-
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
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 22,619
- Points
- 113
tree worshipping or trying 2 seek divine help? .........
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,598
- Points
- 48
From a Sammyboy fave pavlovian:
Oxley Road dispute: Time to reflect, and seek the common good
Chua Mui Hoong
Opinion Editor
Published
Jun 17, 2017, 5:00 am SGT
Those in family dispute should set aside hurt feelings and self-interest
On my Facebook, some people are saying that the ongoing feud within the Lee family is like a multi-episode TV drama, with plot twists and characters that could have come straight from a scriptwriter's most overwrought imagination.
There is intrigue; a will - in fact, several wills; accusations and counter claims among siblings; money - always, there is money; feuding women; and a whiff of dynastic ambitions, swiftly denied. Politics, power, money, family drama.
They add to a potent mix. And as accusations levelled at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who died in March 2015, swirl, many Singaporeans are following the statements and Facebook posts put out by his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, brother Lee Hsien Yang and third-generation Lees, with a mix of prurient interest and concern.
On Facebook, people talk of this being a popcorn moment, like when you settle down for a movie.
It would all make for great entertainment.
Except, of course, it is not.
Because this is clearly not just a "family matter" being played out in public. Matters of public interest have arisen.
Disagreement over whether to demolish the Lee family home at 38, Oxley Road, or have it conserved for history is central to the ongoing spat. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
First is whether to preserve the Lee family home where the patriarch Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo raised three children. This house was also the site of meetings that led to the founding of the People's Action Party, and a frequent meeting place for the first generation of leaders. It has historic value.
While much is now made of trying to determine what Mr Lee's final, authentic wishes were for the house, ironically it might not matter very much. At least, it should not be the final word... Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or- demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome. Mr Lee himself, after all, as a leader and a lawyer, believed in the rule of law and proper government process for all manner of things, including gazetting of national monuments.
Disagreement over whether to demolish the house or have it conserved for history is central to the ongoing spat. It turns out, too, that inheritance shares and value are also involved.
My former colleague Cherian George summed up the issue well in a post on Thursday, when he said of the senior Mr Lee's wish to demolish his house:
"This was in line with his well-known abhorrence of emotional pulls in politics, whether in the form of race, religion, language or charismatic personality. He wanted to build legitimacy around performance, not identity, and to train Singaporeans to exercise a more clinical, legal-bureaucratic rationality.
"You don't need to be a disciple of Lee Kuan Yew to recognise this as a worthy principle for Singapore governance. Nor do you have to be a traitor to Lee Hsien Loong to acknowledge the risk, red-flagged by his siblings, that this principle will be compromised by preserving their house as a monument, against their father's wishes."
I was part of a team that interviewed Mr Lee for the book Hard Truths. His frugal habits and simple house came up in an interview in August 2009. He immediately said he had told the Cabinet: "When I am dead, demolish it." We probed him for a few minutes on this. But he was quite insistent, citing the cost of preserving it, and the fact that many historic abodes turn into "shambles" after a while.
According to PM Lee, Mr Lee had first stated he wanted the house demolished in earlier wills, but took out that requirement in later wills. In his final will read out after his death, there was a clause which specifically stated that he wished for the house to be demolished.
PM Lee has raised questions about the circumstances in which that last will was made and if Mr Lee was fully aware of the content when he signed it, including the reinstatement of the so-called "demolition clause".
While much is now made of trying to determine what Mr Lee's final, authentic wishes were for the house, ironically it might not matter very much. At least, it should not be the final word on the matter.
Mr Lee believed community and society's needs took precedence over the individual's claims. Just as his Land Acquisition Act rode roughshod over other families' wishes, it is perfectly consistent with the ethos of Mr Lee's regime that the state has power to override Mr Lee's own wishes and those of his family.
This is not to say it should or must.
Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or-demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome.
Mr Lee himself, after all, as a leader and a lawyer, believed in the rule of law and proper government process for all manner of things, including gazetting of national monuments. As for who gains and by how much, should the house be demolished and redeveloped for sale, that is no one's business but the Lees'.
Issues of public interest, such as whether to conserve the house of the founding prime minister, can be resolved calmly, over the long term, by rational discussion and public consultation. There is little value in Facebook wars.
The other issue of public interest that has arisen is the charge made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee that PM Lee "misused his position".
In words carefully crafted to raise questions without making specific accusations, the post said: "Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew on March 23, 2015, we have felt threatened by Hsien Loong's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore Government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system has few checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.
"We feel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against us and Hsien Yang's wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feels compelled to leave Singapore."
The post mentions the writers' fear of the use of organs of state, and their concerns over the lack of checks and balances. The one specific accusation made is that PM Lee "misused" his position and influence over the Singapore Government.
These are serious allegations to make, albeit sweeping and vague. Whatever the differences among the Lee siblings, casting doubts and aspersions on the system that Mr Lee had worked his whole life to build with Singaporeans must surely be an unfortunate, even if unintended, blow to his legacy.
Yet, no doubt many will say that the fact that members of the Prime Minister's own family fear that the organs of state might be improperly used against them is not insignificant, especially in view of the Singapore state's past reputation as a police state.
In 2017, that reputation is receding, as citizens have more rights and feel more empowered, and as the Government also becomes more responsive and accountable. But that might be due to voluntary restraint by the executive.
To be sustainable and iron-clad, checks on executive power must reside in institutional mechanisms, such as laws, regulations and scrutiny by other arms of government, not in voluntary self-restraint by those in power.
