- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Lee Kuan Yew not some ‘ignorant feeble-minded dotard'
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 990
- Points
- 63
I BEG TO DIFFER
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 103,693
- Points
- 113
LKY was obsessed with instituting his family's dynasty back in the 1980s... which was the root cause of the problems today. 
The Taiwanese grew up and outgrew the Chiangs. Hopefully Sinkies also grow the fuck up and outgrow the Lees.
The Taiwanese grew up and outgrew the Chiangs. Hopefully Sinkies also grow the fuck up and outgrow the Lees.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,462
- Points
- 113
This does make dead fart look bad,,,
Lee Kuan Yew not some ‘ignorant feeble-minded dotard being fooled by a sharp lawyer’: Lee Suet Fern's defence submissionsBy Wong Pei TingTODAY file photoThe Attorney-General’s Chambers had referred a case of possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern to the Law Society, with Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee asking for it to be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.Published24 February, 2020Updated 24 February, 2020636 SharesSINGAPORE — Lawyer Lee Suet Fern on Sunday (Feb 23) objected to the findings of a disciplinary tribunal that found her guilty of grossly improper professional conduct when handling the last will of her father-in-law, Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
“I disagree with the Disciplinary Tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court," said Mrs Lee, 61, in a statement issued through her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the late Mr Lee’s youngest son. Advertisement
Proceedings so far were dealt with behind closed doors, and the matter will now be referred to a Court of Three Judges – the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers’ misconduct – at the Supreme Court.
In her statement, Mrs Lee noted that any member of the public can obtain the entire record of the tribunal's closed-door proceedings from the Law Society (LawSoc) and she urged the public to "look at these and come to their own independent conclusions”. Advertisement
Mr Lee’s last will was signed at about 11.10am on Dec 17, 2013. The LawSoc brought two charges against her:
That she had failed to advance her client’s interest by preparing and arranging for the execution of the late Mr Lee’s will where a one-third share of the estate was to be given to her husband sometime between Dec 16 and 17 in 2013Read also: Explainer: What disciplinary tribunal says about Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in Lee Kuan Yew’s final will
That she had failed to advise the late Mr Lee to seek independent legal advice in the same period
Mrs Lee is represented by Senior Counsels Kenneth Tan and Walter Woon, and lawyers Abraham Vergis, Asiyah Arif and Soh Wei Chi of Providence Law. Her defence submissions, which TODAY obtained a copy of, made the following main points:
LEE KUAN YEW IMPATIENT WITH INCOMPLETE TASKRead also: Lee Hsien Yang questions AGC’s lack of legal action against foreign media while his son faces prosecution
During the tribunal hearing, both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee testified that the latter played only a “peripheral role” in the preparation and execution of the last will.
In their defence, they said Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, had promised to have something ready for him to sign by the end of the week, which was Dec 15, 2013, but nothing was done.
Therefore, the next day, Mrs Lee was only “incidentally” involved in the last will as her husband had asked her for a “little bit of help” with “his… chore for his father”.Read also: Lee Hsien Yang questions AGC’s motives in referring wife’s case to Law Society
They said the late Mr Lee was a brilliant lawyer who knew “exactly what he wanted” and had independently decided to re-execute his first will – one that was previously drafted by Ms Kwa and executed on Aug 20, 2011 – and was just “looking for somebody to witness it”.
Her involvement in the preparation and execution of the last will was confined to two “administrative tasks”, which her husband had delegated to her because he was in a rush.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang was flying to Brisbane that night and was unable to reach Ms Kwa despite various attempts to reach her on Dec 16, 2013.Read also: Misleading to say Lee Kuan Yew 'accepted' alternatives to demolition of Oxley Road home: Lee Hsien Yang
Mrs Lee herself was also flying off later that evening to Paris.
As she was having a “pre-travel departure work crisis (that) was particularly acute that day”, she only got around to dealing with her husband’s request later that evening and was even chastised by her husband for taking so long to follow up, she testified.
