her statement contradicts an earlier one made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who is her cousin and the younger son of the late Mr Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang made three posts on Facebook throughout the course of Friday in which he responded to a statement issued the night before by his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the dispute between the siblings over their father's house at 38 Oxley Road.
In the statement issued on Thursday night through his lawyers, PM Lee said that the late Mr Lee's final will was made in "very troubling circumstances".
PM Lee raised the question of whether there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee Suet Fern - Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife - helped prepare the final will since her husband stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share of the estate in the will.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a Facebook post that his wife's firm, Stamford Law Corporation - now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC - did not draft any of the late Mr Lee's wills.
"The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee," he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will.
He added that the will's seventh paragraph, in which the late Mr Lee stated that he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, "was drafted at LKY's (Lee Kuan Yew's) direction".
It was "put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will", said Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He did not explain how this clause - drafted earlier for previous versions of the will but subsequently deleted - came to be reinstated in the final will.
Lee Hsien Yang says wife's firm, Stamford Law Corporation did not draft will
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will was not drafted by the law firm of his daughter-in-law Lee Suet Fern, said his younger son Lee Hsien Yang yesterday afternoon.
He added that his wife's firm, Stamford Law Corporation - now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC - did not draft any of his father's wills.
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will was not drafted by the law firm of his daughter-in-law Lee Suet Fern, said his younger son Lee Hsien Yang yesterday afternoon.
He added that his wife's firm, Stamford Law Corporation - now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC - did not draft any of his father's wills.
"The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee&Lee," he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will. Ms Kwa is his cousin and managing partner at Lee&Lee, the firm his parents had co-founded.
But when contacted last night, Ms Kwa told The Straits Times: "I did not prepare the last will."
She declined to comment further.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had three posts on Facebook throughout the day in response to a statement issued the night before by his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the dispute between the Lee siblings over their father's house at 38, Oxley Road.
In the statement issued through his lawyers, PM Lee had said their father's final will was made in troubling circumstances, and asked if there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee helped prepare it since her husband Lee Hsien Yang stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share in the will.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said the will's seventh paragraph, in which his father stated he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, "was drafted at LKY's (Lee Kuan Yew's) direction".
It was "put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will", said Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
He did not explain how this clause, drafted earlier for previous versions of the will but subsequently deleted, came to be reinstated in the final will.
His account was at odds with that given by PM Lee in his statutory declaration made to a ministerial committee. PM Lee has questioned why the clause was in the final will when it was not in the fifth and sixth will.
He also said he had "grave concerns" over the way in which the final will came to be made, and the role played by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
PM Lee detailed the e-mail exchanges his brother and sister-in-law had with Mr Lee on the evening of Dec 16, 2013, and wondered at the haste with which they had moved to get changes made to the will, rather than waiting for these to be done by Ms Kwa, who had worked on the earlier wills.
He pointed to the possible conflict of interest of Mrs Lee's involvement in this process, when her husband stood to gain from the changes made.
PM Lee also asked why his sister- in-law said at the reading of the last will in April 2015 that the late Mr Lee asked her to prepare the will, but she got a lawyer from her law firm to do so instead as she did not want to get personally involved.
The lawyer was Mr Ng Joo Khin, who was present at the reading of the last will on April 12, 2015, after Mr Lee died.
PM Lee had asked who instructed Mr Ng on the last will. His brother Lee Hsien Yang replied: "The estate of LKY instructed Stamford Law to extract probate. Ng Joo Khin's role in that was to read the will to the beneficiaries." To extract probate is to have the will recognised as final and legally binding.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee are executors of their father's estate. He said in a Facebook post yesterday morning that he and his sister made similar points on Feb 28 this year to a ministerial committee set up to look into options for 38, Oxley Road.
"LHL's secret committee ignored it," he added.
In another Facebook post in the evening, he said that "this secret committee is entirely uninterested in exploring options for the house, instead focusing solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause in LKY's will".
He said that "personal family disputes" were matters for the family courts, not a ministerial committee, and his father's wish to demolish the house was well-known.
In another Facebook post in the evening, he said that "this secret committee is entirely uninterested in exploring options for the house, instead focusing solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause in LKY's will".
He said that "personal family disputes" were matters for the family courts, not a ministerial committee, and his father's wish to demolish the house was well-known.
EXTRACT OF PM LEE'S STATUTORY DECLARATION
The Demolition Clause in the Last Will is now being used by Dr Lee Wei Ling ("LWL") and Mr Lee Hsien Yang ("LHY") to claim that Mr Lee was firm in his wish that the house at 38, Oxley Road (the "House") be demolished, and that he was not prepared to accept its preservation or contemplate options short of demolition. There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the Last Will...
LSF's (Lee Suet Fern's) e-mail distinctly and clearly gave Mr Lee the impression that the new will would change only the division of shares, with the result that each child would have an equal share, just like in the First Will. Yet, the Last Will that LSF and her law firm prepared and got Mr Lee to sign went beyond that. Significantly, they re-inserted the Demolition Clause, even though that clause does not appear to have been discussed at the time of the making of the Last Will and had in fact been removed by Mr Lee from his immediately prior two wills (the Fifth and Sixth Wills)...
My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL's extra share in the Estate under the Last Will.
The Demolition Clause in the Last Will is now being used by Dr Lee Wei Ling ("LWL") and Mr Lee Hsien Yang ("LHY") to claim that Mr Lee was firm in his wish that the house at 38, Oxley Road (the "House") be demolished, and that he was not prepared to accept its preservation or contemplate options short of demolition. There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the Last Will...
LSF's (Lee Suet Fern's) e-mail distinctly and clearly gave Mr Lee the impression that the new will would change only the division of shares, with the result that each child would have an equal share, just like in the First Will. Yet, the Last Will that LSF and her law firm prepared and got Mr Lee to sign went beyond that. Significantly, they re-inserted the Demolition Clause, even though that clause does not appear to have been discussed at the time of the making of the Last Will and had in fact been removed by Mr Lee from his immediately prior two wills (the Fifth and Sixth Wills)...
My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL's extra share in the Estate under the Last Will.
What PM Lee Hsien Loong said
The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last Thursday issued a six-page summary of his statutory declaration to a ministerial committee. Here are some extracts:
ON THE REACTION OF HIS SISTER, DR LEE WEI LING, TO HER REDUCED SHARE OF THE ESTATE IN THE LAST WILL:
"In other words, Lee Wei Ling (LWL) herself believed that Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Lee Suet Fern (LSF) did her in by either suggesting or facilitating the removal of her extra share, which happened in the Last Will prepared in great haste by LSF and her law firm. In a letter from their lawyers to mine after disputes arose between LWL and LHY, on the one hand, and me on the other, LWL admitted that she became suspicious as to whether the change in shares was really Mr Lee's decision or one that was instigated by LHY and LSF, but claimed that she no longer held this suspicion. But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled."
ON WHEN THE FEUD OVER 38, OXLEY ROAD BEGAN:
"It was also during the reading of the Last Will on April 12, 2015 that the dispute between LHY and me arose. At the reading, LHY repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the House. I said that such a move so soon after Mr Lee's passing, when the public's emotions were still raw, might force the Government to promptly react by deciding to gazette the House, and that would not be in the interests of Mr Lee's legacy or Singapore. That discussion only ended when Ho Ching (HC) intervened to ask LWL if she wanted to continue living in the House. LWL said she did, which made the question of demolition moot. LHY then stopped insisting on the immediate demolition of the House.
ON WHY HE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE WILL IN COURT:
"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. I was also and am still concerned that LWL and LHY want(ed) to drag out probate and the administration and winding up of the Estate so that they can use their position as executors for reasons which are strictly unconnected with the administration of the Estate."
ON HOW HE TRIED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE:
"As part of efforts to resolve the family disputes amicably, after LWL and LHY expressed unhappiness that 38 Oxley Road had been bequeathed to me following Mr Lee's passing, I told them that I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LWL for a nominal sum of S$1 on the condition that should the property be transacted later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds would go to charity. However, a resolution proved impossible. Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Election. I was not prepared to be intimidated. Their accusations were not only baseless; they were made on the premise that there were no unusual circumstances surrounding the making of the Last Will. I therefore decided to make further enquiries... but, contrary to what my siblings have claimed, my questions (which are included in those which I set out below) went unanswered."
ON THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
"My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL's extra share in the Estate under the Last Will. It would appear that LHY felt very strongly about LWL not receiving an extra share, which explains why, in April 2015, he told me that there "would have been big trouble" if Mr Lee had not changed the will back to equal shares between the three children".
The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last Thursday issued a six-page summary of his statutory declaration to a ministerial committee. Here are some extracts:
ON THE REACTION OF HIS SISTER, DR LEE WEI LING, TO HER REDUCED SHARE OF THE ESTATE IN THE LAST WILL:
"In other words, Lee Wei Ling (LWL) herself believed that Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Lee Suet Fern (LSF) did her in by either suggesting or facilitating the removal of her extra share, which happened in the Last Will prepared in great haste by LSF and her law firm. In a letter from their lawyers to mine after disputes arose between LWL and LHY, on the one hand, and me on the other, LWL admitted that she became suspicious as to whether the change in shares was really Mr Lee's decision or one that was instigated by LHY and LSF, but claimed that she no longer held this suspicion. But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled."
ON WHEN THE FEUD OVER 38, OXLEY ROAD BEGAN:
"It was also during the reading of the Last Will on April 12, 2015 that the dispute between LHY and me arose. At the reading, LHY repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the House. I said that such a move so soon after Mr Lee's passing, when the public's emotions were still raw, might force the Government to promptly react by deciding to gazette the House, and that would not be in the interests of Mr Lee's legacy or Singapore. That discussion only ended when Ho Ching (HC) intervened to ask LWL if she wanted to continue living in the House. LWL said she did, which made the question of demolition moot. LHY then stopped insisting on the immediate demolition of the House.
ON WHY HE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE WILL IN COURT:
"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. I was also and am still concerned that LWL and LHY want(ed) to drag out probate and the administration and winding up of the Estate so that they can use their position as executors for reasons which are strictly unconnected with the administration of the Estate."
ON HOW HE TRIED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE:
"As part of efforts to resolve the family disputes amicably, after LWL and LHY expressed unhappiness that 38 Oxley Road had been bequeathed to me following Mr Lee's passing, I told them that I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LWL for a nominal sum of S$1 on the condition that should the property be transacted later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds would go to charity. However, a resolution proved impossible. Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Election. I was not prepared to be intimidated. Their accusations were not only baseless; they were made on the premise that there were no unusual circumstances surrounding the making of the Last Will. I therefore decided to make further enquiries... but, contrary to what my siblings have claimed, my questions (which are included in those which I set out below) went unanswered."
ON THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
"My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL's extra share in the Estate under the Last Will. It would appear that LHY felt very strongly about LWL not receiving an extra share, which explains why, in April 2015, he told me that there "would have been big trouble" if Mr Lee had not changed the will back to equal shares between the three children".
PM Lee Hsien Loong sets out timeline of events in the making of and execution of Lee Kuan Yew's will
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
This is a timeline of events in the making of the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's wills and the execution of his last will, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong described in a statement issued by his lawyers on Thursday night (June 15) giving an edited summary of what he told a ministerial committee.
Aug 20, 2011: Mr Lee Kuan Yew's first will - first among seven versions - is made. It is prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li, a cousin of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and a lawyer at Lee & Lee, the firm co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo.
All three children are given equal shares of the estate. The first will also contains a clause stating the late Mr Lee's wish for the house at 38, Oxley Road to be demolished immediately after his death or as soon as his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had moved out.
Nov 2, 2012: Mr Lee's sixth will is made by Ms Kwa. It does not include the demolition clause found in the first four versions. Dr Lee is given an extra share of the estate relative to her brothers.
Dec 16, 2013: Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife Lee Suet Fern e-mails Mr Lee at 7.08pm with a draft of the last will, which she tells him ensures that all three children receive equal shares. This version also includes the demolition clause. She asks Ms Kwa to engross the document.
Twenty-three minutes later, at 7.31pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang e-mails his father saying he cannot get in touch with Ms Kwa and believes she is away. He suggests it is unwise to wait for her to return and that Mr Lee should proceed to sign the will.
He says his wife "can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness".
At 8.12pm, Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mails Mr Lee's private secretary, Ms Wong Lin Hoe, saying her colleague Bernard Lui had the last will ready for execution.
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
This is a timeline of events in the making of the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's wills and the execution of his last will, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong described in a statement issued by his lawyers on Thursday night (June 15) giving an edited summary of what he told a ministerial committee.
Aug 20, 2011: Mr Lee Kuan Yew's first will - first among seven versions - is made. It is prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li, a cousin of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and a lawyer at Lee & Lee, the firm co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo.
All three children are given equal shares of the estate. The first will also contains a clause stating the late Mr Lee's wish for the house at 38, Oxley Road to be demolished immediately after his death or as soon as his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had moved out.
Nov 2, 2012: Mr Lee's sixth will is made by Ms Kwa. It does not include the demolition clause found in the first four versions. Dr Lee is given an extra share of the estate relative to her brothers.
Dec 16, 2013: Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife Lee Suet Fern e-mails Mr Lee at 7.08pm with a draft of the last will, which she tells him ensures that all three children receive equal shares. This version also includes the demolition clause. She asks Ms Kwa to engross the document.
Twenty-three minutes later, at 7.31pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang e-mails his father saying he cannot get in touch with Ms Kwa and believes she is away. He suggests it is unwise to wait for her to return and that Mr Lee should proceed to sign the will.
He says his wife "can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness".
At 8.12pm, Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mails Mr Lee's private secretary, Ms Wong Lin Hoe, saying her colleague Bernard Lui had the last will ready for execution.
At 9.42pm, Mr Lee replies to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and agrees to sign the new will without waiting for Ms Kwa.
Dec 17, 2013: Two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation - Mr Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong - arrive at 38, Oxley Road at 11.05am for Mr Lee to sign his will. They leave at 11.20am.
March 23, 2015: Mr Lee dies.
April 12, 2015: Mr Lee's last will is read to the family by Mr Ng Joo Khin, another lawyer from the firm of Mrs Lee Suet Fern.
She said Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the last will, but as she did not want to get personally involved, she had asked Mr Ng to handle it.
Dec 17, 2013: Two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation - Mr Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong - arrive at 38, Oxley Road at 11.05am for Mr Lee to sign his will. They leave at 11.20am.
March 23, 2015: Mr Lee dies.
April 12, 2015: Mr Lee's last will is read to the family by Mr Ng Joo Khin, another lawyer from the firm of Mrs Lee Suet Fern.
She said Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the last will, but as she did not want to get personally involved, she had asked Mr Ng to handle it.
A dispute arises between Mr Lee Hsien Yang and PM Lee over the immediate demolition of the house at 38, Oxley Road, but is ended when Dr Lee says she wants to continue living there.
June 2015: Copies of the six wills preceding the last will are provided to the family by Ms Kwa.
Late 2015: PM Lee and his siblings reach an agreement in which he transfers the house to his brother at market value, on the condition that the two of them each donate half the value of the house to charity.
In an earlier proposal, PM Lee had offered to transfer the house to his sister for $1, but a resolution was not reached.
PM Lee donated to charity another sum equivalent to half of the value of the house. The Oxley Road house now wholly belongs to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
The three siblings issue a joint statement about the donation and their hope that the Government will allow the house to be demolished, in line with their father's wish.
The three siblings issue a joint statement about the donation and their hope that the Government will allow the house to be demolished, in line with their father's wish.
Will may be challenged after grant of probate, say lawyers
But they say special reasons are needed if six-month timeframe has elapsed
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
Can you challenge the validity of a will after probate has been granted?
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's younger son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, maintains that his father's will - which is at the centre of a dispute between him and his older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - is "final and legally binding" as no challenge was lodged.
Lawyers whom The Straits Times spoke to said that six months, as spelt out in the Wills Act, is a guideline, but a challenge beyond that is possible depending on the reasons.
"If it's after the six months, you have got to give special reasons and it is at the court's discretion," said Dr G. Raman, a veteran probate lawyer.
This is the legal process of probate, when the concerned parties prove in court that a will is a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased.
Probate for the late Mr Lee's will was granted on Oct 6, 2015.
Lawyers suggest that if new evidence surfaces, it is still possible to mount a challenge.
WongPartnership lawyer Sim Bock Eng cited the example where a subsequent will of the testator surfaces, or where there is fraud or other reasons.
The will has become a focal point of the dispute between the siblings after PM Lee, in a summary of his statutory declaration made public on Thursday, raised serious doubts about whether his father was properly and independently advised on the contents of his last will before he signed it.
On why he did not challenge it earlier, PM Lee said he had hoped to settle the matter within the family.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, however, maintained that the will is "final and legally binding" as PM Lee raised no legal challenge in court and should not use a ministerial committee to try and do so now. He was referring to the committee that has been tasked to look into options for the late Mr Lee's home at 38, Oxley Road.
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
Can you challenge the validity of a will after probate has been granted?
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's younger son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, maintains that his father's will - which is at the centre of a dispute between him and his older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - is "final and legally binding" as no challenge was lodged.
Lawyers whom The Straits Times spoke to said that six months, as spelt out in the Wills Act, is a guideline, but a challenge beyond that is possible depending on the reasons.
"If it's after the six months, you have got to give special reasons and it is at the court's discretion," said Dr G. Raman, a veteran probate lawyer.
This is the legal process of probate, when the concerned parties prove in court that a will is a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased.
Probate for the late Mr Lee's will was granted on Oct 6, 2015.
Lawyers suggest that if new evidence surfaces, it is still possible to mount a challenge.
WongPartnership lawyer Sim Bock Eng cited the example where a subsequent will of the testator surfaces, or where there is fraud or other reasons.
The will has become a focal point of the dispute between the siblings after PM Lee, in a summary of his statutory declaration made public on Thursday, raised serious doubts about whether his father was properly and independently advised on the contents of his last will before he signed it.
On why he did not challenge it earlier, PM Lee said he had hoped to settle the matter within the family.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, however, maintained that the will is "final and legally binding" as PM Lee raised no legal challenge in court and should not use a ministerial committee to try and do so now. He was referring to the committee that has been tasked to look into options for the late Mr Lee's home at 38, Oxley Road.
Paragraph seven of the last will is the main sticking point. It relates to the late founding prime minister's wish to have the Oxley Road home demolished immediately after his death, or after his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, moves out.
PM Lee said this clause had been removed from two earlier versions of the will and reinstated in the final one under "troubling circumstances".
He added that the clause was now being used by his siblings to claim their father was firm in his wish that the house be demolished, and that he was not prepared to accept its preservation or contemplate options short of demolition.
Another issue raised by PM Lee was a possible conflict of interest with Mrs Lee Suet Fern's involvement in any preparation of the will in which her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, was a beneficiary.
According to lawyers, there is no absolute prohibition against a law firm using its lawyers to attest a will where a member of the firm is related to the testator.
Ms Sim said that although there is a practice direction that discourages doing such work, "it is not uncommon to have staff of a firm asking for assistance in this regard".
Dr Raman added: "There is no prohibition, but it is not prudent to witness or attest to the will when there is a relationship."
Ms Sim explained that there is good reason for this - it ensures that the will reflects the testamentary intent of the testator and that he or she is not under the undue influence of a family member.
PM Lee also noted that the lawyers who witnessed the will signed by his father had spent 15 minutes at the house, and said they "plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him".
Lawyers pointed to a 2009 case in which the Court of Appeal underlined the serious professional responsibilities that lawyers must "uncompromisingly observe and discharge".
Among other things, the court reminded lawyers to "confirm with the testator, prior to the execution of the will, that the contents of the will as drafted accurately express the latter's intention".
The court had further explained that the lawyer concerned should also "conscientiously seek to avoid being in any situation where a potential conflict of interest may appear to exist. If the solicitor might be perceived as anything less than a completely independent adviser to the testator, he ought not, as a matter of good practice, to be involved in the explanation, the interpretation and the execution of the will".
As to how long it takes to settle such matters, veteran lawyer V. Ramakrishnan said it can be very short or protracted, "depending on the circumstances of the case".
As to how long it takes to settle such matters, veteran lawyer V. Ramakrishnan said it can be very short or protracted, "depending on the circumstances of the case".
PM Lee agreed to sell Oxley house to resolve dispute
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
The house at the centre of the dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two siblings now belongs to his younger brother Lee Hsien Yang.
The property was bequeathed to PM Lee by their father, founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
The late Mr Lee's estate was divided equally among his three children, according to his last will read on April 12, 2015.
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
The house at the centre of the dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two siblings now belongs to his younger brother Lee Hsien Yang.
The property was bequeathed to PM Lee by their father, founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
The late Mr Lee's estate was divided equally among his three children, according to his last will read on April 12, 2015.
In a statement issued by his lawyers last night, giving an edited summary of what he had told a ministerial committee, PM Lee said he had offered to transfer the property to his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, at a nominal sum of $1.
He added that should the property be transacted later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds would go to charity.
PM Lee said the proposed transfer was made as part of efforts to resolve the family disputes amicably, after Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang expressed unhappiness that the house had been given to him.
The siblings could not reach an agreement until late in 2015, when PM Lee transferred ownership of the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang instead, at full market value. The price was not disclosed.
In addition, the two brothers each donated half the value of the house to eight charities named in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's obituary notice.
This was "to pre-empt any future controversy over compensation or redevelopment proceeds", PM Lee said.
The siblings could not reach an agreement until late in 2015, when PM Lee transferred ownership of the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang instead, at full market value. The price was not disclosed.
In addition, the two brothers each donated half the value of the house to eight charities named in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's obituary notice.
This was "to pre-empt any future controversy over compensation or redevelopment proceeds", PM Lee said.
"It is not tenable for the family to retain proceeds from any dealing with 38, Oxley Road, as it would look like the family is opposing acquisition and preservation of the house for monetary reasons," he said, adding that his brother remains unhappy about him taking this position, and his sister appears to be as well.
The revelations in PM Lee's statement appeared to be in response to the allegations made by his siblings that he and his wife had been keen to have the house preserved for their own political gain, and that he had abused his position to push his political agenda.
PM Lee's statement also made clear that the Government would consider what to do with the house only after Dr Lee no longer lived in it.
PM Lee's statement also made clear that the Government would consider what to do with the house only after Dr Lee no longer lived in it.
Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Yang threatened to air dispute during 2015 General Election, said PM Lee Hsien Loong
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's siblings Lee Wei Ling (LWL) and Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) had threatened to embarrass him during the 2015 General Election by spilling details about the tussle over their late father's house.
"Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Election," PM Lee said. "I was not prepared to be intimidated."
This was in a statutory declaration he made to a ministerial committee set up to consider options on the house at 38, Oxley Road.
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's siblings Lee Wei Ling (LWL) and Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) had threatened to embarrass him during the 2015 General Election by spilling details about the tussle over their late father's house.
"Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Election," PM Lee said. "I was not prepared to be intimidated."
This was in a statutory declaration he made to a ministerial committee set up to consider options on the house at 38, Oxley Road.
In the declaration, he revealed his deep misgivings about his father's final will and said these circumstances had called into question Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes in relation to his house. Mr Lee had died on March 23, 2015.
In August that year, a general election was called, with polling day on Sept 11. During the election period, a dispute between PM Lee and his siblings had not been resolved, and he was threatened over it.
The future of the late Mr Lee's house had become a point of contention for the three siblings.
Dr Lee and her brother Lee Hsien Yang had expressed unhappiness that their father's house was bequeathed to PM Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also wanted it demolished right after Mr Lee's death, a move PM Lee opposed as he felt it was too soon and people's emotions were still too raw.
PM Lee said he was concerned this might force the Government to react by deciding to gazette the house, which would not be in the best interests of the late Mr Lee's legacy or Singapore.
Dr Lee and her brother Lee Hsien Yang had expressed unhappiness that their father's house was bequeathed to PM Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also wanted it demolished right after Mr Lee's death, a move PM Lee opposed as he felt it was too soon and people's emotions were still too raw.
PM Lee said he was concerned this might force the Government to react by deciding to gazette the house, which would not be in the best interests of the late Mr Lee's legacy or Singapore.
Subsequently, PM Lee offered to transfer the house to Dr Lee for a nominal sum of $1, subject to some conditions, but this was not accepted by his siblings.
The family dispute was not resolved by the time the election was called. The People's Action Party won it with 69.86 per cent of the popular vote, its best election result since 2001.
In his declaration, PM Lee said he was not prepared to be intimidated as his siblings' accusations were baseless. He also said the accusations were made on the premise that nothing unusual surrounded the circumstances of how their father's final will was made.
In his declaration, PM Lee said he was not prepared to be intimidated as his siblings' accusations were baseless. He also said the accusations were made on the premise that nothing unusual surrounded the circumstances of how their father's final will was made.
PM Lee's statements contradictory, says Lee Hsien Yang
He says PM Lee's statutory declarations inconsistent with his 2015 statement in Parliament
By Danson Cheong and Toh Yong Chuan, Manpower Correspondent, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded to his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in Facebook posts yesterday, saying in one that it was "wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath".
He said a statement that PM Lee made in Parliament contradicts the statutory declarations he made to a ministerial committee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang was referring to a statement made by PM Lee to Parliament on April 13, 2015, on the home of their father, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at 38, Oxley Road.
PM Lee told the parliamentary session - held nearly a month after Mr Lee's death on March 23, 2015 - that his father was adamant that the house should be demolished after his death and not turned into a museum and a memorial to him.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's post was also a reference to what PM Lee had stated in statutory declarations to a ministerial committee that was set up to consider options for the Oxley Road house.
He says PM Lee's statutory declarations inconsistent with his 2015 statement in Parliament
By Danson Cheong and Toh Yong Chuan, Manpower Correspondent, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded to his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in Facebook posts yesterday, saying in one that it was "wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath".
He said a statement that PM Lee made in Parliament contradicts the statutory declarations he made to a ministerial committee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang was referring to a statement made by PM Lee to Parliament on April 13, 2015, on the home of their father, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at 38, Oxley Road.
PM Lee told the parliamentary session - held nearly a month after Mr Lee's death on March 23, 2015 - that his father was adamant that the house should be demolished after his death and not turned into a museum and a memorial to him.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's post was also a reference to what PM Lee had stated in statutory declarations to a ministerial committee that was set up to consider options for the Oxley Road house.
The committee's existence came to light on Wednesday in a statement issued by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, that was critical of PM Lee and which centred on the long-running dispute over the future of the Oxley Road house.
In a summary of the statutory declarations that PM Lee made to the committee, released through his lawyers yesterday, PM Lee rejected his siblings' claims that Mr Lee was not prepared to accept the preservation of the house, or other options short of demolition. "There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the last will."
He also said later in the declarations that he held firm against objections from his brother and his wife Lee Suet Fern to him reading out in Parliament the full version of the demolition clause in the final will.
The full version included what the late Mr Lee wanted done to the house if it was not demolished - namely that the house be open only to his children, their families and their descendants.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in his post last night: "We have a question for Lee Hsien Loong: Does he or does he not believe that Lee Kuan Yew was unwavering in his wish that the house be demolished? Is his statement to Parliament false, or is his statement under oath false?"
In a summary of the statutory declarations that PM Lee made to the committee, released through his lawyers yesterday, PM Lee rejected his siblings' claims that Mr Lee was not prepared to accept the preservation of the house, or other options short of demolition. "There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the last will."
He also said later in the declarations that he held firm against objections from his brother and his wife Lee Suet Fern to him reading out in Parliament the full version of the demolition clause in the final will.
The full version included what the late Mr Lee wanted done to the house if it was not demolished - namely that the house be open only to his children, their families and their descendants.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in his post last night: "We have a question for Lee Hsien Loong: Does he or does he not believe that Lee Kuan Yew was unwavering in his wish that the house be demolished? Is his statement to Parliament false, or is his statement under oath false?"
He also took aim at a point PM Lee made in the statutory declarations: that there was no evidence that their father knew that the demolition clause had been re-inserted into his last will.
To make his point, Mr Lee Hsien Yang's post included a picture of Mr Lee's initials just below the clause in the will.
"How could Lee Kuan Yew not know when he initialled right beneath the Demolition Clause, and (Lee Hsien Loong) has the will?" he added.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a separate Facebook post that the will of their late father was "final and binding". "We have no confidence in Lee Hsien Loong or his secret committee."
He also presented a series of statements to show discrepancies between statements PM Lee made in public and to the ministerial committee.
On the issue of deciding what to do with the house, for instance, he said PM Lee told Parliament "there is no immediate issue of demolition of the house, and no need for the Government to make a decision now".
On the issue of deciding what to do with the house, for instance, he said PM Lee told Parliament "there is no immediate issue of demolition of the house, and no need for the Government to make a decision now".
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang noted that a "secret" committee of ministers was then set up to investigate and make recommendations about the house.
On the issue of Mr Lee's will, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said that probate for the will was granted on Oct 6, 2015, and that meant it was recognised as final and legally binding.
He said PM Lee raised no legal challenge at that time.
But in private, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, PM Lee wrote to the ministerial committee to say "there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the demolition clause had been re-inserted into the last will''.
He also said that on Mr Lee's position on the house, PM Lee quoted the demolition clause in Parliament and said that his father's position on the house was "unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values".
Mr Lee Hsien Yang added that PM Lee told the ministerial committee that "(Mr Lee Kuan Yew) then took a number of steps which put beyond any doubt that he came to accept Cabinet's position."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang added that PM Lee told the ministerial committee that "(Mr Lee Kuan Yew) then took a number of steps which put beyond any doubt that he came to accept Cabinet's position."
Lee Suet Fern steps down as Singapore managing partner of law firm Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP
By Grace Leong, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
Global law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius has said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern, the managing partner of its combined practice in Singapore, has stepped down from that role.
But Mrs Lee - the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang - will continue to play a key role in its global strategy from offices here and in Hong Kong.
The couple said earlier this week that they are preparing to leave Singapore - but have not said where they intend to live.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, a spokesman for the firm in Washington said yesterday that "the firm does not anticipate any material change in our Singapore team or practice".
She added that Mrs Lee will "continue to spend a significant amount of time in Singapore as well as travel to Hong Kong, as she already does in support of her strong client relationships there, and as head of our international leadership team".
Morgan Lewis & Bockius merged in 2015 with Stamford Law - founded by Mrs Lee - and became Morgan Lewis Stamford, a Singapore law practice where the partners are concurrent partners of the global firm. Mrs Lee, a top corporate lawyer, then became managing partner of the combined practice here.
The Straits Times understands that Mr Ng Joo Khin, Mrs Lee's deputy and a Morgan Lewis Stamford partner, has been made office managing partner as part of a long-planned transition, which allows Mrs Lee to keep a key role in its global strategy.
Mrs Lee remains on the advisory board of Morgan Lewis & Bockius and will continue to be the head of the international leadership team. The team is made up of, in part, office managing partners of Morgan Lewis' international offices worldwide. Sources said Mrs Lee will be based in the Singapore and Hong Kong offices.
On Wednesday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement with his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, saying they felt closely monitored and feared the use of state organs against them. The dispute centres on the house of their late father - former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew - at 38, Oxley Road.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised questions over Mrs Lee's role and that of her law firm in preparing the last will of the late Mr Lee. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that Stamford Law did not draft Mr Lee's final will.
The Straits Times understands that Morgan Lewis said it "stands by that account, and notes that no objections had previously been made to the final will, or the provision about demolition of the house, which was a well-known wish of Mr Lee Kuan Yew".
By Grace Leong, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
Global law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius has said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern, the managing partner of its combined practice in Singapore, has stepped down from that role.
But Mrs Lee - the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang - will continue to play a key role in its global strategy from offices here and in Hong Kong.
The couple said earlier this week that they are preparing to leave Singapore - but have not said where they intend to live.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, a spokesman for the firm in Washington said yesterday that "the firm does not anticipate any material change in our Singapore team or practice".
She added that Mrs Lee will "continue to spend a significant amount of time in Singapore as well as travel to Hong Kong, as she already does in support of her strong client relationships there, and as head of our international leadership team".
Morgan Lewis & Bockius merged in 2015 with Stamford Law - founded by Mrs Lee - and became Morgan Lewis Stamford, a Singapore law practice where the partners are concurrent partners of the global firm. Mrs Lee, a top corporate lawyer, then became managing partner of the combined practice here.
The Straits Times understands that Mr Ng Joo Khin, Mrs Lee's deputy and a Morgan Lewis Stamford partner, has been made office managing partner as part of a long-planned transition, which allows Mrs Lee to keep a key role in its global strategy.
Mrs Lee remains on the advisory board of Morgan Lewis & Bockius and will continue to be the head of the international leadership team. The team is made up of, in part, office managing partners of Morgan Lewis' international offices worldwide. Sources said Mrs Lee will be based in the Singapore and Hong Kong offices.
On Wednesday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement with his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, saying they felt closely monitored and feared the use of state organs against them. The dispute centres on the house of their late father - former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew - at 38, Oxley Road.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised questions over Mrs Lee's role and that of her law firm in preparing the last will of the late Mr Lee. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that Stamford Law did not draft Mr Lee's final will.
The Straits Times understands that Morgan Lewis said it "stands by that account, and notes that no objections had previously been made to the final will, or the provision about demolition of the house, which was a well-known wish of Mr Lee Kuan Yew".
Lee Wei Ling's extra share of father's estate removed in final will
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Initially, Dr Lee Wei Ling was promised an extra share of the estate of her father Lee Kuan Yew, but it was taken away in Mr Lee's final will, a document that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said was prepared in great haste by lawyers of his sister-in-law's legal firm.
That change aroused "grave suspicions" in Dr Lee that her younger brother Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, "did her in" by removing her extra share.
These events were described in a statement PM Lee released last night on a statutory declaration he had made to a ministerial committee considering options for the late Mr Lee's home at 38, Oxley Road.
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Initially, Dr Lee Wei Ling was promised an extra share of the estate of her father Lee Kuan Yew, but it was taken away in Mr Lee's final will, a document that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said was prepared in great haste by lawyers of his sister-in-law's legal firm.
That change aroused "grave suspicions" in Dr Lee that her younger brother Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, "did her in" by removing her extra share.
These events were described in a statement PM Lee released last night on a statutory declaration he had made to a ministerial committee considering options for the late Mr Lee's home at 38, Oxley Road.
PM Lee noted that his father gave all three children an equal share in his first will of Aug 20, 2011.
There were seven wills altogether, and in the sixth will of Nov 2, 2012, Dr Lee was given an extra share. PM Lee said this became "the subject of discussion" between his father and his brother in late 2013.
On Dec 16, 2013, Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed his father, his brother and Ms Kwa Kim Li - his cousin and a lawyer at Lee & Lee who had prepared the six earlier wills of Mr Lee - an original agreed will that gave all three children equal shares. PM Lee said this showed discussions between his brother and father had led to Mr Lee reverting to his earlier decision. This would deprive Dr Lee of her additional share as stated in the sixth will.
But a "mere 23 minutes" after Mrs Lee's e-mail, PM Lee said, his brother wrote to his father saying he believed Ms Kwa was away and that he did not think it was "wise to wait till she is back" to sign the seventh will. PM Lee said his brother wrote that a lawyer in his wife's firm could bring the new will for Mr Lee to sign. His father agreed.
But a "mere 23 minutes" after Mrs Lee's e-mail, PM Lee said, his brother wrote to his father saying he believed Ms Kwa was away and that he did not think it was "wise to wait till she is back" to sign the seventh will. PM Lee said his brother wrote that a lawyer in his wife's firm could bring the new will for Mr Lee to sign. His father agreed.
"It is also not clear why (Hsien Yang) thought there was an urgency to the matter. It is, however, interesting that he suggested his wife, clearly an interested party, and her partners would prepare the new will," said PM Lee.
That same night, Mrs Lee wrote to Mr Lee's private secretary to make arrangements for the new will to be signed.
"So, in the space of 41 minutes, (Mrs Lee) saw to the preparation of the new will and got one of her lawyers to be on standby to get it executed by Mr Lee," said PM Lee.
That same night, Mrs Lee wrote to Mr Lee's private secretary to make arrangements for the new will to be signed.
"So, in the space of 41 minutes, (Mrs Lee) saw to the preparation of the new will and got one of her lawyers to be on standby to get it executed by Mr Lee," said PM Lee.
The following morning, two lawyers from her firm went to 38, Oxley Road to witness the signing of the seventh and last will.
PM Lee said neither he nor his sister was on the e-mail list of correspondences with his father, adding that he became aware of "these troubling circumstances" later.
He said Dr Lee had also begun to be suspicious of the change.
In July 2014, Dr Lee told PM Lee's wife Ho Ching about her concerns in a series of e-mails, said PM Lee.
"Crucially, she said, 'If that is what Pa wants, so be it. But I don't trust Fern, and she has great influence on Yang', " he added.
He said Dr Lee also wrote that she "wondered whether Yang pulled a fast one", and that she had a "sense that Yang played me out".
Dr Lee also wrote to Ms Ho Ching: "The money I don't get does not upset me. It is that Yang and Fern would do this to me."
PM Lee said: "In other words, (Dr Lee) herself believed that (Hsien Yang and his wife) did her in by either suggesting or facilitating the removal of her extra share, which happened in the last will prepared in great haste by (Mrs Lee) and her law firm."
He added that in letters to his lawyers after disputes arose between him and his siblings, "Dr Lee admitted she had been suspicious whether the change in shares was really (their father's) decision or one that was instigated by (Hsien Yang and his wife), but claimed she no longer held this suspicion".
"But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled," PM Lee added.
"But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled," PM Lee added.
Lee Wei Ling disputes PM's account of her reaction to changes to her father's will
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Dr Lee Wei Ling said yesterday that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching were being "mischievous and dishonest" for selectively using quotes from her "to suggest that Hsien Yang and his wife were trying to cheat me in our father's final will".
She said in a Facebook post that the final will of her late father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, was important to her as it gave her "a clear right" to live at 38, Oxley Road, which is what she wanted.
"I had much earlier and repeatedly made clear to Hsien Loong and Ho Ching the truth that there was no duplicity by Hsien Yang and his wife, Suet Fern," she said in a post shortly after PM Lee released a summary of a statutory declaration that he had made to a ministerial committee that was set up to look into options for the Oxley Road house.
"He continues to repeat a position that I have both clarified and discredited as a smokescreen to obscure the key point that Lee Kuan Yew's final will of 17 December 2013 is in the same terms as his will of 19 August 2011, including the demolition clause, exactly as our father had intended."
In the declaration, PM Lee outlined his concerns about how the late Mr Lee's will was prepared, and in one part said Dr Lee had "grave suspicions" that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Suet Fern "did her in" by removing an extra share that she had received in the estate.
Dr Lee said in her post that following Mr Lee's will of Aug 19, 2011, PM Lee and his wife "were unhappy that I had been given a right to live at the original house at 38, Oxley Road. They pushed and persuaded my father very hard on this issue. This eventually resulted in 2012 in my losing my right to stay in the house and my share of my father's estate being reduced to only a life interest".
She disclosed she was upset and had quarrelled with her father, and said it was Mrs Lee Suet Fern who interceded on her behalf, met Mr Lee and "made a case that since I was his only daughter and was unmarried, it was particularly important that he provide for me rather than reduce my interest in his estate".
"My father did reinstate me and gave me an extra 1/7 share as a result. Hsien Yang and his wife were never informed of this extra share and continued to worry that I should be fairly treated and have a right to live in the house," Dr Lee said.
"I, too, was concerned about my right to live at 38, Oxley Road. Lee Kuan Yew's final will of 17 December 2013 gave me that right. It is this that Ho Ching and Hsien Loong are trying to deny me."
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 16 Jun 2017
Dr Lee Wei Ling said yesterday that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching were being "mischievous and dishonest" for selectively using quotes from her "to suggest that Hsien Yang and his wife were trying to cheat me in our father's final will".
She said in a Facebook post that the final will of her late father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, was important to her as it gave her "a clear right" to live at 38, Oxley Road, which is what she wanted.
"I had much earlier and repeatedly made clear to Hsien Loong and Ho Ching the truth that there was no duplicity by Hsien Yang and his wife, Suet Fern," she said in a post shortly after PM Lee released a summary of a statutory declaration that he had made to a ministerial committee that was set up to look into options for the Oxley Road house.
"He continues to repeat a position that I have both clarified and discredited as a smokescreen to obscure the key point that Lee Kuan Yew's final will of 17 December 2013 is in the same terms as his will of 19 August 2011, including the demolition clause, exactly as our father had intended."
In the declaration, PM Lee outlined his concerns about how the late Mr Lee's will was prepared, and in one part said Dr Lee had "grave suspicions" that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Suet Fern "did her in" by removing an extra share that she had received in the estate.
Dr Lee said in her post that following Mr Lee's will of Aug 19, 2011, PM Lee and his wife "were unhappy that I had been given a right to live at the original house at 38, Oxley Road. They pushed and persuaded my father very hard on this issue. This eventually resulted in 2012 in my losing my right to stay in the house and my share of my father's estate being reduced to only a life interest".
She disclosed she was upset and had quarrelled with her father, and said it was Mrs Lee Suet Fern who interceded on her behalf, met Mr Lee and "made a case that since I was his only daughter and was unmarried, it was particularly important that he provide for me rather than reduce my interest in his estate".
"My father did reinstate me and gave me an extra 1/7 share as a result. Hsien Yang and his wife were never informed of this extra share and continued to worry that I should be fairly treated and have a right to live in the house," Dr Lee said.
"I, too, was concerned about my right to live at 38, Oxley Road. Lee Kuan Yew's final will of 17 December 2013 gave me that right. It is this that Ho Ching and Hsien Loong are trying to deny me."
Mr Lee Kuan Yew died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
Dr Lee yesterday also uploaded copies of e-mails from September 2012 of exchanges she had with Mrs Lee Suet Fern, as well as one that Mrs Lee Suet Fern sent to Mr K. Shanmugam, who was then foreign minister.
In the e-mail to Mr Shanmugam, Mrs Lee Suet Fern disclosed, among other things, that she persuaded Mr Lee Kuan Yew "to capitulate" and give Dr Lee "equal share in the same manner as her brothers. No restrictions at all...".
The copies of these e-mails were, however, removed from her Facebook page shortly afterwards. They were then put back up again under another account.
In another Facebook post in the early hours of yesterday morning, Dr Lee had said she and Mr Lee Hsien Yang would not have issued a public statement if the disputes with PM Lee over the late Mr Lee's house "were merely a family affair".
She said the main message of their six-page statement released on Wednesday was not that the siblings feared what PM Lee would do to them. Rather, she alleged that PM Lee's "misuse (of) his official power" against his siblings in relation to the house at 38, Oxley Road suggests he could do the same to ordinary citizens. She added that their lawyer edited this message out of the statement.
In their statement, the two siblings also said they had lost confidence in PM Lee, adding that they feared the use of state organs against them.
In their statement, the two siblings also said they had lost confidence in PM Lee, adding that they feared the use of state organs against them.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said there is nothing secretive about the ministerial committee set up to look into the options for 38 Oxley Road
Govt must consider public interest for properties with heritage and historical value, including 38 Oxley Road
Nothing 'secret' about ministerial committee studying options for the late Mr Lee's house
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean yesterday made public the composition of a ministerial committee studying options for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road, and refuted Mr Lee Hsien Yang's claims that it was "secret", as the feud over Mr Lee's will continues.
"There is nothing 'secret' about this committee. It is a committee like numerous other committees that Cabinet may set up from time to time to consider specific issues," said DPM Teo of the committee he both set up and chairs.
DPM Teo chairs Cabinet when there are any deliberations on 38, Oxley Road, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself from all government decisions to be taken on the house after Mr Lee died in March 2015.
Also in the committee are Cabinet ministers responsible for heritage, land issues and urban planning - Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, and Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong.
Mr Teo's statement comes after Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling made multiple statements criticising their brother, PM Lee, over the "secret committee", which they said was set up to challenge the validity of Mr Lee's will after probate had been granted.
In explaining the committee's role, Mr Teo said the Government has the responsibility to consider the public interest aspects of any property with heritage and historical significance, and this applies to 38, Oxley Road.