Many other issues are being thrown into the mix - some of major public interest, many of nothing more than prurient interest.
Maybe it is because I have met Mr Lee many times as a journalist, sat across from him, watched his face, seen his eyes and heard the intonation of his words, as he spoke about the country he so loved and the family so close to his heart.
I can't view this as a popcorn moment; I can't watch this family drama unfold as pure entertainment. As a political journalist, I had the rare, unusual duty of being present at the Mandai crematorium for both Mr Lee's last journey, and that of his wife.
Mr Lee was not only the Lee siblings' father, but also the Founding Father of Singapore, and many of us as ordinary citizens claim a small - no matter how small - part of him and want to honour his memory.
The public fighting would have grieved him so.
There is a time for everything, and the time for family feuding is not now, when the country faces multiple challenges on the terrorism front and in foreign policy; when we all fear our jobs and livelihoods disappearing as technologies disrupt the workplace.
There is a place for everything, and the place for fighting over a family will and inheritance is not via Facebook and social media.
Singapore is a mature country with a mature polity. There are probate courts. There are family courts. There has been much effort to promote mediation as a means for dispute resolution in tricky cases. There are men and women of integrity and influence who can be appealed to, to mediate.
What is required is that those involved set aside hurt feelings, pride, fears and self-interest and seek to find a common good.
Mr Lee used to talk about "knocking heads" whenever people proved intractable or unyielding to reason. I think he would say that his children need a dose of that right now.
Sroo - guess this is a repeat pulling of the proverbial ear of PM r. 2006 elections when his MHA kaki was going unnecessarily loco?
Oxley Road dispute: Time to reflect, and seek the common good
Chua Mui Hoong
Opinion Editor
Published
Jun 17, 2017, 5:00 am SGT
Those in family dispute should set aside hurt feelings and self-interest
On my Facebook, some people are saying that the ongoing feud within the Lee family is like a multi-episode TV drama, with plot twists and characters that could have come straight from a scriptwriter's most overwrought imagination.
There is intrigue; a will - in fact, several wills; accusations and counter claims among siblings; money - always, there is money; feuding women; and a whiff of dynastic ambitions, swiftly denied. Politics, power, money, family drama.
They add to a potent mix. And as accusations levelled at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who died in March 2015, swirl, many Singaporeans are following the statements and Facebook posts put out by his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, brother Lee Hsien Yang and third-generation Lees, with a mix of prurient interest and concern.
On Facebook, people talk of this being a popcorn moment, like when you settle down for a movie.
It would all make for great entertainment.
Except, of course, it is not.
Because this is clearly not just a "family matter" being played out in public. Matters of public interest have arisen.
Disagreement over whether to demolish the Lee family home at 38, Oxley Road, or have it conserved for history is central to the ongoing spat. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
First is whether to preserve the Lee family home where the patriarch Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo raised three children. This house was also the site of meetings that led to the founding of the People's Action Party, and a frequent meeting place for the first generation of leaders. It has historic value.
While much is now made of trying to determine what Mr Lee's final, authentic wishes were for the house, ironically it might not matter very much. At least, it should not be the final word... Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or- demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome. Mr Lee himself, after all, as a leader and a lawyer, believed in the rule of law and proper government process for all manner of things, including gazetting of national monuments.
Disagreement over whether to demolish the house or have it conserved for history is central to the ongoing spat. It turns out, too, that inheritance shares and value are also involved.
My former colleague Cherian George summed up the issue well in a post on Thursday, when he said of the senior Mr Lee's wish to demolish his house:
"This was in line with his well-known abhorrence of emotional pulls in politics, whether in the form of race, religion, language or charismatic personality. He wanted to build legitimacy around performance, not identity, and to train Singaporeans to exercise a more clinical, legal-bureaucratic rationality.
"You don't need to be a disciple of Lee Kuan Yew to recognise this as a worthy principle for Singapore governance. Nor do you have to be a traitor to Lee Hsien Loong to acknowledge the risk, red-flagged by his siblings, that this principle will be compromised by preserving their house as a monument, against their father's wishes."
I was part of a team that interviewed Mr Lee for the book Hard Truths. His frugal habits and simple house came up in an interview in August 2009. He immediately said he had told the Cabinet: "When I am dead, demolish it." We probed him for a few minutes on this. But he was quite insistent, citing the cost of preserving it, and the fact that many historic abodes turn into "shambles" after a while.
According to PM Lee, Mr Lee had first stated he wanted the house demolished in earlier wills, but took out that requirement in later wills. In his final will read out after his death, there was a clause which specifically stated that he wished for the house to be demolished.
PM Lee has raised questions about the circumstances in which that last will was made and if Mr Lee was fully aware of the content when he signed it, including the reinstatement of the so-called "demolition clause".
While much is now made of trying to determine what Mr Lee's final, authentic wishes were for the house, ironically it might not matter very much. At least, it should not be the final word on the matter.
Mr Lee believed community and society's needs took precedence over the individual's claims. Just as his Land Acquisition Act rode roughshod over other families' wishes, it is perfectly consistent with the ethos of Mr Lee's regime that the state has power to override Mr Lee's own wishes and those of his family.
This is not to say it should or must.
Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or-demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome.
Mr Lee himself, after all, as a leader and a lawyer, believed in the rule of law and proper government process for all manner of things, including gazetting of national monuments. As for who gains and by how much, should the house be demolished and redeveloped for sale, that is no one's business but the Lees'.
