Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

On Mar. 2, 2023, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean disclosed in a written parliamentary answer that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) are investigating Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern.

Lee Hsien Yang is the brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The couple are being investigated for allegedly giving false evidence during the judicial proceedings over former Prime Minister (PM) Lee Kuan Yew's will, but had left the country.

In Parliament on Mar. 20, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam explained why the investigation into the couple, and their names, have been made public.

Questions from PSP's Leong Mun Wai and WP's Leon Perera

Shanmugam was responding to questions from Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Leon Perera, and Progress Singapore Party's (PSP) Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai.

Leong asked Shanmugam why the names of Lee Hsien Yang and Lim Suet Fern were disclosed while they are being investigated for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings.

He compared it to the Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) corruption scandal, noting that the names of the six ex-KOM senior management were not publicly disclosed while they were being investigated.

Perera posed a similar question, asking Shanmugam to list the circumstances that will lead to law enforcement agencies divulging the names of individuals who are associated with an ongoing investigation or details of the said investigation before it is completed.

In cases where such information is publicly divulged, Perera also wanted to know what measures are being taken to ensure that such public disclosure does not prejudice the investigation or the individuals concerned.

Law enforcement agencies generally do not disclose the names of individuals under investigations

Shanmugam said law enforcement agencies generally do not disclose the names of individuals who have been or are being investigated.

"If the investigations show that the person is innocent, or an assessment is made that his guilt cannot be established in court, and if his name had been publicised earlier, a cloud would have hung over him, until he was cleared," he explained.

Absconding during ongoing investigations

However, this general principle is subject to exceptions.

One example is when the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing, as was the case of Pi Jiapeng and Pansuk Siriwipa, Shanmugam said.

Pi and Siriwipa, who are being investigated for allegedly swindling over 200 people in a luxury goods scam totalling some S$32 million, fled Singapore on Jul. 4, 2022.

The SPF released the names and photographs of Pi and Siriwipa on Jul. 20, when they appealed to the public for information on the couple, as Mothership reported previously.

Public interest

Another example is when the facts which constitute the alleged offences, as well the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences, are already publicly known.

This can be a result of court findings, or due to "some public interest" in disclosing that investigations are underway.

However, such disclosure has to be weighed against possible prejudice to the individuals concerned, Shanmugam said.

He listed the 2020 Parti Liyani case as an example, noting that he had informed the MPs in Parliament back then that SPF was commencing investigations into the son of Liyani's employer, Karl Liew.

Other considerations

"However, this does not mean that police will automatically publish the names of the individuals under investigations, if their names had been made public in other, earlier, proceedings," Shanmugam said.

This depends on the following factors:

• The context in which the names had been published in other proceedings;
• The nature of those proceedings;
• The nature of the offences being investigated; and
• The connection of the offences under investigations to the original proceedings, and whether the agencies have taken the view that subsequent criminal proceedings are or are not possible.

Shanmugam said, "All of these are relevant. An assessment of all the facts and the context has to be made, in considering the public interest, as to whether to disclose the names."

The reasons for disclosing the names of offenders and/or the details of a case under investigation may differ on a case-to-case basis.

However, there are a "wide variety of situations" when it may become necessary to make public the fact that a person is under investigation, or has been arrested, or is assisting in investigations, based on the facts and the public interest involved.

Lee Hsien Yang and wife both absconded and case has public interest

Lee and his wife "straddle" the first two exception examples – absconding and public interest, Shanmugam said.

"The discussions surrounding Number 38 Oxley Road are of significant public interest," Shanmugam said. "The Oxley Road matter was debated extensively in this House, following the Ministerial Statements on the subject."

He added that the findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges, in the disciplinary proceedings against Lee's wife and their findings that Lee and his wife have lied under oath, as well as through their other statements, with regard to the late PM Lee's will are also matters of public record.

Police investigations commenced in October 2021, after the Disciplinary Tribunal found that Lee and his wife had jointly misled and cheated the late Lee Kuan Yew.

