Page 50 of 87 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 1,000 of 1724

Thread: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

  1. #981
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    12,929
    My Reputation Points: 458 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by po2wq View Post
    most likely, ze debate wil not b on issues dat pipz sexpected 2 c debated ...

    dey all noe ah loon b stil b their boss ... which 1 of dem wil wan 2 break their own rice bowl? ...
    more like chairman mao style. let a thousand flower bloom and slaughter them

  2. #982
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Flat Earth
    Posts
    1,891
    My Reputation Points: 415 / Power: 0

    Wink Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by music123 View Post
    why only MPs can discuss and debate over the house issue.
    can involve more people like us?
    You mean something like this:
    sammyboy.com/showthread.php?244368-Will there be a Referendum for 38 Oxley Road?
    ?
    By the way, please vote in the poll in my thread above.
    Last edited by flatearther; 19-06-2017 at 01:33 PM.

  3. #983
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    He doing his father's famous "vanishing the issue" trick which the father did 21 years ago in Parliament over Nassim Jade. GCT wrongly or pressured to withdraw the query after old man announced that he was going to parliament.

    For the act, father brought in Dhanabalan as his character referee and it was powerful performance. During the act, father also delivered the 2 eggs in the Kway Teow doctrine to explain away why he got the discount from the developer without he realising it and why the son and Ho Ching got double the discount. The son also claimed that he did not realise that he too got the discount.

    The heart wrenching part of the performance was when he pleaded that this was his first property purchase since he became PM and his second property and he wanted a small development for his retirement.

    The next day Singapore and Singaporeans went back to normal. Some even felt the old man was treated too harshly. A short while later, the senior civil servant and the head of MAS who reported the discounts and the breach of the Companies Act by Old Man's brother was removed and exiled to Bangkok.

    He going to lift the whip giving the impression that it will fair and transparent proceeding is hot air. I can guarantee you that not one PAP MP will do anything meaningful. This parliament does not have Tan Cheng Bock or Tan Soon Khoon or Inderjit Singh.

    If he wanted to fair and transparent, an independent board of Inquiry will be formed with CPIB doing the investigation with the PM stepping down for the duration. He really thinks we are a bunch of idiots. Thats what Singaporeans wanted 21 years ago and it never happened.




    Quote Originally Posted by flatearther View Post
    Posted by LHL at 7.31pm:
    facebook.com/1511922802203754

    "I will speak in Parliament on the matter of 38 Oxley Road on 3 July.

    Watch my statement explaining this by clicking on the link below, or read the full text here: on.pmo.sg/2rvplEv. – LHL
    "


    "Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on 38 Oxley Road | Prime Minister‘s Office Singapore"
    pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/statement-pm-lee-hsien-loong-38-oxley-road

    PM Lee Hsien Loong | 19 June 2017

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the statement on 38 Oxley Road on 19 June 2017.

    Good evening. Over the last week, Singaporeans have been disturbed and confused by news of the private dispute between my siblings and me. I deeply regret that this dispute has affected Singapore’s reputation and Singaporeans’ confidence in the Government.

    As your Prime Minister, I apologise to you for this. And as the eldest of the siblings, it grieves me to think of the anguish that this would have caused our parents if they were still alive.

    I had done everything possible to avoid this state of affairs. My father left the property at 38 Oxley Road to me as part of my equal share of his estate, but my siblings were not happy about this. I tried to deal with their unhappiness privately. I offered to transfer 38 Oxley Rd to my sister for a nominal $1. Unfortunately that offer failed. I then sold the house to my brother at a fair market valuation, and donated all my proceeds to charity.

    I had hoped that this would satisfy them. There should be no reason for any further quarrel, since I no longer own the house and I do not take part in any Government decisions on the house. However, my siblings have decided to go out and make serious allegations publicly. For example, they say that I am using my position as Prime Minister to influence the Ministerial Committee chaired by DPM Teo Chee Hean. These allegations go beyond private and personal matters, and extend to the conduct of my office and the integrity of the Government.

    Much as I would like to move on, and end a most unhappy experience for Singaporeans, these baseless accusations against the Government cannot be left unanswered. They must be and will be dealt with openly and refuted.

    When Parliament sits on 3 July 2017, I will make a Ministerial Statement to refute the charges. All MPs will then have the opportunity to raise questions for themselves and their constituents. I have instructed that the PAP party whip be lifted. I urge all MPs, including the non-PAP MPs, to examine the issues thoroughly and question me and my Cabinet colleagues vigorously. I hope that this full, public airing in Parliament will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government.

    I want to assure all Singaporeans that this matter will not distract me and my Cabinet colleagues from our responsibility to govern Singapore, and to deal with more important national issues, including the pressing economic and security challenges we face.

    As public servants, my Ministers and I will always protect the integrity of our institutions, and uphold the strict standards separating private affairs from our public duties. We are determined to repair the damage that has been done to Singapore. We will continue to lead our nation and serve you to the best of our ability.
    Last edited by scroobal; 19-06-2017 at 01:49 PM.

  4. #984
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    58
    My Reputation Points: 209 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    He is not apologizing to his siblings because he claims they are in the wrong. He is "apologizing to the people" because it is politically expedient to do so. It's really quite simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by virus View Post
    why he not apologizing to his siblings first? n offer to rid the neh/ hen n demolish the house immediately?

    没诚意

  5. #985
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,908
    My Reputation Points: 180 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    as always Im fascinated by the comments everywhere on this saga. herewith my observations.

    FB: full of gut churning sycophants…..posters with housewife type profiles and bengsters using words like '5th column'….clearly a fucking joke.
    Kirsten Han got handed her ass by one of these shills when she asked for a live streaming of parliament…that was fun.

    SBF: apart from one or two insightful and connected blokes like scroobz, a wasteland of bitter old farts talking shit.

    Yahoo: this one is by far the most interesting as the comments are really uncensored and critical, even with a bit of intellectual depth.

  6. #986
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Exactly. A truly dishonest character.

    Quote Originally Posted by rusty View Post
    This parliament is just a big wayang. "I have no share in the house and I am not in the committee". You are the head of the government and you can easily shut down the committee if you want to but your cunningness prevails.The parliament and the committee is your lethal weapon against the same sperms you came from. Stop your fucking wayang and respect the last will!

  7. #987
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,968
    My Reputation Points: 869 / Power: 9

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Ridiculous. Hope HY play his last card well on why they were against him having the house and why lky made the last will.

  8. #988
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    314
    My Reputation Points: 64 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    The next day Singapore and Singaporeans went back to normal. Some even felt the old man was treated too harshly. A short while later, the senior civil servant and the head of MAS who reported the discounts and the breach of the Companies Act by Old Man's brother was removed and exiled to Bangkok",....


    Where is Koh Beng Seng now ?
    Was Elizabeth Sam involved too ?

  9. #989
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    535
    My Reputation Points: 139 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by scroobal View Post
    He doing his father's famous "vanishing the issue" trick which the father did 21 years ago in Parliament over Nassim Jade. GCT wrongly or pressured to withdraw the query after old man announced that he was going to parliament.

    For the act, father brought in Dhanabalan as his character referee and it was powerful performance. During the act, father also delivered the 2 eggs in the Kway Teow doctrine to explain away why he got the discount from the developer without he realising it and why the son and Ho Ching got double the discount. The son also claimed that he did not realise that he too got the discount.

    The heart wrenching part of the performance was when he pleaded that this was his first property purchase since he became PM and his second property and he wanted a small development for his retirement.

    The next day Singapore and Singaporeans went back to normal. Some even felt the old man was treated too harshly. A short while later, the senior civil servant and the head of MAS who reported the discounts and the breach of the Companies Act by Old Man's brother was removed and exiled to Bangkok.

    He going to lift the whip giving the impression that it will fair and transparent proceeding is hot air. I can guarantee you that not one PAP MP will do anything meaningful. This parliament does not have Tan Cheng Bock or Tan Soon Khoon or Inderjit Singh.

