PM Lee releases statutory declaration submitted to the ministerial committee

PM Lee Hsien Loong has responded to the accusations by his siblings surrounding the house of their father, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The following is the cover note he submitted to the media through his lawyers.

In my siblings’ statement issued at about 2am on 14 June, they referred to my representations to the Ministerial Committee, in particular the questions I raised on the circumstances leading to Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s execution of the last will and the inclusion of the demolition clause. They claimed that these are baseless accusations and misrepresentations, which they had refuted in 2015. They also alleged that I had motives for raising those questions. This is untrue.

The Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that the Committee had ‘received representations from [me] on various facts and circumstances in relation to how Mr Lee’s last will was prepared’, and that my siblings had not responded to the Committee’s questions about how the last will was prepared and ‘the role that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers from her legal firm played in preparing the [L]ast [W]ill’. He added that my siblings have said ‘they will only be able to reply at the earliest by the end of June’, and have not confirmed that they will put their position in the form of a statutory declaration, as I have done.

I had hoped that I could defer considering this matter further until after I return from leave. But my siblings have continued to give interviews and make allegations against me. This makes it untenable for me not to respond publicly to the allegations and to explain why I have serious questions about how my father’s Last Will was prepared.

These questions are also directly relevant to the Committee’s work in establishing what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes were in relation to the House.

I am therefore releasing an edited summary of what I have told the Committee on this matter in my statutory declarations.


The following is the statutory declaration he submitted to the ministerial committee considering options for his father’s house at 38 Oxley Road.

PM Lee’s Lee’s statutory declaration is reproduced below:

1. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (“Mr Lee”) made six wills before his last will of 17 December 2013 (the “Last Will”). All the wills, save for the Last Will, were prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li (“KKL”).

2. I learnt about the contents of the Last Will only on 12 April 2015, when the Last Will was read to the family. I saw copies of the six wills preceding the Last Will only in June 2015, when KKL provided the family with the same. Only then was I able to review and compare the terms and changes between those wills and the Last Will.

3. The Demolition Clause first appeared in Mr Lee’s first will made on 20 August 2011 (the “First Will”).

4. Mr Lee gave instructions to remove the Demolition Clause, and it was removed, from the penultimate two wills (the “Fifth Will” and “Sixth Will”). However, it somehow found its way back into the Last Will.

5. The Demolition Clause in the Last Will is now being used by Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) to claim that Mr Lee was firm in his wish that the house at 38 Oxley Road (the “House”) be demolished, and that he was not prepared to accept its preservation or contemplate options short of demolition. There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the Last Will.

6. In setting out these circumstances, I will refer only to objective facts and contemporaneous documents, some of which I learnt of only later.

7. Under the First Will, Mr Lee gave each child an equal share of his estate (the “Estate”). However, under the Sixth Will made on 2 November 2012, Mr Lee gave LWL an extra share (relative to LHY and me), and he told LWL about this.

8. As I only later learnt, this issue became the subject of discussion between LHY and Mr Lee in late 2013 and on 16 December 2013 at 7.08 pm, LHY’s wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (“LSF”) sent an email to Mr Lee, copied to LHY and KKL (“LSF’s Email”), stating:

“Dear Pa Pa
This was the original agreed Will which ensures that all 3 children receive equal shares, taking into account the relative valuations (as at the date of demise) of the properties each receives.
Kim Li
Grateful if you could please engross.”
LSF appeared to have attached a file named <LAST_WILL-LKY-Draft of 19 August 2011.DOC> to that email.

9. It would appear from that email that those discussions resulted in Mr Lee deciding to revert to his earlier decision to give each child an equal share in the Estate.

10. A mere 23 minutes after this email was sent, at 7.31 pm, LHY replied to LSF’s Email removing KKL as an addressee and adding Ms Wong Lin Hoe (“WLH”), who was Mr Lee’s Private Secretary, in the “cc” field. In that email, LHY told Mr Lee:
“Pa
I couldn’t get in touch with Kim Li. I believe she is away. I don’t think it is wise to wait till she is back. I think all you need is a witness to sign the will. Fern can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness. They can coordinate it with Lin Hoe for a convenient time.”

