Probe into Lee Hsien Yang and wife made public as they had absconded, among other reasons: Shanmugam

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern absconded after police opened investigations into them for lying during judicial proceedings. PHOTOS: ST FILE, STAMFORD LAW

SINGAPORE – Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs 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, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on Monday.

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 Mrs Lee’s conduct in handling the last will of Singapore’s founding prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr 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 were taken to ensure that such disclosures did not prejudice those being investigated.

To these questions, Mr 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.

Remote video URL

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 Mr Lee and Mrs Lee straddle these two examples, said Mr 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 Mrs Lee over her handling of Mr 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 Mr Shanmugam.

Mr Teo had revealed in early March that the police were investigating the couple, when responding to a question by Mr 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 Mr Lee wanted for his house in Oxley Road, and Mr 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 Mr and Mrs Lee in June 2022.

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

In answering Mr 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 Mr and Mrs Lee, said Mr 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.

Mr 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 be necessary to do so. PHOTO: MCI

Mr 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.

Mr 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. 

Remote video URL

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 Mr 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 when there are no documents or other evidence which cross the evidential threshold, he added.

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

Mr Shanmugam also listed three other examples of when the police may name people under investigation: When the person being investigated has already been convicted of several offences and attempts to flee the country; when the person being investigated has publicly revealed the information themselves; and when the police have to make public accurate facts to dispel falsehoods about a case.

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

Mr 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 Mr Lee and Mrs Lee, 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 Mr and Mrs Lee 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. 

Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.