how much is she promised to suck Pinky? Will she be the next DPM?
-
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
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
how much is she promised to suck Pinky? Will she be the next DPM?
Intentional typo, so that you could tell whether or not another individual pretends to be you?
half baked Scandinavian accent
Many samsters already cannot miss feeling his omipresent at Istana, PMO, ISD and ministers' offices, CSCC, governmental meeting rooms, lounges patronage by celebrities and the riches. Today one new premise to add to the list....Armour Officer MESS.
HK since its move to China has history of turning back or deporting foreign activists, NGO, etc even those attending international seminars and events. Anyway they know enough to handle it without falling afoul of their laws. It's a whole different ball game when it's their people protesting.
Just be extra careful when a forked-tongue pundek bitch promises not to "forget", says she "will always be grateful" and swears to do the "last things that we can for you".
You will end up with holes in your back and you sure as hell won't be able to "rest in peace".
***
"Heard the news this morning that Mr Lee had passed away.
There are really no words, not now and not at a time Iike this.
Even though we all knew this would have to happen one day, that does not lessen the huge sense of pain and loss.
For the last few days with the tremendous outpouring of love and concern from Singaporeans it was as if we were walking his final journey with (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). I am glad he did not walk this last stretch alone - but did so carried up by love, support and gratitude.
"Goodbye Mr Lee. In these coming days, we shall do the last things that we can for you. Rest in peace.
"We shall not forget. And we will always be grateful." Senior Minister of State for Law and Education Indranee Rajah [Facebook]
You will end up with holes in your back and you sure as hell won't be able to "rest in peace".
***
"Heard the news this morning that Mr Lee had passed away.
There are really no words, not now and not at a time Iike this.
Even though we all knew this would have to happen one day, that does not lessen the huge sense of pain and loss.
For the last few days with the tremendous outpouring of love and concern from Singaporeans it was as if we were walking his final journey with (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). I am glad he did not walk this last stretch alone - but did so carried up by love, support and gratitude.
"Goodbye Mr Lee. In these coming days, we shall do the last things that we can for you. Rest in peace.
"We shall not forget. And we will always be grateful." Senior Minister of State for Law and Education Indranee Rajah [Facebook]
Attachments
She always struck me as straight and apolitical before joining the PAP. More into sports and cultural things. They roped her in to do grassroots stuff. MOS is to pay the bills in line with status. Clearly as seen from this that she has no inclination on why this is all wrong.
Identified by first born as one the "fourth-generation leadership". So she is now completely beholden to first born.
All she has to do now is continue to caress his testicles, suck hard and suck deep as she is currently doing, and she will be made full Minister by, or just after the next election.
He'll make HK his headquarters, shooting off replies and rebuttals back to S'pore, while letting SCMP and social media get little snippets. During his off days, he will go for some dim sum, monitor the financial markets and maybe occasionally to Macau for a little wager at the gaming tables.
that's euphemism for being a traitor and a prc dog.
Here's the third post (I've emphasised the bits of great interest from my reading - also note the embedded insinuations as to motives):
https://www.facebook.com/IndraneeRajah/posts/1849188028431491
Indranee Rajah
1 hr ·
4 Financial Things You Should Know About the Oxley Dispute
My two previous posts covered the so-called "Demolition Clause" in the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will and the circumstances in which the Will came to be.
In this post I will discuss the various options for the house that a future government might consider once his daughter Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer living in it.
1. What financial interest does Lee Hsien Loong have in 38 Oxley Road?
None.
In the Will, Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave 38 Oxley Road, to Mr Lee Hsien Loong, his eldest son.
In the Summary of Statutory Declarations (SSD) Mr Lee Hsien Loong says:
- After Mr Lee's passing, his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee expressed unhappiness that 38 Oxley Road had been given to him.
- Mr Lee Hsien Loong offered to transfer it to Dr Lee for the nominal sum of $1 on condition that if the property was later sold or acquired by the government, all proceeds should go to charity. [ Note: This condition, if accepted, would have meant that Dr Lee could not keep for herself the money received upon sale or acquisition.] This was not accepted.
- Subsequently Mr Lee Hsien Loong sold the property to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong donated the entire proceeds of the sale to charity.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang also donated 50% of the sale value to charity.
