• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

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

soikee

Alfrescian
Loyal
I can't seem to see any "49" in the entire "Cluny" (not just Cluny Hill) area on the map:
onemap.sg/?LW:q&wO5d:Jfhfq_J,IIqqq_Y,JaJYq_b,IIhJc_f,c
whereas "38 Oxley Road" can be seen.
Are you sure it's "49"? :confused:



You mean that is no longer possible? :confused:
streetdirectory.com/sg/gleneagles-medical-centre/4-napier-road-258498/3071_401749.html
During my childhood from the early 1980s to the mid 1990s, I used to live very near Botanic Gardens and I remember my father driving along both Cluny Road and Cluny Park Road.



Before you could drive from Napier Rd to Cluny Hill via Cluny Rd to Bukit Timah Rd.

Now from Napier/Holland Rd you need to go by one way street Tyersall Rd to Cluny Hill.

That stretch of Cluny Rd/Cluny Hill is now part of the extended Botanical Gardens.
 

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
Took a look at your map and no 17 used to be no 49.

Addresses have been changed because the late Mr Chan U Seek who owned no 1 Cluny Hill which had a land area
of around 250,000 sq ft had subdivided his land into 1, 3, 5, 5a, 7, 7a, 9 & 9a.

15, 17 & 19 were one plot owned by Straits Steamship and architect Heah bought it and subdivided into 3 plots.
Before you could drive from Napier Rd to Cluny Hill via Cluny Rd to Bukit Timah Rd.

Now from Napier/Holland Rd you need to go by one way street Tyersall Rd to Cluny Hill.

That stretch of Cluny Rd/Cluny Hill is now part of the extended Botanical Gardens.
Many thanks for your replies. :wink:
 
Last edited:

Goldcheekon

Alfrescian
Loyal
Before you could drive from Napier Rd to Cluny Hill via Cluny Rd to Bukit Timah Rd.

Now from Napier/Holland Rd you need to go by one way street Tyersall Rd to Cluny Hill.

That stretch of Cluny Rd/Cluny Hill is now part of the extended Botanical Gardens.

My question is ... after spending so much taxpayer's money to develop Botanical Gardens and surrounding neighborhood, and even more money to get the UNESCO world heritage site award, there seems to be vested interests in that the surrounding value of land will increase? No?
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
My question is ... after spending so much taxpayer's money to develop Botanical Gardens and surrounding neighborhood, and even more money to get the UNESCO world heritage site award, there seems to be vested interests in that the surrounding value of land will increase? No?

Altogether now!!! Huat ah!!!
 

Leckmichamarsch

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, LHY and LSF, plus Bernard Lui, Elizabeth Kong and Ng Joo Khin; also, it happened in December 2013, after LKY had suffered a "Transient Ischaemic Attack" earlier that year (in February 2013):
pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/statement-prime-ministers-office-5
only about three months after he made his "Sixth Will" in November 2012:
facebook.com/notes/lee-hsien-loong/summary-of-statutory-declarations/1507498539312847

throw smole bombs n nitpicking do not make you out to be truthful.......... sue if you got a case
 

Goldcheekon

Alfrescian
Loyal
Where to go from here for LHL and HC?

Purge the entire Lee and Kwa clan, legal elites, LHY family, LWL and their sympathisers in his government machinery, ensure that he has has avenue to overturn the Court's final grant of probate and restore his and &HC stature and order, albeit all the disquiet in the social media space.

Scenario looks brutal...

Any idea?
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
How much is Lky's estate? In hundreds of millions or even billions?
One quarter share and one third share is big difference
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.airconditionednation.com/2017/06/15/the-house-of-lee/

THE HOUSE OF LEE
BY CHERIAN GEORGE ON JUNE 15, 2017 IN MY CHOICE, POLITICS
NO TOUTING PLEASE

If the letter of Lee Kuan Yew’s final will is not honoured, at least its spirit should be.

The Lee family feud is a test of Singapore’s political maturity. The first step toward dealing with this highly polarising debate is to acknowledge its complexity. This is not a multiple choice question with a clear right and wrong, no matter how convinced each side is of its own arguments.

And although 38 Oxley Road is just a house, it is not just a space; it is a place, invested with meaning by a family and a nation. If we treat places like mere spaces and subject them to cold calculation, we’ll rob them of emotion and memory, and lose a bit of what turns a collection of people into a community. We need to approach the matter with open hearts and minds.

Furthermore, Lee Kuan Yew’s own views about legacy and governance do not make it easy to come to a consensus about what to do with the house. On the one hand, we have on record his strong personal desire that the family home be demolished. It’s not hard to understand how determined two of his children, Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang, are to fulfill their parents’ wishes.

But on the other, the system he built never allowed individual preferences to stand in the way of the public good, as interpreted by the government of the day.

Nowhere is this principle more apparent than in Lee’s land policies. Countless patriarchs’ plans for their property holdings have been dashed by Lee’s all-powerful land acquisition laws—freehold leases be damned. Countless others, who would have undoubtedly preferred their final resting places to be exactly that, have been dug up from their graves when the state decided their cemetery plots were needed for other purposes. If everyone else’s voice from the grave can be vetoed by the government, it’s not clear why Lee Kuan Yew’s should be the exception—especially when the government’s hardnosed, unsentimental approach to such matters is utterly in Lee’s own image.

By Singapore standards, therefore, it’s not necessarily sacrilegious for the government to consider the option of conserving Lee’s storied bungalow, no matter how firmly Lee would have opposed the idea. Part of the challenge of maturing our polity is to get used to the idea of operating by the rule of law, not the rule of Lee.

But maturation also demands that we pay close attention to the reasons Lee gave when he said, repeatedly, that he wanted his house flattened. This was in line with his well-known abhorrence of emotional pulls in politics, whether in the form of race, religion, language or charismatic personality. He wanted to build legitimacy around performance not identity, and to train Singaporeans to exercise a more clinical, legal-bureaucratic rationality.

You don’t need to be a disciple of Lee Kuan Yew to recognise this as a worthy principle for Singapore governance. Nor do you have to be a traitor to Lee Hsien Loong to acknowledge the risk, red-flagged by his siblings, that this principle will be compromised by preserving their house as a monument, against their father’s wishes.

Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang fear that such a plan is being hatched to carry forward the family name to benefit the future political career of Lee Hsien Loong’s son. The prime minister and his wife have absolutely denied having any such dynastic ambitions.

The dynasty factor aside, though, we should remain wary of encouraging a political culture obsessed with personality. A people who are taught to credit their nation’s past progress to Great Men will long for more Great Men to solve future problems. That way lies the kind of populism and demagoguery that is rampant in today’s world.

The government should treat these concerns seriously if it’s contemplating overriding Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes. Even if the two younger Lee siblings’ most pointed allegations are unfounded, their broader concern is legitimate. The public interest should be insulated from the political interests of any individual or group.

The government would lose nothing but short-term pride if it were to dissolve its ministerial committee immediately and provide the assurance that any new body tasked to make recommendations will be constituted only after Lee Hsien Loong has left Cabinet. It serves nobody to allow any perception to linger that a government decision on the house is being influenced by Lee Hsien Loong’s private interest in capitalising on his father’s name.

The conflict of interest question can also be addressed by ensuring that any such committee is chaired by an independent eminent historian, and not by a politician or civil servant. It should be obliged to consult widely, especially with the Heritage Society and other relevant groups.

But it’s impossible to prevent a third or fourth generation Lee from milking an LKY monument for personal advantage down the line. Citizens of sound mind have a right to stand for election, and it is hard to think of a reasonable way to stop any candidate from talking about his or her family heritage.

In the first place, though, I wonder if we’re getting carried away with the fate of the house. Yes, 38 Oxley Road is an iconic site. But we need a sense of proportion. It is not what Jerusalem is to People of the Book. Nor is it Mount Doom in The Lord of the Rings—the place where the One Ring was forged, the only place it can be destroyed, and where the entire fate of Middle Earth hangs in balance.

No, the Lee family home is neither a necessary nor a sufficient possession for anyone determined to use or abuse the power of Lee Kuan Yew’s memory for selfish reasons. Even if it’s demolished, a replica could be erected elsewhere (including in Gardens by the Bay, still my choice of site that should be named after LKY). Alternatively, an augmented reality version could be reconstructed digitally, allowing people to put on a 3D headset for an immersive experience that, with the right music and narration, could be even more emotive—and manipulative—than a real-life visit to the actual site.



What’s more, since the vast majority of Singaporeans have no idea what the house looks like, a proposed monument doesn’t even need any connection to that address. For that matter, it doesn’t need to be a building. Even if the younger Lee siblings succeed in their bid to demolish No. 38, it’s not going to stop any individual or group from memorialising the LKY name through educational resources, books, movies, cartoons, songs, plays, paintings, exhibitions, t-shirts, stickers and other paraphernalia. The Estate could attempt to block commercially exploitative uses of the Lee name and likeness, but efforts to keep Brand LKY out of politics will probably be futile.

Indeed, the painful truth for the younger Lees is that the ship has probably already sailed. It weighed anchor at Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral, when most Singaporeans were moved by the sight of Lee Hsien Loong having to bear his Prime Ministerial duty to lead a mourning nation through its loss while at the same time dealing with his own grief as a son. In coldly political terms, this was the moment that being the son of LKY became a clear asset instead of a potential liability. A few months later, during the 2015 general election campaign, Lee Hsien Loong went so far as to channel his father in his Fullerton rally speech—“This is not a game of cards! This is your life and mine!” PAP critics may have been unimpressed, but to the party faithful, it was a goosebump-worthy moment.

All in all, it is simply unrealistic to try to stop anyone—least of all any member of the Lee family—from feeding an LKY cult, either deliberately or inadvertently. Instead, the more effective counter-strategy would be to build up Singaporeans’ critical thinking skills so we can resist simplistic Great Man accounts of history.

