dog collar, leash are only part of it. How abt gag ball, handcuffs, whips, etc?
-
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
dog collar, leash are only part of it. How abt gag ball, handcuffs, whips, etc?
can we start a bdsm thread? don't wish to derail this rather dull, un-erotic thread. sex sells better than family feud.
:-) :-) :-)
This morning while having breakfast overheard one group of ah peks talking. One ah pek mentioned is a pity LKY does not have great grandchildren. Another ah pek says damn sia suay because 3nd gen already quarrelling. Then the 3rd ah pek said got lah LHL daughter married into seng siong and now must have children. Wow is that true. I will ban seng siong from now onwards.
First born's abuse and misuse of government's resources, including using his Ministers for his private battles over 38OR, must surely exceed many multiples of 69 over this $226 in which CSJ was sacked for.
*****
"Exchange of letters over dismissal of Dr Chee: Fact that papers were sent for wife's PhD exam not made known"
147th Prostitute Press
01 April 1993
"[...] MARCH 18 - Letter to Dr Chee from NUS director of personnel
I REFER to the meeting you had with Associate Professor Ernest Chew, Dean,
Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences and Dr S. Vasoo, Head, Department of Social Work & Psychology on 4 March 1993.
At the meeting you had admitted that on 8 September 1992 you had sent your wife's dissertation to one Mary Jo Spicer, Graduate Secretary of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University by courier service, namely TNT Skypak International, using university grant monies under research grant No. RP920011 at a cost of $74.50.
You further admitted that on 9 November 1992, you again sent to the said Mar y Jo Spicer your wife's dissertation by TNT Skypak International at a cost of $151.50 using university grant monies under another research grant No. RP910069. [...]
J. J. ISAAC
Director of Personnel "
*****
"Exchange of letters over dismissal of Dr Chee: Fact that papers were sent for wife's PhD exam not made known"
147th Prostitute Press
01 April 1993
"[...] MARCH 18 - Letter to Dr Chee from NUS director of personnel
I REFER to the meeting you had with Associate Professor Ernest Chew, Dean,
Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences and Dr S. Vasoo, Head, Department of Social Work & Psychology on 4 March 1993.
At the meeting you had admitted that on 8 September 1992 you had sent your wife's dissertation to one Mary Jo Spicer, Graduate Secretary of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University by courier service, namely TNT Skypak International, using university grant monies under research grant No. RP920011 at a cost of $74.50.
You further admitted that on 9 November 1992, you again sent to the said Mar y Jo Spicer your wife's dissertation by TNT Skypak International at a cost of $151.50 using university grant monies under another research grant No. RP910069. [...]
J. J. ISAAC
Director of Personnel "
Last edited:
Key & Relevant Definitions Under Singapore's Penal Code (Chapter 224)
“Government”
17. The word “Government” includes any person lawfully performing executive functions of the Government under any law.
“Wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss”
23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled; “wrongful loss” is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
“Dishonestly”
24. Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
“Fraudulently”
25. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
“A will”
31. The words “a will” denote any testamentary document.
Words referring to acts include illegal omissions
32. In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
“Injury”
44. The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
“Government”
17. The word “Government” includes any person lawfully performing executive functions of the Government under any law.
“Wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss”
23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled; “wrongful loss” is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
“Dishonestly”
24. Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
“Fraudulently”
25. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
“A will”
31. The words “a will” denote any testamentary document.
Words referring to acts include illegal omissions
32. In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
“Injury”
44. The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
Never mind the appointees (Janadas or the Chua sisters etc), it should be quite obvious by now that every government or quasi-government institution in Singapore is a political appendage of the ruling party. As I have stated before in a different context, the whole of Singapore belongs to the PAP; including NTUC. Independence is a fiction!
Good interview with PJ Thum:
[video=youtube;a-mpreKaFg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-mpreKaFg4[/video]
[video=youtube;a-mpreKaFg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-mpreKaFg4[/video]
"Quotable Quotes"
147th Prostitute Press
13 April 1993
[...]Air grievances in court
"All who feel that they have justified legal claims should have no fear in addressing their grievances in our courts.
