In a recent Facebook post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) raised questions about prospective leadership dynamics within Singapore’s ruling party following his estranged brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), announcing his decision to hand his position to Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong.
LHL, who has led Singapore for two decades since 2004, is set to step down on 15 May and transition into the role of Senior Minister.
This shift places Mr Lawrence Wong at the forefront as the incoming Prime Minister.
However, LHY’s post casts doubt on whether Mr Wong will wield full authority or if the outgoing Prime Minister will continue to exert significant influence, especially within the People’s Action Party (PAP).
“PM Lee Hsien Loong will become SM Lee Hsien Loong. So can Lawrence Wong really call the shots?” LHY wrote, suggesting potential continuity in leadership influence beyond the formal titles.
Prior to entering politics in 2011, Mr Wong served as the Principal Private Secretary to LHL from 2005 to 2008 and was in the civil service since August 1997.
Many have voiced their concerns over whether Mr Wong is serving as a placeholder PM, similar to how former PM Goh Chok Tong was for LHL.
Free rein and calling the shots
The context of LHY’s scepticism is understandable, given the Lee family’s unquestioned hold on politics in Singapore since its independence in 1965 and his personal experience with the family’s power.
But what’s most intriguing is the use of words in his latest Facebook post, notably highlighted during the 2021 defamation suit between LHL and journalist Terry Xu.
The suit centred around allegations of misleading statements concerning the family home at 38 Oxley Road, a property of significant historical and political importance.
In the end, the court ruled that an article published by Xu was defamatory against LHL by repeating the false claims of LHL’s siblings concerning the house, but it did not determine who misled LKY to believe that the Singapore government had gazetted his house.
It was revealed during the trial that the late LKY had written in an email that he “cannot call the shots” regarding the fate of 38 Oxley Road, as his son, LHL, who is the Prime Minister, “has the final word.”
Further evidence revealed during the hearing showed that LKY’s lawyer, Kwa Kim Li, had made handwritten notes saying, “Lee Hsien Loong has free rein” and “He (Lee Hsien Loong) can handle Cabinet” in her email correspondence with the founding Prime Minister on the matter of the will.
To add another level of complexity, Ms Kwa, the niece of the late Mr LKY’s wife Kwa Geok Choo, the lawyer responsible for drafting six of LKY’s seven wills from 2011 to 2012, was later sued by LHY and Lee Wei Ling for her handling of the will.
Subsequently, a disciplinary tribunal ordered Ms Kwa to pay a S$5,000 penalty for failing to “scrupulously safeguard” the late Mr Lee’s confidentiality while managing his will. Additionally, she was fined S$8,000 for misleading Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Dr. Lee Wei Ling in an email response to their inquiries.
The tribunal found that Ms Kwa had neglected to mention her late 2013 communications with Mr Lee Kuan Yew in an email inquiry concerning the creation of his seventh will.
Although Ms Kwa claimed that Mr Lee had not requested any modifications to his will after the sixth iteration and that she was unaware of the seventh will’s formulation, the tribunal determined that her failure to mention the November and December 2013 communications was misleading.
This omission gave the false impression that she was uninformed about the circumstances leading to the seventh will, which contradicted the tribunal’s finding that Mr Lee had indeed instructed a change to his will—a claim Ms Kwa denied.
It bears noting that before this finding against Ms Kwa in May 2023 — particularly against the claim that she had nothing to do with the seventh will, the Attorney General’s Chambers, headed by LHL’s former lawyer Lucien Wong, filed a complaint against LHY’s wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) in 2019.
The AGC claimed that LSF appeared to have prepared LKY’s last will and arranged for its execution despite her husband, LHY, being one of the beneficiaries under that will.
The displinary tribunal who heard the complaint, said in its 206-page grounds of decision that the facts exposed an “unsavoury tale” of how LSF and LHY had misled the LKY to sign a new will without the advice of his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa, who had prepared all six of his previous wills.
Ultimately, LSF was suspended for 15 months in November 2020 following the verdict by a Court of Three Judges.
Just a few words, yet they carry the weight of years of historical and familial conflict.