Serious Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

[ThePimp]

Singapore is the exception. A place where the pap and lhl cannot lose. So far. A fact.

LHL did lose Aljunied GRC and a few SMCs.

 

[zhihau]

LHL did lose Aljunied GRC and a few SMCs.

Bwahahahahahahaa...

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

commfirnmed Aust return flight tomolo even8ng.

Summary of Statutory Declarations

LEE HSIEN LOONG·THURSDAY, 15 JUNE 2017

1. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (“Mr Lee”) made six wills before his last will of 17 December 2013 (the “Last Will”). All the wills, save for the Last Will, were prepared by Ms Kwa Kim Li (“KKL”).

2. I learnt about the contents of the Last Will only on 12 April 2015, when the Last Will was read to the family. I saw copies of the six wills preceding the Last Will only in June 2015, when KKL provided the family with the same. Only then was I able to review and compare the terms and changes between those wills and the Last Will.

3. The Demolition Clause first appeared in Mr Lee’s first will made on 20 August 2011 (the “First Will”).

4. Mr Lee gave instructions to remove the Demolition Clause, and it was removed, from the penultimate two wills (the “Fifth Will” and “Sixth Will”). However, it somehow found its way back into the Last Will.

5. The Demolition Clause in the Last Will is now being used by Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) to claim that Mr Lee was firm in his wish that the house at 38 Oxley Road (the “House”) be demolished, and that he was not prepared to accept its preservation or contemplate options short of demolition. There is no basis for these claims, not least because of the deeply troubling circumstances concerning the making of the Last Will.

6. In setting out these circumstances, I will refer only to objective facts and contemporaneous documents, some of which I learnt of only later.

7. Under the First Will, Mr Lee gave each child an equal share of his estate (the “Estate”). However, under the Sixth Will made on 2 November 2012, Mr Lee gave LWL an extra share (relative to LHY and me), and he told LWL about this.

8. As I only later learnt, this issue became the subject of discussion between LHY and Mr Lee in late 2013 and on 16 December 2013 at 7.08 pm, LHY’s wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (“LSF”) sent an email to Mr Lee, copied to LHY and KKL (“LSF’s Email”), stating:


“Dear Pa Pa
This was the original agreed Will which ensures that all 3 children receive equal shares, taking into account the relative valuations (as at the date of demise) of the properties each receives.
Kim Li
Grateful if you could please engross.”

LSF appeared to have attached a file named <LAST_WILL-LKY-Draft of 19 August 2011.DOC> to that email.

9. It would appear from that email that those discussions resulted in Mr Lee deciding to revert to his earlier decision to give each child an equal share in the Estate.

10. A mere 23 minutes after this email was sent, at 7.31 pm, LHY replied to LSF’s Email removing KKL as an addressee and adding Ms Wong Lin Hoe (“WLH”), who was Mr Lee’s Private Secretary, in the “cc” field. In that email, LHY told Mr Lee:

“Pa

I couldn’t get in touch with Kim Li. 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. Fern 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 Lin Hoe for a convenient time.”

11. KKL had prepared all of Mr Lee’s previous wills. It is unclear what efforts LHY or LSF had made to get in touch with KKL when LHY told Mr Lee on 16 December 2013 that he could not get in touch with KKL and that it was not wise to wait till KKL got back to change his will. In fact, KKL subsequently told LSF (the following afternoon, when she learnt what had happened) that she did not seem to have received LSF’s Email. It is also not clear why LHY thought that there was an urgency to the matter. It is however interesting that he suggested that his wife, clearly an interested party, and her partners would prepare the new will.

12. At 8.12 pm, before any response from Mr Lee, LSF sent an email to WLH, copied to LHY and her fellow lawyer from her law firm (Stamford Law Corporation as it then was; now Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC), one Mr Bernard Lui (“BL”), to inform WLH that BL had the will ready for execution and that WLH could reach BL directly to make arrangements for the signing of the will. So, in the space of 41 minutes, LSF saw to the preparation of the new will and got one of her lawyers to be on standby to get it executed by Mr Lee.