"No one should take things into his own hands - be that engaging thugs to pressurising your opponent or going on a hunger strike."
- Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC)[...]"
147th Prostitute Press
13 April 1993
[...]Air grievances in court
"All who feel that they have justified legal claims should have no fear in addressing their grievances in our courts.
"No one should take things into his own hands - be that engaging thugs to pressurising your opponent or going on a hunger strike."
- Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC)[...]"
| Then... |
"I am also satisfied that dismissal was the appropriate action, given the clear evidence of Dr Chee's dishonesty and the total gross misconduct which he had shown when he was found out for abusing his research grants." Lee Yock Suan, Minister for Education, 13 April 1993
In future? Possibly? Nahhhh...fat hope!
"The Singapore Government must maintain high standards and cannot condone such flagrant misbehaviour from any of its Ministers. The fact that Lee Hsien Loong is the Prime Minister of Singapore is irrelevant ...
"I am also satisfied that dismissal was the appropriate action, given the clear evidence of Lee Hsien Loong's dishonesty and the total gross misconduct which he had shown when he was found out for abusing his powers." Xxx Xxx Xxx, XX Xxx XXXX
"Chance for PM to show his statesmanship" by Viswa Sadasivan in today's ST Forum page. Sorry I have run out of my online ST freebies for the month so can't provide the link!
Anyways Viswa seems to want to have his cake and eat it!
On the one hand he says "The dispute is too important a matter not to be discussed in Parliament....PM Lee needs to systematically address the allegations, and where necessary, acknowledge that things could have been done better" .
But then he also goes on to say that "Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang should have an equal opportunity to respond after( PM Lee's ) statement and the debate in Parliament".
Hello Viswa, what did you learn in Harvard?!
Have you not heard of a public select parliamentary committee hearing, where both PM Lee and his siblings and any other relevant parties(including Ho Ching) can be called to give evidence + provide documents etc.
Or PM Lee should just sue his siblings in a Singapore Court of Law.
Either way, both sides will be able to make their case, under oath, in the same forum and all the relevant issues can be determined once and for all, together at the same time.
Anyways Viswa seems to want to have his cake and eat it!
On the one hand he says "The dispute is too important a matter not to be discussed in Parliament....PM Lee needs to systematically address the allegations, and where necessary, acknowledge that things could have been done better" .
But then he also goes on to say that "Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang should have an equal opportunity to respond after( PM Lee's ) statement and the debate in Parliament".
Hello Viswa, what did you learn in Harvard?!
Have you not heard of a public select parliamentary committee hearing, where both PM Lee and his siblings and any other relevant parties(including Ho Ching) can be called to give evidence + provide documents etc.
Or PM Lee should just sue his siblings in a Singapore Court of Law.
Either way, both sides will be able to make their case, under oath, in the same forum and all the relevant issues can be determined once and for all, together at the same time.
Chance for PM to show his statesmanship
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will be making a statement in Parliament next Monday to address allegations made against him by his two siblings.
Some people are of the view that by taking the matter to a People's Action Party-dominated Parliament, the debate becomes inherently unfair.
While this may be a valid concern, under the circumstances, this is a step in the right direction.
The dispute is too important a matter not to be discussed in Parliament.
What is more critical is how this discussion is done. If it comes across as a sham debate - if PM Lee does not appear to address the issues honestly - or if the government leaders conduct themselves in a manner that appears unfair or browbeating, it will only give credence to the allegations of abuse of power.
PM Lee needs to systematically address the allegations, and where necessary, acknowledge that things could have been done better.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang should have an equal opportunity to respond after his statement and the debate in Parliament.
The media plays a big role in helping to win public confidence in the process by showing that it is fair and transparent.
I see this as an opportunity for the PM to demonstrate leadership as a statesman.
