At cross examination, LHY conceded that his FB posts could be misleading and inaccurate. But he said they were not sworn statements, so different standard of care and attention applied.
FYI, the misleading parts were twofold: first, Kwa prepared LKY’s final 7th will (she did not) and second, his wife, Suet Fern, had no role (she did. She prepared the final will as a request from him. She said she did it as his “obedient wife”).
Kwa had been LKY’s lawyer for the past 6 wills since 2011.
Wait, there’s more.
The papers today surmised the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) and they found Suet Fern guilty of “grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.”
The DT said that “they cut off (Kwa) from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in (Kwa’s) absence.”
Further, there is the conflict of interest issue, which Suet Fern explained that LKY “was fully aware of her involvement and chose to proceed.”
Another issue was whether Suet Fern had fully explained the final 7th will to LKY - bearing in mind his frail condition at that time. He was 90 then, and he passed away 15 months after signing the will.
On this, Suet Fern explained it this way: “I think Papa was his own best lawyer. He knew what he wanted.”
Now I know the DT was convened to come to a finding on whether a lawyer has acted improperly. It therefore does not address the issue on whether the will is valid and binding.
Yet, for me, the larger question is this, was LKY mentally unsound when he revised his final will? Or, was “Papa” really his own best lawyer and knew what he wanted with clarity of mind and firmness of resolve?
Unfortunately, nothing substantial was reported in the papers about LKY’s mental state (maybe the full decision of more than 200 pages might help). In any event, DT only noted that he was frail in health.
And just a day before signing the final will, Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to Ho Ching to inform her that her father “had been doing very well” because he had not been admitted to hospital for more than a month.””
But Dr Lee also mentioned that “Pa was already (very) forgetful” and “age has caught up with his brain.”
So, taken in its full context, is LKY of unsound mind?
If I may, I speculate that he was not. Frail, yes. Forgetful, yes. Age catching up, yes. But unsound mind, that is, not knowing what he was signing, well, unless a court proper makes a finding on that after evaluating all the relevant expert medical evidence, I think it’s highly unlikely.
What’s more, if such is the case, I would expect PM Lee (or Dr Lee) to have applied to court to challenge the final will by now. Because, if you think about it, it was the most troublesome last will (of all 7), with the demolition clause reinserted (although I think I recall he said he didn’t want to make public personal family matters).
Nevertheless, it bears repeating that that reinserted demolition clause has effectively divided the siblings in a very public airing of dirty linens with the laundry line stretching all the way to the corridors of Parliament.
In any event, proving unsoundness of mind would mean that the 6th will will prevail without the cumbersome demolition clause. This would thus clear the snooty air on whether to demolish or not to demolish.
How about duress or mislead then? That is another cause to challenge the final will. Was LKY forced by unconscionable methods to execute the final will? Was he misled?
On this, the DT said: “Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and daughter-in-law, the respondent.”
Well, was LKY really misled by his own flesh and blood? And if he is of sound mind, and knew what he wanted, it would then be harder to come to that conclusion.
Maybe, one possible lead on the issue of misleading is to ask this: was there any reason or motive for LHY and/or wife to mislead his father (or her FIL)? Did he (or they) stand to gain more in the 7th will as compared to the 6th?
Here’s some background to aid understanding.
The 6th will gave Dr Lee (only daughter) a larger share. But the 7th will states that it was equal share for all.
By simple comparison, the two brothers would naturally get a proportionately smaller share in the 6th will (not that they needed the money anyway).
You must be wondering this at this point: “So that is the gain LHY was seeking after and thus, he engineered it all by bypassing Kwa and rushing the 7th will out?”
Well, not so fast, pause that thot.
You see, 4 days before signing the 7th will, LKY had already emailed Kwa to tell her he wanted to change his 6th will. The change is from giving Dr Lee more to giving all three children equally.
So, that change of mind was exclusively made by LKY and there was no evidence that it was “engineered” by his second son, LHY. As such, no gain there to argue about when it was already decided by the testator himself via his own email.
Now, you may ask, how about the demolition clause in the 7th will but not in the 6th will?
Well, yes, the 7th will reinserted the demolition of Oxley with some conditions. It was taken out in the 5th will and remained absent in the 6th will. Yet, whether demolish or not, has it got anything to do with LHY? Isn’t Oxley an issue between Dr Lee and PM Lee?
Or, maybe I was wrong, and LHY and Dr Lee really wanted to demolish Oxley so that it will not be exploited for political advantage? Mm...any speculators here?
What’s more, a trivia fact is that the LKY’s email also wanted LHY to have two carpets. Yet, it was not stated in the 7th will. So, you can say that LHY did not inherit the two carpets. Worse off?
In the end, based on what was reported in the papers thus far, LHY seems not to have anything to gain from the 7th will. And if that is so, I wonder, what is his motive to mislead without clear gain? Is it then more than meets the eye here?
Can one infer a mind (or minds) to mislead based on such circumstances as rushing to complete the will, bypassing Kwa, and the prevalence of a conflict of interest? Or, is this about an already soured pre-existing relationship between the siblings?
Well, I guess we will never know the full picture unless the will is challenged in a trial proper and all evidence are placed before the presiding judge.
But, I suspect, after this contentious unravelling, the parties involved have done enough exhuming of the past for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment