[ad_1]
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times / ANN): Lee Hsien Yang’s role in his father’s last will was established by a Court of Three Judges, which noted more than once in its ruling that his wife Lee Suet Fern had simply acted on her wishes and had concentrated on what she wanted done.
The court had examined Lee Hsien Yang’s role in trying to discern Suet Fern’s guilt.
He discovered that young Lee had involved his wife in the preparation and execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, and described some aspects of an email he sent on December 16, 2013 as “concerning”.
For more than 16 hours, from December 16 to 17, Suet Fern had sent a draft of the will to Senior Lee on her husband’s instructions, arranged for her colleagues to witness her signing, and ensured that this was done. quickly.
The entire time, he was aware of the process, even sending instructions on a plane to Paris.
The court, which found Suet Fern guilty of misconduct for her participation in the will, said her conduct should be viewed in 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 eager to hasten her execution.
“On the other hand, (she) had a responsibility to act honorably and to ensure that (Lee Kuan Yew), whom she would have reasonably considered her client, was fully informed of the factual position before she proceeded to execute the last will. . “
One question the court considered was whether Lee Hsien Yang or Suet Fern had received instructions from Lee Kuan Yew.
The couple had initially told a ministerial committee, created in 2016 to investigate Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes for his family’s home at 38 Oxley Road, that Lee had given Suet Fern express instructions to prepare his will.
But before a disciplinary court that examined Suet Fern’s conduct, they changed their version and said that Lee Kuan Yew had instructed Lee Hsien Yang. It was Lee Hsien Yang who had caught Suet Fern on December 16, 2013, to help with the will, while traveling to Brisbane that same day, the couple added.
In its ruling delivered on Friday (November 20), the court said that after reviewing the evidence, including the emails between the parties, it agreed that Lee Kuan Yew had indeed conveyed his wishes to his son.
“All of this leads us to conclude that the ministerial committee’s statements were false and gave the wrong impression that Lee Hsien Yang had not been involved in receiving (Lee Kuan Yew’s) instructions to return to the first testament.”
The totally contradictory accounts given to the ministerial committee and the disciplinary court showed dishonesty on the part of the couple, the court added.
He suggested that Lee Hsien Yang may have wanted to avoid the impression that he had some role to play in his father’s wishes to go back to his first will and insert a demolition clause setting out his wishes that the Oxley Road house be torn down. .
Another issue was whether Lee Hsien Yang had sent the draft of the last will to his wife to send to her father. He had insisted that he did so, but the court said it believed Lee Hsien Yang “was not telling the truth.” Suet Fern’s evidence was “equally false and should be rejected,” he added.
He noted that neither Lee Hsien Yang nor Suet Fern were able to provide any proof that he had done so, as they insisted the emails had been deleted.
Rather, there was evidence that Suet Fern had been involved in the writing of Lee Senior’s first will and had old copies in her inbox.
The court also determined that Suet Fern was not in a position to make any statement to the effect that the draft of the last will was the same as the actual version of the first will, since “the executed version of the first will was never in her hands “.
“Despite this, he made such a representation, which was in fact false,” the court said.
He also described a series of events related to Lee Hsien Yang’s actions on December 16, 2013 as “disturbing and critically important”.
After his wife sent Lee senior the draft of the will on December 16 at 7.08pm, copying Kwa Kim Li, Lee Hsien Yang sent his father an email at 7.31pm copied to Lee and the secretary by Lee senior, but without Kwa. from the recipient list.
In that email, he said that he could not contact Kwa and that he did not think it was wise for her father to wait until she returned before signing his last will.
He also said Suet Fern could organize witnesses for the execution of the last will. Citing this email, the court said that several aspects were “concerning”.
The court noted that it did not appear that Lee Hsien Yang had consulted with anyone when Kwa could be contacted, adding that he had removed her from the list of email recipients without knowing whether her father would agree to do so.
Kwa was the lawyer who had prepared the previous six versions of Lee Kuan Yew’s will, and had discussed his last will with her a few days earlier.
“From this brief exchange it is clear that the change of position (of Lee Kuan Yew) was initiated by Lee Hsien Yang, and not by Ms. Lee or Lee Kuan Yew himself,” the court said.
She added that “the situation materially changed” after this 7.31pm email when Suet Fern became the only attorney left in the correspondence, and the onus fell on her to ensure that the version of the will signed by the senior Lee really reflected his wishes and it was accurate.
However, she had not done so and had been happy to carry out the execution of the will in “unseemly haste.”
During the entire process, Suet Fern had also relied entirely on what her husband said were Major Lee’s wishes, the court said. – The Straits Times / Asia News Network
[ad_2]
