PM Lee is getting his Ministers to insult Lee Kuan Yew claims Hsien Yang
June 24, 2017
Lee Kuan Yew’s younger son has again taken to Facebook to say that “Lee Hsien Loong is now getting his ministers to repeat his insinuations that Lee Kuan Yew did not understand his own will.”
He added that PM Lee’s Ministers are arguing that Lee Kuan Yew, a Cambridge-educated lawyer and sitting MP, signed his own will without knowing what was in it.
Mr Lee took offence that they are claiming that he initialed beneath the demolition clause, without understanding what it meant in plain English.
“This is an insult to a great man,” Mr Lee said.
Mr Lee’s comments came after Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah said in a Facebook post that under Singapore’s law, the lawyer drafting a will is required to be independent. If the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure the person making the will gets independent advice, she said.
In her post, Ms Rajah also pointed to a Facebook post by Mr Lee on June 17 which claimed his father gave “express instructions” that his final will made in 2013 will be a reversion to his first one of 2011.
“On the basis of this instruction, we took what we understood to be the final version of the 2011 will, without realising that a gift over clause had been in the executed version of the 2011 will,” Mr Lee said.
Ms Rajah pointed out that Mr Lee has not specified who “we” referred to in his post and said, “if the lawyer referred to in ‘we’ is Mrs Lee Suet Fern (Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s wife), then certain questions will arise.”
Mr Lee asserted in his latest Facebook post that the 2013 will was no more than a reversion to the 2011 will on Lee Kuan Yew’s instructions.
“Probate has been granted on Lee Kuan Yew’s will, so it is final and legally binding,” he said.
continue reading here :
Lee Hsien Yang: Don’t insult my father by saying he didn’t know what went into his last will
June 24, 2017
In response to Indranee Rajah’s post suggesting Lee Kuan Yew had five minutes to absorb contents of last will.
Belmont Lay
Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah, who is a Tanjong Pagar GRC MP, the late Lee Kuan Yew’s former running mate and senior counsel, has up the ante.
In a Facebook post on Saturday night, June 24, she asked some serious questions pertaining to who was the lawyer who prepared Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, highlighting the very real issue of a conflict of interests that could point to the heart of the Lee family feud.
This is her post:
In a rehash of a previously mentioned talking point, Indranee wrote that this was so as the only two lawyers that have been narrowed down who could have drafted the Last Will are:
– Kwa Kim Li, who is the cousin of Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling
– Lee Suet Fern, who is the wife of Lee Hsien Yang
The circumstances surrounding the crafting and signing of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will has since come under intense scrutiny.
So far, Kwa has categorically denied it was her. Lee Suet Fern has not spoken up on this issue.
In Indranee’s post, it was suggested that Lee Kuan Yew had only five minutes to absorb the contents of his final will before signing off on it.
– the next day on 17 Dec at 11.05 am 2 lawyers from Stamford Law arrived at 38 Oxley Road. They stayed for 15 minutes, logging out at 11.20 am – this presumably would include the time it would take too get from the guardhouse to Mr Lee’s room in the house and back. Mr Lee Hsien Yang in his FB post says that the Will was signed at 11.10 am. Assuming it took 5 minutes to get from the gate to Mr Lee’s room, and another 5 minutes to get back to the gate, this would mean Mr Lee had only 5 minutes to read and sign the 7th Will.
So the questions are:
– did he have enough time to read through and absorb the contents of the 7th Will?
– could he have done so in just 5 minutes?
– was he aware that the Demolition Clause had been reinserted? The emails of the previous day did not mention the Demolition Clause.
In direct response to Indranee’s post, Lee Hsien Yang has hit back within a span of a few hours, saying it is an insult to suggest Lee Kuan Yew, a top notch lawyer, was unaware of what went into his own will.
continue reading here :
The Lee saga: Long hard truth
Sense And Nonsense - by Tan Bah Bah
June 25, 2017
All the signs point to a long-drawn titanic struggle between the Lee siblings over 38 Oxley Road. The forthcoming July 3 Parliamentary sitting on the issue will take place without the presence of two of the main combatants – Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling – and can only serve to present Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s clarifications about his role and the government’s attempt to explain its position and involvement. Nothing more.
In the leadup to July 3, LHY and LWL are not conceding an inch and I do not see either relenting in their attacks on their brother, sister-in-law Ho Ching and their supporters beyond the date. They have refuted every public statement made by LHL’s or the government’s side.
Examples: LWL alleged that the existence of the committee to look into options for 38, Oxley Road was disclosed only when forced – and this only after one year – despite many requests for the names of the committee from the estate of the late Lee Kuan Yew. Both DPMs Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam have said the existence of the committee was no secret.
Next, LHL accused Ho Ching of “theft and intermeddling” when she took away items belonging to LKY. He was pointing out that his sister-in-law had no right to do so. To him, it was irrelevant whatever the purpose of the removal, even though LHL’s spouse had tried to justify the good intentions behind her act. Not accepted by LHL, evidently.
Another example of the younger Lee siblings’ refusal to budge was in LHL’s angry retort – in response to Senior Minister of Law Indranee Rajah’s Facebook postings on the drafting of LKY’s will. He took issue with LHL’s using of ministers repeatedly to insinuate that the late first PM did not understand his own will.
He said PM Lee’s ministers were arguing that Lee Kuan Yew, a Cambridge-educated lawyer and sitting MP, signed his own will without knowing what was in it. LHL took offence that they were claiming that he initialed beneath the demolition clause, without understanding what it meant in plain English.
“This is an insult to a great man,” LHL said.
“Probate has been granted on Lee Kuan Yew’s will, so it is final and legally binding,” he said. The proper place for his brother to challenge his father’s will was in court.
We now have a situation where LHL has to defend himself in Parliament – against attacks on his integrity and allegations of abuse of power and explain his dilemma in dealing with not just his father’s house but also his siblings. He is wearing a number of hats – as PM, as the eldest son of LKY and as an elder brother. As PM, he is obliged and duty-bound to act in the larger interests of the nation and that well be in conflict with his other roles as son and sibling. It is a kind of a Hobson’s choice – the more he stands on the side of government and argues the case against late father’s wishes to preserve the house, the more he will be seen by his siblings to have betrayed LKY and, as collateral damage, the standing of the siblings.
continue reading here :
38 Oxley Road dispute: Lee Hsien Yang has not explained why Govt asked to make decision now on house, Indranee says
27 Jun 2017 01:30PM (Updated: 27 Jun 2017 01:40PM)
SINGAPORE: Mr Lee Hsien Yang has not answered the “basic question” of why the Government is being asked to decide now on whether founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s family home at 38 Oxley Road should be demolished, Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah said on Tuesday (Jun 27).
Ms Indranee was responding to a Facebook post by Mr Lee Hsien Yang – the youngest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew – earlier on Tuesday.
In the post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, “have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure”.
In her reply, Ms Indranee pointed out that in Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean’s statement on Jun 17, he had explained that a ministerial committee to decide on the fate of the house was established because the two Lee siblings wanted the Government to “commit itself immediately to demolishing the house”.
Ms Indranee again questioned why the Government was being asked to decide now, since Dr Lee is still living in the house.
“What is the urgency? This question has not been answered,” she wrote.
“As Mr Lee Hsien Yang would know, this government cannot, as a matter of principle, bind a future government that is elected by the people 20 to 30 years from now,” she added.
Read more at
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...y-govt-8981510
Why would people want to answer to her ?
We’ve never asked Govt to let us demolish 38 Oxley Road house now: Lee Hsien Yang
27 Jun 2017 09:18AM (Updated: 27 Jun 2017 12:56PM)
SINGAPORE: Responding to comments by Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Tuesday (Jun 27) that he and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had never asked the Government to allow them to demolish founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s family home now.
In a post on Monday, Ms Indranee listed four possible options for the house at 38 Oxley Road – demolition, preservation, conservation and compulsory acquisition – and questioned why Mr Lee Hsien Yang wanted “immediate commitment” on demolition since Dr Lee is still living in the house.
“The Government has publicly stated that it will respect those wishes and does not intend to do anything until Dr Lee leaves,” she wrote, pointing out that letting the property stand, for now, does not go against the wishes of the late Mr Lee.
In response, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said: “We have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure.”
He also questioned again why the “secret committee” on the house was formed in 2016.
The youngest son of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said beyond the committee’s opening letters, it was “focused primarily on parroting (Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong’s attacks on our father’s will”.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also claimed that an earlier proposal by him and Dr Lee, the executors of their father’s estate, had been rejected by their brother PM Lee.
“Long before the committee was formed, we offered to (Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean) that the house be demolished after Wei Ling’s departure, and a memorial garden be built in its place. DPM Teo was reluctant and did not pursue the discussion further. Lee Hsien Loong also rejected this offer,” he said.
Read more at
6 Facebook pages character assassinating Lee Hsien Yang
June 27, 2017
They are calling him a ’liar’ and ‘self-serving’ ahead of the July 3 Parliament sitting.
Belmont Lay
When the chips are down and the gloves come off, politics never fails to turn into a dirty game.
Especially so in this day and age of cheap video-making, meme-ing and sh*t-posting, where anybody with an agenda can run a smear campaign against another person risk-free within the confines of social media.
On the receiving end of a lot of name-calling these past two weeks is Lee Hsien Yang, the protagonist/ antagonist in the ongoing Lee family feud over the 38 Oxley Road house.
Multiple Facebook pages have put the youngest Lee sibling in their cross hairs, taking aim at his character, motivation and spouse.
At last count, some six Facebook pages lending a hand in the anti-LHY charge share the same distinction of being run anonymously by administrators whose identities are unknown.
Are they foreign-run? How can we be sure they are locals? Just because they use “Singapore” on their pages or make references to this country?
At least two of these pages are relatively new, starting operations by making their first posts in the week after June 14, the day Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling put up a joint statement against their eldest brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Here is a sampling of the types of content that have been put up that can be construed as a coordinated smear campaign against Lee Hsien Yang, in the run up to the July 3 Parliament sitting where PM Lee will make a Ministerial Statement to answer all burning questions regarding his late father’s house:
continue reading here :
38 Oxley Rd: Why now, not later?
Posted on June 27, 2017 by Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the articles “Indranee asks Lee Hsien Yang: Why the urgency to demolish Oxley Road house?” and “The possible options for 38, Oxley Road” (Straits Times, Jun 27).
The latter states that “1. WHAT FINANCIAL INTEREST DOES LEE HSIEN LOONG HAVE IN 38, OXLEY ROAD?
None.
In the will, Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave 38, Oxley Road, to Mr Lee Hsien Loong, his eldest son.
In the Summary of Statutory Declarations, Mr Lee Hsien Loong says:
•After Mr Lee’s passing, his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee, expressed unhappiness that 38, Oxley Road had been given to him.
•Mr Lee Hsien Loong offered to transfer it to Dr Lee for the nominal sum of $1 on condition that if the property was later sold or acquired by the Government, all proceeds should go to charity. (Note: This condition, if accepted, would have meant that Dr Lee could not keep for herself the money received upon sale or acquisition.) This was not accepted.
•Subsequently, Mr Lee Hsien Loong sold the property to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
•Mr Lee Hsien Loong donated the entire proceeds of the sale to charity. Mr Lee Hsien Yang also donated 50 per cent of the sale value to charity.
Hence Mr Lee Hsien Loong is no longer the owner of 38, Oxley Road. The property now belongs wholly to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
As to “4. WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BEING ASKED TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE NOW?
That is a good question.