Hence Mr Lee Hsien Loong is no longer the owner of 38 Oxley Road.
The property now belongs wholly to Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
2. Some Facts about Oxley Road
38 Oxley Road is a freehold site. The land area is 1,120.5 sqm ( 12 060 sqft). It is currently zoned for a 2-storey landed property.
Media articles cite the current estimated market value as $24m ( around $1,990 psf).
See for example TODAY 16 June 2017:
http://www.todayonline.com/…/estate-agents-estimate-38-oxle…
3. What could happen to 38 Oxley Road?
There are 4 possible options:
Demolition
Demolition of a building requires planning permission from URA under the Planning Act and a permit from BCA under the Building Control Act.
The consequences of demolition are that:
- the land is cleared of the house;
- the path is cleared to seek redevelopment;
- demolition is irreversible. Once demolished, there is no going back. Demolition removes once and for all any possibility of future preservation, conservation or compulsory acquisition of the property;
- the original rationale for the 2-storey zoning in the area - which was to keep neighbouring houses low in height for security reasons - is also gone as Mr Lee Kuan Yew has passed away;
- with the old rationale for 2-storey zoning gone, demolition would clear the way for the owner to appeal for re-zoning and/or increase in plot ratio and eventual redevelopment. There could of course be other good reasons why such re-zoning may or may not be allowed;
- If re-zoning or increased plot ratio is granted, the land value will increase well beyond the market value for a 2-storey property. In that event, one can expect many developers to line up to buy the property.
- For example, if a 20-storey luxury condominium can be built on the site, with one condo unit per floor, all with the address of 38 Oxley Road, it could be marketed as a unique trophy address.
Preservation
Under the Preservation of Monuments Act (PMA), property can be designated a national monument via a preservation order.
If designated a national monument:
- 38 Oxley Road cannot be redeveloped;
- It will be subject to stringent preservation guidelines and no works can be done to it without the approval of the National Heritage Board;
- since it is used as a residence, the property will be subject to compulsory acquisition within 1 year of the preservation order. ( Under the PMA, if a preserved building is occupied as a residence, the government must acquire it within 1 year of the preservation order, otherwise the preservation order will lapse. This relieves the occupier of having to bear over the long term the responsibilities that come with preservation. )
Conservation
Conservation is under the Planning Act. Conservation is less restrictive than preservation. Works can be done to the building as long as they fall within URA guidelines. If conserved, the land cannot be redeveloped.
Compulsory Acquisition
This would be done under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA). In this scenario:
- there is no possibility of redevelopment as property is acquired by the government.
- the owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, will get compensation under the LAA at market value at the time of acquisition. It would be valued on the basis of it being a 2-storey landed property.
- the government has several further options. It could for example choose to demolish the house and build a tasteful memorial or symbolic marker in a park setting.
4. Why is the government being asked to demolish the house now?
That is a good question.
The government has the same question.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted Dr Lee Wei Ling to stay in the house as long as she wanted. The government has publicly stated that it will respect those wishes and does not intend to do anything until Dr Lee leaves. Letting the house stand for now does not go against those wishes. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said
Dr Lee does not want to move out and she has every intention of living a long life. That being the case, the matter may well not need to be decided for another 20 - 30 years. It can be decided by a future government.
So there is nothing for the government to decide now.
The real question therefore is why Mr Lee Hsien Yang is asking for an immediate commitment on demolition now?
What is the urgency?
Until and unless Dr Lee moves out, there is nothing for the government to decide. It is also a principle that the current government will not be able to bind a future government.
The options open to any government, current or future are also not binary. There are a range of things it can consider.
For example, DPM Teo Chee Hean has said he personally would not support options at the extreme ends of the range: At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see as that would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting it on the market for new private residences.
One can understand DPM Teo's feelings. A luxury condo with that address would confer bragging rights on a select few to say: "I'm living where Lee Kuan Yew lived". The history and heritage of the site would be forever lost to ordinary Singaporeans, including future generations. That is probably not the way Singaporeans will want to remember 38 Oxley Road.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said that "[he has] not thought about what lies beyond demolition". It would appear he has not ruled out redevelopment.
From the government's perspective, the question is whether there is an intermediate option which will allow us to respect the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and still preserve the heritage and history of 38 Oxley Road for Singapore and Singaporeans.
