[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Lee Hsien Yang’s role in his father’s last testament was established by a Court of Three Judges, who noted more than once in its ruling that his wife Lee Suet Fern had simply acted on his wishes and focused on what he wanted done.
The court had examined the role of Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, in trying to discern Ms. Lee’s guilt.
He discovered that the younger Mr. Lee had involved his wife in the preparation and execution of Mr. 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, Ms. Lee had sent a draft will to Mr. Lee senior following her husband’s instructions, arranged for her colleagues to witness his signature, and ensured that this be done quickly. Meanwhile, he was aware of the process, even sending instructions on a plane to Paris.
The court, which found Ms. Lee 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 (Mr. 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 be. “
One question the court considered was whether Mr. Lee Hsien Yang or Ms. Lee had received instructions from Mr. 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 Mr. Lee had expressly instructed Ms. Lee to prepare his will. .
But before a disciplinary court that examined Ms. Lee’s conduct, they changed their version and said that Lee Kuan Yew had given his instructions to Mr. Lee Hsien Yang. It was Mr. Lee Hsien Yang who had caught Ms. Lee on December 16, 2013 to help with the will, while she was traveling to Brisbane that same day, the couple added.
In its judgment delivered on Friday (November 20), the court said that after reviewing the evidence, including the emails 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’s statements were false and gave the wrong impression that Mr. Lee Hsien Yang had not been involved in receiving the instructions (from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew) to return to the first will.”
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 Mr. Lee Hsien Yang may have wanted to avoid the impression that he had some role to play in his father’s wishes to return to his first will and insert a demolition clause establishing his wishes that the Oxley house Road off demolished.
Another problem was whether Mr. 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 that Mr. Lee Hsien Yang “was not telling the truth.” Ms Lee’s evidence was “equally false and must be rejected,” he added.
He noted that neither Mr. Lee Hsien Yang nor Ms. Lee could provide any proof that he had done so, as they insisted that the emails had been deleted.
Rather, there was evidence that Ms. Lee had been involved in the writing of Mr. Lee’s first will, and she had old copies in her inbox.
The court also found that Ms. Lee was not in a position to make any statement 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 as “disturbing and critically important” a series of events related to the actions of Mr. Lee Hsien Yang on December 16, 2013.
After his wife sent Mr. Lee the draft of the will on December 16 at 7.08 p.m., copying Ms. Kwa Kim Li, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang sent his father an email at 7.31. pm with a copy to Mrs. Lee and Mr. Lee’s secretary. , but with Ms. Kwa removed from the recipient list.
In that email, he said that he was unable to reach Ms. Kwa and that he did not think it was wise for his father to wait until she returned before signing his last will.
He also said that Ms. Lee 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 Mr. Lee Hsien Yang had consulted with anyone when Ms. Kwa could be contacted, adding that he had removed her from the list of email recipients without knowing whether her father would agree to to be done.
Ms. Kwa was the attorney who had prepared the six previous versions of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s will, and he had discussed his last will with her a few days earlier.
“From this brief exchange it is clear that the change of position (of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew) was initiated by Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, and not by Ms. Lee or Mr. Lee Kuan Yew himself,” the court said .
She added that “the situation materially changed” after this 7.31pm email, as Ms. Lee became the only remaining attorney in the correspondence, and the onus fell on her to ensure that the version of the will signed by Mr. reflected his wishes and was accurate.
However, she had not done so and had been happy to push forward the execution of the will with “unseemly haste.” Throughout the entire process, Ms. Lee had also relied entirely on what her husband said were Mr. Lee’s wishes, the court said.
[ad_2]
