• 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

Agree, and I think to the bitter end. Siblings have nothing to lose. No need for money, no need to aspire in their chosen field etc etc.

By the way the senior members of our Civil Service are laughing their head-off over the irony that this Government led by their distinguished Head has signed a deal with Facebook 6 months ago to implement their web chat comms platform for the entire Civil Service. World's first, went live 3 months ago to the first pilot cluster. Cleary the affinity for FB runs deep, professional and personally.

But I shall be surprised if it ends publicly on after this wayang exercise. LHY and LWL have gone way too far to stop now and shall probably continue to rely on social media and foreign media to put forward their own case and that of LKY's final wish.
 
Last edited:
Why did LKY bequeath 38OR to LHL? Especially after that apparent ominous Cabinet meeting in 2011.

Why were LWL and LHY allegedly "unhappy" that LHL inherited 38OR? And why did LHY eventually purchase 38OR from LHL, especially under such onerous conditions? Keep in mind the existence of the Demolition clause in the Will.

From p4 of the siblings' "What has happened to LKY's values" statement:

"Hsien Loong knew that he could not establish his accusations [about the Final Will] in a court of law and raised no legal challenge. On the contrary, he was likely concerned that the fact that the gift of the house to him had been obtained by him through misrepresentations to our father and the family might be made public.[...]

Hsien Loong initiated a settlement with us in May 2015; the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew was contemplating a challenge of the disposition of the house to him based on his misrepresentations. Hsien Loong represented that this sale of the house would give us a free hand to demolish the house."

 
https://article14blog.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/singapore-needs-to-move-beyond-the-lee-family/


Singapore needs to move beyond the Lee family.


For 5 decades (or even 6), this island’s politics has been dominated by one political party. That political party has been dominated (after the first generation leaders had stepped aside) by the larger-than-life presence of Lee Kuan Yew. It is safe to assert that Singapore’s political culture is also one that it very much moulded by Lee Kuan Yew.

Those who love and adore LKY identify the incorruptibility of the Singapore Civil service and the ministers with the personality of LKY himself. This extends to a view of the PAP as being incorruptible, believers in the rule of law, and beyond reproach in governance.

Those who hate the man identify the authoritarianism of the PAP with his personality. In fact, apologists for the PAP style of governance argue that it is precisely the denial of civil liberties that has reaped economic success for the nation. (Whether Singaporeans had to pay this heavy price in order to achieve material progress is a separate point for debate. I choose not to engage in that debate here.)

In the play ‘Fences’ the playwright, August Wilson, has penned a great line, “You got to take the crooked with the straights. That’s what papa used to say”. (Fences has now been made into a movie with Denzel Washington playing the lead role. Excellent acting. I strongly recommend it.)

When it comes to LKY and his legacy, one has to take the crooked with the straights.

Allegations of Abuse of Power

The current saga involving the Lee siblings is an illustration of this specific problem with the system. While the Lee siblings have been going on and on about abuse of power by their brother, they seem to be wilfully closing their eyes to the fact that their father was the real Big Brother. Lee Hsien Loong and the current PAP leaders have inherited the legal mechanism of authoritarian control from LKY. To be fair to the current government, its authoritarianism is nowhere near the brand of authoritarianism practised by LKY.

There is greater space for expression of opinion today than there was in the 1980s when I was a teen or even in the 1990s. In those days, many of us were fearful of expressing political views in public. That is not the case today. Yes, you could still be sued for defamation, charged for sedition, etc. But, the current government has been very sparing in its usage of repressive instruments. In terms of the authoritarian legacy of LKY, this is definitely LKY-lite. (Part of the reason for this may well be the fact that the internet is an untameable beast and not that the PAP has relinquished some of its authoritarian DNA. That again, is another topic for discussion.)

When the Lee siblings complained about abuse of power by their brother and when we see the examples cited by them as alleged evidence of abuse, it is clear that it pales in comparison to the stuff that happened in the past. What does one make of political detentions? The detentions that incapacitated the political opposition in the 1960s. The detentions that neutered the trade unionists in the late 60s into the 70s. The 1987 detention of alleged Marxist conspirators (about which even some PAP members, including DPM Tharman, have expressed doubts).

Lee Wei Ling shared, on her Facebook page, Niemoller’s famous poem:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak for me.”


