Serious Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

[flatearther]

New salvo from Yang on FB, Ling a bit more reserved than usual...

Yes, posted at 5.06pm:
facebook.com/1901442703429163

DPM Teo Chee Hean on 17 June 2017: “The Committee has tasked the relevant agencies to study a range of options for the property. I have shared some of these options with the siblings."

Wei Ling and I wish to clarify that we have had no interaction with DPM Teo Chee Hean in his capacity as Chair of the Committee since the Committee has been formed. Neither has Lawrence Wong who was the sole point of contact given any indication of the range of options under consideration.

We had met with DPM Teo on numerous occasions apart from and well before the formation of the committee. During those discussions we had explored a wide range of options as well as concerns we had regarding Lee Hsien Loong and his family. DPM was always careful to preface his remarks that any views he expressed were personal views.

 

[flatearther]

Meanwhile, WP officially fired their questions...Haha

Yes, posted at 5pm:
facebook.com/1750813894935186

The Workers' Party believes the crux of the family issues surrounding 38 Oxley Road is for the family to resolve privately or in Court. We are only concerned with the allegations of abuse of power and the harm these have caused to confidence in Singapore and our political institutions. WP MPs have filed the following parliamentary questions to help clear the air on the allegations

Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government would consent to a resolution to convene a Special Select Committee of Parliament, comprising Members from all parties, with public hearings that are broadcast live to look into allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister made by members of his family so as to allow his accusers to present all the relevant evidence to Parliament

Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules are in place to ensure that Ministers and senior public office-holders with personal or pecuniary interests in the subject-matter of government decisions do not influence or participate in the related deliberations and decision-making, and how are the rules enforced; (b) as regards government opinions or decisions relating to the estate and assets of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, what conflicts or potential conflicts of interest did the government identify to exist from among the members of the Cabinet and with regard to the Attorney-General; (c) how these conflicts or potential conflicts of interest were or are being managed

PNG ENG HUAT: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what clear rules and directives are in place to prevent Ministers and other political appointees from abusing their positions to access, influence and direct senior civil servants on matters beyond their professional course of work; and (b) how often are these rules and directives communicated to the senior civil servants and in what form

Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to prevent, limit, detect, and address situations where ministers or other political appointees use state organs to obtain information not related to the performance of their duties, advance personal interests or punish detractors, critics, or political opponents

Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister when should a minister or political appointee go to court to defend his or her reputation and when should he or she refrain from private litigation and seek instead to address such allegations publicly, such as in Parliament

Leon Perera: To ask the Prime Minister (a) under what circumstances Ministerial committees whose existence is not made public are convened to address issues; (b) how many of such committees exist and can their terms of reference and composition be publicly announced unless forbidden by national security concerns: (c) in the case of the Ministerial committee reviewing the fate of No 38 Oxley Road, will independent heritage experts and processes for public opinion sensing be engaged by the committee

Daniel Goh 吴佩松: To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether Deeds of Gifts executed with the National Heritage Board may be shared with third persons, and if so, under what circumstances they may be shared, (b) whether the Deed of Gift of items from 38 Oxley Road was protected by a confidentiality clause, and if so, why did the Board release the Deed to the Prime Minister

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

The tiger has returned to the mountain.

Why you think the accusations only came about when LHL overseas?

erh........ the fox has returned.............

 

[po2wq]

... WP MPs have filed the following parliamentary questions to help clear the air on the allegations ...

how cum their boss got nutting 2 ask? ...

 

[Leongsam]

I love this loaded question.....

Chen Show Mao[FONT=&quot]: To ask the Prime Minister when should a minister or political appointee go to court to defend his or her reputation and when should he or she refrain from private litigation and seek instead to address such allegations publicly, such as in Parliament[/FONT]

 

[scroobal]

Have to give credit to WP, they planned this well looking at all the questions. Now to see the execution.

I love this loaded question.....

