Debated in Parliament on 2 Mar 2023.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security whether an e-book, "The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will", accurately represents the circumstances surrounding the signing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will, as found by the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges in disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee Suet Fern, where she was found guilty of professional misconduct.
Many Singaporeans would prefer to put behind us questions about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's (Mr LKY) Last Will.
But there are continuing efforts to rewrite the facts. The e-book by Mr Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh (Mr Thomas), "The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will", published not long ago in July 2022, is one such example1.
Mr Thomas claims to have spent a year scrutinising the evidence to shine a light on the events. However, the book is not credible, as it totally ignores the facts and findings which had been established, after an objective and thorough examination of the case, by the Court of Three Judges (C3J)2 in November 2020 and a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) in February 20203.
The C3J and the DT found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (Mr LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (Mrs LSF):
(a) misled Mr LKY in the context of the Last Will's execution; and
(b) lied under oath.
On the first point, the C3J and the DT concluded that Mrs LSF was guilty of misconduct. She "focused primarily on what her husband wanted done", and "worked together with Mr LHY, with a singular purpose, of getting [Mr LKY] to execute the Last Will quickly" 4. Mr LKY "ended up signing a document which was in fact not that which he had indicated he wished to sign" 5 . The C3J suspended Mrs LSF from practising as a lawyer for 15 months. This is quite a serious penalty.
On the second point, the DT said that Mr LHY and Mrs LSF had presented "an elaborate edifice of lies … both on oath … and through their public and other statements, (which were referred to/relied upon during the Disciplinary Proceedings). The Affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant." 6. The C3J also found that Mr LHY and Mrs LSF had lied under oath.
A summary of the relevant findings and quotes from the judgments, on both these points, are provided in Annex A. A timeline of the events relating to the execution of the Last Will is provided in Annex B.
Mr Thomas ignores these findings by the C3J and the DT, and the admissions made by Mr LHY and Mrs LSF.
He comes to the surprising conclusion that the judgments clear Mrs LSF and Mr LHY of "all suspicion of improper motives or manipulations" 7.
It is clear that the assertions in his book are calculated to mislead, as they are completely at odds with the findings and conclusions of the C3J and the DT.
Some of the inaccurate statements in the book are set out in Annex C and contrasted with the facts.
As mentioned above, the C3J and the DT found that Mrs LSF and Mr LHY had lied under oath. This is a serious matter.
I understand that the Police have commenced investigations into Mrs LSF and Mr LHY for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.
As part of the investigations, the Police requested an interview with Mrs LSF and Mr LHY. They initially agreed to attend the Police interview.
However, Mrs LSF and Mr LHY later had a change of heart and refused to attend. Their refusal is disappointing.
(a) The Police have advised them to reconsider participating in investigations, but they have since left Singapore, and remain out of the country.
(b) The Police have also informed them that the necessary steps would be taken to complete the investigations in their absence.
Their refusal to participate raises questions.
(a) If they maintain their innocence, the investigation will give them the chance to vindicate themselves.
(b) They should participate, take the full opportunity to give their side of the story, and clear their names.
As the investigations are ongoing, I will not say more at this juncture.
PAPERCUTS