13. Mr Lee replied to LHY’s email at 9.42 pm. In view of LHY’s representation that he could not contact KKL, and of the urgency of the matter, Mr Lee acquiesced to LHY’s suggestion not to wait for KKL and agreed with LHY’s suggestion to sign the new will.

14. The very next morning, LSF sent two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation to be at 38 Oxley Road to procure Mr Lee’s signature on the Last Will. The two lawyers, BL and one Ms Elizabeth Kong (“EK”), arrived at 38 Oxley Road at 11.05 am on 17 December 2013. They left at 11.20 am. They were present at 38 Oxley Road for 15 minutes only, including the time for logging into and out from the property. The time taken to execute the Last Will would have been even less. They plainly came only to witness Mr Lee signing the Last Will and not to advise him.

15. In the afternoon of 17 December 2013, WLH sent an email to Mr Lee stating “We have received a faxed copy of the signed document for Mr Lee to re-read in the office”. This email was curious because WLH was not present when Mr Lee signed the Last Will and could not have known whether he had read it in the first place. WLH sent this email after receiving a fax copy of the signed will. There is nothing to suggest that Mr Lee had asked WLH to get a copy for him to “re-read” in the office. Also, it is not credible that she would know that that was the reason the fax had been sent to her, unless the sender or the fax itself stated so.

16. LHY and LSF did not copy LWL or me on this email correspondence with Mr Lee on 16 and 17 December 2013 regarding the making and signing of the Last Will. I became aware of these troubling circumstances only later, as I explain below.

17. In the meantime, LWL began to harbour grave suspicions about the change in the shares in the Last Will. In July 2014, she told Ms Ho Ching (“HC”) in emails that Mr Lee had told her (LWL) a couple of years ago that he had left her an extra share of the Estate. This fits the timeframe of 2 November 2012 when the Sixth Will giving LWL an extra share was made. LWL also told HC that many months after that, LHY told her that Mr Lee wanted to go back to giving the children equal shares. LWL also told HC (among other things) that the will (meaning the Last Will) reinstating equal shares of the Estate for the three children had been witnessed by notaries from LSF’s office. Crucially, she said “If that is what Pa wants, so be it. But I don’t trust Fern, n she has great influence on Yang”, that “Later, Fern sent a “sweet” email to kim li about what had been done”, and that KKL and LWL had “wondered whether Yang pulled a fast one”. She also said: “If it is Pa’s decision, I am ok with it. But I hv a sense that Yang played me out”; “I was very upset that Yang did it to me”; and “I would hv preferred that it was 3 equal lots all along without needing to suspect Yang and Fern. The money I don’t get does not upset me. It is that yang and fern would do this to me”.

18. In other words, LWL herself believed that LHY and LSF did her in by either suggesting or facilitating the removal of her extra share, which happened in the Last Will prepared in great haste by LSF and her law firm. In a letter from their lawyers to mine sent after disputes arose between LWL and LHY on the one hand, and me on the other, LWL admitted that she had been suspicious as to whether the change in shares was really Mr Lee’s decision or one that was instigated by LHY and LSF but claimed that she no longer held this suspicion. But she did not explain how or why her suspicions had now come to be so conveniently dispelled.

19. In any event, as is clear from its contents, LSF’s Email distinctly and clearly gave Mr Lee the impression that the new will would change only the division of shares, with the result that each child would have an equal share, just like in the First Will. Yet, the Last Will that LSF and her law firm prepared and got Mr Lee to sign went beyond that. Significantly, they re-inserted the Demolition Clause, even though that clause does not appear to have been discussed at the time of the making of the Last Will and had in fact been removed by Mr Lee from his immediately prior two wills (the Fifth and Sixth Wills).

20. Neither was the Last Will a wholesale reversion to the First Will. The Last Will differed in significant respects from the First Will. For example, the First Will contained a gift-over clause with thorough provisions for the scenarios where LWL, LHY or I predeceased Mr Lee. This important clause was absent from the Last Will, and there is nothing which suggests that Mr Lee had given instructions for it to be removed.

21. In fact, if, as appears from LSF’s Email, the change Mr Lee had wanted to make to his will in December 2013 was to reinstate the equal division of the Estate among the three children, that could have been easily done by reverting to the Fifth Will (which provided for equal division). The Fifth Will was as complete as the Sixth Will and similar in all material respects to the Sixth Will save for the proportions of the Estate bequeathed to each of the three children. Further, as KKL had prepared the Fifth and Sixth Wills, she could easily have been asked to make that one change.

22. On 12 April 2015, Mr Lee’s Last Will was read. Mr Lee’s three children, HC and LSF were present at the reading. Also present were two lawyers from LSF’s law firm, Mr Ng Joo Khin (“NJK”) and BL (who was a witness to signing of the Last Will). At that reading, LSF volunteered that Mr Lee had asked her to prepare the Last Will, but that she had not wanted to get personally involved and had therefore gotten NJK from her law firm to handle the preparation of the Last Will. BL then confirmed that he was one of the witnesses to the Last Will. I could not help but form the impression that this was all rehearsed, and wondered why these statements were made even when no questions had been raised about the validity of the Last Will. BL then went on, in our presence, to examine the seals and signatures on the envelope, opened the envelope, examined the initials and signatures on every page, and pronounced that this was the document that he had witnessed before handing it to NJK. NJK did not dispute LSF’s account that he had handled the preparation of the Last Will. He then went on to read the Last Will to Mr Lee’s family, word for word, including the page and paragraph numbers.

23. I was so struck by the sequence of volunteered statements that on 23 April 2015, 11 days later, I recounted to DPM Teo Chee Hean in my office what had happened at the reading of the Last Will, including what LSF had said.

24. It was also during the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015 that the dispute between LHY and me arose. At the reading, LHY repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the House. I said that such a move so soon after Mr Lee’s passing, when the public’s emotions were still raw, might force the Government to promptly react by deciding to gazette the House, and that would not be in the interests of Mr Lee’s legacy or Singapore. That discussion only ended when HC intervened to ask LWL if she wanted to continue living in the House. LWL said she did, which made the question of demolition moot. LHY then stopped insisting on the immediate demolition of the House.

25. Far from making any threats or opposing making Mr Lee’s wishes public, I also proposed reading out in Parliament Mr Lee’s letter to Cabinet of 27 December 2011, as well as the Demolition Clause. LHY and LSF strenuously objected. They argued that I could not read out Mr Lee’s letter, because (they claimed) of the Official Secrets Act. When I held firm, they told me that I could only read the first half of the Demolition Clause, i.e. excluding that part about what Mr Lee wanted done to the House if it is not demolished. I made clear that I intended to make public both Mr Lee’s letter of 27 December 2011 and the entire Demolition Clause, which I did when I spoke in Parliament on 13 April 2015. I also told Parliament that the Government would only consider the question of what to do with the House as and when LWL ceased to live in it.

26. It was only after the reading of the Last Will and the dispute arose that I looked up old family emails.

27. I then learnt that on 3 January 2014 at 10.30 am, WLH had sent an email (“WLH’s Email”) to LSF, copied to Mr Lee, LHY, LWL, HC, KKL and me, attaching a copy of Mr Lee’s codicil. The codicil had nothing to do with the contents of the Last Will but dealt with the bequest of some carpets. Buried in the email chain to WLH’s Email were LSF’s and LHY’s emails of 16 and 17 December 2013. Back in January 2014, I had not considered it necessary to read the entire email chain and did not do so. I did not feel that there was any need, and I was not anxious, to acquaint myself with my father’s wills. I felt that those were matters for him, and I left it at that. This is evident from my query to LHY on 13 May 2015 about a codicil to the Last Will whose existence I was not aware of. LHY replied that I had been copied on WLH’s Email in January 2014 about the codicil. I had not earlier paid any attention to that and could not locate WLH’s Email at that point. I therefore asked LHY for a copy.

28. When LHY in response forwarded me a copy of WLH’s Email containing the codicil, he cut out and did not send me the incriminating exchanges in the email chain that followed which showed LHY’s and LSF’s involvement in the making of the Last Will in December 2013. Thus LHY and LSF themselves appear to have believed that I had not paid attention to these matters, nor fully appreciated the import of the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails.

29. In any event, even had I read the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails at the time, I would not have appreciated their significance because I would have been reading them without the full context, since I was not aware (until June 2015, when informed by KKL) of the terms of earlier wills, nor the terms of or changes in the Last Will.

30. When I subsequently reviewed the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails, there was nothing to show that NJK had been involved in the preparation of the Last Will as LSF had claimed during the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015. I am also not aware of anything which shows that NJK had met or communicated with Mr Lee on the Last Will. I therefore do not understand how Mr Lee could have given instructions to NJK on the preparation of the Last Will.

31. In June 2015, KKL provided the family with copies of Mr Lee’s First to Sixth Wills and explanations for why he had executed those wills. Only then was I able to review and compare the terms and changes between those wills and the Last Will, and appreciate the significance of the exchanges in the 16 and 17 December 2013 emails.

32. At the end of August 2015, because of the ongoing dispute, HC did a search of her old emails and found the correspondence between her and LWL in July 2014 where LWL expressed her suspicions about LHY and LSF’s role in the making of the Last Will.

33. This series of events led me to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the Last Will.

34. Even then, I was prepared not to delve further into those circumstances if the disputes within the family could be resolved amicably and privately. I did not challenge the validity of the Last Will in court because I wished, to the extent possible, to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family. I was also and am still concerned that LWL and LHY want(ed) to drag out probate and the administration and winding up of the Estate so that they can use their position as Executors for reasons which are strictly unconnected with the administration of the Estate.

35. As part of efforts to resolve the family disputes amicably, after LWL and LHY expressed unhappiness that 38 Oxley Road had been bequeathed to me following Mr Lee’s passing, I told them that I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LWL for a nominal sum of S$1 on the condition that should the property be transacted later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds would go to charity. However, a resolution proved impossible. Matters reached the point where LWL and LHY threatened to escalate their attacks against me, coinciding with the September 2015 General Elections. I was not prepared to be intimidated. Their accusations were not only baseless; they were based on the premise that there were no unusual circumstances surrounding the making of the Last Will. I therefore decided to make further enquiries into those circumstances through my solicitors in September 2015, but, contrary to what my siblings have claimed, my questions (which are included in those which I set out below) went unanswered.

36. After the General Elections, LWL and LHY agreed to my fresh proposal to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LHY at market value, on condition that LHY and I each donated an amount equivalent to half of that value to charity, to pre-empt any future controversy over compensation or redevelopment proceeds. I was prepared to transfer 38 Oxley Road to LHY so that he and LWL could handle the 38 Oxley Road matter as they saw fit between them. In accordance with our agreement, I donated half of the value of 38 Oxley Road to charity. Although not required under the agreement, I also donated a sum equivalent to the other half of the value of 38 Oxley Road to charity. 38 Oxley Road now wholly belongs to LHY. This is consistent with the position that I had always held and conveyed to my family: that it is not tenable for the family to retain proceeds from any dealing with 38 Oxley Road, as it would look like the family is opposing acquisition and preservation of the House for monetary reasons. LHY was and continues to be unhappy about my taking this position. So, it would appear, is LWL.

37. I continue to have grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the Last Will. I am not aware of any facts which suggest that Mr Lee was informed or advised (by NJK, whom LSF claimed had handled the preparation of the Last Will, or any other lawyer) about all the changes that were made when he signed the Last Will, or that Mr Lee was properly advised about the contents of the Last Will. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the Demolition Clause had been re-inserted into the Last Will.

