Lee Hsien Yang has continued to share his public misgivings about the disciplinary tribunal report out Feb. 18 that found his wife Lee Suet Fern guilty of improper conduct as a lawyer.

All in, Lee Hsien Yang has responded by putting up three Facebook posts in four days.

And it was in his third post that he made substantial comments regarding the tribunal for the first time.

Lee Hsien Yang's three posts

His first Feb. 23 post consisted of sharing his sister Lee Wei Ling's post, where she called the report a “travesty” and that it amounted to character assassination of Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang.

I disagree with the Disciplinary Tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court.

Any member of the public can obtain the entire record of the closed-door proceedings of the Tribunal from the Law Society. I urge the public to look at these and come to their own independent conclusions.”

His third Feb. 26 post was to express bewilderment regarding his purported agenda.

In his post, Lee Hsien Yang asked rhetorically what he stood to gain from the changes made in the Last Will by the late Lee Kuan Yew.

Comparing LHY's statements and information from the public records

The tribunal noted in one of its statements that Lee Hsien Yang said his public statements could be inaccurate because they were not sworn statements, and thus, he may not look at them carefully.

"In plain language, the effect of what they (Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern) said is this: Mr Lee Hsien Yang may make untrue statements, in public and in private, whenever there is no legal penalty for telling untruths; his public and private statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate. This is a surprising statement." The Disciplinary Tribunal in the Matter of Lee Suet Fern, and in the Matter of Legal Profession Act, Paragraph 233.

Given how long this saga has played out, what can regular Singaporeans who are trying to keep abreast of the discussion take away?

The least anyone can do appears to be to match what was officially stated in the tribunal report and the statements put out by Lee Hsien Yang.

Having read the 206-page tribunal report, Mothership.sg will attempt to verify the statements made by Lee Hsien Yang in his most recent Facebook post.

Statement: What in the world did I stand to gain out of my supposed elaborate deception?

What the facts are: It is true.

No one is sure what Lee Hsien Yang stood to gain from the changes to the Last Will except for the inclusion of the Demolition Clause.

Financially, he did not gain from the changes to the will on 38 Oxley Road.

In December 2015, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sold his shares of the house to Lee Hsien Yang at market value, and as a gesture to show neither of them benefited financially from the transaction, PM Lee separately donated the full sum value of 38 Oxley Road to charity, while Lee Hsien Yang also separately donated monies for half the sum value of the house to charity.

38 Oxley Road now wholly belongs to Lee Hsien Yang.

Statement: My brother Hsien Loong and the AG have alleged that I engineered, with my wife’s help, my father’s final will which gave his children equal shares in order to get a larger share of his Estate.

What the facts are: It is complicated.

It is also important not to mix up the assertions made by PM Lee and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

Let's start with PM Lee first.

On June 15, 2017, PM Lee released a statutory declaration through his lawyers to respond to the allegations made by his two siblings.

PM Lee made the following points in the declaration:

It would appear that Lee Hsien Yang felt very strongly about Lee Wei Ling 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.

PM Lee also asked the following questions:

What was Lee Suet Fern’s role in the preparation and signing of the Last Will?

What, if any, knowledge did Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern have of the First to Sixth Wills?

Was there a conflict of interest on the part of Lee Suet Fern, her fellow lawyers and her firm?

The AGC has referred the case to the Law Society.

The AGC noted that Lee Suet Fern appears to have prepared the Last Will of Lee Kuan Yew and arranged for Lee Kuan Yew to execute it, despite the fact that Lee Hsien Yang is one of the beneficiaries under the Last Will.

AGC also noted that Lee Hsien Yang's share increased under the Last Will.

AGC has written to Lee Suet Fern several times, since October 2018, asking her to explain the position, and her role, if any, in the preparation of the Last Will.

Lee Suet Fern did not answer the questions that AGC had asked.

Statement: In the course of the Disciplinary Tribunal, undisputed evidence was presented that LKY decided to revert to equal shares after discussions with his lawyer KKL, rebutting this.

