• 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

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Nope. Read the statements issued by both parties carefully - market rate plus penalty of 50%. Here is another puzzle - the charities got a total of 150% from this interesting squabble. Do the math. Clue - who contributed 2/3rds and who the 1/3rd of the 150% to the 8 charities.

I am not the only who came out with it. The man who is able to "sail thru Singapore's political fog" (purloined from one of the PM's henchman)

Alex Waipang Au
about a week ago
There are a lot of confusing details in Singapore's ongoing palace struggle, but gradually what is emerging as the key points may be these:
Lee Kuan Yew's will left the house at 38 Oxley to Lee Hsien Loong (his eldest son and the prime minister) -- though see my question below -- and in a "settlement" last year, younger brother Lee Hsien Yang bought over the house at full market value +50% more. LHY might have thought that the money was well spent since with control, he could ensure that the house would be demolished according to his father's wishes. (it is becoming apparent that LHL did not want the house demolished).

After the sale, LHY and sister Lee Wei Ling were aghast to learn that a secret cabinet committee had been set up to consider the future of the house. The secrecy was such that even the members of the committee were not identified. It is only natural that when process and key players are deliberately hidden from view, outside parties would be highly suspicious about motives. LHY and LWL might well have feared that the aim of the committee was to frustrate their intentions to demolish the house, and they might feel themselves very unjustly treated in being made to pay market value+50% in the first place only to be robbed of their freedom of action. It would leave a very, very sour taste, and would account for the intensity of their attacks on LHL.

One confusing detail remains: Some articles have mentioned that Lee Kuan Yew left his estate in three equal shares to his children.... if so, how did the entire house to go LHL? Or are those reports wrong? Maybe only a one-third share of the house?


This 150% is a rumour. Where is the source? LHL says market rate.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I suppose they need to shape their approach in Parliament. Kudos to the Head of Civil Service Peter Ong for being the first to lose his balls publicly. His sister Catherine Ong was with SPH and did the bidding as well.



This saga is getting hilarious. :biggrin:

Civil serpents now asked to do a poll by PMO on 38Ox saga...

https://m.facebook.com/chewleslie/posts/1589715674381224

If this is true, this must be a really cockup administration running Sinkapore.
 

Goldcheekon

Alfrescian
Loyal
Fake news boh????? Cannot self pawn like this right?

Your guess is as good as mine. If Leslie Chew says it publicly with some photographic stuff in his post, looks real. Well, we never know until the MSM and other news agencies dig the truth for us..

If it is really true, it must be the greatest joke as the civil service is being asked such questions...
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Ngiam Tong Dow, Oct 2013. Former Head of Civil Service. Prophetic ?

“I don’t know whether Lee Kuan Yew will agree but it started going downhill when we started to raise ministers’ salaries, not even pegging them to the national salary but aligning them with the top ten [in the private sector]”,

“When you raise ministers’ salaries to the point that they’re earning millions of dollar(s), every minister — no matter how much he wants to turn up and tell (PM Lee) Hsien Loong off or whatever — will hesitate when he thinks of his million-dollar salary. Even if he wants to do it, his wife will stop him

“When the salary is so high, which minister dares to leave, unless they decide to become the opposition party? As a result, the entire political arena has become a civil service, and I don’t see anyone speaking up anymore.”
 

Gigo88

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why did LKY bequeath 38OR to LHL? Especially after that apparent ominous Cabinet meeting in 2011.

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

I think LKY already knew that LHL/PAP will not allow 38OR to be demolished after his death. By giving 38OR to LHL as part of his equal share, any loss in its value (due to gazetting or preservation) will be on LHL.
 

ckmpd

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think LKY already knew that LHL/PAP will not allow 38OR to be demolished after his death. By giving 38OR to LHL as part of his equal share, any loss in its value (due to gazetting or preservation) will be on LHL.

But LHL sold his share to LHY and then want to gazette 38, Oxley..Bad!!!
 

Wunderfool

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Why is Indranee Rajah asking LHY and LWL about the will ? On what authority is she speaking?

If anyone should be asking about the will, it should be LHL and not any of the Ministers. The government has no prerogative to interrogate LHY and LWL regarding the circumstances surrounding the last will of LKY.

If the government wants to have a say about the whole saga, they can only say what they are thinking of the options for the Oxley 38 house. The rest of the matter are really none of the government's concerns and are completely outside of their jurisdiction.

I think she has to explain her motives behind her questions. Is it in her personal capacity or is it in the government's capacity ? Or is she instructed by PM LHL to speak up for him? If it is on the instruction of LHL , it is a shame. We all look up to a strong leader, not someone who hides behind the curtain and let another be his spokesperson.
 
Last edited:

ckmpd

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is Indranee Rajah asking LHY and LWL about the will ? On what authority is she speaking?