“Mr Lee was not a patient man,” her lawyers wrote in their skeletal submissions as they laid out the context that the statesman was in ill health and had been warded for several weeks in the months before December 2013.Read also: ‘Not necessary’ to set out committee’s views on validity of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will
Between September and October 2013, Mr Lee was hospitalised for an extended period due to a number of medical issues including pneumonia, atrial fibrillation and transient ischemic attack, or mini strokes.
“If there was a rush, that was because Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted things done quickly, as was his wont. There is nothing sinister in the sequence of events,” the lawyers said.
For the Law Society to say that Mrs Lee had “hurriedly arranged” for the execution of the last will is thus “a complete misrepresentation of the situation”, they said. “The timing was entirely set by Mr Lee Kuan Yew… The respondent (Mrs Lee) had no control over this at all.”
MS KWA COULD HAVE ASKED TO AMEND LAST WILL IF THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES
The lawyers argued that it is “totally implausible” that Mrs Lee and her husband had deliberately cut the late Mr Lee’s usual lawyer, Ms Kwa, out to execute his last will in her absence.
If they had meant to cut her out, there was no reason to send her a copy of the draft will before execution nor tell her after the event that it had been done, they said, adding: “If there were any irregularities, they would have been exposed practically immediately.”
Join our Telegram channel to get TODAY's top stories on mobile:
All Ms Kwa would have had to do, they noted, was to tell the late Mr Lee so he could amend his will again. But the Lee & Lee lawyer did not do so at any time during the remaining 15 months of Mr Lee’s life, they pointed out.
MR LEE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING
They also argued that the tribunal, in finding Mrs Lee guilty, would be putting forward that Mr Lee “did not understand his own will despite reading and re-reading (his will) not just once but several times”.
But the Law Society had not made such a suggestion saying that Mr Lee was not in full command of his faculties at the time he executed his last will, they pointed out.
“Indeed, anyone who has ever had dealings with Mr Lee Kuan Yew would find the very idea utterly laughable,” the lawyers stated.
“Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a dominating character of sharp intellect who knew exactly what he wanted and was accustomed to having his instructions carried out without delay.”
The lawyers reiterated: “The situation here was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a sophisticated and shrewd individual with a starred double first in law from Cambridge University and experience of running a country for well over half a century.
“He was not some ignorant feeble-minded dotard being fooled by a sharp lawyer.”
They relied on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s email on Dec 16, 2013 explicitly instructing to “not wait for Kim Li” and the “sharp enough” act of him personally drafting a codicil – an amendment to his signed last will – to include two carpets on Jan 2, 2014, having re-read the will once more.
Despite doing these, “during his lifetime, Mr Lee Kuan Yew never once suggested that the December 2013 will did not reflect his intentions”, they wrote.
The lawyers added that it is “completely unbelievable” that the late Mr Lee did not realise that the clause to demolish his house at 38 Oxley Road was in the will as demolishing it was “important” to him and his late wife, Mdm Kwa Geok Choo.
Calling it “astounding” for the Law Society to allege that the reinclusion of the demolition clause was not in Mr Lee’s interest, they reiterated that it was always Mr Lee’s intention that his house should be demolished after his death and not become a shrine.
NO PLAUSIBLE MOTIVE
The lawyers said the Law Society had not suggested a plausible motive for Mrs Lee to change the original 2011 will.
They asserted that the differences between that and the last signed will were minor, and the changes did not benefit Mrs Lee or her husband in any way.
Furthermore, Mrs Lee was “totally unaware” that the late Mr Lee had given an extra one-seventh share to her sister-in-law, Dr Lee Wei Ling, so she would not have known that the last will increased Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s share in the estate at the expense of Dr Lee, they said.
This was corroborated by the fact that the late Mr Lee had instructed Ms Kwa to destroy all previous wills whenever he made a new one – a move that the lawyers said indicated that he did not want anyone to know their contents.
But Mrs Lee’s motive to get a “larger share” formed the underlying basis in the Law Society’s charges, the lawyers said. “The Law Society adduced no evidence to disprove this; mere assertion is insufficient.”
Also, the December 2013 will was not challenged by the person allegedly cheated – Dr Lee – they pointed out.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...ded-dotard-being-fooled-sharp-lawyer-lee-suet
Lee Kuan Yew not some ‘ignorant feeble-minded dotard being fooled by a sharp lawyer’: Lee Suet Fern's defence submissionsBy Wong Pei TingTODAY file photoThe Attorney-General’s Chambers had referred a case of possible professional misconduct involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern to the Law Society, with Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee asking for it to be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.Published24 February, 2020Updated 24 February, 2020636 SharesSINGAPORE — Lawyer Lee Suet Fern on Sunday (Feb 23) objected to the findings of a disciplinary tribunal that found her guilty of grossly improper professional conduct when handling the last will of her father-in-law, Singapore’s founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
“I disagree with the Disciplinary Tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court," said Mrs Lee, 61, in a statement issued through her husband, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the late Mr Lee’s youngest son. Advertisement
Proceedings so far were dealt with behind closed doors, and the matter will now be referred to a Court of Three Judges – the highest disciplinary body to deal with lawyers’ misconduct – at the Supreme Court.
In her statement, Mrs Lee noted that any member of the public can obtain the entire record of the tribunal's closed-door proceedings from the Law Society (LawSoc) and she urged the public to "look at these and come to their own independent conclusions”. Advertisement
Mr Lee’s last will was signed at about 11.10am on Dec 17, 2013. The LawSoc brought two charges against her:
That she had failed to advance her client’s interest by preparing and arranging for the execution of the late Mr Lee’s will where a one-third share of the estate was to be given to her husband sometime between Dec 16 and 17 in 2013Read also: Explainer: What disciplinary tribunal says about Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in Lee Kuan Yew’s final will
That she had failed to advise the late Mr Lee to seek independent legal advice in the same period
Mrs Lee is represented by Senior Counsels Kenneth Tan and Walter Woon, and lawyers Abraham Vergis, Asiyah Arif and Soh Wei Chi of Providence Law. Her defence submissions, which TODAY obtained a copy of, made the following main points:
LEE KUAN YEW IMPATIENT WITH INCOMPLETE TASKRead also: Lee Hsien Yang questions AGC’s lack of legal action against foreign media while his son faces prosecution
During the tribunal hearing, both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee testified that the latter played only a “peripheral role” in the preparation and execution of the last will.
In their defence, they said Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s usual lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, had promised to have something ready for him to sign by the end of the week, which was Dec 15, 2013, but nothing was done.
Therefore, the next day, Mrs Lee was only “incidentally” involved in the last will as her husband had asked her for a “little bit of help” with “his… chore for his father”.Read also: Lee Hsien Yang questions AGC’s motives in referring wife’s case to Law Society
They said the late Mr Lee was a brilliant lawyer who knew “exactly what he wanted” and had independently decided to re-execute his first will – one that was previously drafted by Ms Kwa and executed on Aug 20, 2011 – and was just “looking for somebody to witness it”.
Her involvement in the preparation and execution of the last will was confined to two “administrative tasks”, which her husband had delegated to her because he was in a rush.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang was flying to Brisbane that night and was unable to reach Ms Kwa despite various attempts to reach her on Dec 16, 2013.Read also: Misleading to say Lee Kuan Yew 'accepted' alternatives to demolition of Oxley Road home: Lee Hsien Yang
Mrs Lee herself was also flying off later that evening to Paris.
As she was having a “pre-travel departure work crisis (that) was particularly acute that day”, she only got around to dealing with her husband’s request later that evening and was even chastised by her husband for taking so long to follow up, she testified.
