Naming of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern when Being Investigated for Giving False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings while Keppel Offshore & Marine Senior Staff were Not Named

The general approach is that law enforcement agencies do not disclose the names of individuals who have been, or are being investigated.

This general principle is subject to exceptions.

One example when names have been disclosed is where the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing. For example, Members may recall the case relating to Pi Jiapeng and Pansuk Siriwipa. The couple was involved in a series of alleged cheating cases involving luxury goods. They fled Singapore last year, in 2022, while investigations were ongoing. The Police released their details.

A second example would be where the facts which constitute the alleged offences and the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences, are already publicly known – for example, as a result of findings made by our Courts, and there is some public interest in disclosing that investigations are underway. Such disclosure has to be weighed against possible prejudice to the individuals concerned.

A case in point would be where, following the judgment of the High Court in Parti Liyani’s case in 2020, the Police commenced investigations against her employer’s son, Karl Liew, based on the High Court’s observations that he had given dishonest evidence under oath. I informed this House of those investigations during the debates relating to the case.

However, this does not mean that Police will automatically publish the names of the individuals under investigations, if their names had been made public in other, earlier proceedings. The context in which the names had been published in other proceedings, the nature of those proceedings, the nature of the offences being investigated and the connection of the offences under investigations to the original proceedings and whether the agencies have taken the view that subsequent criminal proceedings are or are not possible – all of these are relevant.

An assessment of all the facts and the context has to be made, in considering the public interest, as to whether to disclose the names.

Yet another type of example, where names have been published, is the case of Chew Eng Han. He had been convicted of several offences. He was then arrested when attempting to flee Singapore. Police made public the arrest on the day he and his accomplices were arrested, and their identities were released. After investigations, Chew and one accomplice were charged.

A fourth example relates to Alex Yeung. Alex Yeung stated publicly that his passport had been impounded, in respect of some conduct. Police then issued a media statement explaining that Yeung was assisting the Police but had not been arrested.

A fifth example would be where Police are investigating a case and there is a lot of misinformation. Police might then make public the accurate facts relating to the case to dispel the falsehoods – and we have done that in the past.

As can be seen, there are a wide variety of situations where it may become necessary to make public the fact that a person is under investigation, has been arrested or is assisting in investigations. We have to assess the facts and the public interest involved.

The circumstances relating to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern straddle the first two examples that I have mentioned.

The discussions surrounding No 38 Oxley Road are of significant public interest. One might say they are of at least as much interest as in the case of Parti Liyani, if the two can even be compared. The Oxley Road matter was debated extensively in this House, following the Ministerial Statements on the subject.

The findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) and the Court of Three Judges, in the disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee Suet Fern, and their findings on Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern are matters of public record.

Both the DT and the Court of Three Judges found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had lied under oath. And let me remind Members of what both tribunals said.

The Court of Three Judges said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied under oath, and I quote:

(a) “...[W]e agree with and affirm the DT’s finding that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was not telling the truth when he said that he was the one who had forwarded the draft last will to the respondent. For the same reasons, we also agree with and affirm the DT’s findings that the respondent’s evidence on this issue, which echoed Mr Lee Hsien Yang's, was similarly untrue and to be rejected.";

(b) The respondent also claimed in her Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (AEIC) that after she received a draft last will from Mr Lee Hsien Yang...she did not even open it... [W]e agree with the DT that it is implausible and ultimately incredible...";

(c) [W]e note that after the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the respondent adopted the position, which the DT rejected and which we too have rejected as false...";

(d) [T]he respondent did act with a degree of dishonesty in the disciplinary proceedings..."

Mr Lee Hsien Yang lied under oath – "...Mr Lee Hsien Yang was not telling the truth..."

If you go to what the DT said at various parts:

(a) "In essence, an elaborate edifice of lies was presented, both on oath (through Mr Lee Hsien Yang and the respondent’s affidavits and on the witness stand), and through their public and other statements (which were referred to and relied upon during the disciplinary proceedings). The affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant."

(b) "Considered in totality, the respondent’s conduct was quite dishonest. Mr Lee Hsien Yang's and her conduct demonstrated a calculated attempt to: (i) ensure that Mr Lee executed the last will as quickly as possible without due regard for Mr Lee’s wishes, and (ii) hide their wrongdoing in having done so."

