Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had absconded after police opened investigations into them for lying during judicial proceedings. - ST FILE, STAMFORD LAW
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/Asia News Network): Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had absconded after police began investigating them for lying during judicial proceedings, and it was in the public interest that the police released information about the matter, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam.
It was also a matter of public record that the court and a disciplinary tribunal had found that the couple had lied, so any prejudice to them from the disclosure would be marginal if any, he added.
The minister was responding to questions from two MPs who wanted to know why the police investigation had been made public and the couple named when Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean replied to a parliamentary question on March 3.
Non-constituency MP Leong Mun Wai asked if the police was applying double standards since six former management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited who were being investigated for corruption were not named, while Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) asked what measures are taken to ensure that such disclosures do not prejudice those being investigated.
To these questions, Shanmugam said that while the general principle is that law enforcement agencies do not disclose the names of people under probe, there are a wide variety of situations when it may become necessary to do so.
In situations when those who are being investigated have absconded, the police has typically disclosed their names, he noted.
He cited the example of Pi Jiapeng and Pansuk Siriwipa, who fled Singapore last year while they were being investigated over a series of cheating cases involving luxury goods.
When there is some public interest involved, and when the people and the facts of the offences under probe are already publicly known, the police have also made public their investigations, he added.
One example is when Karl Liew was investigated by the police for giving false evidence during a case involving his family’s former helper Parti Liyani. This had come about following a High Court judgement that had cast doubt on his testimony.
The circumstances relating to Hsien Yang and Suet Fern straddle these two examples, said Shanmugam.
The couple had absconded after the police contacted them to assist in investigations, he said.
This came after a disciplinary tribunal and the Court of Three Judges found in 2020 that they had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings against Suet Fern over her handling of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s last will.
The findings of the tribunal and the court, that the couple were not telling the truth and were dishonest, are also already matters of public record, and so disclosing the police investigation in Parliament will not “materially add to any cloud the couple may already be under”, added Shanmugam.
Teo had made known the police investigations in early March when responding to a question by Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC). The MP had asked about the accuracy of the events described by an e-book titled The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will, which delved into what the late Lee wanted for his house at Oxley Road.
Referring to this, Shanmugam said that there was significant public interest in the discsusions surrounding the house.
He added that the question required discussing the accuracy of the public statements made in the book, in the context of the judgments of the tribunal and the court, and the honesty or otherwise of Hsien Yang and Suet Fern.
“That there were ongoing police investigations, arising from the findings of the disciplinary tribunal and the Court of Three Judges, was relevant and necessary to be disclosed, in that context as well, to give an accurate and full answer,” he said.
Shanmugam added that this was not the first time that names of people being investigated have been revealed.
Citing Liew’s case in particular, he noted that no one took issue with him being named when Parliament discussed the case.
He also said that he had made clear during that debate that if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings contains findings that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, it is something that will be taken seriously.
In the case of the six former Keppel Offshare & Marine management staff, the Corruptions Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers it possessed, and had also assessed the evidence together with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, said Shanmugam.
He said the CPIB and AGC concluded that they could not sustain any charges in court, as the alleged errant conduct had taken place overseas, key witnesses are not available, and key documents are not available.
There were also no admissions which could be relied upon to cross the evidentiary requirements, he said.
Given this, the CPIB could not proceed with charges when there are no documents or other evidence which cross the evidential threshold, and which can be used to break down interviewees’ defences, he added.
“In these circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals who have been under investigation, applies,” he said.
Shanmugam also said that Hsien Yang and Suet Fern will have every right to provide explanations on the investigations if they eventually decide to cooperate with the police.
“It is their choice whether they want to be fugitives from Justice, or whether they come and explain why they say the Courts were wrong to say that they had lied,” he said.
