LHY and sis might bring this saga to court. Engage QC and fight to prevent 38or from being acquired by government. I see this as the only solution. Probably prior to the airing of their social media posts, they have already planned for a possible fight with the government in court. Their posts could be a foundation to let the public know their stance. Taking the government to court and winning is not easy. So at least they want the public to be on their side.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
Fighting property gazetted as heritage in court is a lost cause the world over. The legislation is clear and the historical value of the basement cannot be discounted. The brother would not have coughed up est $30m over if they had a reasonable chance in court.
The govt of the day has to determine if they are prepared to honour the dying wish of their founding father or milk the his legacy for its political value or treat it as a heritage site. In such a complex situation - asking the country to decide might be appropriate. It is clear that govt and the press will go by their leader and probably the desire of his wife. So going to the people might be the be the best option.
The govt of the day has to determine if they are prepared to honour the dying wish of their founding father or milk the his legacy for its political value or treat it as a heritage site. In such a complex situation - asking the country to decide might be appropriate. It is clear that govt and the press will go by their leader and probably the desire of his wife. So going to the people might be the be the best option.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,017
- Points
- 48
LWL should just look after herself and stay there for the next 30 years. Given the way things are going, there will probably be nothing left to milk in 30 years.
The issue is LHY thoughts then was the house will not be gazetted after buying over the house. He felt betrayed by his brother when he realized that it may not be the case after taking ownership of the house. So the court case could rest on firstly the last will specifically on the demolition clause and whether the government can overide personal will if the demolition clause stand. Those Facebook posts could be pre-conceived in preparation for the court case. Tan Check Bock also knows that it is not easy to win a court case against the states on the EP issue but he still went ahead. The siblings know that it is time consuming,tedious and fruitless to go on forever in fb attacks. So why did they start these attacks. To shame LHL & HC? I dun think so. My opinion is that they want to stop the government. Not targeting solely on their brother.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,684
- Points
- 113
What I would like to know is why LHY wanted to buy over 38OR in the first place? Consequently, why the need for a settlement between Harry's estate and LHL?
More on 38OR after 3 July.
LHY was interviewed by South China Morniing Post today and he declared that lhy bluffed lky.
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...d-lee-kuan-yew-over-family-house-says-brother
LHY was interviewed by South China Morniing Post today and he declared that lhy bluffed lky.
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...d-lee-kuan-yew-over-family-house-says-brother
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4,436
- Points
- 83
Re: More on 38OR after 3 July.
Your comment makes no sense. Surely you mean LHL bluffed LKY?
Your comment makes no sense. Surely you mean LHL bluffed LKY?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Messages
- 397
- Points
- 28
Of course. Not happy about the will, not happy about who got what, not happy about who gets to control what, not happy that some have more power than others. But they restrained themselves when the domineering father was around.
17 TYPES OF OFFENCES COVERED UNDER CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT
147th Prostitute Press
14 September 1996
Last month, Health Minister George Yeo filed a complaint of contempt of Parliament against a Singapore Democratic Party research team. Last week, Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng said that he might do the same against SDP chairman Ling How Doong.
What does this law cover and what powers does it grant? Koh Buck Song explains.
PARLIAMENT is the keeper of its own house, under the law. Like the courts, it demands the truth and nothing but the truth.
It has full power to protect its own standing, and to discipline any MP or member of the public.
Why should it have so much power? Because cracks might even show up in the foundation of democracy, if any disrespect towards the House went unpunished, as Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng suggested last week at a Select Committee hearing.
Voicing his intention to bring a charge of contempt of Parliament against opposition MP Ling How Doong (see other article), he said: "When some people try to mislead the public through a systematic misuse of information, it is incumbent on all who believe in the practice of democracy in Singapore to show them up."
Nominated MP Walter Woon tells Insight that it is vital for people to respect Parliament, just as they should the courts, for these key institutions to function. "Otherwise, you would be inviting anarchy. To lie to Parliament is a cardinal sin." ...
To be continued...
147th Prostitute Press
14 September 1996
Last month, Health Minister George Yeo filed a complaint of contempt of Parliament against a Singapore Democratic Party research team. Last week, Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng said that he might do the same against SDP chairman Ling How Doong.
What does this law cover and what powers does it grant? Koh Buck Song explains.
PARLIAMENT is the keeper of its own house, under the law. Like the courts, it demands the truth and nothing but the truth.
It has full power to protect its own standing, and to discipline any MP or member of the public.
