Singapore objects to ‘false portrayal’ of country in New York Times ‘tyranny’ video featuring Li Shengwu

GOVERNMENT’S REPLY

In a separate response to NYT’s queries in December 2024, the Singapore government said Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s assertions and accusations in the Jan 11 article are meant to “distract international attention” from the fact that the couple was found by the court to have misled his father in the execution of his last will and testament.

They have also lied under oath, said the government.

The court found that Mrs Lee Suet Fern 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”.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang said the saga around 38 Oxley Road had made him realise there are “fundamental problems in the way Singapore is governed and run”.

The government called this a “grandiose claim” that was meant to “distract attention from the real issue” that the couple were found by the court to have lied under oath.

“The Singapore government has never ‘maintained that it can function without any checks on its power’, as you assert,” it said.

The government, it said, is subject to laws enforced by an independent judiciary and is answerable to an elected parliament. It is also accountable to the people of Singapore through open elections, which have been held at regular intervals without fail since independence.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang had also considered contesting in the last General Election, only to “back off” at the last minute, said the government.

It added that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had dismissed his father’s political legacy “in terms obviously calculated to win applause among some in the West”, and that it is regarded by most Singaporeans as “deeply offensive to and disrespectful of his father”.

The government said the ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Road did not inquire into Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, as his younger son had alleged.

The disciplinary tribunal and Court of Three Judges looked into Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s professional conduct in the execution of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will.

“Far from being “secret”, the Ministerial Committee invited and received representations from all of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s children. It later published its findings,” said the government.

The committee was set up to work out options for the future of 38 Oxley Road.

It examined Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes on the house and found that he was prepared to accept other options besides demolition, as he had indicated in his last will and on other occasions, including a letter to the Cabinet, said the government.

“Decisions on 38 Oxley Road were and continue to be made transparently, following due process,” it added.

“As prime minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself from all discussions on the matter. He continues to do so now as senior minister.

“Neither he nor members of his family are consulted by any government agency on any decision pertaining to 38 Oxley Road.”

Mr Lee Hsien Yang also alleged that his older brother and his wife, Mdm Ho Ching, wanted to use 38 Oxley Road to milk “Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy for their own political purposes” and harboured “dynastic ambitions for their son”.

These charges are baseless, said the government.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong sold the house, which had been deeded to him in the will, to his younger brother in December 2015 and donated the proceeds to charity.

“He had earlier offered to transfer the house to his sister for $1. He did all this voluntarily months before his siblings made public their conflict with their brother,” said the government.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s son, Mr Li Hongyi, has repeatedly stated he has no wish to enter politics. None of his children has expressed such interest.

“None has done anything to even vaguely suggest political interest,” said the government.

It noted another report by the Financial Times, which said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife had argued that the Singapore government had persecuted their family to “block any chance” that Mr Li Shengwu might enter politics in Singapore and “one day rise to the position of prime minister”.

“This has left many wondering if it isn’t Lee Hsien Yang himself who harbours ‘dynastic ambitions’,” said the government.

Addressing Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s claim that he was not jealous or envious of his older brother, the government said readers can judge what “really prompted” him to launch this “extravagant vendetta” against his brother.

“It has so consumed him that he has extended the vendetta into an international campaign against Singapore itself, as well as the legacy of his parents,” said the government.

“While claiming to fulfil his father’s wish to demolish the house, he doesn’t hesitate to demolish all that his father had built in Singapore.”