38. My concerns are heightened by what appears to be a conflict of interest: LSF was involved in the preparation and/or signing of the Last Will, while her husband, LHY, was a beneficiary under the Last Will and stood to gain by the removal of LWL’s extra share in the Estate under the Last Will. It would appear that LHY felt very strongly about LWL not receiving an extra share, which explains why, in April 2015, he told me that there “would have been big trouble” if Mr Lee had not changed the will back to equal shares between the three children.

39. These facts and matters give rise to the following serious questions:

(1) Why did LSF say, at the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015, that she had not wanted to be involved in the preparation of the Last Will and that she had asked NJK to handle the matter, when she had been intimately involved in the events surrounding and leading up to the Last Will?
(2) What was LSF’s role in the preparation and signing of the Last Will?
(3) What, if any, knowledge did LHY and LSF have of the First to Sixth Wills?
(4) Whether and to what extent were the earlier wills discussed with Mr Lee in the lead-up to the signing of the Last Will and when the Last Will was signed, and who had those discussions?
(5) Were the provisions of the Last Will explained to Mr Lee, and if so, who explained them to him?
(6) Who gave instructions to NJK in relation to the Last Will, and what were those instructions? Did NJK, who is said by LSF to have prepared the Last Will, ever meet or speak to Mr Lee to take instructions or to get the Last Will signed?
(7) Did Mr Lee give specific instructions to re-insert the Demolition Clause in the Last Will, and if so, to whom?
(8) Was there a conflict of interest on the part of LSF, her fellow lawyers and her firm?
(9) What transpired during the brief time that BL and EK were with Mr Lee? Did LSF tell BL and EK to ensure that Mr Lee received independent legal advice before asking him to sign the Last Will?

40. Without proper and complete answers to these questions, the serious doubts about whether Mr Lee was properly and independently advised on the contents of the Last Will before he signed it cannot be cleared.

41. LWL and LHY claim that Mr Lee was not prepared to consider any option other than the demolition of the House. For that they rely heavily on the insertion of the Demolition Clause in the Last Will. In light of the troubling circumstances set out above, I believe it is necessary to go beyond the Last Will in order to establish what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes were in relation to the House.

 

[lantau]

commfirnmed Aust return flight tomolo even8ng.

Fly budget or not?

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

heard that bus load of sarpportors ready to welcome homecoming. but he declined. sad.

 

[virus]

Fly budget or not?

end up like mh370 how?

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

Fly budget or not?

heard its bus8ness class only. vip lounge arrival. then mobile escort to Istana.

 

[virus]

heard that bus load of sarpportors ready to welcome homecoming. but he declined. sad.

late hours and skool holidays poor kids have to do extra again?

 

[zhihau]

Latest salvo from Yang on FB, promptly echoed by Ling...

 

[bobby]

heard its bus8ness class only. vip lounge arrival. then mobile escort to Istana.

The SQ girls better don't c0ck up his & HC meals and drinks...sure kena fark. People in bad mood liao.

 

[Goldcheekon]

Latest salvo from Yang on FB, promptly echoed by Ling...

I read it. Well articulated. It's pretty conclusive who is the one that is mischievous.

 

[virus]

this is serious why is not party whip and speaker not taking action.... last time got SDP MP say tok kok kena censured... surely lying is even more serious.

wait... what does the party ethic code say

http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/pm-outlines-code-conduct-pap-mps-follow

 

[Goldcheekon]

this is serious why is not party whip and speaker not taking action.... last time got SDP MP say tok kok kena censured... surely lying is even more serious.

wait... what does the party ethic code say

http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore-news/pm-outlines-code-conduct-pap-mps-follow

To quote Lee Sheng Wu..."Today we are going to learn a lot about the country of my birth. We are going to learn whether (as I hope) the ruling party is still full of men and women of quality and strong character, or whether "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

That probably answers your question.

 

[Wunderfool]

What is apparent from this latest saga is that the hatred and bitter feud in the Lee's family is deep-seated. It probably started very early when LHL decided to join politics. LHY took the opposite route, knowing the ambition and shrewdness of his brother and that ' one mountain cannot contain 2 tigers.'

LWL has sympathy for LHY, the younger brother because she must have seen how LHL , as the elder brother , intimidate the LHY when they were young. LWL , she being a fiercely independent woman herself, fights hard for her rights and is much like her father, non-conforming and defiant when she comes face to face with unfairness and injustice.

It is sad that the family feud has spilled into the public. The open feud has obviously put a dent on LHL's reputation with allegations of him trying to capitalize on his father's reputation and what remains of his father ( house, memorabilia, pictures and others ) to gain political capital. LHL tried to steer clear of the allegations , but with the accusations coming from his own brother and sister's mouths, it is hard to remove the stain.

I would wish that the three of them could have a closed door meeting at 38 Oxley and settle the matter in private. Stop the FB postings ! It is enough embarrassment already. There is no need to hang the dirty laundry out in the open for all to see.

 

[GoldenDragon]

To quote Lee Sheng Wu..."Today we are going to learn a lot about the country of my birth. We are going to learn whether (as I hope) the ruling party is still full of men and women of quality and strong character, or whether "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

That probably answers your question.

Young man no give chance to his Uncle. Imagine a PM Tiok Suan by his Nephew. HC's Son never tekan his Cousin?

 

[Goldcheekon]

What is apparent from this latest saga is that the hatred and bitter feud in the Lee's family is deep-seated. It probably started very early when LHL decided to join politics. LHY took the opposite route, knowing the ambition and shrewdness of his brother and that ' one mountain cannot contain 2 tigers.'

LWL has sympathy for LHY, the younger brother because she must have seen how LHL , as the elder brother , intimidate the LHY when they were young. LWL , she being a fiercely independent woman herself, fights hard for her rights and is much like her father, non-conforming and defiant when she come face to face with unfairness and injustice.

It is sad that the family feud has spilled into the public. The open feud has obviously put a dent on LHL's reputation with allegations of him trying to capitalize on his father's reputation and what remains of his to gain political capital. LHL tried to steer clear of the allegations , but with the allegations and accusations coming from his own brother and sister's mouths, it is hard to remove the stain.

I would wish that the three of them could have a closed door meeting at 38 Oxley and settle the matter in private. Stop the FB postings ! It is enough embarrassment already just within the family. There is no need to hang the dirty laundry out in the open.

I disagree that it should be settled behind closed doors. This public deserves an answer and the right to know whether state organs has been used to persecute for personal matters, which is wholly uncalled for when there are already proper avenues available to challenge the validity of LKY's will through the courts. What then are the Courts for?

 

[GoldenDragon]

I disagree that it should be settled behind closed doors. This public deserves an answer and the right to know whether state organs has been used to persecute for personal matters, which is wholly uncalled for when there are already proper avenues available to challenge the validity of LKY's will through the courts. What then are the Courts for?

Absolutely agree. Since this matter is already public, it should no longer be a private matter.

More so when serious allegations were made against the PM and state apparatuses. Tax payers' monies may have been misused for a personal matter.

 

[McDonaldsKid]

Balji calling for LHL to set things straight.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-house-lee-feud-takes-national-significance-061905010.html

 

[scroobal]

I doubt it is deep seated as in lengthy and deep. All 3 are wealthy in their own right. They have their own area of interest with little overlap. The common thread is their father and in particular the wishes of the father. The battle lines were drawn when old man death anniversary became a PAP event contrary to the wishes of the old man. It certainly set off the daughter big time. The younger brother took the sister's side. I am actually amazed the younger brother agreed to cough up 150% for 38 which seems to show he is putting his money where his mouth is. The father position is very clear.