11. KKL had prepared all of Mr Lee’s previous wills. It is unclear what efforts LHY or LSF had made to get in touch with KKL when LHY told Mr Lee on 16 December 2013 that he could not get in touch with KKL and that it was not wise to wait till KKL got back to change his will. In fact, KKL subsequently told LSF (the following afternoon, when she learnt what had happened) that she did not seem to have received LSF’s Email. It is also not clear why LHY thought that there was an urgency to the matter. It is however interesting that he suggested that his wife, clearly an interested party, and her partners would prepare the new will.

12. At 8.12 pm, before any response from Mr Lee, LSF sent an email to WLH, copied to LHY and her fellow lawyer from her law firm (Stamford Law Corporation as it then was; now Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC), one Mr Bernard Lui (“BL”), to inform WLH that BL had the will ready for execution and that WLH could reach BL directly to make arrangements for the signing of the will. So, in the space of 41 minutes, LSF saw to the preparation of the new will and got one of her lawyers to be on standby to get it executed by Mr Lee.

13. Mr Lee replied to LHY’s email at 9.42 pm. In view of LHY’s representation that he could not contact KKL, and of the urgency of the matter, Mr Lee acquiesced to LHY’s suggestion not to wait for KKL and agreed with LHY’s suggestion to sign the new will.

14. The very next morning, LSF sent two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation to be at 38 Oxley Road to procure Mr Lee’s signature on the Last Will. The two lawyers, BL and one Ms Elizabeth Kong (“EK”), arrived at 38 Oxley Road at 11.05 am on 17 December 2013. They left at 11.20 am. They were present at 38 Oxley Road for 15 minutes only, including the time for logging into and out from the property. The time taken to execute the Last Will would have been even less. They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the Last Will and not to advise him.

15. In the afternoon of 17 December 2013, WLH then sent an email to Mr Lee stating “We have received a faxed copy of the signed document for Mr Lee to re-read in the office”. This email was curious because WLH was not present when Mr Lee signed the Last Will and could not have known whether he had read it in the first place. WLH sent this email after receiving a fax copy of the signed will. There is nothing to suggest that Mr Lee had asked WLH to get a copy for him to “re-read” in the office. Also, it is not credible that she would know that that was the reason the fax had been sent to her, unless the sender or the fax itself stated so.

16. LHY and LSF did not copy LWL or me on this email correspondence with Mr Lee on 16 and 17 December 2013 regarding the making and signing of the Last Will. I became aware of these troubling circumstances only later, as I explain below.

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 my lawyers sent after disputes arose between LWL and LHY, on the one hand, and me on the other, LWL admitted that she had been became 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.

19. In any event, as is clear from its contents, LSF’s Email distinctly and clearly gave Mr Lee the impression that the new will would change only the division of shares, with the result that each child would have an equal share, just like in the First Will. Yet, the Last Will that LSF and her law firm prepared and got Mr Lee to sign went beyond that. Significantly, they re-inserted the Demolition Clause, even though that clause does not appear to have been discussed at the time of the making of the Last Will and had in fact been removed by Mr Lee from his immediately prior two wills (the Fifth and Sixth Wills).

20. Neither was the Last Will a wholesale reversion to the First Will. The Last Will differed in significant respects from the First Will. For example, the First Will contained a gift-over clause with thorough provisions for the scenarios where LWL, LHY or I predeceased Mr Lee. This important clause was absent from the Last Will, and there is nothing which suggests that Mr Lee had given instructions for it to be removed.

21. In fact, if, as appears from LSF’s Email, the change Mr Lee had wanted to make to his will in December 2013 was to reinstate the equal division of the Estate among the three children, that could have been easily done by reverting to the Fifth Will (which provided for equal division). The Fifth Will was as complete as the Sixth Will and similar in all material respects to the Sixth Will save for the proportions of the Estate bequeathed to each of the three children. Further, as KKL had prepared the Fifth and Sixth Wills, she could easily have been asked to make that one change.

