《李光耀的價值觀哪裡去了？》——李光耀女兒李瑋玲和二兒子李顯揚的公開信

14日凌晨3點，新加坡總理李顯龍的弟弟李顯揚和妹妹李瑋玲同時在各自Facebook賬號中以《李光耀的價值觀哪去了?》為題發表聯合聲明，表示對自己的哥哥、現任新加坡總理李顯龍失去信心，兩人不僅對李顯龍進行多項指控，還表示對新加坡的未來感到擔心。

在長達6頁的聲明中，李顯揚和李瑋玲指責李顯龍利用總理一職，設法挽留李光耀歐思禮路38號的故居。聲明表示，這個做法違背了李光耀生前的意願。李顯揚和李瑋玲聲稱在遵從父親遺願拆除故居的過程中遇到阻撓，並認為李顯龍設法保留故居有“政治目的”——藉助李光耀的光環扶持自己的兒子進入政壇。

針對兩人的指控，李顯龍全然否認。他說，李瑋玲和李顯揚對他和妻子何晶的指責讓他很難過，他和何晶全然否認這些說法，特別是他要扶持兒子進入政壇的荒謬言論。

以下為李氏家族三兄妹的公開信全文（譯者為網友陳九霖，轉自其微信公眾號“陳九霖博士”）。

李光耀的價值觀哪裡去了?

——李光耀女兒李瑋玲和二兒子李顯揚的公開信

我們被推到現在這個位置，感到極度的悲哀。我們對我們的兄長、新加坡現任總理李顯龍的性格、行為、動機與領導力及其妻子何晶的角色頗為不安。我們看到了我們兄長截然不同的一面，這深深地困擾著我們。自從2015年3月23日李光耀逝世以來，我們就因為李顯龍濫用他的地位和對新加坡政府及其代理的影響力而推進其私人事項，感受到威脅。我們擔憂的是，這種體制對於防止政府權力的濫用缺少制衡。

我們感到大哥無所不在。我們擔心，國家機關被用來對付我們和李顯揚的夫人雪芬。情況已經如此嚴峻，以致於李顯揚感到被迫離開新加坡。

“我的心情非常沉重，我將在可預見的未來離開新加坡。這是我的父親李光耀熱愛和建立的國家。它一直是我全部人生的家園。新加坡是，並將一直是我的祖國。我並沒有離開的意願。李顯龍是我離開的唯一原因!”

如果顯龍準備如此地對待我們——他的妹妹和弟弟、為了新加坡的建立作出過貢獻的成員——以實現其自己的目的，那麼，我們為新加坡憂慮。我們想問的是，擁有能力及獨立的政治正當性的領導人們，是否應該對李顯龍不受挑戰的權力支配不聞不問。

這絕不是對新加坡政府的批評。我們看到，公務員系統中有不少正直、優秀和誠實的領導人，但是，他們受到了位於頂層的李顯龍濫用權力的束縛。我們不再信任李顯龍，並已對他失去了信心。

李光耀逝世以來，新加坡所發生的變化沒有體現他的立場。從未有人懷疑過李光耀心裡所想的只有新加坡和新加坡人民的最佳利益。他真實可信，心口合一。但這絕不能用來形容我們的兄長李顯龍和他的妻子何晶。不幸的是，我們相信顯龍受其權力慾和個人名譽所驅使。他的聲望與李光耀的遺贈是分不開的。他的政治權力也是從他是李光耀的兒子這一身份中攫取的。我們注意到，李顯龍和何晶想要榨取李光耀的遺贈以謀取他們自己的政治目的。基於我們之間的交流，我們也相信，他們所包藏的政治野心是為了他們的兒子——李鴻毅。

新加坡不存在總理的妻子便是“第一夫人”這樣的說法。李光耀自1959年至1990年擔任總理。在那麼長的時期裡，他的妻子(我們的母親)一直迴避公眾的關注，自始至終是他堅定的支持者和私底下的顧問。她謹慎行事，為總理夫人的行為設置了很高的標準。她從來沒訓斥過常務祕書們或高級公務員們。她和何晶之間的反差是再明顯不過的了!雖然何晶在政府裡沒有擔任公職，但她的影響卻無處不在，並嚴重地超越了她的職權。

