Corrections log
Every substantive correction to a published number or claim is recorded here — what we said, what was true, when we fixed it. Silent edits are not made.
- 2026-10-08/cases/genting-lim (zh and tw editions)
What we said: Gave the Chinese name of Lim Siew Kim, the Genting founder's daughter whose RM1.6 billion estate is in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, as 林秀金, and called her the founder's youngest daughter.
What is true: Malaysian Chinese-language press covering the case write her name 林秀琼 (Oriental Daily, 5 Oct 2026; China Press, 8 Oct 2026), and the New Straits Times describes her as the founder's third child. The zh and tw editions now read 林秀琼 and 'the founder's daughter'. The English, Thai and Indonesian editions, which use her romanised name, were not affected.
Source: https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/news/business/2026/10/05/852761
- 2026-10-02/library/probate-freeze (all five editions)
What we said: Listed, among the estates the Public Trustee will not administer without a grant, those with an insurance policy whose nominee was made under sections 49L and 49M of the Insurance Act 1966.
What is true: Those are the pre-2020 numbers, which the Public Trustee's own page (last updated 23 September 2026) still uses; in the 2020 Revised Edition the trust nomination is section 132 and the revocable nomination section 133 (Singapore Statutes Online, current version read 2 October 2026). Every edition of the page now cites 132 and 133 and notes the old numbering so the two sources can be reconciled. The exclusion itself was stated correctly. This closes the follow-up flagged in the 30 September 2026 entry.
Source: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/IA1966?ProvIds=pr132-,pr133-
- 2026-09-30/library/second-families (zh and tw editions)
What we said: The Chinese editions still cited the Insurance Act 1966 nominations as section 49L (trust nomination) and section 49M (revocable nomination), after the English page was corrected on 29 August 2026.
What is true: Those are the pre-2020 numbers; in the 2020 Revised Edition they are section 132 and section 133. The zh and tw editions of this page now cite 132 and 133, matching the English page. Other pages that carry the old numbers are being corrected as each is next refreshed.
- 2026-09-27/library/13o-minimum-disagreement (all five editions)
What we said: That AUM in Designated Investments, the base MAS has used for the 13O, 13OA and 13U schemes since 1 January 2025, excludes cash deposits and property held for own use.
What is true: Annex 3 of MAS Circular FDD Cir 05/2026 (31 July 2026), re-read on 27 September 2026, lists deposits held with any financial institution and immovable property situated outside Singapore among the Designated Investments. What the list leaves out is Singapore property and unlisted companies in the business of trading or holding Singapore property (other than property developers). The sentence was corrected in every edition on 27 September 2026; every other figure on the page was re-read against the circular and stands.
- 2026-09-26/library/singapore-trust-malaysian-family (all five editions) and the Malaysia bridge page
What we said: That the Tan Chong family's holding-company dispute was between two balanced branches and that roughly a decade of litigation ended in 2009 with the group split.
What is true: The branches were not balanced: Tan Yuet Foh's side held 55.42 per cent of Tan Chong Consolidated and Tan Kim Hor's side 44.58 per cent (The Edge, 29 June 2009). The petition was filed on 21 May 2001 and settled on 23 June 2009, eight years later. The group was not split: Tan Kim Hor and seven relatives in Malaysia left the holding company in exchange for listed shares paid in equal instalments over five years, and the holding company kept at least 33 per cent of each listed company and first refusal (The Edge, 1 July 2009). Both pages were corrected on 26 September 2026, the day the full case file was published at /cases/tan-chong-motor.
Source: https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/kim-hor-most-his-side-family-exit-tcc
- 2026-09-25/library/what-you-can-know, /library/without-looking-greedy and /library/all-arranged (all five editions)
What we said: That the Singapore Wills Registry never holds the will itself, a copy of it or its contents, only the fact that a will exists, its date, its drafter and its location; that each search request is approved case by case; and that a search returns the date of the will, who drew it up and where the original is held.
What is true: The Singapore Academy of Law's registry page (read 25 September 2026) says it does not keep the original signed will, but that it does keep a digital copy of the will for deposits made through participating law firms. The case-by-case approval of searches could not be confirmed on any primary page and is withdrawn; the SAL search guide (15 August 2023) shows an online form asking for the testator's identification number, the applicant's relationship and supporting documents, with results emailed within three to five working days; no primary page states what the emailed result contains, so the pages now say only that a search confirms whether a will record is registered. All three pages were corrected on 25 September 2026.
- 2026-09-12/cases/wang-yung-ching (all five editions)
What we said: That Wang Yung-ching's estate was about US$6.8 billion, that the family litigation ran from 2009 to 2016 across Taiwan, the United States and Hong Kong, and that the offshore trusts held the assets but decided nothing between the children.