Why should it have so much power? Because cracks might even show up in the foundation of democracy, if any disrespect towards the House went unpunished, as Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng suggested last week at a Select Committee hearing.
Voicing his intention to bring a charge of contempt of Parliament against opposition MP Ling How Doong (see other article), he said: "When some people try to mislead the public through a systematic misuse of information, it is incumbent on all who believe in the practice of democracy in Singapore to show them up."
Nominated MP Walter Woon tells Insight that it is vital for people to respect Parliament, just as they should the courts, for these key institutions to function. "Otherwise, you would be inviting anarchy. To lie to Parliament is a cardinal sin." ...
To be continued...
Last edited:
Continuing from: "17 TYPES OF OFFENCES COVERED UNDER CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT.
What kinds of speech and action fall under the shadow of this law? What right has Parliament to be its own judge?
The power of the House to punish for contempt comes from the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of 1962, provided for under Article 63 of the Constitution.
Among other things, this Act safeguards freedom of speech and debate in the House, and protects MPs against civil or criminal law suits.
Anyone found guilty of contempt of Parliament can be fined up to $50,000 or jailed for the current session of Parliament, even if the offence took place in the previous session.
The 17 kinds of offence include the following:
* To assault, hinder, obstruct or insult the Speaker or any MP;
* Refuse to be examined before, or to answer any lawful or relevant question put by, or to produce any paper, book, record or document in his possession or under his control required by Parliament or any committee, unless the refusal is based on parliamentary privilege or excused;
* Prevaricate or misconduct himself as a witness;
* Present any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive; and
* Wilfully make a false answer to any question which is material to the subject of inquiry put during examination by Parliament or a committee.
Any member of the House can raise a charge of contempt by writing a letter of complaint to the Speaker.
If there is a prima facie case, the matter would be referred to a standing Committee of Privileges, which decides by majority vote.
Formed for a Parliament session, the current panel, chaired by Speaker Tan Soo Khoon, has seven other members, including opposition MP Low Thia Khiang.
The Privileges Committee has issued only about a dozen reports since 1962, mostly on cases of abuse of privileges, rather than contempt.
Parliament can issue a summons to an offender to turn up and to receive punishment. If he fails to do so, after a notice has been sent to his home, he can be arrested to face the Privileges Committee. He cannot be represented by a lawyer.
The courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in matters under this Act, except when so empowered by Parliament itself to hear cases or, arguably, if Parliament acts in "excess of jurisdiction" in violation of the law.
This is confirmed by the most recent 1989 Court of Appeal case of J. B. Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General, cited in the book, Constitutional Law In Singapore And Malaysia (1991) by National University of Singapore law lecturers Kevin Tan, Yeo Tiong Min and Lee Kiat Seng.
In 1986, the Leader of the House complained about allegations by then MP J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament of executive interference in the judiciary. The matter was referred to the Privileges Committee.
While it was being considered, the Anson MP commented on the case in five newsletters distributed in his ward.
For doing this, he was found guilty by the Privileges Committee of contempt of Parliament for making reports of scandalous misrepresentation, and fined S$5,000 for each newsletter.
He was also fined S$1,000 for abusing his general privileges as an MP in his allegations, for not speaking in good faith.
Mr Jeyaretnam took the case to the High Court in 1988, arguing that there was a breach of natural justice, that he had been unjustly treated.
Dismissing the case, Justice F. A. Chua said: "Whatever matter arises concerning Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudicated in Parliament and not elsewhere."
He also quoted Britain's Lord Coleridge in the 1884 case, Bradlaugh v Gossett: "The jurisdiction of the House over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive."
Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against this judgment a year later was also dismissed.
To be continued...
What kinds of speech and action fall under the shadow of this law? What right has Parliament to be its own judge?
The power of the House to punish for contempt comes from the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of 1962, provided for under Article 63 of the Constitution.
Among other things, this Act safeguards freedom of speech and debate in the House, and protects MPs against civil or criminal law suits.
Anyone found guilty of contempt of Parliament can be fined up to $50,000 or jailed for the current session of Parliament, even if the offence took place in the previous session.
The 17 kinds of offence include the following:
* To assault, hinder, obstruct or insult the Speaker or any MP;
* Refuse to be examined before, or to answer any lawful or relevant question put by, or to produce any paper, book, record or document in his possession or under his control required by Parliament or any committee, unless the refusal is based on parliamentary privilege or excused;
* Prevaricate or misconduct himself as a witness;
* Present any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive; and
* Wilfully make a false answer to any question which is material to the subject of inquiry put during examination by Parliament or a committee.