The irony of her post is certainly not lost on Singaporeans. I just hope that she spoke in truth as the person for whom nobody is coming forward to speak now as she was silent throughout the years of political repression and now has some realisation. Somehow I doubt that she meant it that way. Many on social media commented on the irony (or even possible hypocrisy). Having said that, if indeed the Lee siblings are being victimised by the state, they do deserve our support. (two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s no sense in watching in glee from the sidelines as the state machinery goes into overdrive against the duo.)

The South China Morning Post ran an article where the issue of the father’s authoritarianism was raised:

“Lee Hsien Yang, a former military general who later became one of Singapore’s most prominent corporate figures, also addressed the Post’s queries on why he and his sister were not as critical about their father’s strongman leadership style as they have been about their brother over the last week.

The late Lee Kuan Yew, while largely revered at home, had also faced international criticism for his authoritarian style of governing, whether in social engineering policies to re-order society or dealing with political opponents through punitive defamation suits

Lee Hsien Yang said: “Let us not mince words. Singapore’s social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was – civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach.”

He said this social compact was “now broken”, and accused his brother of being ready to use his “public powers to achieve his personal agenda”.”

It is an interesting contention by Lee Hsien Yang. He’s not opposed to his father’s authoritarian ways. He is arguing that it was part of the social compact. Citizens were willing to give up their liberties so long as the government respected the rule of law and was utterly beyond reproach. (There is a whole debate about the overlap between the rule of law and civil liberties. I’ll leave that discussion out for now. We’ll take his assertion at face value for the purpose of this post.)

It appears that the position of Lee Hsien Yang is that the current PM is abusing his authority. The usage of a ‘secretive’ ministerial committee and the obtaining of a Deed of Gift from the NHB are raised as examples of abuse of authority. In a Facebook post, LHY stated:

“Did LHL acquire the Deed of Gift in his public capacity, or his private capacity? If in his public capacity, to use this in his personal legal disputes is a clear abuse of authority. If in his private capacity, how can other private citizens go about acquiring confidential deeds of gift from the NHB?”

If this allegation is true, it can potentially be characterised as an abuse of authority. But, it would certainly be at the mild end of the spectrum. Just so that we have a point of comparison, older readers will remember the Tang Liang Hong defamation case back in 1997. Tang Liang Hong had made a police report alleging that he was afraid for his safety because of allegations made against him that he was a Chinese chauvinist. JB Jeyaratnam waved a copy of this police report at an election rally. Though neither Tang Liang Hong nor JBJ publicly disclosed the precise contents of the police report, the contents were splashed in the local media. As it turned out Goh Chock Tong obtained a copy of the police report from the police. The following is from the JBJ’s Note to the Judges of the Court of Appeal in the defamation suit:

“Mr Shanmugam claimed that a report made to the police of the commission of a crime (see section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is a public document, implying thereby that any member of the public may inspect it and take a copy thereof. He says therefore there was nothing wrong in Mr Goh Chok Tong obtaining a copy.

This is not so.

A report is only a public document for the purpose of its admission in any proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. (See section 117 of the CPC which authorises a certified true copy admissible in court without the production of the original).

It is not the practice of the police to release to any member of the public any report to the police. However, if the person against whom the report has been made is charged in court, then the police, at the request of the person or his Solicitors and upon payment of the fees prescribed under the law, will furnish the report. Clearly this is to enable the defence to tender the report in court, if the prosecution does not.

Mr. Goh Chok Tong’s evidence in the proceedings in Suit No 244 of 1997 said that he had told the Minister for Home Affairs to send him the report immediately it was filed. The Minister for Home Affairs was not the person against whom the report was made and he therefore stands in the position of a member of the public.”

If one were to make a comparison between that 1997 incident and the current allegation of abuse of authority, the difference is stark. Though both incidents involve the obtaining of a document from a government department which was later used in a civil proceedings, there is a more innocent spin that can be placed on the Deed of Gift incident involving the NHB and the current PM.

Similarly, LHY has spoken of being subject to surveillance. LKY openly admitted to recording a law society meeting back in 1986 during a Select Committee session where Teo Soh Lung was told flat in the face by the Prime Minister:

“In the age of the tape recorder, you want to know how I am able to get a transcript of what you said?”

So, let’s not be under any illusion here. LHY is not engaged here in a battle to uphold some sacred principle of government. There is certainly more to it. It could be long standing sibling rivalry (coupled with a series of misunderstandings) or it could be about dollars and cents. Some would say, “follow the money.”