Issues of public interest, such as whether to conserve the house of the founding prime minister, can be resolved calmly, over the long term, by rational discussion and public consultation. There is little value in Facebook wars.
The other issue of public interest that has arisen is the charge made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee that PM Lee "misused his position".
In words carefully crafted to raise questions without making specific accusations, the post said: "Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew on March 23, 2015, we have felt threatened by Hsien Loong's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore Government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system has few checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.
"We feel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against us and Hsien Yang's wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feels compelled to leave Singapore."
The post mentions the writers' fear of the use of organs of state, and their concerns over the lack of checks and balances. The one specific accusation made is that PM Lee "misused" his position and influence over the Singapore Government.
These are serious allegations to make, albeit sweeping and vague. Whatever the differences among the Lee siblings, casting doubts and aspersions on the system that Mr Lee had worked his whole life to build with Singaporeans must surely be an unfortunate, even if unintended, blow to his legacy.
Yet, no doubt many will say that the fact that members of the Prime Minister's own family fear that the organs of state might be improperly used against them is not insignificant, especially in view of the Singapore state's past reputation as a police state.
In 2017, that reputation is receding, as citizens have more rights and feel more empowered, and as the Government also becomes more responsive and accountable. But that might be due to voluntary restraint by the executive.
To be sustainable and iron-clad, checks on executive power must reside in institutional mechanisms, such as laws, regulations and scrutiny by other arms of government, not in voluntary self-restraint by those in power.
Many other issues are being thrown into the mix - some of major public interest, many of nothing more than prurient interest.
Maybe it is because I have met Mr Lee many times as a journalist, sat across from him, watched his face, seen his eyes and heard the intonation of his words, as he spoke about the country he so loved and the family so close to his heart.
I can't view this as a popcorn moment; I can't watch this family drama unfold as pure entertainment. As a political journalist, I had the rare, unusual duty of being present at the Mandai crematorium for both Mr Lee's last journey, and that of his wife.
Mr Lee was not only the Lee siblings' father, but also the Founding Father of Singapore, and many of us as ordinary citizens claim a small - no matter how small - part of him and want to honour his memory.
The public fighting would have grieved him so.
There is a time for everything, and the time for family feuding is not now, when the country faces multiple challenges on the terrorism front and in foreign policy; when we all fear our jobs and livelihoods disappearing as technologies disrupt the workplace.
There is a place for everything, and the place for fighting over a family will and inheritance is not via Facebook and social media.
Singapore is a mature country with a mature polity. There are probate courts. There are family courts. There has been much effort to promote mediation as a means for dispute resolution in tricky cases. There are men and women of integrity and influence who can be appealed to, to mediate.
What is required is that those involved set aside hurt feelings, pride, fears and self-interest and seek to find a common good.
Mr Lee used to talk about "knocking heads" whenever people proved intractable or unyielding to reason. I think he would say that his children need a dose of that right now.
Sroo - guess this is a repeat pulling of the proverbial ear of PM r. 2006 elections when his MHA kaki was going unnecessarily loco?
Last edited:
I doubt anyone in cabinet past or present have conducted themselves in this manner. The email shows considerable trust placed on him by the 2 ladies. At least for LWL it was at an emotional level and it involved her father, her only anchor. Suet Fern is a professional colleague and he did not extend her any professional courtesy?
I feel sorry for Indian cabinet ministers like Raja and Tharman. This guy has tarnished them all.
The audacity of this prick to give Singaporeans moralising sermons nearly every month on various topics and projecting an image as an animal lover extraordinaire when no dog will stoop to his level.
First he cheated on his wife and again he cheated on the very people who placed their trust on him.
Is Singapore so bare that they cannot find a more decent and deserving person for cabinet post.
Grace Fu is no better. She was close to the family because of her father. Her father was the first and fastest Op Cold Store detainee that turned on his cell mates and worked for the old man. A turncoat at the first sign of trouble. He was only detained for a matter of days before he spilled the beans. Truly she is her father's daughter.? Stabbed the old man's daughter, when the old man saved the father.
That leaves Lawrence Wong, mercenary that volunteered to be the hatchet man when it came to CSJ and now the siblings.
All these shows the reason behind the cloak and dagger stuff. Why hide it from the siblings in the first place if everything if things were decided on merit.
And here we laugh at the Malaysians over Najib and Rosmah.
I feel sorry for Indian cabinet ministers like Raja and Tharman. This guy has tarnished them all.
The audacity of this prick to give Singaporeans moralising sermons nearly every month on various topics and projecting an image as an animal lover extraordinaire when no dog will stoop to his level.
First he cheated on his wife and again he cheated on the very people who placed their trust on him.
Is Singapore so bare that they cannot find a more decent and deserving person for cabinet post.
Grace Fu is no better. She was close to the family because of her father. Her father was the first and fastest Op Cold Store detainee that turned on his cell mates and worked for the old man. A turncoat at the first sign of trouble. He was only detained for a matter of days before he spilled the beans. Truly she is her father's daughter.? Stabbed the old man's daughter, when the old man saved the father.
That leaves Lawrence Wong, mercenary that volunteered to be the hatchet man when it came to CSJ and now the siblings.
All these shows the reason behind the cloak and dagger stuff. Why hide it from the siblings in the first place if everything if things were decided on merit.
