Lee Wei Ling's evidence against Lee Hsien Loong

Here are the evidence and document thrown out by Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang after the Parliamentary debate on the Lee Family Feud. What we are reading and hearing here, could very well be the true colours of the world most expensive Prime Minister. Some of these traits we have also heard before in the past, notably, the well-documented case of him slapping of Dhanabalan, some 20+ years ago.

https://goo.gl/vyPYD3

https://goo.gl/xKPNRq

[QUOTE Lee Wei Ling]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Over this period we have disclosed a wide range of evidence. For clarity, we provide here a summary of what we have shown to date:

1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath -- some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private through improper means.

2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.

3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.

4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.

5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.

6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.

7. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes.

8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath -- some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private through improper means.

2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.

From 2010, LHL improperly misrepresented to our father LKY that gazetting of 38 Oxley Road was either "inevitable" or that the house was already gazetted. We now know that no decision had been made. In doing so, LHL improperly represented the government’s position, and acted under a clear conflict of interest.

In Parliament, LHL claimed that, because LKY “considered” alternatives to demolition, citing the renovation plans by Ho Ching as proof that LKY wavered in his demolition wish. The contradictions are many.

As the email below reveals, LKY and we were in fact very skeptical about the renovation plans, as these were inconsistent with LHL’s insistence that the house would be gazetted. The evidence also shows that LKY considered alternatives only because of LHL’s misrepresentations to his own family. Finally, it contradicts a claim made by Lee Hsien Loong through his lawyer that no decision had in fact been made on the house and that he never informed LKY that 38 Oxley road was to be gazetted as a national monument.

Ultimately, is it even proper for Hsien Loong to be making decisions on a matter where he has a direct personal interest?

Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY: https://goo.gl/VRhwiC

3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.

LKY’s Final Will of December 2013 was a reversion to his 2011 will on his express instructions. Stamford Law, was called upon to witness the execution of this will simply because LKY’s lawyer, Kwa Kim Li was not contactable at the time. This was also at the express instruction and insistence of our father, who did not wish to wait. Lee Kuan Yew in an email on 16 December 2013 (the day before the signing of the final will):

LHL stated in a letter dated 15 September 2016 to the Cabinet committee and in a statutory declaration dated 24 February 2017 that this will of 2011 had been drafted by Kwa Kim Li, with clause 7 drafted by Lee Suet Fern. LHL: “Whilst the First Will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, the Demolition Clause was drafted by my sister-in-law, Lee Suet Fern.” The 2013 will was essentially a reversion to the 2011 will. Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer and well knew the sanctity and finality of a will. He gave clear instructions for the execution of the will. He carefully read his final will before signing it, and he continued to review and reflect after signing to put his affairs in order. Two weeks after signing his will, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted a codicil to his will and executed it.

All three children were kept fully apprised of the signing of the final will and the codicil. No objection was raised at that time and indeed Hsien Loong has affirmed the will in public and in private. At the end of the day, only a court-proven final will is the legally binding will. Lee Kuan Yew’s final will was confirmed by court on 6 October 2015.

Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were unhappy with Wei Ling’s right to live at 38 Oxley Road and sought to push back on this in LKY’s wills 2 to 6.

Further details:
Drafting and Witnessing of the Will: https://goo.gl/TqiMqu, https://goo.gl/q9CUZo
Wei Ling’s Right to Live at 38 Oxley: https://goo.gl/CkFc2d, https://goo.gl/gFApyD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.

These items were part of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate, and not owned by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under Lee Kuan Yew’s will, the executors (not the beneficiaries) have absolute discretion over these items. To take them without prior permission constitutes both theft and intermeddling.

Ho Ching took the items on behalf of PMO, despite having no official position in PMO. Neither PMO, nor LHL had the proper standing to authorize the removal of these items or loan them.

Further details:
NHB Receipt of Items taken by Ho Ching: https://goo.gl/TXQKxX
The NHB discovers a “clerical error”: https://goo.gl/gkbrWS


5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.

Lee Hsien Loong received confidential documents in his public capacity as PM, and used these in his personal legal disputes with the estate of Lee Kuan Yew. Documents were passed to Lucien Wong, Lee Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer and now Attorney General.

The NHB had chosen the items it wanted. Lorries came to collect the furniture from the house. The agreement specified that Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish had to be displayed as part of the exhibition. Nonetheless, because of LHL’s unhappiness over the display of the demolition wish, NHB tried to backtrack on the agreement. This was a major gift by the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew to the people of Singapore. LHL should not have involved NHB or AGC in his personal disagreements with the Estate of LKY. He should have raised his issues directly with the Estate. (DPM Teo in Parliament on 4 July 2017: “If the NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through this Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement.”)