 

[Froggy]

Correction.

 

[virus]

Why no ask gay loong did he or did he not lie in lumparleement as suggested by bros n why he did not take leave from office until this matter is settled cos not appropriate capacity to use state organ in view of allegations

 

[PTADER]

Here's a screenshot from: facebook.com/1901090283464405
(click the arrow at the top right-hand corner of the post, followed by clicking "More options", and finally clicking "View edit history"), proving that LHY edited his post:

Thanks for digging it up. Looks like an innocuous edit and nothing sinister.

 

[Goldcheekon]

Correction.

You said something Ho Ching a d Temasek? :p

 

[PTADER]

My question would be:sammyboy.com/showthread.php?244368-Will there be a Referendum for 38 Oxley Road? :p

Only 18.8% of Singaporeans are atheists. The remaining 81.2% profess a religion. A referendum will see a good majority agreeing that the wishes of the dead should be carried out as respect for the deceased, and for fear of LKY's wandering and anguished soul - never mind that he is agnostic - which cannot rest in peace because of first born's nonsense. Or that he will be stuck in a dukkha cycle, unable to reach nirvana notwithstanding he is not a Buddhist.

Unlike LHL's Facebook warriors flooding his FB with ball sucking comments, those Ah Peks and Ah Sohs, Pak Ciks and Mak Ciks , Mamas and Achis and the silent religious majority, have not had their voices heard.

First born knows this and for this reason, he won't hold a referendum as he knows he will lose. Plus it is really not the business of the public to decide in a vote as to whether the will of a deceased should be honoured.

First born miscalculated badly and thoroughly fucked up on this. He thought he could milk his father's legacy and at the same time, bully his siblings into silence and from speaking out publicly.

 

[scroobal]

Agree with you on both counts. The comments are indeed disturbing. Nothing intelligent nor do they make anything constructive. I was shocked even expats joining in.

I hope LWL and LHY are smart enough to predict the possible outcomes and plan their appropriate counter attack. The moment I saw LHL saying about debating (or more like lecturing) in parliament, it's like a check mate for him. He is such a coward.

It is so disheartening to see the comments of people in both LHL and LHY's FB pages, I think these people are really brainless or are these the 70% singaporeans that we are truly seeing? I don't see any future for singapore with these people as the majority. 70% is more than 2/3, that means if you see left and right, and if you are the 30% then the other 2 must be idiots.

 

[McDonaldsKid]

Alex Au brought up a point which I had found strange also.

Isn't lifting the whip meant for voting only, as in members of a party can vote on their own volition instead of following the party line?

What has lifting the whip got to do with asking the PM questions? Unless he means the questions dont have to be vetted or submitted?

Doesnt make sense to me...

 

[Wunderfool]

The PM speech is one-sided. There is no mention of what he should do with the Oxley house ; whether he should comply to his father's will to demolish the house. This is the crux of the matter. Will he or will he not fulfill his father 's wish to have the house demolished ? If no, why ?

It arouses suspicion that there must be something inside or underneath the house that only LHL knows of while his other siblings are unaware of that the idea of demolition is absolutely repulsive to LHL.

 

[scroobal]

There is ray of hope, a sensible post on LHY's FB


ML Tan Indeed this is troubling and justify the setting up of independent Commission of Inquiry in the interest of transparency. I couldn't understand why previous Attorney-General VK Rajah retired in Jan 2017 at age 60 and (A) refused to serve, say, for 3 more years to give time to his successor(s) to be more ready for takeover, (B) was not offered an extension of retirement on 3-year contract (as was offered to his older successor, Lucien Wong, at age 63) or (C) could not be persuaded to stay on for a mere 3 years. As President Tan holds the second key (so to speak) over key appointments of top civil servants, a COI would allow these no-brainer questions to be answered.