終其一生，李光耀唯一關注的是新加坡及其未來。他是設立紀念碑——尤其是他自己的紀念碑的強烈反對者。當有人建議為他立碑諸如此類時，他回答說：“記住奧茲曼迪亞斯(神話人物)吧!”他指的是珀西·比希·雪萊的十四行詩中關於埃及法老對於自我膨脹的紀念碑的嗜好。在他雕像下的石板上鐫刻著自吹自擂的語句，要求渺小的凡人們“看看我的豐功偉績吧”!他最終卻只留下廣漠的沙塵遺蹟：沒有帝國，沒有紀念碑，沒有豐功偉績。李光耀不把這些榮譽看成廣夏。對他來說至關重要的是他所做的事業應該持久。

因此，在過去很多年裡，無論是公開或私人場合，李光耀都清清楚楚地表明，他希望他在歐思禮路38號的房子要在其死後拆除。在2013年12月17日他的最後遺囑中，他再次重申他的願望，並指示他的三個孩子確保這項遺囑得以實現。的確，他對建立紀念碑如此強烈反對，以致於他清楚地表明，即使違揹他的意願而保留這幢房子，也應該只對他的孩子及其後代開放。

然而，我們相信，李顯龍和何晶的動機，是為了他們自己及其孩子們繼承李光耀的地位與名聲。

當我們的父親秉持精英統治建國時，當李顯龍聲稱信奉這一理念時，他卻讚賞“自然貴族”。顯龍和他的妻子何晶，在李光耀健在時就反對李光耀拆除他的房子的願望。的的確確，李顯龍和何晶表示過，計劃在李光耀過世後會儘快攜全家搬入這棟房子。這一舉措將強化顯龍及其家人的繼承權。此外，即使顯龍不住在歐思禮路38號，保留這處房產也將提升他的政治資本。

令人傷心的是，顯龍和何晶為了得到他們想要的，已經並且也願意走得太遠。

在顯龍的堅持下，2011年7月21日，李光耀會見了新加坡內閣，討論了他個人房產的命運。當他結束這一會見回家後，李瑋玲在他家的臺階上見到了李光耀。他極度痛苦與沮喪，並告訴李瑋玲：“我不應該聽從龍(指李顯龍)的建議去會見內閣。”他對他的兒子李顯龍以這種方式反對他的意願感到痛苦。

李光耀相信，李顯龍和何晶是向家庭提出政府倡議保留故居的背後主導。顯龍自己也及時向李光耀清晰地表明瞭他的立場，2011年10月3日，李光耀寫到：“李顯龍作為總理已經表示他將宣佈故居為一處遺址。”

李光耀在他的遺囑中特別寫入了拆除歐思禮路38號的遺願，以使李顯龍難以濫用內閣來保留故居。他也將李顯龍從遺囑執行人和受託人中撤掉。

李光耀指示遺囑在需要時可以公開，這是他向新加坡民眾的直接上訴。這是他逝世時的唯一要求。

在閱讀李光耀遺囑時，李顯龍表現得非常生氣，因為遺囑將給李瑋玲繼續居住在故居中的權力，並清楚表明李光耀在李瑋玲去世或搬離後立即拆除故居的遺願。李顯龍威脅並要求我們對父親的最後遺願保持緘默。他想在國會中主張李光耀已經改變了主意，希望新加坡民眾通過故居這一可視象徵來繼承新加坡民眾對李光耀的信念。僅當國際新聞界傳出消息後，我們才得以成功地在新加坡公開李光耀的遺願。李顯龍也因此才迫不得已在國會陳述，作為兒子，他希望看到父親的遺願得以執行。他希望在公眾面前表現得孝順，卻在私下裡阻礙我們父母的遺願得以實現。

然而，李顯龍和何晶並沒有放棄他們的計劃。李顯龍採取措施試圖阻撓我們發表李光耀的遺囑。2015年，我們與國家遺產委員會簽訂了贈與協議，捐贈及公開展覽我們父母家中的大量物品，並約定將李光耀拆除歐思禮路38號的遺願顯著地展示在展覽中。

然而，在贈與被接受後，我們很快就收到了由李顯龍當時的私人律師，黃魯勝發來的虛假的異議函。黃魯勝於2017年1月成為新加坡總檢察長。我們震驚地發現，李顯龍利用他總理的身份從黃循財部長處獲得了一份贈與協議的副本，並將之轉交了他的私人律師以推進他的私人事項。這次展覽也僅在我們作出了大量鬥爭後，才得以以大幅削弱的形式在幾個月後進行。