Follow the Money

If you did follow the money in this saga, LHY seems to be the person coming up short. The Oxley house is now in LHY’s name (LHL’s share has been bought off and LHL has donated the proceeds to charity.) If the property eventually gets demolished, the land could be developed or be sold to a developer. The greatest financial gain here would be for LHY given that the land is in a prime area. If the government now acquires the property and prevents the demolition of the house, LHY would have to be content with whatever compensation is made by the government. (Land acquisition has always been controversial and it involves the state acting at odds with private property rights. Some would argue that it is a form of theft. That again, is a topic for discussion on another occasion.)

Seeing it this way suggests a possible motive for the current trial by Facebook that is going on. Of course, one could place a sinister spin on LHL’s motives by saying that after striking a deal on the property with his siblings LHL may now be using the Ministerial committee to prevent the demolition of the house and possibly even procure the acquisition of the house by the state (thereby causing a loss to his brother).

There are so many ways that we can spin this story. It is a family squabble like so many other family squabbles that can happen to any of us. But, unlike other families, this family is in a very different position in relation to this nation. As I said at the start, so much of the political life of this nation has been dominated by Lee Kuan Yew. His family members are in influential positions in the public and private sectors.

The allegations raised go beyond mere allegations about LKY’s will and his true intention in relation to his estate. It is more than just about sibling rivalry. This is about our political system: what it has become and how it could be changed.

It’s Time for Political Change


The July 3rd Parliamentary debate on this saga is not going to make these allegations go away. It would be political suicide for the PM to sue his siblings. The fallout from that would be devastating for him and his party. Not doing anything or trying to explain away the allegations in Parliament is not going to help either. For so long as Lee Hsien Loong remains the Prime Minister, his siblings are going to keep throwing m&d at him. I believe that the siblings’ endgame has now moved beyond 38 Oxley Rise. Considering that the bundle of allegations that they have made include assertions of dynasty building, the siblings may ultimately desire that their brother should step down from office.

Many have commented that this public feud is not healthy for Singapore. On the contrary, I believe that this is a positive development. When Lee Kuan Yew died in 2015, the post-LKY era did not arrive. We, as a society, got frozen in time. Our politicians were looking to the past to fashion the future. The PAP leaders repeatedly tried to draw links with the LKY legacy. The man was no more but his values lived on in the party. It had become an imperative that the party should draw its legitimacy from LKY and his works. (preserving the house is as much about historical heritage as it is about maintaining the political legitimacy of the PAP)

Even without attempting to look outside of the PAP, the current government does have capable individuals who can come forward and lead the nation forward boldly and with a clear vision. However, too many of them have been nurtured from within the system created by LKY that they are not able to step out from the shadows. So much of the PAP’s collective psyche is so overawed by LKY that one has to wonder if there is enough self-believe within the party’s members to creatively map a future. It is not about the lack of talent but the lack of will.

We have been in a limbo for a while now about where we want to go. As usual, in our country, the talk is about the future of the economy. Interestingly, the future economy is not going to tie in well with a model of authoritarian control. Free-spiritedness and creative thinking will be the currency of the future. There is obviously a realisation within policy circles that we need to get prepared for technological disruption. The only problem is that while everyone foresees disruption, nobody is willing to take bold steps to free up this society.

There comes a moment in a nation’s life where it must re-imagine itself. (After all a nation is an imagined community.) We have an opportunity now to take that bold step forward. To do so, the leadership of this country has to step out of the shadow of LKY. The ingredients of our early success cannot be reused over and over again. Some of that old-model authoritarianism has to go.

Right now, the most immediate, practical, and even symbolic step forward would be for the PAP leadership to accelerate its succession. If the PM, in consultation with his Party members, amicably steps down, it will be good for his soul and the soul of this nation.

As one of LKY’s grandsons said, “the country must be bigger than one family.”

I agree.

The Lee family must step away from the limelight. They can settle their differences in private. For that the PM must step down. A new PM with a vision for a future should take the leadership role. It can’t be just about rehashing the tried and tested stuff. What can we do to improve our society and our political structure to ensure more openness, compassion and empathy, and to build a culture that values individual happiness and where material wealth is a means to an end? We need someone who can talk to the individual citizen and inspire a new generation to walk down the path of hope for a better future. Some sacred cows may have to be sacrificed along the way.

We can’t continue to be in an unimaginative limbo. This ship cannot continue to go on autopilot.

Some opposition supporters have suggested that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling should join the opposition or even form their own opposition party. I really do believe that they should stay out of it. We as a community must have the faith and self-believe that leadership and vision is not the monopoly of a single family. The LKY legacy will soon become an albatross around this society’s neck.