It doesn't sit comfortably (even though nothing may be amiss) for the ex-boss of the Law Minister in the law firm to now be the subordinate reporting to the Law Minister as a civil servant. We are human after all. Therefore, having too close a relationship built up over many years is not healthy (and increases the risks that could potentially affect good governance) when one is a civil servant and the other is a political office holder. It is just common sense, isn't it?

 

[scroobal]

This is to confuse the already lost generation of Singaporeans.

Alex Au brought up a point which I had found strange also.

Isn't lifting the whip meant for voting only, as in members of a party can vote on their own volition instead of following the party line?

What has lifting the whip got to do with asking the PM questions? Unless he means the questions dont have to be vetted or submitted?

Doesnt make sense to me...

 

[Seee3]

Here's a screenshot from:
facebook.com/1901090283464405
(click the arrow at the top right-hand corner of the post, followed by clicking "More options", and finally clicking "View edit history"), proving that LHY edited his post:

Thank you for the info.

 

[Charlie99]

There is ray of hope, a sensible post on LHY's FB


ML Tan Indeed this is troubling and justify the setting up of independent Commission of Inquiry in the interest of transparency. I couldn't understand why previous Attorney-General VK Rajah retired in Jan 2017 at age 60 and (A) refused to serve, say, for 3 more years to give time to his successor(s) to be more ready for takeover, (B) was not offered an extension of retirement on 3-year contract (as was offered to his older successor, Lucien Wong, at age 63) or (C) could not be persuaded to stay on for a mere 3 years. As President Tan holds the second key (so to speak) over key appointments of top civil servants, a COI would allow these no-brainer questions to be answered.

It doesn't sit comfortably (even though nothing may be amiss) for the ex-boss of the Law Minister in the law firm to now be the subordinate reporting to the Law Minister as a civil servant. We are human after all. Therefore, having too close a relationship built up over many years is not healthy (and increases the risks that could potentially affect good governance) when one is a civil servant and the other is a political office holder. It is just common sense, isn't it?

The circumstances pertaining to the retirement of the 60 year old Attorney General and the appointment of a 63 year old Attorney General is very strange.

Based on the little that I know, hear and see, very few lawyers in their prime, retire at the age of 60, unless there are very compelling reasons.

For a logical, reasonable and smart individual to claim that since he or she is not in practice and has no clients, he has no conflict of interest, is absurd.
An apparent or actual conflict of interest can arise, whether or not there is any solicitor / client relationship or any professional / client relationship.

With respect, I believe that those situations as they existed or exist, show an apparent conflict of interest, and should have been avoided:
1. appointment of a lawyer who has acted as the solicitor for the Prime Minister in his personal and/or family matters;
2. appointment of a Deputy Attorney General, who was a former MP, and a former member of the PAP; and
3. appointment of a lawyer who worked with the current Minister of Law, for an extended period of time.

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

Correction.

This thread very close to 100,000 views

 

[decent02]

Singaporeans are finished. Looking at LSL Facebook comments, I see so many sick human beings. But that is the hard truth. Most people just look after themselves. I see so many people complaining and worrying about their cpf money. I would want to say, fret not, because the government can always print money to cover the losses if any. My greatest worry is when the typical Singaporeans' property price increased twice in value. Then they realised one plate of chicken rice costs $20 in coffee shop. Inflation is the key word. We will be doomed if this day arrives. Singapore does not have natural resources. Our economy depends on how the international community sees us and that will affect foreign investments. Strength of SGD is extremely important. We cannot be an export economy like Japan Then when demand and supply stabilizes, they will realize their prized HDB flats are worth peanuts. Singapore needs the local entrepreneurs to be creative and lots of foreign investments. Therefore the integrity of our leaders is extremely important. Transparency is important. For Checks and balance, a first world country really needs at least 2 equally strong parties. America has Democrats and Reblican. UK has liberals and Conservative. Singapore needs Workers Party to spearhead . Migrating is an option for me. I am just worried about my immediate families in Singapore