If he does the right thing and does it right, there is a good chance for the healing to start.
It will give much needed closure to a matter that has pulled us apart and away from more pressing concerns as a people.
Viswa Sadasivan
PAP LEADERS TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST TANG
147th Prostitute Press
01 January 1997
"[...]At a PAP rally last night, Mr Goh said that Mr Tang had made a very serious allegation in saying that he, Mr Lee and other MPs had concocted lies.
"It is a very serious thing ... because if he is right and I am a liar, I should step down immediately as Prime Minister," he said.
"You cannot have a cheat and a liar as the Prime Minister. So, immediately, we sent out a letter to him today, with a writ all ready, asking him to apologise. If he doesn't, then legal action will proceed, he will be sued." "
***
Full Article
PRIME MINISTER Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and six other People's Action Party members have taken legal action against Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong for saying they had committed a criminal offence and for calling them liars.
They said Mr Tang's remarks, which were published in The Straits Times yesterday, were a grave and serious slander and libel, calculated to disparage their character and integrity.
They want him to withdraw completely the defamatory remarks and apologise unreservedly. The apologies, which will be drafted by the lawyers of Mr Goh and Mr Lee, must be read out at a rally not later than 9 pm today, and published in newspapers tomorrow.
The six PAP members are: Environment Minister Teo Chee Hean, former MP Ch'ng Jit Koon, MP Ow Chin Hock, former MP Chin Harn Tong, MP Ker Sin Tze and MP Seng Han Thong.
At a PAP rally last night, Mr Goh said that Mr Tang had made a very serious allegation in saying that he, Mr Lee and other MPs had concocted lies.
"It is a very serious thing ... because if he is right and I am a liar, I should step down immediately as Prime Minister," he said.
"You cannot have a cheat and a liar as the Prime Minister. So, immediately, we sent out a letter to him today, with a writ all ready, asking him to apologise. If he doesn't, then legal action will proceed, he will be sued."
In a letter to Mr Tang yesterday, Mr Goh's lawyers referred to statements made in an interview Mr Tang gave Straits Times reporter Ahmad Osman and published under the headline: "I will sue, but not now as I have no time, says Tang".
Mr Tang said, among other things, "I am going to lodge a police report against them for criminal offence. They are telling lies. They are defaming, assassinating my character. They concocted lies and go on television and spread the lies."
The letter said Mr Tang had slandered and libelled Mr Goh gravely because the remarks had accused him of conspiring with Mr Lee and the six PAP members to spread lies about Mr Tang and assassinate his character.
The remarks meant Mr Goh and the others had concocted lies and spread them to "deliberately and maliciously hurt" his election prospects.
Mr Tang had also meant that Mr Goh had committed a criminal offence about which the WP candidate would file a police report.
The letter said Mr Tang had made the statements in the presence of Mr Ahmad knowing or intending that they would be published in The Straits Times and republished elsewhere.
These statements were calculated to disparage Mr Goh and impugn his character, credit and integrity.
He had been injured gravely in his character and reputation as the Prime Minister, secretary-general of the PAP and as an MP of long standing, and had been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.
Saying there was no basis for the slander and libel, the letter called on Mr Tang to withdraw his statements completely and apologise unreservedly in a manner stated in another letter that was attached.
The withdrawal of the statement and apology must be read at a rally not later than 9 pm today and published in the first page of The Straits Times tomorrow with "sufficient prominence".
Mr Tang must undertake not to publish the same or similar statements, and also pay damages and costs.
He must confirm by 6 pm today if he accepted the conditions without qualification. If he did, the action would be discontinued and if he did not, it "will be prosecuted vigorously".
In another letter, Mr Lee's lawyers said Mr Tang had alleged falsely that the SM was guilty of a criminal offence, had lied in statements made about Mr Tang's character, and had conspired to concoct and spread lies.
This was a very grave slander and libel against Mr Lee, the Senior Minister and former Prime Minister, and meant to disparage him and impugn his character, credit and integrity.
Given the seriousness of the attack and its "deliberate timing", Mr Tang must publish an apology with "appropriate prominence" in The Straits Times tomorrow.
He must read it at a Workers' Party rally no later than 9 pm today and pay damages and costs. He must reply if he will do this by 6 pm today.
In a third letter, the lawyers of the six other PAP members said Mr Tang's remarks meant they had, among other things, acted in concert to commit a criminal offence and lied or concocted lies to assassinate his character.
His statements were a grave and serious slander and libel to the six, who were present and former MPs, including a serving Cabinet Minister, a former Senior Minister of State and a Minister of State.
They called on him to publish an apology "acceptable to our clients" in tomorrow's issue of The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian and Tamil Murasu, read out the apology at a rally not later than 9 pm today, and pay damages and costs.
147th Prostitute Press
01 January 1997
"[...]At a PAP rally last night, Mr Goh said that Mr Tang had made a very serious allegation in saying that he, Mr Lee and other MPs had concocted lies.
"It is a very serious thing ... because if he is right and I am a liar, I should step down immediately as Prime Minister," he said.
"You cannot have a cheat and a liar as the Prime Minister. So, immediately, we sent out a letter to him today, with a writ all ready, asking him to apologise. If he doesn't, then legal action will proceed, he will be sued." "
***
Full Article
PRIME MINISTER Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and six other People's Action Party members have taken legal action against Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong for saying they had committed a criminal offence and for calling them liars.
They said Mr Tang's remarks, which were published in The Straits Times yesterday, were a grave and serious slander and libel, calculated to disparage their character and integrity.
They want him to withdraw completely the defamatory remarks and apologise unreservedly. The apologies, which will be drafted by the lawyers of Mr Goh and Mr Lee, must be read out at a rally not later than 9 pm today, and published in newspapers tomorrow.
The six PAP members are: Environment Minister Teo Chee Hean, former MP Ch'ng Jit Koon, MP Ow Chin Hock, former MP Chin Harn Tong, MP Ker Sin Tze and MP Seng Han Thong.
At a PAP rally last night, Mr Goh said that Mr Tang had made a very serious allegation in saying that he, Mr Lee and other MPs had concocted lies.
"It is a very serious thing ... because if he is right and I am a liar, I should step down immediately as Prime Minister," he said.
"You cannot have a cheat and a liar as the Prime Minister. So, immediately, we sent out a letter to him today, with a writ all ready, asking him to apologise. If he doesn't, then legal action will proceed, he will be sued."
In a letter to Mr Tang yesterday, Mr Goh's lawyers referred to statements made in an interview Mr Tang gave Straits Times reporter Ahmad Osman and published under the headline: "I will sue, but not now as I have no time, says Tang".
Mr Tang said, among other things, "I am going to lodge a police report against them for criminal offence. They are telling lies. They are defaming, assassinating my character. They concocted lies and go on television and spread the lies."
The letter said Mr Tang had slandered and libelled Mr Goh gravely because the remarks had accused him of conspiring with Mr Lee and the six PAP members to spread lies about Mr Tang and assassinate his character.
The remarks meant Mr Goh and the others had concocted lies and spread them to "deliberately and maliciously hurt" his election prospects.
Mr Tang had also meant that Mr Goh had committed a criminal offence about which the WP candidate would file a police report.
The letter said Mr Tang had made the statements in the presence of Mr Ahmad knowing or intending that they would be published in The Straits Times and republished elsewhere.
These statements were calculated to disparage Mr Goh and impugn his character, credit and integrity.
He had been injured gravely in his character and reputation as the Prime Minister, secretary-general of the PAP and as an MP of long standing, and had been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.
Saying there was no basis for the slander and libel, the letter called on Mr Tang to withdraw his statements completely and apologise unreservedly in a manner stated in another letter that was attached.