And here we laugh at the Malaysians over Najib and Rosmah.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,331
- Points
- 0
Pinky will not give in..his nature n character will not allow it. To solve this problem. Pinky should just give in a follow the instructions of the will. The Lee family is rich enough that 5 generations will not starve..The lky land of small peanuts...LWL n lhy are rich enough. If pinky wants to b more popular. He should say..use the land n give it to HDB..build a HDB estate n call it LKY estate..his popularity will sky rocket..n he out manoeuvre his siblings..kill 2 birds with one stone..
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 18,360
- Points
- 113
K Shanmugam Sc
3 hours ago
Cabinet Committee
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has questioned my being in the Committee chaired by DPM Teo.
There are dozens of Cabinet Committees set up on a variety of matters. Some are permanent, some are temporary.
Their composition is not public and they report to the Cabinet.
I am well aware of the rules of conflict, having been in practice for over 22 years. The suggestion that I am in conflict is ridiculous. If Mr Lee Hsien Yang seriously believes that I was in conflict, he can get a lawyer to write to me and I will respond.
I was already a Cabinet Minister when I spoke with some members of the Lee family -- at their behest -- and gave them my views. They were not my clients. Nothing that I said then precludes me from serving in this Committee.
I am sure most Singaporeans are sick and tired about these endless allegations, which are quite baseless.
The government has serious business to attend to relating to the welfare of Singaporeans.
3 hours ago
Cabinet Committee
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has questioned my being in the Committee chaired by DPM Teo.
There are dozens of Cabinet Committees set up on a variety of matters. Some are permanent, some are temporary.
Their composition is not public and they report to the Cabinet.
I am well aware of the rules of conflict, having been in practice for over 22 years. The suggestion that I am in conflict is ridiculous. If Mr Lee Hsien Yang seriously believes that I was in conflict, he can get a lawyer to write to me and I will respond.
I was already a Cabinet Minister when I spoke with some members of the Lee family -- at their behest -- and gave them my views. They were not my clients. Nothing that I said then precludes me from serving in this Committee.
I am sure most Singaporeans are sick and tired about these endless allegations, which are quite baseless.
The government has serious business to attend to relating to the welfare of Singaporeans.
First born's "Rules of Prudence"
5..."Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position..."
10..."You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest..."
**********************
Full text...
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/letter-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-pap-mps-rules-prudence
Letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to PAP MPs on Rules of Prudence
29 September 2015
All PAP MPs
RULES OF PRUDENCE
BEYOND SG50
It is a tradition for the Prime Minister to send a letter on “Rules of Prudence” to all the PAP MPs after an election. The context each time may be different but the subject remains constant, because integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental to our Party. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance.
2. Our Party has won 83 out of 89 seats in the just concluded General Election, with all seats contested. Overall, the PAP won 69.9% of the votes.
3. The people have endorsed what we have done in the previous term, and given us a clear mandate to take Singapore forward beyond SG50. Now we must fulfil what we have promised to do in our manifesto. We must never break faith with the people, but must always carry out our duties to them responsibly, address their worries and advance their interests.
4. Be humble in victory. As MPs, always remember we are servants of the people, not masters. Do not mistake the strong election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken. Much work remains to be done tackling issues which concern Singaporeans, and finding new ways to improve people’s lives. Listen hard to voter concerns, help them to tackle pressing needs, and convey their worries and aspirations to the Government. Persuade them to support policies which are in their own long term benefit, while helping the Government to formulate good policies and stay in close touch with the people.
UPHOLDING OUR REPUTATION AND INTEGRITY
5. One vital factor that has enabled the PAP to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity. The PAP’s reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. As PAP MPs, your personal standing reflects this high standing of the Party as a whole. I cannot stress strongly enough that every MP must uphold the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, and do nothing to compromise them. Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. That would discredit both you and the Party.
6. As MPs, you will come across many different sorts of people. Many altruistic, public spirited individuals will help you without wanting anything in return, spending time and money to get community projects going and to serve residents. But a few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence ministries and statutory boards to make decisions in their favour. Gift hampers on festive occasions, entertainment, and personal favours big and small are just a few of countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obligated to them.
7. You must distinguish between these two groups of people, and be shrewd in assessing the motives of those who seek to get close to you. At all times be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.
8. Be scrupulously proper in your contacts with government departments or public officers. Do not lobby any ministry or statutory board on behalf of anyone who is not your constituent or grassroots activist. Do not raise matters with public officers on behalf of friends, clients, contractors, employers, or financiers to advance their business interests. Conduct business with government agencies in writing and avoid making telephone requests. If you have to speak, follow up in writing to put your requests on record.
9. MPs are often approached by friends, grassroots leaders or proprietors and businessmen to officiate at the openings of their new shops or other business events. They usually offer a gesture, such as a donation to a charity or constituency welfare fund. Though it may be awkward to refuse such requests, once you accept one, you will be hard-pressed to draw a line. As a rule, you should decline invitations to such business events. If you feel you should attend, please obtain prior approval from the Whip.
SEPARATING BUSINESS AND POLITICS
10. Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies, or who sit on company boards should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must always be above board.
11. MPs who are employed by companies or industry associations may at times have to make public statements on behalf of their company or industry association. If you have to do so, make it clear that you are not speaking as an MP, but in your private, professional or business capacity.
12. Do not use Parliamentary questions as a means to lobby the Government on behalf of your businesses or clients. When you raise questions in Parliament related to your own businesses or your clients, be careful to first declare your pecuniary interest in the issue.