In the following months, members of the PAP must seriously consider leadership change. The longer this saga drags out, the more damaging it would get politically.

———————————————-END———————————————————-

Food for thought:

“Like other members of the PAP old guard, I saw the creation of a solid socioeconomic base as a vitally necessary springboard for the realisation of human ends and values. At least for me, and for the others in the anti colonial movement like me, the human agenda was primary. In short, the urgent, organized, disciplined drive for economic growth and technological progress was powered by non-economic aspirations and ideals….. Modern technology and management systems would be the necessary means to advance the human agenda. Alas, we failed to foresee that human ends would come to be subverted for the greater glory of the material means, and our new Jerusalem would come to harbour a metallic soul with clanking heartbeats, behind a glittering technological facade……… What we launched as the independent republic of Singapore succeeded, as the world knows, all too well, only to discover that in the eyes of Lee Kuan Yew, means had become ends in themselves. First principles were stood on their heads. Economic growth and social progress did not serve human beings. On the contrary, the primary function of citizens was to fuel economic growth—a weird reversal of values.” – Devan Nair in the Foreword to Francis Seow’s “To Catch a Tartar”.

Advertisements
 
It's pretty clear that Loong and Ching tricked Yang to purchase and subsequently, use his political influence and state organs to ensure that Yang and Ling won't get to do what LKy wanted, ie., Demolish 38 Ox.

Yup. He spent all his precious time thinking of the "right way to fix" his siblings and came up with this clever plan.

Pity it backfired spectacularly.

[video=youtube;a1WhJKsYb50]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WhJKsYb50[/video]
 
IR really lost it.

I vaguely remember someone saying that LWL's intention was to retire and live in upstate New York. I forgot the name but I suspect it will be place she can walk and trek freely in view of who she is and what she has become. She has a very close Singapore friend there married to an Ang Moh.

New Jersey
 
New Jersey

ithaca, new york. home of cornell, her alma mater. there's even a "ho plaza" at cornell where she can find familiarity and the "ho" doesn't escape her. :p

IMG_0217.JPG
 
Last edited:
It may seem that she did not think she was wrong about anything - here is her 4th post for earlier this morning:

Indranee Rajah
10 hrs ·

So after all that has been said, this brings us back to the basic question:

Why is the government being asked to decide now? What is the urgency?

This question has not been answered.

As usual, this bitch is trying to be too clever by half, thinking she is asking clever questions when the answers are already out there in the siblings' statement and in LKY's publicy stated wish i.e. to have the house demolished after his passing.

Her boss tried to thwart his father's wishes. The siblings responded likewise by thwarting her boss' plans by having LWL in the house so he can't do anything which, at the snap of the finger, he will if she moves out. Once a commitment is given, both siblings will immediately have the house demolished as this has been their consistent position, that they want to honour their father's wish to have the house demolished after his death.

The thought of this hypocritical and ungrateful bitch riding LKY's Tanjong Pagar GRC coattail since 2001, and who will no doubt continue to milk her association with him in order to be re-elected in TP GRC in future, even as she works with his son to plunge a dagger into his back after his death, is particularly revolting.


 
https://publichouse.sg/lets-not-twist-lee-kuan-yews-words-he-wanted-his-house-demolished-period/

Let’s not twist Lee Kuan Yew’s words – he wanted his house demolished, period

tnp-750x410.png
27 Jun 2017

The Government seems to be on a campaign to turn Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wish about his house into something else. And it is doing so by clutching at straws to shore up its misguided attempts to change what Mr Lee had wanted – the complete demolition of his house at 38 Oxley Road.

In her Facebook post of 23 June, the Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah, attempted to convince Singaporeans that Mr Lee “accepted that the house may not be demolished.”

Do note the use of the word “accepted” here.

This was repeated 3 lines later in Ms Indranee’s note, which says:

“The Will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.”

Again, she claims that Mr Lee “accepts” an alternative option on the fate of his house.

Ms Indranee’s claims, however, contradict what Mr Lee himself had said multiple times when he was alive, and what was disclosed in his will after his death, and also what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said 3 weeks after Mr Lee’s passing.

It is also worth noting that all of Mr Lee’s 3 children had said that their father was “unwavering” in his wish for the house to be torn down completely.

So, let us look at the words of each of these people specifically, instead of that of ministers who were not privy to private conversations among the family members.

Mr Lee first mentioned his wish publicly in his 2011 book, Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going.
He said:

“I’ve told the Cabinet, when I’m dead, demolish it.”