The withdrawal of the statement and apology must be read at a rally not later than 9 pm today and published in the first page of The Straits Times tomorrow with "sufficient prominence".
Mr Tang must undertake not to publish the same or similar statements, and also pay damages and costs.
He must confirm by 6 pm today if he accepted the conditions without qualification. If he did, the action would be discontinued and if he did not, it "will be prosecuted vigorously".
In another letter, Mr Lee's lawyers said Mr Tang had alleged falsely that the SM was guilty of a criminal offence, had lied in statements made about Mr Tang's character, and had conspired to concoct and spread lies.
This was a very grave slander and libel against Mr Lee, the Senior Minister and former Prime Minister, and meant to disparage him and impugn his character, credit and integrity.
Given the seriousness of the attack and its "deliberate timing", Mr Tang must publish an apology with "appropriate prominence" in The Straits Times tomorrow.
He must read it at a Workers' Party rally no later than 9 pm today and pay damages and costs. He must reply if he will do this by 6 pm today.
In a third letter, the lawyers of the six other PAP members said Mr Tang's remarks meant they had, among other things, acted in concert to commit a criminal offence and lied or concocted lies to assassinate his character.
His statements were a grave and serious slander and libel to the six, who were present and former MPs, including a serving Cabinet Minister, a former Senior Minister of State and a Minister of State.
They called on him to publish an apology "acceptable to our clients" in tomorrow's issue of The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian and Tamil Murasu, read out the apology at a rally not later than 9 pm today, and pay damages and costs.
Such a poor letter by Viswa, unusual for the area that he is in. Much of his business comes from Govt and its agencies or connections from them so he does have to be careful. Not sure if he was doing a repeat of Chua Lee Hoong when WKS and Old Man went overboard over Gomez and her piece was a warning that they gone overboard and the backlash was apparent.
This wan very well written and hard hitting too:
John Samuel
28th June 2017
THE FAMOUS SECRET COMMITTEE
Mr. Lee Hsien Yang asks why the secret committee was formed in 2016. He probably knows why, and he certainly knows he won't get a straight answer from the government. Even if it's a rhetorical question, I'll take a stab at answering it.
This is really two questions. One, why's there a committee at all, and two, why it's secret. What follows, obviously, is just guessing. I'll summarise here:
There's a committee because this matters to the PAP. A lot. And it's secret, because the committee's role isn't just to decide, it is also to explain.
Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and the government can't let go of the house. Their legitimacy is tied to it. This government, so weak and ineffectual, knows that its connection to Lee Kuan Yew is what keeps many voters onside.
It is blindingly obvious to anyone with the slightest interest in our economy and our society that we face some daunting challenges, big questions that need answering urgently. But the men and women in our government are miles removed, in quality, seriousness of purpose and substance, from the Goh Keng Swees, Rajaratnams and Barkers we were so fortunate to have half a century ago. The present lot are clearly the scrapings of our society, not the cream. They aren't complete zeroes of course - many of them would be fine middle managers.
And Mr. Lee Hsien Loong himself. He isn't his father. He isn't even a faint image of Lee Kuan Yew, not even a shadow. Can anyone remember a single original idea that the son might have had? A compelling speech? Even his funeral eulogy for his father had, at its heart, a flawed, hopelessly incomplete analogy. A few months ago, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong was interviewed by the BBC. He didn't give a single straight answer. Not one meaningful insight. In fact, as much as he could, he batted each question away with some fatuous comment or other. Draw your own conclusions.
So, having nothing else, Mr. Lee and his government have clung on for dear life to everything that connects them to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. They cannot let go. It would be the end of them. For them, and for the many people who are connected to the system as it stands, there is so much at stake.
The house is now a poisoned goblet for the government. If they keep it, they are dishonouring Mr. Lee's memory by ignoring his heartfelt desire. If they destroy it, they are losing their connection to him. So. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It's a high wire act for them, and it's quite possible that they will lose their balance, and fall to the stony ground below.