13. You may, however, speak freely to Cabinet Ministers, who are your Parliamentary colleagues. Ministers will listen carefully to arguments on principles, especially when they relate to the general policy of their Ministries. But Ministers will not exercise their discretion to change individual decisions without very good reasons which they can justify publicly. Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers of State who intervene in their Ministries to reverse or alter decisions should promptly report the matter to their Ministers to protect themselves against possible accusations of misconduct. The Government must always base decisions on the merits of the issues, and cannot yield to pressure from interested parties.
DIRECTORSHIPS
14. MPs are often invited to serve on the Boards of private and publicly listed companies. This is a sign that the private sector values PAP MPs’ integrity and experience, and reflects the high standing of the Party and of PAP MPs in general. The Party permits MPs to serve as directors, provided you keep your private and public responsibilities rigorously separate, and your private appointments do not compromise your duties and performance as an MP.
15. The public will closely scrutinise your involvement in companies, because you are a PAP MP. Conduct your business activities so as to bring credit to yourself and to the Party. Adverse publicity on your performance as a director, or lapses in the companies you are associated with, will tarnish your reputation as an MP and lower the public’s regard for the Party.
16. You should not solicit for Directorships in any companies, lest you appear to be exploiting your political position to benefit yourself.
17. You should not accept directorships where your role is just to dress up the board with a PAP MP or two, in order to make the company look more respectable.
18. Some grassroots leaders are businessmen who own or manage companies. You should not sit on any boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders appointed by you, so as to avoid the perception that you are obligated to them or advancing their business interests.
19. If you are offered a Directorship, you have to decide for yourself whether to accept. The Party is not in a position to vet or approve such decisions.
20. Before accepting, consider the possible impact of the Directorship on your political life. Ensure that the company understands that you are doing so strictly in your private capacity, and will not use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf.
21. Make every effort to familiarise yourself with the business, track record and background of the key promoters of the company. Satisfy yourself that the company is reputable, and that you are able to make a meaningful contribution. Specifically, just like anyone else contemplating a Directorship, you should ask yourself:
a. How well do you know the company, its business strategy, financial status, shareholding structure and the underlying industry?
b. Do you know your fellow directors, the way the Board and its committees fulfil their responsibilities, the reporting structure between Board and Management and the relationship between shareholders and the company?
c. Do you have sufficient industry, financial or professional expertise to fulfil your expected role and responsibilities as a Director? Do you understand your obligations under the law and the Code of Corporate Governance? Will you be able to discharge your fiduciary duties properly and without fear or favour?
d. Will you face any conflicts of interest, and if so can you manage them? If in any doubt, you should decline.
22. Once you have decided to take up a Directorship, please inform the Whip. Detailed reporting requirements are listed in the Annex.
PARLIAMENT
23. MPs are expected to attend all sittings of Parliament. If you have to be absent from any sitting, seek permission from the Government Whip. Please inform the Whip if you have to leave the Parliament premises while a sitting is on.
24. If you travel abroad, or need to be absent from Parliament for any reason, you must apply to the Speaker for leave, with copies to the Leader of the House and the Government Whip. You should also inform the Whip where you can be reached while abroad.
25. I have asked the Speaker to give all MPs, particularly new MPs, ample opportunity and latitude to speak in Parliament. Your first opportunity will be during the debate on the President’s Address at the opening of Parliament in January 2016. Following that, at the Budget Debate, all MPs should speak up. Script your speeches or put your key points in note form to structure your presentation and help the media.
26. The public expects PAP MPs to express their views frankly, whether for or against Government policies. During debates, speak freely and with conviction. Press your points vigorously, and do not shy away from robust debate. However, please exercise judgement when putting your points across, and do not get carried away playing to the gallery.
27. Bring out questions and issues that Singaporeans and your constituents have concerns about, and grapevine talk for the Government to rebut, but avoid unwittingly lending credence to baseless gossip. This will show that you and the Party are in touch with the ground, and speaking up for Singaporeans. Bringing up pertinent issues and questions in a timely manner helps ministers to put across the facts, explain the reasons for policies and decisions, and maintain public confidence in the openness and integrity of our actions.
28. Your honest, informed views are an important political input to Ministers when they formulate and review policies. Ministers will accept valid, constructive suggestions, but they have to challenge inaccurate or mistaken views. Over time, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better.
IMPORTANT PUBLIC OCCASIONS
29. On certain occasions, like the National Day Parade and the Investiture Ceremony for National Day Awards, the whole Establishment, i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, will be there. Those who cannot attend must have very good reasons. Those who have accepted the invitation must attend, otherwise they leave empty seats, which does no credit to them or to the Party.
30. At all public functions and constituency events, punctuality is of paramount importance.
GIFTS
31. You should not accept gifts which might place you under obligations which conflict with your public duties. If you receive any gifts other than from close personal friends or relatives, you must declare them to the Clerk of Parliament who will have the gifts valued. If you wish to keep the gifts, you must pay the Government for them at the valuation price.
FUND-RAISING
32. Party Branches should not raise funds on their own without permission, for example by soliciting advertisements for a souvenir magazine or a carnival. If you intend to raise funds, please clear it beforehand with the Organising Secretary. When your branch embarks on a collective fund-raising activity, e.g. a Family Day or Walk-A-Jog, you must follow the rules strictly.
FINANCIAL PRUDENCE
33. As MPs, you should manage your personal financial affairs prudently. Do not over-extend yourself or become financially embarrassed. This would be not only a potential source of personal embarrassment, but also a weakness which may expose you to pressure or blackmail.
