14日凌晨3点，新加坡总理李显龙的弟弟李显扬和妹妹李玮玲同时在各自Facebook账号中以《李光耀的价值观哪去了?》为题发表联合声明，表示对自己的哥哥、现任新加坡总理李显龙失去信心，两人不仅对李显龙进行多项指控，还表示对新加坡的未来感到担心。

　　在长达6页的声明中，李显扬和李玮玲指责李显龙利用总理一职，设法挽留李光耀欧思礼路38号的故居。声明表示，这个做法违背了李光耀生前的意愿。李显扬和李玮玲声称在遵从父亲遗愿拆除故居的过程中遇到阻挠，并认为李显龙设法保留故居有“政治目的”——借助李光耀的光环扶持自己的儿子进入政坛。

　　针对两人的指控，李显龙全然否认。他说，李玮玲和李显扬对他和妻子何晶的指责让他很难过，他和何晶全然否认这些说法，特别是他要扶持儿子进入政坛的荒谬言论。

　　以下为李氏家族三兄妹的公开信全文（译者为网友陈九霖，转自其微信公众号“陈九霖博士”）。

　　李光耀的价值观哪里去了?

　　——李光耀女儿李玮玲和二儿子李显扬的公开信

　　我们被推到现在这个位置，感到极度的悲哀。我们对我们的兄长、新加坡现任总理李显龙的性格、行为、动机与领导力及其妻子何晶的角色颇为不安。我们看到了我们兄长截然不同的一面，这深深地困扰着我们。自从2015年3月23日李光耀逝世以来，我们就因为李显龙滥用他的地位和对新加坡政府及其代理的影响力而推进其私人事项，感受到威胁。我们担忧的是，这种体制对于防止政府权力的滥用缺少制衡。

　　我们感到大哥无所不在。我们担心，国家机关被用来对付我们和李显扬的夫人雪芬。情况已经如此严峻，以致于李显扬感到被迫离开新加坡。

　　“我的心情非常沉重，我将在可预见的未来离开新加坡。这是我的父亲李光耀热爱和建立的国家。它一直是我全部人生的家园。新加坡是，并将一直是我的祖国。我并没有离开的意愿。李显龙是我离开的唯一原因!”

　　如果显龙准备如此地对待我们——他的妹妹和弟弟、为了新加坡的建立作出过贡献的成员——以实现其自己的目的，那么，我们为新加坡忧虑。我们想问的是，拥有能力及独立的政治正当性的领导人们，是否应该对李显龙不受挑战的权力支配不闻不问。

　　这绝不是对新加坡政府的批评。我们看到，公务员系统中有不少正直、优秀和诚实的领导人，但是，他们受到了位于顶层的李显龙滥用权力的束缚。我们不再信任李显龙，并已对他失去了信心。

　　李光耀逝世以来，新加坡所发生的变化没有体现他的立场。从未有人怀疑过李光耀心里所想的只有新加坡和新加坡人民的最佳利益。他真实可信，心口合一。但这绝不能用来形容我们的兄长李显龙和他的妻子何晶。不幸的是，我们相信显龙受其权力欲和个人名誉所驱使。他的声望与李光耀的遗赠是分不开的。他的政治权力也是从他是李光耀的儿子这一身份中攫取的。我们注意到，李显龙和何晶想要榨取李光耀的遗赠以谋取他们自己的政治目的。基于我们之间的交流，我们也相信，他们所包藏的政治野心是为了他们的儿子——李鸿毅。

　　新加坡不存在总理的妻子便是“第一夫人”这样的说法。李光耀自1959年至1990年担任总理。在那么长的时期里，他的妻子(我们的母亲)一直回避公众的关注，自始至终是他坚定的支持者和私底下的顾问。她谨慎行事，为总理夫人的行为设置了很高的标准。她从来没训斥过常务秘书们或高级公务员们。她和何晶之间的反差是再明显不过的了!虽然何晶在政府里没有担任公职，但她的影响却无处不在，并严重地超越了她的职权。

　　终其一生，李光耀唯一关注的是新加坡及其未来。他是设立纪念碑——尤其是他自己的纪念碑的强烈反对者。当有人建议为他立碑诸如此类时，他回答说：“记住奥兹曼迪亚斯(神话人物)吧!”他指的是珀西·比希·雪莱的十四行诗中关于埃及法老对于自我膨胀的纪念碑的嗜好。在他雕像下的石板上镌刻着自吹自擂的语句，要求渺小的凡人们“看看我的丰功伟绩吧”!他最终却只留下广漠的沙尘遗迹：没有帝国，没有纪念碑，没有丰功伟绩。李光耀不把这些荣誉看成广夏。对他来说至关重要的是他所做的事业应该持久。

