Lee Suet Fern and a Will.

Disbar Lee Suet Fern? Isn’t that using a tomahawk blade to mow a lawn?

This is a serious sanction. 37 years of practice, and for one infraction, you may be struck off. Law Society is actually asking for that for her handling of her late father-in-law’s seventh and last will. 

I guess it had never crossed the mind of LKY that his testamentary wishes from the grave would have brought so much distress (legal and emotional) to his family, that is, the ones he (and his wife) had been protecting over their lifetime. 

I guess it all comes down to this: Is LKY of sound mind in 2013 when he executed his last and final will? 

Prof Woon said that to characterise LKY at that time to be a “doddering old dotard” and “being taken advantage of by his son and daughter-in-law” is unfounded. There is just no conclusive medical proof of that, and no DSM category for that too. What does “a doddering old dotard” even mean from a legal standpoint, and in relation to his mental capacity to sign his own will? 

Short of a full trial, examining evidence and witnesses, none is the wiser when it comes to judging whether he had signed his will under mental incapacity or duress, or he didn’t comprehend what he was signing. 

Anyway, that ship has sailed for now since no one has come forward to contest the last will. And here is what was reported. 

“Noting that the will’s validity has not been contested by the executors or beneficiaries, CJ Menon said: “The only question before us pertains to whether (Mrs Lee) was in a solicitor-client relationship, and if she was, whether she discharged her duties, and if she wasn’t, whether there was some other aspect of her conduct that was unacceptable.”

So, in her defence, Prof Woon said that as LKY’s daughter-in-law, how could she have even asked him to get independent advice considering his formidable intellectual capacity at that time. 

Prof Woon said: “(LKY) would have exploded. The sound of the explosion would have been heard all the way to the Istana.” he said. “Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a "brilliant lawyer" himself, could not have been taken advantage of.”

Lesson? Just one. 

Well, to borrow that expression, the sound of explosion had in my view gone to Parliament once for this case of sibling rivalry. That explosion then reverberated over social media for years to come, in the courts for a contempt proceedings, during the recent GE 2020 when LHY dropped a bombshell, and it is now heard just as loud in the court of three judges on a disciplinary matter, with LSF being liable to be struck off. 

Many things have been said about this case, and many more will be said, for it is a family drama that has played out in the public view of not just Singaporeans, but the world at large. 

It started with a “demolition”, so to speak, and I guess that is aptly, if not ironically, symbolic of how the saga has unfolded, that is, it has been a legal and political minefield that kept triggering off every now and then.

 

Alas, the timing of the sibling rivalry and all that has happened between them, especially the family of LHY, is most unfortunate, and deeply uncanny. 

Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan made this pointed observation regarding LSF’s role as first a kin rather than a lawyer to LKY, arguing that her role is purely administrative since LKY had already made up his mind about changing the will.

He said: “Before you’re a lawyer, you’re a son or daughter. The rules are not that of this court or any court. Love, affection and familial relationships have got nothing to do with these cold courts and they should not be scrutinised here.”

True, “love, affection and familial relationships have got nothing to do with these cold courts”, but at times, hell has no fury like a family member scorned, spurned and/or sidelined. 

I guess by now, it would be most familiar to us that the intensity of emotions, whether positive or negative, corresponds directly in proportion to the closeness (or familiarity) of the relationship. That is, the closer they are, the more explosive a dispute will be. 

Just as lovers locked in a wedding vows are prepared to donate an organ to another without condition, when it comes to a separation or divorce, you can expect the acrimony between parties to wish another the worse of personal fortunes. 

So, it is sadly the case here with this saga. It has torn the family apart, caused one family to stay out of their birth country, and possibly risks a disbarment over what the defence has described as fundamentally an expression of “love, affection and familial relationships”. 

But then, that is precisely what exacerbates (and perpetuates) the acrimony, and turns siblings into enemies, friends into foes and lovers into adversaries.

 

Lee Saga - Lee Suet Fern Part 2.

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.

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.

Bad Blood: The Blind men and the Elephant syndrome.

I get the feeling that July 3 has already started, and it would definitely be more interesting than the actual day, where LHL will be defending his side of the story.

The social media and news have already been busy airing and printing the opinions of both sides, and I should add that the press is rather fair-handed in balancing the different views.

It nevertheless makes for sometimes-surprising-and-sometimes-awkward Ping-Pong-like information exchanges for the general public reader, where one side serves with a forehand twist and the other side hits back with a backhand smack, and so on and so forth. 

Even SMS for Law and Finance Ms Indranee Rajah ("Ms Rajah") has gone on a foray just last night to ask for the identity of the lawyer who drafted LKY's 7th and Last Will. Trust me, the showdown is just warming up before July 3.

Now, PM Lee is keeping mum, preserving or reserving himself for July 3. I guess he doesn't need to talk much in the interim since his cabinet luminaries and the Sovereign Wealth Fund head like TCH, Lawrence Wong, wife Ho Ching, Ms Rajah and Tharman are stepping in to offer their views in support and in vindication of themselves and/or their PM. Of course, to be fair, some of them had to come forward to defend themselves as LHY had fired the first salvo at them.