22. On 12 April 2015, Mr Lee’s Last Will was read. Mr Lee’s three children, HC and LSF were present at the reading. Also present were two lawyers from LSF’s law firm, Mr Ng Joo Khin (“NJK”) and BL (who was a witness to signing of the Last Will). At that reading, LSF volunteered that Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the Last Will, but that she had not wanted to get personally involved and had therefore gotten NJK from her law firm to handle the preparation of the Last Will. BL then confirmed that he was one of the witnesses to the Last Will. I could not help but form the impression that this was all rehearsed, and wondered why these statements were made even when no questions had been raised about the validity of the Last Will. BL then went on, in our presence, to examine the seals and signatures on the envelope, opened the envelope, examined the initials and signatures on every page, and pronounced that this was the document that he had witnessed before handing it to NJK. NJK did not dispute LSF’s account that he had handled the preparation of the Last Will. He then went on to read the Last Will to Mr Lee’s family, word for word, including the page and paragraph numbers.

23. I was so struck by the sequence of volunteered statements that on 23 April 2015, 11 days later, I recounted to DPM Teo Chee Hean in my office what had happened at the reading of the Last Will, including what LSF had said.

24. It was also during the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015 that the dispute between LHY and me arose. At the reading, LHY repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the House. I said that such a move so soon after Mr Lee’s passing, when the public’s emotions were still raw, might force the Government to promptly react by deciding to gazette the House, and that would not be in the interests of Mr Lee’s legacy or Singapore. That discussion only ended when HC intervened to ask LWL if she wanted to continue living in the House. LWL said she did, which made the question of demolition moot. LHY then stopped insisting on the immediate demolition of the House.

25. Far from making any threats or opposing making Mr Lee’s wishes public, I also proposed reading out in Parliament Mr Lee’s letter to Cabinet of 27 December 2011, as well as the Demolition Clause. LHY and LSF strenuously objected. They argued that I could not read out Mr Lee’s letter, because (they claimed) of the Official Secrets Act. When I held firm, they told me that I could only read the first half of the Demolition Clause, i.e. excluding that part about what Mr Lee wanted done to the House if it is not demolished. I made clear that I intended to make public both Mr Lee’s letter of 27 December 2011 and the entire Demolition Clause, which I did when I spoke in Parliament on 13 April 2015. I also told Parliament that the Government would only consider the question of what to do with the House as and when LWL ceased to live in it.

26. It was only after the reading of the Last Will and the dispute arose that I looked up old family emails.

27. I then learnt that on 3 January 2014 at 10.30 am, WLH had sent an email (“WLH’s Email”) to LSF, copied to Mr Lee, LHY, LWL, HC, KKL and me, attaching a copy of Mr Lee’s codicil. The codicil had nothing to do with the contents of the Last Will but dealt with the bequest of some carpets. Buried in the email chain to WLH’s Email were LSF’s and LHY’s emails of 16 and 17 December 2013. Back in January 2014, I had not considered it necessary to read the entire email chain and did not do so. I did not feel that there was any need, and I was not anxious, to acquaint myself with my father’s wills. I felt that those were matters for him, and I left it at that. This is evident from my query to LHY on 13 May 2015 about a codicil to the Last Will whose existence I was not aware of. LHY replied that I had been copied on WLH’s Email in January 2014 about the codicil. I had not earlier paid any attention to that and could not locate WLH’s Email at that point. I therefore asked LHY for a copy.

28. LHY and LSF themselves appear to have believed that I had not paid attention to these matters, nor fully appreciated the import of the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails. That explains why, When LHY in response to my query forwarded me a copy of WLH’s Email containing the codicil, he cut out and did not send me the incriminating exchanges in the email chain that followed which showed LHY’s and LSF’s involvement in the making of the Last Will in December 2013. Thus LHY and LSF themselves appear to have believed that I had not paid attention to these matters, nor fully appreciated the import of the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails.

29. In any event, even had I read the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails at the time, I would not have appreciated their significance because I would have been reading them without the full context, since I was not aware (until June 2015, when informed by KKL) of the terms of earlier wills, nor the terms of or changes in the Last Will.

30. When I subsequently reviewed the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails, there was nothing to show that NJK had been involved in the preparation of the Last Will as LSF had claimed during the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015. I am also not aware of anything which shows that NJK had met or communicated with Mr Lee on the Last Will. I therefore do not understand how Mr Lee could have given instructions to NJK on the preparation of the Last Will.

31. In June 2015, KKL provided the family with copies of Mr Lee’s First to Sixth Wills and explanations for why he had executed those wills. Only then was I able to review and compare the terms and changes between those wills and the Last Will, and appreciate the significance of the exchanges in the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails.

32. At the end of August 2015, because of the ongoing dispute, HC did a search of her old emails and found the correspondence between her and LWL in July 2014 where LWL expressed her suspicions about LHY and LSF’s role in the making of the Last Will.

33. This series of events led me to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the Last Will.

34. Even then, I was prepared not to delve further into those circumstances if the disputes within the family could be resolved amicably and privately. I did not challenge the validity of the Last Will in court because I wished, to the extent possible, to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family. I was also and am still concerned that LWL and LHY want(ed) to drag out probate and the administration and winding up of the Estate so that they can use their position as Executors for reasons which are strictly unconnected with the administration of the Estate.

35. As part of efforts to resolve the family disputes amicably, after LWL and LHY expressed unhappiness that 38 Oxley Road had been bequeathed to me following Mr Lee’s passing, I told them that I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LWL for a nominal sum of S$1 on the condition that should the property be transacted later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds would go to charity. However, a resolution proved impossible. Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Elections. I was not prepared to be intimidated. Their accusations were not only baseless; they were basedmade on the premise that there were no unusual circumstances surrounding the making of the Last Will. I therefore decided to make further enquiries into those circumstances through my solicitors in September 2015, but, contrary to what my siblings have claimed, my questions (which are included in those which I set out below) went unanswered.

36. After the General Elections, LWL and LHY agreed to my fresh proposal to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LHY at market value, on condition that LHY and I each donated an amount equivalent to half of that value to charity, to pre-empt any future controversy over compensation or redevelopment proceeds. I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LHY so that he and LWL could handle the 38 Oxley Road matter as they saw fit between them. In accordance with our agreement, I donated half of the value of 38 Oxley Road to charity. Although not required under the agreement, I also donated a sum equivalent to the other half of the value of 38 Oxley Road to charity. 38 Oxley Road now wholly belongs to LHY. This is consistent with the position that I had always held and conveyed to my family: that it is not tenable for the family to retain proceeds from any dealing with 38 Oxley Road, as it would look like the family is opposing acquisition and preservation of the House for monetary reasons. LHY was and continues to be unhappy about my taking this position. So, it would appear, is LWL.

37. I continue to have grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the Last Will. I am not aware of any facts which suggest that Mr Lee was informed or advised (by NJK, whom LSF claimed had handled the preparation of the Last Will, or any other lawyer) about all the changes that were made when he signed the Last Will, or that Mr Lee was properly advised about the contents of the Last Will. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the Demolition Clause had been re-inserted into the Last Will.

38. My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL’s extra share in the Estate under the Last Will. It would appear that LHY felt very strongly about LWL not receiving an extra share, which explains why, in April 2015, he told me that there “would have been big trouble” if Mr Lee had not changed the will back to equal shares between the three children.

39. These facts and matters give rise to the following serious questions:

(1) Why did LSF say, at the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015, that she had not wanted to be involved in the preparation of the Last Will and that she had asked NJK to handle the matter, when she had been was intimately involved in the events surrounding and leading up to the Last Will?
(2) What was LSF’s role in the preparation and signing of the Last Will?
(3) What, if any, knowledge did LHY and LSF have of the First to Sixth Wills?
(4) Whether and to what extent were the earlier wills discussed with Mr Lee in the lead-up to the signing of the Last Will and when the Last Will was signed, and who had those discussions?
(5) Were the provisions of the Last Will explained to Mr Lee, and if so, who explained them to him?
(6) Who gave instructions to NJK in relation to the Last Will, and what were those instructions? Did NJK, who is said by LSF to have prepared the Last Will, ever meet or speak to Mr Lee to take instructions or to get the Last Will signed?
(7) Did Mr Lee give specific instructions to re-insert the Demolition Clause in the Last Will, and if so, to whom?
(8) Was there a conflict of interest on the part of LSF, her fellow lawyers and her firm?
(9) What transpired during the brief time that BL and EK were with Mr Lee? Did LSF tell BL and EK to ensure that Mr Lee received independent legal advice before asking him to sign the Last Will?

40. Without proper and complete answers to these questions, there are serious doubts about whether Mr Lee was properly and independently advised on the contents of the Last Will before he signed it cannot be cleared.

41. LWL and LHY claim that Mr Lee was not prepared to consider any option other than the demolition of the House. For that they rely heavily on the insertion of the Demolition Clause in the Last Will. In light of the troubling circumstances set out above, I believe it is necessary to go beyond the Last Will in order to establish what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes were in relation to the House.

 

 

Sponsored Content

24 Responses to “PM Lee releases statutory declaration submitted to the ministerial committee”

  • billyma:

    With greed hell deep, there’s nothing that could satisfy nor fill his wanting.
    It shows lky for all his perceived greatness failed as a parent.
    Lky ‘s power & riches does not enable nor buy him good children.
    With all the best in education & every material needs he gave to his kids, they failed to turn out well.

    Lky ‘s theory that smart people beget smart children maybe half true but it does not guarantee good values in these kids.

    This saga for sure stain lky’s legacy. But now the public anger may well be directed at his idiotic eldest son.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Concerned voter:

    The truth is we don’t know who to believe.

    We don’t know whether the will was altered by your sister in law or not.

    All we know is you shouldn’t be using tax payer money for a committee for your family’s private affairs.

    That money should go to more deserving Singaporeans like the elderly cardboard collectors.

    If this private matter affects your work, you should also consider resigning.

    Singaporeans deserve better.

    Don’t make us regret voting for PAP.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • LKY was a shrewd man and lucid to the end, are we to believe he could be fooled by LSF to sign a will with contents he is not aware of? LHY has already produced a copy of the will on his FB, with LKY’s initials at the bottom of the paragraph on demolition of 38 Oxley Rd. are we to believe LKY initialled under that paragraph without understanding of what it means?

    LHL was bequeathed 38 Oxley Rd. he sold it to LHY with the condition that LHY pay him market rate, and then another 50% to a charity. When LHY thought he now owned the property and could demolish it as his late father wished, LHL set up a ministerial committee to look into the “future handling of the property”. No wonder LHY and LWL felt cheated by LHL. On the one hand, he took the money (even if he donated it as he said), then he still wrestled control through the ministerial committee. That’s underhanded, no matter how you look at it.

    LHL is digging himself into a bigger hole than he already has. He’s nothing but a crook.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • The Evil Greedy Son:

    It becomes clearer that Pinky wants to milk old man’s legacy and he is dishonest. He is trying to obfuscate the whole issue.

    Why would a ministerial committee be set up to look into a family affair, given that LKY wanted it demolished, all siblings appear to support his wish in public, and that given its an autocratic government ruled by the Lees, which ministar would have such itchy backside to go against their wishes to start a private committee nonsense??

    The declaration means nothing in a dictatorship.
    When boss said it’s true, then it’s true lor.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan:

    Lee Kuan Yew wanted the House to be demolished long before he made his first will. This was the promise he made to his wife – the mother of the three siblings. The wife was a very private person and wanted to protect the family privacy. She was also afraid the government would turn it into a public gallery for display to the public when the both of them were gone. Lee Kuan Yew had kept his promise to his wife but it seem one of the sibling had different ideas now.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sharon Ann Gabriel:

    PM Lee has launched a fierce counter-attack against his siblings. By questioning how his dad’s Last Will was prepared on 17/12/2013, it clearly shows that PM Lee has doubts about LKY’s state of mind, the integrity of his siblings and his sister-in-law. The dirty tactics to confuse and obfuscate issues are typical ala PAP. Only this time, PM Lee is using it against his kinfolk. The denouement of this saga will determine the fate of the House at 38 Oxley Road.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Amos humiliate L*L and PAP:

    One thing this saga proves is the LHL (and Ho Ching) cannot be trusted. LKY must have known this so LHL was excluded as an executor of his will.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • bgkl:

    “I believe it is necessary to go beyond the Last Will in order to establish what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes were in relation to the House.”

    Pinky Ass, your very last statement is a joke, man! If I have the superpower to walk down the street and listen to what every stranger is thinking, first and foremost, I would dispose you as prime minister!

    A person can think many things but is finally measured by the fruits of his actions. Which part of your old man’s wish to demolish Oxley house did you not farking understand! Go watch his interview video lah!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • MarBowling:

    Mai Hum’s statutory declaration in 41 paragraphs is as LOONG as a bull prick.

    To nicely sum them up : it’s ALL BULL SHITS!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • justacitizen:

    Insinuate that there is a conflict of interest of the parties involved in this unfortunate saga?
    Conflict of interest!!!!
    A kettle calling a pot black?

    There are many “conflict of interest” in the whole of Singapore. Yes?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • SMLJ ALSO BOHBIAN:

    Why is Civil servants activated to handle this PERSONAL PRIVATE AFFAIR?
    Boh Bian?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • The 30% dares question:

    WHY now then ask if the will is legit?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PATRIOT of TEMESAK:

    All I can say is it is DOWNRIGHT DISGRACEFUL…the old man agreed to the TWO appointed EXECUTORS of his will the PM is NOT repeat NOT part of the Will’s EXECUTION process…so why make a BIG DEAL??? unless he DEFINITELY has an AGENDA and the Siblings saw through it..

    How LOW can a man go??? you will NEVER KNOW… when even two cancer will NOT make him step DOWN what else can???

    Like Marshall, our minority 1st Chief Minister said ” What are they going to do with ALL that MONEY ”

    and…they are supposed to SERVE the PEOPLE & COUNTRY??? Kiss my ARSE and call me Harry!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • BuyMeBakKutTeh:

    Concerned voter:
    The truth is we don’t know who to believe.

    We don’t know whether the will was altered by your sister in law or not.

    All we know is you shouldn’t be using tax payer money for a committee for your family’s private affairs.

    That money should go to more deserving Singaporeans like the elderly cardboard collectors.

    If this private matter affects your work, you should also consider resigning.

    Singaporeans deserve better.

    Don’t make us regret voting for PAP.

    I bet you will keep voting PAP even LWL n LHY are correct…. that’s the caliber of Pap supporter!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • opposition dude:

    Wah so long and, as usual, full of rubbish and lies just as one would expect from a useless overpaid PM.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • 李阿斗:

    如果这也算是严重的利益冲突 , 哪人民就更应该有更大的权力来审查何晶(淡马锡首席执行官)和阿斗的利益冲突是否會更嚴重 ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Jefftan:

    No more truth in spore, that is why 70%
    It is all manipulation.
    The gov organ are full of kaki Lang.
    People money are stolen via CPF and HDB.
    It is only a yes or no decision, why committee?
    Woody where are you?
    Woody statement of an exceptional family,
    Can still hold water or not?
    George Yeo threat to PM was removed by making him
    Lose the election… hehehe
    Good capable local talent driven out of Spore

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP has the mandate:

    The using of state organs heavy hand or an iron fist against those holds alter view started with LKY, the old dead geezer who is pure evil and now the truth is out from his own children….hahahaahahahah..the oxley house is a symbol of his evil regime and need to be destroyed. Now his son is learning from his father. The saying goes, like father like son.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • rukidding:

    Smack full of “Guilt” !

    No need “Love letter” lah !

    Nobody bother’s anyway !

    People will judge what they “feel” and “what they see” .

    No use to use “Law” or “Law styled letter”….this is what many RICH “crooked” people will do to “harress , suppress and intimidate” the lesser.

    Don’t think it will work this time round !

    Simply put it,….this saga is just helping to make those who had thought the “Malay elect President” case “fishy” become “more fishy”.

    Simply put it,…this saga “shows clearly” how we have 80 over “useless PIGs who have been so “doggy and doggie”, and overfed and obscenely “taken care of”" just to “sit around” and say “yes” and “throw stones” on oppo ?

    How telling indeed……notice the dead silence …not a single woof or bark from those PIGs ?

    Must be these are “Jobs NO GREEDY PIGs” would like to do ??

    How about some “Cheaper, better, faster ,…foreign talent PIGs ???

    Maybe they can do a better job ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • rukidding:

    Is PM Lee still able to discharge his duty as a PM for the country properly when his “mind & heart” is now “filled with personal and family problems” ?

    I have never seen anybody in this situation that can work properly ? Have you ??

    Will not the Country and its State affairs and his decision making be “affected” ?

    Strangely,….not a single soul from the PAP ranks have “dared” come out to “suggest” that its better for him to “take a long absence of leave” to “clean up his dirty linen” ???

    How “Useless” and “slow” of his TEAM in being able to do “Damaged control” when it is “evident” that the whole state is being “dragged and stained” by his personal matters ????

    Is the PAP Team able to “hold fort” without their “Leeder’s” consent ??

    Lets watch and see !

    It will determine how you will vote in the next coming election !

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • MeeSiamReallyNoNeedHumone:

    LHL is in a fix this time..win or loose he loose.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PATRIOT of TEMESAK:

    Sharon Ann Gabriel:
    PM Lee has launched a fierce counter-attack against his siblings. By questioning how his dad’s Last Will was prepared on 17/12/2013, it clearly shows that PM Lee has doubts about LKY’s state of mind, the integrity of his siblings and his sister-in-law. The dirty tactics to confuse and obfuscate issues are typical ala PAP. Only this time, PM Lee is using it against his kinfolk. The denouement of this saga will determine the fate of the House at 38 Oxley Road.

    There is NO NECESSITY for the PM’s SD it is a piece of TOILET paper playing to the gallery to be flushed and the siblings NEED NOT reply….PM MUST sue if he wants to clear his filthy INTEGRITY as the claim by the siblings..IF NOT just shut the hell up and no one will know he is a FOOL!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sinkapore:

    No matter how you slice and dice it, PM you sold your share for hard cash and quietly commence a secret gov community to block the WILL, is down right despicable – typical of you.

    You will be more credibility and respect if you did not sell your share to LHY but continue to pursue the course openly; never mind if the WILL was influenced or not.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dinners are just dinners:

    LKY’s preference was for the house to be demolished because of his wife’s concerns. Also the heirs would then stand to earn more. But would this still be the case now?

    Really, if the government and Parliament step in, it is to decide that the house should not be demolished. It is open what they would then do.

    It need not be turned into a museum or public gallery if a new private trust is set up by the owner of the house with the blessing of the siblings who are consulted on the option to keep the house in the family indefinitely.

    The proposal here is that after LWL’s death or earlier departure from the house, the house could be home to future generations of the same family in accordance with a new trust (controlled by family members and professionals as trustees) set up so that 10-year leases could be granted to the highest bidder from Group A (close family members surnamed Lee) and Group B (distant family members who need not be surnamed Lee). Highest bidder from Pool A will get to lease the house. If there are no Group A bidders, then a bid from amongst Group B members. There could even be a Group C of even more distant relatives from the Kwa side if there are no Group B bidders. The house will remain a private residence in this way indefinitely and will not be turned into a museum – which is why LKY thought it best to demolish it.

    But the house owner, if minded to do all this and not to demolish after all, will want some assurance the government will not overturn the intent of such a private trust that is designed to keep the house as a residence occupied by family member. So there still may have to be some piece of legislation or special gazetting (that it should not be compulsory acquired or turned into a museum, public gallery or memorial hall) by a future government, not even the basement meeting room.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement





Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement



Most Recent Comments
  • LIONS: The train breakdowns are a result of UNDER-provision to account for LEE AH LONG’s rash intake of FTs...
  • Perspective: Remember how long it took for the media to report about the Hep C incident and for MOH to come out with...
  • LIONS: HY as EP will mean another 5/6 year$ of ” transparency that is good for governance” like lawrence...
  • toa pow cow: Rotting From The 2;Top: Mr. Cow, many of us are very sick of your excuses ‘Signalling...
  • NSman: So many racist comments from Singaporeans here.
  • oxygen: HARIMAU HAS BEEN DEFTLY SILENT on our imprisoned CPF release post retirement past 55. She is NOT the workers...
  • The Truth: @Pioneer, to correct your biased view: the logic is here is one mention PRC once, there should be at 5...
  • nizhemoshou: by now everybody should know the second key is jus a mirage created by the illusionist , the former...
  • Read & Hear The Right Things: Shittytimes will con you if they could. But alternate media already made the news,...
  • Sampai tua: Kbw & co, dont you dare even suggest any fare increases for the next millennium! Our daily suffering...
Announcement
Support TR Emeritus
Support TR Emeritus:
Other Amount:
Advertisement
Free Classifieds
  • Seeking Top Singaporean tutors to regist

    Seeking only Full Time Graduate tutors to register...
    [Read more]

  • best restaurants flock cafe

    WELCOME TO FLOCK CAFE! A family-run cafe, Flock&#...
    [Read more]

Advertisement
Readers Statistic
Latest Statistic