-
Obtaining feedback was disingenuous. The Committee seemed to only want to seek confirmation and justification from the presenters to give the government more “levers”.
-
When the presentation was not in line with the agenda of the Committee, the session turned to look more like batteries of the presenters who went in good faith.
-
There was not even any faint imprint of the younger leadership and their vision of governance of Singapore. It became a Sham show and worse still, he was trying to play a dead man!
-
Conflating hate speeches and DOF made meaningful discussions confusing and difficult as those questioned were restricted in their answers and not allowed to elaborate.
-
The objectives of the engagement seemed to have departed from the stated points of references. I did not see attempts to build trust. Suspicions of the government objectives linger. The sessions only amplify the drumming of government ’s Internet Brigade.
-
Such exercise could also be useful to frame the ambit of the application of law and regulations with regard to the subject and place safeguards to confine the power that can be abused and prevent them from using it as political expediency (ISA come to mind). But we are no wiser now even with the definition of falsehood especially in this era of Donald Trump where anything disagreeable with him is fake.
Select Commitee is actually Shanmugam’s Committee
April 1, 2018
In the 8-day public hearing, Law Minister K Shanmugam did not hide his intention of making the Select Committee his mouthpiece. Based off published videos from Parliament, the controversial minister took up 90% of the air time and he was the only one talking throughout in the Select Committee.
The Law Minister notorious for making unsubstantiated attacks on the Workers’ Party in Parliament, hijacked the Select Committee’s agenda for his personal political gratification. The Select Committee was supposed to be a fact-finding session inviting witnesses of credible standing to offer their opinion on the regulation of “deliberate online falsehoods”.
Unfortunately for K Shanmugam, the Law Minister turned the public hearing into a criminal court. At both exchanges with Facebook representative Simon Milner and Oxford historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin, Minister K Shanmugam attacked their integrity and professional standing in a bid to discredit the critical submissions made. The two reputable professionals were being trialled like a fraudster whose words cannot be trusted. Throughout the gruelling “public hearing”, Minister K Shanmugam operated in a similar insidious fashion: corner his opponents into yes and no answers to find contradictions and making sweeping assumptions.
Facebook’s Simon Milner and Oxford’s Dr Thum Ping Tjin cleverly pointed out that the Law Minister is being unfair demanding only a yes or no answer when every response itself comes with a context. Minister K Shanmugam then went to the extent of delving into topics unrelated to “deliberate falsehoods”, like disputing Facebook’s social media policies and Singapore’s historical facts. What has Facebook’s data breach and the 1950s communist movement got to do with “deliberate falsehoods”? Zilch, the sinister Minister was only asking these irrelevant questions because he was dissatisfied he was being disagreed with.
None of the 9 other Select Committee members say a thing during the exchanges. Chairman Charles Chong was a sitting duck, who should have done his job to moderate the Law Minister when topics get out of point. The Select Committee even went as far as to attack the credibility of a witness who did absent himself from the public hearing. The Human Rights Watch representative’s absence was described by the Law Minister as being guilty by default.
continue reading here :
PM Lee speaks out on the Ministerial Committee’s options for 38 Oxley Road
No need to make a decision right away.
By Sulaiman Daud | April 2, 2018
The Ministerial Committee set up to determine the fate of the house at Oxley Road released its report on April 2.
It offers three options for what to do with the house that Lee Kuan Yew once lived in:
•Option 1 – Retain the property
•Option 2 – Retain the dining room, demolish the rest of the property
•Option 3 – Allow the property to be fully demolished, and let re-development take place
You can read more about it in our report below:
Public response
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong published his response in a Facebook post on the same day, at about 5.45 pm.
He said:
“I have read the report of the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. The report was considered and approved by the Cabinet, chaired by DPM Teo Chee Hean. I had recused myself from dealing with the matter.
Speaking as a son, I accept the Committee’s conclusion on what my father’s wishes were regarding the house at 38 Oxley Road, and the range of options it has laid out.
As the Committee pointed out, there is no need to make a decision now. My sister is still living there, and is likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. I hope that when the time comes to decide on what to do with the house, this report will help the Government of the day to make an informed decision that both respects my father’s wishes and is in the public interest. – LHL”
Story continues below
Intellectual debate breaking out.
You can see it below:
What will happen?
Well, nothing yet.
As Lee pointed out, his sister Lee Wei Ling still lives in the house.
The Committee itself stated that there was “no need to make a decision” straight away.
continue reading here :
Ministerial Committee has 3 options for LKY’s 38 Oxley Road house
Which option will Singapore want?
By Jonathan Lim | 2 hours
Remember the family drama behind what should be done with Lee Kuan Yew’s house?
Questions surrounding the drama include: Should it be preserved or should it be torn down? Should Lee Kuan Yew’s wish for privacy be respected? Will we lose an important piece of our history if we tear it down?
Fate of house
It’s been a quiet few months on that front and now the Ministerial Committee deciding on 38 Oxley Road house’s fate has finally released a report with a few options for the property.
Option 1: Retain the property
The authorities will either gazette and preserve the house as a National Monument, or gazette it for conservation.
Both of these choices will also include steps to “significantly address Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s concerns about privacy”.
Option 2: Retain the dining room and demolish the rest of the property
The dining room of the house to be gazetted as a National Monument and will be “integrated with an alternative use for the site (e.g. park, heritage centre)”.
The report noted that the “privacy of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew would be respected” with the demolition of the rest of the property.
Option 3: Allow the property to be fully demolished and allow re-development
There are two possible outcomes for redevelopment. Either the owner demolishes it for residential use, or the State acquires the site for alternative use after demolition.
The report noted that this option “could result in the loss of a historically significant property, and the potential of that history being leveraged for commercial profit.”
Who will decide on the which option to take?
According to the report, the report itself is “meant to help a future government make an informed and considered decision when the need arises.”
continue reading here :
Misleading to say Lee Kuan Yew ‘accepted’ alternatives to demolition of Oxley Road home: Lee Hsien Yang
By Alfred Chua
Published 03 April, 2018
Updated 03 April, 2018
SINGAPORE — The late Lee Kuan Yew was “forced to consider” alternatives to the demolition of his family home at 38 Oxley Road but did not accept them, his younger son Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Tuesday (April 3), in criticising a ministerial committee’s report for being “misleading”.
Dr Lee Wei Ling, Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s sister, also weighed in with harsh words for the report, saying that “it would require unbelievable lack of intelligence or determined denial to not understand what” the founding Prime Minister and his wife wanted to be done for the Oxley Road property.
Their comments, which were made via two separate Facebook posts on Tuesday, came a day after the committee released a 21-page report on the house that has been in the centre of a public spat between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two younger siblings.
The report laid out three possibilities for the property, ranging from gazetting it as a National Monument to letting it be fully demolished and redeveloped. However, the committee, which was set up about two years ago to weigh various options for the Oxley Road property, did not make any recommendation.
The report acknowledged the differences in views between PM Lee and his siblings on the matter and noted in its conclusion: “(The late) Mr Lee had further reflected on the matter and was prepared to accept options other than demolition, provided that suitable arrangements were made to ensure that: (i) the Property was refurbished, and kept in a habitable state; and (ii) the family’s privacy was protected.”
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, however, said this was a “misleading” claim, adding that his father had not endorsed the alternatives to demolition, and was instead “forced to consider them”.
“Our father had never ‘accepted’ these options, he merely set out what he wanted if the government prevented his house from being demolished,” he added.
continue reading here :
Lee Kuan Yew wanted 38 Oxley Road demolished: Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling
03 Apr 2018 05:56PM (Updated: 03 Apr 2018 07:02PM)
SINGAPORE: Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that he hopes a future government will grant his father’s last wish to demolish their family home, in response to a report by a ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Road.
Mr Lee, who is the younger son of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, said in a Facebook post on Tuesday (Apr 3) that his father wanted demolition “unwaveringly”.
“He wanted demolition unwaveringly and stated his wish repeatedly in private and in public,” Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote. He added that his father believed tearing the house down would be better for Singapore’s future.
He also said that his elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, gave their father the impression that their house will inevitably be gazetted as a heritage site.
