7 July 2017
Mr Lionel Yee Woon Chin, SC
1 Upper Pickering St
As you may know, Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) have accused Mr Lee Hsien Loong (“LHL”) of abuse of power in his capacity as Prime Minister of Singapore.
Specifically, PM Lee’s siblings, individually or jointly, noted that:
1. PM Lee Hsien Loong had made “false claims” in Parliament
In their Facebook post on 4 July 2017 here, LWL and LHY made a grave charge that “LHL has made convoluted, but ultimately false claims about Lee Kuan Yew’s (“LKY”) wishes.” They were referring to LHL’s Parliamentary speech on 3 July 2017 where LHL stated that the late Lee Kuan Yew had changed his position from demolishing his house, 38 Oxley Road, to preserving it. LWL and LHY have produced emails to substantiate their claim.
2. Ho Ching had no business acting on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
LHY posted on his Facebook on 22 June here that Ms Ho Ching (“HC”), LHL’s wife, had gone to 38 Oxley Road to remove items in the residence and handed them over to the National Heritage Board. LHY pointed out that Ms Ho was not an elected official nor was she an appointed officer of the PMO and yet she was listed as the “contact representative for the PMO”.
In addition, LHY stated in his post that HC did not seek permission from him and LWL as executors of LKY’s Estate to remove items from the house. This, he said, constituted “theft and intermeddling”.
3. LHL acted inappropriately on the Deed of Gift
LHY stated in his Facebook post on 22 June 2017 here that LHL had obtained the Deed of Gift in his capacity as Prime Minister but used it in his personal capacity to take legal action against LWL and LHY.
4. The secretive appointment of the Ministerial Committee
LHY and LWL have stated that LHL, after signing a settlement agreement with them as executors of LKY’s estate, went on to make a statutory declaration to a secret Ministerial Committee which appeared to have been established to challenge Mr LKY’s will instead of its professed objective of exploring options for the Oxley house. The details of this committee were not provided to them until they went public with their accusations and the origins of the committee have not been clarified to date.
Furthermore, LWL and LHY have claimed here that, with regard to LKY’s position on the Oxley House, LHL’s statutory declaration to the Ministerial Committee contradicts his own statement to Parliament in April 2015 where LHL said LKY’s position was “unwavering over the years and fully consistent with his lifelong values.”
The above are allegations made against LHL that, prima facie, warrant looking into by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Even though LHL has addressed some of these matters in Parliament on 3 and 4 July 2017, his statements must necessarily be viewed as partisan and one sided as they were not subject to a critical cross examination. He has also refused to convene a Commission of Inquiry despite widespread calls from the public to do so.
In the interest of the rule of law and accountability, it is imperative that our legal system demonstrates impartiality by investigating the allegations and counter-allegations by the parties involved.
As such, we call on the AGC to do whatever is within its powers or to direct law enforcement agencies to interview all relevant witnesses and subpoena necessary documents to get to the bottom of the matter. The outcome of the investigation and action(s) led by the AGC should be guided by the evidence and no other consideration.