    If he wanted to fair and transparent, an independent board of Inquiry will be formed with CPIB doing the investigation with the PM stepping down for the duration. He really thinks we are a bunch of idiots. Thats what Singaporeans wanted 21 years ago and it never happened.
    I believe these are the performance speech/es you refer to? - rereading these you can hear Old Man's oratorical boom across those chambers, his squinting eyes and smirk at the rows and rows of eagerly nodding heads:

    http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline...1996-05-21.pdf

    PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES BY SENIOR MINISTER AND DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BG LEE HSIEN LOONG

    3.45 pm

    The Senior Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was recovering from my second angioplasty and stent operation when this issue of my purchases of two properties from HPL arose. At that time, I was under three different medications and was somewhat fragile. Literally fragile as those on three blood thinners can attest. I could not meet the press. So I issued, the next best thing, press statements. The

    Column: 185

    press statement is not me. It is just a few words. It is not satisfactory because I have to meet you in person, tell you the facts and give you an opportunity to decide whether you think I have become a different person. And this is my first opportunity to do so. I am not in my best form because it is only nine weeks since my stent operation and my doctors have said, keep the heart rates steady in case the wires are not completely covered. But I feel fine and I intend to give you as robust an explanation in as robust a manner as you would expect of me. There is also the problem of jet lag. I am still on New York time. But I think, factor all that in, you will find that I am not as much as I used to be.

    Let me state the circumstances I, or rather my wife, came to buy one unit each at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28, developed by HPL. In April 1995, my brother, Dr Lee Suan Yew, rang up my wife. She was out. She returned the call. My brother's wife, Mrs Pamelia Lee took the call and told her about a small development called Nassim Jade in Nassim Road. My wife had wanted to buy a property for some time and she had been to see some bungalows (three bungalows) that were on the market but did not like them. So she decided to consider an apartment.

    She visited HPL's office with Mrs Pamelia Lee and chose a flat next to my brother's, relying on Pamelia Lee's judgment that she would have chosen a good aspect or a good prospect. Mr Thio Gim Hock of HPL, in the presence of Mrs Pamelia Lee, quoted her a lump sum price, saying it was a discounted price, did not mention any discount percentages or the undiscounted price. My wife knew that discounts meant little because developers regularly give discounts on their listed prices. Having acted as a lawyer for developers, she knew the way they marketed and their practice was to quote a high listed price, and give discounts which they vary according to the buyers and whether the market was going up or down. For the developer to have to lower the listed price because of poor sales would have made his earlier buyers feel cheated.

    Therefore she focused on the actual price, not the discount, as she always

    Column: 186

    does. She agreed to it without bargaining, assuming that it was more or less what my brother Dr Lee has paid for their adjacent flat, because when the price was quoted Mrs Pamelia Lee was with her. So she assumed that she would not be given a price which would be fantastically above Mrs Pamelia Lee's. My wife was also confident that Mrs Pamelia Lee would have investigated condominium prices in that area and found it reasonable. She knew also that the wife of Mr Tan Kok Quan, a lawyer in Lee & Lee, where she was a partner, had bought, and was living in one of the flats in HPL's Four Seasons Park and she had heard good reports of its workmanship and finishes. And this report of good workmanship and good finishes was confirmed by one of her other friends who had bought a flat in Four Seasons Park.

    Pamelia Lee had chosen a flat on the second floor. My wife chose the adjoining flat on the same floor. I am saying this because I have had a discussion with several older Members of the PAP, and my natural instinct is to come out and say, "I take you on the argument." But Mr Dhanabalan told me it is better to let people know why I actually bought it. So I told my wife, better tell people why we actually bought it. She had in mind our possible future need for a flat after seeing what has happened to my father when he could no longer cope with the stairs and the steps in my old-style three-level bungalow home at Oxley Road, where my bedroom and sitting room are at one level, my dining room and my father's bedroom are at another level, and the kitchen is at a third level, and he had suffered fractures on his arms and legs in the last four to one-and-a-half years when he repeatedly fell. So he had to move, most unhappily, to my brother's home (Dr Lee Suan Yew), where he has a bedroom, a toilet, the dining room and the sitting rooms, all on the same level, and he has not fallen. Of course, this is a distant future consideration, assuming that I reach 93, which is my father's age.

    Later she told me she had booked the flat in my name because I did not have a property in my name alone and that this would enable us to arrange our assets to

    Column: 187

    benefit from the tax laws. I know some MPs feel unhappy when I showed them my draft. They say that is very bad, that is tax evasion. Not at all; it is the business of lawyers and accountants to advise their clients on how to deploy their assets in a way that makes the maximum use of the tax laws. The properties she had bought previously were in her name and some were in our joint names. So I agreed. And that was the first time I knew I was buying some property in Nassim Jade. I do not even know the number.

    Later HPL sent a form, addressed to me at Oxley Road. I never saw it. My wife took it, handed it to her lawyer, Miss Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, to attend to. When the contract was signed, Lee & Lee lodged a caveat in the Registry of Titles and the purchase price and my name as purchaser was on that caveat. My wife had no further dealings with HPL and all correspondence between Lee & Lee were with HPL's solicitors.

    The purchase of Scotts 28 six months later had nothing to do with my brother Dr Lee Suan Yew. In October 1995, my wife learnt that Mrs Pamelia Lee and Miss Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee had booked units in another HPL development called Scotts 28. She decided to book one through Kwa Kim Li, relying on the judgments of two shrewd buyers, Pamelia Lee and Kwa Kim Li, and that the price would be reasonable and the finish would be of good quality. She was told a twentieth floor unit, above those booked by these two, was available with a correspondingly higher price. Unlike Nassim Jade, where she had in mind the distant possibility of our living in it one day, Scotts 28 was bought simply for investment, to let out. So she agreed to buy at level twentieth floor, which is popular with foreigners. There was no mention of any discount and indeed Miss Kwa Kim Li was not aware of any discount, as DPM has read from the letter by Miss Kwa Kim Li. She only learnt of the 5% discount in April this year, after DPM asked her to inquire from HPL.

    My wife decided to buy this unit in our joint names, so the option and the

    Column: 188

    agreement were in our joint names. And Lee & Lee lodged the usual caveat in the Land Registry, giving our joint names and the price.

    At no stage did my wife or I feel that we were doing anything irregular or improper. They were open, above board transactions. Caveats were openly lodged by our solicitors to give notice to everyone. Not all buyers do that. Some buyers do not like their identities to be known and so do not lodge caveats, preferring to run the risk of not protecting their property from a subsequent sale to some other person. These caveats gave my name as purchaser of the Nassim Jade unit at the price of $3,578,260 and for Scotts 28 unit at the price of $2,791,500. If my wife or I had thought that there was anything improper in buying the properties because my brother was a non-executive director of HPL, she would not have proceeded with the business. She expected all legal procedures and permission to be obtained as a matter of course.

    Can I digress here and take a point which I think has arisen since this case has come up? I met two editors of our major English and Chinese newspapers - Cheong Yip Seng of the Straits Times and Lim Jim Koon of Zaobao - to ask them: what is the issue? And their answer was, it is not a question of legality. Nobody doubts it is legal. They are satisfied. It is a question of equity or fairness. People outside say that I have the inside track. My son has the inside track. Ministers have the inside track. Permanent Secretaries, MPs have the inside track, and you get invited to soft launches. They queue outside, and sometimes pay hundreds of dollars to get someone to queue for them, or sell their place in the queue for hundreds of dollars.

    I must confess that one of the disadvantages of age is that I do not keep track of these passing frenzies, manias and panics. I know from time to time the property market goes in oscillation. This was oscillating too high. So I think it is useful if, besides arguing the legality which I think any lawyer in this House will know, or any person with any developer experience will know is beyond question.

    Column: 189



    Let me explain from my point of view the problem of the inside track -- the sense of fairness or equality. It is the Government's duty to have a level playing field. When the Government sells land for development, it is an open tender system. When the Government sells houses, HDB, HUDC, individual bungalows, or groups of houses, for redevelopment it is by open tender. We are the Government and not all governments do that, but the Singapore Government wisely does that and has benefitted from it. It has built confidence among all investors, locals and foreigners. But let me add that private property is not sold by the Government. The Government is going into Executive Condominiums and that will have to be a level playing field.

    But private corporations, private companies, private businessmen conduct their business to get the maximum advantage, the maximum profits. Hence, if they can get their product, whether a tennis racket or a golf stick, or a cap, or jogging shoes, or running shoes, worn by you and seen on television at the Olympics, or at the US Open, or Wimbledon, then thousands of others buy them. It is unfair, totally unfair. The No. 2 who gets beaten at Wimbledon gets a very small fraction of the No. 1. So they sweat their guts out to be No. 1.

    Sports and TV stars are valuable, not because the sports maker thinks well of the sportsmen. He wants to sell his product. And having it used by a star well-known throughout the world, adds value to the product. Sellers want customers who are celebrities or, otherwise depending on the product, well-known and admired public people. So you see Mr Chiam had to sue a restaurant because they said that he ate at that restaurant. I do not know whether the food was good or bad, but Mr Chiam objected strenuously. He is not unknown. I am sure, if he were unknown, the judge would have given him a pittance, but he is Chiam See Tong with a record of many years in public life.

    There is no way -- and I say this with some sympathy for the young aspiring professionals or young executives -- for

    Column: 190

    them to have the same value to a seller of a product as a well-known public figure, or a sports star, or a TV star. And it is not just well-known publicly, even well-known privately makes a difference.

    Banks have got prime lending rates. You always see them in MAS reports, prime 6% today, tomorrow 6.25%. You try and get a loan at prime rate. You will find it is prime plus 3%, or prime plus 4%, depending on how the manager assesses you, not only whether you look a nice handsome young man, but what is your background, what are your assets, what kind of a record you have got, are you likely to default, how long will it take you to earn that money, and it varies with the standing of each customer, the length of association with the bank and, most of all, the likelihood of that customer bringing in more business in the long run. So when Rupert Murdoch, his News Corporation, was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1980s, I met the man who helped him convince the bankers to back him. Feed him with more money, have trust in his judgment, sink more money and risk the loss of everything, but a very good chance that this man with his judgment, his knowledge, will turn it around and you will get all your money back plus. They had a team of bankers, worked it out and several big banks with thousands of millions of dollars worth at risk, listened carefully, studied the figures and, finally, had to judge, "You, Rupert Murdoch, rose from one Australian newspaper in Melbourne to own the biggest number of newspapers in Australia, crossed over to London, captured the major newspapers there, became more ambitious, London was too small, went to New York, bought up big papers, went to Hollywood to buy Fox Studios." He was on the brink of collapse. But his personality, the hard-headedness of the offers and the schemes put up by his bankers, and they backed him. And today, News Corporation is the biggest in the world and they all got their money back. No government would have dared take that risk. But that is what an entrepreneur is supposed to do, an entrepreneur bank takes risk and the final risk is: what is the quality of that man?

    Let me illustrate in my own very small way. My being me helped me get, if you

    Column: 191

    like, the inside track and special treatment. I was diagnosed on 10th March, after my stress test, as having my coronary artery reblocked after eight weeks. I could see my cardiologist's face, Dr Arthur Tan. He was glum. His reputation was at stake. What to do? I had two other cardiologists whom I had carefully chosen after going through all the cardiologists: Low Lip Pin, former Head of NUH, Cardiology; Maurice Choo, also Head of Cardiology, NUH. But they did not do that angioplasty. They were just advising. So they were less in danger of their reputation. They said, "Can you excuse us?" I thought, "Oh dear! This is trouble." So they went out. Ten minutes, or 15 minutes, seemed quite a long time to me. They came back. They said the options were: do another angioplasty. I said what was the chance. They said, "This is again the same problem. 30% to 40% chance it will restenose. But it might not restenose. Or we put a stent in." And they explained it to me. I said, "Well, what?" Of course, it is a higher risk and the blood may clot along the stent and some people get shocks, and so on. Arthur Tan said, "I have done the best I could the first time. So I cannot do better than the first time." So I said, "All right. We will have to consider a stent."

    Then Lip Ping said, "There is a stent specialist who is coming to have a seminar tomorrow, a Dr Richard Schatz." This was Saturday. Sunday, Dr Richard Schatz was coming to have a seminar at the Raffles Hotel. He is the man who invented one of the stents used called a Palmaz-Schatz stent. Maybe, we persuade him to do you. He has done thousands, Arthur Tan had done 120, Low Lip Ping had done 100 and something, Maurice Choo had done 100 and something. So I said, "All right, we try."

    Arthur Tan waited for him at the Airport and he arrived at 12.00 midnight. He came, explained to him what happened the first time and showed him the film, "Will you stay and do my patient?" He said, "I have a full schedule. But if you like, when we finish the seminar early at 12.00 o'clock, I will have lunch, we will have it done at 2.00 o'clock. It takes 2-2 1/2 hours."

    Column: 192

    So he rung me up, by this time, it was half-past one in the morning. He came to see me at my home. I was wide awake, waiting to know what was going to happen. And I was shocked when I saw him, because he was haggard. I said, "What's happening to you, Arthur?" He said, "I've been running around trying to get this operating theatre ready, all the anesthetists and surgeons on stand-by." I said, "Look, have a glass of water first." After I heard him, I said, "If you were me, and you were having this operation, would you go on that table at 2 o'clock and be operated upon by a man who has arrived from California, 15 hours time difference, going to have a seminar next morning, finish the seminar and come in to do me?" He took a deep breath and said, "No, I will have elective procedure." I said, "Yes, so would I. You tell him, thank you very much. If he would come back when things are normal and we have no rushing around, surgeons and stand-by anaesthetists on a Sunday afternoon, then we will do it. Otherwise, we proceed with what we have here."

    But my cardiologists were also experienced men of the world. Between the time he left Dr Schatz at 1.15 am, to see me at 1.30 in the morning, they decided to get the owners of the stent who had arranged for this seminar, Johnson & Johnson. And they said to him, "Mr Lee Kuan Yew would be using one of your stents if Dr Schatz were able to come back." Dr Schatz may not know the commercial considerations but the Johnson & Johnson representative in Singapore saw the point of having a stent put in the coronary artery of someone who is well-known, liked by some, disliked intensely by others but, whatever it is, well-known and not just in Singapore. So in those few hours, messages or faxes to and fro, by the next morning, it was agreed that Dr Schatz would come back on Friday, 15th March, after he had finished all his operations and do me in the afternoon.

    Is it fair? You can be the top executive. He would not have come back. You will have to go to San Diego and you will have to find a slot. But I am me. After 44 years of public life since my first postmen's strike in 1952, there was some added

    Column: 193

    value to this stent if I have got one in my coronary artery and it is alive! It is not a level playing field.

    When I went to Williamsburg this time to meet the top 100 American CEOs at a conference of the US Business Council, it so happened that at a dinner, I sat next to a Mrs Larson and my wife sat next to a Mr Larson, and he is the Chief Executive Officer of Johnson & Johnson. And he was very pleased that I was healthy and I was very pleased that his stent had helped me stay healthy.

    I spoke to the pressmen and they thought that I should explain it to the young professionals so that they would understand that they could never expect a level playing field, because if they were businessmen and they were entrepreneurs, they would do exactly what Johnson & Johnson would do.

    I will start off before I was Prime Minister. Of course, I was already Leader of the Opposition and by March 1959, it was quite clear that there was every possibility that the PAP would win the elections in April or May and I would become the first Prime Minister. So my wife and I decided that if we bought a Mercedes Benz after I became Prime Minister, that would be a problem. People would say, "There you are, Prime Minister, highly paid, buys a Mercedes Benz." So she said, "No, better buy it on Lee & Lee's income." Mercedes Benzes even then were prized possessions. So I bought one from Cycle & Carriage, the Chua family, and they gave very, very small discounts, because it was in hot demand. They were doing you a favour to sell you a Mercedes Benz. When I took mine and they sent me the bill - my wife keeps these bills and she was very angry with all this that is going on - and she has produced me the bill: Cycle & Carriage, 9th March 1959, one new Mercedes Benz 220S Saloon, $12,985. Now it is $200,000-$300,000. I do not know. Less 121/2% discount, $1,623.12. I was not an ordinary customer. I knew the family, but that is not the reason they gave me this.

    At the end of May when I won the elections, on the Monday morning after that, I

    Column: 194

    went to see the Governor at Government House. He asked me to form the first government. When I drove out from Government House in my Mercedes, SS 6566 - for 4-digit - that car with me at the driving wheel and all the pressmen around had been captured in the annual report of that year and is in my book which Lianhe Zaobao had produced. I am now on the international advisory board of Daimler Benz which includes Mercedes Benz. If they knew that I was going to use that, they would have given me a 330 model, not a 220 model.

    So let us be a little realistic and do not expect that the Government can force the private sector to give the professionals a level playing field. No. It is their business. They want to get the best customer that will help them sell the product and add value. I ask all of you to be honest, including Mr Chiam. He has this experience, I am sure, or he would not have been used for that advertisement. All Ministers who carry weight, all Parliamentary Secretaries, all MPs who are popular, you go to a hawker centre. If they give other customers one egg, they will give you two. I know because when I was campaigning in the 1950s before I was Prime Minister, I used to go to Koek Road, the best char kway teow there, other people for 50 cents got one egg. I got two. I said, "No, don't do this, you lose money." They said, "No, I want you to win."

    Mr Low Thia Khiang cannot be going to the coffeeshop and paying more than the average customers. It is not possible, unless he is going to lose the elections. Mr Chiam must know that in Potong Pasir, he must get a special price. Because the day he stops getting a special price, it is the day he looks for another constituency.

    I stopped buying cars after that Mercedes. I used official cars. In November 1990 I stepped down as Prime Minister and the official car, the Mercedes, went. So I wanted to buy a Lexus and I got hold of Toyota who makes Lexus and a Mr Gaffor, I think his name was, very pleasant man, saw me. He said, "No right hand drive Lexus until 12-18 months. They are concentrating on the American market

    Column: 195

    and the Japanese market. When they go to Australia, then I'll get you one, right hand drive." I said, "All right, what have you got?"

    He said, "Well, I recommend you a Cressida." So I drove the Toyota Cressida around the Istana.

    I said, "How much?"

    He said, "Well, I'll be honest with you, better wait for next year's model. This is already the end of the year. In January-February, we'll be getting a new model and the price will be so and so. We'll give you a 10% or whatever discount. And when we got the Lexus, we'll take it back off you at 10% discount, whatever the condition." Because he wants me to buy that Lexus.

    So I said, "All right, but what happens in the meantime, because I've no car. I've given up my car now."

    He said, "If you want to buy now, you'll have to buy last year's model, this one."

    I said, "What's the difference?"

    He said, "It's more jazzed up. It'll have all these extras."

    I said, "Never mind, I'll buy last year's model. But what's the price?"

    He said, "All right, if you are willing to buy last year's model, I will sell you this model as if it is already 1991 with the new model here and discount it." In other words, I bought my Toyota as if the new Toyota model had arrived and I got a few more hundred dollars discount.

    And he said, "I will still buy back kfrom you at 10% below that when the Lexus arrives." It was a deal. He wanted my custom. He wanted me to buy the Lexus. But having got used to the Toyota, had a fairly comfortable ride between Oxley Road and the Istana and to the Botanic Gardens and a few odd places I visited, when the Lexus came, I said, "What is the price?" I totted up the COE price. By that time the COE price had gone up. I said, "Okay, I am staying put with the Toyota." I do not need to impress anybody. If

    Column: 196

    anybody thinks that I am a lesser man because I am using an old model Toyota, well, so I am a lesser man. But that is the way business is done.

    Even my tailor, my shoemaker. My tailor comes to the office or my home. I send my car and pick him up. It saves me time. Any fitting which is not comfortable he sees on television, he says, "Oh, send back that coat." His reputation is at stake. To unpick and unstitch is a very laborious exercise on blue sandwashed silk. "No trouble", he said. I am his walking model.

    My shoemaker, and I have got problems with my feet because I had two operations, one on each, to remove a nerve between the two toes called Morton's Metatarsalgia. I need special shoes, so that they do not hurt. And there is a Hakka-lo, my clansman, off the Old Airport Road, and I worry because he gives me best quality leather, fitting after fitting, and charges me $100-plus. I said, "Look, you embarrass me. You must make a living. You have to live." He says, "No. This leather was the remnant of what was given. It was a big piece which I have. It fits you. You like it. It is all right." So I gave him a copy of my book to show my appreciation.

    My choice of jogging shoes and my shorts, they are covered in the local press, pictures are taken. They are in the regional media. So whether I have a Nike or New Balance that I use, it is a plus. It adds value. Even when I choose my doctors and my cardiologists, because people know that I would not act foolishly. So when I say my cardiologists are the following three, you can take it as an endorsement of my judgment, if you believe my judgment is sound, or you can say, "No, the man is a fool. He should have taken this doctor." But I think I have taken the best three in Singapore for the time being until new ones grow up.

    It is a fact of life. There is no way for me or my wife having to join a queue to buy a house. All I need do, which I have not done, is to tell my secretary to ring up Mr Ng Teng Fong or Kwek Leng Joo, whom I see for business reasons, not my business, but Government business, their

    Column: 197

    enterprises overseas, and I say I like their development. Even if all the units were sold, they will find one unit for me, surely, and they will compensate that man with a special price at the next best building that they put up. Or Mr Ng Teng Fong would not be Mr Ng Teng Fong. So too Mr Ong Beng Seng. Let us grow up. I am what I am, and I am here after 37 years in office because I have never taken advantage financially of my position. And for $416,000 or $417,000 to go and do something which was improper?

    When the Prime Minister raised this with me, he said I was puzzled. I was more than puzzled. I was astonished. Why? Because my wife is a very experienced conveyancer, since 1951 when she was in practice, 46 years. Before she retired and became a consultant, she was probably one of the few senior conveyancers in Singapore who knew the mostest. And Eddie Barker, when he had trouble with his drafts in Government, would consult her when he was Minister for Law. She is not a fool. She has conducted her business with my brother and never brought me any embarrassment. Never acted for any petitioner, any client, that required an act of discretion in favour of Lee & Lee and the client. Not necessary. She has enough business. So she protected my position. That is why I have not the slightest problem meeting you, or the people of the press, or the people of Singapore. It is absurd.

    Until these two purchases in 1995, my wife had stopped buying properties for 14 years, since 1982. When she buys properties, if she acts for the developer, it is normal developer practice, they gave her discount, automatic. Any lawyer will tell you that. It is part of the trade. She does not need to be the Prime Minister's wife to get a discount. She gets it in her own right. She thought that property prices were going up too high and she felt that a strong correction was coming, as has happened in the past. Because she handles old title deeds and she knows that prices go up and down.

    With the Korean boom it went up. When the Korean War was over in 1953, rubber went down, property prices went down,

    Column: 198

    and took some 15 to 20 years to reach those prices. So do not believe that property prices can only go up. We have one mishap, it will hit bottom, because land is immovable, not like stocks, shares, gold, jewellery. One fire across the Strait by accident, the stock market in Taiwan and the property market will just go through the floor. Hong Kong, in sympathetic reaction, because they are part now of greater China, and with these two sources of liquidity gone, and pulling their money and selling their properties here to get cash to go to America, all those who have got properties would wish that they had cash, because they might be able to get them at half price. So please be under no illusions that this is a one-way ticket.

    At the time she bought it, it was going up. But not even Ong Beng Seng knew. If he knew, would he sell? He would have waited for a while. She bought this time last year because I told her, "In spite of the trouble across the Strait, I did not think it will come to an open exchange of fire." I think mainland China wants to grow. They do not want war. They can prevent Taiwan from going independent without war. As you can see from President Lee Teng Hui's speech that you have read today, all they need do is to shake the place and investments disappear. Can you last? You need stability for growth. So I said, "My opinion was that prices would not go back to the level of the 1980s because this time it is not just Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore boom, it is Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand boom. So it is a sustained boom."

    Let me take this out into the open because people will say, "Look, my God, the Lees buy properties worth $2.7 million, $3.5 million, $3.8 million without batting an eyelid." And we give up discounts worth $400,000, DPM $700,000 without batting an eyelid. I am not sure whether DPM can do it without batting an eyelid. It is going to hurt him. I have told him, "If it is too painful, let me know." But I can do it without batting an eyelid because my wife can do it without batting an eyelid.

    In the course of the last 40 years, she had bought other properties, most in her name, some in our joint names. Between

    Column: 199

    1969 and 1974, she bought three in the names of our three children, as gifts to help them set up homes later. She often bought at discounts when they were her clients, which was completely normal practice. I have absolute trust and confidence in her integrity and judgment, and for more than 40 years, she has managed her law practice and her assets. Having dealt with property developers, she knows that if you are a successful property developer, you have to be shrewd, hard-headed and sharp. She has seen them. So she expects them, whether it is Ng Teng Fong, Kwek Hong Png or Ong Beng Seng, to be shrewd, hard-harded and sharp. She did not buy because my brother was a director of the company. She never thought of that point. It is irrelevant. If she wanted to buy, Ong Beng Seng will sell. It is as simple as that. She does not depend on my brother. But my brother made it easy for her, because the wife had chosen one flat and she said okay. My wife is over 70 years old and she does not go around wanting to grow richer and looking at 39 units to see which is the best outlook and which is the best price. She said, "All right, you have chosen this one, I choose the next best one next to you."

