- PM Lee Hsien Loong had made “false claims” in Parliament
- Ho Ching had no business acting on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
- LHL acted inappropriately on the Deed of Gift
Lee siblings welcome PM’s offer to settle dispute in private
They will stop posting on social media if their fathers’ wishes are not misrepresented
Published: 11:00 AM, July 6, 2017
Updated: 11:05 AM, July 6, 2017
SINGAPORE – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s siblings said on Thursday (July 6) they welcome his offer to manage their disagreement away from the public eye, and they would stop posting on social media “provided that we and our father’s wish are not attacked or misrepresented”.
Two days after the parliamentary debates earlier this week over their allegations that saw 29 Members of Parliament speak about the issues, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling released a seven-page public statement on Facebook putting forth the background to the dispute and their reasons for going public.
They also revealed that soon after their first joint statement on June 14, which set off the public spat over the past weeks, they had privately offered a “ceasefire” but their “attempts at reconciliation” were rebuffed.
They added: “We attempted to reach out over the past two years, through various intermediaries… We look forward to talking without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies.”
PM FIRST TO INVOKE LAWYERS, REBUFFED ATTEMPTS AT RECONCILIATION
They claimed that PM Lee quarrelled with them on April 12, 2015, the day their father founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will was read. And he had allegedly not spoken to them since.
They also added that PM Lee was the first to invoke lawyers, a move that “gobsmacked” them since they were “were siblings discussing (their) fathers’ house”.
Shortly after he wrote to them that he had hired Mr Lucien Wong to deal with the situation and asked them for their lawyers, all direct communication ceased. They added that the first Chinese New Year reunion dinner following Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death, all relatives were invited except them.
They said they attempted to reach out over the past two years through various intermediaries and even privately offered a ceasefire shortly after their first public statement on June 14, but their “attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed”.
“We therefore welcome Hsien Loong’s stated desire on July 4, 2017 to manage his disagreement with us in private. We look forward to talking without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies,” their statement read.
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY NEEDED, NOT PARLIAMENTARY SITTING
In their latest seven-page public statement, they reiterated allegations that PM Lee misused his power as prime minister and had hijacked the organs of state to pursue his personal goals.
continue reading here :
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...ispute-private
At the end of the day people need to respect the last wishes of their father .
PM Lee’s siblings say he has not been speaking to them directly for a while
By Siau Ming En
Published: 6:55 PM, July 6, 2017
Updated: 7:05 PM, July 6, 2017
SINGAPORE — Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong’s siblings claimed that he had “intimidated” them, after learning from their father’s will that his sister had the “unfettered right” to live in their family home.
“He shouted at us… It was the crossing of the Rubicon. He has not spoken to us since,” Dr Lee Wei Ling, 62, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, 60, said in a seven-page joint statement published on Facebook on Thursday (July 6).
They recounted that shortly after, PM Lee wrote to tell them that he had hired lawyer Lucien Wong to deal with the situation. “We were gobsmacked. We were siblings discussing our father’s house. We had to get our own lawyers,” they said, adding that PM Lee soon stopped communicating with them directly. The siblings were also left out of the Chinese New Year reunion that their older brother had with all their relatives after their father’s death.
The Lee siblings are the children of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who died in March 2015. His will was read to them in April that year.
Since last month, the family feud between PM Lee, 65, and his brother and sister has been played out in public, revolving around their family home at 38 Oxley Road and thir late father’s wish for it to be torn down after he died, or after Dr Lee no longer lives there.
Quoting PM Lee’s Ministerial Statement delivered in Parliament on Monday where he said that their father “always wanted (the house) knocked down”, PM Lee’s siblings said that all parties now acknowledge that their father’s wish for demolition was “unwavering”.
While Mr Lee Kuan Yew made “backup plans” in case the Government acted against his wish — which is that only his children and their descendants would have access to the bungalow — it was clear that he “did not ‘accept’ that the Government should gazette the house”, the siblings said.
“Lee Kuan Yew always regarded the possibility of gazetting (the house) as distressing and regrettable,” they added.
continue reading here :
Netizens filled with praises for Low Thia Khiang’s speech against the statement by ESM Goh
Posted on 2017-07-06 by Neyla Zannia
Workers’ Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang (LTK) delivered a hard hitting statement during Parliament debate on Tuesday (4 July) on the relation with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (LHL)’s ministerial statement refuting allegations of abuse of power by his siblings, when Emeritus Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong asked the Nominated Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament from Workers’ Party to state their position on the integrity of the PM just as how Mr Low had done in the case of the HPL/Nassim Jade saga in 1996.
Mr Low stood up and issued a clarification against what ESM had sought in his statement, “This episode, there are no investigations done, it’s ownself defend ownself in parliament with the PAP MPs. I mean I wonder how you would want to convince me and my party and Singaporeans that it is conclusive, and it is something that we can all be convinced entirely.”
“Though I said I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the Prime Minister,” he added.
“Madam, I understand the Prime Minister’s difficulty in, I mean, sueing your own siblings. And he is worried that he will further damage his parents’ name. But I mean I hope he would clarify the doubts I have this question, this nagging question that why he didn’t sue,”
“First, does he not agree that his family is not any ordinary Singapore family. And the person at the centre of the issue is the Prime Minister of Singapore, not any other person.”
“Madam, secondly, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is not worried that the PAP as the ruling party, would be seen as (practicing) double standards,” Mr Low added.
“Has he forgotten, the former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who is now ESM, sue the Workers’ Party candidate Tang Liang Hong during General Election 1997, for just making a police report?” he then asked.
“But now these are allegations that are much more serious than that. And more importantly, we are talking about upholding the legacy of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, that the nation, the laws above the family and individuals.”
“By using family, does this not also show that blood is thicker than water. Own siblings, cannot sue. After all, we are all brothers and sisters. But political opponents and critics, sue until your pants drop. I cannot square this, Madam speaker, with all these arguments,” he ended.
continue reading here :
SDP calls on AGC to investigate allegations made against the PM
Protected July 7th, 2017 | Author: YourSDP
7 July 2017
Mr Lucien Wong
Attorney-General
Attorney-General’s Chambers
1 Upper Pickering St
Singapore 058288
Email:
[email protected]
.
Dear sir,
INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST PM LEE HSIEN LOONG
As you may know, Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) have accused Mr Lee Hsien Loong (“LHL”) of abuse of power in his capacity as Prime Minister of Singapore.
Specifically, PM Lee’s siblings, individually or jointly, noted that:
In their Facebook post on 4 July 2017 here, LWL and LHY made a grave charge that “LHL has made convoluted, but ultimately false claims about Lee Kuan Yew’s (“LKY”) wishes.” They were referring to LHL’s Parliamentary speech on 3 July 2017 where LHL stated that the late Lee Kuan Yew had changed his position from demolishing his house, 38 Oxley Road, to preserving it. LWL and LHY have produced emails to substantiate their claim.
LHY posted on his Facebook on 22 June here that Ms Ho Ching (“HC”), LHL’s wife, had gone to 38 Oxley Road to remove items in the residence and handed them over to the National Heritage Board. LHY pointed out that Ms Ho was not an elected official nor was she an appointed officer of the PMO and yet she was listed as the “contact representative for the PMO”.
In addition, LHY stated in his post that HC did not seek permission from him and LWL as executors of LKY’s Estate to remove items from the house. This, he said, constituted “theft and intermeddling”.
LHY stated in his Facebook post on 22 June 2017 here that LHL had obtained the Deed of Gift in his capacity as Prime Minister but used it in his personal capacity to take legal action against LWL and LHY.
continue reading here :
Blurred lines again with PM Lee responding to statement by his siblings through PMO
Posted on 2017-07-07 by Terry Xu
Last night, the Prime Minister Office published statements issued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister stating their stance in response to the public statement made by Dr Lee Weiling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang after the Parliamentary debate came to a close.
The public statement by the two siblings wrote that they had attempted to reach out over the past two years, through various intermediaries and privately offered a ceasefire shortly after their statement of 14 June 2017. But their attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed, therefore they welcome PM Lee’s stated desire on 4 July 2017 to manage his disagreement with them in private, without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies.