在2015年，李顯龍當時的私人律師代表他發出多封信件，譴責並歪曲了李光耀最終遺囑的生效情形及拆除故居遺願的含義。我們也通過律師對這些譴責與歪曲進行了詳細的反駁。李顯龍也知道他無法向法庭提起正式的控告或任何法律性的質疑。相反，他更關心他通過對父親和家人的歪曲而獲得房屋遺贈的事實可能被公開。李光耀的遺囑，包括拆除歐思禮路38號的遺願，在2015年10月6日獲得認證，成為他對遺產處理意圖的完全的、最終的、具有法律約束力的表達。

2015年5月，李顯龍向我們提出了一個處理方案，根據他的歪曲，李光耀的遺產使他對房屋的處置產生了質疑。李顯龍表示，房屋的出售可以使我們騰出手來拆除房屋。處置方案的最終協議在2015年末達成。李顯龍堅持李顯揚應按市場價向他支付全款以購買房屋(並向慈善機構捐獻房屋額外一半的價值)。作為對這一方案的交換，我們主張並獲得了一次在2015年12月由全部三名子女聯合發表的公開聲明，希望政府可以允許拆除故居的遺願得到全面執行，並且，希望全體新加坡民眾都能支持這一事項。我們還從李顯龍處獲得一項許諾，即他將從所有有關歐思禮路38號的政府決策中撤出，並且以個人身份樂見這一遺願得到尊重。

我們希望通過這一處置方案，使他不再阻撓我們將父母的遺願付諸實行。然而，我們失望地看到，在毫不顧及這份處置方案及李顯龍許諾的情況下，黃循財部長於2016年7月通知我們，政府成立了一個部長級委員會以探討歐思禮路38號的銷售權及其影響。這與李顯龍於2015年4月在國會發表的聲明直接產生了矛盾，並且，政府實無必要做出任何關於歐思禮路38號的決定，直到李瑋玲不再居住在那裡，而這是到時政府需要考慮的事情。李顯龍，不顧自己撤出政府決策的許諾，繼續向委員會發表大量陳述。他是自相矛盾的。他的政治力量源於李光耀兒子的身份，因此，他擁有充分動機去保存李光耀的故居以繼承其可信度。他亦坐擁超越由其部屬所組成的委員會的權力，可以運用相當的影響力以達成任何他想要的結果。

顯龍向委員會宣稱，李光耀會“接受政府作出的、保留歐思禮路38號的任何決定”。這一文字遊戲不僅是不誠實的，也是毫無意義的。李光耀的確接受，正如他一貫所做的，政府有權保留歐思禮路38號而不顧他的遺願。但這並不意味著他就想要歐思禮路38號被保留。

在此之下，李顯龍為了自己的政治利益，故意歪曲了李光耀清晰無比的本意。他亦違背了他自己對將撤出所有有關歐思禮路38號的政府決策的聲明，以及他作為李光耀的兒子本該支持故居拆除的立場。

在他對委員會所作的陳述中，李顯龍尋求對導致李光耀最終遺囑得到生效的情形以及拆除遺願的結論的懷疑。他和何晶很不高興，因為拆除遺願給予了李瑋玲在該房屋中無拘束居住的權力。他向委員會提出的這些疑問已經在2015年被反駁過了。當然，除了這一次，這些疑問被向由李顯龍部屬組成的委員會提出過一次。

現實是，使李光耀的最終遺囑生效根本不會引起任何疑慮或麻煩。顯龍確實選擇不提起任何法律性質疑。一個簡單的事實是，李顯龍現在的聲望正與李光耀的遺贈緊緊相連。保留李光耀故居將使李顯龍及其家庭繼承一座象徵著李光耀權威的有形紀念碑。

李光耀曾是一名律師，並且，深知遺囑的不可侵犯性及終局性。他對遺囑的生效作出過清晰的指示。在簽署前，他仔細地閱讀過這份最終遺囑，在簽字後，也進行過持續的審查及反映，以使事務順利進行。在遺囑生效的兩週後，李光耀親自、獨立起草了一份遺囑附錄，並使之生效執行。當時，並沒有任何反對意見被提出，而李顯龍也多次在公開或私人場合肯定了該遺囑。

最後，拆除歐思禮路38號並無任何困難。李光耀的最後遺願與新加坡民眾存在完全的一致性，因為新加坡民眾對故居拆除有著壓倒性的支持。

一份發表於2015年12月22日的輿觀調查網的調查顯示，77%的新加坡民眾支持對李光耀故居的拆除，僅有17%的民眾表示了反對。

“我們是沒有政治野心的普通公民。除了尊重我們父親的最終遺願，我們無法從拆除歐思禮路38號中獲得任何好處。李顯龍卻能從保留歐思禮路38號中獲得一切——他只需要枉顧他父親的遺願和價值觀即可。”

