The United Kingdom’s decision to grant refugee status to Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and his wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), lends considerable weight to their claims of political persecution in Singapore.

The Singaporean government, however, denies these allegations, asserting that legal actions against LHY, LSF, and their son, Li Shengwu, are based on legitimate findings, not political motivations.

The rigorous and independent UK asylum system, known for its thorough examination of evidence without political influence, suggests that LHY and LSF’s claims were found credible. This decision challenges Singapore’s assertion that there is no basis for persecution allegations.

Applicants for asylum in UK must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, supported by substantial evidence, including country-specific reports, personal statements, and corroborating documentation.

Wealth or social standing plays no role in the decision-making process, meaning even high-profile individuals like LHY and LSF are treated impartially.

In 2023, 33% of asylum applications in the UK were refused at the initial decision stage, excluding withdrawals, highlighting the difficulty of securing asylum.

Applicants whose claims are rejected may appeal the decision. From 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of rejected applicants lodged an appeal, with only about one-third of those appeals being successful. These statistics underscore the challenges applicants face in navigating the UK asylum process.

As of June 2024, the UK had 482,780 recognised refugees and 128,285 asylum seekers. LHY and LSF are among only seven Singaporeans granted refugee status in the UK, with 10 more currently seeking asylum.

The broader context of asylum applications adds to the significance of their case.

In the year ending June 2024, the UK processed 75,658 asylum applications, an 8% decrease compared to the previous year. Despite the recent decline, this figure still represents a major increase compared to the annual numbers between 2004 and 2020, which ranged from 18,000 to 36,000 applications.

Additionally, 67,978 people were granted refugee status or other forms of leave following asylum applications in the same period, including 62,089 granted refugee permission, 4,365 granted humanitarian protection, and 1,524 granted alternative forms of leave.

Moreover, as of June 2024, the UK’s total asylum caseload had ballooned to 224,700 cases, including 87,200 awaiting an initial decision and 137,500 awaiting further action after initial refusals.

Despite this growing backlog and high refusal rates, the UK government found LHY and LSF’s claims of political persecution to be credible, granting them protection.

This decision carries additional weight given the UK’s longstanding diplomatic ties with Singapore, further validating LHY’s fears of political retaliation.

Singapore’s stance and LHY’s concerns

The Singapore Police Force has repeatedly stated that there are no legal barriers preventing LHY and LSF from returning.

In an October 2023 statement, the police clarified that the couple “are and have always been free to return” but acknowledged that they left Singapore in June 2022 after refusing to attend scheduled interviews related to ongoing investigations.

The police, however, have not provided any guarantees that LHY and LSF would not be arrested upon their return or have their passports impounded. They could be considered a flight risk while investigations are ongoing, and it remains uncertain whether charges will eventually be pressed against them.

LHY has consistently argued that the legal actions against him are politically motivated.

He claims that his opposition to his elder brother, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), Senior Minister and former Prime Minister, over their late father Lee Kuan Yew’s will led to a pattern of harassment that included legal charges and smear campaigns.

LHL has denied these allegations, as reiterated in a statement from the Singapore government on 22 October 2024.

In a March 2023 statement, LHY expressed his frustration, saying, “I have been made a fugitive by my own country for standing up for a promise to my father.”

The UK’s decision to grant asylum indicates that authorities found LHY’s concerns of political retaliation to be credible, suggesting that he faces a real risk if he returns to Singapore.

LHY, in his latest post about his refugee status, said that he sought asylum protection as a last resort. “I remain a Singapore citizen and hope that someday it will become safe to return home.”

Protection from Extradition

Notably, being granted refugee status provides LHY and LSF with important legal protections, including protection against extradition for political offenses under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

This means that even though they retain their Singaporean nationality, they cannot be forcibly returned or extradited to Singapore if there is a credible risk of persecution, a protection they would not have had if they were simply living in the UK as Singaporean passport holders.

The Convention’s non-refoulement principle, enshrined in Article 33, ensures that refugees are not expelled or extradited to a country where their life or freedom could be threatened based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Most extradition treaties also include clauses preventing the extradition of individuals for political offenses.

Without refugee status, LHY and LSF could be vulnerable to political pressure or extradition requests from Singapore. Their newly granted refugee status ensures that the UK is legally bound to protect them from being returned to a country where they might face persecution.

This protection, integral to refugee status, is a right that would not have been available had they remained in the UK simply as Singaporean citizens without asylum.

Thus, the refugee status not only affirms the seriousness of their claims but also provides critical legal safeguards against potential political retaliation.

Implications of the UK’s decision

The UK’s decision to grant refugee status to LHY and LSF carries significant diplomatic and political weight, particularly given the close ties between the UK and Singapore.

This decision underscores the credibility of their claims of political persecution and highlights the impartiality of the UK’s asylum process, which is based strictly on the evidence provided, disregarding factors such as wealth or status.

It also raises broader questions about Singapore’s treatment of dissent and the independence of its legal system, challenging the Singaporean government’s assurances that the couple would face no legal consequences upon their return.

The outcome signals serious concerns about the political climate in Singapore, particularly in how it handles critics and high-profile disputes.