They also stated that they will cease presenting further evidence on social media, provided that they and late Lee Kuan Yew’s wish are not attacked or misrepresented. On their allegations of abuse of authority, they wrote that it is ultimately up to the government, and the people of Singapore, to decide whether and how to hold their brother to account.
Statement by PM Lee,
I note my siblings’ latest public statement. I share their wish not to carry on the dispute in public and to manage the disagreement in private. That is exactly what I have been trying to do.
My siblings’ statement also repeats their previous allegations against me. I have already refuted these and stand by what I have said.
My siblings referred to a ceasefire offer from them. They wanted me to call off my Ministerial Statement and the debate in Parliament, disband the Ministerial Committee, and not respond to their accusations. I could not agree to do any of that. It would have been improper and irresponsible.
Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean,
I note that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have stated on 6 July 2017 that they welcome Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s desire, stated on 4 July 2017, to manage the disagreement in private. Like most Singaporeans, I regard this as a positive development.
With regard to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations against the Ministerial Committee, public agencies and public officers, the Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament.
With this development, I hope that we can all work together and focus our energy on taking Singapore forward.
Question on the red line between public and private
While it is perfectly alright for DPM Teo to be responding through the Prime Minister’s Office to the statements made by the two siblings as he is not related to the two in private capacity and is responding as both DPM and the head of the Ministerial Committee in charge of communicating with the two over the 38 Oxley Road. But is it not again a blurred line for the Prime Minister to have responded to his siblings’ call for a ceasefire through his office?
After all, the two siblings made the call to their brother to respect their father’s wishes and not calling for the Prime Minister to respond. Also, given that PM has labelled the affair as a private dispute between his family, while he is again addressing the matter as the head of the government?
continue reading here :
High Court dismisses Tan Cheng Bock’s legal challenge on elected presidency
JOANNA SEOW, THE STRAITS TIMES
Jul 08, 2017 06:00 am
The High Court ruled yesterday that Parliament has the right to start counting from the term of former president Wee Kim Wee for purposes of reserving the upcoming presidential election for Malay candidates.
The reason is that the Constitution does not restrict Parliament to consider only presidents elected by Singapore citizens when deciding the timing of an election for a racial group, said Justice Quentin Loh.
It also allows the term of a president elected by Parliament, in this case Mr Wee, to be included in the five terms needed to trigger a reserved election.
Justice Loh made this key point yesterday when dismissing a legal challenge brought by former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock on the timing and basis of the reserved presidential election for Malays in September.
“From the perspective of ensuring multi-racial representation in the presidency… it makes no difference whether the president was elected by the electorate or by Parliament,” he said in a 65-page judgment.
The Constitution was amended last year to allow elections to be reserved for candidates from a particular community, if no one from that community had been president in the past five terms.
The Government counted the first of the five terms as Mr Wee’s term, as he was in office when the elected presidency took effect in 1991. There have been four other terms since, ending with current President Tony Tan Keng Yam.
Dr Tan said this was unconstitutional, and that the reserved election should take place in 2023 at the earliest and not this year.
His lawyer, Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah said Mr Wee’s term should not be counted. He cited parts of the Constitution that referred to the president as someone elected by the citizens and serving a six-year term.
Mr Wee, he said, was elected by Parliament and served two four-year terms. This means Parliament can start its count only from the term of Mr Ong Teng Cheong, the first popularly elected president, he added.
Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair, representing the Government, argued the articles in the Constitution on the reserved election did not specifically exclude presidents elected by Parliament. This means Parliament has “full discretion” to take into account Mr Wee’s term, he added.
Justice Loh ruled the Constitution does not specify that only a popularly elected president can be considered in determining when an election should be reserved.
While the Constitution “reflects our prevailing constitutional arrangements at any given time” the over-arching definition of “president” has not changed since it was included in 1980, he said.
This definition, in Article 2, specifies the term “president” means any person elected president under the Constitution. Justice Loh noted the definition was retained through two major constitutional changes to the elected presidency: 1991 and 2017.
continue reading here :
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/hig...ted-presidency
Somehow this decision is not surprising .
The Lees: Is there a ceasefire?