If anyone should be asking about the will, it should be LHL and not any of the Ministers. The government has no prerogative to interrogate LHY and LWL regarding the circumstances surrounding the last will of LKY.

If the government wants to have a say about the whole saga, they can only say what they are thinking of the options for the Oxley 38 house. The rest of the matter are really none of the government's concerns and are completely outside of their jurisdiction.

I think she has to explain her motives behind her questions. Is it in her personal capacity or is it in the government's capacity ? Or is she instructed by PM LHL to stir the shit ?

The Will is strictly a family issue. Any pap member must refrain from talking abt the LKY's Will. If LHL has any suspicion, let him bring it to Court.

The govt or pap can only talk abt demolition, preservation based on heritage considerations and nothing else
 

ThePimp

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is Indranee Rajah asking LHY and LWL about the will ? On what authority is she speaking?

If anyone should be asking about the will, it should be LHL and not any of the Ministers. The government has no prerogative to interrogate LHY and LWL regarding the circumstances surrounding the last will of LKY.

If the government wants to have a say about the whole saga, they can only say what they are thinking of the options for the Oxley 38 house. The rest of the matter are really none of the government's concerns and are completely outside of their jurisdiction.

I think she has to explain her motives behind her questions. Is it in her personal capacity or is it in the government's capacity ? Or is she instructed by PM LHL to speak up for him? If it is on the instruction of LHL , it is a shame. I am looking to a strong leader.

She is speaking on the authority of a kaypoh chee. :rolleyes:
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
First sign of backtracking ? Sounds very conciliatory. Note the interesting comment about the memorial garden. So Indranee was seriously wrong.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/cabinet-committee-not-bent-keeping-38-oxley-road-dpm-teo

Cabinet committee not bent on keeping 38 Oxley Road: DPM Teo

PUBLISHED: 7:55 PM, JUNE 27, 2017UPDATED: 8:13 PM, JUNE 27, 2017
SINGAPORE — It is not true that the ministerial committee set up to look at the options for 38 Oxley Road is bent on preventing its demolition, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said on Tuesday (June 27).

Noting that this was a “misconception” that Mr Lee Hsien Yang may have, Mr Teo reiterated that the committee, which he chairs, was tasked to “study and set out the range of possible options” for the Lee family home, and present them to Cabinet.

The Government had said previously that no immediate decision is needed on what to do with the house, as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in it. Mr Teo said that if, for example, Dr Lee ceases to live there next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month.

“If she stays there for 30 more years, then the Government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide,” Mr Teo said. The committee had written to Mr Lee and Dr Lee to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications. “By way of illustration, we highlighted that converting the House to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning. This is in writing,” Mr Teo added.

He said that he met Mr Lee “several times between April and July 2015”, and informed him that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had recused himself on government decisions relating to the house.

Mr Teo added that during those meetings, he conveyed Cabinet’s deep respect for founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and that Cabinet “will take very seriously (his) wishes regarding the House, as expressed in his Will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the House”. He also informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang “that no decision is needed now”. “(Dr Lee) is living in the House, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government,” Mr Teo added.

Mr Teo was responding to one of Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s Facebook posts on Tuesday, where he said, among other things, that he and Dr Lee “have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure”.

Referring to the post, Mr Teo noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang agrees that there is no need for a decision on the house now.

“So there is no difference of views between (Mr Lee Hsien Yang) and the government on when a decision is to be made,” he said. Mr Teo said he had also shared his “personal views, verbally” on some of the options with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached. “My objective was to let him know that government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options,” he said.

In his Facebook post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang had also said that “long before the committee was formed”, he and his sister offered a suggestion to Mr Teo that the house be demolished after Dr Lee no longer lives there, and a memorial garden be built in its place. But Mr Teo was “reluctant and did not pursue the discussion further” and PM Lee also rejected this offer, Mr Lee Hsien Yang claimed.

Mr Teo said he does not recall whether it was Mr Lee Hsien Yang or him who suggested a memorial park, “but he is mistaken that I expressed reluctance”. Mr Teo added: “I said that I personally did not support the options on the extreme ends of the range – preserving the House as it is, or demolishing the House to redevelop it for new private residences. There are indeed a range of viable intermediate options between these.”

Noting that Mr Lee Hsien Yang “seems supportive of some of the intermediate options” that the committee is studying, “there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made”, he said.

FULL STATEMENT BY DPM TEO CHEE HEAN:

I met Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) several times between April and July 2015.

I informed him that PM Lee had recused himself on government decisions relating to No. 38 Oxley Road (“the House”).

I conveyed Cabinet’s deep respect for Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Mr Lee), and that Cabinet will take very seriously Mr Lee’s wishes regarding the House, as expressed in his Will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the House.

I also informed him that no decision is needed now. Dr Lee Wei Ling (LWL) is living in the House, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government.