And it certainly cannot be considered a family feud when from the very start the PM recused himself and brought in his cabinet colleagues. His behind the scenes scheming and the appointment of Lucien Wong is now a matter of public concern. There is a prima facie case of abuse of power that need to be addressed.

The govt is now on the back foot by the fact they have not revealed the composition of the committee - why the secrecy is nothing untoward is taking place. It should have been spelt in the first place. Lucien's note to the siblings are shocking and not in sync with father has repeatedly said. What is unequivocally clear is that at least one party has lied.

 

[scroobal]

Balji calling for LHL to set things straight.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-house-lee-feud-takes-national-significance-061905010.html

COMMENT: House of Lee feud takes on national significance

Enough is enough. The time has come to reject the notion that this is just an ugly family fight and start looking at it as an issue with huge implications for Singapore as a nation.

It is no more about whether the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s house at 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. The person being targeted is not only a Lee family member. Lee Hsien Loong is also the Prime Minister of the country. The charges levelled at him are very serious: abuse of power, nepotism, conflict of interest, dishonesty.

And these allegations have not been made by dissidents, activists or opposition members who might have an axe to grind. These are being made by the founding father’s flesh and blood who are also products of the system.

For PM Lee’s younger siblings – Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang – to charge that their brother had “misused his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda” is unsettling, disturbing and, more important, scary.

PM Lee has responded by releasing an edited summary of statutory declarations he had made to a ministerial committee looking into the options for 38 Oxley Road and asking if his sister-in-law and a lawyer, Lee Suet Fern, had explained to Lee Kuan Yew the details of the seventh and last will and if his father had given specific instructions to reinsert a clause to demolish the property.

Even the formation of this committee, led by National Development Minister Lawrence Wong, is shrouded in mystery. When was it formed, what were its terms of reference, who are its members, will its deliberations be made public? No answers so far.

Where the allegations get murky and troubling is the contention of Wei Ling and Hsien Yang that PM Lee had used his position to settle a family fight by getting documents from Minister Wong, which were then handed to his personal lawyer, Lucien Wong, to bolster his case. Even worse was the innuendo that Lucien Wong was appointed the Attorney-General soon after the Oxley Road property dispute.

Specific allegations like these by Wei Ling and Hsien Yang go against the very heart of what Singaporeans believe their country stands for. It is a place that not just delivers economic growth but also has a system that is corruption-free and law-abiding. In one fell swoop, both of them have left the edifice that the first PM built, nurtured and vigorously defended in ruins.

PM Lee cannot just deny the allegations and throw back more accusations. He has either to take his siblings to court or set up an independent panel to get to the bottom of this scandal. Both routes are not new in Singapore. Those who defamed political leaders have been sued till they lost their pants. Public inquiries, though rare, have been held with the one on the Little India riot taking place just three years ago.

There is no doubt that PM Lee is in a moral dilemma. He is the first born, and after his father’s death on 23 March 2015, has a responsibility to look after the well-being of his brother and sister. But then he is also the Prime Minister and has the responsibility to an entire nation. Deputy PM Teo Chee Hean, who is acting as PM since Lee Hsien Loong is on leave, tried to contextualise the problem by saying that Singapore is facing “so many issues, problems and challenges…We need to focus and work on them”. But there is no bigger problem than PM Lee’s credibility, which has been questioned by none other than two of his closest family members.

The cynical Singaporean will say it is difficult to find truly independent citizens to sit on this panel. “Looking for people to be members of this panel is the hard part, given the divisive nature of the case,” one Facebook post said. That is a defeatist approach to take.

What the Lee siblings have been toing and froing about is not just about their father’s house. In the context of the bigger picture, it is about Singapore and what kind of Singapore its citizens want to call country. The Rubicon has been crossed. PM Lee’s credibility has been questioned. And Singaporeans need to know what is the truth.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist was formerly chief editor of Today, as well as an editor at The New Paper, and currently a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.