“Mr Lee was not a patient man,” her lawyers wrote in their skeletal submissions as they laid out the context that the statesman was in ill health and had been warded for several weeks in the months before December 2013.Read also: ‘Not necessary’ to set out committee’s views on validity of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will
Between September and October 2013, Mr Lee was hospitalised for an extended period due to a number of medical issues including pneumonia, atrial fibrillation and transient ischemic attack, or mini strokes.
“If there was a rush, that was because Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted things done quickly, as was his wont. There is nothing sinister in the sequence of events,” the lawyers said.
For the Law Society to say that Mrs Lee had “hurriedly arranged” for the execution of the last will is thus “a complete misrepresentation of the situation”, they said. “The timing was entirely set by Mr Lee Kuan Yew… The respondent (Mrs Lee) had no control over this at all.”
MS KWA COULD HAVE ASKED TO AMEND LAST WILL IF THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES
The lawyers argued that it is “totally implausible” that Mrs Lee and her husband had deliberately cut the late Mr Lee’s usual lawyer, Ms Kwa, out to execute his last will in her absence.
If they had meant to cut her out, there was no reason to send her a copy of the draft will before execution nor tell her after the event that it had been done, they said, adding: “If there were any irregularities, they would have been exposed practically immediately.”
Join our Telegram channel to get TODAY's top stories on mobile:
All Ms Kwa would have had to do, they noted, was to tell the late Mr Lee so he could amend his will again. But the Lee & Lee lawyer did not do so at any time during the remaining 15 months of Mr Lee’s life, they pointed out.
MR LEE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING
They also argued that the tribunal, in finding Mrs Lee guilty, would be putting forward that Mr Lee “did not understand his own will despite reading and re-reading (his will) not just once but several times”.
But the Law Society had not made such a suggestion saying that Mr Lee was not in full command of his faculties at the time he executed his last will, they pointed out.
“Indeed, anyone who has ever had dealings with Mr Lee Kuan Yew would find the very idea utterly laughable,” the lawyers stated.
“Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a dominating character of sharp intellect who knew exactly what he wanted and was accustomed to having his instructions carried out without delay.”
The lawyers reiterated: “The situation here was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a sophisticated and shrewd individual with a starred double first in law from Cambridge University and experience of running a country for well over half a century.
“He was not some ignorant feeble-minded dotard being fooled by a sharp lawyer.”
They relied on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s email on Dec 16, 2013 explicitly instructing to “not wait for Kim Li” and the “sharp enough” act of him personally drafting a codicil – an amendment to his signed last will – to include two carpets on Jan 2, 2014, having re-read the will once more.
Despite doing these, “during his lifetime, Mr Lee Kuan Yew never once suggested that the December 2013 will did not reflect his intentions”, they wrote.
The lawyers added that it is “completely unbelievable” that the late Mr Lee did not realise that the clause to demolish his house at 38 Oxley Road was in the will as demolishing it was “important” to him and his late wife, Mdm Kwa Geok Choo.
Calling it “astounding” for the Law Society to allege that the reinclusion of the demolition clause was not in Mr Lee’s interest, they reiterated that it was always Mr Lee’s intention that his house should be demolished after his death and not become a shrine.
NO PLAUSIBLE MOTIVE
The lawyers said the Law Society had not suggested a plausible motive for Mrs Lee to change the original 2011 will.
They asserted that the differences between that and the last signed will were minor, and the changes did not benefit Mrs Lee or her husband in any way.
Furthermore, Mrs Lee was “totally unaware” that the late Mr Lee had given an extra one-seventh share to her sister-in-law, Dr Lee Wei Ling, so she would not have known that the last will increased Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s share in the estate at the expense of Dr Lee, they said.
This was corroborated by the fact that the late Mr Lee had instructed Ms Kwa to destroy all previous wills whenever he made a new one – a move that the lawyers said indicated that he did not want anyone to know their contents.
But Mrs Lee’s motive to get a “larger share” formed the underlying basis in the Law Society’s charges, the lawyers said. “The Law Society adduced no evidence to disprove this; mere assertion is insufficient.”
