Cheap wills

I came across a report in Free Malaysia Today yesterday about why we should take the preparation of a will seriously. A poorly prepared will can leave a family fighting in court for years, and that was what happened to the family of a woman named R Letchemy, whose will was signed just five weeks before she died.

Letchemy was 74 when she signed the will on 06 October 2021. She died on 11 November that year, but instead of settling her estate, the document became the centre of a legal dispute that dragged on for four years. Her brother, R Supparamaniam, challenged the will and sought to have the whole document declared invalid.

The High Court in Malacca eventually upheld most of the will's provisions. The judge found that Letchemy had the mental capacity to make a will and understood and approved how she wanted her assets distributed. This included leaving out her brother and his family. It may not have been a decision that everyone agreed with, but a person is generally entitled to decide who should inherit their estate.

However, one clause did not survive the court challenge. It was intended to penalise anyone who challenged the will or helped someone else to do so. The judge found insufficient evidence that Letchemy had understood and approved this particular provision, and it was struck out. 

There was another complication. Letchemy could not read English, the language in which the will was written. Although a solicitor had explained the document to her in Tamil before she signed it, the court found shortcomings in the way her instructions had been recorded and in the evidence showing how the will had been explained. There was no contemporaneous note documenting the explanation or the solicitor's assessment of her understanding.

So it is not enough to produce a document and get the client to sign it, there is a need to establish that the client understands what the will says and that it reflects their intentions. This becomes even more important when the will contains unusual provisions or excludes close family members from an inheritance. 

The law firm involved had charged between RM500 and RM700 for preparing a will. In a postscript to his judgment, Judicial Commissioner K Raja Segaran made the point that the care required in preparing a will should depend on what is at stake, not on how much the fee charged. As he put it, “A modest fee does not lessen the duty.”

The judge also recommended several safeguards, including recording the client's instructions carefully, checking the assets involved, explaining the draft in a language the client understands and keeping a record of the questions asked to establish that the client understands the document. He also warned against simply reusing standard clauses from earlier wills without checking that they reflect the wishes of the person making the will.

So this report reinforces the importance of having a properly prepared will in the first place. Through companies like Rockwills Corporation, the aim is to help ensure that a will is drafted clearly and satisfactorily, and that it is based on the testator's instructions and wishes. The person making the will should understand what is written, have the opportunity to clarify anything that is unclear and be satisfied that the document says what he or she actually wants it to say.

Of course, no one can guarantee that a will will never be challenged. But taking the time to explain the provisions properly and making sure the instructions are clearly documented can help reduce the risk of misunderstandings and disputes later. In Letchemy's case, probate was eventually granted to her niece, N Selvarani, subject to the removal of the disputed clause. 

The lesson here is that making a will is one thing, but making sure it is properly prepared is another. Most of us would prefer not to think too much about what happens to our estate after we are gone, but it is worth spending some time getting our affairs in order while we are still around to explain what we want. Otherwise, our family may be left trying to interpret our intentions, with the possibility of years of disagreement and legal expenses.

If there are questions about making a will, or about how Rockwills Corporation can help, anyone can get in touch with me. I'm happy to help clarify the process and answer any questions. It is better to sort these matters out while we are still around to explain what we want, rather than leave our family to work it out for themselves later.

Malaysia's chess predicament

I don't like to say this, but I believe the Malaysian Chess Federation has got itself into a fine pickle over the FIDE World Amateur Chess Championships scheduled to begin on 04 November 2026.

Some two months ago, I learnt that the World Chess Federation, FIDE, had awarded Malaysia the rights to organise the championships, with the Selangor Chess Association entrusted with staging the event in Klang. As far as I knew, preparations were proceeding normally. Then, a few days ago, news emerged that the Israeli Chess Federation was complaining that it had not received an invitation for its players to participate. And that's where the trouble begins.

FIDE's rules on hosting official international chess events include a principle of free access for representatives of its member federations. Israel is a member of FIDE, just as Malaysia is. So, from the chess world's point of view, Israeli players should be able to take part in a FIDE championship on the same basis as players from other member federations.

But Malaysia has its own government policy on Israeli nationals entering the country, and that is where the two positions seem destined to collide. Given the Malaysian government's longstanding position, I find it difficult to imagine Israeli chess players being granted entry visas simply because they have the right to play in a chess tournament. The Israeli Chess Federation is huffing to participate in a FIDE event, while the Malaysian government has made its position on Israeli athletes very clear. How is the Malaysian Chess Federation supposed to reconcile these two positions?

This is not the first time Malaysia has found itself in this position. In January 2019, the Malaysian government confirmed that Israeli athletes would not be allowed to participate in the World Para Swimming Championships scheduled to be held in Kuching that July. The International Paralympic Committee subsequently withdrew Malaysia's right to host the event because the government could not guarantee that Israeli athletes would be allowed to compete. The championships had to find another host.

That episode should have served as a warning. The government's position has been known for years, and I see no reason to assume that it will suddenly make an exception for chess players. If Malaysia cannot admit Israeli participants, how can it fulfil its obligations as host of a FIDE world championship? This is not simply a question of whether an invitation letter has been sent. An invitation is of little use if the players cannot obtain permission to enter the country.

So now, this is a problem that was not properly considered before Malaysia took on the hosting rights. When bidding for this international championship, the Malaysian Chess Federation and the organisers overlooked the conditions imposed by FIDE and the practical requirements for bringing players from all member federations to Malaysia. The government's position on Israeli participation in sporting events was hardly a secret. Did nobody consider what would happen if Israeli players wanted to take part?

I should add that I don't think the same difficulty necessarily arises with every international chess event held in Malaysia. Asian-level competitions, for instance, do not involve Israel in the same way because of the geographical zones used by FIDE. Israel belongs to a European zone in FIDE's classification, despite being geographically part of Asia. That distinction can make a difference to which federations are expected to participate. An event open to the whole world, however, is another matter altogether.

For now, I don't know how this will end. Perhaps FIDE and the Malaysian Chess Federation are still trying to find a way out of the predicament. But with the championship due to begin on the fourth of November, time is running short. After all the work that must already have gone into preparing the venue, accommodation, tournament arrangements and other logistics, it would be a real pity if Malaysia were to lose the event.

And that brings me back to the question that bothers me most. Who made the decision to accept the hosting rights without first resolving this obvious conflict between FIDE's requirements and Malaysia's policy? Was the issue raised at all when the bid was being considered? Somebody in the Federation ought to explain how this situation was allowed to develop.

I say this as someone who has been involved in Malaysian chess for many years. We should be proud when FIDE entrusts us with an event of this standing. But accepting the honour of hosting a world championship also means accepting the responsibilities that come with it. We cannot simply hope that a problem everyone should have anticipated will somehow disappear when the tournament draws near.