    Every developer in town knows her by her maiden name under which she practises, and they are most likely to offer her the price they give to their best customers, whether it is soft launch, hard launch, or after all sales have been made. She did not bargain because she knew that HPL would oblige. She asked for another 5% discount? Mr Thio would be a little nervous because he has no authority. He will ring up Mr Ong Beng Seng. He says, "5%? Make it 6%." Why not? He has got Mrs Lee Kuan Yew as his customer and better still, out of the blue, she says, "Put it in the name of Lee Kuan Yew."

    There was nothing under-hand in this. I did him a favour more than any favour he can give me. I saw him for the first time over this deal after we finished Cabinet last Thursday. I told the Prime Minister in the Cabinet and all members of the Cabinet. I said I am going to see Mr Ong Beng Seng to tell him to come out with a

    Column: 200

    statement and all the facts before this debate. Let us not argue about the facts. All facts out. He came to see me at seven with Mr Thio Gim Hock and my brother, because he is nervous having to see me. He said, "Sorry. I've got you into trouble." I said, "No, no. Don't worry about that. I will look after myself. Now let me tell you how you had better look after yourself. I can clear myself and I have every confidence my son can clear himself. But you will look a crook if you don't clear yourself because you gave everybody 7% in Nassim Jade but you gave DPM 12%, and that caused Dr Richard Hu to commence the investigations."

    Had it been 7%, there would have been no investigation because it was open, given to all. But when Richard Hu saw this report from Koh Beng Seng about the 12% discount, and the Lee family has been offered all HPL developments, that is very fishy. He is out to bribe. I am an old man, so bribing me, how many years does it have value? He is a young man of 44, that is a valuable person to bribe. He said, "I have got an explanation." I said, "I don't want to hear it." You put all out in the statement and you are going to meet the press. He said, "Must I meet the press?" I said, "Yes, you can't just have a press statement. You must. Business Times had made a close study of all your prices. They have opened up the Registry and they know exactly what has been sold, what level, to whom, which is the better flat, and so on. So if you start fibbing, you will be in very big trouble. Come out with the truth, you will help yourself. You come out with a clever answer which can be demolished; I come out with the truth; my son, the DPM comes out with the truth; you don't, you are always under a cloud dealing with SES and MAS."

    I think he got the message from me. Yesterday, half an hour before he held his press conference, I met the press, gave them my statement that I had asked him to do this press conference, and the press were all those who knew about the case, including Patrick Daniel of Business Times who had decided to zero in on this case, because it is a big story. I said, "These are the facts, clear them. As long as you like, get the truth from him, because I am

    Column: 201

    going to tell you the truth. I think my son is going to tell you the truth, find out whether he is lying." Hence today's story.

    One unfortunate thing happened yesterday. The foreign press wanted to go in and they were not allowed in because he was afraid they will ask him many questions about other things not connected with the sales of Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. So I told my press secretary, who was present at the press conference, "Show them the two-hour video and, if necessary, get Mr Ong Beng Seng to meet them again." There is nothing to hide. I can have a Commission of Inquiry. I can have a CPIB investigation. I can have a CAD investigation. At the end of it, the facts must be here.

    I make no secret. From time to time, you can look up Hansard, I have told this House that in the last 30 years my wife earns many times more than I did. That is the reason why I was able to carry on as Prime Minister on the paltry salaries that I earned. She has been one of the most experienced conveyancers and top earners. They are all with Inland Revenue. In the legal profession at that time - 60s, 70s, 80s - she was a top earner. She has enough to help our three children, including our two married sons, to own their own homes, and to buy other properties. Our children are also joint shareholders of KGC (or Kwa Geok Choo) Pte Ltd, her own private holding company. I want to say this because we are not going to live forever - my wife and I - and if the DPM does not succumb to lymphoma, then he may own a few more properties in time.

    When I told PAP MPs that my wife handles my finances, they were surprised. So I told her, "You see, you are the one wife that is treated differently without any feminist movement." She said, "You make me do all the donkey work." And she said, "You don't even sign cheques." So much so that for so many years I did not sign any cheque, the bank sent me a note and said, "Please let us have your new specimen signature because after 10, 15 years, your signature may have changed." But that is the truth.

    I also do not keep track of my royalties, or the honoraria that I have been paid.

    Column: 202

    And just to put them in proportion, I asked my PA to check it Things that are not small money but substantial sums. It is not going to make me wealthy. As Richard Hu, the Finance Minister, has said, I have given away more than $2 million. I cannot get rich on $2 million, whether out of my CD-ROM or my book of pictures, or my book of speeches. But I make no apologies that for the last 40 years, I have just concentrated on my job, and there is a lot to concentrate on. If you concentrate your mind on the future of Singapore, you will know that 10 years - yes, it is clear, assuming no war; 20 years - fair; 30 years - I will not vouch if we will be like this. It is not possible. Will there be a stable balance of power which enables a city state to survive? Will there be an international order - the UN, multi-lateral security arrangements - that enables a little island with no depth for any defence, and must be able to respond immediately, or perish, to survive?

    My son came back from Tokyo on Saturday. He came for lunch on Sunday. I asked him, "How did it go?" He said, "Good. But at lunch they, Keidanren, asked me some searching questions." I said, "What were they?" He said, "One asked him, Singapore is a wonderful place. So successful, so clean, so orderly, so advanced, so alert, but you know, city states disappear. What will happen?" So I asked him, "What did you tell him?" He said, "I paraphrased what you said in Australia." Some years ago when I was in Sydney, I said, "100 years from now, there will be Australia with cows and sheep, and men, maybe more aborigines." But 100 years from now, the island of Singapore may be here, who is in charge of that island, and what has happened to it?

    So today young people who extrapolate on the basis that what we have succeeded in doing will go on forever, I say, "Stop and think again." It is not as simple as that. My wife and I are over-invested in properties. For our life-time, I think that is sound. I am not sure it is sound for my children's life-time. At GIC (Government Investment Corporation), we have studied the investment patterns of all the big funds throughout the world. No fund puts in more than 10% into properties,

    Column: 203

    anywhere in the world, whether in New York or North America generally, or Europe or Japan. It is the most illiquid, the most prone to political and government changes. So I have encouraged Singaporeans to own properties. I still do, because I believe it commits them. Having bought your HDB property at $400,000, or resale, $700,000, are you going, at the next elections or wherever, to take a serious risk and put in a government that cannot look after this place and see your prices plummet? I am in favour of it. But I say it to the young, beyond 30 years, please think. At the end of 10 years, if I am around, I might give you another forecast.

    I need only add that the rules of prudence that we inherited from the British, and updated from time to time, have worked, because since 1959 I set out to establish high standards of integrity in elected and public officials. Ministers have always been allowed to buy properties, with or without discounts, soft options, soft sells or official sells. There was not this frenzy. In fact, I urged several Ministers - my Malay Ministers who were not buying. When I saw from the returns, I was worried for them. I said, "You will be in trouble when you retire. I am going to save one third of your salary and dock it off for you to buy." Today, Rahim Ishak owns a house in Opera Estate, Othman Wok owns a house, all landed properties. Yaacob owns one near Bukit Timah worth hundreds of thousands of dollars bought for $20,000-$30,000. But I had confidence that my team and I were going to stay in charge and going to make this place work. And I think the Prime Minister must have the confidence to make sure that he does likewise or there will be an enormous property crash and that is the end of the Singapore miracle. And they need not have any permission from me because there was none of this frenzy to buy. But they never used ministerial influence to gain any advantage.

    My method was really the British method -- no special rules to say you do this, you don't do this. These are the guidelines, rules of prudence, you are on your honour as an officer. I do not know

    Column: 204

    whether it still works in Britain because if you read about Mr John Mellor and his football suit, and so on, maybe a younger generation is not of the officer type. But the Britishers that I knew were men of honour. Far better to have the word of an officer than to say, "I am guarding you all the time. I am watching you." And this is a system that has worked. I do not know. The Prime Minister has decided he would take the burden and he would say `yes or no'. Well, that is fine. It solves the problem for the Ministers. But I took a very British attitude, maybe outdated now. If you break that code of honour, you are finished as a gentleman. If you are an army officer, you get your epaulettes torn off. And that is a very severe punishment.

    I take very great pride in the way this matter has surfaced. 37 years of office, same Government, almost same Ministers, being renewed constantly. No corruption has set in. And we have basic institutions and legislation in place to maintain these standards. But without honest men in charge, man like Koh Beng Seng, man like the Prime Minister, like Richard Hu, the Finance Minister, like the CPIB chief, like the CAD chief, we can have all the rules. You have a government Mafia in charge ends us in trouble. Everybody else gets prosecuted except the people who really should be in jail.