The investigations into the couple were not made public then.

Explained why Teo disclosed that Lee and his wife were under investigation

Shanmugam circled back to Mar. 2, 2023, when Teo disclosed in his response to a Parliamentary question by PAP MP Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that SPF are investigating Lee and his wife.

Noting that the question discussed the accuracy of the public statements made about Oxley Road, the context of the judgments of the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges, and the honesty or otherwise of Lee and his wife, Shanmugam explained that Teo's disclosure was relevant and necessary in that context in order to give an accurate and full answer.

He added that it was also necessary to mention that Lee and his wife did not cooperate with the police investigations, despite saying that they would.

"To summarise, the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges had said Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were lying. They had been found to be dishonest, and more. All of that is public.

They have also essentially absconded from jurisdiction, we take this seriously, and those facts were disclosed, so that this House can have a full and complete picture, when a question had been asked which related to their conduct. If we cannot, or should not answer the question, in part or full, then, we would also have said so."

Similar to Karl Liew from Parti Liyani's case, except Lee and his wife absconded

"The reasons for disclosing that Lee and his wife were under investigation, are broadly similar to the reasons why it was disclosed that Liew was being investigated for perjury," said Shanmugam, before noting that unlike Liew, Lee and his wife have absconded.

"In Mr Karl Liew’s case, we were discussing his conduct and the conduct of other family members, and the court’s findings in this House. We thought it necessary to disclose in that context, that Mr Karl Liew was being investigated."

Shanmugam noted that Liew cooperated with the investigation and has since been charged. He added:

"Some Members may also recall – that I had said in this House, when we were discussing the Parti Liyani case, 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, this is something that we will take seriously.

We mean what we say. I do not recall any Member expressing a different view, that such lying on oath, in court proceedings should not be taken seriously."

Weighing the prejudice to persons being investigated

Shanmugam said one of the considerations in deciding whether to disclose an ongoing investigation is the prejudice to the person being investigated.

Additionally, the decision on whether to release names or not boils down to a "matter of judgment on what public interest requires" for particular situations.

In Liew's case, when it was revealed in Parliament that he was being investigated for lying, the prejudice was "marginal, if any," as the High Court had already found that he was not telling the truth.

This is similar to Lee and his wife, both of whom the Disciplinary Tribunal has also found beyond a reasonable doubt to be lying, Shanmugam said.

As such, he said revealing Lee and his wife's names does not "materially add to any cloud the couple may already be under, based on what the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges had said".

"If the facts are different then the position will be different," Shanmugam said. He later said, "Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern will have every right to provide explanations, on the matters being investigated, if they eventually decide to do the right thing and 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 added.

KOM is "quite different", does not fall within exceptions

Responding to Leong's question, who compared Lee and his wife's case to that of KOM's, Shanmugam said the latter "is quite different" and does not fall within the different examples that he has set out.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) began investigating after receiving KOM's report.

As the incident had taken place overseas, key witnesses and key documents were not available, and information was inadequate to mount a criminal charge.

There were no admissions that could be relied upon to cross the evidentiary requirements. The documents between the U.S. Authorities and KOM, and the DPA, also do not meet the evidentiary requirements, in respect of those who were being investigated.

As such, CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers concluded that they could not mount any criminal charges in court.

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

Invited MPs with opposing views to debate

Shanmugam said:

"However, if any Member feels that this general policy should be changed, and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who are being investigated, regardless of the circumstances, and even if they are not abscondees from jurisdiction and even if no charges are brought in the end, then please let me know and we can debate that. I would be very surprised if anyone says that.

If everyone agrees that persons under investigation should in general not be named, then the only question is the circumstances under which, nevertheless, names will be disclosed.

And I have explained some examples of when names have been disclosed.

The fact that no one raised any issues with Liew being named, or when names of other abscondees had been disclosed, shows that no one in this House took issue with this disclosure."

More on Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern:

Top image from Ministry of Communications and Information/YouTube and Getty Images