　　因此，在过去很多年里，无论是公开或私人场合，李光耀都清清楚楚地表明，他希望他在欧思礼路38号的房子要在其死后拆除。在2013年12月17日他的最后遗嘱中，他再次重申他的愿望，并指示他的三个孩子确保这项遗嘱得以实现。的确，他对建立纪念碑如此强烈反对，以致于他清楚地表明，即使违背他的意愿而保留这幢房子，也应该只对他的孩子及其后代开放。

　　然而，我们相信，李显龙和何晶的动机，是为了他们自己及其孩子们继承李光耀的地位与名声。

　　当我们的父亲秉持精英统治建国时，当李显龙声称信奉这一理念时，他却赞赏“自然贵族”。显龙和他的妻子何晶，在李光耀健在时就反对李光耀拆除他的房子的愿望。的的确确，李显龙和何晶表示过，计划在李光耀过世后会尽快携全家搬入这栋房子。这一举措将强化显龙及其家人的继承权。此外，即使显龙不住在欧思礼路38号，保留这处房产也将提升他的政治资本。

　　令人伤心的是，显龙和何晶为了得到他们想要的，已经并且也愿意走得太远。

　　在显龙的坚持下，2011年7月21日，李光耀会见了新加坡内阁，讨论了他个人房产的命运。当他结束这一会见回家后，李玮玲在他家的台阶上见到了李光耀。他极度痛苦与沮丧，并告诉李玮玲：“我不应该听从龙(指李显龙)的建议去会见内阁。”他对他的儿子李显龙以这种方式反对他的意愿感到痛苦。

　　李光耀相信，李显龙和何晶是向家庭提出政府倡议保留故居的背后主导。显龙自己也及时向李光耀清晰地表明了他的立场，2011年10月3日，李光耀写到：“李显龙作为总理已经表示他将宣布故居为一处遗址。”

　　李光耀在他的遗嘱中特别写入了拆除欧思礼路38号的遗愿，以使李显龙难以滥用内阁来保留故居。他也将李显龙从遗嘱执行人和受托人中撤掉。

　　李光耀指示遗嘱在需要时可以公开，这是他向新加坡民众的直接上诉。这是他逝世时的唯一要求。

　　在阅读李光耀遗嘱时，李显龙表现得非常生气，因为遗嘱将给李玮玲继续居住在故居中的权力，并清楚表明李光耀在李玮玲去世或搬离后立即拆除故居的遗愿。李显龙威胁并要求我们对父亲的最后遗愿保持缄默。他想在国会中主张李光耀已经改变了主意，希望新加坡民众通过故居这一可视象征来继承新加坡民众对李光耀的信念。仅当国际新闻界传出消息后，我们才得以成功地在新加坡公开李光耀的遗愿。李显龙也因此才迫不得已在国会陈述，作为儿子，他希望看到父亲的遗愿得以执行。他希望在公众面前表现得孝顺，却在私下里阻碍我们父母的遗愿得以实现。

　　然而，李显龙和何晶并没有放弃他们的计划。李显龙采取措施试图阻挠我们发表李光耀的遗嘱。2015年，我们与国家遗产委员会签订了赠与协议，捐赠及公开展览我们父母家中的大量物品，并约定将李光耀拆除欧思礼路38号的遗愿显著地展示在展览中。

　　然而，在赠与被接受后，我们很快就收到了由李显龙当时的私人律师，黄鲁胜发来的虚假的异议函。黄鲁胜于2017年1月成为新加坡总检察长。我们震惊地发现，李显龙利用他总理的身份从黄循财部长处获得了一份赠与协议的副本，并将之转交了他的私人律师以推进他的私人事项。这次展览也仅在我们作出了大量斗争后，才得以以大幅削弱的形式在几个月后进行。

　　在2015年，李显龙当时的私人律师代表他发出多封信件，谴责并歪曲了李光耀最终遗嘱的生效情形及拆除故居遗愿的含义。我们也通过律师对这些谴责与歪曲进行了详细的反驳。李显龙也知道他无法向法庭提起正式的控告或任何法律性的质疑。相反，他更关心他通过对父亲和家人的歪曲而获得房屋遗赠的事实可能被公开。李光耀的遗嘱，包括拆除欧思礼路38号的遗愿，在2015年10月6日获得认证，成为他对遗产处理意图的完全的、最终的、具有法律约束力的表达。

　　2015年5月，李显龙向我们提出了一个处理方案，根据他的歪曲，李光耀的遗产使他对房屋的处置产生了质疑。李显龙表示，房屋的出售可以使我们腾出手来拆除房屋。处置方案的最终协议在2015年末达成。李显龙坚持李显扬应按市场价向他支付全款以购买房屋(并向慈善机构捐献房屋额外一半的价值)。作为对这一方案的交换，我们主张并获得了一次在2015年12月由全部三名子女联合发表的公开声明，希望政府可以允许拆除故居的遗愿得到全面执行，并且，希望全体新加坡民众都能支持这一事项。我们还从李显龙处获得一项许诺，即他将从所有有关欧思礼路38号的政府决策中撤出，并且以个人身份乐见这一遗愿得到尊重。

　　我们希望通过这一处置方案，使他不再阻挠我们将父母的遗愿付诸实行。然而，我们失望地看到，在毫不顾及这份处置方案及李显龙许诺的情况下，黄循财部长于2016年7月通知我们，政府成立了一个部长级委员会以探讨欧思礼路38号的销售权及其影响。这与李显龙于2015年4月在国会发表的声明直接产生了矛盾，并且，政府实无必要做出任何关于欧思礼路38号的决定，直到李玮玲不再居住在那里，而这是到时政府需要考虑的事情。李显龙，不顾自己撤出政府决策的许诺，继续向委员会发表大量陈述。他是自相矛盾的。他的政治力量源于李光耀儿子的身份，因此，他拥有充分动机去保存李光耀的故居以继承其可信度。他亦坐拥超越由其部属所组成的委员会的权力，可以运用相当的影响力以达成任何他想要的结果。

　　显龙向委员会宣称，李光耀会“接受政府作出的、保留欧思礼路38号的任何决定”。这一文字游戏不仅是不诚实的，也是毫无意义的。李光耀的确接受，正如他一贯所做的，政府有权保留欧思礼路38号而不顾他的遗愿。但这并不意味着他就想要欧思礼路38号被保留。

　　在此之下，李显龙为了自己的政治利益，故意歪曲了李光耀清晰无比的本意。他亦违背了他自己对将撤出所有有关欧思礼路38号的政府决策的声明，以及他作为李光耀的儿子本该支持故居拆除的立场。

　　在他对委员会所作的陈述中，李显龙寻求对导致李光耀最终遗嘱得到生效的情形以及拆除遗愿的结论的怀疑。他和何晶很不高兴，因为拆除遗愿给予了李玮玲在该房屋中无拘束居住的权力。他向委员会提出的这些疑问已经在2015年被反驳过了。当然，除了这一次，这些疑问被向由李显龙部属组成的委员会提出过一次。

　　现实是，使李光耀的最终遗嘱生效根本不会引起任何疑虑或麻烦。显龙确实选择不提起任何法律性质疑。一个简单的事实是，李显龙现在的声望正与李光耀的遗赠紧紧相连。保留李光耀故居将使李显龙及其家庭继承一座象征着李光耀权威的有形纪念碑。

　　李光耀曾是一名律师，并且，深知遗嘱的不可侵犯性及终局性。他对遗嘱的生效作出过清晰的指示。在签署前，他仔细地阅读过这份最终遗嘱，在签字后，也进行过持续的审查及反映，以使事务顺利进行。在遗嘱生效的两周后，李光耀亲自、独立起草了一份遗嘱附录，并使之生效执行。当时，并没有任何反对意见被提出，而李显龙也多次在公开或私人场合肯定了该遗嘱。

　　最后，拆除欧思礼路38号并无任何困难。李光耀的最后遗愿与新加坡民众存在完全的一致性，因为新加坡民众对故居拆除有着压倒性的支持。

　　一份发表于2015年12月22日的舆观调查网的调查显示，77%的新加坡民众支持对李光耀故居的拆除，仅有17%的民众表示了反对。

　　“我们是没有政治野心的普通公民。除了尊重我们父亲的最终遗愿，我们无法从拆除欧思礼路38号中获得任何好处。李显龙却能从保留欧思礼路38号中获得一切——他只需要枉顾他父亲的遗愿和价值观即可。”

　　“李光耀的价值观被自己的儿子破坏了。我们的父亲置国家和人民于第一位，而不是个人声望或私人事项。对于被迫身置此境，我们十分悲伤。我们在自己的国家感到了巨大的不安及严密的监视。无论是作为兄长还是作为领导人，我们都无法再信任李显龙。我们已经对他失去信心。”

李玮玲和李显扬

李光耀遗产的联合执行人和受托人

2017年6月14日

　　李显龙总理对李显扬先生和李玮玲博士所做声明的答复

　　我很遗憾，我的手足选择以一份声明将家庭事务公之于众。对于他们所作的不成功的指控，我感到深深地悲痛。何晶与我否认这些指控，尤其是我对我儿子有政治野心的荒谬断言。

　　手足之间诚有分歧，我相信任何这样的分歧均应留置家庭之内。自我父亲2015年3月去世，出于对我们父母的尊重，作为长子我已尽我所能试图在家庭内部解决我们之间的问题。

　　我手足的声明已经伤害了我们父亲的遗赠。

　　我将尽我最大努力继续做父母认为正确的事。与此同时，我将继续真诚地服务于新加坡人民，尽我所能。特别是坚持任人唯贤，这是我们社会的一个基本价值。

　　正如我手足所知，我目前正在海外与家人一起休假。在我这周末返回后，我将深入考虑此事。

总理府

2017年6月14日

　　附件一：

　　李玮玲及李显扬声明原文

　　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：

　　李显龙的答复原文