SPEECH BY MR LAWRENCE WONG, MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SECOND MINISTER FOR FINANCE, ON ISSUE OF THE HOUSE AT 38 OXLEY ROAD Mdm Speaker, 1. I would like to speak on two matters in this debate. First, I will clarify the issue of the Deed of Gift between the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the National Heritage Board, as I was then the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. Second, I will elaborate on due processes for proposals on the conservation and preservation of properties. Deed of Gift 2. First, let me touch on the deed of gift. From early 2015 onwards, NHB started planning for a major SG50 exhibition on 6 August 2015 (just before the Jubilee Weekend) and the exhibition was on Singapore’s founding leaders. Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015, NHB was also in discussion with executors of the estate about a donation of artefacts from 38 Oxley Road which could be incorporated into the exhibition. 3. The deed of gift was not based on NHB’s standard agreement. The executors of the estate, namely Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, insisted on several unusual conditions. These conditions included: - The right to buy back the items at $1 so long as the House was not demolished. - And the display of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish the House. 4. And as Members would have heard just now, the deed of gift required NHB to display only part of the demolition clause in Mr Lee’s will. In other words, NHB was to display the first part which sets our Mr Lee’s wish to demolish the House, but not the second part which sets out his wish should the House not be demolished. At that time, NHB did not pick up the significance of this partial quote from the demolition clause. 5. Ms Lee Suet Fern, who was then a director on the board of NHB, was also involved in the discussions between NHB and the executors. She supported the conditions stipulated by the executors in the deed, and her law firm Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC helped in the process of finalising the deed. 6. The executors held firm to many of the terms that they had stipulated in the deed. For example, when NHB asked to amend the $1 buy-back provision, the lawyer for the executors stated that this clause was “non-negotiable”. 7. While the terms were unusual, NHB proceeded to sign the deed with the executors because it recognised the heritage significance of the artefacts and felt that it would be in the public interest for them to be exhibited. NHB also assessed that several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. 8. So NHB signed the deed with the executors on 8 June 2015. At around the same time, I updated the Prime Minister on the plans for the exhibition and the inclusion of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition, including the conditions stipulated in the deed. And I later shared with him a copy of the deed on 12 June. 9. As the Prime Minister shared earlier, he felt that the terms of the deed were onerous to NHB. He told me that as a beneficiary of the estate, his consent for the donation had not been sought. The executors had not informed him of the donation, nor the terms of the donation. 10. So NHB was caught in a difficult position. It had signed the deed and accepted the gifts. But it was not clear if the executors were properly empowered to enter into the deed without first consulting all beneficiaries. This also raises questions about the validity of the agreement. Moreover, the planned exhibition was just two months away, and NHB did not have much time left to resolve the issues and then properly prepare for the exhibition. 11. I discussed this with the CEO of NHB Ms Rosa Daniel to see what could be done about the matter. Given the circumstances, we agreed that it would be better to take a pause and not rush the Oxley Road items for the August exhibition; we could exhibit them at a later stage after the issues had been resolved. So I asked Ms Daniel to inform Mr Lee Hsien Yang that we would like to put off the display of the Oxley Road artefacts from the August exhibition, and do so at some time in the future. 12. Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded on 10 June that this request was “unacceptable” and would be a breach of a legally binding deed. In fact, NHB had no intention to breach any legal obligations, and Ms Daniel clarified this point in an email to Mr Lee Hsien Yang the next day. She said that the “Minister’s instructions are that NHB is not to breach its obligations if it has entered into valid agreements which are binding on it”. 13. While the executors were insistent that NHB had to follow through on the exhibition, NHB still had a duty to check whether the deed of gift was in order, in light of the different views of the beneficiaries. Hence NHB wrote to the lawyers of the executors to clarify whether probate had been granted for the will, whether there were any other beneficiaries entitled to the assets of the estate and if so, whether their consent had been obtained for the gift to NHB. 14. Before responding to these queries, the executors of the estate put out a media release on 11 June publicising their donation of items to NHB. This was a surprise to NHB because the queries had not been addressed, and so NHB issued a statement that same night to highlight that there remained some questions on the deed of gift which NHB was in the process of clarifying with the executors. 15. On 12 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to NHB that the executors had not obtained probate for the will, but that probate was not necessary for the executors to have the power and authority to enter into the deed of gift. He also said that NHB should not be concerned about the position of the beneficiaries under the will. 16. But this response still left open the question of whether there were indeed other beneficiaries and whether their consent had been sought for the donation of the items to NHB for the exhibition, under the stipulated conditions. 17. Throughout this period, I was discussing the matter with DPM Teo Chee Hean as the Prime Minister had said that he would leave it to DPM to handle the specific dealings between NHB and the executors on the deed of gift. 18. DPM Teo’s main concern with the conditions was that NHB was being asked to display a partial quote of the demolition clause, which did not fully reflect Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes. He felt that NHB as a public institution, should remain neutral, and should not be drawn into a private disagreement, or be used to present a particular point of view which was incomplete. 19. Nevertheless, after weighing all the factors, and considering that NHB had already signed the deed, both DPM Teo and I agreed that the pluses of having the exhibition with the Oxley Road artefacts in accordance with the deed outweighed the potential controversy that was likely to arise. This was a major SG50 exhibition on our founding leaders. We had artefacts not just from the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but also from the National Archives and the families of other founding leaders. And many of these artefacts had not been displayed before. The artefacts helped to enhance the story-line of the exhibition and to bring out the values of our founding leaders for Singaporeans. 20. Subsequently on 25 June, the Prime Minister informed me that he had written to the executors, in his capacity as beneficiary, indicating to them that notwithstanding his position on the deed of gift, he would not object to the exhibition, as he did not want to put NHB in a difficult position. 21. NHB was thus able to proceed with the exhibition, with agreement from all beneficiaries. But as NHB needed more time to prepare, it sought the consent of the executors to push back the exhibition date. Eventually the opening was shifted from 6 August to 21 September 2015. In fact, I attended the opening with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Ms Lee Suet Fern. The exhibition was very well received and it has been extended till now. 22. Madam, as I have explained, my discussion with the Prime Minister on the exhibition was in his official capacity and I shared the deed of gift with him on that basis. In response to the question from Associate Professor Daniel Goh, the deed of gift did not have a confidentiality clause. If Mr Lee Hsien Loong had asked for the deed of gift in his private capacity, NHB would have been entitled to give it to him, given his position as eldest son and beneficiary of the estate. 23. More generally, in a scenario where items are being donated to NHB from an Estate, and NHB becomes aware that one of the beneficiaries objects to the terms of the donation, it would be necessary for NHB to take steps to verify that there is agreement from all beneficiaries.