As DPM Teo has mentioned, one option we are studying is demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room where many historical meetings took place, with an appropriate heritage centre attached.
This would substantially fulfil Mr Lee's wish. His and Mrs Lee's privacy would be respected. Pictures of the basement were already made public during Mr Lee's time and are widely available. Nothing of the private spaces would be seen.
At the same time, the history and heritage would not be lost and the crucible where the hopes and dreams of a nation were forged can be kept to inspire many more generations to come.
These options need to be thought through deeply and carefully. The Ministerial Committee has tasked relevant agencies to study the range of possible options that a future government can consider at the appropriate time, after Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer there.
and the linked story in her post is this: http://www.todayonline.com/singapor...ley-road-property-be-worth-around-s24-million
forget all these long winded obfuscation about the "house" and allegations of abuse and dishonesty. prc handlers are now involved in the engineered take-down by a thousand cuts of an elected regime. why are dragon king haters here waxing lyrical on bark of trees when they miss the entire forest being ignited?
She is now casting aspersions on both siblings, mine in red. See the comment about trophy address. If she was on the other side of the fence, she would be sued for all these insinuations. Looks like she carry out her inquisitions.
Why spend all the time talking about law when there is no law here. If she were to practice law in the UK, she would barred and kicked out. Singapore's law went down to the dogs when LKY changed the rules over JBJ. SINGAPORE has NO LAW. LAW by force is worse. Useless generals masturbate in bravado on how their technology will beat the invaders. These quitters will fly off to another country when all white elephant toys crash and burn.
got some comments saying…thank you for clarifying madam…now I understand…..hehe.
u from 46? Your post motto salah. That armour motto. 46 motto a bit different.
Btw, u don't speak for ALL ex 46 men. I rather enjoy seeing a lee bash another lee but I don't like all the lees.
http://www.theindependent.sg/netizens-slam-indranee-rajahs-questions-on-lee-kuan-yews-last-will/
Netizens slam Indranee Rajah’s questions on Lee Kuan Yew’s last will
June 26, 201710736
Senior Minister of State (SMOS) for Law Indranee Rajah had on 24 June, raised several questions on the last will of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Chronicling the events of the day that the last will was signed, Ms Rajah asked how the last will came about, who drafted the last will and how LKY got to sign the will.
SMOS’s post was shared over 240 times and drew a flurry of comments. All the commenters on her post with the most number of likes, slammed her opinion. The following are some of the views of these commenters.
Simon Teo: Dear Mdm, are you trying to say that MM LKY was not sane enough to read through his will properly before he signed? I would be very surprised that an experience lawyer like him would make a blunder. I certainly do not hope that your image of MM Lee is that of a senile man who can’t make his own decision. That will be sad if it’s true. God bless you then.
—
Bhavan Jaipragas: SMS, these are indeed important questions Mr Lee Hsien Yang has to answer. I’ll pose a few questions here in public that perhaps will come in handy when you/your government colleagues speak in parliament on July 3. I think they are some of the key issues that we in the media would like more light shone on.
1) Probate was granted in October 2015 without a challenge from the PM. Why didn’t he make a legal challenge on the above mentioned issues at that time? Wouldn’t he have been able to do so in-camera?
2) Did the PM sign a settlement agreement with Mr Lee Hsien Yang on these or other issues?
3) Thirdly, judging from the online comments on this matter — it will be very useful if the government on July 3 reveals the date the ministerial committee was first convened, and its complete terms of reference.
—
Yc de Wai: It appears you are just a whisker away from alleging fraud. Your leader has to challenge in a competent court why the last will is invalid, not repeating what he believes to be a fraud to maybe 70% of population through his subordinates in Parliament. Certainly not us all to judge really if the Will is valid. The Ministerial Committee cannot investigate if there was a fraud, by “understanding what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking on the House was.” It is accepted that the last Will is binding. If there is an alleged conflict of interest, LHL would be in the best position to challenge the validity of the will, and this would be a private matter to be brought about by a private citizen.