The PAP understands this, and they are hard at work, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Squaring the circle, as Indranee Rajah and others have tried to do, by saying that Mr. Lee acknowledged that the government had the final say. Yes, he did, but it's important to ask why. I think it was a final, sad act of loyalty to Singapore and its government. It's sad because of the way the government has misunderstood the purpose of this concession.
Mr. Lee did not mean this final concession to be adopted lightly. Instead, it was always meant to be weighed carefully, against his deeply felt wishes. When the government argues that in the end, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew left the decision up to them, this is a dangerous oversimplification. Not only that, it is an insult to his memory. It's even sadder that it comes from the son he loved and the government he led with such distinction. It shows that these days, to some, Mr. Lee is little more than a symbol to be used cynically. The people in this government, with few exceptions, are completely incapable of filling his shoes and those of his associates. They know this, surely. So do we.
So, why's the committee secret? It's one or both of two things, and I'll do this in two paragraphs. First, the government cannot reveal that it understands that its legitimacy rests so much on the Lee Kuan Yew connection. In every impossibly craven, ridiculous way they can, they will cling on to anything that keeps that connection alive, but they can't tell us, can they. With little to show for the past several years, the government can't just come out and say, because this is the only reason you have to vote for us. So the secrecy.
I've alluded to the second possible reason a few paragraphs back. The committee's job is not just to decide, it's also to explain, to persuade us that there's no contradiction, that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew really didn't mind either way. That if the house was preserved or if it was demolished, he'd be okay both ways. Of course, that's a tall order, making us believe something that we didn't believe just a few months ago, but the committee is trying its best. George Orwell, in his famous novel, 1984, called this double-think. This is what occupies their mediocre minds, not disappearing jobs, falling real incomes or a stagnant economy. This is why the house is such a war zone, and this is why the committee is secret.
Anyway, here's the secret committee, in Rembrandt's famous painting, The Syndics of the Drapers' Guild.
John Samuel
28th June 2017
THE FAMOUS SECRET COMMITTEE
Mr. Lee Hsien Yang asks why the secret committee was formed in 2016. He probably knows why, and he certainly knows he won't get a straight answer from the government. Even if it's a rhetorical question, I'll take a stab at answering it.
This is really two questions. One, why's there a committee at all, and two, why it's secret. What follows, obviously, is just guessing. I'll summarise here:
There's a committee because this matters to the PAP. A lot. And it's secret, because the committee's role isn't just to decide, it is also to explain.
Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and the government can't let go of the house. Their legitimacy is tied to it. This government, so weak and ineffectual, knows that its connection to Lee Kuan Yew is what keeps many voters onside.
It is blindingly obvious to anyone with the slightest interest in our economy and our society that we face some daunting challenges, big questions that need answering urgently. But the men and women in our government are miles removed, in quality, seriousness of purpose and substance, from the Goh Keng Swees, Rajaratnams and Barkers we were so fortunate to have half a century ago. The present lot are clearly the scrapings of our society, not the cream. They aren't complete zeroes of course - many of them would be fine middle managers.
And Mr. Lee Hsien Loong himself. He isn't his father. He isn't even a faint image of Lee Kuan Yew, not even a shadow. Can anyone remember a single original idea that the son might have had? A compelling speech? Even his funeral eulogy for his father had, at its heart, a flawed, hopelessly incomplete analogy. A few months ago, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong was interviewed by the BBC. He didn't give a single straight answer. Not one meaningful insight. In fact, as much as he could, he batted each question away with some fatuous comment or other. Draw your own conclusions.
So, having nothing else, Mr. Lee and his government have clung on for dear life to everything that connects them to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. They cannot let go. It would be the end of them. For them, and for the many people who are connected to the system as it stands, there is so much at stake.
The house is now a poisoned goblet for the government. If they keep it, they are dishonouring Mr. Lee's memory by ignoring his heartfelt desire. If they destroy it, they are losing their connection to him. So. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It's a high wire act for them, and it's quite possible that they will lose their balance, and fall to the stony ground below.