"Many critical decisions on the future of Singapore were made there by Mr Lee and our pioneer leaders. The committee has thus been looking at the options available for 38, Oxley Road while paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes for his house."
Mr Teo added: "Mr Lee Hsien Yang now owns the property. As provided for in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, Dr Lee Wei Ling can stay in it for as long as she wishes. The Government has already stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee's right to continue living at 38, Oxley Road."
Govt must consider public interest for properties with heritage and historical value, including 38 Oxley Road
Nothing 'secret' about ministerial committee studying options for the late Mr Lee's house
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
"There is nothing 'secret' about this committee. It is a committee like numerous other committees that Cabinet may set up from time to time to consider specific issues," said DPM Teo of the committee he both set up and chairs.
DPM Teo chairs Cabinet when there are any deliberations on 38, Oxley Road, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself from all government decisions to be taken on the house after Mr Lee died in March 2015.
Also in the committee are Cabinet ministers responsible for heritage, land issues and urban planning - Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, and Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong.
Mr Teo's statement comes after Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling made multiple statements criticising their brother, PM Lee, over the "secret committee", which they said was set up to challenge the validity of Mr Lee's will after probate had been granted.
In explaining the committee's role, Mr Teo said the Government has the responsibility to consider the public interest aspects of any property with heritage and historical significance, and this applies to 38, Oxley Road.
"Many critical decisions on the future of Singapore were made there by Mr Lee and our pioneer leaders. The committee has thus been looking at the options available for 38, Oxley Road while paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes for his house."
Mr Teo added: "Mr Lee Hsien Yang now owns the property. As provided for in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, Dr Lee Wei Ling can stay in it for as long as she wishes. The Government has already stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee's right to continue living at 38, Oxley Road."
On why the committee was established when no immediate decision has to be made on the house since Dr Lee is still living there, Mr Teo said: "Due process is needed to consider the various options before making any decision on the house. This can take some time."
He also cited other factors, including the fact that soon after their father died, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee, as executors of his will, wanted the Government to commit itself immediately to demolishing the house.
He also cited other factors, including the fact that soon after their father died, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee, as executors of his will, wanted the Government to commit itself immediately to demolishing the house.
He said the ministerial committee wrote to all three siblings to ask for their views, to get a clearer sense of Mr Lee's thinking on the house.
The committee sought further clarifications when the siblings provided differing accounts of their father's wishes, he added.
"The committee's interest in Mr Lee's will is confined to the light that it sheds on his wishes for the house," Mr Teo said.
Mr Teo said he personally would not support preserving the house as it is, for visitors to enter and see, as that would be totally against the wishes of the late Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew.
But he also was not in favour of having the house demolished and the property put on the market for new private residences either.
He added: "The committee has also been studying various intermediate options such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room where many important historical meetings took place, with an appropriate heritage centre attached. These studies are ongoing."
His approach in handling the matter drew support from Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. In a post on his MParader Facebook page last night, he said it was right to explore options beyond the binary demolish-preserve decision.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang is still not convinced. In a Facebook post yesterday evening, he said the committee is "fundamentally flawed" as it is made up of subordinates "sitting, arbitrating an issue related to their boss".
He also called Mr Shanmugam's inclusion in the committee a "clear conflict of interest", as he had advised the Lee family on the will. This drew a swift rebuke from the Law Minister, who called the suggestion "ridiculous".
Separately, PM Lee, who had been away on leave, returned to Singapore yesterday and will be back at work tomorrow.
Separately, PM Lee, who had been away on leave, returned to Singapore yesterday and will be back at work tomorrow.
Lee Hsien Yang's suggestion of conflict of interest is 'ridiculous', says Shanmugam
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam last night hit back at a suggestion that his inclusion in a ministerial committee considering options for 38, Oxley Road was a conflict of interest, calling the notion "ridiculous".
He was responding on Facebook to Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who said in an earlier post that he and his sister Lee Wei Ling expressed specific concerns about Mr Shanmugam's possible involvement in the committee.
Mr Shanmugam also said in his rebuttal that most Singaporeans were "sick and tired about these endless allegations, which are quite baseless" put out by Mr Lee and Dr Lee.
"The Government has serious business to attend to relating to the welfare of Singaporeans," he said.
In the Facebook post that prompted the minister's response, Mr Lee disclosed that Mr Shanmugam advised his family on options to help achieve Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, as well as the drafting of a clause stating that the late Mr Lee wanted the Oxley Road house demolished after his death.
Mr Shanmugam's inclusion on the committee "represents a clear conflict of interest", Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote. "He is an experienced Senior Counsel and Minister for Law who should well understand the problem of conflicts of interest."
The allegation brought a swift rebuttal from Mr Shanmugam.
Having been in practice for more than 22 years, he said he is "well aware" of the rules of conflict.
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam last night hit back at a suggestion that his inclusion in a ministerial committee considering options for 38, Oxley Road was a conflict of interest, calling the notion "ridiculous".
He was responding on Facebook to Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who said in an earlier post that he and his sister Lee Wei Ling expressed specific concerns about Mr Shanmugam's possible involvement in the committee.
Mr Shanmugam also said in his rebuttal that most Singaporeans were "sick and tired about these endless allegations, which are quite baseless" put out by Mr Lee and Dr Lee.
"The Government has serious business to attend to relating to the welfare of Singaporeans," he said.
In the Facebook post that prompted the minister's response, Mr Lee disclosed that Mr Shanmugam advised his family on options to help achieve Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, as well as the drafting of a clause stating that the late Mr Lee wanted the Oxley Road house demolished after his death.
Mr Shanmugam's inclusion on the committee "represents a clear conflict of interest", Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote. "He is an experienced Senior Counsel and Minister for Law who should well understand the problem of conflicts of interest."
The allegation brought a swift rebuttal from Mr Shanmugam.
Having been in practice for more than 22 years, he said he is "well aware" of the rules of conflict.
"The suggestion that I am in conflict is ridiculous. If Mr Lee Hsien Yang seriously believes that I was in conflict, he can get a lawyer to write to me and I will respond," he added.
He said he was already a Cabinet minister when he spoke to some Lee family members - at their behest - and gave them his views.
He said he was already a Cabinet minister when he spoke to some Lee family members - at their behest - and gave them his views.
"They were not my clients. Nothing that I said then precludes me from serving in this committee."
Mr Shanmugam also noted that there are dozens of Cabinet committees - both temporary and permanent - on a variety of matters.
Their composition is not public, and they report to the Cabinet.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said that he and Dr Lee were denied information on the composition of the "shadowy committee members" for almost a year, despite repeated requests.
It was only yesterday that they found out Mr Shanmugam was also on it, from a statement that Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean issued laying out the committee's composition and responsibilities.
"We had expressed specific concerns on the possible membership of Shanmugam and his conflict of interest having advised Lee Kuan Yew and us on options to help achieve Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, and the drafting of the demolition wish," Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in his post.
He said that when they raised their concerns about Mr Shanmugam's possible involvement in writing, they were "brushed off" by National Development Minister Lawrence Wong.
According to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's post, Mr Wong said: "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 Prime Minister."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee have, over the past week, criticised their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over the formation of a "secret committee" dealing with options for the Oxley Road house.
Yesterday, DPM Teo said its members include Cabinet ministers responsible for heritage, land issues and urban planning: Mr Shanmugam, Mr Wong and Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his Facebook post, said the committee was "fundamentally flawed".
"It is clear that a committee of one's subordinates, should not be sitting arbitrating an issue related to their boss," he said. "That is why the Committee is fundamentally flawed. As the subordinates of the PM, how can they possibly be in a position to deal in this private disagreement? This is the wrong forum."
"It is clear that a committee of one's subordinates, should not be sitting arbitrating an issue related to their boss," he said. "That is why the Committee is fundamentally flawed. As the subordinates of the PM, how can they possibly be in a position to deal in this private disagreement? This is the wrong forum."
Lee Hsien Yang unhappy over delay and uncertainty in demolishing Oxley Road House: Goh Chok Tong
Options for Oxley home beyond 'demolish v preserve' being studied
Useful for future Govt to have set of choices to consider: DPM Teo
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
A ministerial committee is studying various "intermediate options" for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean yesterday.
This includes keeping the basement dining room, where many important historical meetings took place, with an appropriate heritage centre attached.
DPM Teo said he has shared with the Lee siblings some of the options that relevant agencies are studying for the property.
In a Facebook post last night, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said Mr Teo had shared the range of options with him last year.
"I advised him to respect Lee Kuan Yew's wish but agreed that it would be disrespectful of our own heritage to just demolish the house for it to be replaced by a commercial building or another private residence," Mr Goh said.
He added that DPM Teo is "right to explore options beyond the binary demolish-preserve decision".
In his statement yesterday, Mr Teo said he personally would not support options at either end of the range. "At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew; and at the other, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences."
DPM Teo also said the Government has stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee Wei Ling's right to continue living at the house.
On why he set up a ministerial committee when no immediate decision was needed, he said there must be due process to consider the various options before making any decisions on the house, and this can take some time.
DPM Teo also cited three other factors.
First, if Dr Lee chooses to move out of the house in the near future, a decision on the house might have to be taken at that point.
He noted that soon after the late Mr Lee died, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, as executors of his will, wanted the Government to commit itself to immediately demolishing the house. This was even though Dr Lee might continue living there for many years.
Options for Oxley home beyond 'demolish v preserve' being studied
Useful for future Govt to have set of choices to consider: DPM Teo
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
A ministerial committee is studying various "intermediate options" for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean yesterday.
This includes keeping the basement dining room, where many important historical meetings took place, with an appropriate heritage centre attached.
DPM Teo said he has shared with the Lee siblings some of the options that relevant agencies are studying for the property.
In a Facebook post last night, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said Mr Teo had shared the range of options with him last year.
"I advised him to respect Lee Kuan Yew's wish but agreed that it would be disrespectful of our own heritage to just demolish the house for it to be replaced by a commercial building or another private residence," Mr Goh said.
He added that DPM Teo is "right to explore options beyond the binary demolish-preserve decision".
In his statement yesterday, Mr Teo said he personally would not support options at either end of the range. "At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew; and at the other, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences."
DPM Teo also said the Government has stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee Wei Ling's right to continue living at the house.
On why he set up a ministerial committee when no immediate decision was needed, he said there must be due process to consider the various options before making any decisions on the house, and this can take some time.
DPM Teo also cited three other factors.
First, if Dr Lee chooses to move out of the house in the near future, a decision on the house might have to be taken at that point.
He noted that soon after the late Mr Lee died, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, as executors of his will, wanted the Government to commit itself to immediately demolishing the house. This was even though Dr Lee might continue living there for many years.
Third, DPM Teo said some Cabinet ministers, including himself, felt it would be useful if a future Government deciding on the house had a set of options that came from ministers who had personally discussed the matter with the late Mr Lee.
Mr Goh said he supports the careful way in which DPM Teo and the Government are handling the issue, as public interests are involved.
He shared DPM Teo's thinking with Mr Lee Hsien Yang last year, but "the latter remained unhappy over the delay and uncertainty in demolishing the house".
Mr Goh also said Singaporeans can urge the Lee siblings to settle their dispute amicably in private or through closed-door arbitration.
"It is not worth tearing up family bonds built over a lifetime over these differences, however serious they are. This is not the family legacy which their father would have wanted to leave behind."
"It is not worth tearing up family bonds built over a lifetime over these differences, however serious they are. This is not the family legacy which their father would have wanted to leave behind."
More questions arise over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Further questions were raised yesterday about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's (LKY) final will when his younger son Lee Hsien Yang sought to explain how it turned out the way it did.
The last will, he said, was simply a reversion to the first will, and this was done on the "express instruction" of his father. But parts of the first will were left out by mistake.
Responding to media queries in a Facebook post yesterday, he wrote: "Lee Kuan Yew's final will in December 2013 was engrossed on the basis of his express instruction to revert to his first will from 2011."
He added that the seventh and last will "was simply Lee Kuan Yew's first will of Aug 20, 2011, re-executed on his instructions".
The preparation of the late Mr Lee's last will has emerged as a main point of contention in the feud between the Lee siblings over their father's 38, Oxley Road home.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earlier said their father's last will was made in troubling circumstances, and asked if there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee Suet Fern helped prepare it, since her husband Lee Hsien Yang stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share in the last will.
The last will also "differed in significant aspects from the first will", PM Lee noted in his statutory declarations to a ministerial committee, a summary of which was released on Thursday.
The last will did not have a gift-over clause, and PM Lee said "there is nothing which suggests that Mr Lee had given instructions for it to be removed".
This clause provides for shares of the late Mr Lee's estate to go directly to his grandchildren, if his sons died before him.
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
Further questions were raised yesterday about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's (LKY) final will when his younger son Lee Hsien Yang sought to explain how it turned out the way it did.
The last will, he said, was simply a reversion to the first will, and this was done on the "express instruction" of his father. But parts of the first will were left out by mistake.
Responding to media queries in a Facebook post yesterday, he wrote: "Lee Kuan Yew's final will in December 2013 was engrossed on the basis of his express instruction to revert to his first will from 2011."
He added that the seventh and last will "was simply Lee Kuan Yew's first will of Aug 20, 2011, re-executed on his instructions".
The preparation of the late Mr Lee's last will has emerged as a main point of contention in the feud between the Lee siblings over their father's 38, Oxley Road home.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earlier said their father's last will was made in troubling circumstances, and asked if there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee Suet Fern helped prepare it, since her husband Lee Hsien Yang stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling's extra share in the last will.
The last will also "differed in significant aspects from the first will", PM Lee noted in his statutory declarations to a ministerial committee, a summary of which was released on Thursday.
The last will did not have a gift-over clause, and PM Lee said "there is nothing which suggests that Mr Lee had given instructions for it to be removed".
This clause provides for shares of the late Mr Lee's estate to go directly to his grandchildren, if his sons died before him.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said the clause was missing as "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. This was then engrossed without amendment".
He has also said his wife's law firm did not draft any of his father's wills. He added that the last will was drafted by lawyer Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee - a claim Ms Kwa denied on Friday when she said she did not prepare the last will.
PM Lee had also questioned why a clause, in which his father stated that he wanted his house demolished after his death, was re- inserted in the last will when it was removed from the fifth and sixth versions of the will.
"There is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the demolition clause had been re-inserted into the last will," PM Lee said.
In his post yesterday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said two lawyers from his wife's law firm - Mr Bernard Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong - were called to witness the signing of the will as Ms Kwa was not contactable.
"Lee Kuan Yew had read the final will carefully and initialled every page, including just below the demolition clause," he said.
In a subsequent post, he also cited a file note by the two lawyers, who witnessed the will signing at 11.10am.
The lawyers had said that "LKY read through every line of the will and was comfortable to sign and initial every page, which he did in our presence", he added.
He also reiterated that the proper venue to challenge a will is in court.
He said once probate is granted - which means a will is recognised as final and legally binding - the hurdle to challenge a will is considerably higher.
PM Lee had said he did not challenge the validity of the last will in court as he wanted to "avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family". To this, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said probate hearings can be heard "in camera", or behind closed doors.
PM Lee had said he did not challenge the validity of the last will in court as he wanted to "avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family". To this, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said probate hearings can be heard "in camera", or behind closed doors.
Oxley Road home was where history was made
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
At the heart of the dispute between the children of the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew is the house at 38, Oxley Road where they grew up.
The pre-war bungalow sits on a plot of about 12,000 sq ft on the street named after Dr Thomas Oxley, a British medical doctor who held the post of senior surgeon for the Straits Settlements in 1844.
It is near Orchard Road, and is estimated to be worth at least $24 million. But the value of the house goes beyond the monetary - it is also where history was made.
A young Mr Lee had moved into what he later described as the "big, rambling house with five bedrooms, and three others at the back" with his wife Kwa Geok Choo in the 1940s.
It was in its basement that a group of what Mr Lee termed "beer-swilling bourgeois" English-educated friends brainstormed the formation of the People's Action Party (PAP).
These meetings in 1954 were described in the book Men In White: The Untold Story Of Singapore's Ruling Political Party. The group would usually get together between 2.30 and 5.30 on Saturday afternoons. Some 20 participants, including the 14 founding members of the PAP, would engage in heated debate about politics and self-rule around a long table. During the party's early days, the house was also often the PAP's election headquarters to prepare for the polls.
It is while living there that the Lees' children were born: Lee Hsien Loong, then daughter Wei Ling, and younger son Hsien Yang.
The veranda of the house was where the three siblings received Malay and Chinese language tuition and, as young children, celebrated their birthdays with a small cake.
HOUSE WITH NO FOUNDATIONS
Those who have visited the house described its interior as spartan and unpretentious. The late Mr Lee and his wife lived there all their lives, except for a few weeks after Singapore's independence in 1965, when they moved to the Istana with their children over security concerns.
Built over a century ago by a Jewish merchant, the house has no foundations. As a result, the walls get damp, Mr Lee told a group of journalists from The Straits Times during an interview for the book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going. Cracks had also formed, though the pillars were sound.
An ever pragmatic Mr Lee added that it would cost too much to conserve and maintain the house. He suggested demolishing it after his death, so that planning rules in the area could change and neighbouring houses could be built higher.
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
The pre-war bungalow sits on a plot of about 12,000 sq ft on the street named after Dr Thomas Oxley, a British medical doctor who held the post of senior surgeon for the Straits Settlements in 1844.
It is near Orchard Road, and is estimated to be worth at least $24 million. But the value of the house goes beyond the monetary - it is also where history was made.
A young Mr Lee had moved into what he later described as the "big, rambling house with five bedrooms, and three others at the back" with his wife Kwa Geok Choo in the 1940s.
It was in its basement that a group of what Mr Lee termed "beer-swilling bourgeois" English-educated friends brainstormed the formation of the People's Action Party (PAP).
These meetings in 1954 were described in the book Men In White: The Untold Story Of Singapore's Ruling Political Party. The group would usually get together between 2.30 and 5.30 on Saturday afternoons. Some 20 participants, including the 14 founding members of the PAP, would engage in heated debate about politics and self-rule around a long table. During the party's early days, the house was also often the PAP's election headquarters to prepare for the polls.
It is while living there that the Lees' children were born: Lee Hsien Loong, then daughter Wei Ling, and younger son Hsien Yang.
The veranda of the house was where the three siblings received Malay and Chinese language tuition and, as young children, celebrated their birthdays with a small cake.
HOUSE WITH NO FOUNDATIONS
Those who have visited the house described its interior as spartan and unpretentious. The late Mr Lee and his wife lived there all their lives, except for a few weeks after Singapore's independence in 1965, when they moved to the Istana with their children over security concerns.
Built over a century ago by a Jewish merchant, the house has no foundations. As a result, the walls get damp, Mr Lee told a group of journalists from The Straits Times during an interview for the book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going. Cracks had also formed, though the pillars were sound.
An ever pragmatic Mr Lee added that it would cost too much to conserve and maintain the house. He suggested demolishing it after his death, so that planning rules in the area could change and neighbouring houses could be built higher.
Oxley Road dispute: Two parts to demolition clause in Lee Kuan Yew's will, says Indranee
Second part recognises that the Oxley Road house might not be demolished, she says
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 24 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition of his Oxley Road house may not take place, said Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah.
In a Facebook post yesterday, she cited a clause on demolishing 38, Oxley Road in the will, saying it shows demolition is not the only option the late Mr Lee considered.
The question of whether to demolish the house lies at the heart of a public feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Yesterday, Ms Indranee noted that there are two parts to the demolition clause.
The first part expresses the late Mr and Mrs Lee's wish to demolish the house, but the second recognises that the house may not be demolished for a number of reasons, she said.
She cited the second part, which states: "If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the house never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants."
Ms Indranee said: "Much of the recent public discussion on this issue has been premised on the assumption that the seventh will only contemplates one outcome - demolition. But this is not the case. The will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place."
She also sought to clarify three other issues about the dispute, which became public on June 14 when Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they had lost confidence in PM Lee, feared the use of state organs against them, and accused their brother of misusing his power, among other allegations.
As to why the Government is involved in the fate of the house, Ms Indranee said that while the inheritance of the late Mr Lee's estate is a private matter, what happens to the house is a matter of public interest.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have criticised the formation of a ministerial committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, to consider options for the house. They alleged that the committee is focused solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause in their father's will.
Ms Indranee said the Government has to be involved because the house is "not just any old piece of property. It is intertwined with the history of the nation".
It was where the country's founding fathers met to make important and historical decisions that led to internal self-government, merger and eventually independence, she said.
"The strategies to outflank the communists were developed there. It is where the People's Action Party was formed," she added.
After Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015, there were many calls to turn 38, Oxley Road into a museum or memorial, she noted.
The Government thus has a duty to consider the public interest and the historical and heritage perspective while "taking very seriously into account" the late Mr Lee's wishes, she said.
In any case, the house cannot be demolished now, she noted, because Dr Lee is still living there - as stipulated in Mr Lee's will.
It may be decades before a definite decision needs to be taken, and the Cabinet at that time will have to decide, she said.
Second part recognises that the Oxley Road house might not be demolished, she says
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 24 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition of his Oxley Road house may not take place, said Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah.
In a Facebook post yesterday, she cited a clause on demolishing 38, Oxley Road in the will, saying it shows demolition is not the only option the late Mr Lee considered.
The question of whether to demolish the house lies at the heart of a public feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Yesterday, Ms Indranee noted that there are two parts to the demolition clause.
The first part expresses the late Mr and Mrs Lee's wish to demolish the house, but the second recognises that the house may not be demolished for a number of reasons, she said.
She cited the second part, which states: "If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the house never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants."
Ms Indranee said: "Much of the recent public discussion on this issue has been premised on the assumption that the seventh will only contemplates one outcome - demolition. But this is not the case. The will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place."
She also sought to clarify three other issues about the dispute, which became public on June 14 when Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they had lost confidence in PM Lee, feared the use of state organs against them, and accused their brother of misusing his power, among other allegations.
As to why the Government is involved in the fate of the house, Ms Indranee said that while the inheritance of the late Mr Lee's estate is a private matter, what happens to the house is a matter of public interest.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have criticised the formation of a ministerial committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, to consider options for the house. They alleged that the committee is focused solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause in their father's will.
Ms Indranee said the Government has to be involved because the house is "not just any old piece of property. It is intertwined with the history of the nation".
