The Singapore government has repeatedly stated that Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), executed his Last Will, dated 17 December 2013, under misleading circumstances, alleging that LKY was misled regarding the execution of his final wishes, accepted that the property need not be demolished, and provided his views on how the property should be preserved.

An unnamed government spokesperson informed the media on Friday evening (25 Oct) that LKY’s son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), were found to have lied under oath.

The spokesperson added that the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges described their conduct as presenting “an elaborate edifice of lies… both on oath… and through their public and other statements.”

“The affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant,” the government spokesperson stated, adding that “Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s continued allegations must be seen in this light.”

According to a document shared by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in Parliament, the government asserts that LHY and LSF attempted to perpetuate the falsehood that Ms Kwa Kim Li (KKL), LKY’s lawyer, was involved in preparing LKY’s Last Will, while concealing their own role in persuading LKY to sign it.

However, the government seems insistent on overlooking certain facts regarding KKL’s involvement in LKY’s Last Will.

Following the conclusion of LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal and the verdict by the Court of Three Judges, another Disciplinary Tribunal concluded in May 2023 that KKL falsely claimed she had received no instructions from LKY to make changes to his Will and misled the estate by denying her involvement in drafting the Last Will or in reflecting LKY’s final wishes as conveyed to her.

Email correspondence between LKY and KKL in November and December 2013, as well as the contents of the Last Will signed on 17 December 2013, indicate that the provisions of the Will largely correspond to their discussions.

Aside from the re-inclusion of the demolition clause for the Oxley Road property, the details in the Will reflect topics and terms previously discussed between LKY and KKL.

These emails also show that KKL had contacted LKY regarding matters related to the Oxley Road property, consistent with his stated intentions.

Furthermore, communications involving both LSF and LHY with LKY suggest that LKY was fully aware of the Will’s content, expressing a desire to finalise it without delay.

This alignment between the correspondence and the final provisions in the Will challenges the government’s assertion that LKY was misled, as it suggests that his instructions were clear and consistent with the document he signed on each and every page.

Additionally, KKL kept a copy of the Last Will and could have advised LKY to make revisions if he had been misled about his intentions, given that LKY had revised his Will multiple times in the past. Yet no changes were made to this version before his passing in 2015, and probate was granted to the Will in October 2015 without contest.

Given these details, the government’s repeated insistence that LHY and LSF misled LKY about his Last Will could be perceived as character assassination and a deliberate manipulation of facts.

It should also be noted that everything said and done by LKY was based on his belief that the Oxley house had, in some form, been gazetted by the Singapore government, despite his preference for it to be demolished.

This is reflected in his emails with KKL, where she references his thoughts about the house potentially being “de-gazetted.”

To suggest that LKY changed his mind about the 38 Oxley property or was open to other options only serves to muddle the truth with misleading statements.

Unfortunately, POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) cannot be applied to scrutinise these statements made by the government.

(Emails and Will were obtained from LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal records.)

In the aftermath of a tragic murder at Clementi on 21 October 2024, speculation and false information circulated regarding the identity of the suspect.

The Straits Times inaccurately reported that both the murder suspect and the victim were linked to the grassroots activities of the Trivelis Residents’ Network.

However, this claim was promptly refuted by the People’s Association (PA), which clarified that the suspect was not a grassroots volunteer.

The PA, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), swiftly issued a statement on 22 October confirming that while the victim had been a grassroots volunteer, the suspect had no affiliation with any PA grassroots organisation.

Despite this clear misreporting, no POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) correction was issued against The Straits Times.

This situation has raised questions about the consistency of POFMA’s application, particularly in light of its use in previous cases involving misinformation by alternative media outlets.

For instance, in October 2023, the Minister for Manpower directed the POFMA Office to issue correction orders to multiple platforms—including Singapore Eye, Gutzy Asia, and The Online Citizen Asia—for spreading unverified claims regarding the nationality of a suicide victim. Both Gutzy Asia and The Online Citizen Asia had relied on a report from Singapore Eye, which had wrongly identified the deceased as a Filipino domestic worker.

In this case, a case of misidentification of a domestic worker led to the immediate use of POFMA by Dr Tan See Leng to correct the error.

In another instance involving Channel News Asia (CNA), the Housing Development Board (HDB) simply alerted the outlet to a factual error, which CNA corrected with an editorial note, without any POFMA direction being issued by Minister for National Development Desmond Lee, who had previously issued four sets of correction directions to individuals and The Online Citizen without any prior alerts.

In the case of The Straits Times’ erroneous report, it is worth noting that a POFMA direction would have been issued to alternative media or individuals making such claims—rather than the People’s Association (PA) issuing a clarification—if it involved a misrepresentation suggesting the suspect was affiliated with grassroots organisations.

The swift action taken against these smaller, alternative media platforms and individuals contrasts with the lack of any POFMA direction against The Straits Times and CNA in similar situations. This raises the question of whether POFMA is being applied exclusively to alternative media, while mainstream outlets receive different treatment.

If the law is to effectively counter misinformation, it must be applied consistently across all media outlets, whether mainstream or alternative, to ensure fairness and maintain public trust.