(c) "Having procured the last will through these improper means, she and Mr Lee Hsien Yang then fabricated a series of lies and inaccuracies, to perpetuate the falsehood that Mrs Kwa Kim Lee had been involved in the last will, and hide their own role in getting Mr Lee to sign the last will and their wrongdoings..."

(d) Mr Lee Hsien Yang and the respondent tried to explain away their conduct... Their explanations ranged from the improbable to the patently contrived to the downright dishonest."

(e) "The respondent was a deceitful witness... 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. He lied to the public, he lied to the Ministerial Committee, and he lied to us... He had no qualms about making up evidence as he went along. We found him to be cynical about telling the truth."

(f) "...In plain language, the effect of what they said is this: Mr Lee Hsien Yang may make untrue statements in public and in private whenever there is no legal penalty for telling untruths. His public and private statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate... We do not find their explanations credible."

(g) "Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s explanations for the untruths in his posts were not credible...Mr Lee Hsien Yang knew the true facts. He admitted that some of his statements were inaccurate."

(h) "Mr Lee Hsien Yang lied to the public about how the last will was drafted. He admitted to us that 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... That was dishonest."

The DT in essence said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had combined to mislead and cheat the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Police investigations were commenced, based on the findings of the DT and the Court of Three Judges. Police did not make public at that time in October 2021, that the couple was being investigated.

A question was asked in this House earlier this month, about some public statements which had been made relating to Oxley and the judgments of the DT and the Court of Three Judges. Members can look up the Question and Answer. The Question required discussing the accuracy of those public statements in the context of the judgments of the DT and the Court of Three Judges, and it required dealing with the honesty or otherwise of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern.

That there were ongoing Police investigations, arising from the findings of the DT and the Court of Three Judges, was in that context relevant and necessary to be disclosed, to give an accurate and full Answer. It was also accurate to give a complete answer to mention that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had not cooperated with the Police investigations after saying that they would.

The reasons for disclosing that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were under investigation, are broadly similar to the reasons why it was disclosed that Mr Karl Liew was being investigated for perjury. Except that in the case of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, they have, in addition, absconded from jurisdiction. In Mr Karl Liew’s case, we were discussing his conduct and the conduct of other family members and the Court’s findings in this House. We thought it necessary to disclose in that context that Mr Karl Liew was being investigated. He cooperated with the investigation; he has since been charged.

Some Members may also recall – that I had said in this House when we were discussing the Parti Liyani case, that if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings contains findings, that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, that is something that we will take seriously. We mean what we say. I do not recall any Member expressing a different view, that such lying on oath in Court proceedings should not be taken seriously.

That was the situation with Mr Karl Liew, and that is the situation with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. But as I said, with the added fact that they have also absconded.

To summarise, the DT and the Court of Three Judges had said Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were lying. They had been found to be dishonest and more. All of that is public. They have also essentially absconded from jurisdiction. We take this seriously. And those facts were disclosed so that this House can have a full and complete picture, when a question had been asked which related to their conduct. If we cannot or should not answer the question in part or full, then, we would also have said so.

In deciding whether we make public that investigations are ongoing, one factor which is considered is prejudice to the person being investigated. If the investigations show that the person is innocent or an assessment is made that his guilt cannot be established in Court, and if his name had been publicised earlier, a cloud would have hung over him until he was cleared. Thus, the general position is that names are not disclosed.

Whether names should be released in a particular situation is a matter of judgment on what public interest requires. The examples I gave earlier illustrate the exceptions when names were made public.

For example, if you take the case of Mr Karl Liew, what is the prejudice to him? In Mr Karl Liew’s case, the High Court had taken the view that he was not telling the truth. The prejudice to him in disclosing that he was under investigations for that finding of lying, is marginal if any and has to be weighed against the public interest at stake, in disclosing the facts when the matter is being discussed in Parliament.

The same applies to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. Members who are not lawyers may not know this but when a DT says that a person is guilty, it can only do so if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the guilt. Likewise for the Court of Three Judges in disciplinary proceedings. The statements in Parliament about Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern do not materially add to any cloud the couple may already be under based on what the DT and the Court of Three Judges have said.