It was where the country's founding fathers met to make important and historical decisions that led to internal self-government, merger and eventually independence, she said.
"The strategies to outflank the communists were developed there. It is where the People's Action Party was formed," she added.
After Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015, there were many calls to turn 38, Oxley Road into a museum or memorial, she noted.
The Government thus has a duty to consider the public interest and the historical and heritage perspective while "taking very seriously into account" the late Mr Lee's wishes, she said.
In any case, the house cannot be demolished now, she noted, because Dr Lee is still living there - as stipulated in Mr Lee's will.
It may be decades before a definite decision needs to be taken, and the Cabinet at that time will have to decide, she said.
"Most of the current Cabinet ministers are unlikely to be in the Cabinet then," she added.
Ms Indranee also reiterated that PM Lee was not involved in government deliberations on the house.
Ms Indranee also reiterated that PM Lee was not involved in government deliberations on the house.
PM Lee had stated in Parliament on April 13, 2015 that as a son, he would like to see his parents' wishes carried out.
"However, as Prime Minister, he would have to consider whether it is in the wider public interest to demolish the house given its historical significance. The answer to this may be different from his parents' or his own personal wishes," she said.
"It is a very difficult dilemma for him. For this reason, the Prime Minister has recused himself from taking part in any government consideration or decisions regarding 38, Oxley Road."
"It is a very difficult dilemma for him. For this reason, the Prime Minister has recused himself from taking part in any government consideration or decisions regarding 38, Oxley Road."
What the clause in Lee Kuan Yew's final will states
There are two parts in a clause to demolish the 38, Oxley Road house in the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will, which are at the heart of the dispute between the Lee siblings. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have focused on the first part, but the second part shows that the late Mr Lee had considered the possibility that the house might be preserved. The clause states:
"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 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 laws, 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
There are two parts in a clause to demolish the 38, Oxley Road house in the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will, which are at the heart of the dispute between the Lee siblings. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have focused on the first part, but the second part shows that the late Mr Lee had considered the possibility that the house might be preserved. The clause states:
"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 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 laws, 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
Four things to know about Oxley dispute
By Indranee Rajah, Published The Straits Times, 24 Jun 2017
As Singaporeans we are all saddened by the Oxley dispute. I am particularly saddened because I looked after Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew's constituency in his final years and got to see at close quarters what a great man he was. I know how much this would have grieved MM and Mrs Lee.
People have expressed confusion about the things which have been said. Many are trying to make sense of it all. The key to understanding this matter is first to get a handle on the issues and some important facts.
Here are four things you should know about the Oxley dispute.
1. WHAT DOES THE SEVENTH WILL ACTUALLY SAY?
Serious questions have been raised as to how Mr Lee Kuan Yew's seventh will was prepared. However, leaving those aside for the moment, and taking the seventh will at face value, what does it actually say about 38, Oxley Road?
The relevant part is in paragraph 7 of the will. It was read out by the Prime Minister in Parliament on April 13, 2015, and this is what it says: "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 laws, 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."
Based on the seventh will, several things are instantly clear:
Demolition was not the only option contemplated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew;
There are two parts to the clause. The first part expresses his and Mrs Lee's wish, which was for demolition;
However, the second part recognises that the house may not be demolished for a number of reasons. Mr Lee accepted that the house may not be demolished and, in such case, expressed his wishes on what should happen. Essentially, he did not want the House to be opened to the public.
Much of the recent public discussion on this issue has been premised on the assumption that the seventh will contemplates only one outcome - demolition. But this is not the case. The will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.
2. WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN WHAT HAPPENS TO 38, OXLEY ROAD? ISN'T THIS A PRIVATE MATTER?
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate and who inherits what is a private matter, but what is to be done with 38, Oxley Road is not purely a private matter: 38, Oxley Road is closely bound up with the history of Singapore. It is the site where our founding fathers first came together and set Singapore on the path to its future destiny. It is where important and historical decisions were made that led to internal self-government, merger and eventually independence. The strategies to outflank the communists were developed there. It is where the People's Action Party was formed.
People will recall that after Mr Lee's death and before this dispute was made public, there were many calls to turn 38, Oxley Road into a museum or memorial. At the parliamentary session of April 13, 2015, the Prime Minister also recounted how when Mr Lee mentioned demolition in his book Hard Truths, there was a public reaction as some people wanted the house preserved.
Why is this so? It is because Singaporeans understand the historical significance of the site - 38, Oxley Road is not just any old piece of property. It is intertwined with the history of the nation. For this reason, what happens to 38, Oxley Road is not purely a private family matter. It is also a matter of public interest. This is also reflected in the fact that paragraph 7 of the will provides for public disclosure.
Because it is a matter of public interest, the Government has to be involved. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained, the Government has a duty to take a view from the public interest, historical and heritage perspective, while taking very seriously into account the wishes expressed by Mr Lee in paragraph 7 of his will.
3. WHAT IS PM'S INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT DELIBERATIONS ON 38, OXLEY ROAD?
None. He has taken himself out of the equation.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong is the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. But he is also our Prime Minister. As a son, he would like to see his parents' wishes carried out. He stated this in Parliament on April 13, 2015.
However, as Prime Minister, he would have to consider whether it is in the wider public interest to demolish the House given its historical significance. The answer to this may be different from his parents' or his own personal wishes. It is a very difficult dilemma for him. For this reason, the Prime Minister has recused himself from taking part in any government consideration or decision regarding 38, Oxley Road.
At the same time, the Government cannot avoid considering the matter. Hence, DPM Teo set up the ministerial committee to consider issues in connection with 38, Oxley Road. Like any other ministerial committee, it reports to the Cabinet, except that in this matter, it is Cabinet minus PM for the reason stated above.
4. CAN WE DEMOLISH THE HOUSE NOW?
No, because Dr Lee Wei Ling is still living there. Mr Lee's wish, as expressed in the seventh will, is that the house should not be demolished so long as Dr Lee is still living there.
The Government has said that it will not do anything to the House while Dr Lee is still living there.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that: "My sister is living there and has every intention to live a long life."
There is, therefore, no need to make a decision on demolition now. It may be decades before a definite decision needs to be taken. The Cabinet, at that time, will have to make the decision. Most of the current Cabinet ministers are unlikely to be in Cabinet then.
The writer is Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance.
By Indranee Rajah, Published The Straits Times, 24 Jun 2017
As Singaporeans we are all saddened by the Oxley dispute. I am particularly saddened because I looked after Minister Mentor (MM) Lee Kuan Yew's constituency in his final years and got to see at close quarters what a great man he was. I know how much this would have grieved MM and Mrs Lee.
People have expressed confusion about the things which have been said. Many are trying to make sense of it all. The key to understanding this matter is first to get a handle on the issues and some important facts.
Here are four things you should know about the Oxley dispute.
1. WHAT DOES THE SEVENTH WILL ACTUALLY SAY?
Serious questions have been raised as to how Mr Lee Kuan Yew's seventh will was prepared. However, leaving those aside for the moment, and taking the seventh will at face value, what does it actually say about 38, Oxley Road?
The relevant part is in paragraph 7 of the will. It was read out by the Prime Minister in Parliament on April 13, 2015, and this is what it says: "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 laws, 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."
Based on the seventh will, several things are instantly clear:
Demolition was not the only option contemplated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew;
There are two parts to the clause. The first part expresses his and Mrs Lee's wish, which was for demolition;
However, the second part recognises that the house may not be demolished for a number of reasons. Mr Lee accepted that the house may not be demolished and, in such case, expressed his wishes on what should happen. Essentially, he did not want the House to be opened to the public.
Much of the recent public discussion on this issue has been premised on the assumption that the seventh will contemplates only one outcome - demolition. But this is not the case. The will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.
2. WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN WHAT HAPPENS TO 38, OXLEY ROAD? ISN'T THIS A PRIVATE MATTER?
Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate and who inherits what is a private matter, but what is to be done with 38, Oxley Road is not purely a private matter: 38, Oxley Road is closely bound up with the history of Singapore. It is the site where our founding fathers first came together and set Singapore on the path to its future destiny. It is where important and historical decisions were made that led to internal self-government, merger and eventually independence. The strategies to outflank the communists were developed there. It is where the People's Action Party was formed.
People will recall that after Mr Lee's death and before this dispute was made public, there were many calls to turn 38, Oxley Road into a museum or memorial. At the parliamentary session of April 13, 2015, the Prime Minister also recounted how when Mr Lee mentioned demolition in his book Hard Truths, there was a public reaction as some people wanted the house preserved.
Why is this so? It is because Singaporeans understand the historical significance of the site - 38, Oxley Road is not just any old piece of property. It is intertwined with the history of the nation. For this reason, what happens to 38, Oxley Road is not purely a private family matter. It is also a matter of public interest. This is also reflected in the fact that paragraph 7 of the will provides for public disclosure.
Because it is a matter of public interest, the Government has to be involved. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained, the Government has a duty to take a view from the public interest, historical and heritage perspective, while taking very seriously into account the wishes expressed by Mr Lee in paragraph 7 of his will.
3. WHAT IS PM'S INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT DELIBERATIONS ON 38, OXLEY ROAD?
None. He has taken himself out of the equation.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong is the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. But he is also our Prime Minister. As a son, he would like to see his parents' wishes carried out. He stated this in Parliament on April 13, 2015.
However, as Prime Minister, he would have to consider whether it is in the wider public interest to demolish the House given its historical significance. The answer to this may be different from his parents' or his own personal wishes. It is a very difficult dilemma for him. For this reason, the Prime Minister has recused himself from taking part in any government consideration or decision regarding 38, Oxley Road.
At the same time, the Government cannot avoid considering the matter. Hence, DPM Teo set up the ministerial committee to consider issues in connection with 38, Oxley Road. Like any other ministerial committee, it reports to the Cabinet, except that in this matter, it is Cabinet minus PM for the reason stated above.
4. CAN WE DEMOLISH THE HOUSE NOW?
No, because Dr Lee Wei Ling is still living there. Mr Lee's wish, as expressed in the seventh will, is that the house should not be demolished so long as Dr Lee is still living there.
The Government has said that it will not do anything to the House while Dr Lee is still living there.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that: "My sister is living there and has every intention to live a long life."
There is, therefore, no need to make a decision on demolition now. It may be decades before a definite decision needs to be taken. The Cabinet, at that time, will have to make the decision. Most of the current Cabinet ministers are unlikely to be in Cabinet then.
The writer is Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance.
Identify lawyer who drafted Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will: Indranee
Lee Hsien Yang had indicated he knew who the person was, she says
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 25 Jun 2017
Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah yesterday called on Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, to identify the lawyer who drafted the final will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
She said his June 17 Facebook post had indicated that he knew who had prepared the will, when he twice mentioned "we" in reference to his dealings over the will.
Ms Indranee asked in a lengthy Facebook post if the "we" referred to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, lawyer Lee Suet Fern.
PM Lee has raised serious misgivings about the circumstances surrounding the will, including over the role played by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
Ms Indranee noted that there have been conflicting accounts of who drafted the will, in her second post on the Lee family row over the Oxley Road house. In the first post last Friday, she highlighted four issues about the dispute, including what the late Mr Lee's will said about demolition of the house and why this was an issue of public interest.
Yesterday her focus was on the will. She said Mr Lee Hsien Yang has insisted that Ms Kwa Kim Li from Lee & Lee had drafted it. But the lawyer, who prepared the first six wills, has denied having a part in the final document.
He also said his wife and her law firm Stamford Law, now Morgan Lewis Stamford, did not prepare the will.
But PM Lee recounted in a statutory declaration that his sister- in-law said she had got lawyer Ng Joo Khin from her law firm to handle it, which Mr Ng has not refuted, said Ms Indranee.
Lee Hsien Yang had indicated he knew who the person was, she says
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 25 Jun 2017
Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah yesterday called on Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, to identify the lawyer who drafted the final will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
She said his June 17 Facebook post had indicated that he knew who had prepared the will, when he twice mentioned "we" in reference to his dealings over the will.
Ms Indranee asked in a lengthy Facebook post if the "we" referred to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, lawyer Lee Suet Fern.
PM Lee has raised serious misgivings about the circumstances surrounding the will, including over the role played by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife.
Ms Indranee noted that there have been conflicting accounts of who drafted the will, in her second post on the Lee family row over the Oxley Road house. In the first post last Friday, she highlighted four issues about the dispute, including what the late Mr Lee's will said about demolition of the house and why this was an issue of public interest.
Yesterday her focus was on the will. She said Mr Lee Hsien Yang has insisted that Ms Kwa Kim Li from Lee & Lee had drafted it. But the lawyer, who prepared the first six wills, has denied having a part in the final document.
He also said his wife and her law firm Stamford Law, now Morgan Lewis Stamford, did not prepare the will.
But PM Lee recounted in a statutory declaration that his sister- in-law said she had got lawyer Ng Joo Khin from her law firm to handle it, which Mr Ng has not refuted, said Ms Indranee.
Calling on Mr Lee Hsien Yang to shed light on the matter, she said it raises questions on whether the late Mr Lee had received independent advice.
"Under our law, the lawyer drafting a will is required to be independent. If the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure the person making the will gets independent advice," she added.
The late Mr Lee made seven wills between August 2011 and December 2013, changing some of the terms over the years.
He had left a larger share of his estate to his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, in the sixth will, but in the seventh will, all three of his children got an equal share.
This means Mr Lee Hsien Yang's share increased, said Ms Indranee, adding: "As Mrs Lee Suet Fern is his wife, if she prepared the seventh will, then the question which will arise is what independent advice (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) received?"
The Senior Minister of State also dealt with why the late Mr Lee's will was relevant, from the Government's perspective.
A ministerial committee set up by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean to consider options for the late Mr Lee's house at 38, Oxley Road had asked PM Lee's two younger siblings questions about the will.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang saw this as harassment from state organs.
Ms Indranee, reiterating DPM Teo's earlier explanation on the matter, said the committee's interest in the will was confined to trying to understand the late Mr Lee's thinking on the house.
She said a demolition clause, which was in the final will, had been in the first to fourth wills, but was removed in the fifth and sixth wills. "So Mr Lee had changed his mind once. The question is whether he changed it a second time?" she said. "Or whether the Demolition Clause was inserted without his awareness?"
Ms Indranee said e-mail correspondence that PM Lee had mentioned in his statutory declaration indicated that the last will was prepared in less than a day, between the evening of Dec 16, 2013 and the morning of Dec 17, 2013.
She added that the two lawyers from Stamford Law who witnessed Mr Lee's signing of the will had been at his house for only 15 minutes.
Including the time taken to get to his room and leave the house, this would mean he had only five minutes to read and sign the will, she said, asking if he would have had enough time to absorb the contents and see that the demolition clause had been reinserted.
She also said the e-mails from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife to the late Mr Lee did not mention the clause.
Responding on Facebook later last night, Mr Lee Hsien Yang sidestepped the question about who drafted the will.
But he charged that PM Lee "is now getting his ministers to repeat his insinuations that Lee Kuan Yew did not understand his own will".
He added: "Probate has been granted on Lee Kuan Yew's will, so it is final and legally binding. The proper place for Lee Hsien Loong to challenge his father's will was in court."
He added: "They argue that Lee Kuan Yew, a Cambridge-educated lawyer and sitting MP, signed his own will without knowing what was in it. They claim that he initialled beneath the demolition clause, without understanding what it meant in plain English. This is an insult to a great man."
He added: "They argue that Lee Kuan Yew, a Cambridge-educated lawyer and sitting MP, signed his own will without knowing what was in it. They claim that he initialled beneath the demolition clause, without understanding what it meant in plain English. This is an insult to a great man."
* AGC refers case of possible misconduct by lawyer Lee Suet Fern to Law Society; Lee Hsien Yang questions move
By Royston Sim, Deputy Political Editor, The Straits Times, 7 Jan 2019
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has referred a case to the Law Society over possible misconduct by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, the daughter-in-law of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, in preparing his last will.
In a statement on Monday (Jan 7), the AGC said the referral does not relate to the validity of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will.
This development is the latest in the long-running dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his younger siblings Hsien Yang and Wei Ling, over the fate of their father's house at 38 Oxley Road.
Noting that it became aware of a possible case of professional misconduct by Mrs Lee, the AGC said it has a statutory duty to deal with misconduct by lawyers. It added that it is required to consider if the matter should be referred to the Law Society under section 85(3) of the Legal Profession Act.
Responding in a Facebook post on Monday evening, Mr Lee Hsien Yang questioned what public interest is being served by the AGC, and why it is rushing the case in 2019 when the facts were known by all parties for years.
He also called on the AGC to release the full correspondence with his wife, saying its assertion that she refused to respond is untrue.
In its statement, the AGC said Mrs Lee appears to have prepared the late Mr Lee's last will and arranged for him to execute it, despite the fact that her husband Lee Hsien Yang is one of the beneficiaries under that will.
It noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang's share increased under his father's last will, and that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said publicly that the last will was drafted by Ms Kwa Kim Li of law firm Lee & Lee. However, Ms Kwa has denied that she drafted it.
The AGC cited the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, saying it requires that lawyers do not place themselves in a position of conflict.
"Where a person intends to make a significant gift by will to any member of the lawyer's family, the lawyer must not act for the person and must advise him to obtain independent advice in respect of the gift. This rule applies even if the lawyer is related to the person making the gift," the AGC said.
Mrs Lee's conduct appears to be in breach of the rules, it said.
Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee has been overseeing the case, as Attorney-General Lucien Wong has recused himself, the AGC said. Mr Wong did so as he was previously PM Lee's personal lawyer.
AGC added that it has written to Mrs Lee several times since October 2018, asking her to explain the position and her role, if any, in preparing the last will.
"(Mrs Lee) was also assured that if she had good explanations for her conduct, then the matter will end. However, despite asking for extensions of time to respond, Mrs Lee did not answer the questions that AGC had asked," the AGC said.
As Mrs Lee did not answer, the AGC referred the case to the Law Society, and Mr Yee has further requested that it be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
"In referring the matter to the Law Society, the AGC does not make any findings on the merits of the case. AGC does not determine guilt or innocence," the AGC said, adding that it is for the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice to investigate, determine if there was misconduct and what actions should be taken, if any.
Mrs Lee is entitled to make her case to the Tribunal as well, it said.
Law Society President Gregory Vijayendran said that it is not unusual for the AGC to make complaints against lawyers.
"This is not a bolt from the blue or something we are looking at for the very first time in our industry. There's actually been complaints from time to time," he said, adding that judges also make such complaints.
Mr Vijayendran said that he could not comment further on the case as the Legal Profession Act mandates that such proceedings be kept confidential.
Complaints against lawyers are first referred to a review committee, and escalated to an inquiry committee and disciplinary tribunal if necessary. However, complaints made by the AGC or judges skip the first stage and go straight to the inquiry committee.
The AGC and judges also have the discretion to bypass the first two stages, and refer the complaint directly to a disciplinary tribunal.
In a summary of his statutory declarations posted on Facebook in July 2017, PM Lee had expressed serious misgivings in setting out the sequence of events around the preparation of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's seventh and final will.
PM Lee had indicated in his declarations that the last will was prepared in less than a day, between the evening of Dec 16, 2013 and the morning of Dec 17, 2013.
He noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said he could not contact Ms Kwa, who prepared all six of Mr Lee's earlier wills.
On the morning of Dec 17, 2013, Mrs Lee sent two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation to procure Mr Lee Kuan Yew's signature on the last will, PM Lee said in his declarations. They were only at 38 Oxley Road for 15 minutes, which meant "they plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the last will and not to advise him".
PM Lee in his declarations said he only became aware of the "troubling circumstances" later.
LEE HSIEN YANG RESPONDS
In response to the AGC statement, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said his wife Suet Fern was never Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer.
He said Mr Lee Kuan Yew's private will was executed about five years ago, and the family patriach had informed the entire family and his lawyers at Lee & Lee when he completed his will, which was kept at Lee & Lee.
"This was his re-signing of his 2011 will in which Minister Shanmugam was involved," he said, adding Lee & Lee had served as Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyers for all his wills since the first one in 1995.
"That first will was drafted by our mother, Kwa Geok Choo, who was then the principal beneficiary under our father's will," Mr Lee Hsien Yang noted.
He also made the point that no one has complained from the outset on the process and circumstances of Mr Lee Kuan Yew signing his final will.
The will was proven in court in 2015 with no issues raised, and all parties have acted in accordance with the will since then, he added.
"What public interest is being served by AGC here? Why waste public resources on a private matter, and after all this time? Why is AGC rushing this case in 2019 when the facts were known by all parties for years?" Mr Lee Hsien Yang asked.
"AGC's assertion that my wife refused to respond is untrue. AGC should release the full correspondence."
Prior to AGC's statement, Ms Lee Wei Ling made a Facebook post Sunday night on how the AGC had recently lodged more than 500 pages of complaint to the Law Society against Mrs Lee, who stepped down as managing partner of Morgan Lewis Stamford in 2017.
"The AGC's complaint repeats allegations that were made years ago by Hsien Loong through his personal lawyer. As far as we know, this is an unprecedented use of such legal process involving a private will," she wrote.
"Hsien Loong has been unhappy with our father's will and our father's wish to demolish his home at 38 Oxley Road. Lee Kuan Yew informed all his children and his lawyer at Lee & Lee when he completed his final will and codicil five years ago.
"In 2015, on Hsien Loong's urging, the estate secured probate for the will. At the time, all parties including Hsien Loong accepted the will as representing Lee Kuan Yew's true wishes. After probate, in 2016 and 2017, Hsien Loong sought to attack the will through a committee of his ministers," Ms Lee Wei Ling wrote.
She added that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a highly regarded lawyer, never complained about his will, nor has any beneficiary complained to the Law Society - "not even Hsien Loong who was advised by Lucien Wong (previously his personal lawyer, now Attorney-General)".
"Why therefore this new attack on our father's will? Why is this being initiated now, and by the AGC, after all this time? Our view is that this action is wholly without merit," Ms Lee Wei Ling said.
LONG-RUNNING DISPUTE
The dispute over 38 Oxley Road had erupted in the public sphere in June 2017, when the younger Lee siblings posted a statement on Facebook to say they had lost confidence in their older brother's leadership and feared the use of organs of state against them.
