The recent article alleging that Lee Hsien Yang, the son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has been granted political asylum in Britain warrants a critical examination.
The narrative presented is not only misleading but also disregards verifiable facts established through legal proceedings and public records.
Misrepresentation of legal proceedings
The article suggests that Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, are victims of political persecution stemming from a family feud over the late Lee Kuan Yew’s will and the fate of the family home at 38 Oxley Road. However, it omits crucial details from extensive legal findings:
-
Professional misconduct: Lee Suet Fern was suspended from legal practice for 15 months after Singapore’s highest disciplinary body for lawyers, the Court of Three Judges, found that she had engaged in professional misconduct by preparing and executing the last will of Lee Kuan Yew under dubious circumstances.
-
Findings of dishonesty: Both Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern were found to have lied under oath during the disciplinary proceedings. The court described their actions as presenting “an elaborate edifice of lies,” demonstrating a calculated attempt to mislead investigators and the public.
-
Alteration of the Will: The couple was implicated in the hasty reintroduction of a “demolition clause” concerning 38 Oxley Road into Lee Kuan Yew’s final will, a clause that had been removed in earlier drafts. Additionally, the last will increased Lee Hsien Yang’s share of the estate.
False claims of persecution
Lee Hsien Yang alleges that he faces persecution in Singapore, preventing his safe return. This claim is unsubstantiated:
-
Freedom to return: There are no legal barriers preventing Lee Hsien Yang or his wife from returning to Singapore. They left the country voluntarily after being approached by the police for an interview regarding potential offences of giving false evidence.
-
Due process: The investigations are grounded in credible evidence uncovered during judicial proceedings. Singapore’s legal system operates on the principle that no one is above the law, irrespective of their social or political standing.
Distortion of family dynamics
The article portrays the dispute as a simple familial disagreement over the demolition of a house. This is a gross oversimplification:
-
National Heritage considerations: The Singapore government has taken into account Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes while also considering the house’s historical significance. Lee Kuan Yew himself was open to options other than demolition, such as refurbishing the interior.
-
Prime Minister’s recusal: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has consistently recused himself from all government decisions related to 38 Oxley Road to avoid any conflicts of interest.
Unfounded allegations involving Li Shengwu
The article insinuates that the Singapore government targeted Lee Hsien Yang’s son, Li Shengwu, to prevent him from entering politics:
-
Contempt of court: Li Shengwu was fined for contempt of court after making a Facebook post implying that Singapore’s judiciary is not independent. He acknowledged the offense by paying the fine. There are no further legal actions against him, and he is free to return to Singapore at any time.
-
No evidence of political motives: There is no credible evidence to support the claim that the government acted to block Li Shengwu’s hypothetical political aspirations, which he himself has denied having.
Mischaracterisation of Singapore’s Legal System
The article’s insinuation that Singapore’s judiciary is an instrument of political oppression is unfounded:
-
Global recognition: Singapore ranks highly in international indices for transparency and rule of law, outperforming many Western countries, including the UK, in measures of judicial independence and absence of corruption.
-
Equal application of law: The legal actions taken against members of the Lee family demonstrate that Singapore’s laws apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their familial connections or social status.
Conclusion
The narrative presented in the article is a one-sided account that ignores substantial legal findings and factual evidence. It attempts to paint Lee Hsien Yang and his wife as victims of political persecution without acknowledging their documented misconduct and the due process of law.
Singapore’s commitment to the rule of law and judicial independence is well-established and internationally recognised. The actions taken by its legal institutions in this matter reflect a dedication to justice and integrity, not political vindictiveness.
It is essential for reporting on such sensitive issues to be balanced and informed by all available facts.
Misrepresentations not only mislead readers but also unjustly cast aspersions on the reputations of individuals and institutions that have acted appropriately and lawfully.