He repeated the sentiment:

Because of my house the neighbouring houses cannot build high. Now demolish my house and change the planning rules, go up, the land value will go up.”

And then he said it again:

“I don’t think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it will bemoan its loss. They have old photos to remind them of the past.”

Those were Mr Lee’s own words when he was alive. But that was not the only time he spoke of wanting his house demolished.

[video=youtube;W9Lii0Jg5qw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Lii0Jg5qw&feature=youtu.be[/video]

PM Lee himself revealed that Mr Lee had a meeting with the Cabinet and made his wish known to them, and that Mr Lee had written two letters later to the Cabinet to state his wish again.

After his passing in March 2015, Mr Lee’s will regarding the house was made public. It said:

“I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death or, if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out.”

There is a second part to the will and we will come to that later. For now, it is clear that Mr Lee had wanted his house torn down completely. There is no question about it. This was made clear in his book, in his will and in his private conversations with his family.

On 13 April, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a joint statement to the media about Mr Lee’s wish for the house.

The statement said:

“His wish both expressed to us privately, and publicly was unwavering, and was for the house to be torn down upon his passing. He was concerned an order might be issued against his wishes.”

On the same day in Parliament, PM Lee used the exact same words to describe Mr Lee’s feelings about wanting the house demolished.

In his speech in Parliament on calls to honour Mr Lee, PM Lee said:

“Mr Lee’s position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values. We should respect his wishes, as well as those of Mrs Lee.”

Mr Lee never changed his mind. He wanted his house demolished, torn down completely.

Now, Ms Indranee says Mr Lee “accepts” that his wish may not be fulfilled, and that Mr Lee’s will itself “specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.”

Let us take a closer look at Mr Lee’s will.

The first part pertaining to his wish for the house is stated above – unequivocally, Mr Lee wanted his house demolished.

The second part is what Ms Indranee used to support her claim.

So let’s look at it closely.

It says [emphasis added]:

“If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged…”

First, it is important to understand why Mr Lee made this statement. Contrary to what Ms Indranee claims, Mr Lee never “accepts” that his house may not be torn down.

More accurately, Mr Lee recognised or realised that his wish would not be carried out (perhaps after having met the Cabinet which was against the demolition). This was in fact what Mr Lee’s daughter and younger son had indicated: “He was concerned an order might be issued against his wishes.”

As such, what is Mr Lee to do but to stipulate his “second best wish”, if you will. This, however, does not mean it is his wish or that he “accepts” or would “accept” such an outcome.

It is something he had to stipulate, given no choice, to protect the privacy of his wife and his own.

Again, it does not mean he “accepts” it.

He did not, and would not.

There is a big difference between recognising or realising something, and accepting it.

Also, do note that Mr Lee’s “second best wish”, if you will, is based on a particular circumstance – if there were “any changes in the law, rules or regulations” preventing his children from demolishing his house.

Now, the government has not said there will be any such changes which will affect the house. Or that it is going to gazette the address. So, this “second best wish” in fact is moot. It is irrelevant, and thus it does not come into play.
lky.jpg

So, at the end of the day, it is really quite simple. We only need to ask ourselves one question: what is Mr Lee’s wish for the house?

It is to have it demolished, as is clearly stated by himself in his book, in his will, in his private conversations with his family, in the public statements of his three children, including the speech by the Prime Minister to Parliament, and also in accordance with the wish of his wife.

How much clearer could Mr Lee have been?

There is no need for any ministerial committee to investigate “Mr Lee’s thinking” with regard to his house.

If he were alive today, he would say the same thing: demolish my house.

So, please give the man some respect, now that he has passed on. After all, he has given his life to the country and nation. There is no need to deliberately distort, misrepresent or misconstrue his last wish, even if you are not going to honour it.
lkyhonoured-1024x536.jpg
Photo: Straits Times
 


As usual, this bitch is trying to be too clever by half, thinking she is asking clever questions when the answers are already out there in the siblings' statement and in LKY's publicy stated wish i.e. to have the house demolished after his passing.

Her boss tried to thwart his father's wishes. The siblings responded likewise by thwarting her boss' plans by having LWL in the house so he can't do anything which, at the snap of the finger, he will if she moves out. Once a commitment is given, both siblings will immediately have the house demolished as this has been their consistent position, that they want to honour their father's wish to have the house demolished after his death.

The thought of this hypocritical and ungrateful bitch riding LKY's Tanjong Pagar GRC coattail since 2001, and who will no doubt continue to milk her association with him in order to be re-elected in TP GRC in future, even as she works with his son to plunge a dagger into his back after his death, is particularly revolting.



her behaviour is not unexpected for a shitskin.
 
But LHL sold his share to LHY and then want to gazette 38, Oxley..Bad!!!

Lhl is not only unfilial Son but a bastard elder brother who Makan the younger siblings.
Now you know this pm of a man's greed knows no bounds.
 
Uh after DNA test n they got HC? What sort of DNA test is that?

Pinky is a carrier of the genes for albinism. Takes another carrier for the recessive genes to surface. HC is normal and non-carrier of the genes for albinism. Sadly, Dr Wong was a carrier.
 
https://publichouse.sg/lets-not-twist-lee-kuan-yews-words-he-wanted-his-house-demolished-period/

Let’s not twist Lee Kuan Yew’s words – he wanted his house demolished, period

tnp-750x410.png
27 Jun 2017

The Government seems to be on a campaign to turn Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wish about his house into something else. And it is doing so by clutching at straws to shore up its misguided attempts to change what Mr Lee had wanted – the complete demolition of his house at 38 Oxley Road.

In her Facebook post of 23 June, the Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah, attempted to convince Singaporeans that Mr Lee “accepted that the house may not be demolished.”

Do note the use of the word “accepted” here.

This was repeated 3 lines later in Ms Indranee’s note, which says:

“The Will specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.”

Again, she claims that Mr Lee “accepts” an alternative option on the fate of his house.

Ms Indranee’s claims, however, contradict what Mr Lee himself had said multiple times when he was alive, and what was disclosed in his will after his death, and also what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said 3 weeks after Mr Lee’s passing.

It is also worth noting that all of Mr Lee’s 3 children had said that their father was “unwavering” in his wish for the house to be torn down completely.

So, let us look at the words of each of these people specifically, instead of that of ministers who were not privy to private conversations among the family members.

Mr Lee first mentioned his wish publicly in his 2011 book, Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going.
He said:

“I’ve told the Cabinet, when I’m dead, demolish it.”

He repeated the sentiment:

Because of my house the neighbouring houses cannot build high. Now demolish my house and change the planning rules, go up, the land value will go up.”

And then he said it again:

“I don’t think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it will bemoan its loss. They have old photos to remind them of the past.”

Those were Mr Lee’s own words when he was alive. But that was not the only time he spoke of wanting his house demolished.

[video=youtube;W9Lii0Jg5qw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Lii0Jg5qw&feature=youtu.be[/video]

PM Lee himself revealed that Mr Lee had a meeting with the Cabinet and made his wish known to them, and that Mr Lee had written two letters later to the Cabinet to state his wish again.

After his passing in March 2015, Mr Lee’s will regarding the house was made public. It said:

“I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death or, if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out.”

There is a second part to the will and we will come to that later. For now, it is clear that Mr Lee had wanted his house torn down completely. There is no question about it. This was made clear in his book, in his will and in his private conversations with his family.

On 13 April, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a joint statement to the media about Mr Lee’s wish for the house.

The statement said:

“His wish both expressed to us privately, and publicly was unwavering, and was for the house to be torn down upon his passing. He was concerned an order might be issued against his wishes.”

On the same day in Parliament, PM Lee used the exact same words to describe Mr Lee’s feelings about wanting the house demolished.

In his speech in Parliament on calls to honour Mr Lee, PM Lee said:

“Mr Lee’s position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values. We should respect his wishes, as well as those of Mrs Lee.”

Mr Lee never changed his mind. He wanted his house demolished, torn down completely.

Now, Ms Indranee says Mr Lee “accepts” that his wish may not be fulfilled, and that Mr Lee’s will itself “specifically accepts and acknowledges that demolition may not take place.”

Let us take a closer look at Mr Lee’s will.

The first part pertaining to his wish for the house is stated above – unequivocally, Mr Lee wanted his house demolished.

The second part is what Ms Indranee used to support her claim.

So let’s look at it closely.

It says [emphasis added]:

“If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged…”

First, it is important to understand why Mr Lee made this statement. Contrary to what Ms Indranee claims, Mr Lee never “accepts” that his house may not be torn down.

More accurately, Mr Lee recognised or realised that his wish would not be carried out (perhaps after having met the Cabinet which was against the demolition). This was in fact what Mr Lee’s daughter and younger son had indicated: “He was concerned an order might be issued against his wishes.”

As such, what is Mr Lee to do but to stipulate his “second best wish”, if you will. This, however, does not mean it is his wish or that he “accepts” or would “accept” such an outcome.

It is something he had to stipulate, given no choice, to protect the privacy of his wife and his own.

Again, it does not mean he “accepts” it.

He did not, and would not.

There is a big difference between recognising or realising something, and accepting it.

Also, do note that Mr Lee’s “second best wish”, if you will, is based on a particular circumstance – if there were “any changes in the law, rules or regulations” preventing his children from demolishing his house.

Now, the government has not said there will be any such changes which will affect the house. Or that it is going to gazette the address. So, this “second best wish” in fact is moot. It is irrelevant, and thus it does not come into play.
lky.jpg

So, at the end of the day, it is really quite simple. We only need to ask ourselves one question: what is Mr Lee’s wish for the house?

It is to have it demolished, as is clearly stated by himself in his book, in his will, in his private conversations with his family, in the public statements of his three children, including the speech by the Prime Minister to Parliament, and also in accordance with the wish of his wife.

How much clearer could Mr Lee have been?

There is no need for any ministerial committee to investigate “Mr Lee’s thinking” with regard to his house.

If he were alive today, he would say the same thing: demolish my house.

So, please give the man some respect, now that he has passed on. After all, he has given his life to the country and nation. There is no need to deliberately distort, misrepresent or misconstrue his last wish, even if you are not going to honour it.
lkyhonoured-1024x536.jpg
Photo: Straits Times

Well written article .

The Mother of all questions on 4th of July is : will the house be demolished according to LKY 's will?
All other questions are immaterial. The when and how of the demolition are also secondary.
 
Well written article .

The Mother of all questions on 4th of July is : will the house be demolished according to LKY 's will?
All other questions are immaterial. The when and how of the demolition are also secondary.
Based on the latest development, my guess is that the house will be demolition. It is necessary for the completion of the project. It now becomes clearer why lhy goes to the international press.

Whoever that comes out with this plot, it is a great job. No matter what happened, blood is still thicker than water. The siblings had ssacrificed to save him at the end of the day.

Hope that my guess is correct, then there is still hope for sg.
 
The Mother of all questions on 4th of July is : will the house be demolished according to LKY 's will?

All other questions are immaterial. The when and how of the demolition are also secondary.

TCH's statement seems to suggest that LHL is now looking at a face-saving way of crawling out of a shithole of his own making. If Mamba bitch suddenly stops barking and goes quiet or spout less nonsense, it would serve to confirm this.

With the siblings' Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, threatening to cut it off, one slice at a time with the drip-by-drip release from the voluminous and even more damaging information they have in their possession, there's very little chance first born can pull through this. His and his beholden bitch's "casting doubt strategy" used by lawyers in the courtroom to win their cases, is not only not working, but making the situation worse for him.

If those MPs not yet tainted by this scam have no balls to act independently, they should band together, approach him and tell him he no longer has their confidence, his presence as PM will continue to damage the country, and ask him to step down completely, without expecting any of the nonsensical Senior Minister or Minister Mentor role after he steps down. As "elder" statesman with a considerable 13-14 year seat warming experience, Wooden can then resume his seat-warming role for 2-3 years for political stability and to prevent infighting for the PM position until the party decides on the next PM.

Needless to say, this is wishful thinking and nothing more than the type of dumb fantasy that I indulge in every once in a while.
 
This govt will not go to this extent with cabinet ministers conducting themselves in an inappropriate manner and then concede defeat. On 3rd July they will do 2 things

1) The only demolishing they will do is that of the allegations of abuse of office with their arguments which the state press will then spend the next few days shaping it as a convincing and satisfactory argument.

2) Postpone all actions in regard to the house and claim that they are doing it to respect the wishes of the Old man and his desire to allow his daughter to remain there. Any attempt to agree to demolish the house is a capitulation and a loss of face. Especially so as the State has all the powers it needs. They will then throw the ball into the siblings court by stating that the Govt is prepared to discuss all options at their convenience.

When the storm dies down, the Govt will use its machinery to shape a supposed view of majority Singaporeans where the shell of the house is preserved and garden built around it. The plps will turn up in their dozens and give interviews saying that it takes into account Old Man and his wife's view not to let people walk thru the house. Completely ignoring the main thrust of his will.





Based on the latest development, my guess is that the house will be demolition. It is necessary for the completion of the project. It now becomes clearer why lhy goes to the international press.

Whoever that comes out with this plot, it is a great job. No matter what happened, blood is still thicker than water. The siblings had ssacrificed to save him at the end of the day.