“李光耀的價值觀被自己的兒子破壞了。我們的父親置國家和人民於第一位，而不是個人聲望或私人事項。對於被迫身置此境，我們十分悲傷。我們在自己的國家感到了巨大的不安及嚴密的監視。無論是作為兄長還是作為領導人，我們都無法再信任李顯龍。我們已經對他失去信心。”

李瑋玲和李顯揚

李光耀遺產的聯合執行人和受託人

2017年6月14日

李顯龍總理對李顯揚先生和李瑋玲博士所做聲明的答覆

我很遺憾，我的手足選擇以一份聲明將家庭事務公之於眾。對於他們所作的不成功的指控，我感到深深地悲痛。何晶與我否認這些指控，尤其是我對我兒子有政治野心的荒謬斷言。

手足之間誠有分歧，我相信任何這樣的分歧均應留置家庭之內。自我父親2015年3月去世，出於對我們父母的尊重，作為長子我已盡我所能試圖在家庭內部解決我們之間的問題。

我手足的聲明已經傷害了我們父親的遺贈。

我將盡我最大努力繼續做父母認為正確的事。與此同時，我將繼續真誠地服務於新加坡人民，盡我所能。特別是堅持任人唯賢，這是我們社會的一個基本價值。

正如我手足所知，我目前正在海外與家人一起休假。在我這週末返回後，我將深入考慮此事。

總理府

2017年6月14日

附件一：

李瑋玲及李顯揚聲明原文

What hashappened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values?

Wefeel extremely sad that we are pushed to this position. We are disturbed bythecharacter, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’scurrent prime minister and the role of his wife, Ho Ching. We have seenacompletely different face to our brother, one that deeply troubles us. Sincethe passing of Lee Kuan Yew, on 23 March 2015, we have felt threatened by HsienLoong’s misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government andits agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system hasfew checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.

Wefeel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against usand Hsien Yang’s wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feelscompelled to leave Singapore:

“Itis with a very heavy heart that I will leave Singapore for the foreseeablefuture. This is the country that my father, Lee Kuan Yew, loved and built. Ithas been home for my entire life. Singapore is and remains my country. I haveno desire to leave. Hsien Loong is the only reason for my departure.”

IfHsien Loong is prepared to act thus against us, his younger sister and brother,both contributing members of Singapore’s establishment, to advance his personalagenda, we worry for Singapore. We question whether able leaders withindependent political legitimacy will be side-lined to ensure Hsien Loong’sgrip on power remains unchallenged.

Thisis by no means a criticism of the Government of Singapore. We see many uprightleaders of quality and integrity throughout the public service, but they areconstrained by Hsien Loong’s misuse of power at the very top. We do not trustHsien Loong and have lost confidence in him.

SinceLee Kuan Yew’s death, there have been changes in Singapore that do not reflectwhat he stood for. Nobody ever doubted that Lee Kuan Yew always held the bestinterests of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. He was authentic and spokehis mind. The same cannot be said for our brother, Lee Hsien Loong and hiswife, Ho Ching. We believe, unfortunately, that Hsien Loong is driven by adesire for power and personal popularity. His popularity is inextricably linkedto Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. His political power is drawn from his being Lee KuanYew’s son. We have observed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching want to milk Lee KuanYew’s legacy for their own political purposes. We also believe, based on ourinteractions, that they harbour political ambitions for their son, Li Hongyi.

Singaporehas no such thing as the wife of the prime minister being a ‘first lady’. LeeKuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, hiswife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwartsupporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly, and set a high bar forthe conduct of a prime minister’s wife. She would never instruct PermanentSecretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Chingcould not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official positionin government, her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her jobpurview.

Throughouthis entire life, Lee Kuan Yew’s sole focus was on Singapore and its future. Hewas a strong opponent of monuments, particularly of himself. On suggestionsthat monuments or ‘what-have-yous’ be made for him, he replied “RememberOzymandias”. He was referring to Percy B Shelley’s sonnet about the EgyptianPharaoh with a penchant for self-aggrandising monuments. The boast etched in aplaque below his statue commanded lesser mortals to “look on my works”. Onlythe vastness of desert sands remains: no empire, nor monuments, no great works.Lee Kuan Yew wanted none of these honours as edifices. Much more important tohim was that what he had done should last.