However, before July 3, it is undeniable that the government are all united behind their PM, that's for sure.  And for Ms Rajah, she is even going the extra mile to make herself part of the family feud in the name of State's interest and public concern to call for investigation of the Last Will. The camaraderie amongst them is thus not only tight, but also infectious and heartwarming.

Personally, it is arguable as to whether they are doing this because he is their boss. But more relevantly, I believe PM Lee is locked in an unenviable position of being both the oldest son of the founding father and the elected leader of the nation. As such, his allegiance and duties to both naturally overlapped and are sadly conflicted.

I also believe that the rivalry between the siblings has already been soured from day one when the joint executors (LHY & LWL) accused their brother/beneficiary of intermeddling, undercutting and disrespecting their authority as their father's officially appointed trustees of his estate. Mind you, the duties and responsibilities of a trustee are onerous and serious.

For their perspective, the protocol was not followed, and was persistently sidelined with apparent impunity, thereby causing them to air dirty linens in public as the last resort.

Of course, the beneficiary (PM Lee) has interest too, and the same should be safeguarded, but the younger siblings must have felt (and are still feeling) that proper channels ought to be followed, whether you are a private citizen or the Prime Minister of the country, or both.

Alas, this siblings' spat is most unfortunate because it has nothing to do with money. They are all immensely wealthy in their own rights, ways and standing even before their respective inheritance share is added into their own net worth. Neither does it have anything to do with prestige, fame or reputation; for they are all secondary concerns, if at all.

However, the perennial dispute has to do with respecting and carrying out their last father's wish, and it is crystal clear that LKY (and his wife) wanted the Oxley house to be demolished. You just can't put any political spin to that last wish to make it go away or to dilute its testamentary resolve.

Putting aside State's interest, the Preservation of Monuments Act, the ministerial committee, and LHL's Statutory Declaration ("SD"), that uncompromising last testamentary wish (and how it has unravelled a family and nation) is sadly the elephant in the cabinet room, and nobody wants to face the issue head on.

Let me explain what I mean by borrowing the Indian tale of the blind men (and woman) and the Elephant where they are all trying in vain to figure out the identity of the animal by feeling only a part of it.

Metaphorically speaking, TCH comes out and feels the trunk of the elephant and explains that he is the one who set up the ministerial committee to try "to understand Mr Lee's thinking on the future of the house".

Yet, we all know it is crystal clear that to the late Mr. Lee, the house has no future to start with (leaving aside State's and public interests of course).

If LKY would have his way with unerring foresight, and knowing how the dispute would eventually threaten his legacy, and most importantly, damage his children's relationship, he would have personally sledgehammered the house down brick by brick - that's what methinks.

What's more, after having felt the elephant's trunk, TCH is still evasive about what is the direct relevance between the suspicion cast on paragraph 7 of the Last Will (as deposed to in LHL's SD) and the committee's deliberation on Oxley's preservation by virtue of legislation and legislation alone, since such matters (that is, the Will's authenticity), if it is seriously contemplated as an issue of concern, should properly be left to the Courts, and not the committee 

(Furthermore, what does PM Lee hope to achieve by raising it privately to the committee - deepening the siblings' feud by spreading out dirty private linens in a private fight? And now, Ms Rajah is raising it in her Facebook knowing full well that such matters should be best left to those with locus standi to start with for the Courts to properly adjudicate).

Mind you, to compound misperception further, the committee will be seen by many to be reporting, directly or indirectly, to their "recused" boss, and not so much to the rightful joint executors, who have been clamouring without much success for some accountability from them.

So, as far as the joint executors are concerned, they felt stone-walled and sidelined by the committee whenever they asked for its member composition, its agenda and update. According to them, it took the committee nearly one year to come out in the open on some of the information they have been requesting for.

One would have therefore expected TCH, after feeling the elephant's trunk, to give an account of that (or to explain why the delay or alleged filibustering), instead of still trying (by executive mandate instead of judicial  due process) to figure paragraph 7 out after more than 2 years of LKY's passing.

I guess to him, the elephant's trunk he touched felt like a snake?

Then comes our law minister. It is his turn to feel the elephant, and he is directed to feel its tail.

Now, according to LWL, he was a very good friend of the family and he was actively involved in advising the late LKY on the demolition clause (and how it was to be carried out), and all the siblings.

As such, it is understandable why they (LHY and LWL) cried foul (or conflict) when they discovered that he was in the committee to adjudicate on its preservation, and possibly, the authenticity of paragraph 7.

But having felt the tail, our law minister essentially only has one word to his siblings and former friends, "ridiculous". Nothing much was said to assure the siblings. As such, I think the siblings must have felt that it was a betrayal.

I guess to the law minister, the elephant's tail he touched felt like a rope?

Then, in comes Ho Ching who feels the knee of the elephant but fails to identify the animal correctly too. 

She did not directly reply to LHY's question addressed to her: "It is deeply troubling that someone can represent the PMO despite holding no official position."

