Update on Legal Case for the Late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Oral History Transcripts

2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the status and outcome of the legal proceedings filed by the executors of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate against the Government in September 2015 on the interpretation of an agreement in 1983 concerning the use of transcripts of interviews conducted by the Government's then Oral History Department.

The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew filed a Court application to seek the High Court's interpretation of an interview agreement between the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government concerning the custody and use of the transcripts of certain oral history interviews given by the late Mr Lee to the Government.

Madam, the Court released its judgment on 28 September 2016. The facts and the Court's interpretation are all set out there. It can be freely accessed from the Supreme Court website.

The executors have since filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court. Madam, as this matter is now pending before the Court of Appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, just be careful as this matter is before the Court of Appeal.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Yes, Madam, I am aware of that and I do not intend to ask any questions concerning the merits of the case on either side, but just to clarify some chronology of events and some undisputed facts. Madam, I have four supplementary questions in relation to this. Originally, I filed the question with Ministry of Law. So, I can understand if Minister Yaacob may not be comfortable, but I have to ask the question to the Government.

First, Madam, the case was filed in September 2015 and, as at the time I filed my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which was in late September this year, the judgment had not yet been released. So, my question is whether the Minister is able to explain why the case took so long before the judgment came out, bearing in mind that it is an originating summons, which means that there are no witnesses coming to testify, but it is just a document interpretation. Usually, these cases are over in just a few months, at most, six months. So, why did it take so long?

Secondly, in terms of the timing of the release of the judgment, as I had mentioned earlier, coincidentally or otherwise, it was released after I had filed my PQ. When I looked at the judgment originally released, it did contain some typographical errors in names, dates and so on. Does the Government know whether the judgment was rushed out?

The third question is: I understand that there is a pending application now on the evidence before the Court as to how the transcripts were taken from the Lee family house to be in the hands of the Cabinet. I understand that the Judge did not want these details to be recorded because he felt that it would be distracting. I am not asking about the merits of this; I am just asking whether the Judge expunged this evidence at the application of the Government or did the Judge do this on his own accord without the Government making that request?

The last question is: the transcripts, according to what we understand, is supposed to be kept by the Cabinet Secretary. I read from the judgment that the family was asked to look at the transcripts at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Is there a reason for this?

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the four supplementary questions. I will be very candid – I cannot go into the judgment, because, as the Member knows, there is an appeal before the Court of law, so we would have to leave it as that.

Why did it take so long? I suppose the Judges have to examine all the evidence. Was it rushed? I do not think so. I think our Judiciary works very carefully to make sure that we come up with the best possible judgment. Whether the Judge did this or not, again, I cannot comment because it is basically the prerogative of the Judiciary to decide on the best course of action. As to why the transcripts were read at MHA and all that, again, as I said earlier, because there is an appeal, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment at this point.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, just to follow up. I understand the Minister cannot comment on the merits and I am not asking about the merits at all. In fact, the first question which I asked I think still merits an answer in the sense that this decision by the Judge to expunge the evidence about how the transcripts travelled from the house to the Cabinet, I am now asking whether the Government, during the case, made the request for the evidence to be suppressed or did the Judge do it on his own volition. I do not think that touches on the merits. I am just asking, procedurally, what happened. Did the Government make that request or did the Judge decide it on his own accord?

The last question about why the transcripts were perused at MHA, I do not think that is a question for the Court to decide at all because it is just a fact that the family was asked to go to MHA to peruse the transcripts. So, I am just asking why was that the case? Is there a reason for it? I am not saying that there is anything wrong; I am just asking for a clarification as to why if the transcripts have to be kept at the Cabinet Secretary, they were made available to the family at MHA. It is just an enquiry.

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Again, Madam, I am in no position to comment as to what were the reasons behind the various things that the Member asked. Clearly, I would believe that the Judiciary and the Government have given the best possible evidence in order for them to come to the best decision possible.

As to the process by which the transcripts had been shown to the family, again, I think there must be some reason for doing so. At the end of the day, I think this is something which the Government would try its very best to make sure that we can get the best solution possible.