34. In particular, be careful about making major financial commitments assuming that you will continue to receive your MP’s allowance. While MPs typically serve several terms, you cannot assume that you will automatically be fielded in future General Elections, or that if fielded you will definitely be re-elected. There is neither tenure nor job security in politics.
DECLARATION OF INCOME
35. For your own protection, every MP should disclose to me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of Government Ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or clients. Office holders need not do so because you will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct for ministers. This should be done by 31 October 2015.
GENERAL BEHAVIOUR
36. The PAP has held our position in successive elections because our integrity has never been in doubt, and because we are sensitive to the views and attitudes of the people we represent. MPs must always uphold the high standards of the Party and not have lifestyles or personal conduct which will embarrass themselves and the Party. Any slackening of standards, or show of arrogance or indifference by any MP, will erode confidence in him, and ultimately in the Party and Government. New MPs can pick up the dos and don’ts from older MPs. You should conduct yourselves always with modesty, decorum and dignity, particularly in the media. You must win respect, not popularity, to stay the course.
MEDIA PUBLICITY
37. I am releasing a copy of this letter to the media so that the public knows the high standards we demand of our MPs.
LEE HSIEN LOONG
cc: Government Whip
5..."Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position..."
10..."You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest..."
**********************
Full text...
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/letter-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-pap-mps-rules-prudence
Letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to PAP MPs on Rules of Prudence
29 September 2015
All PAP MPs
RULES OF PRUDENCE
BEYOND SG50
It is a tradition for the Prime Minister to send a letter on “Rules of Prudence” to all the PAP MPs after an election. The context each time may be different but the subject remains constant, because integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental to our Party. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance.
2. Our Party has won 83 out of 89 seats in the just concluded General Election, with all seats contested. Overall, the PAP won 69.9% of the votes.
3. The people have endorsed what we have done in the previous term, and given us a clear mandate to take Singapore forward beyond SG50. Now we must fulfil what we have promised to do in our manifesto. We must never break faith with the people, but must always carry out our duties to them responsibly, address their worries and advance their interests.
4. Be humble in victory. As MPs, always remember we are servants of the people, not masters. Do not mistake the strong election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken. Much work remains to be done tackling issues which concern Singaporeans, and finding new ways to improve people’s lives. Listen hard to voter concerns, help them to tackle pressing needs, and convey their worries and aspirations to the Government. Persuade them to support policies which are in their own long term benefit, while helping the Government to formulate good policies and stay in close touch with the people.
UPHOLDING OUR REPUTATION AND INTEGRITY
5. One vital factor that has enabled the PAP to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity. The PAP’s reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. As PAP MPs, your personal standing reflects this high standing of the Party as a whole. I cannot stress strongly enough that every MP must uphold the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, and do nothing to compromise them. Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. That would discredit both you and the Party.
6. As MPs, you will come across many different sorts of people. Many altruistic, public spirited individuals will help you without wanting anything in return, spending time and money to get community projects going and to serve residents. But a few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence ministries and statutory boards to make decisions in their favour. Gift hampers on festive occasions, entertainment, and personal favours big and small are just a few of countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obligated to them.
7. You must distinguish between these two groups of people, and be shrewd in assessing the motives of those who seek to get close to you. At all times be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.
8. Be scrupulously proper in your contacts with government departments or public officers. Do not lobby any ministry or statutory board on behalf of anyone who is not your constituent or grassroots activist. Do not raise matters with public officers on behalf of friends, clients, contractors, employers, or financiers to advance their business interests. Conduct business with government agencies in writing and avoid making telephone requests. If you have to speak, follow up in writing to put your requests on record.
9. MPs are often approached by friends, grassroots leaders or proprietors and businessmen to officiate at the openings of their new shops or other business events. They usually offer a gesture, such as a donation to a charity or constituency welfare fund. Though it may be awkward to refuse such requests, once you accept one, you will be hard-pressed to draw a line. As a rule, you should decline invitations to such business events. If you feel you should attend, please obtain prior approval from the Whip.
SEPARATING BUSINESS AND POLITICS
10. Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies, or who sit on company boards should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must always be above board.
11. MPs who are employed by companies or industry associations may at times have to make public statements on behalf of their company or industry association. If you have to do so, make it clear that you are not speaking as an MP, but in your private, professional or business capacity.
12. Do not use Parliamentary questions as a means to lobby the Government on behalf of your businesses or clients. When you raise questions in Parliament related to your own businesses or your clients, be careful to first declare your pecuniary interest in the issue.
13. You may, however, speak freely to Cabinet Ministers, who are your Parliamentary colleagues. Ministers will listen carefully to arguments on principles, especially when they relate to the general policy of their Ministries. But Ministers will not exercise their discretion to change individual decisions without very good reasons which they can justify publicly. Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers of State who intervene in their Ministries to reverse or alter decisions should promptly report the matter to their Ministers to protect themselves against possible accusations of misconduct. The Government must always base decisions on the merits of the issues, and cannot yield to pressure from interested parties.
DIRECTORSHIPS
14. MPs are often invited to serve on the Boards of private and publicly listed companies. This is a sign that the private sector values PAP MPs’ integrity and experience, and reflects the high standing of the Party and of PAP MPs in general. The Party permits MPs to serve as directors, provided you keep your private and public responsibilities rigorously separate, and your private appointments do not compromise your duties and performance as an MP.