Further details:
Letter from Lucien Wong/LHL challenging gift: https://goo.gl/yeMzBr
Explanation from PMO on using information for personal use: https://goo.gl/ELaoc6
LHL acquires Deed of Gift in Public Capacity as PM: https://goo.gl/KPpXsJ
NHB attempts to backtrack on gift after collecting items: ​https://goo.gl/UhqsRW

6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.

The secret committee refused to disclose details about itself, despite many requests from the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew.

7. Amongst others we had also raised specific concerns on the possible membership of Shanmugam and his conflicts of interests and ethics, having advised LKY and us on options to achieve LKY’s wishes, and in the drafting of the demolition wish. This was brushed off by Lawrence Wong: “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 PM.” Only now do we find out he is a member of this Committee.

As part of LHL’s settlement agreement with the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew (December 2015), he affirmed Lee Kuan Yew’s will, and promised to recuse himself from all matters concerning the house. LHL also made clear the reason he did so was to leave the Executors free to deal with the house: “One reason for transferring the house to you is so that you are free to do what you want, and I need not get involved.”

Nonetheless, this secret ministerial committee was set up in July 2016 to examine the house, even though the government’s position had been that no decision needed to be taken and it was for the government of the day to decide some time in the future. Despite his ‘recusal’, Lee Hsien Loong made extensive submissions to the ministerial committee. In these submissions, he sought to undermine Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish and will. Is it an abuse of power to have PM Lee’s subordinates act as secret judges on what he claims is a “private family matter”? How can PM Lee at his whim ignore his legal obligations under our settlement agreement? How can such a committee of subordinates ever be impartial in a dispute where the Prime Minister has clear vested interests? How can a secret ministerial committee be the correct forum for re-examining the validity of a court-declared binding will?

Further details:
Was LHL’s Cabinet Committee a secret?: https://goo.gl/4Qfsb6
Committee was neither transparent nor proper: https://goo.gl/7sT17S
Private family matters and secret committees: https://goo.gl/ZxZujD


8. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes.

The ministerial committee’s correspondence to us focused almost entirely on attacking Lee Kuan Yew’s Final Will rather than examining options about 38 Oxley. LHL’s statutory declaration to the committee claims that “there is no evidence” that Lee Kuan Yew was aware of the demolition clause. This is false. Lee Kuan Yew initialed directly beneath the demolition clause.

At the time of the signing, Lee Kuan Yew was a sitting MP, alert and of sound mind. As a Cambridge-educated lawyer, he was more than capable of understanding a four-page document.

In January 2014, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted a codicil (legal addendum) to his will,  which was witnessed by his secretary and bodyguard.​ Again, he kept his children informed. Lee Kuan Yew understood entirely the contents of his will - he was mentally sharp enough not only to read his will, but to draft new parts without assistance. He subsequently also executed an Advance Medical Directive.

It is improper for LHL to use a committee of his subordinates to try to undermine the will. The correct place for such objections was during probate hearings. Probate for Lee Kuan Yew’s will was granted in Oct 2015, so the will is full, final, and legally binding. If LHL wanted to object to our father’s will, the correct time and place to do so was during the probate process. He chose not to at the time, and indeed urged the executors to file for probate.

Lee Hsien Loong now claims : “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.” Objections to probate are regularly heard ‘in camera’, away from the public eye, so a desire for privacy is no excuse. The courts have found that Lee Kuan Yew’s will is final and legally binding. By now trying to undermine the court ruling via a committee of his subordinates, Lee Hsien Loong has disregarded the separation of powers. Is everyone allowed to attack their father’s will through secret committees, or is this privilege reserved only for the PM?

8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.

Why are we speaking up?: https://goo.gl/Nah2ra https://goo.gl/4zwhbC
Parliamentary Whitewash: https://goo.gl/c1a5SG
Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY: https://goo.gl/VRhwiC

Conclusion

We have disclosed evidence that warrants serious concern. We have done so carefully after considerable thought and review, including consideration of our parents’ integrity and values. This is just a brief summary of evidence to date. There is much evidence we have yet to show.

Some of this evidence is too complex to be well-suited to social media. We reserve this to show to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one.

QUOTE [Lee Hsien Yang]


The government asks of us, “Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore?”
We are not making a criticism of the Government of Singapore, as we made clear from the beginning. What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong. Since Lee Kuan Yew’s passing, we have felt threatened by LHL's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda.
Our private family dispute would have remained a private family dispute, if PM Lee had not used government agencies and a secret ministerial committee to force his way. Sadly, it is Lee Hsien Loong who has dragged the government into a personal dispute.
In Singapore, the PM and his wife should not be above the law. The PM should abide by the same high standards that are expected of even junior civil servants. To show evidence that he has failed to meet these standards, is not to attack the Singapore system, but to preserve it.
Our father’s legacy is more than bricks and mortar. He made sure that all government officials acted with justice and integrity. He accepted nothing less than incorruptibility, especially for the very top. Singapore can yet live up to his legacy.

No comments:

Post a Comment