They also made other allegations against him, such as that he used his position as prime minister to influence a ministerial committee looking into options for founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's house.
PM Lee refuted the charges of abuse of power in a two-day Parliament sitting in July 2017.
He said there was no evidence to back up the claims, and that he and the Government had acted properly and with due process.
In a statement issued after the sitting, his siblings said they would stop making further posts against PM Lee for now, provided their wish, and their father's desire, to demolish the Oxley Road house "are not attacked or misrepresented".
They also said they welcomed PM Lee's desire to settle their quarrel in private, and looked forward "to talking without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies".
In April 2018, the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road laid out three broad options for the house, but left the final decision on it to a future government. The options ranged from preserving the house as a national monument to demolishing it and allowing the owner to redevelop it for residential use.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lee Wei Ling took issue with the report, saying that it does not accurately represent their father's wishes.
In her Facebook post on Sunday, Ms Lee Wei Ling also said the AGC has been "relentless" this past one and a half years pursuing a prosecution of her nephew Li Shengwu for a private Facebook post in which he said Singapore "has a pliant court system".
"At the same time, the AGC has not prosecuted any party who shared or published his private post,"she said.
In September 2018, Mr Li received the green light to go ahead with his appeal to quash a court order that allowed the Attorney-General to serve papers on him in the United States for contempt of court.
One of the key issues that will be argued before the Court of Appeal is whether a procedural rule - which specifically allows court papers for contempt to be served outside Singapore - can be applied retroactively.
** Disciplinary Tribunal finds Lee Suet Fern guilty of misconduct in handling founding PM Lee Kuan Yew's last will
Lawyer was a 'deceitful' witness who lied: Tribunal
Lee Suet Fern found guilty of grossly improper professional conduct over handling of LKY's last will
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
A Disciplinary Tribunal has found prominent lawyer Lee Suet Fern guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding prime minister.
Her actions were of sufficient gravity that the matter will be referred to the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct.
If found guilty, Mrs Lee, 61, the wife of Mr Lee's younger son Hsien Yang, could face a fine, suspension or could be disbarred as a lawyer.
The two-man tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned".
This was a "facade", the tribunal said. "Before us, she lied or became evasive whenever she thought it was to her benefit to lie or evade."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's conduct was "equally deceitful", the tribunal said in its 206-page report released last week.
"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."
The matter centres on the role Mrs Lee played in the preparation and execution of Mr Lee's last will signed on Dec 17, 2013.
Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015 at the age of 91.
The tribunal said the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how the couple persuaded Mr Lee - then 90 and in poor health having been recently hospitalised for serious medical conditions - to sign a new will without his usual lawyer to advise him.
"They cut off that lawyer from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in her absence," the report said.
Mrs Lee took over as the lawyer to prepare the last will and advise Mr Lee. She "misled Mr Lee on the terms of the last will". The tribunal said Mr Lee was persuaded to sign the last will in a matter of 16 hours. Mrs Lee had sent a draft of it to him at 7.08pm on Dec 16, 2013. He signed it at 11.10am the next day.
The last will differed from the one before it, and from some changes that Mr Lee had wanted and discussed with his lawyer - Ms Kwa Kim Li - four days earlier.
Mrs Lee, the tribunal said, "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for".
Among other things, she denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer and said she was helping as a family member and Mr Lee's daughter-in-law.
She also testified that she had followed her husband's instruction as she was an "obedient wife".
The saga can be traced to the public row that broke out in 2017 between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, over the fate of their parents' home at 38 Oxley Road.
The final will included a clause on the demolition of the house, which was in early versions of the will but subsequently deleted.
It also reinstated equal shares of Mr Lee's estate to all three children. The penultimate will had given daughter Dr Lee an extra share. The last will also took out a gift-over clause, which provided for scenarios where any of Mr Lee's children pre-deceased him.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) made a complaint to the Law Society about possible professional misconduct by Mrs Lee, a lawyer of 37 years' standing, given that her husband was a beneficiary under the will. The Law Society then applied to the Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary tribunal to look further into the matter.
The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian, found all charges against Mrs Lee "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
One charge was on how, as her father-in-law's retainer, she had failed to advance his interest, unaffected by her own interest and/or that of her husband. She had shown this by preparing and arranging for the execution of the will, in which her husband was to get a one-third share of the estate.
The second charge said that as retainer, Mrs Lee had breached rules by acting on the one-third share and failing to advise Mr Lee to be independently advised on the "significant gift".
The tribunal held its hearings last July and witnesses included lawyer Bernard Lui from Mrs Lee's firm Stamford Law.
Mr Lui and his colleague Elizabeth Kong had gone to 38 Oxley Road on the morning of Dec 17. They were in the house for 15 minutes and, in that time, they met Mr Lee and the last will was executed.
Mrs Lee testified in her own defence and husband Hsien Yang also appeared as a witness.
During the hearings, the Law Society's lawyers, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, Ms Koh Swee Yen and Mr Eugene Oh, argued there was an implied retainer between Mrs Lee and the late Mr Lee.
Altogether, six wills were done earlier, all with Ms Kwa as lawyer, but the final will was with Mrs Lee.
The lawyers also argued that the late Mr Lee was not advised on dropped clauses from earlier drafts - such as on demolition of 38 Oxley Road - that had been reinstated in the draft last will.
Additionally, Mr Lee was not advised on how the last will was different from the sixth or penultimate will done in 2012.
Mrs Lee was defended by Senior Counsels Kenneth Tan and Walter Woon, lawyer Abraham Vergis and two others from Providence Law.
She denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer for the last will and argued there was no implied retainer. She said she was helping as a family member and did not give or take instructions from Mr Lee, who had access to his own lawyer at all times.
She argued that if she was in a position of conflict of interest, Mr Lee was fully aware of her involvement and chose to proceed.
The tribunal, considering the evidence and submissions, was not convinced and said it was "quite clear (Mrs Lee) was represented to Mr Lee as the lawyer responsible for the last (and not first) will".
The tribunal noted: "Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son Lee Hsien Yang and daughter-in-law. "
CHANGES NOT WHAT MR LEE HAD IN MIND FOR LAST WILL
In December 2013, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had an e-mail exchange with his lawyer Kwa Kim Li on changes he wanted made to his sixth will.
One, he wanted to give his three children equal shares in his estate, instead of initially giving daughter Lee Wei Ling an extra share.
Two, he wanted to bequeath two carpets, one silk and the other wool, to his younger son Lee Hsien Yang.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew instructed Ms Kwa to make these changes through a codicil - or amendment - to what would be his penultimate will.
What he got was a revision of his will to include clauses he had previously deleted, including on demolition of the house at 38 Oxley Road, as well as other changes he was not told about, the report of a Disciplinary Tribunal into the conduct of Mr Lee's daughter-in-law, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, found.
The sixth will did not contain any demolition clause - which had been drafted for previous versions of the will but was subsequently deleted.
It also provided for Dr Lee Wei Ling to live at 38 Oxley Road subject to Mr Lee Hsien Loong's consent, and for a gift-over clause in the event that one of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children died before he did.
The tribunal found that Mr Lee Kuan Yew signed the last will without legal advice from his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa. In fact, Mr Lee Hsien Yang cut Ms Kwa out of communications on the last will.
His wife Lee Suet Fern misled her father-in-law on its terms, and told him the draft last will was the same as the first will that he executed in 2011. This was untrue, the tribunal noted, saying: "Such misleading is in breach of a solicitor's duties."
Neither did Mrs Lee or her husband Lee Hsien Yang advise Mr Lee Kuan Yew on the differences between the draft last will and the sixth, or explain why the first will was chosen when it had been superseded five times.
"The respondent and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say that Mr Lee decided this himself. We only have their word for this - and, in this case, on many aspects where there was other evidence, it was clear that both of them were lying, and had acted dishonestly," the tribunal said in its report.
It added that Mr Lee Hsien Yang "compounded his dishonesty by accusing Ms Kwa of lying, in public, when Ms Kwa said that she had not drafted the last will".
ABOUT THE DEMOLITION CLAUSE
Lawyer was a 'deceitful' witness who lied: Tribunal
Lee Suet Fern found guilty of grossly improper professional conduct over handling of LKY's last will
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
A Disciplinary Tribunal has found prominent lawyer Lee Suet Fern guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding prime minister.
Her actions were of sufficient gravity that the matter will be referred to the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct.
If found guilty, Mrs Lee, 61, the wife of Mr Lee's younger son Hsien Yang, could face a fine, suspension or could be disbarred as a lawyer.
The two-man tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned".
This was a "facade", the tribunal said. "Before us, she lied or became evasive whenever she thought it was to her benefit to lie or evade."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's conduct was "equally deceitful", the tribunal said in its 206-page report released last week.
"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."
The matter centres on the role Mrs Lee played in the preparation and execution of Mr Lee's last will signed on Dec 17, 2013.
Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015 at the age of 91.
The tribunal said the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how the couple persuaded Mr Lee - then 90 and in poor health having been recently hospitalised for serious medical conditions - to sign a new will without his usual lawyer to advise him.
"They cut off that lawyer from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in her absence," the report said.
Mrs Lee took over as the lawyer to prepare the last will and advise Mr Lee. She "misled Mr Lee on the terms of the last will". The tribunal said Mr Lee was persuaded to sign the last will in a matter of 16 hours. Mrs Lee had sent a draft of it to him at 7.08pm on Dec 16, 2013. He signed it at 11.10am the next day.
The last will differed from the one before it, and from some changes that Mr Lee had wanted and discussed with his lawyer - Ms Kwa Kim Li - four days earlier.
Mrs Lee, the tribunal said, "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for".
Among other things, she denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer and said she was helping as a family member and Mr Lee's daughter-in-law.
She also testified that she had followed her husband's instruction as she was an "obedient wife".
The saga can be traced to the public row that broke out in 2017 between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, over the fate of their parents' home at 38 Oxley Road.
The final will included a clause on the demolition of the house, which was in early versions of the will but subsequently deleted.
It also reinstated equal shares of Mr Lee's estate to all three children. The penultimate will had given daughter Dr Lee an extra share. The last will also took out a gift-over clause, which provided for scenarios where any of Mr Lee's children pre-deceased him.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) made a complaint to the Law Society about possible professional misconduct by Mrs Lee, a lawyer of 37 years' standing, given that her husband was a beneficiary under the will. The Law Society then applied to the Chief Justice to appoint a disciplinary tribunal to look further into the matter.
The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian, found all charges against Mrs Lee "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
One charge was on how, as her father-in-law's retainer, she had failed to advance his interest, unaffected by her own interest and/or that of her husband. She had shown this by preparing and arranging for the execution of the will, in which her husband was to get a one-third share of the estate.
The second charge said that as retainer, Mrs Lee had breached rules by acting on the one-third share and failing to advise Mr Lee to be independently advised on the "significant gift".
The tribunal held its hearings last July and witnesses included lawyer Bernard Lui from Mrs Lee's firm Stamford Law.
Mr Lui and his colleague Elizabeth Kong had gone to 38 Oxley Road on the morning of Dec 17. They were in the house for 15 minutes and, in that time, they met Mr Lee and the last will was executed.
Mrs Lee testified in her own defence and husband Hsien Yang also appeared as a witness.
During the hearings, the Law Society's lawyers, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, Ms Koh Swee Yen and Mr Eugene Oh, argued there was an implied retainer between Mrs Lee and the late Mr Lee.
Altogether, six wills were done earlier, all with Ms Kwa as lawyer, but the final will was with Mrs Lee.
The lawyers also argued that the late Mr Lee was not advised on dropped clauses from earlier drafts - such as on demolition of 38 Oxley Road - that had been reinstated in the draft last will.
Additionally, Mr Lee was not advised on how the last will was different from the sixth or penultimate will done in 2012.
Mrs Lee was defended by Senior Counsels Kenneth Tan and Walter Woon, lawyer Abraham Vergis and two others from Providence Law.
She denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer for the last will and argued there was no implied retainer. She said she was helping as a family member and did not give or take instructions from Mr Lee, who had access to his own lawyer at all times.
She argued that if she was in a position of conflict of interest, Mr Lee was fully aware of her involvement and chose to proceed.
The tribunal, considering the evidence and submissions, was not convinced and said it was "quite clear (Mrs Lee) was represented to Mr Lee as the lawyer responsible for the last (and not first) will".
The tribunal noted: "Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son Lee Hsien Yang and daughter-in-law. "
CHANGES NOT WHAT MR LEE HAD IN MIND FOR LAST WILL
In December 2013, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had an e-mail exchange with his lawyer Kwa Kim Li on changes he wanted made to his sixth will.
One, he wanted to give his three children equal shares in his estate, instead of initially giving daughter Lee Wei Ling an extra share.
Two, he wanted to bequeath two carpets, one silk and the other wool, to his younger son Lee Hsien Yang.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew instructed Ms Kwa to make these changes through a codicil - or amendment - to what would be his penultimate will.
What he got was a revision of his will to include clauses he had previously deleted, including on demolition of the house at 38 Oxley Road, as well as other changes he was not told about, the report of a Disciplinary Tribunal into the conduct of Mr Lee's daughter-in-law, lawyer Lee Suet Fern, found.
The sixth will did not contain any demolition clause - which had been drafted for previous versions of the will but was subsequently deleted.
It also provided for Dr Lee Wei Ling to live at 38 Oxley Road subject to Mr Lee Hsien Loong's consent, and for a gift-over clause in the event that one of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children died before he did.
The tribunal found that Mr Lee Kuan Yew signed the last will without legal advice from his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa. In fact, Mr Lee Hsien Yang cut Ms Kwa out of communications on the last will.
His wife Lee Suet Fern misled her father-in-law on its terms, and told him the draft last will was the same as the first will that he executed in 2011. This was untrue, the tribunal noted, saying: "Such misleading is in breach of a solicitor's duties."
Neither did Mrs Lee or her husband Lee Hsien Yang advise Mr Lee Kuan Yew on the differences between the draft last will and the sixth, or explain why the first will was chosen when it had been superseded five times.
"The respondent and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say that Mr Lee decided this himself. We only have their word for this - and, in this case, on many aspects where there was other evidence, it was clear that both of them were lying, and had acted dishonestly," the tribunal said in its report.
It added that Mr Lee Hsien Yang "compounded his dishonesty by accusing Ms Kwa of lying, in public, when Ms Kwa said that she had not drafted the last will".
ABOUT THE DEMOLITION CLAUSE
The first version of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will had a "demolition clause" - that the house at 38 Oxley Road should be demolished after his death, but this was to be postponed until after his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had moved out.
This was superseded by another version in the second, third and fourth wills, and removed completely in the fifth and sixth wills.
The Disciplinary Tribunal said Mrs Lee Suet Fern should have checked with Mr Lee whether he wanted the clause reinserted in the draft of the last will that she sent him, but she did not do so. "There was no conversation at all," she told the tribunal last July.
The question of whether to demolish the house is at the heart of the public feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang.
When the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew loaned items to the National Heritage Board for an exhibition in 2015, Mr Lee Hsien Yang imposed the condition that they had to be displayed with the first half of the clause - that Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted the house knocked down when Dr Lee Wei Ling was no longer living in it.
But PM Lee later said his siblings did not want to include the second half of the clause - which stated what Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted if the house could not be knocked down - thereby misleading the public on his intentions.
It reads: "If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, 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."
This was superseded by another version in the second, third and fourth wills, and removed completely in the fifth and sixth wills.
The Disciplinary Tribunal said Mrs Lee Suet Fern should have checked with Mr Lee whether he wanted the clause reinserted in the draft of the last will that she sent him, but she did not do so. "There was no conversation at all," she told the tribunal last July.
The question of whether to demolish the house is at the heart of the public feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang.
When the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew loaned items to the National Heritage Board for an exhibition in 2015, Mr Lee Hsien Yang imposed the condition that they had to be displayed with the first half of the clause - that Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted the house knocked down when Dr Lee Wei Ling was no longer living in it.
But PM Lee later said his siblings did not want to include the second half of the clause - which stated what Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted if the house could not be knocked down - thereby misleading the public on his intentions.
It reads: "If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, 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."
Lee Suet Fern misled founding PM Lee Kuan Yew into signing will: Disciplinary Tribunal
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
When she forwarded to her father-in-law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a draft of his will over e-mail on Dec 16, 2013, Mrs Lee Suet Fern was merely playing a peripheral role and being "an obedient wife" to her husband Lee Hsien Yang, she said.
She did not discuss the contents of the will with the elder Mr Lee, and neither did she open the file of the draft will to read it, she added.
But a Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice found otherwise.
It said she had "managed every aspect of the process" in drafting the will, getting her colleagues to witness its signing, and later even kept the original copy locked in her office safe.
These details emerged as the tribunal tried to ascertain the actual nature and extent of Mrs Lee's role, to determine if she had breached the Legal Profession Act and the relevant rules on conduct.
FAMILY MEMBER OR LAWYER?
Mrs Lee said that she was incidentally involved in the matter because her husband asked her for some help with "his... chore for his father".
She said that on Dec 16, 2013, he had been preparing to go on a trip to Sydney, and asked her for help to forward the draft of the will to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and to get a solicitor who could witness the will's signing as soon as possible.
This was because Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been anxious to get the matter settled, she told the tribunal.
She herself was preparing to go on a work trip to Paris that night, and dallied on the task, she added.
"Yang called me... and he scolded me for taking so long to deal with it," she said during cross-examination at the tribunal hearing.
E-mail from the period showed she had sent Mr Lee Kuan Yew a draft of the will at 7.08pm that day.
In it, she assured him that it had the same terms as "the original agreed will which ensures that all three children receive equal shares".
Shortly after - and even before Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied to an e-mail from Mr Lee Hsien Yang to proceed with the matter without Mr Lee's usual lawyer Kwa Kim Li - Mrs Lee had given instructions to her colleagues to make themselves available at short notice for the execution of the will the next day.
Asked why she had done so, Mrs Lee replied: "Because I'm an obedient wife and Yang told me to do so."
The will was eventually signed the next morning at around 11.10am, just 16 hours after Mrs Lee first sent the draft to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
This was done in the presence of Mr Bernard Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong, both lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm, Stamford Law.
Twice during the session, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had asked the two lawyers to tell him who had drafted the will, and they replied it was primarily Mrs Lee.
On hearing that, he signed it.
This account had emerged in e-mail between Mrs Lee and her colleagues, when they updated her on the signing of the will.
The tribunal said that if Mrs Lee had not agreed with this characterisation of her role, she did not say or do anything to object.
Throughout the day, she also continued to communicate with Mr Lui, a partner in her law firm, giving him instructions on what to do. Among them was one for an original copy of the will to be locked in her safe.
Asked by the Law Society's lawyers about this, Mrs Lee said she was just helping out as family and insisted her involvement did not amount to being Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer.
Her exchanges with Mr Lui were "merely... seeing through a favour and that it's properly done", and did not constitute making arrangements, she said.
She was also "just a conduit" between Mr Lui and her husband, who was the one handling the will.
But the tribunal pointed out in its report that she was the only lawyer responsible for the last will, after having acquiesced in cutting out Ms Kwa from the process.
In fact, Mrs Lee herself had told the Attorney-General's Chambers in December 2018 that her father-in-law had given her instructions to have his last will engrossed, or finalised.
This was also Mr Lee Hsien Yang's position in a letter to a ministerial committee set up to look into options for his father's Oxley Road house. Mr Lee Kuan Yew died on March 23, 2015.
The tribunal, noting that the couple had contradicted themselves on this point in their affidavits and during cross-examination, had strong words for their conduct.
"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 Lee Kuan Yew) to sign the last will and their wrongdoings," it said.
At the same time, the tribunal said, it seemed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself had taken Mrs Lee as his lawyer for this last will, instead of Ms Kwa, his actions showed.
Besides signing the will on knowing that Mrs Lee had drafted it, he had also instructed his personal assistant to send Ms Kwa only a copy of the will.
This differed from his usual practice, as he had asked Ms Kwa to keep the originals for the six previous versions of his wills that she had drafted.
WHOSE INTEREST DID SHE SERVE?
Even as Mrs Lee had acted as her father-in-law's lawyer, she had ignored her duties towards him, the tribunal found.
A conflict of interest arose in her capacities as both lawyer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and wife to Mr Lee Hsien Yang, a beneficiary of the will.
The elder Mr Lee was bequeathing one-third of his estate to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. As such, Mrs Lee should also have asked Mr Lee Kuan Yew to consult another lawyer for advice to avoid any conflict of interests. But none of this was done, the tribunal noted.
In fact, Mrs Lee had taken instructions from her husband on the arrangements relating to the signing of the will and, in doing so, had "abused her position to further Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wishes that the last will be executed hurriedly", the tribunal said.
Aside from one e-mail from Mr Lee Kuan Yew over the matter, all the other instructions that Mrs Lee had received on the matter had come from her husband.
Also, Mrs Lee had not even discussed the will or explained it to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, by her own admission.
The last will had some key differences with the sixth and penultimate will, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been discussing with Ms Kwa until just a few days before Dec 16, 2013.
Among other things, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had bequeathed to his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, a larger share of his estate than to his sons in his penultimate will. There was also no demolition clause - relating to the demolition of his Oxley Road house after his death - in it.
Mrs Lee admitted that she had not gone through the draft will with Mr Lee Kuan Yew to explain the differences. Asked about this dereliction of duty, she said of Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "I think Papa was his own best lawyer. He knew what he wanted."
SICK AND FRAIL
The tribunal noted that during the time the last will was executed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's health was frail.
In an e-mail to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife Ho Ching on Dec 16, 2013, Dr Lee told her sister-in-law that her father had "been doing very well" because he had not been admitted to hospital for more than a month.
She added that she thought "age has caught up with his brain".
In another 2014 e-mail to Ms Ho, recounting the happenings of Dec 16, 2013, Dr Lee had said of her father: "By now, Pa was already (very) forgetful."
At 90 years old in December 2013, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been in hospital for several weeks, with a string of ailments, from pneumonia to minor strokes.
It was under those circumstances that his last will was signed in a hurry, unlike the deliberate process he had used for previous wills.
"Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and daughter-in-law, the respondent," the tribunal said.
It concluded that Mrs Lee "managed every aspect of the process", with her husband actively involved, and the circumstances in which they did so raised "serious questions" about their motives.