    In the old system, the Prime Minister was the only person above the law, I was the only person. In other words, if I lower standards, that is the end. Because my secretaries must know, my PA must know, and they are going to do something silly too themselves. By the time the Prime Minister does this, I have to put something by for myself. So when we had this elected president, I suggested, "PM, why don't you protect yourself, and have it written in the Constitution that if you refuse permission to investigate, Director, CPIB, can see the President, and he can say investigate because he is a different person today." And I think many people now know that since he became President, he has taken a completely different position from the Government. So there have been cases to be adjudicated whether we can or cannot make certain amendments.

    Column: 205



    But that is in the nature of human beings and of institutions. Once you change the rules, the person who takes over must exercise his responsibility. And he was not going to take the Government's lawyer, he chose Walter Woon and Tommy Koh. I do not know who else he chose. But he decided the Government's lawyer is bound to give him the same opinion. So he said, "I will choose some other lawyers." That is correct. So when I appointed a person in office, I always expect him to exercise that office.

    My most important and precious contribution to Singapore has been its financial integrity, the cleanliness with which I have established the Government, the cleanliness in public life and, generally, in society. Our problem now is we are going regional in a big way. So I have had Ministers telling me, "Better don't meet these people." I have never met these people before. But to go regional, I have met Ng Teng Fong, I have met the Kwek brothers, Kwek Leng Joo, I have met Ong Beng Seng. Dr Aline Wong is very wise, she told my brother, Dr Lee Suan Yew, who told me recently, this is all very dangerous, giving these people face and stature in Singapore. My being seen with them. But there is no way. How can I help them go regional into China or Vietnam, unless I know how they operate, what are their problems, what can I do to clear these road blocks? I have met them privately in my office to discuss these problems. Now, if we, in going regional, and we have to play by the rules there, bring those practices back here, then I say we become a different place. We have lost that premium. I think we need not. I can eat with Ong Beng Seng and Koh Beng Seng and I would still be the same person. No difference. And that is again back to character and a code of honour.

    It is a very important factor, this code of honour. When the Japanese asked the British prisoners of war at Selarang to promise not to escape because there were too many of them to guard, the officers and men refused. And in February 1942, they were kept and punished for days because, to them, to give their word was to bind their honour. Finally, they did, and they did not escape. So ask yourself, at the

    Column: 206

    end of the day, what will maintain this place? For the man in charge to observe that code of honour.

    I am very proud that when MAS informed Richard Hu and he saw this discrepancy, 12% for BG Lee, 7% for me and for the others, he said, "Enquire". Indeed, when I was confronted with this, my first thought was: "This man, Ong Beng Seng, is a dangerous fellow. He is investing in the young man and not investing in the old!" To be fair to Richard Hu, I was suspicious. So I told him, when I saw him on Thursday evening, "Look, don't fool around. I look at it, I think you are up to no good. You say you are not up to no good, you explain."

    So the investigations had proceeded. Prime Minister found nothing wrong. SES was determined to issue a statement to criticise HPL. They could not find anything wrong because HPL had complied with the rules except that they were slow, they were tardy. Why they were tardy, I do not know. I think stupidity. So they issued a statement of criticism. But, by implication, my name, although not mentioned, I was a member of the family, so I was being criticised. So I said to my brother, "Why did you try to conceal my name?" He said, "No. We never did." So more data were uncovered. I produced them to Richard Hu. SES withdrew that allegation because there was no need to conceal my purchase. My lawyers had already registered the caveat.

    We met the MPs yesterday. We had a discussion among ourselves to make quite sure that all MPs are free to speak their own minds. There is no Party Whip. Speak your mind because a very important matter of principle is at stake -- the honesty and integrity of the system. I believe the way we handle this will become a plus to the system.

    No government in this part of the world will open willingly when it need not open a problem like this and take it out, whether a Commission of Inquiry, debate in Parliament, Select Committee, or even a prosecution if a case could be made out. But by being able to do so, we have proved something -- that the second

    Column: 207

    generation in charge is able to maintain the same standards. If I did it, they would say, "Well, when he is gone, the whole thing would be finished." But I think the Prime Minister has shown that although it was me and DPM that he had to investigate, he was prepared to do so.

    I think the English-educated sometimes see it too much in a two-dimensional way. Yazhou Zhoukan, the Chinese edition of Asiaweek, now bought over from Time magazine, had the right perspective. They compared the way three houses were bought in three places and the way it was handled. I think Ow Chin Hock showed it to me. If I remember from memory, they had a caption called " (fang shi kao yan zheng zhi jia)". (Fang shi) means double entendre. (Fang shi) means something secret going on, an illicit liaison in a bedroom. In this case, it means housing purchases. (Kao yan zheng zhi), testing politicians. " (Li Guangyao), (Chen-Fang Ansheng), [ that is Anson Chan], (Li Denghui) (de fang shi dou bei shou kao yan)." And the difference is stark.

    In the other two cases, no investigation, no comment. And in Singapore, you have the facts. I have spent a lifetime against the odds, and they were very heavy odds, in building up confidence in Singapore, confidence of Singaporeans in their future and confidence of foreigners who will invest their fortunes in Singapore. I will not do anything to undermine the Government, its system or the men and women who are in charge of it.

    The proudest thing I have is that there is a Singapore. My wife tells me sometimes, "Why do you do these things? They are just ungrateful, forget it." The proudest thing she is of are her three children: upright, well-behaved, honourable. I do not think my son was brought up to take a little grease. And if Singaporeans believe that he is lesser than his father, then Singaporeans are in for a very foolish mistake. They were brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break

    Column: 208

    that code, you have brought shame upon the unit, you have brought shame upon yourself and your family. And for PAP MPs, I say you have a proud tradition. Every one of you, if ever you buy a house and is questioned, must be prepared to come here and face it, like I have. [Applause].

    http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic...0133-motion%2B

    The Deputy Prime Minister (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I entered politics in 1984. At the time I was elected to Parliament, I already owned two apartments which my parents had helped me to buy many years earlier. I had lived in one of them since I got married in 1978 and started my own family. My wife had died in 1982. Three years later, in 1985, I remarried. I was then Minister of State. The next year, my wife and I started looking for a bigger house, because we intended to have more children. She hunted around. We found one. I bought a house with my parents' support and I have lived in it for the last nine years. After 1986, neither my wife nor I have bought or sold any properties until last year.

    In October 1992, I discovered that I had lymphoma and began chemotherapy. I again started looking for a property to buy. My four children were then very young, aged between 3 and 11 years old. I had some savings, including in the CPF, and I wanted to invest them prudently, that means more than 3% interest from the CPF, so that if anything happened to me, my family would be well looked after. And my parents offered to help me out financially when I found a suitable property or properties.

    I decided to put the money into property in Singapore rather than to buy shares or overseas assets. Because I was confident that with good Government, Singapore properties would appreciate steadily over the long term, and good Government was something which I could have a part in ensuring for Singapore. I decided against investing in shares because my wife did not want to manage a portfolio of shares and neither did I. Furthermore, I was a Cabinet Minister, moreover one responsible for economic policy and for me to have been trading actively in shares would have been very awkward.

    So my wife scanned the classified advertisements and visited possible properties. On weekends, she went to open

    Column: 178

    houses. She also drove around to look for signboards for new developments. When she spotted any possibilities, she would make discreet telephone enquiries using her maiden name. I told her some developers might know her maiden name. She said she called herself "Ms Ho". There are many Ms Hos. If the property was promising, she would do more groundwork, checking on the prices, the developer's reputation, etc. and only when she was reasonably satisfied, then she would get me to go and take a look. I went with her once or twice in 1993. Of course, once I go, the cover is blown. But I do not go unless we are reasonably serious.

    In the end, after looking at many possibilities, we did not buy. The main reason was that we felt that the prices were very high. Little did we know what was going to happen afterwards. We thought that the market would correct. We kept our options open by reviewing possible properties from time to time, in 1994-95, but nothing much happened. Nevertheless, word that we were interested in buying properties rapidly spread. Regularly, we heard rumours of us moving to new homes. Friends and colleagues asked us whether we had bought properties at various places, some of which we had visited, some of which we had never heard of. We therefore knew that when we finally made a purchase, it would be the subject of considerable public interest.

