The government has stated on several occasions that Mr Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself on all matters relating to 38 Oxley Road.
“He is not involved when the Cabinet discusses these matters. Nor is he consulted by any agency of the government in any decision pertaining to members of his family,” the Singapore government said on Tuesday in its response to The Guardian’s query.
“The government is taking into account Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s views on 38 Oxley Road. While he preferred demolition, he was also willing to consider other options such as refurbishing and redesigning the interior.”
In The Guardian’s email query, which was made public by the Singapore government on Tuesday, the British daily said it was considering reporting that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his family have been “the victim of a campaign of persecution by the Singaporean government” because of his “outspoken criticism of the PAP (People’s Action Party) and of Lee Hsien Loong”.
The Guardian cited the “baseless criminal prosecution” of Mr Lee and his eldest son Li Shengwu, who was found guilty of contempt of court in 2020.
It also cited the “baseless professional disciplinary proceedings” against Mrs Lee Suet Fern regarding her conduct as a lawyer. In 2020, Mrs Lee was suspended from practice by the Court of Three Judges for 15 months after she was found guilty of misconduct over the handling of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will.
In its response to The Guardian, the Singapore government said the Court of Three Judges, led by the Chief Justice, found that the couple had cut off the late Mr Lee’s own long-time lawyer in preparing the last will. They had procured the execution of the last will with “unseemly haste (that) can only be described as improper and unacceptable”, the judgment read.
The judges also found that Mrs Lee had “acted with complete disregard for the interests” of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and had “blindly followed the directions of her husband, a significant beneficiary under the very will whose execution she helped to rush through”.
In view of these findings, the police started investigations against the couple for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. Although they initially said they agreed to be interviewed, they did not show up and left the country.
According to information published on the UK government’s website, to stay in the UK as a refugee, applicants must be unable to live safely in any part of their own country because they fear persecution there.
This persecution must be because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or anything else that puts individuals at risk due to the social, cultural, religious or political situation in their country.
“NO BASIS” TO OTHER ALLEGATIONS
The Guardian’s email query also referenced allegations by human rights groups that the Singapore government uses a “pliant legal system to intimidate their critics”, that Singapore allegedly plays a “major role in facilitating transnational corruption and money laundering”, and that the benefits of the country’s economic growth have been “concentrated in the hands of the PAP leaders and their allies”.
“There is no basis to the … allegations you have conveyed,” the Singapore government said in response.
It noted that Singapore was ranked fifth in the 2023 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, and third in the 2023 World Justice Project Index for the absence of corruption in its legal and law enforcement systems. The UK was ranked 20th and 11th respectively in the two indices.
“In Singapore, no one is above the law. Anyone, including the offspring of the founding prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, can be investigated and brought before the courts,” it continued.
On money laundering, the government said Singapore has “a robust system” to deter and tackle illicit financial flows, which is consistent with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. Singapore ranked fourth in the Global Financial Centres Index 2024, after New York, London and Hong Kong.
“The assertion that the benefits of Singapore’s economic growth are concentrated in the hands of PAP leaders and their allies is far from the lived experience of Singaporeans,” the government added.
It noted, among other things, that nine in 10 patients pay less than S$500 out of pocket for a subsidised public hospital stay and 90 per cent of public education costs are subsidised.
“We have provided you with the citations for every point in our response. The legal findings are amply supported by well-documented and public findings of an independent judiciary,” the government said in its reply to The Guardian.
Read the Singapore government’s response in full:
