Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern absconded after they came under investigation 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 in Parliament on Monday (Mar 20).

He added that the disclosure did not cause any material prejudice to the couple as their conduct was already a matter of public record, given that a disciplinary tribunal and the court had found that they had lied.

The couple faced a police investigation as they were found to have lied under oath over Lee Suet Fern’s conduct in handling the last will of Singapore’s founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.

Shanmugam was responding to questions from two MPs who wanted to know why the investigation had been made public and the couple named when Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean replied to a parliamentary question on March 3.

Progress Singapore Party Non-constituency MP Leong Mun Wai asked if the police were applying double standards since six former management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine who were being investigated for corruption were not named. Workers’ Party (WP) MP 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 where it may be necessary to do so.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

In situations where those who are being investigated have absconded, the police have typically disclosed their names, he added.

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 said.

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. The investigation came about following a High Court judgment that cast doubt on his testimony.

The circumstances relating to Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern straddle these two examples, said Shanmugam.

The couple 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 Lee Suet Fern over her handling of 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 revealed in early March that the police were investigating the couple when responding to a question by Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC), who asked about the accuracy of the events described by an e-book titled, The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will.

The book delved into what the late Lee wanted for his house in Oxley Road, and Teo pointed out multiple inaccuracies in it. He also disclosed that the couple had left Singapore after refusing to go for a police interview that they had initially agreed to attend.

The police later said they started investigations following a referral in October 2021 and contacted the couple in June 2022.

Referring to this, Shanmugam said that there was significant public interest in discussions surrounding the Oxley Road house.

In answering Zhulkarnain’s question, in the context of the judgments passed by the tribunal and the court, it became necessary to discuss the honesty or otherwise of the couple, said Shanmugam.

“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, the minister noted that no one took issue with him being named when Parliament discussed the case.

He added that he had made clear during that debate that perjury would be taken seriously.

Shanmugam disclosed that the police are investigating another case in which the highest court had made observations about “a couple of persons” having lied under oath, and added that the police will also respond to set out the facts if a question were to arise in Parliament. 

In the case of the six former Keppel Offshore & Marine employees, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) conducted a thorough investigation and assessed the evidence together with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), said Shanmugam.

He added that the CPIB and AGC concluded that they could not sustain any charges in court. This was because the alleged errant conduct took place overseas and key witnesses and key documents were not available. 

There were also no admissions, he said.

Given this, the CPIB could not proceed with charges, he added.

“In these circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals who have been under investigation applies,” he said. 

During the debate, WP’s Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked if the police had issued an order under the Criminal Procedure Code to the couple to attend the police interview.

Shanmugam said this was not done as the police do not normally issue such an order in the first instance, but instead will contact people to attend an interview.

In this case, the police contacted the couple and since they said they would cooperate, the police had assumed in good faith they would do so, he added. He noted that by the time the police next heard from the couple, they had already left the country.

He said the couple 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. THE STRAITS TIMES