The Government has the same question.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted Dr Lee Wei Ling to stay in the house as long as she wanted. The Government has publicly stated that it will respect those wishes and does not intend to do anything until Dr Lee leaves. Letting the house stand for now does not go against those wishes. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said Dr Lee does not want to move out and she has every intention of living a long life. That being the case, the matter may well not need to be decided for another 20-30 years. It can be decided by a future government.
So there is nothing for the Government to decide now” – why not throw this question back to the Government?
Why the urgency to set up a ministerial committee in July last year?
With regard to “The real question therefore is why Mr Lee Hsien Yang is asking for an immediate commitment on demolition now.
What is the urgency?
Until and unless Dr Lee moves out, there is nothing for the Government to decide. It is also a principle that the current government will not be able to bind a future government”” –
“In response, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said: “We have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure.”
He also questioned again why the “secret committee” on the house was formed in 2016.
The youngest son of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said beyond the committee’s opening letters, it was “focused primarily on parroting (Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong’s attacks on our father’s will”.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also claimed that an earlier proposal by him and Dr Lee, the executors of their father’s estate, had been rejected by their brother PM Lee.
continue reading here :
‘Not true’ that ministerial committee is bent on preventing demolition of Lee Kuan Yew’s home: DPM Teo
27 Jun 2017 07:52PM (Updated: 27 Jun 2017 08:21PM)
SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on Tuesday (Jun 27) said it is untrue that a ministerial committee studying options for Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s old home at 38 Oxley Road is “bent on preventing the demolition of the house”.
Labelling it a “misconception” that the late Mr Lee’s youngest son Lee Hsien Yang may have, DPM Teo who chairs the ministerial committee, said he shared his personal views on some of the options for the house with him. This is to let him know that the “Government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options”, he said.
He added that Mr Lee Hsien Yang “seems supportive” of some of the intermediate options the ministerial committee is studying.
Some of these options were laid out by Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah in a Facebook post on Sunday.
DPM Teo reiterated that no decision is needed on the house for now as Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, is still living there. “Cabinet will only decide on which option to choose, when the time comes for a decision to be made on the house. If, for example, Dr Lee Wei Ling ceases to live in the house next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month. If she stays there for 30 more years, then the Government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide,” Mr Teo said.
He added: “There should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made.”
DPM Teo’s statement is as follows:
“I met Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) several times between April and July 2015. I informed him that PM Lee had recused himself on Government decisions relating to No. 38 Oxley Road (“the house”).
Read more at
Allegations from my siblings ‘mostly inaccurate’: PM Lee
27 Jun 2017 09:49PM (Updated: 27 Jun 2017 10:30PM)
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday (Jun 27) said the allegations that his siblings continue to make about him are “mostly inaccurate”.
In response to media queries on the Facebook posts from his brother and sister, PM Lee said: “My siblings continue to make allegations about what I supposedly did or did not do. They are mostly inaccurate. As I earlier said, I will be making a statement in Parliament on Jul 3, 2017. I will at that time deal with the allegations that need to be addressed.”
PM Lee and his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, have been locked in a public spat over their late father Lee Kuan Yew’s home at 38 Oxley Road.
Over the weekend, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, alleged that PM Lee is getting ministers to repeat “insinuations that Lee Kuan Yew did not understand his own will”, after a demolition clause was reinserted into the last will. Dr Lee meantime, accused PM Lee of attempting to “rewrite the past”, after admitting in public “for years” that the late Mr Lee’s wish for demolition of the house was “unwavering”, she said.
The Prime Minister last week apologised to Singaporeans, saying he deeply regrets that the dispute has affected the country’s reputation and Singaporeans’ confidence in the Government. He has stated that he has recused himself from Government decisions on the house and said that in his personal capacity, he hoped to see his father’s wish honoured.
PM Lee said he invited all Members of Parliament to question him and his Cabinet colleagues vigorously on the matter on Jul 3. “I hope that this full, public airing in Parliament will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government,” he said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said it is not true that a ministerial committee weighing options for 38 Oxley Road is “bent on preventing the demolition of the house”. He had earlier said the Government has the responsibility to consider the public interest aspects of any property with heritage and historical significance.
Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah has listed options for 38 Oxley Road, including demolition of the house, preservation of the property if it is designated a national monument, conservation, or compulsory acquisition.
Read more at
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...pm-lee-8982916
As usual press working overtime on this issue .
Going beyond symbols, honoring Lee Kuan Yew
Posted on June 28, 2017 by The Online Citizen
by Benedict Wu
The Straits Times recently published an article by Harvard Belfer Center Fellow Derwin Pereira on June 24th entitled “Symbol of the Singapore story”.
In the piece, Mr Pereira compared the 38 Oxley Road house to that of the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hall and Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall. He suggests that these buildings serve important historical significance, and that preserving the Oxley Road house would provide Singaporeans something to remember their founding history.
Mr Pereira states outright that he disagrees with the claim that retaining the house would create a political cult around Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Instead, he believes that a better way of reminding Singaporeans of his “lasting influence” is to rename Changi Airport after Lee Kuan Yew. He then cites how cities like New York name its International airport after President John F. to honor his contributions to civil rights.
What’s missing from Mr Pereira’s account, of course, is the fact that his thoughts about the political cult phenomenon are irrelevant, because the founding father himself believed that given Asia’s political context and recent monarchical history, it is easy to slip into individual worship that is not constructive to progress. Never mind that Lee Kuan Yew himself would disagree with Mr Pereira, it is even more puzzling to suggest that naming an airport after an individual would be the “better way” to commemorate his contributions—the decrepit airport in New York with bad Wi-Fi signals and inefficient airport security check lines is now associated with the freedom fighter turned President; even JFK might disagree that his legacy has been properly recognized with the airport.
There is a troubling trend in recent commentary around the Oxley Road issue around the symbolism of the house. Some range from extremely romantic views that the house belongs “to the people of Singapore” (as does Mr Pereira), while others tell us that the dispute itself is a symbol of the cracking of the political establishment from within.
But Lee kuan Yew was never about symbols. He was always of the view that Singapore’s advantage and its human capital means that we must be pragmatic and always consider options that advance our strategic interests. As DPM Shanmugaratnam mentioned of ministerial committees, we are—and should be—always on our feet to make sure that our long-term interests trump immediate ones.
We are 2 weeks into this ongoing debate, and a Ministerial statement will be issued early next month, which suggests that this dispute is not merely a “family matter” but one of national strategic interest.
However, if Lee Kuan Yew’s thoughtful pragmatism is to be taken seriously, the debate should be less about the eventual decision to demolish or keep the house. Rather, the longer term issues here are important: firstly we need to know, as a people, who gets to decide “national interest”; secondly, we need to figure out how the state decides to override private interests.
Rather than glib remarks by commentators who insist that letting the state override private interest is an approach coherent with Lee Kuan Yew’s governance approach (as did Mr Pereira), the citizenry deserves to know how these decisions get made—how do we decide whether one’s estate deserve to be looked at by a Ministerial Committee, does the Will ever matter, and do family members have any claim on what to do with one’s estate?
As Mr Pereira rightly pointed out, even though Lee Kuan Yew did not like the cult of personality, it is a fact that Singapore’s modern development is imprinted with his legacy. This was perhaps to Mr Lee’s chagrin, but it also makes the issue of the house all the more important.
As Singapore’s development story matures beyond Lee Kuan Yew and his first generation of leaders, we have to begin to consider the institutional structures in place that determine one’s strategic interest against another’s private wish.
Determining whether a particular case is worthy to be recognized as “national interest” is an issue of accountability (such as the Ministerial committee). Figuring out how said national interest might override the interests of the private citizen is an argument on legitimate processes that society should decide on.
To call this a “scandal” or “embarrassment” is to rob Singaporeans of our right to participate and shape political discourse.
continue reading here :