15. The public will closely scrutinise your involvement in companies, because you are a PAP MP. Conduct your business activities so as to bring credit to yourself and to the Party. Adverse publicity on your performance as a director, or lapses in the companies you are associated with, will tarnish your reputation as an MP and lower the public’s regard for the Party.
16. You should not solicit for Directorships in any companies, lest you appear to be exploiting your political position to benefit yourself.
17. You should not accept directorships where your role is just to dress up the board with a PAP MP or two, in order to make the company look more respectable.
18. Some grassroots leaders are businessmen who own or manage companies. You should not sit on any boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders appointed by you, so as to avoid the perception that you are obligated to them or advancing their business interests.
19. If you are offered a Directorship, you have to decide for yourself whether to accept. The Party is not in a position to vet or approve such decisions.
20. Before accepting, consider the possible impact of the Directorship on your political life. Ensure that the company understands that you are doing so strictly in your private capacity, and will not use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf.
21. Make every effort to familiarise yourself with the business, track record and background of the key promoters of the company. Satisfy yourself that the company is reputable, and that you are able to make a meaningful contribution. Specifically, just like anyone else contemplating a Directorship, you should ask yourself:
a. How well do you know the company, its business strategy, financial status, shareholding structure and the underlying industry?
b. Do you know your fellow directors, the way the Board and its committees fulfil their responsibilities, the reporting structure between Board and Management and the relationship between shareholders and the company?
c. Do you have sufficient industry, financial or professional expertise to fulfil your expected role and responsibilities as a Director? Do you understand your obligations under the law and the Code of Corporate Governance? Will you be able to discharge your fiduciary duties properly and without fear or favour?
d. Will you face any conflicts of interest, and if so can you manage them? If in any doubt, you should decline.
22. Once you have decided to take up a Directorship, please inform the Whip. Detailed reporting requirements are listed in the Annex.
PARLIAMENT
23. MPs are expected to attend all sittings of Parliament. If you have to be absent from any sitting, seek permission from the Government Whip. Please inform the Whip if you have to leave the Parliament premises while a sitting is on.
24. If you travel abroad, or need to be absent from Parliament for any reason, you must apply to the Speaker for leave, with copies to the Leader of the House and the Government Whip. You should also inform the Whip where you can be reached while abroad.
25. I have asked the Speaker to give all MPs, particularly new MPs, ample opportunity and latitude to speak in Parliament. Your first opportunity will be during the debate on the President’s Address at the opening of Parliament in January 2016. Following that, at the Budget Debate, all MPs should speak up. Script your speeches or put your key points in note form to structure your presentation and help the media.
26. The public expects PAP MPs to express their views frankly, whether for or against Government policies. During debates, speak freely and with conviction. Press your points vigorously, and do not shy away from robust debate. However, please exercise judgement when putting your points across, and do not get carried away playing to the gallery.
27. Bring out questions and issues that Singaporeans and your constituents have concerns about, and grapevine talk for the Government to rebut, but avoid unwittingly lending credence to baseless gossip. This will show that you and the Party are in touch with the ground, and speaking up for Singaporeans. Bringing up pertinent issues and questions in a timely manner helps ministers to put across the facts, explain the reasons for policies and decisions, and maintain public confidence in the openness and integrity of our actions.
28. Your honest, informed views are an important political input to Ministers when they formulate and review policies. Ministers will accept valid, constructive suggestions, but they have to challenge inaccurate or mistaken views. Over time, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better.
IMPORTANT PUBLIC OCCASIONS
29. On certain occasions, like the National Day Parade and the Investiture Ceremony for National Day Awards, the whole Establishment, i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, will be there. Those who cannot attend must have very good reasons. Those who have accepted the invitation must attend, otherwise they leave empty seats, which does no credit to them or to the Party.
30. At all public functions and constituency events, punctuality is of paramount importance.
GIFTS
31. You should not accept gifts which might place you under obligations which conflict with your public duties. If you receive any gifts other than from close personal friends or relatives, you must declare them to the Clerk of Parliament who will have the gifts valued. If you wish to keep the gifts, you must pay the Government for them at the valuation price.
FUND-RAISING
32. Party Branches should not raise funds on their own without permission, for example by soliciting advertisements for a souvenir magazine or a carnival. If you intend to raise funds, please clear it beforehand with the Organising Secretary. When your branch embarks on a collective fund-raising activity, e.g. a Family Day or Walk-A-Jog, you must follow the rules strictly.
FINANCIAL PRUDENCE
33. As MPs, you should manage your personal financial affairs prudently. Do not over-extend yourself or become financially embarrassed. This would be not only a potential source of personal embarrassment, but also a weakness which may expose you to pressure or blackmail.
34. In particular, be careful about making major financial commitments assuming that you will continue to receive your MP’s allowance. While MPs typically serve several terms, you cannot assume that you will automatically be fielded in future General Elections, or that if fielded you will definitely be re-elected. There is neither tenure nor job security in politics.
DECLARATION OF INCOME
35. For your own protection, every MP should disclose to me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of Government Ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or clients. Office holders need not do so because you will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct for ministers. This should be done by 31 October 2015.
GENERAL BEHAVIOUR
36. The PAP has held our position in successive elections because our integrity has never been in doubt, and because we are sensitive to the views and attitudes of the people we represent. MPs must always uphold the high standards of the Party and not have lifestyles or personal conduct which will embarrass themselves and the Party. Any slackening of standards, or show of arrogance or indifference by any MP, will erode confidence in him, and ultimately in the Party and Government. New MPs can pick up the dos and don’ts from older MPs. You should conduct yourselves always with modesty, decorum and dignity, particularly in the media. You must win respect, not popularity, to stay the course.