If the facts are different, then the position will be different. For example, say a name had been published in other proceedings and the Court had made some findings. But if our agencies are not able to prosecute the individual based on the earlier Court findings – because they assess that despite the earlier Court findings, substantial new facts have to be proven and that relevant evidence is not available and that relevant witnesses are not available, then there can be arguments both ways, on disclosure, and an assessment has to be made on the specific facts and a judgment has to be made.

But the cases of Mr Liew, and the Lees are quite different; and as I have said in the case of the Lees, they have also absconded.

I can tell Members that there is another case where the highest Court had made observations that a couple of persons had lied on oath. That matter is also being investigated. If there is a relevant question or issue about that matter, I can see that we will also set out the facts and say that Police are investigating. But just like with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern initially, when investigations had first commenced, Police had not volunteered the information. But Police will respond with the facts if there is a need to – for example, if questions are raised in Parliament.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern will have every right to provide explanations, on the matters being investigated if they eventually decide to do the right thing and cooperate with the Police. It is their choice whether they want to be fugitives from justice, or whether they come and explain why they say the Courts were wrong to say that they had lied.

The case of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) is quite different. It does not fall within the different examples I have set out.

Members may not know this, but it was KOM which had made the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) report. The CPIB had conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers that it possessed. It turned all the stones it could – and assessed the evidence together with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). They concluded that they could not sustain any charges in Court: the conduct had taken place overseas, key witnesses are not available, key documents are not available. We received some information from Brazil, but it was not adequate to mount any criminal charge. There were no admissions which could be relied upon to cross the evidentiary requirements. The documents between the US authorities and KOM and the DPA, also do not meet the evidentiary requirements. They go some way, but they do not cross the threshold in respect of those who were being investigated. The CPIB, for good reasons, has the reputation for being able to ferret out the truth. But even the CPIB cannot get something out or proceed with charges when there are no documents or other evidence which cross the evidential threshold, and which can be used to break down the interviewees’ defences.

In these circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals who have been under investigation, applies.

However, if any Member feels that this general policy should be changed and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who are being investigated, regardless of the circumstances and even if they are not abscondees from jurisdiction, and even if no charges are likely to brought in the end, then please let me know. We can then debate that.

I would be surprised if anyone says that.

If everyone agrees that persons under investigations should in general not be named, then the only question is the circumstances under which nevertheless names will be disclosed.

And I have explained some examples of when names have been disclosed. The fact that no one raised any issues with Mr Liew being named, or when names of other abscondees had been disclosed, shows that no one in this House took issue with this disclosure.

Okay. The issue here is really about fairness before the law whether we have the rule of law in Singapore or not. The Minister has shared that some of the exceptions involve the offender having absconded. May I ask the first question then – did the Police specifically issue a written order for Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lim Suet Fern to attend to the investigation at the Police station?

Secondly, he mentioned the difference between the KOM case and this case. But is the KOM case not also a matter of very wide public interest? A lot of people are very interested in the names of the six individuals. I do not understand the legal process very well but under the stern warning letter, is there a paragraph that says that these six individuals of KOM are guilty but the prosecutor decided or the CPIB decided not to pursue the case because of some other reasons.

So, we have a situation here that for a KOM case – actually it is a more serious case – they are actually guilty and we have the names in the foreign jurisdiction documents already – this is one point. Second point is that the KOM case is actually of deep public interest. So, why is there a double standard?

Sir, I took some care to explain the difference between the KOM case and the case of Mr Liew and the Lees. As I understand the Member, he says that the KOM case is a case of public interest, people are interested to know their names, so why is there a double standard?

Did the Member listen to the explanation on the difference between the KOM case and the case of the Lees and Mr Liew? Perhaps the Member can go into a little bit of detail, based on the explanation I have given on the differences and tell us, which part of the explanation he disagrees with before he alleges double standards. Get to the facts, I have set out what the differences are. Tell me which part the Member does not understand or disagrees with.

And on his first question, did the Police issue a written order – they were given an email, they promised that they will come and agreed to give an interview. They then left the jurisdiction and they have said both to the Police and in public that they will not cooperate with the Police. They will not even come back into the jurisdiction. That is why I said they are essentially abscondees from justice.

But, for the record, I have made it very clear why the disclosure here is consistent with the disclosure in the Karl Liew's case.