Any member of the House can raise a charge of contempt by writing a letter of complaint to the Speaker.
If there is a prima facie case, the matter would be referred to a standing Committee of Privileges, which decides by majority vote.
Formed for a Parliament session, the current panel, chaired by Speaker Tan Soo Khoon, has seven other members, including opposition MP Low Thia Khiang.
The Privileges Committee has issued only about a dozen reports since 1962, mostly on cases of abuse of privileges, rather than contempt.
Parliament can issue a summons to an offender to turn up and to receive punishment. If he fails to do so, after a notice has been sent to his home, he can be arrested to face the Privileges Committee. He cannot be represented by a lawyer.
The courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in matters under this Act, except when so empowered by Parliament itself to hear cases or, arguably, if Parliament acts in "excess of jurisdiction" in violation of the law.
This is confirmed by the most recent 1989 Court of Appeal case of J. B. Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General, cited in the book, Constitutional Law In Singapore And Malaysia (1991) by National University of Singapore law lecturers Kevin Tan, Yeo Tiong Min and Lee Kiat Seng.
In 1986, the Leader of the House complained about allegations by then MP J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament of executive interference in the judiciary. The matter was referred to the Privileges Committee.
While it was being considered, the Anson MP commented on the case in five newsletters distributed in his ward.
For doing this, he was found guilty by the Privileges Committee of contempt of Parliament for making reports of scandalous misrepresentation, and fined S$5,000 for each newsletter.
He was also fined S$1,000 for abusing his general privileges as an MP in his allegations, for not speaking in good faith.
Mr Jeyaretnam took the case to the High Court in 1988, arguing that there was a breach of natural justice, that he had been unjustly treated.
Dismissing the case, Justice F. A. Chua said: "Whatever matter arises concerning Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudicated in Parliament and not elsewhere."
He also quoted Britain's Lord Coleridge in the 1884 case, Bradlaugh v Gossett: "The jurisdiction of the House over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive."
Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against this judgment a year later was also dismissed.
To be continued...
Continuing from: "17 TYPES OF OFFENCES COVERED UNDER CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT
Offenders under the Privileges Act would not be prevented from contesting elections, as Parliament is not a court of law, even though the House has the power to imprison.
But, unlike in Britain, Parliament here can refer a charge to the Attorney-General (AG), as Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, a member of the Privileges Committee, told the press last week.
The courts only come in when Parliament so decides, as provided for under section 21 (1c) of the Act. If contempt of Parliament cases are pursued in court, and a person is fined more than S$2,000 or jailed for more than a year, he would be disqualified from becoming an MP.
As constitutional law professor Valentine Winslow explains to Insight: "It is Parliament's decision to waive its jurisdiction and give it to the court."
If cases go to court, offenders can be represented by lawyers, and Parliament would need a "more cast-iron case" with proof beyond reasonable doubt, he adds.
However, Dr Kevin Tan thinks that such referrals to the AG, an untested point of law, could be seen to go beyond Parliament's powers already conferred by the Privileges Act. There should be no need to "criminalise" acts of contempt of Parliament.
He argues that referrals could also come into conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and open up the question of who is the final judge in such cases - Parliament or the court?
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act here is derived from English law. So Singapore's Parliament enjoys powers similar to those of the two Houses of the British Parliament.
There, the power to punish contempt has existed since the 16th century, to protect servants of the Crown from undue influence or harassment. During the reign of King Henry VIII (1509-1547), the House of Commons was allowed to assume this jurisdiction.
Today, the interpretation of what counts as contempt is as wide in Britain as it is here, given the scope of the 17 kinds of offences.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (1989) defines contempt as not only anything that obstructs or impedes the workings of Parliament or its Members, but also anything with "a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results".
During the Budget debate in March 1994, Leader of the House Wong Kan Seng complained in Parliament about a Straits Times column by journalist Cherian George. The article said Speaker Tan Soo Khoon and his deputy Eugene Yap had cut off parliamentary exchanges with "ruthless efficiency", and that this "may result in public disillusionment with the country's principal democratic institution".
In Mr Wong's opinion, it carried an innuendo of unfair and improper use of the guillotine procedure, and was thus a contempt of Parliament.
Mr George apologised the next day, and the matter was not pursued.
"Contempt may in theory be anything which offends the dignity of the House," writes Oxford don Sir David Yardley, in his book, Introduction To Constitutional And Administrative Law (1995).
"Diverse activities of individuals outside the House may be held by the House to amount to contempt, and the courts of law are powerless to decide otherwise."
Some observers suggest that there may be a possibility of abuse, with offenders not allowed legal representation, and with Parliament being both judge and jury.
As Sir Yardley puts it: "Often the cases alleged are not really infringements of the necessary freedom of the House, but merely instances where MPs have felt annoyed about things said about them."
Citing a British case in which a parliamentary committee dismissed a complaint against an MP without hearing from those who made it, Street and Brazier note that such committees which disregard natural justice while acting as "judges in their own cause" could leave themselves open to criticism.
There is an avenue of appeal in cases of contempt of court, but none for contempt of Parliament. This is an area in which legal thinkers have considered reform in Britain.
"It is incongruous, to say the least, that members of the House of Commons should be more sensitive than judges to hostile criticism," say Manchester University academics Harry Street and Rodney Brazier, editors of de Smith Constitutional and Administrative Law (1985).
In Dr Kevin Tan's book, a question posed to students is whether this Act could, in theory, be used by a one-party-dominated House to victimise the opposition.
Clearly, public opinion is one check against Parliament of any abuse of its powers.
Another more important check is the discretion and moral integrity of MPs themselves, says Sembawang GRC MP and lawyer K. Shanmugam. "Parliament is supreme and sovereign, and subject only to its working within the framework of the Constitution generally and of this Act specifically," he adds.
Any perception of abuse, however, would be a political problem, not a legal one, says NMP Walter Woon. "I would be happier if there was some appellate body, but I'm at a loss to think who could be on it."
To be continued...
Offenders under the Privileges Act would not be prevented from contesting elections, as Parliament is not a court of law, even though the House has the power to imprison.
But, unlike in Britain, Parliament here can refer a charge to the Attorney-General (AG), as Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, a member of the Privileges Committee, told the press last week.
The courts only come in when Parliament so decides, as provided for under section 21 (1c) of the Act. If contempt of Parliament cases are pursued in court, and a person is fined more than S$2,000 or jailed for more than a year, he would be disqualified from becoming an MP.
As constitutional law professor Valentine Winslow explains to Insight: "It is Parliament's decision to waive its jurisdiction and give it to the court."
If cases go to court, offenders can be represented by lawyers, and Parliament would need a "more cast-iron case" with proof beyond reasonable doubt, he adds.
However, Dr Kevin Tan thinks that such referrals to the AG, an untested point of law, could be seen to go beyond Parliament's powers already conferred by the Privileges Act. There should be no need to "criminalise" acts of contempt of Parliament.
He argues that referrals could also come into conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and open up the question of who is the final judge in such cases - Parliament or the court?
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act here is derived from English law. So Singapore's Parliament enjoys powers similar to those of the two Houses of the British Parliament.
There, the power to punish contempt has existed since the 16th century, to protect servants of the Crown from undue influence or harassment. During the reign of King Henry VIII (1509-1547), the House of Commons was allowed to assume this jurisdiction.
Today, the interpretation of what counts as contempt is as wide in Britain as it is here, given the scope of the 17 kinds of offences.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (1989) defines contempt as not only anything that obstructs or impedes the workings of Parliament or its Members, but also anything with "a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results".
During the Budget debate in March 1994, Leader of the House Wong Kan Seng complained in Parliament about a Straits Times column by journalist Cherian George. The article said Speaker Tan Soo Khoon and his deputy Eugene Yap had cut off parliamentary exchanges with "ruthless efficiency", and that this "may result in public disillusionment with the country's principal democratic institution".
In Mr Wong's opinion, it carried an innuendo of unfair and improper use of the guillotine procedure, and was thus a contempt of Parliament.
Mr George apologised the next day, and the matter was not pursued.
"Contempt may in theory be anything which offends the dignity of the House," writes Oxford don Sir David Yardley, in his book, Introduction To Constitutional And Administrative Law (1995).
"Diverse activities of individuals outside the House may be held by the House to amount to contempt, and the courts of law are powerless to decide otherwise."
Some observers suggest that there may be a possibility of abuse, with offenders not allowed legal representation, and with Parliament being both judge and jury.
As Sir Yardley puts it: "Often the cases alleged are not really infringements of the necessary freedom of the House, but merely instances where MPs have felt annoyed about things said about them."
Citing a British case in which a parliamentary committee dismissed a complaint against an MP without hearing from those who made it, Street and Brazier note that such committees which disregard natural justice while acting as "judges in their own cause" could leave themselves open to criticism.
