{"id":52594,"date":"2020-12-01T18:40:00","date_gmt":"2020-12-01T10:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediaintel.asia\/?p=162698"},"modified":"2020-12-01T18:40:00","modified_gmt":"2020-12-01T10:40:00","slug":"toc-defamation-suit-no-final-say-on-38-oxley-road-pm-lee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/2020\/12\/01\/toc-defamation-suit-no-final-say-on-38-oxley-road-pm-lee\/","title":{"rendered":"TOC defamation suit: No final say on 38 Oxley Road \u2013 PM Lee"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/div>\n

PM Lee arriving at the Supreme Court to testify on 30 November. (PHOTO: Yahoo News Singapore\/Wee Teck Hian) SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday (1 December) rejected the suggestion that he had the final say on the fate of the 38 Oxley Road property.
\nThe property, which previously belonged to the late Lee Kuan Yew, has been at the centre of a dispute between Lee and his siblings after their father\u2019s death.
\nDuring the second day of his defamation suit against The Online Citizen's chief editor Terry Xu on Tuesday, PM Lee said under cross examination of Xu's lawyer Lim Tean that the issue is not straightforward as he was the late Lee's son and the prime minister at the same time.
\nLee finished his cross examination on Tuesday morning and was released from the stand. Xu, 38, testified in the afternoon.
\nXu is seeking to argue before Justice Audrey Lim that TOC\u2019s article was not defamatory, or justify that what was stated in the article was true. The article published on TOC\u2019s website and Facebook page on 15 August last year is titled \u201cPM Lee\u2019s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members\u201d.
\nDuring his cross examination, Lim had suggested to Lee that he was the most powerful man in Singapore politically and that his father had been aware of his purported ability to sway the Cabinet's decision not to demolish the house.
\nThe court had earlier heard that during a Cabinet meeting with the late Lee on 21 July 2011, the ministers present had expressed their objection to demolishing the house. Lee chaired the meeting but did not express his view as he felt \u201cconflicted\u201d.
\nLim told Lee, \u201cI find it a strange argument that your father wished to have the house knocked down because he did not want it to stand as monument to him...(the family could also) redevelop property to sub units for own use\u2026I do not see how the public can pass any adverse comment.
\n\u201cSurely as the prime minister of this country you would want to do everything possible to fulfil that wish, would you not?\u201d
\nIn reply, Lee said, \u201cAs his son, yes. As the prime minister I have to put aside family consideration, which is why I recused myself from this matter which the government will (take). Is it wrong to do so in your view?\u201d
\nStory continues His question prompted Lim to tell Lee not to ask any questions. He then followed up with the question, \u201cAre you telling us that you could not override your ministers?\u201d
\nLee replied, \u201cAre you telling me it is right thing for me to override ministers as prime minister?\u201d
\nSenior Counsel Davinder Singh, Lee\u2019s lawyer, interjected to say his client\u2019s answer was no.
\nResponding to Lim\u2019s statement that Lee \u201ccalled the shots\u201d, Lee replied, \u201cWe have gone over this many times. I act as prime minister, I put aside family considerations.\u201d
\nLee said he had sworn an oath to carry out his duties as prime minister and that if he were to breach them to carry out his father\u2019s wishes, he would \u201cdo ill\u201d to Singapore. He added that if he were to recuse himself, and the ministers agreed with the late Lee to demolish the house, he would go along with the decision.
\nReading out emails from the late Lee addressed to his family members, Lim highlighted that the former prime minister had said, \u201cI cannot call the shots. Loong as the Prime Minister has the final word.\u201d
\nLim added, \u201cYour father stated you call the shots, not your ministers, not your Cabinet as you would like us to believe.\u201d
\nIn reply, Lee said that the ministers would consider his view but that it was not possible for him to go against the Cabinet. Lee added that he had explained the matter to his father, who acknowledged the issue.
\nLim continued, \u201cThe reality is you as prime minister are the most powerful person in this country politically. You had the final word...not editors, not the Cabinet, not the public.\u201d
\nLee replied, \u201cThat is what my father said but I explained to him what I had to do if I were the decision maker. In other words, I really did not have freedom of action.\u201d
\nLim then suggested to Lee that it was \u201cconvenient\u201d for him to blame external pressure when in reality Lee had the authority. Lee said, \u201cI reject that totally and I have explained why.\u201d
\nThe lawyer then said, \u201cYour siblings are correct when they said you wanted to keep house to inherit Lee Kuan Yew\u2019s credibility\u201d, to which Lee said, \u201cI think that is rubbish\u201d.