Itis for this reason that Lee Kuan Yew made clear throughout the years in publicand private his wish that his home at 38 Oxley Road be demolished upon hispassing. In his last Will and Testament of 17 December 2013, he againreiterated his wish and directed his three children to ensure that it befulfilled. Indeed, his opposition to monuments was so strong that he had madeclear that even if the house were gazetted (against his wishes), it should onlybe open to his children and their descendants.

However,we believe that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are motivated by a desire to inheritLee Kuan Yew’s standing and reputation for themselves and their children.

Whilstour father built this nation upon meritocracy, Hsien Loong, whilst purportingto espouse these values, has spoken of a “natural aristocracy”. Hsien Loong andhis wife, Ho Ching, have opposed Lee Kuan Yew’s wish to demolish his house,even when Lee Kuan Yew was alive. Indeed, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching expressedplans to move with their family into the house as soon as possible after LeeKuan Yew’s passing. This move would have strengthened Hsien Loong’s inheritedmandate for himself and his family. Moreover, even if Hsien Loong did not liveat 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the house would enhance his politicalcapital.

Whathas been distressing are the lengths to which Hsien Loong and Ho Ching havegone and are willing to go to get what they want.

OnHsien Loong’s insistence, Lee Kuan Yew met with the Singapore Cabinet on 21July 2011 to discuss the fate of his personal home. Wei Ling met Lee Kuan Yewon the steps of their home as he returned from that meeting. He was anguishedanddespondent and told Wei Ling “I should not have listened to Loong and goneto meet Cabinet.” He was pained that Hsien Loong, his own son, opposed hiswishes in this manner.

LeeKuan Yew believed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were behind what wasrepresented to the family as a government initiative to preserve the house. Indue course, Hsien Loong himself made his position clear to Lee Kuan Yew. On 3October 2011, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: “Loong as PM has indicated that he willdeclare it a heritage site.”

LeeKuan Yew specifically inserted into his will his wish for 38 Oxley Road to bedemolished so as to make it difficult for Hsien Loong to misuse the Cabinet topreserve it. He also removed Hsien Loong as an executor and trustee of hiswill.

Thewish, which was instructed to be made public as needed, was Lee Kuan Yew’sdirect appeal to the people of Singapore. It was his only request of them onhis passing.

Atthe reading of Lee Kuan Yew’s will, Hsien Loong was very angry that the willgave Wei Ling the right to remain living in the house and that it made clearLee Kuan Yew’s wish for its demolition immediately upon her passing orrelocation. Hsien Loong threatened us and demanded our silence on our father’slast wish. He wanted to assert in Parliament that Lee Kuan Yew had changed hismind, hoping to inherit the faith Singaporeans had in Lee Kuan Yew through thevisible symbol of the house. We refused and fought to release our father’s wishto demolish the house as instructed. We succeeded in making Lee Kuan Yew’s wishpublic in Singapore only after the international press carried the news. HsienLoong was therefore forced to state in Parliament that, as a son, he would liketo see the wish carried out. He wanted to appear filial in public whilst actingto thwart our parents’ wishes in private.

However,Hsien Loong and Ho Ching did not abandon their plans. Hsien Loong took steps totry to frustrate our publicising Lee Kuan Yew’s wish. We executed a Deed ofGift in 2015 with the National Heritage Board for the donation and publicexhibition of significant items from our parents’ home, with a stipulation thatLee Kuan Yew’s wish for the demolition of 38 Oxley Road be displayed prominentlyat the exhibition.

However,after the gift’s acceptance we soon received letters with spurious objectionsfrom Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer, Lucien Wong. Lucien Wong was madeSingapore’s Attorney-General in January 2017. We were shocked to see that HsienLoong had used his position as Prime Minister to obtain a copy of the Deed ofGift from Minister Lawrence Wong, which Hsien Loong then passed to his personallawyer to advance his personal agenda. The exhibition only proceeded monthslater in a diminished format after considerable struggle on our part.

In2015, various letters were sent by Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer makingaccusations and misrepresentations on his behalf regarding the circumstancesunder which Lee Kuan Yew’s last will was executed and the inclusion of thedemolition wish. These were refuted in detail by us through our lawyers. HsienLoong knew that he could not establish his accusations in a court of law andraised no legal challenge. On the contrary, he was likely concerned that thefact that the gift of the house to him had been obtained by him throughmisrepresentations to our father and the family might be made public. Probatewas granted on 6 October 2015 and Lee Kuan Yew’s will, including the wish todemolish 38 Oxley Road, became the full,final, and legally binding word on his intentions as to his estate.

HsienLoong initiated a settlement with us in May 2015; the Estate of Lee Kuan Yewwas contemplating a challenge of the disposition of the house to him based onhis misrepresentations. Hsien Loong represented that this sale of the housewould give us a free hand to demolish the house. Final agreement on thesettlement was reached in late 2015. Hsien Loong insisted that Hsien Yangshould pay him full market value for the house (and donate an additional halfthe value of the house to charity). In exchange for this, we asked for andobtained a joint public statement issued by all 3 children of Lee Kuan Yew inDecember 2015 that we hoped that the Government would allow the demolition wishto be fulfilled and that all Singaporeans would support this cause. We alsoobtained an undertaking from Hsien Loong that he would recuse himself from allgovernment decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and that, in his personalcapacity, would like to see the wish honoured.

Wehad hoped that through this settlement, he would not hinder us from honouringour parents’ wishes. However, we were disappointed that despite the settlementand Hsien Loong’s undertakings, in July 2016, Minister Lawrence Wong wrote toinform us that a Ministerial Committee had been set up to consider options withrespect to 38 Oxley Road and their implications. This also directlycontradicted Hsien Loong’s statement in Parliament in April 2015 that there wasno need for the Government to take a decision in respect of 38 Oxley Road untilWei Ling no longer resided there, and that it would be up to the Government ofthe day to consider the matter. Hsien Loong, despite his undertakings to recusehimself, proceeded to make extensive representations to the Committee. He isconflicted. His political power is related to being Lee Kuan Yew’s son and thushe has every incentive to preserve Lee Kuan Yew’s house to inherit hiscredibility. He also sits in a direct position of power over the Committeecomprised of his subordinate ministers, thus wielding considerable influencefor any outcome he desires.

HsienLoong has asserted to the Committee that Lee Kuan Yew would “accept anydecision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road.” This play on words isnot only dishonest, but nonsensical. Lee Kuan Yew accepted, as he had to, thatthe Government had the power to preserve 38 Oxley Road against his wishes. Butthis does not mean that he wanted 38 Oxley Road preserved.

Indoing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clearintentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his owndeclarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisionsinvolving 38 Oxley Road and his supposed support for the demolition of thehouse as Lee Kuan Yew’s son.

Inhis representations to the Committee, Hsien Loong seeks to call into questionthe circumstances which led to the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will andits inclusion of the demolition wish. He and Ho Ching are unhappy because thedemolition wish gives Wei Ling an unfettered right to live in the house. Thesequeries he raised to the Committee were already fully refuted in 2015. Exceptthis time, of course, they are being raised to a Committee comprising HsienLoong’s subordinates.

Thereality is that there was nothing suspicious or untoward at all about theexecution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will. Indeed, Hsien Loong chose not to raiseany legal challenge. The simple truth is that Hsien Loong’s current popularityis tied to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. Preserving Lee Kuan Yew’s house would allowHsien Loong and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew’sauthority.

LeeKuan Yew was a lawyer and well knew the sanctity and finality of a will. Hegave clear instructions for the execution of the will. He carefully read hisfinal will before signing it, and he continued to review and reflect aftersigning to put his affairs in order. Two weeks after executing his will, LeeKuan Yew personally drafted unassisted a codicil to his will and executed it.All three children were kept fully apprised of the signing of the final willand the codicil. No objection was raised at that time and indeed Hsien Loonghas affirmed the will in public and in private.

Ultimately,it is not difficult to see that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. There isfull alignment between Lee Kuan Yew’s final wish and the people of Singapore,since there is overwhelming support among Singaporeans for the demolition ofthe house.

Anindependent YouGov survey published on 22 December 2015 showed that 77% ofSingaporeans supported the demolition of Lee Kuan Yew’s house and only 17%opposed it.

“Weare private citizens with no political ambitions. We have nothing to gain fromthe demolition of 38 Oxley Road, other than the knowledge that we have honouredour father’s last wish. Hsien Loong has everything to gain from preserving 38Oxley Road – he need only ignore his father’s will and values.”

“Thevalues of Lee Kuan Yew are being eroded by his own son. Our father placed ourcountry and his people first, not his personal popularity or private agendas.We are very sad that we have been pushed to this. We feel hugely uncomfortableand closely monitored in our own country. We do not trust Hsien Loong as abrother or as a leader. We have lost confidence in him.”

Lee Wei Ling and LeeHsien Yang

Joint Executors and Trustees ofthe Estate of Lee Kuan Yew

14 June 2017

附件二：

李顯龍的答覆原文