ABOUT THE CASE
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) referred a case of possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC to the Law Society.
In a statement on the complaint, the AGC noted that Mrs Lee appears to have prepared the last will of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and arranged for Mr Lee to execute it, despite the fact that her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, is one of the beneficiaries. His share increased under the last will.
The AGC also noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said publicly that the last will was drafted by Ms Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee. However, Ms Kwa has denied that she drafted it.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister Wei Ling have clashed with their older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over whether their late father's house at 38 Oxley Road should be preserved or demolished.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has also questioned what is the public interest that is being served by the AGC pursuing the case and why it was rushing the case only last year when the facts were known by all parties for years.
The AGC has said it has a statutory duty to deal with misconduct by lawyers, and that rules for lawyers make clear that they should not place themselves in a position of conflict.
The AGC had also written to Mrs Lee several times to ask her to explain the position and her role in preparing the last will - but it said she did not answer the questions.
Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee, who oversees the case as Attorney-General Lucien Wong has recused himself - he was previously PM Lee's personal lawyer - had further asked that it be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
When she forwarded to her father-in-law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a draft of his will over e-mail on Dec 16, 2013, Mrs Lee Suet Fern was merely playing a peripheral role and being "an obedient wife" to her husband Lee Hsien Yang, she said.
She did not discuss the contents of the will with the elder Mr Lee, and neither did she open the file of the draft will to read it, she added.
But a Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice found otherwise.
It said she had "managed every aspect of the process" in drafting the will, getting her colleagues to witness its signing, and later even kept the original copy locked in her office safe.
These details emerged as the tribunal tried to ascertain the actual nature and extent of Mrs Lee's role, to determine if she had breached the Legal Profession Act and the relevant rules on conduct.
FAMILY MEMBER OR LAWYER?
Mrs Lee said that she was incidentally involved in the matter because her husband asked her for some help with "his... chore for his father".
She said that on Dec 16, 2013, he had been preparing to go on a trip to Sydney, and asked her for help to forward the draft of the will to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and to get a solicitor who could witness the will's signing as soon as possible.
This was because Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been anxious to get the matter settled, she told the tribunal.
She herself was preparing to go on a work trip to Paris that night, and dallied on the task, she added.
"Yang called me... and he scolded me for taking so long to deal with it," she said during cross-examination at the tribunal hearing.
E-mail from the period showed she had sent Mr Lee Kuan Yew a draft of the will at 7.08pm that day.
In it, she assured him that it had the same terms as "the original agreed will which ensures that all three children receive equal shares".
Shortly after - and even before Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied to an e-mail from Mr Lee Hsien Yang to proceed with the matter without Mr Lee's usual lawyer Kwa Kim Li - Mrs Lee had given instructions to her colleagues to make themselves available at short notice for the execution of the will the next day.
Asked why she had done so, Mrs Lee replied: "Because I'm an obedient wife and Yang told me to do so."
The will was eventually signed the next morning at around 11.10am, just 16 hours after Mrs Lee first sent the draft to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
This was done in the presence of Mr Bernard Lui and Ms Elizabeth Kong, both lawyers from Mrs Lee's law firm, Stamford Law.
Twice during the session, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had asked the two lawyers to tell him who had drafted the will, and they replied it was primarily Mrs Lee.
On hearing that, he signed it.
This account had emerged in e-mail between Mrs Lee and her colleagues, when they updated her on the signing of the will.
The tribunal said that if Mrs Lee had not agreed with this characterisation of her role, she did not say or do anything to object.
Throughout the day, she also continued to communicate with Mr Lui, a partner in her law firm, giving him instructions on what to do. Among them was one for an original copy of the will to be locked in her safe.
Asked by the Law Society's lawyers about this, Mrs Lee said she was just helping out as family and insisted her involvement did not amount to being Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer.
Her exchanges with Mr Lui were "merely... seeing through a favour and that it's properly done", and did not constitute making arrangements, she said.
She was also "just a conduit" between Mr Lui and her husband, who was the one handling the will.
But the tribunal pointed out in its report that she was the only lawyer responsible for the last will, after having acquiesced in cutting out Ms Kwa from the process.
In fact, Mrs Lee herself had told the Attorney-General's Chambers in December 2018 that her father-in-law had given her instructions to have his last will engrossed, or finalised.
This was also Mr Lee Hsien Yang's position in a letter to a ministerial committee set up to look into options for his father's Oxley Road house. Mr Lee Kuan Yew died on March 23, 2015.
The tribunal, noting that the couple had contradicted themselves on this point in their affidavits and during cross-examination, had strong words for their conduct.
"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 Lee Kuan Yew) to sign the last will and their wrongdoings," it said.
At the same time, the tribunal said, it seemed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself had taken Mrs Lee as his lawyer for this last will, instead of Ms Kwa, his actions showed.
Besides signing the will on knowing that Mrs Lee had drafted it, he had also instructed his personal assistant to send Ms Kwa only a copy of the will.
This differed from his usual practice, as he had asked Ms Kwa to keep the originals for the six previous versions of his wills that she had drafted.
WHOSE INTEREST DID SHE SERVE?
Even as Mrs Lee had acted as her father-in-law's lawyer, she had ignored her duties towards him, the tribunal found.
A conflict of interest arose in her capacities as both lawyer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and wife to Mr Lee Hsien Yang, a beneficiary of the will.
The elder Mr Lee was bequeathing one-third of his estate to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. As such, Mrs Lee should also have asked Mr Lee Kuan Yew to consult another lawyer for advice to avoid any conflict of interests. But none of this was done, the tribunal noted.
In fact, Mrs Lee had taken instructions from her husband on the arrangements relating to the signing of the will and, in doing so, had "abused her position to further Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wishes that the last will be executed hurriedly", the tribunal said.
Aside from one e-mail from Mr Lee Kuan Yew over the matter, all the other instructions that Mrs Lee had received on the matter had come from her husband.
Also, Mrs Lee had not even discussed the will or explained it to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, by her own admission.
The last will had some key differences with the sixth and penultimate will, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been discussing with Ms Kwa until just a few days before Dec 16, 2013.
Among other things, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had bequeathed to his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, a larger share of his estate than to his sons in his penultimate will. There was also no demolition clause - relating to the demolition of his Oxley Road house after his death - in it.
Mrs Lee admitted that she had not gone through the draft will with Mr Lee Kuan Yew to explain the differences. Asked about this dereliction of duty, she said of Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "I think Papa was his own best lawyer. He knew what he wanted."
SICK AND FRAIL
The tribunal noted that during the time the last will was executed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's health was frail.
In an e-mail to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's wife Ho Ching on Dec 16, 2013, Dr Lee told her sister-in-law that her father had "been doing very well" because he had not been admitted to hospital for more than a month.
She added that she thought "age has caught up with his brain".
In another 2014 e-mail to Ms Ho, recounting the happenings of Dec 16, 2013, Dr Lee had said of her father: "By now, Pa was already (very) forgetful."
At 90 years old in December 2013, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been in hospital for several weeks, with a string of ailments, from pneumonia to minor strokes.
It was under those circumstances that his last will was signed in a hurry, unlike the deliberate process he had used for previous wills.
"Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and daughter-in-law, the respondent," the tribunal said.
It concluded that Mrs Lee "managed every aspect of the process", with her husband actively involved, and the circumstances in which they did so raised "serious questions" about their motives.
ABOUT THE CASE
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) referred a case of possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC to the Law Society.
In a statement on the complaint, the AGC noted that Mrs Lee appears to have prepared the last will of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and arranged for Mr Lee to execute it, despite the fact that her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, is one of the beneficiaries. His share increased under the last will.
The AGC also noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said publicly that the last will was drafted by Ms Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee. However, Ms Kwa has denied that she drafted it.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister Wei Ling have clashed with their older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over whether their late father's house at 38 Oxley Road should be preserved or demolished.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has also questioned what is the public interest that is being served by the AGC pursuing the case and why it was rushing the case only last year when the facts were known by all parties for years.
The AGC has said it has a statutory duty to deal with misconduct by lawyers, and that rules for lawyers make clear that they should not place themselves in a position of conflict.
The AGC had also written to Mrs Lee several times to ask her to explain the position and her role in preparing the last will - but it said she did not answer the questions.
Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee, who oversees the case as Attorney-General Lucien Wong has recused himself - he was previously PM Lee's personal lawyer - had further asked that it be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
Lee Hsien Yang: Statements were not sworn ones, so need not be accurate
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
Statements he made need not be accurate because they were not sworn ones, said Mr Lee Hsien Yang, when asked why his statements on Facebook and in public were at odds with his testimony.
The Disciplinary Tribunal looking at misconduct on the part of his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, said in its report that Mr Lee lied to the public about how the last will for Mr Lee Kuan Yew was drafted and that he admitted some of his statements were inaccurate.
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
Statements he made need not be accurate because they were not sworn ones, said Mr Lee Hsien Yang, when asked why his statements on Facebook and in public were at odds with his testimony.
The Disciplinary Tribunal looking at misconduct on the part of his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, said in its report that Mr Lee lied to the public about how the last will for Mr Lee Kuan Yew was drafted and that he admitted some of his statements were inaccurate.
"He said his public statements could be inaccurate because they are not sworn statements and thus he may not look at them carefully," said the tribunal.
Mrs Lee adopted in her defence what her husband had said publicly, which was inaccurate.
The tribunal cited Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook posts over two periods in 2017 and in April 2019.
These posts gave the impression that Ms Kwa Kim Li had prepared the last will, and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had no role.
None of these posts mentioned Mrs Lee's involvement in the last will and instead said Ms Kwa was the lawyer of the last will.
Mr Lee admitted in cross-examination that aspects of the posts could be misleading and inaccurate.
"These assertions are in fact untrue and dishonest," said the tribunal.
Both Mr Lee and Mrs Lee had said on oath that Ms Kwa was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer and had drafted the last will.
"Mr Lee Hsien Yang compounded his dishonesty by accusing Ms Kwa of lying, in public, when Ms Kwa said she had not drafted the last will.
"This was quite cynical conduct, he knew that Ms Kwa was telling the truth."
The tribunal also took issue with distinctions that the couple drew between statements made to the ministerial committee on Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road on the one hand, and court documents on the other.
"They said that different standards of care and precision apply between the two because the former are merely in the nature of 'optional explanations'."
They said this by referring to both public and private statements made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
"In plain language, the effect of what they said is this: Mr Lee Hsien Yang may make untrue statements, in public and private, whenever there is no legal penalty for telling untruths; his public and private statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate.
"This is a surprising statement," said the tribunal.
Separately, both Mrs Lee and her husband also sought to suppress relevant evidence from coming to the tribunal.
Lawyer Bernard Lui, who had attended to the last will and signed as a witness to the same, had produced documents annexed to his affidavit and put in evidence in July last year.
Mrs Lee suppressed the documents, which would have exposed her untruths, said the tribunal.
"As a solicitor of 37 years' standing, it was inexcusable for her to have not disclosed the Bernard Lui documents," it said.
She breached her legal duty to disclose them and also falsely stated she had disclosed all relevant documents when she deliberately held back the documents of Mr Lui, it added.
Mrs Lee also knew her husband was selectively relying on parts of these documents - the attendance note of lawyer Elizabeth Kong - in public, while suppressing other parts that were damaging to her.
Ms Kong's attendance note showed what transpired when Mr Lee Kuan Yew signed the last will, and her e-mail exchange with Mrs Lee, which recounted the late Mr Lee's queries on who drafted the last will.
Mrs Lee had shared the attendance note with the executors of the last will, to be used for their response to the ministerial committee.
These e-mails, which were among the documents from Mr Lui, were not in evidence in Mrs Lee's filed affidavit.
In her affidavit, she had said that the executors did not seek any input from her on their representations to the ministerial committee.
Mr Lui's documents contradicted her affidavit, and she gave untruthful answers which were exposed when Mr Lui gave evidence, said the tribunal.
How founding PM Lee Kuan Yew's last will was executed in 16 hours
The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
Lawyer Lee Suet Fern has been found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister and her father-in-law.
Her case will be referred to the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct, and she could face a fine, suspension or be disbarred as a lawyer.
Here's a look at how the will was executed in 16 hours.
OCTOBER 2010 TO NOVEMBER 2012
Madam Kwa Geok Choo, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wife, died at the age of 89 on Oct 2, 2010. Thereafter, and before his last will in December 2013, Mr Lee executed six other wills.
Ms Kwa Kim Li, a partner in the law firm Lee & Lee, who is also Madam Kwa’s niece, was his lawyer. She drafted all six wills and retained the original copies.
Mr Lee discussed the first will with his family and worked with Ms Kwa on it. He also discussed changes to his penultimate will with her over a period of time.
The wills were executed on:
• First will: Aug 20, 2011
• Second will: Dec 21, 2011
• Third will: Sept 6, 2012
• Fourth will: Sept 20, 2012
• Fifth will: Oct 4, 2012
• Sixth (penultimate) will: Nov 2, 2012
Mrs Lee Suet Fern – the lawyer wife of Mr Lee’s younger son Hsien Yang – had made drafting suggestions to Ms Kwa on the first will, with Mr Lee’s approval, the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) said.
At that time, there had been discussions between Mr Lee and his three children regarding the future of the family home at 38 Oxley Road.
These sometimes included Mr Lee’s daughters-in-law, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Ms Ho Ching, the wife of elder son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The five wills that followed the first had changes in these areas: what shares in the estate each child would get; whether the will contained a demolition clause setting out Mr Lee’s wishes for the house to be demolished after he died and, if so, which of two versions of this clause; and whether Mr Lee’s daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, was to be given a right – with or without conditions – to live in the house after Mr Lee died.
SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER 2013
Mr Lee’s health deteriorated in 2013 and he was hospitalised for several weeks between September and October. He had medical issues, including pneumonia, atrial fibrillation and transient ischaemic attacks, or mini strokes, said the DT.
DEC 13, 2013
Around Nov 30, 2013, Mr Lee discussed with Ms Kwa about making amendments to his sixth will. On Nov 30, she sent him an e-mail to say: “Please let me know your thoughts, and I can make the appropriate changes to the will.”
The last e-mail exchange between them regarding his will during this period was on Dec 13, 2013. As of that date, Mr Lee had instructed Ms Kwa to make two changes to his sixth will.
They were:
a. To give his three children equal shares in the estate; and
b. To bequeath two carpets – one silk and the other wool – to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. The two changes were to be made through a codicil, or amendment, to the sixth will.
DEC 16, 2013
7.08pm
Mrs Lee Suet Fern sent Mr Lee a draft of what eventually became his last will.
The DT said Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s position was that Mr Lee had independently decided he would make the last will, the terms of which were substantially different from what he had discussed with Ms Kwa on Dec 13.
Mrs Lee Suet Fern and her husband Hsien Yang were aware, when the e-mail was sent, that Ms Kwa was likely to be travelling and might not respond.
In that e-mail, Mrs Lee Suet Fern told Mr Lee that “this was the original agreed will which ensures that all three children receive equal shares...” She also asked Ms Kwa, who was copied in the mail, to engross the will.
The parties involved in the case agreed that “original agreed will” referred to Mr Lee’s first August 2011 will, and that Mr Lee would have also understood it as such.
However, the DT noted, the draft which Mrs Lee Suet Fern attached was not the first will.
The differences:
• The first will contained a gift-over clause. This was missing from the draft.
• The first will provided for PM Lee to pay for the upkeep of 38 Oxley Road while Dr Lee occupied it. This was missing from the draft.
The DT said the draft will also differed from the sixth, penultimate, will in several ways:
• The draft gave the three children equal shares in his estate. The sixth will had given Dr Lee an extra share compared to her two brothers.
• The draft will re-inserted a version of the demolition clause. This was not in the sixth will.
• The draft gave Dr Lee an unfettered right to live in the house. In the sixth will, this was conditional upon PM Lee’s consent.
• The draft removed the gift-over clause in the sixth will, which was also in Mr Lee’s first to fifth wills.
The DT noted that it is not in dispute that other than the change in shares, the differences between the sixth will and the last will were not brought to Mr Lee’s attention.
The last will also did not incorporate what Mr Lee had wanted regarding the bequeathing of the carpets, which he had told Ms Kwa.
After sending the e-mail to Mr Lee, Mrs Lee Suet Fern spoke to Mr Bernard Lui, a partner at her Stamford Law firm, to brief him about the last will.
She asked for his help to engross and witness the last will. But she did not speak to Mr Lee about the changes.
DEC 16, 2013
7.31pm
Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to the e-mail his wife had sent.
He told his father that he could not get in touch with Ms Kwa: “I believe she is away. I don’t think it is wise to wait till she is back. I think all you need is a witness to sign the will.”
He said his wife can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness, and said the partner could coordinate with Mr Lee’s personal assistant – Ms Wong Lin Hoe – for a convenient time.
The DT noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang removed Ms Kwa from the e-mail.
So, apart from him and his father, only Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Ms Wong were copied.
Ms Kwa was also not copied on subsequent e-mail exchanges leading up to the execution of the last will.
DEC 16, 2013
8.12pm
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Ms Wong, her husband and Mr Lui to introduce the latter to them.
She asked Ms Wong to contact Mr Lui and “make arrangements”. She told Mr Lui to have the last will “ready for execution”.
DEC 16, 2013
9.42pm
Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied to his son’s 7.31pm e-mail and said: “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.”
The DT said various e-mails were then exchanged regarding Mr Lee’s execution of the last will between Mrs Lee Suet Fern, who was then en route to Paris, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who was then flying to Australia, Ms Wong and Mr Lui.
DEC 17, 2013
4.53am
Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to his father’s e-mail and said someone would go to Oxley Road or his office at his convenience, and that Ms Wong had the contacts and would arrange it.
He e-mailed Mr Lui at 5.32am and asked that he be available when Ms Wong got in touch.
Mr Lui acknowledged this at 9.02am.
DEC 17, 2013
9.22am
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Mr Lui to say: “Please be ready and accessible at short notice. Ready to go. Impt that we get this done asap please.”
Mr Lui acknowledged this at 9.23am.
At the same time, Ms Wong e-mailed back to Mrs Lee Suet Fern to say she would coordinate with Mr Lui for an appointment with Mr Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mr Lui were copied in Ms Wong’s e-mail.
DEC 17, 2013
9.24am
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Mr Lui again and said: “Be good to run. AM Are engrossments ready?”
DEC 17, 2013
10.13am
Mr Lui replied: “Preparing. 11am. EK will be with me. I keep the will?” EK referred to Ms Elizabeth Kong, another lawyer at Stamford Law.
The DT said that it appeared that by 10.13am, Ms Wong had been told to fix, or was in the process of fixing, an appointment with Mr Lee at 11am.
DEC 17, 2013
10.35am
Mr Lui sent Mrs Lee Suet Fern another e-mail where he said: “Date of will is 2011 – I put today’s date.”
DEC 17, 2013
11.05am
Police logs showed that Mr Lui and Ms Kong arrived at 38 Oxley Road at about 11.05am.
They left at 11.20am.
In those 15 minutes inside the house, Mr Lee’s last will was executed.
After the will was signed, Mr Lui reported this to Mrs Lee Suet Fern who, among other things, said she was thankful and it was a “huge relief to everyone”, asked how the meeting went and thanked the lawyers.
One copy of the original last will was kept in Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s office safe. The other original copy was kept by Mr Lee.
The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
Lawyer Lee Suet Fern has been found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister and her father-in-law.
Her case will be referred to the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct, and she could face a fine, suspension or be disbarred as a lawyer.
Here's a look at how the will was executed in 16 hours.
OCTOBER 2010 TO NOVEMBER 2012
Madam Kwa Geok Choo, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wife, died at the age of 89 on Oct 2, 2010. Thereafter, and before his last will in December 2013, Mr Lee executed six other wills.
Ms Kwa Kim Li, a partner in the law firm Lee & Lee, who is also Madam Kwa’s niece, was his lawyer. She drafted all six wills and retained the original copies.
Mr Lee discussed the first will with his family and worked with Ms Kwa on it. He also discussed changes to his penultimate will with her over a period of time.
The wills were executed on:
• First will: Aug 20, 2011
• Second will: Dec 21, 2011
• Third will: Sept 6, 2012
• Fourth will: Sept 20, 2012
• Fifth will: Oct 4, 2012
• Sixth (penultimate) will: Nov 2, 2012
Mrs Lee Suet Fern – the lawyer wife of Mr Lee’s younger son Hsien Yang – had made drafting suggestions to Ms Kwa on the first will, with Mr Lee’s approval, the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) said.
At that time, there had been discussions between Mr Lee and his three children regarding the future of the family home at 38 Oxley Road.
These sometimes included Mr Lee’s daughters-in-law, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Ms Ho Ching, the wife of elder son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The five wills that followed the first had changes in these areas: what shares in the estate each child would get; whether the will contained a demolition clause setting out Mr Lee’s wishes for the house to be demolished after he died and, if so, which of two versions of this clause; and whether Mr Lee’s daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, was to be given a right – with or without conditions – to live in the house after Mr Lee died.
SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER 2013
Mr Lee’s health deteriorated in 2013 and he was hospitalised for several weeks between September and October. He had medical issues, including pneumonia, atrial fibrillation and transient ischaemic attacks, or mini strokes, said the DT.
DEC 13, 2013
Around Nov 30, 2013, Mr Lee discussed with Ms Kwa about making amendments to his sixth will. On Nov 30, she sent him an e-mail to say: “Please let me know your thoughts, and I can make the appropriate changes to the will.”
The last e-mail exchange between them regarding his will during this period was on Dec 13, 2013. As of that date, Mr Lee had instructed Ms Kwa to make two changes to his sixth will.
They were:
a. To give his three children equal shares in the estate; and
b. To bequeath two carpets – one silk and the other wool – to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. The two changes were to be made through a codicil, or amendment, to the sixth will.
DEC 16, 2013
7.08pm
Mrs Lee Suet Fern sent Mr Lee a draft of what eventually became his last will.
The DT said Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s position was that Mr Lee had independently decided he would make the last will, the terms of which were substantially different from what he had discussed with Ms Kwa on Dec 13.
Mrs Lee Suet Fern and her husband Hsien Yang were aware, when the e-mail was sent, that Ms Kwa was likely to be travelling and might not respond.
