GOVERNMENT’S REPLY
In a separate response to NYT’s queries in December 2024, the Singapore authorities stated Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s assertions and accusations within the Jan 11 article are supposed to “distract worldwide consideration” from the truth that the couple was discovered by the court docket to have misled his father within the execution of his final will and testomony.
They’ve additionally lied beneath oath, stated the federal government.
The court docket discovered that Mrs Lee Suet Fern had “acted with full disregard for the pursuits” of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and had “blindly adopted the instructions of her husband, a big beneficiary beneath the very will whose execution she helped to hurry by means of”.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang stated the saga round 38 Oxley Street had made him realise there are “basic issues in the way in which Singapore is ruled and run”.
The federal government known as this a “grandiose declare” that was meant to “distract consideration from the true subject” that the couple had been discovered by the court docket to have lied beneath oath.
“The Singapore authorities has by no means ‘maintained that it may perform with none checks on its energy’, as you are saying,” it stated.
The federal government, it stated, is topic to legal guidelines enforced by an impartial judiciary and is answerable to an elected parliament. Additionally it is accountable to the individuals of Singapore by means of open elections, which have been held at common intervals with out fail since independence.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang had additionally thought-about contesting within the final Normal Election, solely to “again off” on the final minute, stated the federal government.
It added that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had dismissed his father’s political legacy “in phrases clearly calculated to win applause amongst some within the West”, and that it’s regarded by most Singaporeans as “deeply offensive to and disrespectful of his father”.
The federal government stated the ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Street didn’t inquire into Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s final will, as his youthful son had alleged.
The disciplinary tribunal and Court docket of Three Judges appeared into Mrs Lee Suet Fern’s skilled conduct within the execution of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s final will.
“Removed from being “secret”, the Ministerial Committee invited and obtained representations from all of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s youngsters. It later revealed its findings,” stated the federal government.
The committee was set as much as work out choices for the way forward for 38 Oxley Street.
It examined Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s needs on the home and located that he was ready to simply accept different choices moreover demolition, as he had indicated in his final will and on different events, together with a letter to the Cupboard, stated the federal government.
“Choices on 38 Oxley Street had been and proceed to be made transparently, following due course of,” it added.
“As prime minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself from all discussions on the matter. He continues to take action now as senior minister.
“Neither he nor members of his household are consulted by any authorities company on any resolution pertaining to 38 Oxley Street.”
Mr Lee Hsien Yang additionally alleged that his older brother and his spouse, Mdm Ho Ching, needed to make use of 38 Oxley Street to exploit “Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy for their very own political functions” and harboured “dynastic ambitions for his or her son”.
These prices are baseless, stated the federal government.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong offered the home, which had been deeded to him within the will, to his youthful brother in December 2015 and donated the proceeds to charity.
“He had earlier supplied to switch the home to his sister for $1. He did all this voluntarily months earlier than his siblings made public their battle with their brother,” stated the federal government.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s son, Mr Li Hongyi, has repeatedly said he has no want to enter politics. None of his youngsters has expressed such curiosity.
“None has achieved something to even vaguely counsel political curiosity,” stated the federal government.
It famous one other report by the Monetary Instances, which stated that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his spouse had argued that the Singapore authorities had persecuted their household to “block any likelihood” that Mr Li Shengwu would possibly enter politics in Singapore and “in the future rise to the place of prime minister”.
“This has left many questioning if it isn’t Lee Hsien Yang himself who harbours ‘dynastic ambitions’,” stated the federal government.
Addressing Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s declare that he was not jealous or envious of his older brother, the federal government stated readers can choose what “actually prompted” him to launch this “extravagant vendetta” towards his brother.
“It has so consumed him that he has prolonged the vendetta into a global marketing campaign towards Singapore itself, in addition to the legacy of his dad and mom,” stated the federal government.
“Whereas claiming to fulfil his father’s want to demolish the home, he doesn’t hesitate to demolish all that his father had in-built Singapore.”
