The First to the Sixth Will
Between 20 August 2011 and 2 November 2012, Mr Lee Kuan Yew executed six wills (referred to as the “First Will” to the “Sixth Will” respectively). Each of these was prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li (“Ms Kwa”), a partner in the law firm, Lee & Lee. The wills reflected Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s evolving wishes with regard to the bequest of his estate.
Dr Lee Wei Ling’s right to reside at the Oxley House was:
- In the First Will
- Removed in the Second Will.
- This right was not reinstated in the Third and Fourth Wills.
- In the Fifth Will (dated 4 October 2012) Dr LWL was once again granted the right to reside at the Oxley House. This right was made subject to the consent of Mr LHL [Lee Hsien Loong], who was bequeathed the Oxley House as part of his share of the his father’s estate.
Demolition Clause
The Demolition Clause featured in the first four wills.
It was removed from the Fifth and Sixth Will.
Shares in estate
In the Sixth Will (dated 2 November 2012) LKY changed the shares in which his estate would be left to his children.
Mr LHL and Mr LHY [Lee Hsien Yang] to receive two shares each, and Dr LWL, three shares (1/7 more than her brothers).
The first 6 Wills were prepared by Kwa Kim Li. The Last Will that Mr Lee signed was not prepared by Ms Kwa.
Four days before signing the last will
Four days before signing the last will, Mr Lee Kuan Yew had discussed with his long-time lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, that he only wanted to make two changes to his penultimate will (the Sixth Will), via a codicil.
The codicil that Ms Kwa, was to execute to his Sixth Will was:
(a) revert to leaving his estate to his three children in equal shares; and
(b) make provision for two carpets to be bequeathed to Mr LHY.
In his decision to revert to leaving his estate to his three children in equal shares, his discussions with Ms Kwa had not extended to replacing the Sixth Will with another will, nor to reinstating either the First Will as a whole or the Demolition Clause in particular.
In these foregoing discussions, Mrs Lee Suet Fern was neither involved nor copied.
Last email correspondence with Kwa Kim Li
As at 13 December 2013, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s professed intention discussed over a two-week period with his solicitor, Ms Kwa, was to execute
the codicil to his Sixth Will.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s email correspondence with Ms Kwa at 10.50pm on 13 December 2013, was also his last email correspondence with her.
Three days later….16 December 2013
16 December 2013 at 7.08pm, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) sent an email to LKY, copied to her husband LHY and Kwa Kim Li (KKL) although for some unknown reason, KKL did not seem to receive this email.
In the email, LSF told LKY that the draft will attached was the First Will.
The Court of Three Judges noted that this draft will which eventually became the Last Will that LKY signed was in fact not the same as the First Will.
Kwa Kim Li removed…
Shortly after, at 7.31pm on 16 December 2013, LHY sent the following to LSF, copying LKY and his personal secretary, Ms Wong Lin Hoe (“Ms Wong”), while removing Ms Kwa from the list of addressees:
I couldn’t get in touch with [Ms Kwa]. I believe she is away. I don’t think it is wise to wait till she is back. I think all you need is a witness to sign the will. [LSF] can get one of her partners to come round with an engrossed copy of the will to execute and witness. They can coordinate it with [Ms Wong] for a convenient time.
Before LKY had even responded to the above suggestion by LHY, LSF emailed Ms Wong at 8.12pm to inform her that she had briefed her colleague, Bernard Lui and that Mr Lui had the Will ready for execution.
LHY departed from Singapore for Brisbane, Australia, at or about 9.15pm on 16 December 2013.
Shortly thereafter, at 9.42pm 16 Dec 2013, LKY replied to the email, agreeing to LHY’s proposal to proceed with the execution of the Last Will without waiting for Ms Kwa.
At 10.06pm 16 Dec 2013, Dr LWL emailed Mr LHY the following:
At 5.32am, LHY emailed Mr Lui to get the Last Will engrossed and to be available when LKY’s assistant, Ms Wong gets in touch.
At 9.02am Mr Lui replied that he would prepare an engrossed copy of the Last Will.
At 9.22am, while en route to Paris, LSF sent Mr Lui a reminder, as follows: “please be ready and accessible at short notice. Ready to go. Impt that we get this done asap please.”
After engrossing it, Mr Lui and Ms Kong attended at 38 Oxley Road at or about 11.00am to witness its execution. Thereafter, they took their leave. The whole process took only a few minutes.
At 11.22am, Mr Lui updated LSF that the execution of the Last Will was “done” and that two original copies of it had been made.
LSF then updated LHY that the Last Will had been “signed uneventfully”, and asked him what she should do with the two original copies of it.
At 1.16pm, about two hours after the execution of the Last Will, LSF emailed Ms Kwa, who had been excluded from all correspondence pertaining to the matter after the 7.08pm email the previous day, and informed her that the signing of the Last Will had been dealt with already”.
At 3.10pm, LSF replied to Ms Kwa, confirming that
“Yes, [the Testator] has signed already. In fact this is just going back to his 2011 will so it super[s]edes all. He read it extremely carefully before signing.”
Ms Kwa did not reply to this email.
Court of Three Judges
The Court of Three Judges also noted Mr Lee’s interactions with Mr Lui.
In his AEIC dated 1 July 2019, Mr Lui said that before Mr Lee signed the Last Will, he asked him who had drafted the document. Mr Lui told that it was LSF. Mr Lee then asked him the same question a second time. On this second time, he told Mr Lee that it was the LSF and Ms Kwa who had drafted the Last Will.
Thereafter, Mr Lee proceeded to read and sign the Last Will himself before proceeding to sign it.
The Court of Three Judges said:
As we have said, while we do not think this exchange affords us a firm basis to draw any inference, it does seem to suggest that the Testator drew some assurance from the indication of Ms Kwa’s involvement. [emphasis added]
The Court of Three Judges found that Mrs Lee Suet Fern falsely represented to Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the draft Last Will which she sent to him was the same as his First Will: (C3J Judgement at [103])
“… We also find that she was in no position to make any representation to the effect that the Draft Last Will was the same as the actual version of the First Will, given that the executed version of the First Will was never in her hands. Despite this, she did make such a representation, which was in fact false.”
The Court of Three Judges found that she lied on oath.
(d) At [159(b)]: “… [T]he Respondent did act with a degree of dishonesty in the disciplinary proceedings, in that she sought to downplay her participation in the preparation and execution of the Last Will by giving a contrived and ultimately untrue account of her role, in particular, as regards the circumstances which led her to send the 7.08pm email on 16 December 2013 and how she obtained the Draft Last Will attached to that email. …”
The Disciplinary Tribunal likewise found that the LHY and LSF had lied under oath.
(1) At [617]: “In essence, an elaborate edifice of lies was presented, both on oath (through Mr LHY and the Respondent’s (LSF) Affidavits, and on the witness stand), 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.”
(2) At [588]: “Considered in totality, the Respondent’s conduct was quite dishonest. Mr LHY’s and her conduct, demonstrated a calculated attempt to:
(a) Ensure that Mr Lee executed the Last Will as quickly as possible, without due regard for Mr Lee’s wishes, and
(b) Hide their wrongdoing in having done so.
(3) At [592]: “Having procured the Last Will through these improper means, she and Mr LHY then fabricated a series of lies and inaccuracies, to perpetuate the falsehood that Ms KKL (Kwa Kim Li) had been involved in the Last Will, and hide their own role in getting Mr Lee to sign the Last Will and their wrongdoings …”
Reference:
Judgement, Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern) [2020] SGHC 255
