38 OXLEY - Communicating with the public
The fight between the Lees and the 7 wills have muddied the waters so much, that people don’t understand the important issues surrounding 38 Oxley. Many people seem to be still debating whether LKY wanted 38 Oxley Road demolished or not. Or the existence of a demolition clause. Or whether he wants monuments built to remember him. Unfortunately, LKY’s wishes are irrelevant legally, or from a national interest perspective. 1) History Quite apart of being the residence of LKY, there is historical significance of 38 Oxley. Many important meetings that determined Singapore’s self-governance and independence were held there. If the argument was merely preserving a residence to remember LKY, this wouldn’t be convincing. 2) The LawI find this the most curious. The usual loudest opposition voices are ironically arguing that an exception to the law should be made for LKY. Why ?The Land Acquisition Act was used to forcibly acquire private property of many people especially in the 60s. In fact this is said to be the reason why the residents of Hougang and their descendants hate the PAP so much. Many were farmers who had their land forcibly acquired , and then had to eke out their living as workers. All to build modern Singapore. In 1984, the Government acquired Alkaff Mansion , evicted the Buddhist society that was occupying it and ordered all the temples demolished. Surely people should be arguing that the Lees shouldn’t be accorded any special treatment ?If common people’s wishes were irrelevant when their land was forcibly acquired for national interest , surely LKY’s wishes should be irrelevant too ? Why should the Lees be given special treatment ?So if they are given an exception now , in future someone could put in his will a clause that he wants his house demolished , and the government has to respect it no matter what ? How can this be ?There are too many political opportunists who are confusing the people of Singapore. The same people who find injustice in what was done to the Hougang farmers , are suddenly fighting for an exception for the man whose polices evicted them. Irony much ?- CC
.jpg)
Lee Hsien Yang’s Dangerous Claim
Lee Hsien Yang made a very strange claim recently that has dangerous ramifications for Singaporeans.
He claimed that the Singapore government is intent on blocking his son, Li Shengwu, from one day becoming Prime Minister.
This is the first time Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern have floated the notion of Shengwu as a political scion, and it’s a troubling development.
If they fabricated this claim to obtain political asylum, they would be guilty of misleading UK authorities— a serious offense. If they genuinely believe their claim, however, it is a wake-up call for Singaporeans to guard against any unearned continuation of political dynasties.
Singapore’s ethos is built on meritocracy, not inheritance. SM Lee Hsien Loong has many times said his children have no desire to enter politics. SM Lee’s own son has publicly declared he has no political ambitions, dismissing any notions of family succession. If the goal is a Singapore free from dynastic influence, then Singaporeans ourselves must be vigilant in protecting this principle.
He claimed that the Singapore government is intent on blocking his son, Li Shengwu, from one day becoming Prime Minister.
This is the first time Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern have floated the notion of Shengwu as a political scion, and it’s a troubling development.
If they fabricated this claim to obtain political asylum, they would be guilty of misleading UK authorities— a serious offense. If they genuinely believe their claim, however, it is a wake-up call for Singaporeans to guard against any unearned continuation of political dynasties.
Singapore’s ethos is built on meritocracy, not inheritance. SM Lee Hsien Loong has many times said his children have no desire to enter politics. SM Lee’s own son has publicly declared he has no political ambitions, dismissing any notions of family succession. If the goal is a Singapore free from dynastic influence, then Singaporeans ourselves must be vigilant in protecting this principle.
It’s hard to ignore the sense that Lee Hsien Yang’s claim is more an attempt to gain sympathy as a victim and to shame and paint Singapore as some crockpot third world dictatorship, rather than a stable, mature democracy with democractic, independent institutions.
The Singapore government has shown no indication of grooming specific successors, and these baseless accusations make little sense in a country known for its meticulously planned and transparent leadership transitions.
Beyond the questionable nature of their asylum claims, there’s an air of entitlement in Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern’s political ambitions for their son. Li Shengwu is largely unknown to the general public, having lived abroad for years with no political involvement or interest.
