- You have become a liability to the nation. You have mishandled your dispute with
- Your priorities are misplaced. You wasted an entire year of the nation’s time, brainpower and resources on politicising the elected presidency. As a result, economic challenges have been neglected with slow growth in jobs, wages and productivity.
- You had not been in the best of health. Your fainting at last year’s National Day
- Not being PM can be positive for your children. They will flourish under their own steam and unconstrained by any consideration of impact on official status or obligations. They can even go into politics without inviting any suggestion of nepotism.
- Several of your ministerial colleagues have been dragged into the dispute. In addition to your good self, DPM Teo Chee Hean and SMS Indranee Rajah have been accused of lying by your siblings, and Minister Shanmugam has been called unethical by Dr Lee Wei Ling.
- LKY seemed to be under the impression that the site would eventually be gazetted.
- Lee Kuan Yew made the 2nd statement only as a last resort.
Full statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean in Parliament on Oxley Road dispute
.
Published: 4:57 PM, July 3, 2017
SINGAPORE — Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean delivered a statement in Parliament on the 38 Oxley Road debate. Here is the full transcript:
Madam Speaker, Members of this House,
Let me first address the questions by several Members of Parliament about the rules governing the conduct of Ministers, political appointees and public officers.
Ministers and members of this House are well aware that our conduct must always be above board. There is a Code of Conduct for Ministers which has been in force since 1954. It was last revised and laid before this House in 2005. Ministers and other political appointment holders are notified of this Code at the start of each term of office and when a new political office-holder is appointed. The Code clearly states that a Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Civil Service’s core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.
The Code sets out guidelines on what constitutes private interest, requires Ministers to disclose these private interests, and states that they should not influence or support issues in which they have a private interest. Ministers are expected to be scrupulously above board and ensure no real or perceived conflict of interest between their official duties and private interests.
As Prime Minister (PM) Lee had said in his Ministerial Statement earlier, the Prime Minister sends the Rules of Prudence after every election to all Members of Parliament of the People’s Action Party. These Rules set out clearly the conduct expected of the Members of Parliament, including the need to be proper and above board in their dealings with government departments and public officers. These Rules are also released to the media.
The Public Service is also guided by a Code of Conduct that lays down the principles and rules that public officers must abide by. This is periodically refreshed, and the Code of Conduct is available to all public officers in hard copies and on the Intranet.
The Public Service takes integrity very seriously. Public officers must not undertake any activity that can give rise to any perception that official resources are being used for party political purposes. Public officers are also expected to uphold the integrity and the reputation of the Public Service and public confidence in it. This includes protecting the confidentiality of information. Any request for information from the public is not granted automatically, but would be carefully assessed on its merits. And this applies to members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees as well.
continue reading here :
All sides willing to risk the national interest by bringing private matter into public domain: Low Thia Khiang
Published: 4:27 PM, July 3, 2017
Updated: 6:40 PM, July 3, 2017
SINGAPORE — Here is the full speech by Worker’s Party chief Low Thia Khiang in Parliament on July 3, 2017 on the ongoing despute over 38 Oxley Road:
Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for Parliament that we have to hear and debate the dispute of the descendants of our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
It is sadder still that this whole saga is centred on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s will, because his will on 38 Oxley Rd is well known.
I’d like to state on the outset that the Workers’ Party has only a simple and broad position on this unfortunate saga, that is the Workers’ Party is concerned about how this saga would affect our nation.
The opinions of the Workers’ Party members and MPs on the other aspects of the issues are just as diverse as public opinion has been in these few weeks. As an outsider to this dispute, I personally believe the acrimony between the Lee descendants has much deeper roots than just the fate of the house arising out of the will.
This is because all sides seem to be willing to risk the national interest by bringing this private matter into the public domain. This is the fundamental point that I want to make, which I personally feel strongly about.
The problem with this whole saga is that the line between the private and the public has been blurred and crossed too many times by the Prime Minister, the Lee siblings and the Government too.
We need to restore the line, make it bright red line, resolve the aspect of dispute that have crossed into the public domain and push the dispute back into the private domain.
We need to do this so as to move on to far more important issues that are truly national issues. This saga is distracting the Government, distracting Singaporeans and distracting the international audience and damaging the Singapore brand.
Crossing the line between the private and the public
Madam Speaker, the line between the private and the public is a very important one for good governance. It is also the foundation of Singapore’s unforgiving anti-corruption stance.
Unfortunately in this whole saga I personally think that the line has been blurred and crossed many times by all sides.
First, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling should not make vague allegations in the public domains against the Prime Minister based on scant evidence centred on family displeasure.
continue reading here :
Tan Jee Say: “Dear Prime Minister, please think of Country, Family, Colleagues, and resign now”
Posted on 2017-07-03 by The Online Citizen
Former civil servant and Secretary-General of SingFirst, Tan Jee Say has written an open letter to the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, asking for his resignation. Citing five reasons why PM Lee should resign, Mr Tan made a plea to PM Lee to think of his country, family and colleagues and to step down as the Prime Minister.
Below is Mr Tan’s letter in full
Prime Minister,
Republic of Singapore.
cc President Dr Tony Tan, ESM Goh Chok Tong
Dear Prime Minister,
“Dear Prime Minister, please think of Country, Family, Colleagues, and resign now”
I know, along with many Singaporeans, that you must be feeling very troubled these two and a half weeks. But we also know that you are a man with a very strong will. As you told Singaporeans at a rally during the 2015 General Election, “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him or give it up.”
But giving up does not necessarily mean weakness in a person if it is done for noble reasons that are for the greater good of society. In view of what had happened between you and your siblings in the last few years that exploded in full public view only recently, I would like to make this plea to you, “Dear Prime Minister, please think of your Country, Family and Colleagues, and resign from the premiership now!”
Here are my 5 reasons :
For Country
your siblings which led them to make serious allegations of your abuse of power and your wife’s pervasive influence on government even though she does not hold any elected or official position; these allegations warrant an independent inquiry by a special committee.
They have tarnished the special “Singapore brand” of honest and clean government that is free of abuse of power and conflict of interest. This “branding” has won us tremendous goodwill among investors, buyers of our products and services and friends around the world. It has been carefully built and nurtured around the Lee Kuan Yew legacy which has now sadly been discredited. If this is not put right without delay, the adverse impact on our economy and national well-being will be felt in the years to come.
Your economic targets centred around 2% annual GDP growth are low, uninspiring and lacking in ambition and vision. You have no answers to the challenges of economic disintermediation caused by geopolitical and technology changes. Instead of strengthening alliances with key players to deal with problems together, you have antagonised the biggest economic power in the region. Unless we mend our ways, we will end up with no friends when we need them most.
For Family
Rally was the latest public manifestation; it added to your woes and scared everybody. The dispute with your siblings will add stress to you and likely impede any recovery you hope for.
This can and will detract from your prime ministerial duties. You have given your entire life to public service with the last 13 years as PM, so no Singaporean will begrudge you if you decide to stop and smell the roses. There is a time for everything and now is the time for you to step back and do something different for and with your family.
For example, Najib Razak went into politics after his prime minister father Abdul Razak had died, likewise for Hishammuddin Hussein, the son of Hussein Onn, the third prime minister of Malaysia. Similarly, Mukhriz Mahathir was elected into the Federal Parliament 5 years after his father Dr Mahathir had stepped down as PM.
For colleagues
continue reading here :
Lee Hsien Yang responds to parliament session, doubles down on LKY’s wishes for demolition
Rebuttal.
By Thet Nyi Nyi | July 4, 2017
Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.
After PM’s hour long speech, Lee Hsien Yang has responded with another Facebook post.
Summary of speeches on Oxley Road saga by other WP MPs whose name is not Low Thia Khiang
Quite a number of questions were asked by WP parliamentarians.
Here are the 2 main takeaways.
Although it has been gazetted as a heritage site it is still mine as an owner. But I cannot alter the basic structure of the house. And the cabinet has opposed tearing it down and rebuilding.
According to Lee Hsien Yang, it was this acknowledgement of eventual gazetting that lead to his later statement on the house
continue reading here :
http://mothership.sg/2017/07/lee-hsi...or-demolition/
The response from LHY to LHL .
Lee Hsien Loong made ‘false’ claims about father’s wishes on Oxley house: Wei Ling and Hsien Yang
Yahoo News Singapore3 July 2017
Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang said on Tuesday (4 July) that their older brother and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made “convoluted but ultimately false” claims about their late father’s wishes for the 38 Oxley Road house.
In their first joint response following PM Lee’s Ministerial Statement on the family feud in Parliament on Monday (3 July), Wei Ling and Hsien Yang said – in a joint response posted on both their Facebook pages – that PM Lee is suggesting that because their father Lee Kuan Yew signed some renovation plans in early 2012, he was open to preservation of the house.
“From 2010, LHL improperly misrepresented to our father LKY that gazetting of 38 Oxley Road was either ‘inevitable’ or that the house was already gazetted. We now know that no decision has been made,” the siblings said.