And Sir, through you, I would also like to ask Mr Leong, if Mr Leong did not see any problem when Mr Liew's name was mentioned in similar circumstances – in fact, he took part in the debate and wanted a commission of inquiry. Why then this extraordinary concern suddenly about the Lees that he did not show for Mr Liew? And perhaps he can explain why his approach shows double standards?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his reply. Just one supplementary question on the general principle behind when these disclosures of ongoing investigations are made.

When the Government decides that it is in the public interest to make a disclosure about an ongoing investigation, what are the safeguards put in place to make sure that that disclosure into the public domain does not prejudice in some way the conduct of due process and subsequent trial and so on that may happen later on?

I thank Mr Perera for that question. That is in fact the key point. In fact, one could say that that is the key point in making a decision on going public. And that is why you need to look carefully at the facts.

So, if you look at the facts relating to Mr Liew and the Lees, what has happened? The High Court has said that, in the case of Mr Liew, perhaps in less clear language; in the case of the Lees, very direct language, which I have taken you through – that at least Mr Liew as well as the two Lees were not telling the truth.

The investigation relates back to that very point on which the Courts have taken a view as to whether they lied or did not lie. That is why I said the prejudice is very marginal, if any.

As for the other aspect of prejudice that people will think less well of them the fact that we repeat in this House what the Courts have already said about them, is not going to increase the cloud as it were.

So, these are factors in the prejudice that you should take into account. Both the legal prejudice of fair trial as well as public perception prejudice, you should consider even before you release. You do not try and recover ground after that and shore up as it were.

You make these calculations before – what is the extent of prejudice? And you release the information, but always bearing in mind, sometimes public interest may require disclosure, even if it means some degree of prejudice. So, that is an assessment and it is an assessment we have to make.

In this case, in the case of the Lees, I have explained why I think the prejudice is pretty much non-existent because we are simply repeating what has been said and saying that the Police are investigating that matter. Which everyone would expect us to do anyway, because I have said in this House we will investigate these matters. So, what is the prejudice?

But there may be other cases potentially where the prejudice could be a little bit more. So, we have to assess public interest and that is why we have Parliament and when somebody takes a different view on prejudice, we will have to answer the questions.

And they will obviously be entitled to their full rights to give their version of events and they will be entitled to defend their position in Court.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister to aid understanding of what he said earlier.

I think the question was posed to him by Mr Leong about whether the Police had actually issued an order to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee to attend the interview. And his answer was that they were emailed, and they said that they would cooperate. Do I read from that that actually, the Police had not gotten to the stage when an order under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was actually issued to them?

That is right, Sir. A specific order under the CPC was not issued. The Police normally would not issue such an order. They would first contact, then speak with and then send the written document. And if a party says that they will cooperate, the Police would assume in good faith that that is how they will proceed. That is what was done and the next thing the Police heard was another email from the couple saying that they will not cooperate. But by then, they had already – as I said – essentially absconded from jurisdiction.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister mentioned that the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) and the Court of Three Judges have found them guilty of lying under oath. But exactly what lies these are, were not mentioned. Can the Minister share with us what exactly are the lies they were found to have said?

Secondly, there is much chatter that the investigation and the timing of the release of this information is linked to the interview with Bloomberg where Mr Lee Hsien Yang actually said that he might consider running for President. Would the Minister like to clarify on the situation?

On the first point as to exactly what the lies were, I would invite the Member to read the Disciplinary Tribunal's judgment and the Court of Three Judges' judgment. The relevant extracts are also in Senior Minister Teo's answer as an Annex. When we give answers in Parliament, we expect Members to read them, and I do not think we want to waste Parliament's time with me going through that again.

On the second point, can I invite the Member to make it clear? Is the Member suggesting that there is a connection between the Bloomberg interview and the disclosure in Parliament? Because we do not repeat rumours from outside. Is the Member suggesting that? I would like to know that before I answer.

You do not have to withdraw the question; I will answer the question.

I am trying to now recall, but my recollection is that the Bloomberg interview came after the answer given by Senior Minister Teo. And therefore, even the prescience of this Government could not have foretold that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was going to give such an interview. I stand corrected, but that is my recollection of the sequence of events.

And if a question is asked in Parliament, we answer. The debate for us is, I have explained the reasons why the answer was given. No one took issue when I disclosed that Mr Liew was being investigated. I assume that everyone accepted the principle and I have explained how that principle applies here. If anyone challenges us on that, I am prepared to debate. But the principle is the same.