When it comes to addressing allegations, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, has shown he can respond swiftly and decisively, as seen in his and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s rapid legal actions against Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) for defamation, as well as their recent rebuttal to LHY’s statement regarding the defamation costs paid to the two ministers.

However, the stark contrast in how Mr. Shanmugam has handled recent revelations about his own financial dealings, and his silence regarding the S$88 million sale of a Good Class Bungalow (GCB), is puzzling and raises concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest.

TOC had earlier disclosed that Mr Shanmugam sold his GCB at 6 Astrid Hill for a staggering S$88 million in August 2023.

The sale was to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd, a transaction managed by legal professionals from his former law firm and concluded without any encumbrances like a mortgage. This deal turned a home bought for S$7.95 million into an S$88 million sale—garnering a massive profit.

This sale was made just a month after he made his ministerial statement explaining the circumstances of his leasing of the massive black-and-white bungalow estate at 26 Ridout Road from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a statutory board that he oversees as the Minister for Law.

This transaction, particularly the identity of the buyer and the approval process for such a high-value sale, is of public interest because GCBs are subject to stringent sale conditions.

They are generally only sold to Singaporeans or approved Permanent Residents who have made significant economic contributions to Singapore. The approval for such transactions typically comes from the SLA.

This raises an inherent question: Why has Mr Shanmugam not addressed the public regarding this substantial financial transaction, especially when such approvals could potentially involve his direct oversight? We have written to him for his comments but were met with silence.

We do not know who the actual beneficiaries of the property are, as it was sold to ‘The Jasmine Villa Settlement,’ a trust managed by UBS Trustees. The beneficiaries could be Singaporeans, foreigners, or a mix of both.

His silence is notable because it contrasts sharply with his and other ministers’ rapid responses to allegations made by LHY.

The potential conflict of interest in the sale of the minister’s GCB is similar to earlier concerns about his rental of a black-and-white property at 26 Ridout Road, which also involved the SLA from which he has said to have recused himself from decisions made. Notably, the government has also cleared him of any wrongdoing.

The lack of public commentary from Mr Shanmugam about the sale of his GCB, despite the potential need for SLA’s approval, and the silence from the mainstream media on this revelation, merit scrutiny.

The public deserves to know:

• Who was the buyer and, if the buyer is a non-Singaporean, who approved the sale to UBS Trustees and under what criteria? Especially since GCBs can only be sold to Singaporeans or Permanent Residents who have not only been resident in Singapore for over five years but have also made exceptional economic contributions—a criterion subject to the subjective approval of the authorities.
• Was there any conflict of interest given the minister’s role over the SLA? This is particularly pertinent given that the SLA, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Law, would typically be involved in approving such transactions if the buyer does not meet the usual criteria. Moreover, given the huge sum involved in the transaction, extra scrutiny is warranted, especially as Mr. Shanmugam is a public servant holding significant power.
• Why has there been no public statement from Minister Shanmugam on this matter, especially given the rapid response to defamation accusations? His silence contrasts sharply with his prompt responses to other public issues, raising questions about consistency and transparency in handling personal financial dealings versus public allegations.

Minister Shanmugam’s transparency in this matter would reaffirm public trust and ensure that his actions as a minister do not conflict with his personal financial dealings.

His response, or lack thereof, will significantly influence public perception of his commitment to transparency and accountability in his official capacities.

On 1 October, Ministers for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam, and for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, took to Facebook to address Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) recent post about his payment of S$619,335.53 in defamation costs to both ministers.

In their posts, the ministers referred to a judgment by the Court of Three Judges (CoTJ), which found that LHY’s wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), had engaged in improper conduct in handling the late Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY) final will.

The judgement claimed that LSF had “blindly followed the directions of her husband” in an “unseemly haste” to execute the will.

However, both ministers conveniently omit a critical point in their posts: LHY’s actions in executing the will were consistent with instructions previously given to LKY’s lawyer, Mdm Kwa Kim Li.

While the CoTJ’s judgment on LSF stands as it was delivered in November 2020, it was made without the knowledge of the instructions from LKY that were given to Mdm Kwa, which she initially denied.

This crucial finding was made by a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) in May 2023, which determined that Mdm Kwa had misled LHY and his sister, Lee Wei Ling, by omitting important information regarding LKY’s wishes to alter his will.

The DT concluded that Mdm Kwa’s failure to act on LKY’s instructions amounted to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor where its judgement stated, “We further find that her statement in that same email that she did not receive any instructions from the Testator to change his Will (LKY) is false.”

This context is crucial because it reveals that LHY was not acting independently or improperly but rather following instructions that LKY had already communicated to his lawyer.

The DT concluded that the communications between Mdm Kwa and LKY in November/December 2013 clearly show the following:

(a) On 29 November 2013, the LKY contacted Mdm Kwa to discuss his concerns that the Oxley Road property would be “de-gazetted” and expressed his desire to arrange for any increase in value upon such “de-gazetting” to be shared by LHL with LWL and LHY, rather than being retained solely by LHL, who was to inherit the Oxley property.

(b) In the week before 12 December 2013,  Mdm Kwa and LKY had a further discussion and discussed the shares that LHL, LWL, and LHY would each receive. During this conversation, the LKY indicated his wish to give all three children equal shares, in contrast to his existing will, where LWL received an extra share.

(c) In her email on 12 December 2013, Mdm Kwa stated that she would prepare a codicil to implement the LKY’s wish and have it ready for LKY’s signature that week or when he was prepared. Mdm Kwa also mentioned having “some thoughts” on the Oxley Road property and would call LKY later that day.

(d) On 13 December 2013, the LKY emailed Mdm Kwa requesting a further amendment to his will concerning the bequest of two carpets to LHY.

By omitting this fact, the ministers’ portrayal of LHY and LSF may be seen as misleading and incomplete.

In addition to their selective account of the circumstances of the last will, the ministers also responded to LHY’s claim that the defamation damages paid to them amounted to 13.6 months’ rent for the Ridout Road properties by stating that the damages would be donated to charity.

What both ministers fail to mention is that such charitable donations are eligible for tax deductions of up to 2.5 times the donation amount.

With annual incomes of approximately S$1,760,000 each at the MR1 ministerial grade, both ministers stand to benefit from an estimated tax saving of S$120,000 each by donating the S$200,000 paid to them, effectively reducing the financial burden of the damages they claim to donate selflessly.

By choosing to omit these key facts—the prior instructions given to LKY’s lawyer and the potential tax benefits from the charitable donation—a misleading narrative is painted.

These omissions do not appear to be accidental but rather seem intended to shape public perception in a way that deflects attention from inconvenient truths.

Background of defamation suit

The defamation suit, for which LHY made the payment, stems from a Facebook post he made on 23 July 2023, in which he commented on the ministers’ rental of the Ridout Road properties following a parliamentary session on 3 July 2023, during which both ministers delivered statements explaining the circumstances of their leases in light of public outcry.

The post was first issued a correction direction by Second Minister for Law, Edwin Tong, under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) on 25 July 2023.

Two days later, on 27 July 2023, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan announced plans to sue LHY for defamation unless he issued an apology and retracted the statements made in the July Facebook post.

They accused LHY of suggesting that they had acted corruptly by receiving favourable treatment from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) through unauthorized tree felling and state-funded renovations at 26 and 31 Ridout Road. Both ministers categorically refuted these allegations.

In their Facebook posts, Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan outlined their demands: LHY was to retract his accusations, issue an apology, and pay damages, which would be donated to charity. Non-compliance would result in legal action.

LHY refused the demands and argued that his comments were based on publicly available information and did not allege corruption or personal gain but rather raised questions about transparency.

He wrote, “My post did not assert that Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan acted corruptly or for personal gain by having the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) give them preferential treatment, such as illegally felling trees without approval and having SLA pay for renovations. My post simply stated facts that were already widely published in the Singapore and international media.”

He also alleged that the ministers were pressuring him to issue a false apology for statements he never made, adding, “No Singaporean should have to lie to avoid lawsuits.”

Despite his public clarification, the ministers still proceeded to sue him in August, and in November 2023, the Singapore High Court ruled in their favour after LHY failed to file a Notice of Intention (NOI) to contest the lawsuit within the required timeframe.