The core of this effort must be led by academic historians, who are best placed to help us develop a more contextual understand of our heritage, fed by multiple and even competing narratives. Also able to help develop society’s antibodies against demagoguery are filmmakers, playwrights and artists who, through their factual and fictional stories, have been trying to surface Singaporean narratives neglected by mainstream history. Sadly, some of the most thought-provoking creations in this genre—like Tan Pin Pin’s To Singapore, With Love and Sonny Liew’s The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye—have been treated as dissident works instead of the loving, nation-building reflections they really are. We should let historical discussions and debates flow, unimpeded by OB markers or censorship.

A more mature attitude to our history and politics can allow us to have the best of both worlds. We can honour and, yes, even monumentalise what is truly remarkable about our first Prime Minister, while avoiding the trap of deifying any mortal leader. Whether or not Lee Kuan Yew’s house remains standing isn’t really the issue. It’s whether we keep the doors and windows open to the fresh air of new information and ideas about our past and future
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.tremeritus.com/2017/06/1...egarding-present-administration-of-singapore/

SDP: Allegations by PM Lee’s siblings raise concerns regarding present administration of Singapore

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has issued a statement on the ongoing dispute between Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

SDP notes that there have been serious allegations made against the PM by his siblings, which includes the abuse of the state organs and the powers vested in him as the Prime Minister. The party pointed out that the allegations raise concerns regarding the present administration’s ability to take Singapore into a future that requires steady, wise and democratic leadership.
SDP highlighted that unless and until PM Lee takes decisive steps to renounce authoritarian rule and steer Singapore onto the democratic path, his remaining tenure as prime minister will be a troubled one.
Below is the statement in full

The party calls for PM Lee to address the specific allegations of public concern in a clear and transparent manner and the only way that this can be satisfactorily done is through public hearings.
The dispute between PM Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, goes far beyond private family matters. It delves into issues of national concern and good governance.

Both siblings have made serious accusations against the PM, among which is the abuse of powers entrusted to him.
The SDP has long stated that the PAP has never been hesitant about using organs of State to crush dissent and silence the opposition. The history of the PAP’s rule is littered with numerous such abuses. The difference now is that the PM is accused of wielding such powers against his own family.

Furthermore, Mdm Ho Ching stands accused of influencing the civil service beyond her role as the PM’s wife.
The cabinet has also been named in the feud and questions raised about its handling of the dispute over Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s residence at Oxley Road.

These issues raise concerns regarding the present administration’s ability to take Singapore into a future that requires steady, wise and democratic leadership. That even the PM’s siblings openly state that they have “no confidence” in their brother’s leadership speaks volumes.
The matters that PM Lee raised in his Summary of Statutory Declarations on 15 June 2017 are personal and do not address the national concerns his siblings raised.

For the sake of our nation’s future, PM Lee must address the specific allegations of public concern in a clear and transparent manner. The only way that this can be satisfactorily done is through public hearings.
Before anything else, however, Mr Lee Hsien Loong must state and demonstrate that he will not resort to using State power to deal with his siblings and, more importantly, stop the persecution and intimidation of ordinary citizens of Singapore.

He must also take immediate steps to amend or abolish the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act to relinquish State control over the media in Singapore.
In addition, the PAP Government must repeal the Public Order Act which effectively denies citizens their constitutional rights of freedom of peaceful assembly.

Unless and until Mr Lee Hsien Loong takes decisive steps to renounce authoritarian rule and steer Singapore onto the democratic path, his remaining tenure as prime minister will be a troubled one.
In these challenging economic and geopolitical times, we need strong, accountable and democratic leadership.
 

GoldenDragon

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
How much is Lky's estate? In hundreds of millions or even billions?
One quarter share and one third share is big difference

I am sure all of us will agree their $$$ can see sunlight. That being the case, in public interest, it should be made public. Why fear? Or be embarrassed?
 

Charlie99

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This is the part why the allegations of abuse carries much weight. He is clearly using "organs of state" to run his own agenda. The appropriate things thing to do was the challenge the validity of the will in court.

It now appears the cabinet committee is running an inquiry on the validity of the will which is not their role in the first place. They should have told the prick to challenge it in court. I am sure AG chambers has been brought in to assist the committee.

Worse still the appointment of Lucien Wong as AG is now very clear and abuse position is now difficult to deny. V.K probably now knows why he was replaced by an older man who was not even an SC. Also suspicion on the creation of Deputy AG and filled by PAP member which is unprecedented.

I thought that the MIW has integrity, and that the very significant annual compensation was to deter "corruption"
 

Wunderfool

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
It is a quite a laughable matter that this is even news!

There is no doubt what the Elder Lee wants to do with his house. He said it. He meant it. He wanted it to be demolished after his death.

Why he wanted it that way because he knew very well that if he didn't say it and sign it on his will, his son or the government of the day will keep and preserve it for perpetuity when he is gone. If his son wants to remember the Elder Lee, the best way to remember him is to not to preserve his house but to obey what he tells you to do about the house.

Acting in obedience is more important than 'acting' of obedience.
 
Last edited:
Top