In a Facebook post published Tuesday (Oct 22), Lee Hsien Yang declared himself a political refugee under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
“In 2017, my sister Wei Ling and I declared, ‘We do not trust Hsien Loong as a brother or as a leader.’ We stated that we feared the abuse of the organs of the Singapore state against us and against my family,” he wrote.
Citing legal actions against his family members and a prolonged police investigation, he asserted that the United Kingdom has determined he faces a well-founded risk of persecution, rendering it unsafe for him to return to Singapore.
Singapore government’s response
The Singaporean government swiftly responded, refuting his claims and emphasising the impartiality of its judiciary.
They highlighted findings from court proceedings and disciplinary tribunals, which concluded that Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, had engaged in misconduct concerning the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will.
Notably, both were found to have misled the late patriarch regarding the inclusion of certain clauses and were accused of lying under oath during the investigations.
Lee Hsien Yang and wife Lee Suet Fern has a record of lying both in public and in legal proceedings
In the context of the dispute over Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, significant legal scrutiny was applied to the roles played by Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern. The Court of Three Judges, Singapore’s highest disciplinary body for lawyers, upheld findings that both Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had misled the late Lee Kuan Yew regarding the preparation and execution of his final will in December 2013.
Key findings from the court and disciplinary tribunal include:
-
Misrepresentation in will execution: The tribunal found that Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang “persuaded their aged father-in-law/father… to sign a new Will without his usual lawyer… They cut off that lawyer… from communications with Mr Lee on the Last Will, and rushed through the execution… in her absence.”
-
Acting with impropriety: Lee Suet Fern was found to have “acted with complete disregard for the interests” of Lee Kuan Yew and “blindly followed the directions of her husband,” who was a significant beneficiary under the will.
-
Lying under oath: Both the court and the disciplinary tribunal concluded that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had lied under oath during the proceedings. The tribunal stated that they presented “an elaborate edifice of lies,” both in sworn affidavits and in public statements.
-
Fabrication of evidence: The disciplinary tribunal noted that Lee Hsien Yang had “no qualms about making up evidence as he went along,” finding his conduct to be “equally deceitful” as that of his wife.
Lee Suet Fern was suspended from practicing law for 15 months due to her professional misconduct in the preparation and execution of the last will.
Fast forward to 2024, Lee Hsien Yang maintains that he was a victim of political persecution.
The Singapore government has refuted these claims, stating that there are no legal barriers preventing him or his wife from returning to Singapore and that the investigations are based on credible evidence of wrongdoing.
The situation is further complicated by the passing of Lee Wei Ling in 2024. She continued to reside at Oxley Road until her death, which, contrary to earlier fears she expressed about state persecution, was due to natural causes related to her health.
Background
Central to the family feud is the fate of the ancestral home at 38 Oxley Road.
Lee Kuan Yew had expressed a desire for the house to be demolished to prevent it from becoming a monument.
However, differences in interpreting his wishes led to a public rift between his children.
Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the elder brother, advocated for a balanced approach that considered both his father’s desires and the public interest in preserving a site of historical significance. Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling perceived this as a betrayal, igniting a dispute that spilled into the public domain.