Now, this is a public matter, as the integrity of the government is in question against the evidences by LHY and LWL. They painted colours to their assertions of power abuse. The family feud has escalated beyond the House – to demolish or not. It is plain to me that the present public debate is not so much about the clause in the Will, but more of the roles LHL played in the background. Although he confines himself to a private citizen relating to the House, submitting to the government for any decision to be made, there are many questions about how he obtained confidential things that a private citizen would not be able to, and how the historical documents that belong to the estate executors conveniently appropriated by someone with no official appointment and legal right. I don’t speak for all Singaporeans, but my confidence is shaken. Standing at moral high ground with lopsided persuasion does not cut any meat. What is the point of a parliamentary trial by outsiders (ministers – PAP and WP) who do not have evidences like LHY and LWL do, and without their testimonies? Our PM has to respond to these allegations, but the avenue should not be in Parliament, and certainly not through Facebook.
I understand that LHY and LWL have no other ways to get to Singaporeans with their perspectives other than through Facebook. News and pages of certain websites may be blocked/censored. They have got Singaporeans re-evaluate if the checks and balances are sufficient, if necessary at all. I personally would not want the trust Singaporeans have in the ruling party diminished at the hands of any individual or a particular collective ministerial group. Just like the whites you wear, there is no tolerance for transgression of PAP values (James Gomez).
If we are at an inflection point in our political history, and he has chosen to present his side of things in Parliament instead, I urge ministers like you to be fair to all Singaporeans. Ask him questions from the angles of LHY and LWL, this is the only way Singaporeans can get extract more truths from him instead of staging a political play. Give us a fuller picture and let us think about all the half-truths. That is the best I can ask of my PAP ministers to seek what is right for us Singaporeans, even if it means risking demerit points by your boss.
—
Chris Chen: This is such a classless statement that I felt compelled to comment. THE WHOLE COUNTRY knows his wish for his house to be demolished after his death, that is beyond dispute. The email released by LHY says to revert back to his original will. He signed it and initialed under the re-inserted demolition clause. Probate was then granted and the will became legal and binding. As such, I’m really confused at your “lawyering” of the whole issue. To suggest that LKY “accepts” that his house may not be demolished after his death is not only ludicrous, but also disrespectful. I am deeply disgusted by your feeble attempt to confuse the public and draw attention away from the greater issues at stake.
—
Brenda Tham: Please stop insulting our founding father.i saw you cried the hardest when he passed away. As a lawyer u should know that any dispute of will should be settled at the right channel which is at the courts level not governmental. Why are you interfering in this? Are you very free at your GRC. Is no one unemployed in your constituent? Is no one suffering from a debt from medical bill? As a public servant kindly know your job scope and place.
—
Ruth Chia: MM lKY was a brilliant.lawyer and at the time of making of the 7th.will .he.was still.sane .How can.we imagine that he signed the will without knowing the contents.if the will. Highly improbably for LKY……..
—
KokSiang Tan: Dear Mdm, you are a hypocrite. In public you said your former PAP boss Lee KY was a great man. Now in support of your current boss, you implied Lee KY was an old fool who didn’t read what he was signing, albeit he was a Cambrige educated lawyer.
—
Meanwhile a pro-PAP fan page – Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP) – which some claim is the internet brigade of the People’s Action Party (PAP), has suggested that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s siblings want 38 Oxley Road destroyed because they stand to make millions out of it.
Netizens slam Indranee Rajah’s questions on Lee Kuan Yew’s last will
June 26, 201710736
Senior Minister of State (SMOS) for Law Indranee Rajah had on 24 June, raised several questions on the last will of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Chronicling the events of the day that the last will was signed, Ms Rajah asked how the last will came about, who drafted the last will and how LKY got to sign the will.
SMOS’s post was shared over 240 times and drew a flurry of comments. All the commenters on her post with the most number of likes, slammed her opinion. The following are some of the views of these commenters.
Simon Teo: Dear Mdm, are you trying to say that MM LKY was not sane enough to read through his will properly before he signed? I would be very surprised that an experience lawyer like him would make a blunder. I certainly do not hope that your image of MM Lee is that of a senile man who can’t make his own decision. That will be sad if it’s true. God bless you then.
—
Bhavan Jaipragas: SMS, these are indeed important questions Mr Lee Hsien Yang has to answer. I’ll pose a few questions here in public that perhaps will come in handy when you/your government colleagues speak in parliament on July 3. I think they are some of the key issues that we in the media would like more light shone on.
1) Probate was granted in October 2015 without a challenge from the PM. Why didn’t he make a legal challenge on the above mentioned issues at that time? Wouldn’t he have been able to do so in-camera?