July 9, 2017
The younger Lee siblings have declared a unilateral ceasefire, provided that “we or our father’s wish are not attacked or misrepresented”. I think not that many Singaporeans are holding their breath that the calm will hold. The ceasefire comes with the sting of even more jibes at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He has welcomed the ceasefire but not before making some small jibes himself.
But before we get into all that, I want to digress to an interesting exchange in Parliament between Low Thia Khiang and Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong – and point out its relevance to the Lee family squabble.
The Workers Party chairman and MP for Aljunied GRC said his party has given PM Lee the benefit of the doubt on allegations of abuse of power made by Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling against their elder brother. The PM has said they were baseless. Declaring that the WP was keeping an open mind, Low said “personally I will not be convinced until the entire allegation is given a convincing or conclusive airing”.
All that was fair and square exchange – until Low hit nearer home and implied that there were double standards here. He said that when he was PM, Goh Chok Tong sued WP politician Tang Liang Hong in 1997: “Does this also show that blood is thicker than water? Own sibling cannot sue…but political opponents, sue until your pants drop?”
Goh immediately replied that Low was indulging in “political sophistry” and that Tang was not his brother anyway. The ex-PM suing Tang then had arguably not caused as much distress as if PM Lee now sues his siblings.
As I understand the phrase, political sophistry means using clever political arguments that sound convincing but are in fact false or potentially false.
Oh dear.
If we dive deeper into all the allegations that have been floated and supposedly dispelled, all the potential political sophistry on either side of the House – and I am referring to Parliament and not necessarily 38 Oxley Road – can get a bit muddling and muddying.
To his credit, PM Lee did not shy away from trying to answer the main allegations – about the setting up of the ministerial committee, the deed of gift and nepotism. He confronted them squarely, as much as he could in the absence of his accusers in Parliament.
The third allegation may well be the sticky and tricky one. The younger Lee siblings have made allegations of nepotism – of the influence of Ho Ching and the dynastic ambitions of their elder brother. But Li Hongyi, PM Lee’s son, has already denied any interest in politics. So that was promptly dealt with.
Still, in the eyes of many Singaporeans, the role of PM Lee’s wife in Temasek Holdings requires more scrutiny and reassurance than that attempted by Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament. His clarification of what Ho Ching could or could not do as CEO appeared fairly innocuous, with the corporate protocol properly defined and, on surface, unchallengeable. In brief, PM Lee said his wife reports to Lim Boon Heng, the Chairman. As a company, Temasek Holdings answers to its shareholder, the Ministry of Finance under Heng Swee Keat, the Finance Minister. PM Lee emphasised that the CEO appointment is made by the Temasek Board and has to be confirmed by the President, who is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisers.
continue reading here :
Absurd to say S’poreans link legitimacy of Govt to fate of Oxley Road house, Ambassador to US tells New York Times
Published 9 hours ago
Charissa Yong
SINGAPORE - Singapore’s ambassador to the United States has rebutted an article written by the New York Times about the dispute over the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s house on Oxley Road.
The news article, titled “Family dispute over house of Singapore’s founder erupts as national crisis”, was published in the New York Times (NYT) on July 4.
It said that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations against their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, hinted at deeper divisions about Singapore’s political future.
The siblings accused their brother of abusing his power to block the demolition of their father’s house.
“These charges have transformed what on the surface is an ugly estate battle into a national crisis that has raised questions about how this island nation is governed, the basis of the governing party’s uninterrupted 58-year rule and how the country’s leaders are chosen,” wrote Mr Richard C. Paddock, a Bangkok-based contributor to the NYT.
But in a letter published on Tuesday (July 11), Ambassador Ashok Kumar Mirpuri rejected the article’s framing of the Oxley Road dispute.
He wrote that it “promotes the absurd notion that Singaporeans link the legitimacy of their government to the fate of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s house”.
Mr Ashok noted that PM Lee made a full statement in Parliament on July 3 in response to accusations by his siblings of abuse of power over the house.
“He explained how he had recused himself from all government decisions concerning the house, and also sold the house to his brother, so that he no longer has any interest or influence over the house,” he wrote.