In that e-mail, Mrs Lee Suet Fern told Mr Lee that “this was the original agreed will which ensures that all three children receive equal shares...” She also asked Ms Kwa, who was copied in the mail, to engross the will.
The parties involved in the case agreed that “original agreed will” referred to Mr Lee’s first August 2011 will, and that Mr Lee would have also understood it as such.
However, the DT noted, the draft which Mrs Lee Suet Fern attached was not the first will.
The differences:
• The first will contained a gift-over clause. This was missing from the draft.
• The first will provided for PM Lee to pay for the upkeep of 38 Oxley Road while Dr Lee occupied it. This was missing from the draft.
The DT said the draft will also differed from the sixth, penultimate, will in several ways:
• The draft gave the three children equal shares in his estate. The sixth will had given Dr Lee an extra share compared to her two brothers.
• The draft will re-inserted a version of the demolition clause. This was not in the sixth will.
• The draft gave Dr Lee an unfettered right to live in the house. In the sixth will, this was conditional upon PM Lee’s consent.
• The draft removed the gift-over clause in the sixth will, which was also in Mr Lee’s first to fifth wills.
The DT noted that it is not in dispute that other than the change in shares, the differences between the sixth will and the last will were not brought to Mr Lee’s attention.
The last will also did not incorporate what Mr Lee had wanted regarding the bequeathing of the carpets, which he had told Ms Kwa.
After sending the e-mail to Mr Lee, Mrs Lee Suet Fern spoke to Mr Bernard Lui, a partner at her Stamford Law firm, to brief him about the last will.
She asked for his help to engross and witness the last will. But she did not speak to Mr Lee about the changes.
DEC 16, 2013
7.31pm
Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to the e-mail his wife had sent.
He told his father that he could not get in touch with Ms Kwa: “I believe she is away. I don’t think it is wise to wait till she is back. I think all you need is a witness to sign the will.”
He said his wife can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness, and said the partner could coordinate with Mr Lee’s personal assistant – Ms Wong Lin Hoe – for a convenient time.
The DT noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang removed Ms Kwa from the e-mail.
So, apart from him and his father, only Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Ms Wong were copied.
Ms Kwa was also not copied on subsequent e-mail exchanges leading up to the execution of the last will.
DEC 16, 2013
8.12pm
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Ms Wong, her husband and Mr Lui to introduce the latter to them.
She asked Ms Wong to contact Mr Lui and “make arrangements”. She told Mr Lui to have the last will “ready for execution”.
DEC 16, 2013
9.42pm
Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied to his son’s 7.31pm e-mail and said: “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.”
The DT said various e-mails were then exchanged regarding Mr Lee’s execution of the last will between Mrs Lee Suet Fern, who was then en route to Paris, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who was then flying to Australia, Ms Wong and Mr Lui.
DEC 17, 2013
4.53am
Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to his father’s e-mail and said someone would go to Oxley Road or his office at his convenience, and that Ms Wong had the contacts and would arrange it.
He e-mailed Mr Lui at 5.32am and asked that he be available when Ms Wong got in touch.
Mr Lui acknowledged this at 9.02am.
DEC 17, 2013
9.22am
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Mr Lui to say: “Please be ready and accessible at short notice. Ready to go. Impt that we get this done asap please.”
Mr Lui acknowledged this at 9.23am.
At the same time, Ms Wong e-mailed back to Mrs Lee Suet Fern to say she would coordinate with Mr Lui for an appointment with Mr Lee.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mr Lui were copied in Ms Wong’s e-mail.
DEC 17, 2013
9.24am
Mrs Lee Suet Fern e-mailed Mr Lui again and said: “Be good to run. AM Are engrossments ready?”
DEC 17, 2013
10.13am
Mr Lui replied: “Preparing. 11am. EK will be with me. I keep the will?” EK referred to Ms Elizabeth Kong, another lawyer at Stamford Law.
The DT said that it appeared that by 10.13am, Ms Wong had been told to fix, or was in the process of fixing, an appointment with Mr Lee at 11am.
DEC 17, 2013
10.35am
Mr Lui sent Mrs Lee Suet Fern another e-mail where he said: “Date of will is 2011 – I put today’s date.”
DEC 17, 2013
11.05am
Police logs showed that Mr Lui and Ms Kong arrived at 38 Oxley Road at about 11.05am.
They left at 11.20am.
In those 15 minutes inside the house, Mr Lee’s last will was executed.
After the will was signed, Mr Lui reported this to Mrs Lee Suet Fern who, among other things, said she was thankful and it was a “huge relief to everyone”, asked how the meeting went and thanked the lawyers.
One copy of the original last will was kept in Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s office safe. The other original copy was kept by Mr Lee.
Lee Suet Fern rejects tribunal's ruling against her
Lawyer vows to fight disciplinary tribunal's report strongly when it is heard in open court
By Tee Zhuo, The Straits Times, 24 Feb 2020
Lawyer Lee Suet Fern has hit back at a ruling by a tribunal that found her guilty of misconduct in the handling of late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's will.
"I disagree with the disciplinary tribunal's report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court," she said yesterday.
She added that any member of the public can get 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 said.
Mrs Lee's comments were posted on the Facebook page of her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who is the late Mr Lee's son and current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's younger brother.
She also said she was "deeply grateful" for her lawyers, former attorney-general Walter Woon, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, and Providence Law, for an "outstanding and impressive defence".
The Sunday Times reported yesterday that the disciplinary tribunal had found Mrs Lee, 61, guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in how she handled Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. He died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had declined to comment when contacted by ST on Saturday night.
Yesterday, his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, called the tribunal's report a "travesty", adding that it was an attempt to "rewrite history".
"My father knew full well what he was doing. He was clear in his decision for the will," she said in a Facebook post.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) complained to the Law Society about possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon then appointed a two-man tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian, to hear the case.
Both the Law Society, which prosecuted the case, and Mrs Lee's lawyers made their respective arguments.
The ensuing 206-page report from the tribunal described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned".
Calling this a "facade", the tribunal said "she lied or became evasive whenever she thought it was to her benefit to lie or evade".
It also said Mr Lee Hsien Yang's conduct was "equally deceitful".
Lawyer vows to fight disciplinary tribunal's report strongly when it is heard in open court
By Tee Zhuo, The Straits Times, 24 Feb 2020
Lawyer Lee Suet Fern has hit back at a ruling by a tribunal that found her guilty of misconduct in the handling of late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's will.
"I disagree with the disciplinary tribunal's report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court," she said yesterday.
She added that any member of the public can get 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 said.
Mrs Lee's comments were posted on the Facebook page of her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who is the late Mr Lee's son and current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's younger brother.
She also said she was "deeply grateful" for her lawyers, former attorney-general Walter Woon, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, and Providence Law, for an "outstanding and impressive defence".
The Sunday Times reported yesterday that the disciplinary tribunal had found Mrs Lee, 61, guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in how she handled Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. He died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had declined to comment when contacted by ST on Saturday night.
Yesterday, his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, called the tribunal's report a "travesty", adding that it was an attempt to "rewrite history".
"My father knew full well what he was doing. He was clear in his decision for the will," she said in a Facebook post.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) complained to the Law Society about possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon then appointed a two-man tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian, to hear the case.
Both the Law Society, which prosecuted the case, and Mrs Lee's lawyers made their respective arguments.
The ensuing 206-page report from the tribunal described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned".
Calling this a "facade", the tribunal said "she lied or became evasive whenever she thought it was to her benefit to lie or evade".
It also said Mr Lee Hsien Yang's conduct was "equally deceitful".
"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."
The tribunal said the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how the couple persuaded the late Mr Lee to sign a new will without his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, to advise him.
"They cut off that lawyer from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in her absence," the report said.
Mrs Lee took over as the lawyer to prepare the last will and "misled Mr Lee on the terms of the last will". The tribunal said Mr Lee was persuaded to sign the last will in a matter of 16 hours. Mrs Lee had sent a draft of it to him at 7.08pm on Dec 16, 2013. He signed it at 11.10am the next day.
The last will differed from the one before it, and from some changes that Mr Lee had wanted and discussed with Ms Kwa four days earlier.
Mrs Lee, the tribunal said, "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for".
In testifying, Mrs Lee denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer and said she was helping as a family member and Mr Lee's daughter-in-law.
She also said that she had followed her husband's instruction as she was an "obedient wife".
The matter will be referred to a Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct. If found guilty, Mrs Lee could be fined, suspended or disbarred as a lawyer.
The tribunal said the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how the couple persuaded the late Mr Lee to sign a new will without his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, to advise him.
"They cut off that lawyer from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in her absence," the report said.
Mrs Lee took over as the lawyer to prepare the last will and "misled Mr Lee on the terms of the last will". The tribunal said Mr Lee was persuaded to sign the last will in a matter of 16 hours. Mrs Lee had sent a draft of it to him at 7.08pm on Dec 16, 2013. He signed it at 11.10am the next day.
The last will differed from the one before it, and from some changes that Mr Lee had wanted and discussed with Ms Kwa four days earlier.
Mrs Lee, the tribunal said, "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for".
In testifying, Mrs Lee denied she was Mr Lee's lawyer and said she was helping as a family member and Mr Lee's daughter-in-law.
She also said that she had followed her husband's instruction as she was an "obedient wife".
The matter will be referred to a Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct. If found guilty, Mrs Lee could be fined, suspended or disbarred as a lawyer.
Tribunal ruling against lawyer Lee Suet Fern: Law Society to apply for show-cause hearing
Court of Three Judges to review disciplinary tribunal's proceedings in Lee Suet Fern case
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 25 Feb 2020
With a disciplinary tribunal (DT) finding prominent lawyer Lee Suet Fern guilty of grossly improper professional conduct, the next step is for the Law Society to apply for a show-cause hearing before a Court of Three Judges.
The tribunal had found Mrs Lee's actions were of sufficient gravity to refer the case to the court, which is the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct.
Court of Three Judges to review disciplinary tribunal's proceedings in Lee Suet Fern case
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 25 Feb 2020
With a disciplinary tribunal (DT) finding prominent lawyer Lee Suet Fern guilty of grossly improper professional conduct, the next step is for the Law Society to apply for a show-cause hearing before a Court of Three Judges.
The tribunal had found Mrs Lee's actions were of sufficient gravity to refer the case to the court, which is the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers' misconduct.
The Law Society, which filed the charges against Mrs Lee, has one month from Feb 18 - the day the tribunal issued its verdict - to make its application to the High Court.
Responding to queries, a Law Society spokesman said it could take at least six months from the date of filing for the Court of Three Judges to hear the case, based on experience.
Mrs Lee, the wife of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's younger son Hsien Yang, could be fined, suspended or disbarred as a lawyer if the charges are made out. But the court may exonerate her if the charges are not made out.
During the show-cause hearing, the Court of Three Judges will review the entire proceedings, the spokesman said.
It will be open to Mrs Lee's lawyers to contend that the DT's findings and decision were incorrect.
However, the decision of the Court of Three Judges cannot be appealed, the spokesman noted.
In a statement yesterday, Law Society president Gregory Vijayendran said: "At that hearing, the court is empowered to determine any question necessary for the purpose of doing justice in the case, including any question as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the determination of the DT, or the regularity of the DT proceedings."
Asked if Mrs Lee, 61, could seek a judicial review of the tribunal's verdict, the society's spokesman said under Section 97 of the Legal Professions Act, there is no right to do so for cases considered grave enough to warrant disciplinary action.
"The Court of Three Judges is the only tribunal that will review and impose a sanction if so warranted," she added.
The case centres on the role Mrs Lee played in the preparation and execution of Mr Lee's last will signed on Dec 17, 2013.
Mr Lee died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers complained to the Law Society about possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee. Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee further asked that the case be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon then appointed a two-man tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian. Both the Law Society and Mrs Lee's lawyers then made their respective cases in front of them.
The tribunal subsequently found Mrs Lee guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the late Mr Lee's last will.
They said the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how Mrs Lee and her husband persuaded the senior Mr Lee - then 90 and in poor health, having been recently hospitalised for serious medical conditions - to sign a new will without his usual lawyer to advise him.
The tribunal described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned".
In its 206-page report released last week, the tribunal added that her husband's conduct was "equally deceitful".
In comments that Mr Lee Hsien Yang shared on his Facebook page on Sunday, Mrs Lee said she disagrees with the tribunal's report and intends to "fight this strongly when it is heard in open court".
The Straits Times understands that any member of the public can obtain a record of the closed-door proceedings of the tribunal from the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat on payment of a fee.
"I urge the public to look at these and come to their own independent conclusions," Mrs Lee said.
Disciplinary Tribunal's report on conduct of lawyer Lee Suet Fern addresses some troubling issues
Findings will resurface questions over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's plans for 38 Oxley Road
By Zakir Hussain, News Editor, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
The Disciplinary Tribunal's findings on the conduct of lawyer Lee Suet Fern makes plain its conclusions on several key questions concerning the drafting and signing of the last will of her father-in-law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew - and over his wishes regarding his 38 Oxley Road home.
The tribunal, in its report released last Tuesday, established that the late Mr Lee was misled by Mrs Lee Suet Fern and his son Lee Hsien Yang, who rushed him through changes to his last will, on a number of items.
Many of these questions had been raised in mid-2017, when the feud between the children of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spilt over into the public sphere, causing much consternation throughout the country.
On June 14, 2017, Dr Lee Wei Ling and her brother Lee Hsien Yang - whose wife is Mrs Lee Suet Fern - issued a statement hitting out at their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, saying he misused his position.
At the centre of the dispute was their father's 38 Oxley Road house. The two siblings alleged that PM Lee wanted the house preserved against their father's wishes, to boost his political standing and that of his own family. But PM Lee refuted their accusations in a statement made in Parliament. He also raised misgivings over the preparation of their late father's will.
One issue was the so-called demolition clause on Mr Lee's wishes that the house be demolished, which was in his first four wills, taken out of the fifth and sixth will, and reinstated in his last will.
PM Lee, through his lawyers, issued a statement raising grave concerns about the way his father's last will was made. It is a summary of statutory declarations PM Lee made to the ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Road.
The statement included several questions, among them:
- What was Mrs Lee's role in the preparation and signing of the last will?
- Were the provisions of the last will explained to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and if so, who explained them to him?
- Did Mr Lee Kuan Yew give specific instructions to re-insert the demolition clause in the last will, and if so, to whom?
- Was there a conflict of interest on the part of Mrs Lee, her fellow lawyers and her firm?
In 2018, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wrote to Mrs Lee several times asking her to explain her role, if any, in preparing the last will. But she did not answer the questions despite asking for more time, it said.
Last year, the AGC referred the case to the Law Society, and Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee further asked that it be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
The tribunal found, among others things, that:
- Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee rushed through the last will with Mr Lee Kuan Yew overnight on Dec 16 and 17, 2013, while his lawyer Kwa Kim Li was away. The couple cut off Ms Kwa from communications with Mr Lee Kuan Yew on it.
- Mrs Lee "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for", as she was required to do as a lawyer. Nor had she advised him to seek independent legal advice, since her husband stood to gain from the changes being made, as was also required of her as a lawyer.
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew was not advised that the last will had a demolition clause inserted, even though he had deleted this in several earlier versions of his wills and had not indicated to Ms Kwa that he wanted this reinstated when he discussed changes to his will just four days earlier. Mrs Lee knew this clause had been reinstated as she mentioned it to her colleague, Mr Bernard Lui, who disclosed this to the tribunal.
The tribunal found that her conduct in taking instructions from her husband on arrangements relating to the last will were "an aggravating factor which increases the egregiousness of the conduct". The courts have stressed that solicitors should be wary of taking instructions solely from a beneficiary to a will, it added.
The tribunal also found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee tried to suppress their central role in what happened by lying about what happened, and trying to suppress evidence on what happened from being revealed.
The tribunal concluded: "The respondent's motives, in sending a draft to Mr Lee which completely superseded the sixth will, and in rushing the execution of the last will, are in serious question."
The report did not go so far as to say what these motives might be, but pointed in several parts to how Mrs Lee's husband stood to gain a larger share of the estate, as well as from the reinstatement of the demolition clause, on which the dispute over the future of 38 Oxley Road centred.
WHAT NEXT?
The issue of professional misconduct by Mrs Lee will have to be dealt with by the courts. Going by previous cases, where a lawyer is found to have acted dishonestly, the Court of Three Judges could order that he or she be struck off the rolls.
The tribunal said the misconduct Mrs Lee is guilty of is a serious departure from the most basic standards expected of a lawyer - complete honesty and fidelity to his or her client. "To leave such egregious and dishonest conduct unsanctioned would bring disrepute upon the profession," it added.
Its findings also resurface the issue of whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes on the 38 Oxley Road home were misrepresented in his last will, and could reignite that debate, as well as the bitter and protracted family feud, that shocked - and greatly saddened - Singaporeans.
Findings will resurface questions over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's plans for 38 Oxley Road
By Zakir Hussain, News Editor, The Sunday Times, 23 Feb 2020
The Disciplinary Tribunal's findings on the conduct of lawyer Lee Suet Fern makes plain its conclusions on several key questions concerning the drafting and signing of the last will of her father-in-law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew - and over his wishes regarding his 38 Oxley Road home.
The tribunal, in its report released last Tuesday, established that the late Mr Lee was misled by Mrs Lee Suet Fern and his son Lee Hsien Yang, who rushed him through changes to his last will, on a number of items.
Many of these questions had been raised in mid-2017, when the feud between the children of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spilt over into the public sphere, causing much consternation throughout the country.
On June 14, 2017, Dr Lee Wei Ling and her brother Lee Hsien Yang - whose wife is Mrs Lee Suet Fern - issued a statement hitting out at their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, saying he misused his position.
At the centre of the dispute was their father's 38 Oxley Road house. The two siblings alleged that PM Lee wanted the house preserved against their father's wishes, to boost his political standing and that of his own family. But PM Lee refuted their accusations in a statement made in Parliament. He also raised misgivings over the preparation of their late father's will.
One issue was the so-called demolition clause on Mr Lee's wishes that the house be demolished, which was in his first four wills, taken out of the fifth and sixth will, and reinstated in his last will.
PM Lee, through his lawyers, issued a statement raising grave concerns about the way his father's last will was made. It is a summary of statutory declarations PM Lee made to the ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Road.
The statement included several questions, among them:
- What was Mrs Lee's role in the preparation and signing of the last will?
- Were the provisions of the last will explained to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and if so, who explained them to him?
- Did Mr Lee Kuan Yew give specific instructions to re-insert the demolition clause in the last will, and if so, to whom?
- Was there a conflict of interest on the part of Mrs Lee, her fellow lawyers and her firm?
In 2018, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wrote to Mrs Lee several times asking her to explain her role, if any, in preparing the last will. But she did not answer the questions despite asking for more time, it said.
Last year, the AGC referred the case to the Law Society, and Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee further asked that it be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.
The tribunal found, among others things, that:
- Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee rushed through the last will with Mr Lee Kuan Yew overnight on Dec 16 and 17, 2013, while his lawyer Kwa Kim Li was away. The couple cut off Ms Kwa from communications with Mr Lee Kuan Yew on it.
- Mrs Lee "gave the briefest of advice to Mr Lee, and did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided for", as she was required to do as a lawyer. Nor had she advised him to seek independent legal advice, since her husband stood to gain from the changes being made, as was also required of her as a lawyer.
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew was not advised that the last will had a demolition clause inserted, even though he had deleted this in several earlier versions of his wills and had not indicated to Ms Kwa that he wanted this reinstated when he discussed changes to his will just four days earlier. Mrs Lee knew this clause had been reinstated as she mentioned it to her colleague, Mr Bernard Lui, who disclosed this to the tribunal.
The tribunal found that her conduct in taking instructions from her husband on arrangements relating to the last will were "an aggravating factor which increases the egregiousness of the conduct". The courts have stressed that solicitors should be wary of taking instructions solely from a beneficiary to a will, it added.
The tribunal also found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee tried to suppress their central role in what happened by lying about what happened, and trying to suppress evidence on what happened from being revealed.
The tribunal concluded: "The respondent's motives, in sending a draft to Mr Lee which completely superseded the sixth will, and in rushing the execution of the last will, are in serious question."
The report did not go so far as to say what these motives might be, but pointed in several parts to how Mrs Lee's husband stood to gain a larger share of the estate, as well as from the reinstatement of the demolition clause, on which the dispute over the future of 38 Oxley Road centred.
WHAT NEXT?
The issue of professional misconduct by Mrs Lee will have to be dealt with by the courts. Going by previous cases, where a lawyer is found to have acted dishonestly, the Court of Three Judges could order that he or she be struck off the rolls.
The tribunal said the misconduct Mrs Lee is guilty of is a serious departure from the most basic standards expected of a lawyer - complete honesty and fidelity to his or her client. "To leave such egregious and dishonest conduct unsanctioned would bring disrepute upon the profession," it added.
Its findings also resurface the issue of whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes on the 38 Oxley Road home were misrepresented in his last will, and could reignite that debate, as well as the bitter and protracted family feud, that shocked - and greatly saddened - Singaporeans.
*** Lawyer Lee Suet Fern suspended for 15 months, found guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor in her handling of Lee Kuan Yew's last will
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
Senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern has been suspended for 15 months by a Court of Three Judges over her handling of the last will of her late father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew.
The highest disciplinary body for the legal profession found her guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
She had "blindly followed the directions of her husband, a significant beneficiary under the very will whose execution she helped to rush through", it said in a written judgment released yesterday.
This followed a hearing in August, after the Law Society applied to have Mrs Lee struck off the roll.
A disciplinary tribunal (DT) had earlier this year found that she and her husband had misled the senior Mr Lee to sign a new will without the advice of his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li.
While the court found Mrs Lee and the senior Mr Lee were not in a lawyer-client relationship - which would have made her conduct more grave - it agreed with the DT that she was guilty of misconduct.
The case centred on the role she played in the preparation and execution of Mr Lee's last will, which was signed on Dec 17, 2013.
His last will differed from his sixth and penultimate will in significant ways, including the distribution of his estate among his three children as well as the demolition of his house at 38 Oxley Road.
It also did not contain some changes he had wanted and discussed with Ms Kwa four days earlier.