Hope that my guess is correct, then there is still hope for sg.
 
Extract of "FULL STATEMENT BY DPM TEO CHEE HEAN:"

[...] 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. [...]

https://www.facebook.com/LeeHsienYangSGP/


Lee Hsien Yang

· 2 hrs ·

The committee did not disclose the options they were considering in our prior exchanges, unlike what DPM Teo implies now. Their letters largely focused on parroting LHL's attacks on our father's will.

All our discussions with DPM Teo about options for the house occurred long before the formation of the committee and only with him in his personal capacity.

Yang 8.JPG
 
I fully agreed with your first prediction. Under normal circumstances the 2nd prediction should also be the most likely course of action. However, are they allowed not to lose face?

This govt will not go to this extent with cabinet ministers conducting themselves in an inappropriate manner and then concede defeat. On 3rd July they will do 2 things

1) The only demolishing they will do is that of the allegations of abuse of office with their arguments which the state press will then spend the next few days shaping it as a convincing and satisfactory argument.

2) Postpone all actions in regard to the house and claim that they are doing it to respect the wishes of the Old man and his desire to allow his daughter to remain there. Any attempt to agree to demolish the house is a capitulation and a loss of face. Especially so as the State has all the powers it needs. They will then throw the ball into the siblings court by stating that the Govt is prepared to discuss all options at their convenience.

When the storm dies down, the Govt will use its machinery to shape a supposed view of majority Singaporeans where the shell of the house is preserved and garden built around it. The plps will turn up in their dozens and give interviews saying that it takes into account Old Man and his wife's view not to let people walk thru the house. Completely ignoring the main thrust of his will.
 
Unless his political career is at stake as on the eve of 2011 GE where an apology and the opportunity to fix the wrong was offered, I don't see him concede. Any concession will be covered by the foreign press even if Warren and Han comes to his rescue.

As a chess player, his flanks continue to be exposed as his siblings can continue with their attacks on this and other matters.

If a concession is offered, there is likely to be a binding and confidential agreement with the siblings agreeing not to pursue him in this and other issues as a prerequisite. Which by itself would be long drawn.

Hopefully senses will prevail.

I fully agreed with your first prediction. Under normal circumstances the 2nd prediction should also be the most likely course of action. However, are they allowed not to lose face?
 
Reading this Robert Boxwell's supercilious sycophantic( apparent desperate attempt to kiss LHL's ass) article titled "Parliament, not Facebook, the proper forum for Oxley Road dispute" in today's ST, makes me wonder what this egregious angmoh toady seeks to gain from LHL & Co.?!

http://app.scmp.com/scmp/mobile/index.html#/article/2099577/desktop


Again I give credit to Han Fook Kwang for having the balls to come out and call it like he see's it. No other local establishment elite seems to have done likewise in the public domain thus far( I stand corrected), not even an apparent 'ex- establishment elite' like Cherian George.



"....The second issue of public concern is about the Prime Minister being accused by his siblings of all sorts of serious transgressions. They say he has misused and abused his powers, using the state to pursue his personal agenda, including spying on them. In other words, they accuse him of being corrupt. They also say he has lied and misrepresented the late Mr Lee over what he said about demolishing the house after his death.

Under normal circumstances, PM Lee would not allow these statements to go unchallenged and he would have had to sue the defamers in a court of law. If he does not, he will find it difficult to sue anyone in future even if they accuse him of the most blatant corruption and dishonesty.

But the PM also knows that it would be fatal for him politically to sue his own brother and sister. The fallout from it and the court case would damage him permanently. It is also a highly risky business because you have to be prepared for your character and all your actions to be closely scrutinised in court. The People's Action Party leaders know this better than anyone because it was once their preferred method of dealing with their political opponents. Indeed, the party's success is founded on the claim that its leaders are men of the highest integrity and that it will go to the ends of the earth to protect that reputation.

Since he will not sue, the matter has now become a full blown political battle. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has taken to social media and the foreign press to argue his case and it is nothing less than that the Singapore system has become corrupted under his brother's rule. In his latest interview with the South China Morning Post, he said: "Singapore's social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was - civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach." He said this social compact was now broken and accused his brother of being ready to use his "public powers to achieve his personal agenda"....."


The proper forum is a SINGAPORE COURT OF LAW, plain and simple.

One that LHL, GCT and the late Harry were so happy and adamant to use previously against any person/entity who allegedly defamed them.

Oh and btw, HC needs to sue as well!
 
Back
Top