- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,133
- Points
- 113
Lee Hsien Yang puts up another FB post despite already receiving POFMA correction direction, says he stands by his post
Photo: Lee Hsien Loong (YouTube screengrab), Lee Hsien Yang (THERESA BARRACLOUGH / AFP)https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...says-he-stands-by-his-post/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...rection+direction,+says+he+stands+by+his+post
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...rection+direction,+says+he+stands+by+his+post
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...rection+direction,+says+he+stands+by+his+post
July 25, 2023
By Obbana Rajah
SINGAPORE: Despite being issued with a POFMA correction direction earlier today, Lee Hsien Yang put up another Facebook post standing by what he said.
On Tuesday (Jul 25), the government issued a correction order under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, for alleged falsehoods made in a Facebook criticising his estranged elder brother, current PM Lee Hsien Loong. The POFMA Office said that the younger Mr Lee’s post, which was published two days prior, contains “false statements of fact” pertaining to the Ridout Road rentals and the exaggerated circulation numbers scandal involving Singapore Press Holdings (SPH).
Despite this, late Tuesday (Jul 25) night Mr Lee wrote: “I stand by what I said”. He asked netizens to read his post and compare what he wrote to what the “notice claims I said”.
He followed up his comments with the following questions:
“Did Shanmugam and Vivian rent SLA mansions? Yes
Did they rent them from the agency that Shanmugam controls? Yes.
Were many trees cleared from these plots? Yes.”
At the end of his post, Mr Lee posed the following question: “In light of the many scandals, has Lee Hsien Loong’s government lost your trust?”
The POFMA Office said:
- The Ministry of Law would like to point out that the Facebook post published on 23 July 2023 by Mr Lee Hsien Yang contains false statements of fact.False statements of fact
- First, the post makes the statement that the State paid for the renovations to 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. This is untrue. The identity of the tenants had no bearing on the decision on the works to be carried out on the properties. The post omits important information that the works done were in keeping with Singapore Land Authority’s (SLA) practice, and were assessed to be necessary in the circumstances, as explained by the Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong in Parliament on 3 July 2023.
- SLA invests a significant amount in maintaining conserved properties, which include 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road. SLA has spent similar, or even larger, amounts on other Black and White bungalows, consistent with conservation requirements (see Annex A). Most of the costs incurred for 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road were for works that external consultants had determined to be necessary, in light of the condition of the properties and to comply with the relevant conservation requirements. The remaining costs were incurred as part of the usual works done before the commencement of a tenancy to ensure that the property is habitable.
- Second, the post makes the statement that trees at 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road were allowed to be felled because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. This is untrue. The identity of the tenants had no bearing on the felling of the trees at the properties. All decisions to fell trees with a girth size of more than one metre were made following inspections by independent arborists, and safety issues were identified. Where approval was required for any trees to be felled, such approval was obtained from the National Parks Board (NParks). The reasons for the felling of the trees at both properties have been explained by the Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong in Parliament on 3 July 2023.
- Third, the post makes the statement that SPH Media Trust (SMT) fraudulently inflated its circulation numbers. This is untrue. The overstatement of circulation numbers happened when the media business was under SPH Limited – a listed company. This was before SMT was incorporated. When SMT took over SPH Limited’s media business, it discovered, reported, and investigated the circulation issue. The Government’s funding agreement to build up public service media capabilities was signed with SMT, and not SPH Limited. The funding quantum was based on SMT’s transformation needs, and not the circulation numbers.
- Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act Office to issue a Correction Direction[1] to Mr Lee Hsien Yang in respect of his Facebook post.Conclusion
- The Ministerial Statements by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong provided a comprehensive account of the facts and background context of the rentals of 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road. Parliament spent about six hours on a reasoned and thorough discussion of the issue, covering matters related to the independent investigation and review by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean respectively, and also matters raised in the public domain.
- More information on the facts relating to the rental of 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road can be found in the Official Report (Hansard) for the Parliament sitting on 3 July 2023.
[1] A Correction Direction is a Direction issued to a person who has communicated a falsehood (i.e. the recipient) that affects the public interest. It requires the recipient to publish a correction notice, providing access to the correct facts. The Direction does not require the recipient to take down their post or make edits to their content and does not impose criminal sanctions.
