http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/cabinet-committee-not-bent-keeping-38-oxley-road-dpm-teo
Cabinet committee not bent on keeping 38 Oxley Road: DPM Teo
PUBLISHED: 7:55 PM, JUNE 27, 2017UPDATED: 8:13 PM, JUNE 27, 2017
SINGAPORE — It is not true that the ministerial committee set up to look at the options for 38 Oxley Road is bent on preventing its demolition, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said on Tuesday (June 27).
Noting that this was a “misconception” that Mr Lee Hsien Yang may have, Mr Teo reiterated that the committee, which he chairs, was tasked to “study and set out the range of possible options” for the Lee family home, and present them to Cabinet.
The Government had said previously that no immediate decision is needed on what to do with the house, as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in it. Mr Teo said that if, for example, Dr Lee ceases to live there next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month.
“If she stays there for 30 more years, then the Government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide,” Mr Teo said. The committee had written to Mr Lee and Dr Lee to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications. “By way of illustration, we highlighted that converting the House to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning. This is in writing,” Mr Teo added.
He said that he met Mr Lee “several times between April and July 2015”, and informed him that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself on government decisions relating to the house.
Mr Teo added that during those meetings, he conveyed Cabinet’s deep respect for founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and that Cabinet “will take very seriously (his) wishes regarding the House, as expressed in his Will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the House”. He also informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang “that no decision is needed now”. “(Dr Lee) is living in the House, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government,” Mr Teo added.
Mr Teo was responding to one of Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s Facebook posts on Tuesday, where he said, among other things, that he and Dr Lee “have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure”.
Referring to the post, Mr Teo noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang agrees that there is no need for a decision on the house now.
“So there is no difference of views between (Mr Lee Hsien Yang) and the government on when a decision is to be made,” he said. Mr Teo said he had also shared his “personal views, verbally” on some of the options with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached. “My objective was to let him know that government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options,” he said.
In his Facebook post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang had also said that “long before the committee was formed”, he and his sister offered a suggestion to Mr Teo that the house be demolished after Dr Lee no longer lives there, and a memorial garden be built in its place. But Mr Teo was “reluctant and did not pursue the discussion further” and PM Lee also rejected this offer, Mr Lee Hsien Yang claimed.
Mr Teo said he does not recall whether it was Mr Lee Hsien Yang or him who suggested a memorial park, “but he is mistaken that I expressed reluctance”. Mr Teo added: “I said that I personally did not support the options on the extreme ends of the range – preserving the House as it is, or demolishing the House to redevelop it for new private residences. There are indeed a range of viable intermediate options between these.”
Noting that Mr Lee Hsien Yang “seems supportive of some of the intermediate options” that the committee is studying, “there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made”, he said.
FULL STATEMENT BY DPM TEO CHEE HEAN:
I met Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) several times between April and July 2015.
I informed him that PM Lee had recused himself on government decisions relating to No. 38 Oxley Road (“the House”).
I conveyed Cabinet’s deep respect for Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Mr Lee), and that Cabinet will take very seriously Mr Lee’s wishes regarding the House, as expressed in his Will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the House.
I also informed him that no decision is needed now. Dr Lee Wei Ling (LWL) is living in the House, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government.
From Mr LHY’s latest statement on 27 June 2017, he agrees there is no need for a decision on the House now. So there is no difference of views between Mr LHY and the government on when a decision is to be made.
A misconception that Mr LHY may have is that the Committee is bent on preventing the demolition of the house. This is not true.
The Committee was set up to study and set out the range of possible options for the House and present them to Cabinet. Cabinet will only decide on which option to choose, when the time comes for a decision to be made on the House. If, for example, Dr LWL ceases to live in the House next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month. If she stays there for 30 more years, then the Government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide.
The Committee had written to Mr LHY and Dr LWL to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications. By way of illustration, we highlighted that converting the House to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning. This is in writing.
I had also shared my personal views, verbally, on some of the options with Mr LHY, such as demolishing the House but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached. My objective was to let him know that government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options.
I do not recall whether it was Mr LHY or I who suggested a memorial park, but he is mistaken that I expressed reluctance. I said that I personally did not support the options on the extreme ends of the range – preserving the House as it is, or demolishing the House to redevelop it for new private residences. There are indeed a range of viable intermediate options between these. Mr LHY seems supportive of some of the intermediate options we are studying.
So there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made.