Also, the December 2013 will was not challenged by the person allegedly cheated – Dr Lee – they pointed out.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...ded-dotard-being-fooled-sharp-lawyer-lee-suet
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 11,420
- Points
- 113
So tanjong pagar was served by drooling idiot then? This is what they are saying
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2018
- Messages
- 4,593
- Points
- 113
LKY was obsessed with instituting his family's dynasty back in the 1980s... which was the root cause of the problems today.
The Taiwanese grew up and outgrew the Chiangs. Hopefully Sinkies also grow the fuck up and outgrow the Lees.
LKY IN 7TH LEVEL OF HELL AND BEING TIEWED AND KANNED AND FUCKED BY LEGIONS OF DEMONS AND GHOULS IN ALL HIS ORIFICIES. THEY NOT LETTING HIM GO EVEN ON 7 MONTH TO EAT JOSS STICKS AND CANDLE WAX.
GECKO IS ALONGSIDE OF HIM BEING TIEW AND KANN AND TIEW WITH THE SAME KIND OF MERCY AS THEY SHOWN TO THOSE THEY DISLIKE WHEN THEY ALIVE.
Forward this on your WhatsApp and make this go viral.
Get this onto the handphones of all in Singapore
VOTE OUT ALL THE MAGGOTS AND MAGGOTESS IN WHITE AND TURN STINKAPORE BACK INTO SINGAPORE
OR OUR KIDS END UP BECOMING SECURITY GUARDS TO BE KICKED IN FACE BY CECAs OR PANDA FOOD DELIVERIES OR PICKING UP CARDBOARDS OR SELLING TISSUE PAPER IN HAWKER CENTERS
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,462
- Points
- 113
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss: Revision of LKY's last will seems beneficial to Lee Hsien Loong and not Lee Hsien Yang - The Online Citizen
by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
I have gotten a copy of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) Report which I am in the midst of reading.
Many things puzzle me. For instance, the DT said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) “misled” late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) into thinking that the Last Will was the 1st Will, when in fact the Last Will was not identical to the 1st Will.
However, it turns out that the Last Will differed from the 1st Will in only two ways:
Firstly, the 1st Will had a Gift Over Clause i.e. a clause which provided for the scenario when any of LKY’s children predeceased him; but the Last Will did not contain any Gift Over Clause. In fact, all of LKY’s previous Wills consistently had the Gift Over Clause (the 3rd Will had a different form of the clause) — but the Last Will curiously omits the Gift Over Clause altogether.
Secondly, the 1st Will had a proviso allowing Dr Lee Weiling (LWL) to live in 38 Oxley “for so long as she desires free of rent” and that Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof”. The Last Will also had the proviso allowing LWL to live in 38 Oxley “for so long as she desires” — but the words “free of rent” and that LHL “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof” were curiously omitted from the Last Will.
I gather from the DT Report that other than the aforesaid two departures, the Last Will was otherwise the same as, if not identical to, the 1st Will.
The DT Report doesn’t tell what the Gift Over Clause provided. Typically, gift over clauses would provide that in the event that any beneficiary predeceased the testator, then the share of the estate which the predeceased beneficiary would have been given had he/she survived, would be given to his/her (the predeceased beneficiary’s) children; and if the predeceased beneficiary had no children then the share will be given to the other surviving beneficiaries.
If that was the nature of the Gift Over Clause in LKY’s earlier Wills, then such a clause would benefit Lee Hsien Yang since he has three children of his own, so it would not be in LHY’s interest that it be deleted from the Last Will.
As for the omission from the Last Will of the words “free of rent” and that LHL “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof”, leaving those words out looks to be to LHL’s benefit and to LWL’s detriment.
I cannot see those two differences as pointing to any sinister motives on the part of LSF. I think it would be ridiculous to say that LSF deliberately revised the 1st Will to make those two changes. I would rule that out completely.
