Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang have fired back at allegations made in Big Bro Lee Hsien Loong’s 4000-word statutory declaration.
Dr Lee said PM Lee and his wife Ho Ching were “mischievious and dishonest to selectively use quotes from me out of context to suggest that Hsien Yang and his wife were trying to cheat me in our father’s final will.”
“In fact, Lee Kuan Yew’s final will was very important to me as it gave me a clear right to live in the original house at 38 Oxley Road which I very much wanted. I had much earlier and repeatedly made clear to Hsien Loong and Ho Ching the truth that there was no duplicity by Hsien Yang and his wife, Suet Fern. He continues to repeat a position that I have both clarified and discredited as a smokescreen to obscure the key point that Lee Kuan Yew’s his final will of 17 December 2013 is in the same terms as his will of 19 August 2011, including the demolition clause, exactly as our father had intended.
After that will of 19 August 2011, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were unhappy that I had been given a right to live at the original house at 38 Oxley Road. They pushed and persuaded my father very hard on this issue. This eventually resulted in 2012 in my losing my right to stay in the house and my share of my father’s estate being reduced to only a life interest. I was very upset and quarrelled with my father. It was in fact my sister-in-law, Suet Fern, who interceded with my father (when Ho Ching and Hsien Loong were overseas) on my behalf. She met with Lee Kuan Yew and made a case that since I was his only daughter and was unmarried, it was particularly important that he provide for me rather than reduce my interest in his estate. My father did reinstate me and gave me an extra 1/7 share as a result. Hsien Yang and his wife were never informed of this extra share and continued to worry that I should be fairly treated and have a right to live in the house.
I, too, was concerned about my right to live at 38 Oxley Road. Lee Kuan Yew’s final will of 17 December 2013 gave me that right. It is this that Ho Ching and Hsien Loong are trying to deny me.”
Dr Lee was responding to allegations in PM Lee’s statutory declaration which said she felt cheated by Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern:
“17. In the meantime, LWL began to harbour grave suspicions about the change in the shares in the Last Will. In July 2014, she told Ms Ho Ching (“HC”) in emails that Mr Lee had told her (LWL) a couple of years ago that he had left her an extra share of the Estate. This fits the timeframe of 2 November 2012 when the Sixth Will giving LWL an extra share was made. LWL also told HC that many months after that, LHY told her that Mr Lee wanted to go back to giving the children equal shares. LWL also told HC (among other things) that the will (meaning the Last Will) reinstating equal shares of the Estate for the three children had been witnessed by notaries from LSF’s office. Crucially, she said “If that is what Pa wants, so be it. But I don’t trust Fern, n she has great influence on Yang”, that “Later, Fern sent a “sweet” email to kim li about what had been done”, and that KKL and LWL had “wondered whether Yang pulled a fast one”. She also said: “If it is Pa’s decision, I am ok with it. But I hv a sense that Yang played me out”; “I was very upset that Yang did it to me”; and “I would hv preferred that it was 3 equal lots all along without needing to suspect Yang and Fern. The money I don’t get does not upset me. It is that yang and fern would do this to me”.
18. In other words, LWL herself believed that LHY and LSF did her in by either suggesting or facilitating the removal of her extra share, which happened in the Last Will prepared in great haste by LSF and her law firm. In a letter from their lawyers to mine sent after disputes arose between LWL and LHY on the one hand, and me on the other, LWL admitted that she had been suspicious as to whether the change in shares was really Mr Lee’s decision or one that was instigated by LHY and LSF but claimed that she no longer held this suspicion. But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled.”
Lee Hsien Yang also contested PM Lee’s claims that a ministerial committee was set up to look into the will due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding its signing.
“Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at Lee Kuan Yew’s explicit request. Hsien Loong raised no legal challenge to Lee Kuan Yew’s will in the many months after it was read. Probate was granted in Oct 2015, so the will is full, final, and legally binding. Hsien Loong should not use a committee of his subordinates to allege what he did not dare to allege in court.
Hsien Loong’s public statement to Parliament contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath.
We have a question for Lee Hsien Loong: Does he or does he not believe that Lee Kuan Yew was unwavering in his wish that the house be demolished? Is his statement to Parliament false, or is his statement under oath false?”