PM Lee & Terry Xu's TOC.

 

“You can’t choose the family you’re born into, but you certainly have the choice to distance yourself from them if they’re toxic and they’re only causing you pain”.

The above was an extract from Ho Ching’s post two years ago entitled: “Here’s why sometimes it is okay to cut ties with toxic family members.”

Well, it is a family affair that has sadly gone down south quite rapidly, and the whole world knows about it. The siblings made sure of that when they blitzed the internet with serious allegations made against their elder brother, PM Lee, more than three years ago.

At the trial yesterday, as a witness, PM Lee said that he had waived his parliamentary privilege when he republished his ministerial statements outside Parliament. He said that would “allow his siblings to sue him over the statements, but they have not done so.” 

He added: “As far as the public is concerned, my not suing my siblings does not mean I condone (the allegations) or that their statements are necessarily true.”

“But if others repeat it and I don’t act against others for which my inhibitions against suing siblings do not apply, that would further spread the poison and aggravate the damage.”

By putting that on record, it is clear that our prime minister is sending a signal at large to the public that where personal dirty linens are concerned, there are two ways of cleaning them. 

First, they will wash those that can be washed via the parliamentary washboard. This was done on July 3, 2107, when PM Lee rubbished the siblings’ claim that he had misused his power. 

And second, for those that can’t be washed, as Ho Ching’s article about toxic people has put it, they ought to be deemed as a private matter, and those tempted to air them for other than the public interest had better think twice (or thrice) in the light of the Terry Xu’s defamation suit, now ongoing. 

Unless of course, you are his siblings. That itself warrants a different treatment. PM Lee said: “On the allegations made by my siblings, I had decided to take a different approach with them and it did not mean carte blanche for anybody else to use that to spread those allegations and further defame me. I am not obliged to sue everyone in order to sue one person.”

Well, it is true that a plaintiff picks his defendant(s). It is a fundamental right of a litigant to pursue his case whichever way he wants it. If he sues and the party is adjudged not at fault after a trial and/or appeal, there are cost consequences that he will have to bear. 

But, that said, this is no ordinary plaintiff and the allegations are no ordinary allegations. Neither is this an ordinary defamation suit. 

In short, there are larger issues at stake here and hereon like freedom of expression, of the press other than the mainstream’s, of repeating an allegation yet to be debunked by a court of law where there are equal representation, of addressing an unresolved testamentary intention beyond probate, of a country still being criticised by foreign press for oppressive tactics, and of the balance of ethical considerations concerning a siblings’ rivalry that has forced the prime minister’s hand, which may be perceived by many as some form of preferential treatment, if not an act of self-preservation. 

As such, every act taken by such a prominent figure has wider political, social and legal implications for the republic at large, especially her home-grown style of paternally nurtured democratic values. 

Let me nevertheless end on these two points. 

First, when PM Lee was asked whether he is suggesting that the media can never report on what his siblings have accused him of, he replied with this double edged sword: - 

“Not at all. They can report what they think needs to come out and if I sue them for defamation and I am wrong, they can go to court, vindicate themselves and demolish me - which is what I believe you are hoping to do in this trial.”

I felt that that hints to an imbalance of power between a public leader and his private citizen. Although PM Lee had given TOC a chance to retract and apologise, and TOC did not accede to it for whatever reasons, the signal sent (together with what he had said in court) is however one where the die is cast that the alleged defamer will be duly demolished. 

I thus wonder, are we going back to the days of when these words still reverberate in our hearts: “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless”?

Second point is about animosity. PM Lee said that “neither he nor his wife Ho Ching held any animosity towards his siblings.” He added: “I think the animosity is evident on one side, from my siblings...And I hope against hope that one day, matters may be repaired. But it is one of those things that happen in life, and this too shall pass.”

Well, with the concluded contempt action against his nephew, the recent conviction of his sister-in-law at the disciplinary courts, his brother’s recent membership with TCB’s PSP, and the two defamation suits pending, I guess the hope against hope of “this too shall pass” will take a little longer to pass, if at all.

 

Lee Saga - Lee Suet Fern a deceitful witness?

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.