Connect with us

Opinion

Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang’s fight to fulfil LKY’s final wish

Why were Dr Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang so adamant about demolishing the Oxley Road home, despite personal sacrifices? It likely became a moral duty to honour what they saw as their father’s core values. After Lee Kuan Yew’s wish for a quick death wasn’t fulfilled in 2015, they may have felt a stronger responsibility to ensure his second wish was respected.

Published

2 hours ago

on

Dr Lee Wei Ling, who passed away on 9 October 2024, was a steadfast advocate for her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY)—Singapore’s founding Prime Minister—wish to demolish their family home at 38 Oxley Road.

Her funeral on 12 October 2024 was not just a moment of farewell but a poignant reminder of her lifelong commitment to honouring her parents’ final wishes, particularly the demolition of the Oxley Road house.

Even at her passing, Dr Lee never wavered in her dedication to fulfilling her father’s last wish—a cause she championed until her final days, despite battling progressive supranuclear palsy.

In his eulogy for his beloved sister, Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) conveyed a message from Dr Lee, in which she reaffirmed their parents’ wish for their home at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished after their deaths:

“My father, LEE KUAN YEW, and my mother, KWA GEOK CHOO, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death. LEE KUAN YEW directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He also appealed directly to the people of Singapore: Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

The house, which had become a focal point of public and familial dispute, remained central to her legacy.

But why were Dr Lee and LHY so adamant about fulfilling their father’s wish, despite the personal sacrifices they faced?

Some netizens speculated that LHY, who acquired the property from their brother, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), then-Prime Minister in 2015, might intend to sell it for financial gain—an allegation put forth by LHL in his statutory declaration.

However, given the persecution Dr Lee, LHY, and his family have endured—ranging from surveillance to political attacks—it is clear that financial benefit would hardly justify the immense personal and legal challenges they have faced over the years.

Their determination, therefore, seems rooted not in monetary interests but in a deep sense of duty to their father, LKY, and his values.

It could be argued that the siblings saw the demolition of the house as more than a matter of inheritance—it was a moral imperative, driven by filial piety and a desire to protect their father’s legacy from being politicised.

In their public statement on 14 June 2017, accusing LHL of abusing his power as Prime Minister, they articulated their commitment: “We have nothing to gain from the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, other than the knowledge that we have honoured our father’s last wish.”

Their determination to demolish the Oxley Road home may also have been rooted in a sense of guilt over failing to honour another of their father’s critical wishes: his desire for a quick death without being placed on life support.

Placed on Life Support for Weeks Despite Advance Medical Directive

LKY, known for his pragmatism, was clear that he did not wish to be kept alive artificially if there was no chance of recovery.

In his 2013 book One Man’s View of the World, he revealed that he had signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) stating that if he reached a point where he could not recover and would need to be kept alive by artificial means, he wished for the doctors to let him “make a quick exit.”

In his own words: “Some time back, I had an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) done which says that if I have to be fed by a tube, and it is unlikely that I would ever be able to recover and walk about, my doctors are to remove the tube and allow me to make a quick exit.”

He made it clear in his personal writings that he preferred a dignified end rather than prolonged suffering or incapacitation—likely a reflection of having cared for his wife, Kwa Geok Choo, who had been bedridden for over two years as a result of a series of strokes.

His desire for a swift and natural death was one of only two explicit wishes he made for his final days, the other being the demolition of his home after his passing.

Yet, when LKY’s health deteriorated in early 2015 due to severe pneumonia, this wish was not honoured.

According to the official statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, LKY was placed on mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit as his condition worsened in February of that year. This meant he remained on life support for weeks until his death on 23 March 2015.

The AMD was previously highlighted by Dr Lee in a Facebook post in April 2019, where she noted that Lee & Lee—the law firm co-founded by her parents—had handled her father’s personal matters, including his wills, powers of attorney, and AMD, which LKY reaffirmed in August 2014.

In that post, Dr Lee also accused LKY’s lawyer, Mdm Kwa Kim Li (KKL), of lying about her involvement in the events that led to LKY’s final will—a point crucial to the persecution her younger brother and sister-in-law are currently facing.

Dr Lee asserted that Mdm Kwa had been in discussions and exchanged emails about what LKY wanted in his December 2013 will, despite KKL’s denial.

In May 2023, a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found KKL guilty of misconduct, confirming Dr Lee’s assertions that KKL had misrepresented her role in LKY’s final will.

It was proven that KKL had misled the executors of LKY’s estate—Dr Lee and LHY—by withholding critical information regarding instructions she had received from LKY about his will.

Despite her claims to the contrary, evidence showed she had been in correspondence with LKY about potential changes in November and December 2013. The tribunal ruled that her conduct fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor and imposed penalties, including a fine of S$8,000 and additional costs to the Law Society of Singapore.

It remains unclear who made the decision to place LKY on life support despite his AMD or whether the AMD, overseen by KKL’s law firm, had been highlighted to the attending doctors. This will likely remain a mystery—just as it is unknown who misled LKY into believing that his house had been gazetted by the Singapore government.

Note by Kwa Kim Li that she couldn’t find the records of 38 Oxley Road being gazetted and that she had informed Lee Kuan Yew of this.

Regardless, this failure to honour LKY’s wish, along with the likely prolonged suffering he endured while on life support, may have placed an emotional burden on Dr Lee and LHY, knowing that they had been unable to fulfil their father’s desire for a quick and dignified end.

This experience likely intensified their resolve to ensure that his other major wish—the demolition of 38 Oxley Road—was honoured. For them, it went beyond fulfilling a practical request; it became a personal mission to ensure that at least one of their father’s final wishes was carried out.

This was made clear in their 2017 statement, where they expressed profound disappointment in LHL, whom they accused of blocking the demolition for political reasons—allegations that LHL categorically denied both in public and in parliament. They wrote, “Hsien Loong has everything to gain from preserving 38 Oxley Road—he need only ignore his father’s will and values.”

LKY feared that the house might become a symbol of his personal legacy, detracting from his contributions to Singapore as a whole. He always prioritised the collective good over personal glorification, viewing the house as a private space rather than something to be preserved for political or historical purposes.

Dr Lee emphasised this about her father’s personal beliefs in a 2016 Facebook post, stating, “Papa was dead set against a personality cult and any hint of cronyism.”

The siblings believed that by preserving the house, their brother was not only defying their father’s will but also eroding the values LKY stood for: humility, simplicity, and putting the country first.

Dr Lee went so far as to refer to LHL as a “dishonourable son” for trying to build a “Lee family cult.”

In response to the allegations, LHL stated in his 2017 Ministerial Statement that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding 38 Oxley Road and that a ministerial committee, led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, had been studying various intermediate options related to the house.

In the same parliamentary session, DPM Teo stated that the government’s position was that “no decision is needed now” as Dr Lee was still living in the property—implying that a decision would be made after her passing. With Dr Lee’s recent passing, this deferred decision on the fate of the house will likely be addressed soon.

LHY and LWL’s Sacrifices to Fulfil Their Father’s Final Wish

LHY, who had expressed his sadness over his sister’s death and their shared commitment to their father’s wishes, has frequently highlighted the personal cost of their battle.

In March 2023, he spoke of feeling “deeply saddened” that he had become a “refugee” from his own country due to his refusal to back down on the Oxley Road issue. Both he and Dr Lee had faced what they described as harassment and surveillance in the years following their public dispute with their brother.

Their 2017 statement had already indicated their discomfort with the political environment in Singapore, where they felt “closely monitored in [their] own country” and could no longer trust their brother “as a brother or as a leader.”

Currently, LHY and his wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), who are living outside Singapore, face allegations of perjury by Singaporean authorities, accused of misrepresenting the circumstances surrounding LKY’s Last Will (dated 17 December 2013) during LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal hearing for alleged misconduct.

It was alleged that they rushed the signing of the will for personal gain and misled LKY, particularly regarding the Demolition Clause, as described by DPM Teo in a 2023 parliamentary response, where he first revealed that the police had commenced investigations into Mrs LSF and Mr LHY for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

However, the findings from the DT in May 2023, which confirmed that LKY’s lawyer, KKL, had misrepresented her role, show that LKY had directly communicated his intentions about the will’s changes. This undercuts the allegations that LHY and LSF had deceived LKY, as his wishes—including those of 38 Oxley Road—were clear and known to KKL.

LHY, due to the perceived risk from Singaporean authorities, is unable to return to Singapore for Dr Lee’s funeral, much like how LSF had to be absent from her own father’s funeral in July of last year.

By staying abroad, LHY may feel he can better pursue LKY’s final wish—the demolition of the house—especially after Dr Lee’s passing, rather than risking being ‘trapped in the system.’

In many ways, the conflict over 38 Oxley Road represented more than just a family dispute—it was a struggle over the legacy of one of Singapore’s most iconic leaders.

Dr Lee and LHY believed that allowing the house to stand would betray their father’s values and final wishes, as they stated in their public posts. Their determination, however, may have been further fuelled by the emotional weight of having been unable to fulfil one of his other requests—the wish for a quick, dignified death.