From Mr LHY’s latest statement on 27 June 2017, he agrees there is no need for a decision on the House now. So there is no difference of views between Mr LHY and the government on when a decision is to be made.

A misconception that Mr LHY may have is that the Committee is bent on preventing the demolition of the house. This is not true.

The Committee was set up to study and set out the range of possible options for the House and present them to Cabinet. Cabinet will only decide on which option to choose, when the time comes for a decision to be made on the House. If, for example, Dr LWL ceases to live in the House next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month. If she stays there for 30 more years, then the Government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide.

The Committee had written to Mr LHY and Dr LWL to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications. By way of illustration, we highlighted that converting the House to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning. This is in writing.

I had also shared my personal views, verbally, on some of the options with Mr LHY, such as demolishing the House but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached. My objective was to let him know that government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options.

I do not recall whether it was Mr LHY or I who suggested a memorial park, but he is mistaken that I expressed reluctance. I said that I personally did not support the options on the extreme ends of the range – preserving the House as it is, or demolishing the House to redevelop it for new private residences. There are indeed a range of viable intermediate options between these. Mr LHY seems supportive of some of the intermediate options we are studying.

So there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made.
 

Leckmichamarsch

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is Indranee Rajah asking LHY and LWL about the will ? On what authority is she speaking?

If anyone should be asking about the will, it should be LHL and not any of the Ministers. The government has no prerogative to interrogate LHY and LWL regarding the circumstances surrounding the last will of LKY.

If the government wants to have a say about the whole saga, they can only say what they are thinking of the options for the Oxley 38 house. The rest of the matter are really none of the government's concerns and are completely outside of their jurisdiction.

I think she has to explain her motives behind her questions. Is it in her personal capacity or is it in the government's capacity ? Or is she instructed by PM LHL to speak up for him? If it is on the instruction of LHL , it is a shame. We all look up to a strong leader, not someone who hides behind the curtain and let another be his spokesperson.


she hopes to be rewarded with cucumber or hotdog or unsliced salami...........
 

ckmpd

Alfrescian
Loyal
First sign of backtracking ? Sounds very conciliatory. Note the interesting comment about the memorial garden. So Indranee was seriously wrong.

Yes, TCH seems backtracking. LHY has said that it was him (LHY) who floated the memorial park idea.

I expect a rebuttal from LHY soon
 

Wunderfool

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
First sign of backtracking ? Sounds very conciliatory. Note the interesting comment about the memorial garden. So Indranee was seriously wrong.

Indranee is really stupid to engage with LHY and LWL on the will and the Oxley 38 issue. She is not smart enough. She can't handle LHY.

This could cost her her job unless of course, it was LHL who told her to do so. If that is true, then she is really not smart at all.
 
Last edited:

The_Hypocrite

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Oldman wasn't looking for beauty, but DNA test was to ensure that future PM's wife does not produce another albino baby.

Oldman's first utterance to 1st wife at the maternity ward was "I'm terribly disappointed & you've let me down."

The day after she returned home to Grangeford, she took her life at 3.30 pm.
Uh after DNA test n they got HC? What sort of DNA test is that?
 

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
It may seem that she did not think she was wrong about anything - here is her 4th post for earlier this morning:

Indranee Rajah
10 hrs ·
In his FB post this morning, Mr Lee Hsien Yang suggests that the question I had put is incorrect. He says he is not asking for the house to be demolished now. He is only asking that it be demolished after Dr Lee Wei Ling's departure.

I welcome the opportunity to have this clarified. This way everyone is clear on exactly what the issue is.

It may be helpful if I refer to the various public statements on this.
(a) In his Statement on 17 June 2017 DPM Teo Cheo Hean explained that one of the reasons why the ministerial committee was established was because:
"...soon after Mr Lee's passing, the Executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will (Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling) themselves wanted the government to commit itself immediately to demolishing the house, even though Dr Lee Wei Ling might continue to live in the House for many more years."
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/…/statement-dpm-teo-chee-hean-ministe…

(b) In my FB post yesterday the question I put was:
"So the real question is why Mr Lee Hsien Yang is asking for an immediate commitment on demolition now?"

(c) In his FB post today, Mr Lee Hsien Yang says:

"We have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling's departure."

I thank Mr Lee Hsien Yang for his confirmation that he has indeed put this question to the government.

It is clear from the above that:
- this current government is being asked to make a decision now.
- the decision this government is being asked to make now is that the building will be demolished in the future.
- this is so even though the circumstances which trigger the need for a decision have not arisen.
- given that Dr Lee still resides at the premises this decision would only need to be made 20 - 30 years from now.

As Mr Lee Hsien Yang would know, this government cannot, as a matter of principle, bind a future government that is elected by the people 20 - 30 years from now.

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

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

This question has not been answered.
 
Top