“In light of this false impression given by Loong, Lee Kuan Yew was forced to consider options other than demolition,” he wrote.
Gazetting 38 Oxley Road was one of the future options for the house laid out in the report issued on Monday. The others include complete demolition and preserving just the basement dining room, which is considered the most historically significant part of the residence.
Chair of the ministerial committee, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said there was no need to make a decision on the house while the late Mr Lee’s daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, lives there.
“The various options outlined in this report are drawer plans to help a future government make an informed and considered decision," Mr Teo said.
Read more at
Debate: Preserve or demolish 38 Oxley Road?
Yes? No? Call police?
By Tanya Ong | 2 mins
The Ministerial Committee deciding on the fate of 38 Oxley Road has submitted their findings half a year after the whole saga first erupted in June 2017.
Both siblings of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have since responded to the report, insisting that the late Lee Kuan Yew never intended for the house to be preserved.
Here at Mothership, we too are as conflicted on what we think are the best outcomes for 38 Oxley.
So, we decided to rehash an old debate that we had: Preservation — and yes, we mean preservation, not conservation — versus demolition:
Demolish it! — Tanya
LKY’s final will stated that he wanted the house to be demolished, and if it did continue to stand, it should not be opened to others, except his family and their descendants.
This is the full clause in the will:
“I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death or, if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out. If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding that the rest of my Will is private.”
However, while LKY’s will is a legally binding arrangement within the Lee family, it does not supersede Singapore’s laws on preservation. Decisions regarding preservation and the demolition of buildings require the approval of the National Heritage Board (NHB) and Urban Redevelopment Board (URA).
Now, if we don’t consider LKY’s will, what other reasons do we have for demolishing the house?
We can begin by questioning why 38 Oxley Road should be preserved.
If it is to commemorate the place as a site of immense historical significance, why not simply declare it as a heritage site?
According to an email shared by Lee Hsien Yang, this was one of PM Lee Hsien Loong’s suggestions. For heritage sites, what is important is the land upon which a thing of historical significance used to stand on. The physical building does not need to remain.
continue reading here :
https://mothership.sg/2018/04/38-oxl...erve-demolish/
And so the Oxleygate saga continues .
Maruah slams Select Committee’s ‘confrontational stance’
By Low Youjin
Published 03 April, 2018
Updated 03 April, 2018
SINGAPORE — A day after several civil activists criticised the Select Committee for the way it conducted the public hearings on deliberate online falsehoods, human rights group Maruah voiced similar concerns on Tuesday (Apr 3) about the aggressive and “confrontational” approach adopted by the committee.
In a press statement, the group said the public hearings were “akin to being in a courtroom”, where the committee acted in an “unnecessarily disrespectful manner” towards witnesses, and was at times patronising and discriminatory.
“Incidentally no witness in these hearing sessions is an accused party to any wrongdoing on ‘falsehoods’,” said Maruah, adding that any wrongdoing on the part of the witnesses could be “ascertained through a non-Parliamentary mechanism”.
Contacted by TODAY, committee chairman Charles Chong said: “We received some feedback/complaints from a few presenters. The Select Committee will look into these complaints, review the transcripts and respond to those who have written to us.”
Maruah was among the groups and individuals who submitted written representations to the committee. Its vice-president Ngiam Shih Tung also gave oral evidence at one of the public hearings.
Citing a desire to put on record its misgivings about the proceedings where it was present as both “witness and observer”, Maruah expressed its dissatisfaction with the modus operandi and the approach taken by the committee.
“We observed on March 27 and 29, the committee was unrelentingly adverse to these particular witnesses,” Maruah said.
continue reading here :
Netizens express overwhelming support for Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang as the “once secret” ministerial committee responds
April 4, 2018
Netizens have expressed overwhelming support for Lee Kuan Yew’s younger children, Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang, after the two criticised the ministerial committee’s report on what might be done to their family home, yesterday.
The ministerial committee charged with formulating options for what might be done with the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s home at 38 Oxley Road have quietly released three broad options for the property in a report this afternoon.
The committee – which is chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and includes Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, MCCY Minister Grace Fu and Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong – offered that the property could be preserved, certain parts of the property could be retained or that the entire house could be demolished and redeveloped.
The three options laid out by the committee are to preserve the property and gazette it as a national monument or for conservation; tear down the house and only retain the iconic dining room; or demolish the house entirely.
The committee noted that while Lee Kuan Yew desired for the property to be demolished, he was apparently prepared to accept alternatives, “provided that suitable arrangements were made to ensure that the property was refurbished and kept in a habitable state and the family’s privacy was protected”.
continue reading here :
Weeks of deliberations on Deliberate Online Falsehoods left some bad aftertaste and a number of lost opportunities
Published on 2018-04-04 by The Online Citizen
by Tan Tee Seng
When the Parliament formed a Select Committee to solicit public feedback to deal with Deliberate Online Falsehood (DOF), I thought it was an important step towards the engagement of its citizenry. This is particularly significant as Singapore will be going through a transition of a new generation leadership. Are we looking at a new era of stakeholders engagement in policy development?
I followed the Select Committee enthusiastically, attended more than 15 hours of the Committee’s proceeding because I did not trust that our mainstream media would report accurately on the proceedings. I recall that in a landmarked Select Committee hearings in 1986, the initial live telecast was reduced to an edited and restricted broadcast by the second day of the proceedings.
This engagement of the citizenry and various stakeholders done publicly and transparently is a rarity. Moreover, I knew that some activists have sought meaningful ways to counter DOF without curtailing freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, the weeks of deliberations left some bad aftertaste and a number of lost opportunities:
continue reading here :
Q&A: Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, Singapore’s future and a family feud
Li Shengwu, the grandson of Singapore’s first PM, discusses LKY’s legacy and the future of the wealthy island state.
by Lynn Lee and James Leong
4 Apr 2018
The rich and modern metropolis of Singapore is frequently described as an “economic miracle”.
When Lee Kuan Yew, the principal architect and first prime minister of the wealthy island state, died in 2015, over a million Singaporean residents turned out to honour his memory and his accomplishments - not the least of was the creation of an effective and largely incorrupt government and civil service, which proved a huge magnet to foreign investors.
But with economic pressures increasing amid a growing appetite for greater democracy, Lee Kuan Yew’s complex legacy is coming under scrutiny.
That scrutiny has been given an extra edge over the past few months because of a bitter family dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two younger siblings about what should happen to the house in which Lee spent most of his life.
This week, a ministerial committee laid out a range of options for the Oxley Road property. But Lee’s younger children insist their father was unwavering about wanting the house demolished after his death.
Li Shengwu, who works as an economist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is the son of Lee Hsien Loong’s younger brother, Lee Hsien Yang. Three years after his grandfather’s death, Li talks to People & Power about the family feud, Singapore politics and LKY’s legacy.
Al Jazeera: Singaporeans first got wind of the family dispute when your father put up a Facebook post titled, “What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values?”. What were your grandfather’s values?
Li Shengwu: You know, it [Singapore] is not sort of robustly democratic, right? There’s not great political competition, but at the very least there’s got to be competent excellence, there’s got to be rule of law, and there’s got to be very strict separation of the personal and the public. I think the worry is that this is being eroded quite substantially.
Al Jazeera: Your grandfather didn’t really believe in political competition.
Family members at Lee Kuan Yew’s state funeral in 2015 [The Associated Press]
Li Shengwu: I think the fair thing to say is that he believed in political competition as a very last resort. He didn’t want a model where there were multiple parties, where the parties took turns governing.
But there should be elections - if genuinely everything is going wrong then people should throw one set of politicians out. And that threat … should serve to discipline the party and keep it from abusing power.
I think the question is whether or not that’s a sustainable model. And in particular one worries if the very strong control of the present Singapore, the current legislative supermajority, allows for constitutional changes. All of these things very substantially mute the effects of electoral competition.
Al Jazeera: In your eulogy to your grandfather you spoke about the rule of law and about your grandfather’s desire not to have monuments to him. Was it because you believed that certain things would happen?
continue reading here :