He also noted that “no Member of Parliament made any allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing against the prime minister during the debate”.
continue reading here :
Dispute Over Singapore Founder’s House Becomes a National Crisis
点击查看本文中文版
By RICHARD C. PADDOCKJULY 4, 2017
SINGAPORE — Two years after his death, no memorials, statues or streets in Singapore are named after Lee Kuan Yew, who established this city-state as a modern nation and built it into a prosperous showcase for his view that limited political freedoms best suit Asian values.
Now a bitter and public family dispute over the fate of his modest house has shattered Singapore’s image as an orderly authoritarian ideal and hinted at deeper divisions about its political future.
Two of Mr. Lee’s three children have accused their elder brother, the prime minister, of abusing his power to preserve the house against their father’s wishes. The motive, they said, is to shore up his own political legitimacy and ultimately to establish a dynasty for which he is grooming his son.
These charges have transformed what on the surface is an ugly estate battle into a national crisis that has raised questions about how this island nation is governed, the basis of the governing party’s uninterrupted 58-year rule and how the country’s leaders are chosen.
And in a place where criticizing the government can land a blogger in jail, the public airing of these grievances from within the ranks of the revered founding family is nothing short of extraordinary.
“These are allegations of abuse of power, subversion of due process, cronyism and nepotism,” Kirsten Han, an activist and journalist, wrote in a popular blog. “If true, they upend Singapore’s carefully cultivated, squeaky-clean, corruption-free image.
“And, more important for the people of Singapore,” she continued, “they reveal that the ‘A Team,’ who have for decades presented themselves as the best option for the country, are actually using the power the electorate has bestowed upon them for their own personal goals.”
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 65, has called the accusations “baseless,” and he appeared in a high-stakes performance before a special session of Parliament on Monday and Tuesday to rebut the charges.
“When the dust has settled on this unhappy episode, people must know that the government operates transparently, impartially and properly,” he said on Monday. “That in Singapore, even Mr. Lee’s house and Mr. Lee’s wishes are subject to the rule of law.”
continue reading here :
5 issues I’d rather have a Ministerial Committee for
Protected July 11th, 2017 | Author: Contributions
Instead of having a Ministerial Committee to try to find loopholes of a Will and try to overturn the Will, I’d rather our high-paying Ministers spend their highly-paid minutes on more important issues that affect the lives of the rest of us Singaporeans and not just focus on the private estate of the Prime Ministers. Here are a couple of Ministerial Committees I can think of:
1.Ministerial Committee on MRT system – to investigate why our MRT system is always breaking down. And to investigate why the new signaling system being tested over the past 3 weeks and causing so much disruption during peak hours when it is obviously not ready for prime time and to investigate who is responsible for approving the tests and if the person should be sacked for gross incompetence.
2.Ministerial Committee on failing HDB lifts – to investigate if the maintenance of our HDB lifts are adequate, given the numerous lift-related accidents, including a snapping of the lift cable. To investigate if the money spent on maintenance was properly used or if there was a lack of oversight in how that maintenance money was spent.
3.Ministerial Committee on inadequate hospital beds – after first reporting in 2014 that Singapore faces a severe shortage of hospital beds, with patients being seen lying on makeshift hospital beds in hospital parking lots, it seems like the shortage still persists. 3 years on and the number of hospital beds per 1000 people in Singapore is at 2.27, lower than most developed economies (Australia 3.9, Japan 12.27, Hong Kong 4.44).
4.Ministerial Committee on how attorney generals are appointed – The current Attorney General Lucien Wong was PM Lee’s personal attorney, does not seem to have experience as a public prosecutor but was appointed at the government’s attorney general. An investigation into the process by which public prosecutors such as the attorney general is appointed should be conducted.
5.Ministerial Committee on cronyism in Singapore – Enough said. We all know: the PM’s wife is the Executive Director of Temasek Holdings, the PM’s brother was the CEO of Singtel and the PM’s sister is the Director of the National Neuroscience Institute. A more comprehensive family tree of just the PM alone – let alone other ministers – can be seen here. Disclaimer: I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the claims, including the family tree, made in that website.
Shawn Lee
continue reading here :