Thus, the demolition of the house became not just an act of obedience but a personal mission to ensure that at least one of LKY’s final wishes was honoured.

As Dr Lee is laid to rest, the fate of 38 Oxley Road remains unresolved, especially with the 2021 amendments to the Preservation of Monuments Act, which allow the National Heritage Board to issue an Enforcement Notice (EN) to halt any activity that risks destroying, damaging, or altering a National Monument.

But what is undeniable is that she devoted her life to fulfilling her duty as a daughter, standing firm in her resolve to honour her parents’ wishes—even when it came at great personal and familial cost.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Police say LHY and LSF free to return, but risk of arrest and passport seizure remains

The Singapore Police have stated that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) are free to return to Singapore, but there are no guarantees against arrest or passport seizure upon arrival.

Published

2 days ago

on

11 October 2024

By

Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling at Machu Picchu in 2020.

The Singapore Police have clarified that there are no legal obstacles preventing Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), the younger son of the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), from returning to Singapore.

This statement, released on 11 October in response to media queries, follows renewed interest in LHY’s potential return after the death of his older sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

“In response to media queries, the police confirm that there are no legal restraints to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern returning to Singapore. They are and have always been free to return to Singapore.”

“The police had asked both Mr Lee and Mrs Lee in June 2022 to assist in investigations by attending an interview. They had initially agreed but in the end did not turn up for the scheduled interview, left Singapore on Jun 15, 2022, and have not returned since.”

“They are and have always been free to return to Singapore,” said the police.

The topic of LHY’s return has resurfaced, particularly after he announced that he would not be present at his sister’s wake and funeral.

Instead, he is overseeing the arrangements remotely, while his son, Li Huanwu, manages them in Singapore in line with Dr Lee’s wishes. Dr Lee Wei Ling passed away at the age of 69, having battled progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare brain disorder, for four years.

While the police have emphasised that there are no travel restrictions for LHY and LSF, it’s important to recognise the potentially contradictory nature of this statement.

The police have not provided any guarantees that LHY and LSF would not be arrested upon their return or have their passports impounded, given that they could be considered a flight risk.

Furthermore, The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and other media reports did not address a significant recent legal development involving Mdm Kwa Kim Li. This omission is notable because it relates directly to the ongoing legal complexities surrounding the Lee family’s disputes.

In its coverage, ST highlighted that “In 2020, the Court of Three Judges and a disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee, a lawyer, over her handling of the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who died on 23 March 2015, at the age of 91.”

This framing appears to justify the ongoing investigations into LHY and LSF, yet the report notably omits a significant development: Mdm Kwa Kim Li, the former lawyer of Lee Kuan Yew, was found guilty of misleading the executors about her knowledge of the will.

In May 2023, a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found Mdm Kwa guilty of misconduct after determining that she had, in fact, been aware of the intended changes to the will and misrepresented her role in the matter.

The tribunal determined that Mdm Kwa had misled the executors of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate—Dr Lee and LHY—by withholding critical information regarding the instructions she received from Lee Kuan Yew about his will.

Her statements falsely claimed that LKY had never instructed her to amend his will, despite evidence of her correspondence with him about potential changes in November and December 2013.

The DT ruled that her conduct fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor and imposed penalties, including a fine of S$8,000 and additional costs to the Law Society of Singapore.

This development provides crucial context to the allegations put forth against LHY and LSF, who are accused of lying about Mdm Kwa’s involvement in the drafting of the last will.

Another critical aspect that I think needs to be highlighted is the open-ended nature of the ongoing investigations into LHY and LSF.

In theory, the police have the authority to continue their investigations for as long as they deem necessary. There is no legally prescribed timeframe by which they must conclude their inquiries, allowing them the discretion to keep the investigation active indefinitely.

This aspect adds to the uncertainty surrounding LHY and LSF’s situation, especially given that any return could potentially reignite legal scrutiny.

I’ve had my own experience with the lengthy nature of police investigations, which can take years to resolve.

When I was investigated for contempt of court back in July 2020, the authorities sought to impound my passport under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even after serving my time for criminal defamation of cabinet members for corruption, they seized my passport again until I challenged the decision in July 2022 to have it returned.

After regaining my passport in August 2022, I left Singapore immediately—without giving the police a chance to issue another order to seize it. Since the IMDA revoked its license, it is now illegal for me to operate The Online Citizen within Singapore.

Although the case took nearly three years to conclude, eventually closing in March 2023 with a warning issued to me, I was already out of the police’s jurisdiction by then. It’s uncertain how much longer the police might have taken to close the case if I had remained in Singapore, as the investigation could have been prolonged at their discretion.

This experience gives me some insight into why LHY might remain overseas despite the police’s statement that there are no travel restrictions.

LHY and his family have been subject to various investigations by the Singapore government following public criticism by Dr Lee and him in a highly publicised dispute, where they criticised their elder brother, Lee Hsien Loong, the former Prime Minister, over alleged abuse of his position.

His wife, LSF, was suspended for 15 months over alleged misconduct as a lawyer, related to the handling of LKY’s last will. His son, Li Shengwu, was fined for contempt of court over a private Facebook post.

In March last year, LHY posted on Facebook, “I am heartbroken that my own country has made me a fugitive for standing up for my father’s promise, Lee Kuan Yew.”

Back in 2022, Li Shengwu posted on X, stating, “It has been five years since I left home because of a political prosecution by the Singapore government. Friends often ask me if it’s safe to return.

The court case is technically over. However, I assess that there’s a substantial risk that my uncle, the Prime Minister, would find an excuse to imprison me if I were to return to Singapore. He likes to relitigate old disputes.”

Continue Reading

Editorial

CNA’s one-sided POFMA coverage ignores key opposition and independent voices

[Editorial] Channel News Asia’s recent article on POFMA is marred by a lack of balance and transparency. By failing to engage key stakeholders and overlooking the challenges of contesting POFMA orders, the article skews public perception, reinforcing state narratives while ignoring critical perspectives.

Published

3 days ago

on

10 October 2024

By

Channel News Asia’s (CNA) recent article, “Views stay divided on POFMA five years on, but has it helped in tackling fake news?” on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is presented as a  balanced reflection on the law five years after its enactment after a very controversial parliamentary process.

However, the article raises significant concerns about its lack of objectivity, transparency, and the selective representation of public sentiments toward the law.

Given CNA’s ownership by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, these concerns highlight the limitations of state-funded media in critically evaluating government policies. In Singaporean terms, this article shows how “ownself check ownself” literally “cannot make it”.

Lack of Transparency in Claims

The article claims that CNA reached out to “several recipients” of past POFMA orders to discuss their experiences.

Yet, after cross-checking with numerous POFMA recipients, it appears that only two individuals confirmed being contacted.

Crucially, major targets of POFMA orders, such as The Online Citizen (TOC), Kenneth Jeyaretnam, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)—all of whom have been frequent recipients of POFMA correction directions—were not approached for comment.

This was confirmed by the above and also by Worker’s Party’s Yee Jenn Jong and Progress Singapore Party’s Leong Mun Wai,

This omission distorts the narrative, leaving out key perspectives from those who have been most affected by POFMA, casting serious doubts on the objectivity of the article as a whole.

Moreover, when contacted for clarification on who among POFMA recipients was reached out to, the article’s author did not respond.

This lack of transparency further undermines the credibility of CNA’s claim that it attempted to consult multiple stakeholders. By selectively omitting arguably the most important voices, the article fails to provide a comprehensive view of how POFMA has been applied or received.

Selective Representation of Public Sentiment

CNA’s portrayal of public sentiment toward POFMA is similarly problematic.

The article claims that “a majority” of those interviewed agreed with the necessity of the law to combat falsehoods.

However, this assertion seems at odds with the article’s reception on social media—or, more specifically, its absence online.

CNA chose not to post the article on its usual primary social media platforms, opting instead to post it only on Telegram.

This unusual choice suggests CNA may have anticipated criticism of the article’s narrative and sought to limit public engagement. This does not speak to confidence in the assertion that the “majority” of those interviewed agreed with the law unless the interviewees were restricted to a very narrow echo chamber.

Even on Telegram, the response was overwhelmingly negative, with 372 users disliking the post versus 70 expressing approval.

While this is not a representative sample of the entire population, it directly challenges the article’s claim that most people support POFMA.

The negative reaction on Telegram further undermines the argument that public sentiment is largely in favour of the law, particularly when the CNA itself avoided posting the article where public scrutiny could be more visible and objectively documented.

TOC also posted a survey on Facebook asking if people were in support of the law, with the majority saying no. We recognized the limitations of the survey and did not try to claim to present a balanced view of the law but rather an estimate of public perception based on an open, transparent survey.

The Hidden Costs of Challenging POFMA

One of the most misleading aspects of CNA’s coverage is the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw) claim that the lack of challenges to POFMA orders indicates that recipients knew they were spreading falsehoods.

This interpretation ignores the significant financial, emotional, and legal barriers to challenging POFMA orders.

It also ignores the fact that while the majority of POFMA recipients have not formally challenged the orders in court, many of them published statements disagreeing with the correction directions that they were forced to carry.