MEDIA PUBLICITY
37. I am releasing a copy of this letter to the media so that the public knows the high standards we demand of our MPs.
LEE HSIEN LOONG
cc: Government Whip
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2016
- Messages
- 3,723
- Points
- 113
This post is tantamount to Wikipedia on Shan.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 30,580
- Points
- 0
he's a shit skin. He will obviously act like that it's in their blood. A good shit skin is an exception rather than the norm.
P.23 of first born's SD takes on a significance with the claim by Pinocchio Teo that he was the one who "set up" the secret committee. He stated this,
"When the siblings provided us with differing accounts of their father’s wishes, we asked them for further clarifications."
as though he had no prior knowledge about the matter when in reality, Pinky stated this in his SD:
Too many lies.
"When the siblings provided us with differing accounts of their father’s wishes, we asked them for further clarifications."
as though he had no prior knowledge about the matter when in reality, Pinky stated this in his SD:
"23. I was so struck by the sequence of volunteered statements that on 23 April 2015, 11 days later, I recounted to DPM Teo Chee Hean in my office what had happened at the reading of the Last Will, including what LSF had said."
Too many lies.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,575
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,598
- Points
- 48
Lee Hsien Yang unhappy over delay and uncertainty in demolishing Oxley Road House: Goh Chok Tong
SINGAPORE - Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had last year explained to Mr Lee Hsien Yang the care being taken by the ministerial committee studying the options for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road, however Mr Lee "remained unhappy over the delay and uncertainty in demolishing the house".
Mr Goh, in a Facebook post on Saturday, said: "It is not worth tearing up family bonds built over a lifetime over these differences, however serious they are. This is not the family legacy which their father would have wanted to leave behind. Singaporeans can urge them to settle their dispute amicably in private or through closed-door arbitration."
The ministerial committee studying options for the Oxley Road home bore the brunt of the spotlight on Saturday, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean issued a statement detailing its composition and responsibilities.
Mr Lee and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling had in the past few days criticised their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over the committee, which they claim was set up to obstruct them from carrying out their late father's wish that the house be demolished after his death.
Mr Goh said Mr Teo had spoken to him about the range of options he was exploring for the Oxley Road house.
"I advised him to respect Lee Kuan Yew's wish but agreed that it would be disrespectful of our own heritage to just demolish the house for it to be replaced by a commercial building or another private residence," he wrote. "I support the careful way in which DPM and the Government is handling the issue as public interests are involved. He is right to explore options beyond the binary demolish-preserve decision."
Mr Teo in his statement said that the committee is studying various "intermediate options", such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room where many important historical meetings took place, with an appropriate heritage centre attached. These studies are ongoing, he added.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 928
- Points
- 63
I look at TOTO twice every week too! By the way, you missed 4D on Wednesday!
Your turn may come one day. Be patient. :p
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 32,792
- Points
- 113
Not too Long ago, Shan was after scroobal.
The old birds in this forum will recall that incident.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,575
- Points
- 113
Altogether now!!! Huat ah!!!
Looks like Goh has joined Teo as a double act taking over from Ringling Bros Circus.
Suddenly we see options like preserving the basement.
Why this time the serious tone and seemingly sincere tone when the first message from him was a highly deflective statement about Singapore and Singaporeans.
Why the secrecy on the committee and why the siblings could not be told over one year until it hit the fan.
Why not he set an example by opening his own home as he steered SS Singapore for 14 years and I am sure we want to remember it.
Suddenly we see options like preserving the basement.
Why this time the serious tone and seemingly sincere tone when the first message from him was a highly deflective statement about Singapore and Singaporeans.
Why the secrecy on the committee and why the siblings could not be told over one year until it hit the fan.
Why not he set an example by opening his own home as he steered SS Singapore for 14 years and I am sure we want to remember it.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Messages
- 397
- Points
- 28
As more and more of these lackeys desperately try to obfuscate the key message of abuse of state organs and the appointment of the AG through the complicit mainstream media, is there anything civil servants can do? Esp. civil servants with access to the true picture of PAP Politicians. If such info is revealed, will Singaporeans finally change their minds about the PAP or will they prefer to remain in denial?
I stopped because the daughter who doing her A levels equivalent in Seattle in a private academy and the son was in Uni in London then and had been affected. This guy is incorrigible.
I remember he once gave an interview to the press about his childhood. He said that he grew up in rental properties until he was 16. What he did not mention was he came from the wealthy Chettiar money lender class noted for their properties. These chettiars formed kongsi and a band of them would operate from a shophouse with little tables while their families stayed up stairs. They rented out their own homes for good money.
Even big time towkays took loans from them. They used be found in market street and River Valley and their customers were predominantly Chinese merchants. When loans defaulted even warehouses were seized.
I guess nothing has changed.
I remember he once gave an interview to the press about his childhood. He said that he grew up in rental properties until he was 16. What he did not mention was he came from the wealthy Chettiar money lender class noted for their properties. These chettiars formed kongsi and a band of them would operate from a shophouse with little tables while their families stayed up stairs. They rented out their own homes for good money.
Even big time towkays took loans from them. They used be found in market street and River Valley and their customers were predominantly Chinese merchants. When loans defaulted even warehouses were seized.
I guess nothing has changed.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 8,901
- Points
- 113
Stay tuned for 3am ...still developing...:*:u
Similar threads