2) Did the PM sign a settlement agreement with Mr Lee Hsien Yang on these or other issues?
3) Thirdly, judging from the online comments on this matter — it will be very useful if the government on July 3 reveals the date the ministerial committee was first convened, and its complete terms of reference.
—
Yc de Wai: It appears you are just a whisker away from alleging fraud. Your leader has to challenge in a competent court why the last will is invalid, not repeating what he believes to be a fraud to maybe 70% of population through his subordinates in Parliament. Certainly not us all to judge really if the Will is valid. The Ministerial Committee cannot investigate if there was a fraud, by “understanding what Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking on the House was.” It is accepted that the last Will is binding. If there is an alleged conflict of interest, LHL would be in the best position to challenge the validity of the will, and this would be a private matter to be brought about by a private citizen.
Now, this is a public matter, as the integrity of the government is in question against the evidences by LHY and LWL. They painted colours to their assertions of power abuse. The family feud has escalated beyond the House – to demolish or not. It is plain to me that the present public debate is not so much about the clause in the Will, but more of the roles LHL played in the background. Although he confines himself to a private citizen relating to the House, submitting to the government for any decision to be made, there are many questions about how he obtained confidential things that a private citizen would not be able to, and how the historical documents that belong to the estate executors conveniently appropriated by someone with no official appointment and legal right. I don’t speak for all Singaporeans, but my confidence is shaken. Standing at moral high ground with lopsided persuasion does not cut any meat. What is the point of a parliamentary trial by outsiders (ministers – PAP and WP) who do not have evidences like LHY and LWL do, and without their testimonies? Our PM has to respond to these allegations, but the avenue should not be in Parliament, and certainly not through Facebook.
I understand that LHY and LWL have no other ways to get to Singaporeans with their perspectives other than through Facebook. News and pages of certain websites may be blocked/censored. They have got Singaporeans re-evaluate if the checks and balances are sufficient, if necessary at all. I personally would not want the trust Singaporeans have in the ruling party diminished at the hands of any individual or a particular collective ministerial group. Just like the whites you wear, there is no tolerance for transgression of PAP values (James Gomez).
If we are at an inflection point in our political history, and he has chosen to present his side of things in Parliament instead, I urge ministers like you to be fair to all Singaporeans. Ask him questions from the angles of LHY and LWL, this is the only way Singaporeans can get extract more truths from him instead of staging a political play. Give us a fuller picture and let us think about all the half-truths. That is the best I can ask of my PAP ministers to seek what is right for us Singaporeans, even if it means risking demerit points by your boss.
—
Chris Chen: This is such a classless statement that I felt compelled to comment. THE WHOLE COUNTRY knows his wish for his house to be demolished after his death, that is beyond dispute. The email released by LHY says to revert back to his original will. He signed it and initialed under the re-inserted demolition clause. Probate was then granted and the will became legal and binding. As such, I’m really confused at your “lawyering” of the whole issue. To suggest that LKY “accepts” that his house may not be demolished after his death is not only ludicrous, but also disrespectful. I am deeply disgusted by your feeble attempt to confuse the public and draw attention away from the greater issues at stake.
—
Brenda Tham: Please stop insulting our founding father.i saw you cried the hardest when he passed away. As a lawyer u should know that any dispute of will should be settled at the right channel which is at the courts level not governmental. Why are you interfering in this? Are you very free at your GRC. Is no one unemployed in your constituent? Is no one suffering from a debt from medical bill? As a public servant kindly know your job scope and place.
—
Ruth Chia: MM lKY was a brilliant.lawyer and at the time of making of the 7th.will .he.was still.sane .How can.we imagine that he signed the will without knowing the contents.if the will. Highly improbably for LKY……..
—
KokSiang Tan: Dear Mdm, you are a hypocrite. In public you said your former PAP boss Lee KY was a great man. Now in support of your current boss, you implied Lee KY was an old fool who didn’t read what he was signing, albeit he was a Cambrige educated lawyer.
—
Meanwhile a pro-PAP fan page – Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP) – which some claim is the internet brigade of the People’s Action Party (PAP), has suggested that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s siblings want 38 Oxley Road destroyed because they stand to make millions out of it.
I don't like the LEE family either. All of them.
Similar threads