All Ho Ching said is that she was doing some housecleaning at that time (when parties were away) when she discovered some "small interesting items" belonging to her father-in-law. She then passed them to NHB without seeking approval from the joint executors.

I guess to Ho Ching, the elephant's knee she touched felt like a tree?

As for Lawrence Wong, he feels the elephant's body and calls it a rough wall. 

The siblings has accused him of brushing aside their concerns about the composition of the committee, and then changing his mind that ran counter to the terms of the Deed of Gift settlement agreement with NHB - the apparent stringency of its terms notwithstanding.

Finally, Ms Rajah is last on the list. She feels the elephant's ear and struggles to identify the animal. Instead, she calls for further enquiries into the circumstances surrounding the Last Will. 

Mind you, her call is not illegitimate, but the protocol and procedure are questionable. As the SMS for Law and Finance and a senior counsel herself, she should have known the proper forum for challenging Wills. 

Further, she then defended TCH's rationale for considering PM Lee's SD questioning the validity of paragraph 7 on demolition. By doing so, she has conveniently avoided the questions raised by LHL and LWL, that is, the "secrecy" of the committee, its agenda in the light of PM's SD, the stonewalling, and the possible conflict which made the siblings uncomfortable. More importantly, is the executive committee set up as a judicial panel to decide on the validity of the Will instead of a proper Court of Law?

I guess to Ms Rajah, the elephant's ear she touched felt like a broad fan?

Lesson? Just one.

Well, I always believe in calling a spade a spade. The issue here is not about identifying the elephant correctly (since the men in the parable are blind). Metaphor aside, the issue here is about refusing to see what is right before their eyes (for highly intelligent and respected individuals with normal sight).

Worryingly, for some of them, they do not see that their participation in the debate or feud before July 3 runs the risks of being perceived by the public as a biased attempt to shoring up support for one side against another. This only unnecessarily deepens the siblings' wedge further. At times, silence is golden for those who are not directly caught in the cross-hair of the flying accusations and allegations.

The issue is also about the inescapable mismatch (or shortfall) between the ideals of public office and the fallibility of the human agents occupying it. The reality is, we can't always live up to the ideals even in the best of efforts and intentions. The mismatch/shortfall is natural, expected and understandable. 

Sadly, as public office holders, we always want to project the image of incorruptibility, unimpeachability and beyond reproach. Whiter than white remember? (More like white-washing instead).

The people or voters unrealistically and unfailingly expect it, and the politicians are therefore expected to deliver it by all means conceivable whether virtuous or less so. But it is exactly this desperate attempts to close the unavoidable only-human mismatch/shortfall and project that invulnerability image at all costs that destroy both the office-holder and the trust the people reposed on him.

As such, the desperate bridging of this mismatch/shortfall can wreck havoc in the mind of the public office holder, and deepen the cognitive dissonance or perpetuate the self-delusion or confirmation bias. 

We are only humans after all, and we stumble and fall occasionally. Politicians, pastors and common folks, we are all fallible. We bleed when we fall down, and at times, we crash and breakdown too.

In the premises, to say, insist or paint an impression that one side of this siblings fallout is unimpeachable, fully exonerated, and blameless, and the other side is deeply flawed, wholly mistaken, and fully blameworthy, is to perpetuate this insidious mismatch or delusion, and fall into its trap.

Nothing can be resolved if each fraction keeps insisting they are right and blame the other fraction for everything. It is also highly impossible to maintain that uncompromising position given that the mutual incrimination between the siblings seems to point to shortcomings, misunderstanding, personal faults and errors of judgment on BOTH SIDES.

And now, to rope in reinforcements from and for one side by presenting one side of the story to the exclusion of the other (or at least to be perceived that way) is never a wise step towards bringing closure to the largely private dispute. It only escalates the feud and divide the family further.

Alas, to me, the issue has never been in the first place about preserving the Oxley house by virtue of legislation, or in the interest of the State.

The issue however is first and foremost always about, on the one side, complying with father's wish, carrying it out, and respecting the roles of the joint executors, and on the other side, seeking understanding to preserve the Oxley house, discussing and reconciling father's wish with the possible preservation of Oxley house in a private, frank and amicable manner, and giving each side the time and space to consider and resolve the issue, and most importantly, doing all that while bearing the founding fathers' overriding goal in mind, that is, always be protecting and preserving family relationship and the nation's peace, stability and harmony.

In other words, all parties are to never lose sight of the big picture. And on this, I take my cue from Ho Ching, whom I guess felt the elephant, and for a brief moment of clarity caught her true image, when she said this to the younger siblings:-

"I hope that whatever you are upset about, you will have the heart to remember what papa and mama would have wanted most for the family and for Singapore."

Well, methinks that big-hearted mindset applies to the other side of the divide too. It thus takes an open mind, a forgiving heart and deep understanding to call an elephant an elephant, deal with the issue at hand, and hopefully, move forward from there. And it always, without fail, proceeds with an apology from both sides to kick-start the road to personal and national recovery. 

Because ultimately, we do not want to end up "demolishing the family just so that the house could be preserved for posterity." Cheerz.