What the facts are: Yes, it's true.

The tribunal report stated that Lee Kuan Yew instructed his lawyer Kwa Kim Li to make two changes, through a codicil, to the Sixth Will.

The first was to give his three children equal shares in his Estate.

The second was to bequeath two carpets (one silk and the other wool) to Lee Hsien Yang.

But the changes made to the Last Will contain more than these two changes.

They contained changes like the Demolition Clause, giving Lee Wei Ling an unfettered right to stay in the house, and the removal of the gift-over clause.

Statement: My wife and I played no part in his decision to revert to equal shares. Loong benefitted equally from this change.

What the facts are: No one knows whether they played any part in Lee Kuan Yew's decision.

The tribunal report did not share whether Lee Hsien Yang or Lee Suet Fern played any part in the decision to revert to equal shares, as it was not the focus of the tribunal.

The focus of the tribunal was to assess whether Lee Suet Fern is guilty of improper conduct as a lawyer in the handling of the Last Will of Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Hsien Yang and PM Lee benefited equally from the change in shares.

Both Lee Hsien Yang’s shares and PM Lee's shares went from 2/7 (28.6 per cent) to 1/3 (33.3 per cent).

But PM Lee did not benefit equally like Lee Hsien Yang from the change in Will.

The sixth Will stipulates that Lee Wei Ling's stay in 38 Oxley Road is subject to PM Lee’s consent at all times.

The last Will stated Lee Wei Ling does not need PM Lee's consent to stay in 38 Oxley Road.

Statement: Wei Ling had her right to live at Oxley Road reinstated, something that she wanted badly.

What the facts are: Yes, in the Last Will, Lee Wei Ling is allowed to live there “for as long as she desires”.

Statement: My father, Wei Ling and I had been led to believe that the house had been gazetted and could therefore not be demolished.

In 2013, LKY came to a view that the house would be “degazetted” and therefore discussed degazetting with his lawyer, KKL. If it were degazetted, his unwavering wish for the house to be demolished might be realisable. This wish, as everyone knows, mattered greatly to him and my mother.

What the facts are: Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang had repeated these allegations before, which is that Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang came to believe that the house had been gazetted.

Then Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in 2017 that "72 buildings and structures are gazetted as national monuments, some of which were private residences".

Statement No one complained after the signing of the will before LKY died. Probate (proving in court) of the Will was obtained in 2015 on the urging of Loong and his then personal lawyer, Lucien Wong.

What the facts are: It is true that no one complained, but that's because the beneficiaries -- PM Lee and Lee Wei Ling -- just did not know about the terms in the Last Will.

Only Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer of the first six Wills, Kwa Kim Li, knew about the Last (and seventh) Will.

Lee Kuan Yew arranged for his personal assistant to send a copy of the Last Will to Kwa.

But Kwa also made a public statement that she did not prepare the Last Will.

The signing of the Last Will was done on Dec. 17, 2013.

PM Lee and Lee Wei Ling did not know and were not copied in the email correspondence with Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern on Dec. 16 and 17, 2013 regarding the making and signing of the Last Will.

Between the evening of Dec. 16 2013, when Lee Kuan Yew received the draft Will from Lee Suet Fern, and the morning when Lee Kuan Yew signed the last Will, no other lawyer except Lee Suet Fern was involved in advising Lee Kuan Yew on its contents.

In July 2014, Lee Wei Ling told Ho Ching in emails that Lee Kuan Yew had told Lee Wei Ling a couple of years ago that he had left her an extra share of the Estate.

Lee Wei Ling also told Ho Ching that many months after that, Lee Hsien Yang told her that Lee Kuan Yew wanted to go back to giving the children equal shares.

Lee Wei Ling was upset and told Ho Ching, “I would hv preferred that it was 3 equal lots all along without needing to suspect Yang and Fern."

For PM Lee, he just did not know the contents of the Last Will.

PM Lee's statutory declaration stated that he learnt about the contents of the Last Will only on April 12, 2015, when the Last Will was read to the family.