    In April 1995, I learnt from my mother that Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) was developing a small property called Nassim Jade. My wife thought it would be a good investment because Four Seasons Park, which was also developed by HPL, had a good reputation for quality. My mother told me to get in touch with Mrs Pamelia Lee for more details. Mrs Pamelia Lee is the wife of my uncle, Dr Lee Suan Yew. She is a close family member, who gave quite a bit of support to my children when they were younger, especially before I got remarried. She had also given my wife some leads previously when she went house hunting. Later on, we met Dr and Mrs Lee socially and we confirmed our interest in buying a unit.

    My mother sent me a brochure on Nassim Jade, together with a price list and

    Column: 179

    information on some of the units which were available. Because we were not sure which of these units would still be available by the time we booked, my wife and I shortlisted and ranked nine possible units. There were only 39 in the whole development.

    A day or two later, my wife learnt, either directly from HPL or through Mrs Pamelia Lee -- we cannot remember now, and we cannot pin it down -- that none of the units we had selected were available. Instead, HPL offered her one other unit, #02-06. She was also informed that there was a 7% discount. The price, net of discount, was given as $3,570,100.

    I read this morning in the newspapers that Mr Ong Beng Seng, the Managing Director of HPL, had said at the press conference yesterday, that HPL had not issued any price lists for Nassim Jade. I was surprised because I had received such a price list for Nassim Jade, although not for Scotts 28. The price list had come together with the brochure from my mother. I can only surmise that the HPL staff had made a mistake, and gave the list to my mother when she visited the HPL office, because when I received another copy of the brochure from Mrs Pamelia Lee, there was no price list inside. There could be other explanations. It is not a major point.

    My wife and I agreed to this unit and this price without bargaining. Having spent more than two years looking for a property without any result, we had decided to buy a property soon. We had also reluctantly concluded that property prices were unlikely to fall, even though we had considered them to be too high for a long time.

    We did not consider the 7% discount in any way significant. We knew that developers routinely gave discounts from the nominal list price. Per square foot my discounted price was $1,658, much higher than most other condominiums in the vicinity, or for that matter in Singapore.

    A few days later, Mrs Pamelia Lee telephoned at home. I picked up the phone.

    Column: 180

    She had a message from Mr Ong Beng Seng. He had told her that HPL had already committed unit #02-06 to another buyer. He requested her to ask me if I would agree to change to another unit, #02-07. This was bigger than #02-06 and would cost $75,000 more, which is $3,645,100. He quoted the price in dollars, for the total sum. No discount percentages were mentioned.

    I immediately replied that I accepted. I did not bargain. Subsequently, I told my wife, and she agreed with my decision. #02-07 was also not one of the units on our original shortlist. The new price worked out to $1,565 per square foot, still very high. But my wife felt that it was reasonable, using the Four Seasons Park prices as her benchmark. We did not calculate the percentage of the discount because this was not a factor in our decision.

    The next day, I instructed my lawyer, Miss Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, that I had agreed to purchase unit #02-07 instead of unit #02-06. My wife and I put the unit in our joint names. When we signed the sale and purchase agreement, Lee & Lee lodged the usual caveat against the property in the Land Registry, setting out our names and the purchase price, to give notice of our interests in the flats.

    Neither I nor my wife visited the Nassim Jade site or HPL's office. Throughout this transaction, I never met or talked to any of HPL's directors or managers, except for Dr Lee Suan Yew and Mrs Pamelia Lee, as I have recounted.

    In October 1995, I learnt about Scotts 28 from my mother. I was still looking out for an apartment to invest in one more apartment. My four children are now between 7 and 15 years old. They all read, even the youngest one. But they are all different, with different personalities and needs. My eldest son is studying at the Singapore School for the Visually Handicapped. He is taking his PSLE this year. My wife and I had discussed this often, and had decided to buy one more property to make some specific trust arrangements for our children for part of my assets.

    My mother sent me the brochure, which she had obtained through Miss Kwa Kim

    Column: 181

    Li. I asked Miss Kwa to book one unit. I accepted the unit HPL offered, at their offer price, which was $2,776,400, which I considered reasonable. No discount was mentioned. It worked out to $1,365 per square foot.

    Subsequently, I signed the sale and purchase agreement, and again I put the unit in the joint names of my wife and me. My lawyer filed two caveats in the Land Registry, one when HPL gave me the option form, and another when we signed the sale and purchase agreement.

    This entire transaction was done through my lawyer. My wife and I had no contact whatsoever with any of HPL's directors or staff on this matter. Neither have we visited the Scotts 28 site. Dr Lee Suan Yew and Mrs Pamelia Lee were completely not involved in this second transaction.

    The matter rested there until March 1996 when the Stock Exchange was investigating HPL. The Prime Minister then asked me whether I had bought properties in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. I told him I had and the prices I paid. The Prime Minister then asked me what discounts I received. I did not know. So I looked up my files, and calculated, based on the price I had agreed to for Nassim Jade, and the old price list that I had, that HPL had given me a discount of 12%. This was when I first became aware that the discount had been 12%.

    For Scotts 28, I looked up my records, but I could find no record of any list price or any mention of any discount from the list price. So on 1st April 1996, I asked my lawyer whether she knew. She said that she was not aware of any discount or published list price. However, she did not think that the price I had paid was special.

    Kwa Kim Li explained to me that when Senior Minister and I had bought the Scotts 28 units, she had decided to check that the prices we were paying were reasonable. Lee & Lee had acted for other buyers above and below our units, and also for buyers of different types of units in the same development. She had compared the prices, and found them all fairly consistent, with regular increases for

    Column: 182

    each higher level, which is the standard practice. She had not told us about this at the time, as it was not her duty as solicitor to check the pricing.

    So I asked her to check with HPL. She did, and I read her account. This is a note which she has given me:

    `On 1st April 96, Lee Hsien Loong phoned me to ask whether he was given a discount when he purchased unit #19-05 [This is in Scotts 28], and if he was, what was the quantum of the discount. I replied that I was not aware that the discount was given. He instructed me to ask Mr Thio, which I did. [Mr Thio is Mr Thio Gim Hock of HPL]. Mr Thio informed me on 1st April 1996, that generally all buyers in the 136-unit project received discounts. About 35 purchasers received 5% discount, of whom Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong were two. This was the first time that I, and thus my clients, learnt that they had received the 5% discount. I also asked Mr Thio whether there was a list price of all the units made public at the time of the launch in October 95, as some developers had, so that buyers could, on their own, calculate the discounts that they were given. He said that there was no list price available to the public. I then asked how a purchaser could have known whether the price he was paying was discounted. He replied that there was no way a purchaser could know whether he was getting a discount and, if so, what discount he was getting, unless the developer informed him.'

    There was nothing secret about our purchases at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. My wife and I put the properties in our joint names. We made no attempt to conceal these purchases. Information about them were available to the public through caveats lodged in the Land Registry.

    In fact, I regularly received letters in the mail addressed to me by name at my home telling me, "Dear Mr Lee, I understand you own a unit at Nassim Jade. I have buyers available. If you are interested, please contact me at the following telephone number, pager." I just threw them into the wastepaper basket. I bought these properties not for speculation, but as long term investments to provide for my family.

    When I bought the units, I did not know what HPL was charging the other buyers, or what discounts HPL was offering other people, least of all, could I tell what HPL would charge or give to buyers who came after me. The high prices I was paying gave me no reason to believe that HPL was offering me special terms. In fact, my

    Column: 183

    concern was that I was paying too much, not too little. I assumed that HPL was charging me what it was charging other buyers.

    HPL's press statement and press conference yesterday, explaining how it priced and sold the units at Nassim Jade and at Scotts 28, confirmed that they had treated their sales to me on a purely commercial basis. But as the Prime Minister said, that is ex-post information. What I had was ex-ante information. At the time I had to judge based on what they had offered me.

    When we became aware of the speculation and rumours about the properties we had purchased, the Senior Minister and I decided to bring the matter out into the open through a public statement. To have remained silent would have given the wrong impression that we had something to hide, or to be ashamed of.

    After the Prime Minister announced that in future Ministers should first clear their property purchases, together with any known discounts, with him, we decided to give the discounts we had received to the Government. We wanted to put the matter beyond doubt that the Prime Minister would have approved our purchases under the new rules, had these new rules been in place earlier. In other words, we were voluntarily and retrospectively subjecting ourselves to the new rules which came into effect after the event.