To suggest that he could or should be Singapore’s future Prime Minister is presumptuous, at best. Merely being descended from Lee Kuan Yew does not entitle one to power; leadership in Singapore is earned, not inherited.
His brother, SM Lee had to gain the trust of the people through multiple elections, but just as importantly, the trust of his colleagues, in order to assume the position of Prime Minister. And he had to maintain the trust of people and colleagues through clear, effective leadership across 20 years.
The idea that Lee Hsien Yang or his son is in any way owed such a position undermines the meritocratic values upon which Singapore was built. And to make such claims, tells us a lot of his character.
Remember that Lee Hsien Yang teased everyone into thinking he would run for elections under Tan Cheng Bok’s Progress Singapore Party, and then didn’t in the end. Then a year later, he pulled the same stunt by pretending he was interested in the Presidential Elections. And then he didn’t run.
Perhaps he didn’t run, because he knew that he would be judged by Singaporeans, and we would judge him to be severely wanting. And now, by running away and pleading the UK to “protect” him, hiding under the skirts of our former colonial masters simply to embarrass his brother, he has embarrassed us Singaporeans.
This saga feels more like a soap opera than a genuine political issue, and it’s largely due to the persistent, very public comments from Lee Hsien Yang. His brother, SM Lee, has stayed largely silent, unwilling to stoke the flames of this public feud.
Lee Hsien Yang, however, seems determined to keep the drama alive, to the exasperation of many Singaporeans who are simply tired of the spectacle. It’s difficult to see this as anything other than a personal vendetta, one that does not serve the interests of Singapore or its people. Taken from The Opinion SG: https://theopinionsg.com/index.php/2024/10/29/lee-hsien-yangs-dangerous-claim/
The Singapore government has shown no indication of grooming specific successors, and these baseless accusations make little sense in a country known for its meticulously planned and transparent leadership transitions.
Beyond the questionable nature of their asylum claims, there’s an air of entitlement in Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern’s political ambitions for their son. Li Shengwu is largely unknown to the general public, having lived abroad for years with no political involvement or interest.
To suggest that he could or should be Singapore’s future Prime Minister is presumptuous, at best. Merely being descended from Lee Kuan Yew does not entitle one to power; leadership in Singapore is earned, not inherited.
His brother, SM Lee had to gain the trust of the people through multiple elections, but just as importantly, the trust of his colleagues, in order to assume the position of Prime Minister. And he had to maintain the trust of people and colleagues through clear, effective leadership across 20 years.
The idea that Lee Hsien Yang or his son is in any way owed such a position undermines the meritocratic values upon which Singapore was built. And to make such claims, tells us a lot of his character.
Remember that Lee Hsien Yang teased everyone into thinking he would run for elections under Tan Cheng Bok’s Progress Singapore Party, and then didn’t in the end. Then a year later, he pulled the same stunt by pretending he was interested in the Presidential Elections. And then he didn’t run.
Perhaps he didn’t run, because he knew that he would be judged by Singaporeans, and we would judge him to be severely wanting. And now, by running away and pleading the UK to “protect” him, hiding under the skirts of our former colonial masters simply to embarrass his brother, he has embarrassed us Singaporeans.
This saga feels more like a soap opera than a genuine political issue, and it’s largely due to the persistent, very public comments from Lee Hsien Yang. His brother, SM Lee, has stayed largely silent, unwilling to stoke the flames of this public feud.
Lee Hsien Yang, however, seems determined to keep the drama alive, to the exasperation of many Singaporeans who are simply tired of the spectacle. It’s difficult to see this as anything other than a personal vendetta, one that does not serve the interests of Singapore or its people. Taken from The Opinion SG: https://theopinionsg.com/index.php/2024/10/29/lee-hsien-yangs-dangerous-claim/
Lee Hsien Yang’s political asylum, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Lee Hsien Yang’s vendetta against his brother is the K-drama no one wants, and no one watches. Despite terrible ratings, this family feud is being funded and kept alive by its leading actor and director, Lee Hsien Yang.
Quite frankly, if demolishing Oxley Road is all it takes to get him off the airwaves, then I think we would all gladly take a hammer to the place right now.
Unfortunately, Lee Hsien Yang’s childhood psychological hatred of his brother can’t be appeased so easily. It has gone beyond a mere house.
Lee Hsien Yang’s latest plot twist is his announcement to Western media that he has become a “political refugee” in the UK, even though, as literally everyone has pointed out, he is free to come in and out of Singapore.
(Asiaone)
We used to have really compelling political refugees. At the height of his fame, Tan Wah Piow cut a dashing Marxist figure. Someone like Lim Chin Siong, even though he never claimed political asylum, had the weight of his political convictions.
Alas, what do we have now.
In addition to Lee Hsien Yang, (who is again, completely and entirely free to enter or leave Singapore), in recent years we have the Charles Yeo, Reform Party candidate and King of the creeps, and Amos Yee, noted pedophile and long-term resident of the US prison system.
And what is the similarity between all of them? Political asylum is just a smoke screen to excuse activities they have committed that they know to be illegal.
Amos Yee ran away from his NS obligations, and to indulge in his pedophile crimes. Charles Yeo had four police reports made against him for Criminal Breach of Trust and Forgery in his law firm. He also ran away.
And now Lee Hsien Yang, who is only being invited for a police interview, has claimed to be a political refugee. This is perhaps to deflect from the uncomfortable truth that he induced his father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, to change his will so that Lee Hsien Yang himself could get a bigger share.
Political asylum truly is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
To stay overseas and lob unfounded accusations at a justice system that is open and transparent, than to come and be judged and found to be a criminal.
.jpg)
To whom was 38 Oxley willed to?
It was not to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Why Did Sudhir Dredge Up the Oxley Saga Again ?
Sudhir has once again dredged up the Oxley saga.
Most Singaporeans are tired of this topic and wish that no more would be said on it.
But Suhdir wants to keep alive the controversy stirred up by Lee Hsien Yang (LHY).
It is obvious whose side he is on. He has cultivated a relationship with LHY and his family.
But Suhdir wants to keep alive the controversy stirred up by Lee Hsien Yang (LHY).
It is obvious whose side he is on. He has cultivated a relationship with LHY and his family.
He enjoys the company of his friends "Yang" and "Fern"
And he gets drunk with their son, his “whisky kaki” Li Huanwu
Sudhir’s book is notable more for what it does not say than what it says.
While he claims to have gone over the C3J judgment and court documents in detail, he has conveniently glossed over many salient findings.
Sudhir repeatedly states that Mr Lee had re-inserted the Demolition Clause in his last will, to suggest that Mr Lee had consciously and deliberately included the Demolition Clause.- However, as the C3J noted, just three days before he signed the last will, there had been no discussion between Mr Lee and KKL about reinstating the Demolition Clause.- The Demolition Clause was included in the draft will LSF sent to Mr Lee. When sending him the draft will, LSF made a false representation to Mr Lee about the draft will. She also did not draw his attention to the Demolition Clause.
The C3J found that LSF acted with complete disregard for Mr Lee’s interests, and she was grossly negligent. It was not just an “innocent mistake” by LSF, as Sudhir wants his readers to believe. - Because of LSF, Mr Lee ended up signing a document which was not what he had indicated that he wanted to sign.- The C3J also found that LHY’s behaviour in rushing the execution of the last will in an unseemly haste was “disturbing” and “troubling”.
In particular, the C3J expressed concern over LHY’s removal of KKL from the email thread. While Sudhir, acting as an apologist for LHY, argues that this was not shady behaviour, the C3J explained why this was so troubling. LHY could not have known that Mr Lee would agree to exclude KKL. - KKL was the solicitor who had attended to all of Mr Lee’s previous wills, and he evidently wanted her to be involved in the execution of the last will. Mr Lee only agreed to proceed without KKL because of the advice of his son, LHY.
It is therefore incorrect for Sudhir to say that LSF and LHY were cleared of all suspicion of improper motives or manipulations.
In fact, the C3J expressly noted that LSF had made “untrue” and “false” claims on oath, to downplay her role in the preparation and execution of the last will. She had acted with a “degree of dishonesty” in the disciplinary proceedings, and had also failed to disclose documents that were clearly relevant and which showed the true extent of her participation.
As for LHY, he had made “untrue” statements to the MC, to give the incorrect impression that he was not involved in the signing of the last will. The C3J found that he “was not telling the truth”. - LHY admitted that some of his Facebook posts were misleading or inaccurate. - In effect, he was saying that he could make untrue statements in public and private, unless they were court documents or documents to the stock exchange.
The Disciplinary Tribunal had also noted that LHY and LSF were “deceitful” witnesses, and their evidence on oath was “downright dishonest”.
How can anyone read these clear statements and think that LHY and LSF have been cleared of all suspicion of wrongdoing? It seems that Sudhir’s analysis is not as objective as he would like readers to believe, he may have allowed his relationship with LHY’s family to colour his views.
LHY and LSF clearly believe themselves to be above the law. - They misled Mr Lee, and when their misdeeds came to light, they complained when they were investigated. - They then lied to the public and lied under oath. - In view of all this, and of the findings of the highest court of the land, ask yourself, who is the truly dishonourable son?
Sudhir repeatedly states that Mr Lee had re-inserted the Demolition Clause in his last will, to suggest that Mr Lee had consciously and deliberately included the Demolition Clause.- However, as the C3J noted, just three days before he signed the last will, there had been no discussion between Mr Lee and KKL about reinstating the Demolition Clause.- The Demolition Clause was included in the draft will LSF sent to Mr Lee. When sending him the draft will, LSF made a false representation to Mr Lee about the draft will. She also did not draw his attention to the Demolition Clause.
The C3J found that LSF acted with complete disregard for Mr Lee’s interests, and she was grossly negligent. It was not just an “innocent mistake” by LSF, as Sudhir wants his readers to believe. - Because of LSF, Mr Lee ended up signing a document which was not what he had indicated that he wanted to sign.- The C3J also found that LHY’s behaviour in rushing the execution of the last will in an unseemly haste was “disturbing” and “troubling”.
In particular, the C3J expressed concern over LHY’s removal of KKL from the email thread. While Sudhir, acting as an apologist for LHY, argues that this was not shady behaviour, the C3J explained why this was so troubling. LHY could not have known that Mr Lee would agree to exclude KKL. - KKL was the solicitor who had attended to all of Mr Lee’s previous wills, and he evidently wanted her to be involved in the execution of the last will. Mr Lee only agreed to proceed without KKL because of the advice of his son, LHY.
It is therefore incorrect for Sudhir to say that LSF and LHY were cleared of all suspicion of improper motives or manipulations.
In fact, the C3J expressly noted that LSF had made “untrue” and “false” claims on oath, to downplay her role in the preparation and execution of the last will. She had acted with a “degree of dishonesty” in the disciplinary proceedings, and had also failed to disclose documents that were clearly relevant and which showed the true extent of her participation.
As for LHY, he had made “untrue” statements to the MC, to give the incorrect impression that he was not involved in the signing of the last will. The C3J found that he “was not telling the truth”. - LHY admitted that some of his Facebook posts were misleading or inaccurate. - In effect, he was saying that he could make untrue statements in public and private, unless they were court documents or documents to the stock exchange.
The Disciplinary Tribunal had also noted that LHY and LSF were “deceitful” witnesses, and their evidence on oath was “downright dishonest”.
How can anyone read these clear statements and think that LHY and LSF have been cleared of all suspicion of wrongdoing? It seems that Sudhir’s analysis is not as objective as he would like readers to believe, he may have allowed his relationship with LHY’s family to colour his views.
LHY and LSF clearly believe themselves to be above the law. - They misled Mr Lee, and when their misdeeds came to light, they complained when they were investigated. - They then lied to the public and lied under oath. - In view of all this, and of the findings of the highest court of the land, ask yourself, who is the truly dishonourable son?
黑吃黑 2
Photo: Facebook
"An Alliance Of Issues! Leong Mun Wai hosted lunch at Jun Low’s exquisite restaurant- The Black Society at Vivo City, for Sze Hian and myself yesterday ....." - Lim Tean, 10 Apr 21
黑吃黑
Photo: Facebook
"I thank Jun for hosting a wonderful dinner at her restaurant The Black Society this evening for Doctor and Mrs Tan Cheng Bock, Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern, Terry Xu , Khush Chopra and myself." - Lim Tean, 18 Feb 21
.jpeg)
Lee Suet Fern Found Guilty by High Court of Misconduct - After all the years of fighting and lies, it was all about money?
After years of the protracted drama and media fodder, it seems the “Oxley saga” was really about how much Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern wanted from LKY’s Will.
Earlier today, the Court of Three Judges found Lee Suet Fern, wife of Lee Hsien Yang, guilty of misconduct when she misled LKY on the contents of the last Will and acted dishonestly in the Disciplinary Proceedings. The judgement had found that Lee Suet Fern ignored the interests of LKY, and instead got LKY to hastily sign off on her version of the Will that would give her husband a bigger share of LKY’s estate.
Some are having a song and dance about how Lee Suet Fern was unfairly treated, but perhaps we should look at the facts and decide if Lee Suet Fern’s actions were proper or improper as a professional lawyer herself.
Her husband Lee Hsien Yang is a direct beneficiary of LKY’s Will. Getting involved meant that Lee Suet Fern can directly affect how much her husband would receive from LKY in the Will. Clearly a seasoned high-profile lawyer like Lee Suet Fern would know that this is a clear conflict of interest, and yet she pressed on to ensure that LKY signed her version of the Will.
In addition, Lee Suet Fern also cut out Kwa Kim Li from her email correspondences with LKY on the last Will. Kwa was LKY’s original lawyer who had prepared all 6 previous versions of LKY’s Wills. At that time, Kwa was already in correspondence with LKY to amend his last Will yet LSF rushed within 16 hours to ensure that LKY signed her version of the Will instead. Why did Lee Suet Fern interfere so hastily instead of letting the original lawyer proceed with work that had already started?
Let’s look at some other points from the high court judgement:
Lee Suet Fern was proven to have lied under oath in the Disciplinary Proceedings. As a lawyer, surely she knows how serious this is!
There is also material harm caused by Lee Suet Fern’s involvement which meant that LKY ended up signing a document which in fact was not that which he indicated he wished to sign. Is misleading LKY, who was 90 years old at that time and who moved in and out of illness, wrong? Of course it is!
When asked why she did all these, Lee Suet Fern said she was listening to Lee Hsien Yang’s instructions as an “obedient wife”. This seems to suggest that Lee Suet Fern’s main aim was to get the last Will executed quickly in accordance with what Lee Hsien Yang wanted.
If so, then they are a couple who have no qualms in lying to their father, just so they get what they wanted.
This has been a long saga - more than 3 years have passed. But let’s not forget that it was Lee Hsien Yang who made the first move to attack his brother Lee Hsien Loong publicly, and continued to publicly undermine LKY’s legacy and dragged Singapore’s international reputation through the mud.
Some of us had questioned why Lee Hsien Yang had gone so very public on what we all think is a private family affair, and wondered if he was really doing all that for the good of Singaporeans. Today, the judgment of the Court seems to suggest that perhaps all the drama was really to disguise Lee Hsien Yang’s desire for a bigger cut of LKY’s estate, and Lee Suet Fern’s misconduct in handling his last Will.
Anyway, this drama has now come to an end with this judgment. The ruling by the High Court is final and cannot be appealed. Lee Hsien Yang’s camp has aired the family’s dirty linen in public for far too long, and honestly, Singaporeans really don’t need such scandals as we try to recover from a crippling COVID pandemic.
Finally, many people can say what they like about this saga but in my view, legal misconduct, regardless of who you are and which family you come from, is a serious moral issue and a poor reflection of the kind of person you really are.
- From a Singaporean who loves my country and really cannot stand dishonest people who try to bring it down
Earlier today, the Court of Three Judges found Lee Suet Fern, wife of Lee Hsien Yang, guilty of misconduct when she misled LKY on the contents of the last Will and acted dishonestly in the Disciplinary Proceedings. The judgement had found that Lee Suet Fern ignored the interests of LKY, and instead got LKY to hastily sign off on her version of the Will that would give her husband a bigger share of LKY’s estate.
Some are having a song and dance about how Lee Suet Fern was unfairly treated, but perhaps we should look at the facts and decide if Lee Suet Fern’s actions were proper or improper as a professional lawyer herself.
Her husband Lee Hsien Yang is a direct beneficiary of LKY’s Will. Getting involved meant that Lee Suet Fern can directly affect how much her husband would receive from LKY in the Will. Clearly a seasoned high-profile lawyer like Lee Suet Fern would know that this is a clear conflict of interest, and yet she pressed on to ensure that LKY signed her version of the Will.
In addition, Lee Suet Fern also cut out Kwa Kim Li from her email correspondences with LKY on the last Will. Kwa was LKY’s original lawyer who had prepared all 6 previous versions of LKY’s Wills. At that time, Kwa was already in correspondence with LKY to amend his last Will yet LSF rushed within 16 hours to ensure that LKY signed her version of the Will instead. Why did Lee Suet Fern interfere so hastily instead of letting the original lawyer proceed with work that had already started?
Let’s look at some other points from the high court judgement:
Lee Suet Fern was proven to have lied under oath in the Disciplinary Proceedings. As a lawyer, surely she knows how serious this is!
There is also material harm caused by Lee Suet Fern’s involvement which meant that LKY ended up signing a document which in fact was not that which he indicated he wished to sign. Is misleading LKY, who was 90 years old at that time and who moved in and out of illness, wrong? Of course it is!
When asked why she did all these, Lee Suet Fern said she was listening to Lee Hsien Yang’s instructions as an “obedient wife”. This seems to suggest that Lee Suet Fern’s main aim was to get the last Will executed quickly in accordance with what Lee Hsien Yang wanted.
If so, then they are a couple who have no qualms in lying to their father, just so they get what they wanted.
This has been a long saga - more than 3 years have passed. But let’s not forget that it was Lee Hsien Yang who made the first move to attack his brother Lee Hsien Loong publicly, and continued to publicly undermine LKY’s legacy and dragged Singapore’s international reputation through the mud.
Some of us had questioned why Lee Hsien Yang had gone so very public on what we all think is a private family affair, and wondered if he was really doing all that for the good of Singaporeans. Today, the judgment of the Court seems to suggest that perhaps all the drama was really to disguise Lee Hsien Yang’s desire for a bigger cut of LKY’s estate, and Lee Suet Fern’s misconduct in handling his last Will.
Anyway, this drama has now come to an end with this judgment. The ruling by the High Court is final and cannot be appealed. Lee Hsien Yang’s camp has aired the family’s dirty linen in public for far too long, and honestly, Singaporeans really don’t need such scandals as we try to recover from a crippling COVID pandemic.
Finally, many people can say what they like about this saga but in my view, legal misconduct, regardless of who you are and which family you come from, is a serious moral issue and a poor reflection of the kind of person you really are.
- From a Singaporean who loves my country and really cannot stand dishonest people who try to bring it down