This, I guess, is a two parter. I wrote about it yesterday, and today, the ST wrote another piece about it, which kept me thinking further.
In sum, if you need a caption for it, you can borrow what the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) calls the whole saga, “an unsavoury tale”.
Well, unsavoury or otherwise, Lee Suet Fern (LSF) has come forward to defend herself. She said: “I disagree with the disciplinary tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court.”
She urged the public to “look at the entire record of the closed-door proceedings and come to their own independent conclusions.”
If you read the papers today, and the day before, you will note that it is largely a rehashing of the DT’s findings. That is, in the 206-page report, LSF was described as a “deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned.”
Words/phrases used in both days of reporting were “facade”, “she lied”, her husband was “equally deceitful”, how they “misled” LKY on his last will, “cut off (LKY’s) lawyer”, “gave the briefest advice to Mr Lee” and “did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided.”
Although the title of the piece is “Lee Suet Fern rejects tribunal’s ruling against her,” the above quotes of LSF and her gratitude expressed to her stellar legal team (led by Walter Woon) just about sums up her side, save for reading the entire records and going to her husband’s FB post for more.
However, I write today because there is another piece of the puzzle to the whole thing and I feel that it somehow spiced up the “unsavoury tale”. It is about what Dr Lee Wei Ling has to say.
She called “the tribunal report a “travesty”, adding that it was an attempt to “rewrite history””. And she added: “My father knew full well what he was doing. He was clear in his decision for the will.”
He knew full well? He was clear in his decision?
Note that Dr Lee is a neurologist and she ought to be able to tell who’s sound and who’s not. What’s more, I trust she knows her father better than anyone and she was by his side at all crucial times. She is not just trained expertly, but the “patient” she was tending to was her own father.
My point is, if what she said is true and can be objectively and medically proven on a balance of probability, that would add to the whole unsavoury tale a jarring twist to the heart of the plot.
Why? Because, if LKY knew what he was doing, if he took cognizance of the identity of the drafter of his last will, agreeing to her being the drafter, notwithstanding the conflict of interest, thereby waiving it, then LSF may not be that “deceitful” afterall.
Neither would LHY be “equally deceitful” to hurry the execution of the will, save for some inaccuracies posted.
What I mean is that the preparation of the last will, the bypassing of Kwa and the hurrying to sign it by leaving it with LKY the night before and executing it the next morning, when seen in the entire context of a mentally sound, physically uncompromised and largely able and willing testator, save for duress, one then ought to be more reserved, cautious and circumspect when shifting through the evidence in the finding of facts.
And since DT makes no mention of LKY’s mental state at the material time, but merely remarked (as published) that LKY was in “frail health”, which says little about his mental state and appears to be inconsistent with Dr Lee’s view, I feel that the key piece of the “unsavoury tale” puzzle is still missing.
Indeed, that mental state of affair is even more unsavoury (in my view).
As for duress, or undue pressure, well, currently, I am still looking for that smoking gun called motive (read my yesterday’s post).
And I wonder, is the last will done in stealth, kept from PM Lee’s knowledge? Because, LKY had 15 months after executing it to change his mind, secretly call Kwa to amend it (making it the 8th will), or Kwa could have intervened (discuss with LKY, inform PM Lee) after having sight of the 7th will, or inform someone he trusts about it.
And unless he is too frail to do anything after he signed the 7th will, or the mental deterioration had reached a point of no return, I feel that the case for it before the DT needs more evidential digging - hopefully the court of three judges can clear the air here.
So, after all said, I wonder whether the DT only picked up the conflict, the hurrying and the bypassing (of Kwa), (and the FB deflection), to base their view that the couple is deceitful, thereby misleading their father (or FIL), or they have something more than that to arrive at that finding.
If there is nothing more, then, wouldn’t it be like seeing a much older man tightly hugging a teenage girl and kissing her on the cheeks, and immediately describing the sight as disgusting, only to realise, after some enquiry, that they are actually father and daughter, and he is sending her off for overseas studies, and won’t be seeing her for the next few years.
Ps: Just an analogy, don’t read too much into it. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment