Corrections Regarding False Statements on the Misuse of Government Resources, Conduct of the Prosecution, and Rules of Obligations for Ministers

1. The article published on 14 January 2025 by the East Asia Forum on their website and shared on their social media pages communicates assertions which are false and misleading.

False Statements of Fact

2. First, the article communicates that the Singapore government misused the resources and time of the Cabinet, Parliament, the police, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (“URA”), and the Building and Construction Authority (“BCA”), to pursue Senior Minister (“SM”) Lee Hsien Loong’s private agenda against his siblings and turn his family home, i.e. 38 Oxley Road, into a memorial to his father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and himself. This is false.

• In relation to the police investigations involving SM Lee’s siblings:

  • A Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) and the Court of Three Judges (“C3J”) held that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, lied under oath in disciplinary proceedings which had been commenced against Mrs Lee Suet Fern, for her misconduct as a lawyer.

  • The C3J and the DT held that Mrs Lee Suet Fern "focused primarily on what her husband wanted done", and "worked together with Mr [Lee Hsien Yang], with a singular purpose, of getting [Mr Lee Kuan Yew] to execute the Last Will quickly". [1]

  • The C3J and the DT held that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and her husband had excluded the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s own long-time lawyer from the process, and had procured the execution of the last will with “unseemly haste”, overnight within 16 hours. [2]

  • Mr Lee Kuan Yew "ended up signing a document which was in fact not that which he had indicated he wished to sign". [3]

  • The C3J suspended Mrs Lee Suet Fern from practising as a lawyer for 15 months.

  • The C3J and DT also made the following findings:

    • The DT found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had presented "an elaborate edifice of lies … both on oath … and through their public and other statements, (which were referred to/relied upon during the Disciplinary Proceedings). The Affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant."[4]

    • The C3J also found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang “was not telling the truth” in his sworn evidence in the earlier disciplinary proceedings, ^[5] and that Mrs Lee Suet Fern had acted “with a degree of dishonesty” in those proceedings and given “a contrived and ultimately untrue account of her role.”[6]

    • Given these findings, police investigations were commenced against Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern for possible perjury. The couple refused to cooperate and left the country.

• In relation to 38 Oxley Road:

  • SM Lee has long recused himself from all discussions on 38 Oxley Road. Since then, he has not been, and is not, involved in the decisions made by the Cabinet or any government agency in relation to 38 Oxley Road.

  • Mr Lee Kuan Yew was prepared to accept options other than demolition of 38 Oxley Road, provided that suitable arrangements were made to ensure that: (i) the property was refurbished, and kept in a habitable state; and (ii) the family’s privacy was protected.[7] Pertinently, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had written a letter to the Cabinet dated 27 December 2011—his last formal communication to the Cabinet on 38 Oxley Road—acknowledging that 38 Oxley Road may be preserved, and stating his views if that were to happen.

  • In any case, it is apparent from the National Heritage Board’s (“NHB”) statement on 24 October 2024 that no decision has been made yet on 38 Oxley Road. NHB’s Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board will make an independent assessment on the site’s eligibility and suitability for preservation, in accordance with section 4(a) of the Preservation of Monuments Act.

3. Second, the article communicates that the Prosecution prosecuted Mr Pritam Singh (“Mr Singh”) without basis, in pursuit of motives other than proper enforcement of the law.

• The above allegation is false.

• The conduct of Mr Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap (“Mr Faisal”) before the Committee of Privileges (“COP”) was referred to the Public Prosecutor, under section 21(1)(c) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (“P(PIP)A”).

• The Prosecution decided to prefer two charges against Mr Singh.

• During the trial, the Defence made a submission of “no case to answer” in respect of Mr Singh’s two charges. However, the Court called on Mr Singh to enter his defence on both charges, which confirms that there were grounds for prosecution.

• The trial was held in open court, and Mr Singh gave evidence, as did other witnesses. Closing submissions have been made. The Court will render its verdict in due course.

4. Third, the article communicates that the Prosecution declined, without basis, to prosecute six senior executives of a Singapore-based government-linked company, i.e. Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (“KOM”), which had paid US$55 million in bribes. This is false.

   • The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”), in consultation with the AGC, issued stern warnings to the six individuals who were formerly senior management of KOM. The decision was made by the Prosecution in the exercise of its discretion and professional judgment, taking into account all relevant considerations pertaining to the case. These included evidentiary difficulties in the case—for example, many of the documents were located in different jurisdictions, and key witnesses located outside of Singapore could not be compelled to give evidence here.

   • In addition, it should be noted that while the article claims that the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) “caught six senior executives … paying US$55m in bribes”, only one individual was prosecuted in the US. The US DOJ did not charge any other KOM executives or publicly identify them.

5. Last, the article, when published on 14 January 2025, had alleged that there is a complete absence of laws or conventions requiring Political Office Holders to declare their financial interests, assets, or conflicts of interest. This is false.

• The 2005 Code of Conduct for Ministers sets out the rules of obligation that all Ministers are to abide by.[8] In particular, there are rules which require Ministers to declare financial interests and assets, and rules on the acceptance of gifts and conflicts of interest.[9] In addition to and in the context of the Code, and as a matter of convention, Ministers who declare a relevant interest will be required to recuse themselves from decision-making in related matters.

Further Clarifications

6. Mr Barr has made allegations against Singapore for decades.[10] His comments are usually acerbic and biased, lacking any connection to the facts. Most Singaporeans ignore Mr Barr and the prescriptions he has proffered over the years. Singapore ranks 5^th in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. In comparison, some other countries in the Index rank as follows: Australia (14^th), United Kingdom (20^th), United States of America (24^th).

7. In the article, Mr Barr also suggests some impropriety in the reduction of the two charges against Mr S Iswaran (“Mr Iswaran”).

• Mr Iswaran was charged and convicted for receiving gifts, including whisky bottles and others, as set out in the High Court’s judgment.[11] Mr Barr will know that in most countries such gifts would not attract any attention, let alone a criminal charge. He is mendacious in his allegations. Mr Barr can refer to the following cases, including the gifts received by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson,[12] and United States Supreme Court Justices. [13]

8. Mr Barr has additionally made other bald accusations that Singapore’s leaders—including the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew—conflated public interest and private interest and pursued self-interest while in office, suggesting that they engaged in wrongdoing, lacked integrity and/or were corrupt.

9. The Singapore government has zero tolerance for corruption. Ministers, Members of Parliament, and all public officers are expected to be scrupulously above board. Any evidence of wrongdoing would be fully investigated. While Mr Barr is free to express his opinions from afar, he is not free to make sweeping false allegations.

Conclusion

10. Singapore’s governance system is built on a foundation of integrity and public service, carefully established over generations and upheld by successive leaders. This hard-won public trust is precious and must be safeguarded. The Singapore government remains steadfast in its commitment to earning and preserving the people’s trust, including countering those who attempt to erode it by spreading falsehoods.

[1] Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern) [2020] 5 SLR 1151 (“C3J GD”) at [153]; The Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (Lim Suet Fern) [2020] SGDT 1 (“DT Report”) at [531].

[2] C3J GD at [110]-[113], [150]; DT Report at [607].

[3] C3J GD at [161].

[4] DT Report at [617].

[5] C3J GD at [101].

[6] C3J GD at [159(b)].

[7] Ministerial Committee Report on 38 Oxley Road (2 April 2018). Retrieved from https://www.pmo.gov.sg/-/media/PMO/Newsroom/Attachments/20180402-Ministerial-Committee-Report-on-Oxley-Road/MC_Report_38_Oxley_Road.ashx.

[8] Code of Conduct for Ministers (2005) at para 1.1. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20050803-Code%20of%20COnduct%20for%20Ministers.pdf.

[9] Code of Conduct for Ministers (2005) at paras 3.2, 3.3., and 3.7. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20050803-Code%20of%20COnduct%20for%20Ministers.pdf.

[10] Financial Review, Letter to the Editor by Anil Nayar, Singapore High Commissioner to Australia (20 May 2024). Retrieved from https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/singapore-thriving-after-smooth-fair-transition-20240520-p5jf1q.

[11] Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran [2024] SGHC 251 at [148], [164].

[12] BBC, Boris Johnson criticised over Mustique trip explanation (8 July 2021). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57761943.

[13] CNBC, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted gifts worth millions of dollars over 20 years, analysis finds (6 June 2024). Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html.