The DT had found Mrs Lee guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in February this year.
The Law Society subsequently applied to have her struck off the roll, and the case was referred to a Court of Three Judges.
The court held a virtual hearing in August, where the Law Society set out its arguments for why she should be disbarred, while Mrs Lee's lawyers called for all charges to be dropped.
In its 98-page judgment, the court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li, said Mrs Lee had acted at the behest of her husband to push through the execution of the will in an "unseemly rush".
The will was signed 16 hours after she sent a draft of it to Mr Lee.
The court noted that she had forwarded the draft, which was to have been based on the first will, without verifying if it was the correct version.
This showed a "notable lack of diligence" on her part, it added.
She was also content to have Mr Lee sign the last will on the basis of her "unconfirmed and ultimately untrue representation".
She did it even though she knew she had no way of verifying the draft since she did not have the signed version of the first will.
As such, it was "clearly imprudent and grossly negligent" for her to have held out the representations she made about the draft last will as true.
The court further said when Ms Kwa - who had drafted and executed the senior Mr Lee's first to sixth wills - was left out of the e-mails by Mrs Lee's husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Mrs Lee acquiesced to it and did not seem to pause to reconsider her position.
On the contrary, she had gone ahead to act on her husband's wish to have the last will executed with "seeming haste" by arranging for her colleagues Bernard Lui and Elizabeth Kong to witness the signing.
She did it even before the senior Mr Lee had responded to his son Lee Hsien Yang's suggestion to proceed.
This action effectively assured her father-in-law the required checks had been done to make sure the draft last will reflected his wishes, the court said. It also noted she had conceded her father-in-law would have believed and relied on her representations.
Describing Mrs Lee's conduct as "especially unsatisfactory", the court added that there was a "remarkable lack of diligence" on her part in ensuring her father-in-law's wishes were properly ascertained and carried out.
The court noted, among other things, that she subsequently did not update Ms Kwa fully and frankly about what had transpired, and merely wrote her an innocuous quick note which said the will had been signed.
Whether intentionally or not, it left Ms Kwa with the impression there was nothing left for her to do, and removed any signs for any cause for concern on her part, it said.
It also said Mrs Lee might have mitigated her culpability if she had briefed Ms Kwa fully on the circumstances surrounding the signing of the will.
This might have conveyed some of the sudden urgency with which matters had proceeded and prompted further inquiry from Ms Kwa. "However, none of this was done," it added.
Given her 37 years of experience, it noted "she could not have failed to know that the veracity of her representations was something that absolutely needed to be checked".
The court added: "It is simply untenable that the need for caution, restraint and circumspection did not strike (Mrs Lee)."
In underlining the importance of dealing with wills, the court rejected the argument made by Mrs Lee's lawyer, Professor Walter Woon, that it was sufficient the draft sent to her father-in-law was broadly similar to the version he had wanted.
This, the court said, suggests it is unimportant to ensure wills accurately reflect a testator's intentions.
"A solicitor who fails to act with exceptional care and, where appropriate, as it is here, with restraint and circumspection must be prepared to have her conduct scrutinised and, perhaps, even her motives called into question," it added.
Findings by Court of Three Judges
The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
In suspending senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern for 15 months, a Court of Three Judges found her guilty of misconduct unbefitting of a lawyer in her handling of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will. Here are the court's other key findings:
• Mrs Lee Suet Fern did not tell the truth in her testimony under oath to a disciplinary tribunal.
• She had made false representations to Mr Lee Kuan Yew about his will and had sent it without checking if it was the correct version.
• She acted "in complete disregard for the interests of Lee Kuan Yew", and focused on what her husband Lee Hsien Yang wanted done, moving to get the will signed "in an unseemly rush".
• Her conduct was "objectionable".
• Mrs Lee was cleared of grossly improper conduct, as there was no implied retainer and hence no solicitor-client relationship between her and Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This was because Mr Lee did not regard her as his lawyer.
• It was Mr Lee Hsien Yang who had been communicating with Mr Lee Kuan Yew about his will, and he had asked his wife to send his father the draft last will.
Court finds Lee Kuan Yew did not regard Lee Suet Fern as his lawyer in the execution of his last will
Court sets aside charges of 'gross misconduct' against lawyer
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not view his daughter-in-law, senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern, as playing the role of his lawyer in the execution of his final will, according to the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession.
A Court of Three Judges based its decision on the legal precedent that a solicitor-client relationship arises only when both parties mutually intend to enter into one, or should reasonably have understood that they were entering into such a relationship.
This is so even if there is no formal documented agreement between them.
But such an implied retainer situation did not exist in the case of Mr Lee's last will, the court said in a written judgment yesterday.
Given her actions, Mrs Lee should have understood that she was acting as Mr Lee's solicitor in the preparation and execution of his last will.
But the same could not be said of Mr Lee.
The court therefore acquitted Mrs Lee of charges of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of her professional duties.
The charges, brought against her by the Law Society, had relied on there being a solicitor-client relationship between her and Mr Lee.
The court, however, found Mrs Lee guilty of alternative charges of misconduct unbefitting a solicitor and advocate - a charge that stands even if there is no implied retainer.
She was thus given a 15-month suspension.
Lee Kuan Yew still considered Kwa Kim Li as his lawyer
In its judgment, the court said there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Lee had considered Mrs Lee his lawyer.
It noted that he had initially expected his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, to attend to the execution of his last will.
But he changed his mind because his son Lee Hsien Yang, Mrs Lee's husband, told him that Ms Kwa was uncontactable and appeared to be away, and that it was unwise to wait for her return before executing the last will.
The court said the elder Mr Lee changed his position as he believed that the draft will was identical to his first will, and that all that remained to be done was for him to sign it before two witnesses.
"We do not think (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) ever ceased to regard Ms Kwa as his solicitor, at least where matters pertaining to his estate were concerned, even though he, like Ms Kwa, was not fully apprised of the situation," the court explained.
"(Mr Lee Kuan Yew) proceeded as he did essentially because (Mr Lee Hsien Yang) had assured him that he could proceed in that way, and that (Mrs Lee) would assist with only the administrative task of finding witnesses for the execution of the last will.
"While this was an inaccurate portrayal by (Mr Lee Hsien Yang), on the limited evidence before us, we think that (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) proceeded as he did because of the advice of his son, and not because he reasonably regarded (Mrs Lee) as his solicitor for the preparation and execution of the last will."
The court thus found that Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not see Mrs Lee as his lawyer, preventing a solicitor-client relationship from arising.
'Implausible' for Mrs Lee to think no implied retainer
Still, the court held that Mrs Lee should have understood herself to have been acting as Mr Lee's lawyer.
It rejected her argument that she, too, viewed herself as merely assisting with the administrative task of finding witnesses for the execution of the last will.
The reason for its rejection is that Mrs Lee had put forward a draft of the last will as being ready for execution and represented this draft as the "original agreed will", which the court said amounted to legal advice.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang later cut Ms Kwa out of the process by not including her in the e-mail thread in which he urged his father to proceed with the execution without waiting for her.
The court said Mrs Lee could not have verified if the draft was identical to the first will, which she did not have a copy of. She also did not check with Ms Kwa if it was in fact the same will.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew had earlier indicated his wish to revert to the first will he had signed on Aug 20, 2011, and he proceeded to execute the last will on the sole basis that Mrs Lee had represented it as being identical to his first will.
The court said: "(Mrs Lee's) subsequent failure to qualify the crucial representations which she had made indicates that she knew, or must have known, that she was taking on the role and responsibility of being (Mr Lee Kuan Yew's) solicitor for the preparation and execution of the last will, at least to the limited extent of locating a copy of the executed version of the first will, checking the draft last will against it and ensuring that the draft last will was ready for execution."
It later emerged there were differences between the draft that became Mr Lee's last will and the first will, which he intended to sign.
Mrs Lee also made arrangements for the last will to be executed with her colleagues as witnesses, while personally monitoring the arrangements closely.
She saw to the safekeeping of an original copy of the last will after it was executed.
When Mrs Lee subsequently informed Ms Kwa of the execution of the last will, she did not alert Ms Kwa to the circumstances under which it had been executed, the court said.
As a result, any cause for concern pertaining to the accuracy of Mrs Lee's representations about the draft last will would not have been evident to Ms Kwa.
"Viewing all these matters objectively, we find it implausible that (Mrs Lee) could reasonably think that there was no implied retainer between (Mr Lee) and her," the court said.
Case centred on Lee Suet Fern role in preparing LKY's last will
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
The case centred on the role that senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern played in preparing and executing founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's last will signed on Dec 17, 2013.
In January last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) referred a case of possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee to Singapore's Law Society.
The AGC noted that Mrs Lee appeared to have prepared the last will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and arranged for him to execute it despite the fact that her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, was a beneficiary and had his share of the estate increased under the last will.
The case was later referred to a disciplinary tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian. The tribunal found Mrs Lee guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of her father-in-law's will.
It said in its 206-page grounds of decision that the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how Mrs Lee and her husband had misled the senior Mr Lee to sign a new will without the advice of his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, who had prepared all six of his previous wills.
The senior Mr Lee, who died on March 23, 2015, was then aged 90 and in poor health.
The tribunal held that Mrs Lee had acted as Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer as she was the only lawyer responsible for the last will after Mr Lee Hsien Yang cut Ms Kwa out by not including her in an e-mail thread urging his father to proceed with the execution.
Mrs Lee herself had told the AGC in December 2018 that her father-in-law had given her instructions to have his last will engrossed, or finalised, the tribunal noted.
This was also Mr Lee Hsien Yang's position in a letter to a ministerial committee set up to look into options for his father's Oxley Road house.
However, Mrs Lee later changed her position in her affidavit.
She initially did not deny drafting the will but later said her husband had forwarded the draft will to her, even though neither of them could produce the e-mails to prove this.
In acting as Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer, she failed to advance his interest unaffected by that of her or her husband, the tribunal found.
It described Mrs Lee as a "deceitful witness who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned", adding that her husband's conduct was "equally deceitful".
The matter was then referred to a Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for professional misconduct among lawyers.
In August, the court reserved judgment after a virtual hearing.
During the hearing, the Law Society, represented by lawyer Koh Swee Yen, had argued that Mrs Lee had been involved in the will despite knowing her husband stood to gain from it.
It also said that the lawyer of 37 years had hurried her father-in-law through the process of signing it without the advice of his usual lawyer.
Countering the Law Society's arguments, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan and Professor Walter Woon, a former attorney-general, said Mrs Lee was acting out of affection and concern as a daughter-in-law in assisting Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and was merely performing an administrative role.
They added that there could not have been any conflict of interest because Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "a brilliant lawyer", was fully aware of what he wanted and had consented to Mrs Lee handling the will for him. They called for all charges to be dropped.
Events involving Lee Hsien Yang 'troubling' and 'disturbing': Court
It finds that his lawyer wife had acted on his wishes and focused on what he wanted done
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
Mr Lee Hsien Yang's role in his father's last will was set out by a Court of Three Judges, which noted more than once in its judgment that his wife Lee Suet Fern had simply acted on his wishes and focused on what he wanted done.
The court had examined Mr Lee Hsien Yang's role, in trying to discern Mrs Lee's culpability.
It found that the younger Mr Lee had got his wife involved in the preparation and execution of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will, and described some aspects of an e-mail that he sent on Dec 16, 2013 as "troubling".
Over 16 hours from Dec 16 to 17, Mrs Lee had forwarded a draft will to the senior Mr Lee at the instruction of her husband, made arrangements for her colleagues to witness its signing, and ensured this was expeditiously done. All the while, she kept tabs on the process, even sending out instructions while on a plane to Paris.
The court, which found Mrs Lee guilty of misconduct for her involvement in the will, said her conduct had to be seen in the light of her "divided loyalties".
"On the one hand, (she) was loyal to her husband, who was a significant beneficiary under the last will and who was evidently keen to rush its execution.
"On the other hand, (she) had a responsibility to act honourably and to ensure that (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), who she would reasonably have regarded as her client, was fully apprised of the factual position before he proceeded to execute the last will."
A question the court considered was whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang or Mrs Lee had received instructions from Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
The couple had initially said to a ministerial committee - set up in 2016 to look into Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes for his family home at 38 Oxley Road - that the senior Mr Lee had given express instructions to Mrs Lee to prepare his will.
But to a disciplinary tribunal examining Mrs Lee's conduct, they changed their account and said Mr Lee Kuan Yew had given his instructions to Mr Lee Hsien Yang instead. It was Mr Lee Hsien Yang who had roped Mrs Lee in on Dec 16, 2013 to help with the will, as he was travelling to Brisbane that very day, the couple added.
In its judgment released yesterday, the court said that after reviewing evidence including e-mails between the parties, it agreed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had indeed conveyed his wishes to his son.
"All of this leads us to conclude that the ministerial committee statements were untrue and gave the incorrect impression that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had not himself been involved in receiving (Mr Lee Kuan Yew's) instructions to revert to the first will."
The entirely contradictory accounts given to the ministerial committee and disciplinary tribunal showed dishonesty on the part of the couple, the court added.
It suggested that Mr Lee Hsien Yang may have wanted to avoid the impression that he had any part to play in his father's wishes to revert to his first will and insert a demolition clause stating his wishes for the Oxley Road house to be torn down.
Another issue was whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang had forwarded the draft last will to his wife to send over to his father. He had insisted that he did so, but the court said that it believed Mr Lee Hsien Yang was "not telling the truth". Mrs Lee's evidence was "similarly untrue and to be rejected", it added.
It noted that neither Mr Lee Hsien Yang nor Mrs Lee could provide any evidence that he had done so, as they insisted that the e-mails had been deleted.
Conversely, there was evidence that Mrs Lee had been involved in the drafting of the senior Mr Lee's first will, and had old copies of it in her inbox.
The court also found that Mrs Lee was in no position to make any representation to the effect that the draft last will was the same as the actual version of the first will, given that the "executed version of the first will was never in her hands".
"Despite this, she did make such a representation, which was in fact false," the court said.
It also described as "disturbing and critically important" a series of events related to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's actions on Dec 16, 2013.
After his wife had sent the senior Mr Lee the draft will on Dec 16 at 7.08pm, copying Ms Kwa Kim Li, Mr Lee Hsien Yang had sent his father an e-mail at 7.31pm copied to Mrs Lee and the senior Mr Lee's secretary, but with Ms Kwa removed from the list of addressees.
In that e-mail, he said he could not contact Ms Kwa, and that he did not think it was wise for his father to wait until she was back before signing his last will.
He also said Mrs Lee could arrange for witnesses for the execution of the last will. Citing this e-mail, the court said several aspects of it were "troubling".
The court noted that it did not appear that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had checked with anyone when Ms Kwa would be contactable, adding that he had removed her from the list of e-mail addressees without knowing whether his father would agree to it being done.
Ms Kwa was the lawyer who had prepared all the six previous versions of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, and he had discussed his last will with her just days before.
"It is clear from this short exchange that (Mr Lee Kuan Yew's) shift in position was initiated by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and not by Mrs Lee or Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself," the court said.
It added that "the situation changed materially" after this 7.31pm e-mail as Mrs Lee became the only lawyer remaining on the correspondence, and the onus then fell on her to ensure that the version of the will signed by the senior Mr Lee truly reflected his wishes and was accurate.
However, she had not done so, and had been happy to push through the execution of the will in an "unseemly rush". Throughout the process, Mrs Lee had also been relying entirely on what her husband said were the wishes of the senior Mr Lee, the court said.
Lee Suet Fern disagrees with suspension, says will was private and case has no basis
By Selina Lum, Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
In a statement posted on Facebook by her husband Lee Hsien Yang yesterday, senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern said she disagreed with the court's decision to suspend her from practice for 15 months.
A Court of Three Judges meted out the suspension after finding that Mrs Lee was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor for her role in the handling of the last will of her father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew in December 2013.
Mrs Lee said in the statement: "There was no basis for this case to have even been initiated.
"This was a private will. Lee Kuan Yew knew what he wanted. He got what he wanted. The Court of Three did not find that he was of unsound mind or that he was not in control.
"He made the decision to revert to his landmark 2011 will following discussions with his lawyer Kwa Kim Li before I was tasked to find a witness.
"Anyone can revoke their own will while they are alive. If this will was not what Lee Kuan Yew wanted, he could easily have made another, as he had done several times before," she said.
Mrs Lee added that no complaint had been lodged by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, any of his beneficiaries or Ms Kwa Kim Li, the lawyer who prepared his various wills.
Rather, the case arose from a complaint years later by the Attorney-General's Chambers, she said.
She noted that her brother-in-law, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, "made extensive submissions, but did not present himself as a witness and was not subject to cross-examination".
Mrs Lee emphasised that the court found there was no solicitor-client relationship between her and her father-in-law, and that there was no dishonesty in her dealings with Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
There was also no finding that the will was procured by fraud or undue influence, and probate for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will had been granted by the courts in 2015, she added.
The suspension means that Mrs Lee, a lawyer of 37 years' standing, cannot practise as a lawyer in Singapore for 15 months.
Checks by The Straits Times show that she is registered in Hong Kong as a foreign lawyer.
It is not immediately clear if and how her suspension in Singapore will affect her registration.
Lawyers interviewed by The Straits Times said the suspension covers only her practising certificate in Singapore.
However, a lawyer, who did not want to be named, said there have been cases in which Singapore lawyers practising in other jurisdictions have kept the Law Society here informed about their legal trouble overseas.
According to the Hong Kong Legal Practitioner's Ordinance, a person must be in good standing in the foreign jurisdiction they come from to qualify to practise law in the territory.
Lee Suet Fern focused on what husband wanted done, did not consider Lee Kuan Yew's interests: Court
By Selina Lum, Law Correspondent, The Straits Times, 21 Nov 2020
Lawyer Lee Suet Fern's "singular focus" in achieving what her husband Lee Hsien Yang wanted, oblivious to the interests of her father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew, was a factor that weighed in favour of a heavier sentence.
Not having due regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's interests was a "grave failure" on Mrs Lee's part, a Court of Three Judges said in its judgment yesterday as it set out the various factors that it considered in deciding to suspend her from practising law for 15 months after finding her guilty of misconduct over her handling of the late Mr Lee's last will.
The preparation of a will is not just a routine exercise in form filling, said the court.
A lawyer who is tasked to prepare and attend to a will has serious responsibilities and should conscientiously avoid being in any situation where even a potential conflict of interest may appear to exist, said the court.
"A solicitor who fails to act with exceptional care and... with restraint and circumspection must be prepared to have her conduct scrutinised and, perhaps, even her motives called into question," said the judgment written by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.
While the court accepted that there was no solicitor-client relationship between Mrs Lee and her father-in-law, it said the current case was analogous to cases involving lawyers who prefer their own interests over those of their clients.
Given the absence of a solicitor-client relationship, the presumptive penalty of striking off would be disproportionate, said the court.
"Nonetheless, the sanction that is imposed on (Mrs Lee) should reflect both her culpability and the harm caused by her misconduct," said the court.
On the afternoon of Dec 16, 2013, Mrs Lee's husband Lee Hsien Yang, who was going overseas that evening, told her to make arrangements for the senior Mr Lee to revert to his original 2011 will.
The court said that upon being told this, Mrs Lee was well aware that she was in a position of potential conflict as her husband had been a significant beneficiary under that will.
Despite this, she set about locating a draft of that will and sent it to the senior Mr Lee, telling him that it was the first will he had executed in August 2011.
The court said Mrs Lee was so focused on what her husband wanted done that she did not check with Mr Lee Kuan Yew to ensure that he indeed wished to revert to that will.
She also sent the draft will to her father-in-law without even checking whether it was the final draft of the first will.
After the last will was executed, Mrs Lee asked her husband, rather than her father-in-law, what she should do with the two original copies of it.
The court said her "remarkable lack of diligence" in ensuring that her father-in-law's wishes were properly ascertained and that he was fully apprised of all the facts also weighed in favour of a heavier sentence.
Mrs Lee's experience of more than 30 years also weighed against her.
"While this was the first blemish in the course of a long career, her significant experience rendered her conduct wholly unacceptable and inexcusable," said the court.
On the other hand, the court found that the lack of dishonesty in her dealings with Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a factor in Mrs Lee's favour.
While the court said Mrs Lee was "clearly imprudent" and "grossly negligent", it noted that she had testified that she would not have dared send out the draft will if she did not think that was what her father-in-law wanted.
However, the weight to be placed on this factor is lessened by the fact that she acted with a degree of dishonesty in the disciplinary proceedings by giving a "contrived and ultimately untrue account" of her role in the preparation and execution of the will.
Considering all these factors, Mrs Lee's culpability was at least "moderately high", the court said.
It added that material harm was caused because Mr Lee Kuan Yew ended up signing a document which was in fact not the one that he had indicated he wished to sign.
"The fact that the last will and the first will were materially similar was fortuitous and does not discount the fact that the potential harm could have been far more severe than the actual harm that eventuated," said the court.
It noted that while Mr Lee Kuan Yew had changed his will several times, he was content with the last will after it was signed and lived with it for more than a year and did not revisit it, apart from bequeathing two carpets to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
The harm caused in this case was "at the lower end of the moderate range", it said, adding that a substantial period of suspension was warranted in this case.
Before determining the appropriate period of suspension to impose, the court looked at three precedents in which the errant lawyers involved were suspended for between two and three years in cases involving a conflict of interest.
Comparing the facts of the current case with the precedents, the court said a 15-month suspension was appropriate.
Was Lee Kuan Yew rushed into signing his last will?
PM Lee Hsien Loong releases summary of statutory declarations to ministerial committee looking into options for Oxley Road house - 15 June 2017
PM Lee Hsien Loong apologises for damage to Singapore caused by family dispute over Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and 38 Oxley Road
38 Oxley Road: Symbol of the Singapore story
PM Lee Hsien Loong Ministerial Statement on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" in Parliament on 3 July 2017
38 Oxley Road debate in Parliament:
Day 1 - 3 July 2017
Day 2 - 4 July 2017
Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on Ministerial Committee - 17 June 2017
Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on 38 Oxley Road - 19 June 2017
Ministerial Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" - 3 July 2017
Ministerial Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road - 3 July 2017
Closing Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Closing Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Oxley Road Dispute
No comments:
Post a Comment