    The Prime Minister has since asked the Accountant-General to return our cheques. The Senior Minister and I have decided to give the money to charity, to underline our position that we had never asked for the discounts and did not purchase the properties because of them.

    I have recounted how I bought the units at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. I have also told Members about the other properties which I had previously bought, so that Members will know the background and the circumstances of my purchases at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. Really, these are private matters which I have no obligation to disclose publicly. But I have

    Column: 184

    explained them to dispel any lingering mystery or doubt over my purchases at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28.

    The high standard of honesty and integrity which the PAP has established is one of Singapore's most precious assets. It is a system which I grew up with, and which I value. As a Cabinet Minister, I am all the more conscious of my duty to uphold these standards, and to set the tone, by example, for what constitutes proper conduct on the part of political leaders and public officers. My moral authority depends on that.

    I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to explain the facts of my two property purchases last year, and to answer Members' questions on this matter.

    Column: 184
    Last edited by gatehousethetinkertailor; 19-06-2017 at 02:23 PM.

  10. #990
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North eastern part of Singapore
    Posts
    4,619
    My Reputation Points: 4273 / Power: 9

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    He apologize so he can keep his $4 million dollar job
    I will not be surprised if he broke down in parLEEment
    Lift the party whip my ass
    Which cocksucker will break his own ricebowl ?
    WP will not be lured to a lawsuit


    spotter๕๔๒


    Karma is a bitch



    One day your life will flash before your eyes , make sure it's worth watching

  11. #991
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Yep, thanks. It was a masterpiece. He played the pipe and the country followed. My mum fell for it lock, stock and the fucking barrel. Note the master and his very first opening sentence - angioplasty, stent, operation. None of this got anything to do with the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by gatehousethetinkertailor View Post

  12. #992
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    The opposition must boycott this parliamentary circus and not it give air or credence. He will look like a clown. They should instead demand for a board of inquiry and a CPIB investigation. Lets see if Low can bring back his famous guile for which he was particularly noted for.

    Quote Originally Posted by spotter542 View Post
    He apologize so he can keep his $4 million dollar job
    I will not be surprised if he broke down in parLEEment
    Lift the party whip my ass
    Which cocksucker will break his own ricebowl ?
    WP will not be lured to a lawsuit



  13. #993
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    12,929
    My Reputation Points: 458 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    if the judiciary, the president and speaker of lumparleement is silent what hope remains for the country?

  14. #994
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Lets see what the brother and sister do. They will know that Parliament is the eldest brother's get-out-of jail card. I am sure the younger chap if I am reading him right, he will go for broke as his all his actions thus far and spot on.

  15. #995
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    535
    My Reputation Points: 139 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by scroobal View Post
    Yep, thanks. It was a masterpiece. He played the pipe and the country followed. My mum fell for it lock, stock and the fucking barrel. Note the master and his very first opening sentence - angioplasty, stent, operation. None of this got anything to do with the issue.
    Yes par excellence - he was always the masterful orator - and for a while there he was matched by JBJ..must dig out their clashes in Parliament for kicks and nostalgia - those were the days you could watch Parliament sittings on TV and alot of people were enthralled when those two faced-off (if memory serves me well on those screenings)...

  16. #996
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    20,320
    My Reputation Points: 26511 / Power: 11

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Between now and July 3rd is 14 days. I suspect by making his statement today Lee Hsien Loong is buying time and hoping in two weeks time things will cool down somewhat and daft sinkies will also somewhat begging to take pity on him. His opposing team should relentlessly attack.

  17. #997
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    198
    My Reputation Points: 200 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
    Between now and July 3rd is 14 days. I suspect by making his statement today Lee Hsien Loong is buying time and hoping in two weeks time things will cool down somewhat and daft sinkies will also somewhat begging to take pity on him. His opposing team should relentlessly attack.
    He needs time to rehearse his position and at the same time cleaning up emails and docs that will never see light again? No?

  18. #998
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23,007
    My Reputation Points: 689 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Note the son also brought out his cancer and played the sympathy card. I can tell you the pioneer generation stand no chance with a performance like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gatehousethetinkertailor View Post
    I believe these are the performance speech/es you refer to? - rereading these you can hear Old Man's oratorical boom across those chambers, his squinting eyes and smirk at the rows and rows of eagerly nodding heads:

  19. #999
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,905
    My Reputation Points: 505 / Power: 0

    Default Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by scroobal View Post
    He really thinks we are a bunch of idiots. Thats what Singaporeans wanted 21 years ago and it never happened.
    What did Singaporeans want 21 years ago which never happened?

    I thought you said "The next day Singapore and Singaporeans went back to normal. Some even felt the old man was treated too harshly."

    The majority of Singaporeans are a bunch of idiots. I am pretty certain this episode will have the same outcome as well.

  20. #1000
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Flat Earth
    Posts
    1,891
    My Reputation Points: 415 / Power: 0

    Wink Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

    Quote Originally Posted by scroobal View Post
    He really thinks we are a bunch of idiots.
    Quote Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
    Between now and July 3rd is 14 days. I suspect by making his statement today Lee Hsien Loong is buying time and hoping in two weeks time things will cool down somewhat and daft sinkies will also somewhat begging to take pity on him. His opposing team should relentlessly attack.
    Quote Originally Posted by nayr69sg View Post
    The majority of Singaporeans are a bunch of idiots. I am pretty certain this episode will have the same outcome as well.
    As I've said before to ckmpd:
    sammyboy.com/showthread.php?243907-Sinkie-Newborns-Are-Now-Reminded-of-NS!-Parents-Cannot-Teh-Gong-Anymore!&p=2608313#post2608313
    Quote Originally Posted by flatearther View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ckmpd View Post
    PAP still doesnt know why Singaporeans:
    1. choose not to have babies, especially boys
    2. want to migrate

    PAP is dumb and daft
    Those who agree with you are the ones who are "dumb and daft", simply because the PAP (and, of course, their upper-class Sinkie cronies) not only know the reasons for the above two points (while pretending not to know, so that they can blame Sinkies by accusing them of having NO good reasons), they even WANT the vast majority of Sinkies (not just those who are anti-PAP, but even those who are pro-PAP!) to become extinct by the end of this 21st century (or even by "SG100" in 2065), so that the PAP can more easily control the dispensable/replaceable Sinkie middle class (which constitutes the vast majority of the citizen population) by continually replacing the nearly 20,000 adult Sinkies who die every year:
    singstat.gov.sg/statistics/visualising-data/charts/number-of-births-and-deaths
    singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#18
    with 20,000 new adult citizens (who used to be PRs):
    channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-has-to-manage-population-growth-carefully-pm-lee-8888750
    plus another at least 30,000 to 40,000 new 21-year-old Sinkies, who were born and brought up in Singapore from the 1990s onwards (and, therefore, brainwashed during their at least ten years of education in Sinkie Primary and Secondary schools to be pro-PAP); so that at every General Election after every five years, the PAP is very likely to gain at least two hundred thousand NEW votes from:

    1. those nearly 100,000 (5 years x 20,000) new citizens
    2. at least 100,000 (5 years x I dare say at least 20,000) naive/gullible/delusional/cowardly young pro-PAP Sinkies in their early and mid 20s

    in addition to the usual pro-PAP votes from the vast majority of:

    3. Sinkie women
    4. old Sinkie men above 60 (mostly those in their 60s or 70s, because those in their 80s or older are usually too physically weak to queue up to vote)
    5. male civil servants (including regulars in the SAF and the Police)
    6. and male employees of GLCs

    Furthermore, I dare say that all of the above will probably continue voting for the PAP for the rest of their lives!


    Finally, in my opinion, at the next GE, there is a good chance that the PAP will win at least 75% of the valid votes!
    Last edited by flatearther; 19-06-2017 at 02:58 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 51 users browsing this thread. (7 members and 44 guests)

  1. Papsmearer,
  2. Gigo88,
  3. winnipegjets,
  4. arwang,
  5. Charlie99

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 19-06-2017, 09:10 AM
  2. AG Walter Woon To Lee Wei Ling: No One is above the Law!
    By Porfirio Rubirosa in forum The Courtyard Café
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 16-06-2017, 06:26 AM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 23-09-2015, 12:31 PM
  4. Lee Wei Ling puts on her Judge's Hat Again!
    By Porfirio Rubirosa in forum The Courtyard Café
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 04:20 PM
  5. Is Lee Wei Ling(old lee's daughter)married with children ?
    By Qinhuang in forum The Courtyard Café
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •