Apex court reserves judgment in appeal on Mr Lee’s interview transcripts
The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted his oral history transcripts be kept under the custody of the Cabinet Secretary instead of the oral history unit and directed that they “shall not be made available to anyone without (his) express written permission” for a five-year period after his death. TODAY File Photo
SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal on Monday (April 10) reserved judgment on another bid by founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s two younger children to gain full control of his oral history transcripts, with the political sensitivity of the materials and whether Mr Lee had intended to bequeath the transcripts emerging as the main areas of contention between his estate and the Government.
Earlier, the High Court had ruled against Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who are executors of their father’s estate. They had argued that as copyright holders of the transcripts of interviews he had given for a national oral history project in the 1980s, they should be allowed to access and use the materials.
On Monday, Senior Counsel Lee Eng Beng, who is representing the late Mr Lee’s estate, argued that there ought not be concerns about the politically sensitive portions of the interviews being divulged as a result, as these are covered by the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and would be punishable, if there were leaks.
But the Attorney-General’s Chambers, representing the Government, countered that it was precisely because Mr Lee’s interviews contained more politically sensitive insights, compared to the average interviewees’, that Mr Lee had put in place special safeguards.
An example was that he wanted the transcripts kept under the custody of the Cabinet Secretary instead of the oral history unit and directed that they “shall not be made available to anyone without (his) express written permission” for a five-year period.
Given the “personal control” that Mr Lee wanted to have over these transcripts, it is “inconceivable” that the intent was for his estate, said State Counsel Hui Choon Kuen.
A central feature in the agreement signed for the interviews, said Mr Hui, was a “moratorium period” — which Mr Lee stated as “the year 2000 or five years after my death, whichever is later” — during which no one could have access to or use the transcripts unless he had prospectively given permission.
“It was only after this period had lapsed that the Government could exercise its control over access and use,” Mr Hui added.
Even after control was relinquished to the Government, it can only avail the transcripts for “research purposes”, he noted. “The Government (would also then have) the discretion not to make the transcripts available if, in the Government’s view, the transcripts were still sensitive,” he added.
The structure of the moratorium would make no sense if Mr Lee had intended to benefit his estate, argued Mr Hui, noting that under prevailing legislation, copyright would subsist for the author’s lifetime and a further 50 years after his death.
“If (Mr Lee’s) intent was to benefit his estate, there would be no reason for him to curtail significantly the period for which his estate could benefit from the copyright to only five years,” he argued.
While it reserved judgment on the matter, the apex court — comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang — stressed that a pertinent consideration in this dispute was the “context” in which the late Mr Lee gave the interviews from July 1981 to July 1982.
The interviews were part of a Government project to document the political development of Singapore from 1945 to 1965, and on Singapore’s pioneers, through the personal account of several individuals, including Mr Lee.
In September 2015, Mr Lee’s two younger children argued in the High Court that his estate is entitled to use, and have copies of these interview transcripts, as well as have control over access to the material.
Justice Tay Yong Kwang, who presided over the High Court hearing, disagreed. Nevertheless, he granted Mr Lee’s estate copyright to the transcripts, but “only for the purpose of ensuring the Government’s compliance with the terms of the interview agreement”. The transcripts were also to remain in the custody of the Cabinet Secretary, Justice Tay had ruled.
On Monday, SC Lee argued that what Justice Tay had awarded was an “empty copyright”, in that it only lets them prevent others from using the transcripts.
Pointing to a clause in the interview agreement, where Mr Lee said nothing in the agreement was to be read as restricting his rights to the transcripts, the lawyer said Mr Lee “must have intended (the clause) to benefit his estate” upon his death.
“From the context it is obvious that all applicable references to the personal and reflexive pronouns (“I”, “me”, “myself”, etc) in the interview agreement should also refer to (his) estate,” said SC Lee.
He also noted that the transcripts included personal information about Mr Lee and his family, which Mr Lee had also shared with members of the media over the years. Mr Lee Hsien Yang attended the hearing but declined to comment.