There is an avenue of appeal in cases of contempt of court, but none for contempt of Parliament. This is an area in which legal thinkers have considered reform in Britain.
"It is incongruous, to say the least, that members of the House of Commons should be more sensitive than judges to hostile criticism," say Manchester University academics Harry Street and Rodney Brazier, editors of de Smith Constitutional and Administrative Law (1985).
In Dr Kevin Tan's book, a question posed to students is whether this Act could, in theory, be used by a one-party-dominated House to victimise the opposition.
Clearly, public opinion is one check against Parliament of any abuse of its powers.
Another more important check is the discretion and moral integrity of MPs themselves, says Sembawang GRC MP and lawyer K. Shanmugam. "Parliament is supreme and sovereign, and subject only to its working within the framework of the Constitution generally and of this Act specifically," he adds.
Any perception of abuse, however, would be a political problem, not a legal one, says NMP Walter Woon. "I would be happier if there was some appellate body, but I'm at a loss to think who could be on it."
To be continued...
Continuing from: "17 TYPES OF OFFENCES COVERED UNDER CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT
CASES: Past and present - Case 1 * In February 1962, student protesters, believing that the Government was trying to do away with Chinese schools, besieged then Parliamentary Secretary (Education) Lee Khoon Choy at his ministry, preventing him from attending a Legislative Assembly sitting.
The assembly, the then Parliament, condemned the action as a "gross breach of privileges" - and therefore contempt - for obstructing and insulting an MP. The Privileges Committee recommended no action, as the offence had been publicised and the police could not identify the culprits.
Case 2 * In 1986, the Leader of the House complained about allegations by then MP J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament of executive interference in the judiciary.
While the Privileges Committee was considering the case, he commented on it in newsletters in his ward. He was fined S$25,000 for contempt of Parliament for reports of scandalous misrepresentation, and S$1,000 for abusing his MP's privileges in allegations made not in good faith.
Case 3 * Last month, Health Minister George Yeo lodged a formal complaint of "serious contempt of Parliament" against a Singapore Democratic Party research team, which had been summoned to explain an alleged "typographical error" in its submission.
Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo said they fabricated data and presented false documents to the Select Committee on Health-care Subsidies, committed perjury, gave false answers wilfully, prevaricated and were guilty of misconduct. They also made a mockery of Parliament through dishonest and inconsistent replies, he said.
The four charged - SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, assistant secretary-general Kwan Yue Keng, vice-chairman Wong Hong Toy and research and planning head S. Kunalen - submitted a written defence to the Privileges Committee a week later.
Case 4? * Last week, Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng said he might lodge a complaint against SDP chairman Ling How Doong for contempt. At a separate hearing of the same Select Committee, Mr Ling did not accept the Government's definition of subsidy. Public funds belonged to citizens, and if spent on them, were not subsidies, he argued.
Mr Lim, a committee member, said: "If the Government follows certain accepted principles, not only accepted in Singapore but also internationally, but he has his own definition and his own rules, if that is not contempt of Parliament, then what is?"
OFFENCES -
* To assault, hinder, obstruct or insult the Speaker or any MP.
* Refuse to be examined before, or to answer any lawful or relevant
question put by, or to produce any paper, book, record or document in
his possession or under his control required by Parliament or any
committee, unless the refusal is based on parliamentary privilege or
excused.
* Prevaricate or misconduct himself as a witness.
* Present any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to
deceive.
* Wilfully make a false answer to any question which is material to the
subject of inquiry put during examination by Parliament or a
committee.
***End of Article***
CASES: Past and present - Case 1 * In February 1962, student protesters, believing that the Government was trying to do away with Chinese schools, besieged then Parliamentary Secretary (Education) Lee Khoon Choy at his ministry, preventing him from attending a Legislative Assembly sitting.
The assembly, the then Parliament, condemned the action as a "gross breach of privileges" - and therefore contempt - for obstructing and insulting an MP. The Privileges Committee recommended no action, as the offence had been publicised and the police could not identify the culprits.
Case 2 * In 1986, the Leader of the House complained about allegations by then MP J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament of executive interference in the judiciary.
While the Privileges Committee was considering the case, he commented on it in newsletters in his ward. He was fined S$25,000 for contempt of Parliament for reports of scandalous misrepresentation, and S$1,000 for abusing his MP's privileges in allegations made not in good faith.
Case 3 * Last month, Health Minister George Yeo lodged a formal complaint of "serious contempt of Parliament" against a Singapore Democratic Party research team, which had been summoned to explain an alleged "typographical error" in its submission.
Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo said they fabricated data and presented false documents to the Select Committee on Health-care Subsidies, committed perjury, gave false answers wilfully, prevaricated and were guilty of misconduct. They also made a mockery of Parliament through dishonest and inconsistent replies, he said.
The four charged - SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, assistant secretary-general Kwan Yue Keng, vice-chairman Wong Hong Toy and research and planning head S. Kunalen - submitted a written defence to the Privileges Committee a week later.
Case 4? * Last week, Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng said he might lodge a complaint against SDP chairman Ling How Doong for contempt. At a separate hearing of the same Select Committee, Mr Ling did not accept the Government's definition of subsidy. Public funds belonged to citizens, and if spent on them, were not subsidies, he argued.
Mr Lim, a committee member, said: "If the Government follows certain accepted principles, not only accepted in Singapore but also internationally, but he has his own definition and his own rules, if that is not contempt of Parliament, then what is?"
OFFENCES -
* To assault, hinder, obstruct or insult the Speaker or any MP.
* Refuse to be examined before, or to answer any lawful or relevant
question put by, or to produce any paper, book, record or document in
his possession or under his control required by Parliament or any
committee, unless the refusal is based on parliamentary privilege or
excused.
* Prevaricate or misconduct himself as a witness.
* Present any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to
deceive.
* Wilfully make a false answer to any question which is material to the
subject of inquiry put during examination by Parliament or a
committee.
***End of Article***
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,017
- Points
- 48
LHL has indicated that he will not be suing his siblings. Here's one for the lawyers that hang out here. Does this mean that if an opposition politician quotes these allegations he cannot be sued? For example can GMS be sued if he says that he believes that LHL has abused power based on what LHY and LWL has revealed? Can he be sued for saying that he does not believe PM because he finds LWL/LHY more credible and convincing?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,319
- Points
- 113
Let me try my hand.
Legally, there are 2 separate entities here. Lee Hsien Loong the private individual, and The Office of the Prime Minister of Singapore with Lee Hsien Loong as the Prime Minister. Lee Hsien Loong the individual can choose to sue or not sure. As a private individual, if he has been libeled or slandered, then the choice to do either is completely up to him and him alone. Just like its up to you as an individual whether you want to sue or not. But the office of the Prime Minister is another thing altogether. In this case, allegations have been made against the Prime Minister, members in his Office etc. The allegations include such things as abuse of the powers of the PMO, the Ministers and resources in the PMO being allowed to be used by the Prime Minister's wife, Ministers forming a secret committee, etc. There is more then enough grounds here for the govt of SIngapore and the PMO to sue Ling and Yang over the allegations. The matter is out of the hands of LHL. If he does not sue as a private individual, then most certainly the govt must and should sue Ling and Yang. The govt does not need to wait for LHL to commence legal action. They themselves can do it. The Govt. sues people all the time, the fact they are not suing Ling and Yang already shows there is no integrity in the govt. Now you understand why Lucien was made the AG. Lucien is completely compliant to LHL. An independent AG might have said something to LHL like "Look, I know its very awkward for you to sue your own siblings, so whether you want to personally sue them or not, its up to you. But they have also disparaged the govt of Singapore, so I have to commence legal proceedings against them on behalf of the govt.". As Lucien is LHL's former personal lawyer, he just sits there and wait for the go word. Lucien himself should have sued Ling and Yang, because he is being accused of corruption, and cronyism by Ling and Yang, having gotten his AG position not on merit but because he was LHL's personal lawyer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2016
- Messages
- 3,723
- Points
- 113
I read somewhere, in Han Hui Hui's case, that Statutory Boards cannot sue citizens. No ?
More likely LHL can sue opposition, but opposition will join LHY and LWL as co-defendants.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,017
- Points
- 48
Let us assume that there is no law suit against LWL/LHY. Can an opposition politician say that he believes that LHL has abused power based on what LWL/LHY has revealed?
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,319
- Points
- 113
Which cave have you been living in? Are u even a singaporean? Engage simi lancheow QC? LHY's wife is a senior lawyer. U think if they want to engage any lawyers, they would not have done it by now? What LHY paid for Gay Loong's share of the house could have paid for 10 QCs for 5 years of legal work. Here let me clue you in. They are not going the legal route because they know they cannot win in the PAP's kangaroo court system. Simple as that. All the QCs in the world, with all the legal ground in their favour still cannot win in court when the judge is already ordered to find LHL the winner.
Similar threads