I suspect what really happened, was that an earlier or close-to-final version of the 1st Will was mistook by LHY/LSF to be the final version of the 1st Will, because it looked very similar. I suspect that just before the 1st Will was signed, the Gift Over Clause was added and the provision allowing LWL to live in 38 Oxley was expanded with additional words.
In view of what the two differences between the 1st Will and the Last Will actually amounted to, I think it is over-enthusiastic for anyone to invoke the spectre of dishonesty to say that LSF “misled” or “misrepresented” to LKY that the draft Last Will was the same as the 1st Will.
I think that LSF honestly assumed that the draft Last Will was the final version of the 1st Will because it looked very much like the 1st Will.
I have further thoughts, but will save it for another time.
Mrs Chong-Aruldoss is a practicing lawyer with 30 years of experience who specialise in Family Law. She is also a politician who has previously contested in Mountbatten SMC in General Election 2011 and 2015.
Share this:
by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
I have gotten a copy of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) Report which I am in the midst of reading.
Many things puzzle me. For instance, the DT said that Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) “misled” late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) into thinking that the Last Will was the 1st Will, when in fact the Last Will was not identical to the 1st Will.
However, it turns out that the Last Will differed from the 1st Will in only two ways:
Firstly, the 1st Will had a Gift Over Clause i.e. a clause which provided for the scenario when any of LKY’s children predeceased him; but the Last Will did not contain any Gift Over Clause. In fact, all of LKY’s previous Wills consistently had the Gift Over Clause (the 3rd Will had a different form of the clause) — but the Last Will curiously omits the Gift Over Clause altogether.
Secondly, the 1st Will had a proviso allowing Dr Lee Weiling (LWL) to live in 38 Oxley “for so long as she desires free of rent” and that Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof”. The Last Will also had the proviso allowing LWL to live in 38 Oxley “for so long as she desires” — but the words “free of rent” and that LHL “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof” were curiously omitted from the Last Will.
I gather from the DT Report that other than the aforesaid two departures, the Last Will was otherwise the same as, if not identical to, the 1st Will.
The DT Report doesn’t tell what the Gift Over Clause provided. Typically, gift over clauses would provide that in the event that any beneficiary predeceased the testator, then the share of the estate which the predeceased beneficiary would have been given had he/she survived, would be given to his/her (the predeceased beneficiary’s) children; and if the predeceased beneficiary had no children then the share will be given to the other surviving beneficiaries.
If that was the nature of the Gift Over Clause in LKY’s earlier Wills, then such a clause would benefit Lee Hsien Yang since he has three children of his own, so it would not be in LHY’s interest that it be deleted from the Last Will.
As for the omission from the Last Will of the words “free of rent” and that LHL “shall pay for the maintenance and upkeep of 38 Oxley Road when (LWL) is in occupation thereof”, leaving those words out looks to be to LHL’s benefit and to LWL’s detriment.
I cannot see those two differences as pointing to any sinister motives on the part of LSF. I think it would be ridiculous to say that LSF deliberately revised the 1st Will to make those two changes. I would rule that out completely.
I suspect what really happened, was that an earlier or close-to-final version of the 1st Will was mistook by LHY/LSF to be the final version of the 1st Will, because it looked very similar. I suspect that just before the 1st Will was signed, the Gift Over Clause was added and the provision allowing LWL to live in 38 Oxley was expanded with additional words.
In view of what the two differences between the 1st Will and the Last Will actually amounted to, I think it is over-enthusiastic for anyone to invoke the spectre of dishonesty to say that LSF “misled” or “misrepresented” to LKY that the draft Last Will was the same as the 1st Will.
I think that LSF honestly assumed that the draft Last Will was the final version of the 1st Will because it looked very much like the 1st Will.
I have further thoughts, but will save it for another time.
Mrs Chong-Aruldoss is a practicing lawyer with 30 years of experience who specialise in Family Law. She is also a politician who has previously contested in Mountbatten SMC in General Election 2011 and 2015.
Share this:
Similar threads