The PAP understands this, and they are hard at work, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Squaring the circle, as Indranee Rajah and others have tried to do, by saying that Mr. Lee acknowledged that the government had the final say. Yes, he did, but it's important to ask why. I think it was a final, sad act of loyalty to Singapore and its government. It's sad because of the way the government has misunderstood the purpose of this concession.
Mr. Lee did not mean this final concession to be adopted lightly. Instead, it was always meant to be weighed carefully, against his deeply felt wishes. When the government argues that in the end, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew left the decision up to them, this is a dangerous oversimplification. Not only that, it is an insult to his memory. It's even sadder that it comes from the son he loved and the government he led with such distinction. It shows that these days, to some, Mr. Lee is little more than a symbol to be used cynically. The people in this government, with few exceptions, are completely incapable of filling his shoes and those of his associates. They know this, surely. So do we.
So, why's the committee secret? It's one or both of two things, and I'll do this in two paragraphs. First, the government cannot reveal that it understands that its legitimacy rests so much on the Lee Kuan Yew connection. In every impossibly craven, ridiculous way they can, they will cling on to anything that keeps that connection alive, but they can't tell us, can they. With little to show for the past several years, the government can't just come out and say, because this is the only reason you have to vote for us. So the secrecy.
I've alluded to the second possible reason a few paragraphs back. The committee's job is not just to decide, it's also to explain, to persuade us that there's no contradiction, that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew really didn't mind either way. That if the house was preserved or if it was demolished, he'd be okay both ways. Of course, that's a tall order, making us believe something that we didn't believe just a few months ago, but the committee is trying its best. George Orwell, in his famous novel, 1984, called this double-think. This is what occupies their mediocre minds, not disappearing jobs, falling real incomes or a stagnant economy. This is why the house is such a war zone, and this is why the committee is secret.
Anyway, here's the secret committee, in Rembrandt's famous painting, The Syndics of the Drapers' Guild.
Lee Hsien Yang's FB posting one hour ago:
We have serious concerns with Lee Hsien Loong’s attempt to cover-up and whitewash himself in Parliament on 3 July 2017. We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and influence to drive his personal agenda. This is yet another example.
This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places Hsien Loong before his subordinates. They lack both sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised. Even before the session, many of them appear to have felt obliged to give him cover. Many MPs will fear career repercussions if they speak out against their superior. Historically, few PAP MPs have dared to dissent even when the party whip was lifted.
There will be no opportunity or adequate time for evidence to be properly drawn together, placed before Parliament, and considered. Nor will there be any opportunity for an examining body to properly probe explanations or excuses. A Parliamentary session is not the correct forum for investigations of this nature.
We have no confidence that a fair, transparent or complete account of events will be told: only his side of the story will air, with no promise of truthfulness due to parliamentary privilege. Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege.
We believe that key issues such as his abuse of power will be simply swept under the carpet. The accused controls both process and outcome in this forum.
We have serious concerns with Lee Hsien Loong’s attempt to cover-up and whitewash himself in Parliament on 3 July 2017. We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and influence to drive his personal agenda. This is yet another example.
This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places Hsien Loong before his subordinates. They lack both sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised. Even before the session, many of them appear to have felt obliged to give him cover. Many MPs will fear career repercussions if they speak out against their superior. Historically, few PAP MPs have dared to dissent even when the party whip was lifted.
There will be no opportunity or adequate time for evidence to be properly drawn together, placed before Parliament, and considered. Nor will there be any opportunity for an examining body to properly probe explanations or excuses. A Parliamentary session is not the correct forum for investigations of this nature.
We have no confidence that a fair, transparent or complete account of events will be told: only his side of the story will air, with no promise of truthfulness due to parliamentary privilege. Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege.
We believe that key issues such as his abuse of power will be simply swept under the carpet. The accused controls both process and outcome in this forum.
Similar threads