Besides “improper representation and conflicts of interest” on the part of PM Lee, it shows the late Lee’s “considerations” of “alternatives” to demolition were “entirely due” to their brother’s representations about the house’s fate, they added.
In his Ministerial Statement on Monday, PM Lee told Parliament about the late Lee’s changing views on the fate of the house. He cited a proposal by him and his wife Ho Ching to “renovate the house and change the inside completely” and that the late Lee had accepted the proposal.
“LHL cites the renovation plans by Ho Ching as proof of a change (of) mind on the demolition. LKY was in fact very skeptical about the renovation plans, as these were inconsistent with LHL’s insistence that the house would be gazetted,” said Wei Ling and Hsien Yang, who also reproduced an e-mail that was sent by the late Lee to Ho Ching and his three children about the matter.
In September 2012, the late Lee believed that the government had already gazetted the house and asked his lawyer Kwa Kim Li to find the gazette order but Kwa could not find such an order, according to Wei Ling and Hsien Yang.
continue reading here :
Singapore PM misled Lee Kuan Yew over family house, says brother
By Bhavan Jaipragas
4 Jul 2017
The relatives of Singapore’s late founding leader have descended into publicly fighting over his estate. As the Lion City is gripped by the drama – and left to speculate on its undercurrents – questions arise about governance
Sons, mothers, money and memory: theories about the Lee Kuan Yew family feud
The estranged younger brother of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has accused the premier of misleading their father Lee Kuan Yew into thinking the government had gazetted their family house for preservation as a heritage site.
It was only because he believed this to be a fait accompli that the patriarch wavered in his wish to demolish the property upon his death, Lee Hsien Yang said in an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post.
The youngest of the three Lee children was countering his prime minister brother’s contention in parliament hours earlier that their father’s preference for demolition was not “black and white”.
Premier Lee spoke to lawmakers in a special legislative debate on Monday, revealing that their father had even approved architectural plans for interior renovation, showing he was open to less extreme options than demolition.
Lee family feud: key questions as Singapore PM faces grillingp
The house at 38 Oxley Road, the residence of Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew. Photo: EPA
Lee Kuan Yew died in 2015 aged 91. The family feud over the fate of the Lees’ home of seven decades erupted into a national debate last month after Lee Hsien Yang and sister Lee Wei Ling went public with stunning accusations that the prime minister had abused his official position to get his way over the house.
They say Lee Hsien Loong wants 38 Oxley Road preserved as a monument to the Lee name so he can draw political capital from their father’s aura as the republic’s founding premier.
continue reading here :
‘Tough’ questions as PM Lee addresses Oxley Road saga
MPs call for independent inquiry or going to court to resolve the dispute
Linette HengFoo Jie Ying
Jul 04, 2017 06:00 am
Following attacks on his and the Government’s integrity, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday addressed Parliament on the Oxley Road house saga that has gripped Singaporeans.
It began in the early hours of June 14 when his younger siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, dropped a bombshell on Facebook accusing him of several things, including misuse of power to set up a “secret” ministerial committee.
They alleged that he wanted to ensure their former family home at 38, Oxley Road, was not demolished against the wishes of their late father, founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
In a 54-minute speech, PM Lee, who also lifted the party whip for the sitting, encouraged MPs to raise questions “vigorously and without restraint”.
A total of 23 MPs spoke up on various issues, including:
WHY SET UP A MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC), Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC), and Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera questioned the need for a ministerial committee to study the issue.
Mr Zaqy asked why it was looking into “personal family matters” and why there was a “hurry” to set up the committee when Dr Lee is still living in the house.
Mr Perera was concerned about the “non-transparent” nature of the committee, while Mr Zaqy wondered if an assessment and recommendations by relevant agencies would have sufficed.
He questioned why the committee seemed to be concerned with the late Mr Lee’s last will when the court is the “proper platform” to challenge it.
Mr Perera also argued that an independent panel with the expertise and resources to perform expert heritage analysis and public opinion sensing would better address the issue, without any “compromise” that the members have to directly report to PM Lee.
PARLIAMENT RIGHT PLACE FOR DEBATE?
Nominated MPs Kuik Shiao-Yin and Kok Heng Leun called for an independent inquiry to be set up. Mr Kok said the public would want to hear from other parties involved.
“As such, Parliament might be the right place to air the Government’s position but may not be the right place to settle this issue once and for all…” he said.
Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied GRC) suggested taking the dispute to court.
He told the House: “Settling this in court would enable everyone to put forward their side of the story with evidence and with dignity.”
PM Lee had earlier said he decided not to take his siblings to court so as not to besmirch their parents’ names.
continue reading here :
Lee siblings’ allegations against Cabinet committee should be ‘put to rest’: DPM Teo
By Kenneth Cheng
Published: 2:53 PM, July 4, 2017
Updated: 6:31 PM, July 4, 2017
SINGAPORE — After two days of debate on the Lee family dispute over 38 Oxley Road, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said on Tuesday (July 4) that allegations about the Cabinet committee set up to mull over options for 38Oxley Road should be “put to rest”.
He reiterated that the committee had been exploring various intermediate options for the property, for which studies were continuing, and that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had indicated publicly that he was open to some of these options.
Mr Lee has also acknowledged that no decision was needed now since his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, still lives there. This was also the Government’s position, said Mr Teo, who chairs the Cabinet committee.
He also noted Mr Lee’s recognition that “no man stands above the law”. There was “no disagreement on this” and the Government has a duty to go through due process for when a decision needs to be taken on the house in future.
Over the past weeks, PM Lee’s sibilings have heaped criticism on the Cabinet committee, which they called a “shadowy” group formed to allow the Prime Minister to have his way with the house, and bypass the courts which have found Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will to be valid. They also alleged that the committee cannot be independent of PM Lee, given that those who work for him serve on it.
continue reading here :
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat’s full speech in Parliament (July 4, 2017)
Published: 3:13 PM, July 4, 2017
Like many fellow Singaporeans, I am deeply saddened that the differences in views between PM and Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, over how to honour their father’s wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road, has been made so public, with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling accusing PM of abuse of power.
I served as Mr Lee’s Principal Private Secretary, or PPS, when he was Senior Minister, from mid-1997 to early 2000. During this period, I had the benefit of many interactions with Mr Lee. I also interacted with Mrs Lee, both in Singapore and on several overseas trips. I learnt that both of them, especially Mrs Lee, valued their privacy deeply. They would be deeply anguished, if they were alive, to see the siblings’ disagreement played out so publicly.
The issue before Parliament, as several MPs have pointed out, is not about the preservation or demolition of the house, but rather, the allegations, directed at PM and the government by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, of an abuse of power. PM and DPM Teo have addressed these allegations. Many MPs have also given their views on this. I hope Members of this House and fellow Singaporeans will reflect on these, and decide for themselves if any abuse has taken place. My own view is: No, there has been no abuse of power. We have heard no specific allegations of acts of abuse against the PM and the government, that demand a deeper inquiry. What has been levelled are general allegations and aspersions cast. The two days of this Parliament sitting bear this out. No Member, including from the WP, has articulated any specific allegation of abuse of power.
I will, therefore, not dwell on the issues that have already been discussed quite extensively.
What would Mr Lee’s wishes be?
continue reading here :
No conflict of interest in Lucien Wong’s appointment as A-G: PM Lee
By Kelly Ng
Published: 3:17 PM, July 4, 2017
Updated: 6:47 PM, July 4, 2017
SINGAPORE — There is “no problem of conflict at all” in Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment as Attorney-General (A-G) even though he was Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s personal lawyer who had advised him on issues related to 38 Oxley Road, said Mr Lee in Parliament on Tuesday (June 4).
Now that he is the A-G, Mr Wong is not advising the Government on matters surrounding the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s family home. Another office in AGC takes charge of this, stressed PM Lee.
It is “perfectly normal” for lawyers to encounter potential conflicts of interest when they change jobs, but the rules to deal with these are clear, he said, in response to questions raised by Workers’ Party Members of Parliament on the propriety of Mr Wong’s appointment as well as that of former People’s Action Party Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair as Deputy A-G.
“The way to deal with this is quite standard - to recuse themselves when matters come up which they had previously dealt with in another capacity…All professional lawyers know how to handle such matters,” PM Lee told the House, adding that judges do the same when they move from practice to the Bench.
Mr Lee added that when Mr Wong’s name came up as a candidate to succeed Mr VK Rajah as AG, he had endorsed Mr Wong with confidence.
“I was even more confident because I had direct personal experience working with (Mr Wong) on this case. I had also consulted him informally when we worked on the Points of Agreement case on Malaysia. I knew that he was a very good lawyer. Everyone involved in the appointment was fully aware that this was the basis of my recommendation,” said Mr Lee.
“I told Cabinet that he was my lawyer, that that was not an impediment although the opposition may make an issue of it, and that I recommended him.”
continue reading here :