To get some idea about how onerous a formal legal challenge to a POFMA direction, just visit the instruction page to learn how to go about filing a POFMA appeal; simply looking at the fees and potential costs involved is intimidating enough.

The fees listed also do not include the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent the individual or entity in court. While you can represent yourself in court, based on TOC’s experience, you would be facing three trained legal professionals arguing against you, which would be very challenging, to say the least.

The reality is that for many, complying with a POFMA order is the path of least resistance, especially when the alternative is public embarrassment, legal intimidation (if they cannot afford a lawyer), and the financial burden of a court battle.

TOC, which has filed the most court applications against POFMA with three applications and received the most directions at 15—more if you include Gutzy Asia’s directions—stopped contesting some of the more recent orders not because it admitted to spreading falsehoods but because the legal process is too onerous and costly.

Because of the way the law is written, challenging a POFMA order is, in most cases, less about proving truth or falsehood but rather about how government ministers frame their statements as being false.

The “multiple meanings” rule taken to be the yardstick by which statements are judged under POFMA presents a huge challenge to anyone making a statement as it would imply that any statement has to take into account varied interpretations beyond the original intent of the statement maker. This legal quagmire deters even those with legitimate cases from fighting back.

A prime example is Terry Xu’s case, where he challenged a POFMA order issued by Minister of Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in 2023.

Despite Mr Shanmugam’s statement in parliament that no costs would be imposed on individuals who contest POFMA orders, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) tried to obtain legal costs from Xu.

The court ultimately rejected AGC’s claim and ordered the AGC to pay Xu S$2,500 in costs for the failed application.

This particular incident highlights the intimidating legal environment surrounding POFMA challenges, where even promises made in parliament appear to be disregarded by government agencies.

Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling that one must establish a prima facie case that the alleged falsehood is true (in other words, that the burden of proof falls on the person who has allegedly made the false statement rather than on the Minister), TOC also had to withdraw its appeal against the POFMA correction direction regarding Ho Ching’s salary after the AGC threatened to seek costs.

It would have been challenging for TOC to contest the case, as the claim originated from a Taiwanese media outlet, which TOC merely reported on. Notably, the Taiwanese media outlet itself was not issued a POFMA correction direction.

This situation highlights a double standard, where media reporting on the government’s claims is not required to verify their truthfulness, given that POFMA directions do not apply to statements made by the government.

It also exemplifies the apparent arbitrariness of the POFMA process, a point that may have been hinted at in the CNA article but was not explored in depth.

A Skewed Perspective on POFMA’s Application

The CNA article also skirts around the fact that POFMA disproportionately targets opposition figures, activists, and independent media outlets.

It briefly notes that nine out of fourteen POFMA cases in 2023 involved opposition members or political candidates but fails to explore the implications of this statistic.

Instead of engaging with the criticism that POFMA is used selectively to suppress dissent, the article repeats MinLaw’s assertion that the process is rigorous and impartial.

However, selective enforcement is a real concern.

For example, the repeated use of POFMA against opposition figures and activists raises questions about whether the law is being applied fairly as promised against threats to public safety or as a tool to stifle political opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

By failing to address these concerns, CNA’s article gives the impression that POFMA’s application is fair and just and above reproach, which does not align with the experiences of those who have been most affected by it.

The article also fails to address how POFMA directions have predominantly been issued by a particular minister and his ministries.

If POFMA were intended to address falsehoods more broadly, one would expect a more even distribution of applications across different ministries, rather than the clear disparity seen in the statistics. (refer to TOC’s documented directions here)

CNA’s Reporting Reflects the Limitations of State Media

CNA’s article on POFMA misses the opportunity to provide a balanced and transparent evaluation of the law’s impact.

Given that CNA is state-owned and funded by Temasek Holdings, its coverage is naturally aligned with the government’s narrative, which explains the lack of critical engagement with the law’s flaws and controversies.

Rather than providing a platform for meaningful debate, CNA’s reporting reinforces the government’s position on POFMA while excluding key voices from the conversation.

Moreover, the decision to limit the article’s visibility on social media raises concerns about CNA’s willingness to engage with public criticism in general.

Ultimately, CNA’s coverage reflects the broader limitations of state media in critically analyzing government policies.

By failing to engage with all relevant stakeholders and presenting a one-sided view of POFMA, CNA’s reporting risks becoming an echo chamber for official government positions, rather than a platform for balanced, independent journalism.

With the SPH Media Trust also coming under the government’s financial umbrella, Singaporeans are at risk of being deprived of critically important news analysis due to this dominance by a one-sided official narrative.

Continue Reading

Trending