What is true: The US$6.8 billion figure had no dated primary source and is withdrawn. The public record gives an assessed Taiwan estate of NT$52.6 billion with estate tax of NT$11.9 billion under the pre-2009 schedule rising to 50 per cent (風傳媒, 28 November 2014), a domestic division of about NT$52.8 billion signed on 29 July 2021 (鏡週刊, 5 September 2021), and offshore trusts whose holdings the Privy Council recorded at about US$560 million (Global Resource Trust) and over US$3.5 billion (Wang Family Trust). No Hong Kong judgment or action number could be found in any primary record; the litigation on the record runs through New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Bermuda and the Privy Council, and was still live before the D.C. district court on 26 May 2026. The trusts did decide: on 25 to 26 September 2005 the trustee's directors excluded every child and remoter issue and appointed the fund to a purpose trust, a decision the Privy Council held void on 8 December 2022. The case file was rebuilt on these sources on 12 September 2026.
Source: https://jcpc.uk/uploads/jcpc_2020_0064_0065_judgment_ba63a5df96.pdf
- 2026-09-11/library/taiwan-overseas-assets-estate-tax and /library/taiwan-estate-tax-exemption (all five editions)
What we said: That instalment payment of Taiwan estate tax is available only where the tax due is NT$300,000 or more, and stated the article 17-1 deduction for a surviving spouse's marital-property claim without any two-year gift rule.
What is true: Both statements were correct when published and stopped being so on 11 September 2026, when the President promulgated amendments to articles 6, 17-1, 23, 26, 30, 41 and 51 of the Estate and Gift Tax Act, implementing Constitutional Court judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-11. The NT$300,000 floor for instalments is deleted; heirs may pay from estate deposits by majority decision; property given to the spouse within two years before death counts as the deceased's existing property when the article 17-1 deduction is computed; and each recipient of a two-year gift added back under article 15 becomes the taxpayer for a proportional deemed estate tax, with in-kind payment from the estate requiring all heirs' consent. Under article 13 of the Central Regulation Standard Act a law stated to take effect on promulgation does so from the third day. Both pages now carry the amendment with its date; this is a regime change recorded here rather than a silent edit.
- 2026-08-30/library/singapore-trust-thai-family, /library/singapore-trust-indonesian-family, /singapore (all editions)
What we said: That since 20 June 2025 the Trustees Act has carried a 'new' Part 7 (Transparency and Effective Control) providing for a Commissioner of Trust Enforcement.
What is true: Part 7 has been in the Trustees Act since Act 14 of 2017. What took effect on 20 June 2025 (Act 42 of 2024) is the addition to Part 7 of a Commissioner of Trust Enforcement (s84A), authorised officers (s84B) and investigation and enforcement powers (ss84C–84Q). The supervisory point stands; the date belonged to the Commissioner, not to Part 7. Found by our own adversarial re-verification of the day's claims.
- 2026-08-30/library/incapacity (all editions)
What we said: That once a person has lost capacity, no one in Singapore — not a deputy, not an LPA donee, and not the court — can make a will for him, and that Singapore's Mental Capacity Act has no equivalent of England's 'statutory will'.
What is true: A deputy (s25(3)(d)) and an LPA donee (s13(9)(c)) are barred, and section 26 does not mention wills at all. But the court is not barred: section 23(1)(k) of the Mental Capacity Act 2008 lists 'the execution for P of a will' among the orders the court may make under section 20, with the formalities in the Second Schedule. Singapore does have a statutory-will power; it sits with the court alone. The page was corrected on 30 August 2026.
- 2026-08-29/library/13o-minimum-disagreement, /singapore, the fact registry and llms.txt (all editions)
What we said: That the current 13O minimum for a Singapore family office is S$5m of AUM in Designated Investments, tested at each financial year-end, under conditions effective 1 January 2025.
What is true: S$5m is the 13O entry condition for non-SFO funds (funds run by licensed managers raising third-party capital). For a single family office the 13O minimum is S$20m of AUM in Designated Investments: at application and at the end of each basis period for awards approved on or after 1 August 2026 (MAS Circular FDD Cir 05/2026, 31 July 2026), and S$20m under the 5 July 2023 conditions before that. 13U remains S$50m. The page now reconciles all four figures by fund type and date.
- 2026-08-29/library/second-families (and its zh/th/id editions)
What we said: Cited the Insurance Act 1966 nomination provisions as section 49L (trust nomination) and section 49M (revocable nomination).
What is true: Those are the pre-2020 section numbers. In the 2020 Revised Edition in force from 9 March 2025 they are section 132 (trust nomination) and section 133 (revocable nomination); the Act's comparative table maps 49L→132 and 49M→133. The substance of the rules was stated correctly; the citation was stale.
- 2026-08-29/singapore and the fact registry (trust perpetuity)
What we said: Attributed the 100-year perpetuity period to the Trustees Act 1967, and stated the section 90 forced-heirship shield without its conditions.
What is true: The 100-year fixed perpetuity period is section 32 of the Civil Law Act 1909, applied to trusts created on or after 15 December 2004 by Trustees Act 1967 section 89. Section 90 applies only where the trust is governed by Singapore law with Singapore-resident trustees, and not where the settlor was a Singapore citizen or Singapore-domiciled when the trust was created (s90(3)). The number was right; the attribution and the conditions were incomplete.