\nLim suggested that Lee resided at his father\u2019s house to remind the public of his father, to which PM replied \u201cMaybe for the better, maybe for the worse.\u201d In response, Lim asked, \u201cAre you saying Singaporeans have a terrible impression of your father?\u201d
\nLee replied, \u201cSingaporeans know me, I have been in politics since 1984 for 36 years, as a prime minister for 16 years. If I still depend on living in a house to exude a magic aura and impress the population, I think I am in a very sad state and Singapore will be in a sad state.\u201d
\nPM misled LKY about Oxley Road being gazetted: Lim Tean The late Lee had made six wills between August 2011 and November 2012. The demolition clause was removed from the fifth will and the sixth will. He made a final and seventh will in December 2013, which contained the demolition clause.
\nLim also argued that between 27 December 2011 and 6 September 2012, the late Lee had been misled into thinking that 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted. This was the reason the late Lee thought it was futile for him to maintain the demolition clause in his will, and hence he removed it in his fifth will, which was produced on 4 October 2012, Lim added.
\nTo back his arguments, Lim pointed to an email from the late Lee to his personal lawyer Kwa Kim Li on 6 September 2012, with the late Lee stating that even though the house had been gazetted as a heritage house, it still belonged to him. This email indicated the late Lee had the impression that the house had been gazetted, the lawyer argued.
\nLee agreed with Lim based on the email. However, he added that he had not discussed the matter with his father as he thought it was settled. He only came to know of this particular email chain after his father\u2019s death.
\nLim then argued that Lee was the only person other than the ministers in the Cabinet meeting who had been speaking to his father about gazetting 38 Oxley Road but Lee denied doing so.
\nThe prime minister said the issue is political in nature, not legal. He added, \u201cWhether or not it is tenable for him to redevelop the house even if it\u2019s not gazetted in the face of public demand that it be preserved and kept as heritage site. Nothing turned on whether it was gazetted or not. My objection was a political one on the house and that was the basis of Mr Lee\u2019s decision.
\n\u201cSo the issue is not whether or not you can legally knock it down and the government can prevent it. The issue is whether it was tenable politically to insist on knocking it down and redeveloping for private property even if the government allows it.\u201d
\nLee then said, \u201cThis wild extrapolation that because my father appeared to have believed in 2012 that the house is gazetted, therefore I must have told him, is absurd.\u201d
\nLim said, \u201cYou were the only person your father would have believed on the subject of gazetting...and he would have believed what you told him.\u201d
\nLee replied, \u201cI never discussed it with him, perhaps if I did, I would have persuaded him that he was mistaken in (his) view.\u201d
\nLim said, \u201cI am suggesting to you that he formed a view on gazetting, on popularity of gazetting, which was wrong and which came from you and led him to change his will in October 2012.\u201d
\nThe suggestion was \u201ctotally untrue\u201d, Lee said.
\nStay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore's Telegram channel at http:\/\/t.me\/YahooSingapore
\nRelated stories
\n'Hope against hope' for ties with siblings to be repaired: PM Lee
\nPM Lee may testify in court against TOC editor Xu; his siblings can also decide to take the stand
\nTOC's Terry Xu to represent himself in court against PM Lee's defamation suit
\nTOC replies to PM Lee, refuses to apologise and remove article on Lee family feud
\nPM Lee sues TOC\u2019s Terry Xu over alleged defamatory article<\/p>\n

This data comes from MediaIntel.Asia's Media Intelligence and Media Monitoring Platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PM Lee arriving at the Supreme Court to testify on 30 November. (PHOTO: Yahoo News Singapore\/Wee Teck Hian) SINGAPORE – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday (1 December) rejected the suggestion that he had the final say on the fate of the 38 Oxle…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194,465,100],"tags":[1845,10474,10475,1859,10380,4491],"class_list":["post-52594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-chinese-law","category-social-media","category-website","tag-facebook","tag-lee-hsien-loong","tag-lee-kuan-yew","tag-singapore","tag-singapore-general-news","tag-temasek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52594"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52594"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52595,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52594\/revisions\/52595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}