-
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 Let's collate the essence of the best, and possibly the worst, here
- Thread starter rusty
- Start date
Re: Let's collate the best here
The irony is that they lived overseas to avoid the same suffering Singaporeans were facing in Singapore. The more they praised the establishment, the more sinkies have to suffer while these plp people enjoy their good life elsewhere. It is called borrowing PAP knife to kill Sinkies because all these plp are quitters themselves. Saddist mentality.
The irony is that they lived overseas to avoid the same suffering Singaporeans were facing in Singapore. The more they praised the establishment, the more sinkies have to suffer while these plp people enjoy their good life elsewhere. It is called borrowing PAP knife to kill Sinkies because all these plp are quitters themselves. Saddist mentality.
I don't know what to say
Fucking pinay
I can. Pinoy English sucks big time.
I don't know what to say
Fucking pinay
does LHY look like hes the type of man to have big mouth syndrome?if anything these disgusting pinoys have the biggest mouths of all on the planet.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean today (Jun 21) put words into a dead man claiming that Lee Kuan Yew would have wanted the Government to change his will too:
“But ultimately, the Cabinet of the day and its ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters where the public interest is involved, and due process is required. Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself understood this and would have expected the Government to do so.”
Lee Kuan Yew has repetitively emphasised in various interviews to demolish the 38 Oxley Road house after his death. Lee Kuan Yew changed his will 7 times, and 5 out of the 7 wills include the Demolition Clause. The last will was kept a secret from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as Lee Kuan Yew do not trust him to be the executor of his will.
DPM Teo Chee Hean also highlighted that the Government reserves the right to defy Lee Kuan Yew’s will under special provision laws:
“Ultimately, it is the Government of the day which has to be responsible for making a decision on the property as this is where the powers reside under the law, specifically the Preservation of Monuments Act and the Planning Act in this case.”
In his press release to state media CNA, DPM Teo Chee Hean also repeated the same lie that Lee Hsien Loong is not involved with the Ministerial Committee:
“PM Lee has recused himself from Government decisions on the property, and that no immediate decision is required as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the house.”
DPM Teo Chee Hean also tried to confuse the public claiming that the Demolition Clause in the will is “subject to different interpretations”:
“The ministerial committee had sought the views of the siblings on Mr Lee’s thinking, as they had different views and challenged each other’s interpretations of Mr Lee’s wishes.”
Source:http://statestimesreview.com/2017/0...ave-wanted-government-to-change-his-will-too/
“But ultimately, the Cabinet of the day and its ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters where the public interest is involved, and due process is required. Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself understood this and would have expected the Government to do so.”
Lee Kuan Yew has repetitively emphasised in various interviews to demolish the 38 Oxley Road house after his death. Lee Kuan Yew changed his will 7 times, and 5 out of the 7 wills include the Demolition Clause. The last will was kept a secret from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as Lee Kuan Yew do not trust him to be the executor of his will.
DPM Teo Chee Hean also highlighted that the Government reserves the right to defy Lee Kuan Yew’s will under special provision laws:
“Ultimately, it is the Government of the day which has to be responsible for making a decision on the property as this is where the powers reside under the law, specifically the Preservation of Monuments Act and the Planning Act in this case.”
In his press release to state media CNA, DPM Teo Chee Hean also repeated the same lie that Lee Hsien Loong is not involved with the Ministerial Committee:
“PM Lee has recused himself from Government decisions on the property, and that no immediate decision is required as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the house.”
DPM Teo Chee Hean also tried to confuse the public claiming that the Demolition Clause in the will is “subject to different interpretations”:
“The ministerial committee had sought the views of the siblings on Mr Lee’s thinking, as they had different views and challenged each other’s interpretations of Mr Lee’s wishes.”
Source:http://statestimesreview.com/2017/0...ave-wanted-government-to-change-his-will-too/
Following is the extract from page 150 of Ross Worthington’s book, “Governance in Singapore”(Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Inc, Dec 2002):
In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong’s long term ambitions for prime ministership. Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission. At that time Lee’s office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu’s was on the 50th floor.
At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society. Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister’s portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.
This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan. Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter.
This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong’s mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan, apologised for his son’s behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.
All held out for some time, eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family.
Source:http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/424390
In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong’s long term ambitions for prime ministership. Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission. At that time Lee’s office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu’s was on the 50th floor.
At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society. Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister’s portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.
This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan. Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter.
This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong’s mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan, apologised for his son’s behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.
All held out for some time, eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family.
Source:http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/424390
Lee family feud rocks Singapore
By Yang Sheng Source:Global Times
City-state suffers series of failures under current PM
The dispute between Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings might challenge the stability of the country and bring pressure for political reform, experts said.
Lee Hsien Yang, the second son of Singapore's first leader Lee Kuan Yew, and his sister Lee Wei Ling, posted a statement on Wednesday, accusing their older brother of using their father's legacy to reinforce his own power and personal popularity.
"The dispute between the prime minister and his siblings is actually about the use of the former leader Lee Kuan Yew's legacy in Singaporean politics," Xu Liping, an expert on Southeast Asia at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday.
As Lee Hsien Loong's achievements in government, compared to his father's, are not as impressive, this open family feud might affect his political status to some extent, Xu said.
The dispute was apparently sparked by disagreement over the fate of the family home at 38 Oxley Road.
The late prime minister had asked for it to be demolished upon his death, part of his long-held belief against monuments and self-aggrandizement, but the house has been preserved.
"However, we believe that [Lee] Hsien Loong and [his wife] Ho Ching are motivated by a desire to inherit Lee Kuan Yew's standing and reputation for themselves and their children," read Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling's statement.
Political ambitions
The two siblings also said in the statement that Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, the chief executive of state investment firm Temasek Holdings, also "harbor political ambitions" for their son Li Hongyi.
"To appoint a successor within the first family in Singapore is becoming increasingly unacceptable, and pressure on the ruling party, the People's Action Party, is actually growing," Chu Yin, an associate professor at the University of International Relations, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Chu said that the Lee family's public feud shows that democratization in the country is increasing and that Lee Hsien Loong is not an unchallengeable figure in Singapore.
In response to his siblings' allegations, Lee Hsien Loong released a statement on his Facebook account on Wednesday, saying that he was "very disappointed that my siblings have chosen to issue a statement publicizing private family matters." He denied the accusations, including any political plan for his son.
Differences among siblings should "stay in the family" and the statement had "hurt our father's legacy," the statement said.
His son, Li Hongyi, also said on his Facebook account on Thursday that "For what it is worth, I really have no interest in politics."
"The dispute is not only a private family issue, but also shows that the younger siblings hold very different political values to the prime minister, and their opinion is very similar to Singapore's opposition party, which is getting popular in Singapore and bringing pressure for political reform," Chen Jiulin, former chief executive of China Aviation Oil in Singapore, who lived and worked in Singapore for 11 years, told the Global Times.
"Lee Hsien Loong can't be compared to his father. Singapore's economy has obviously declined in recent years, and its state-run investment companies have suffered heavy losses. In the diplomatic sphere, Singapore has also suffered failures like the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)," Chen said.
In Lee Kuan Yew's era, the Sino-Singaporean relationship was healthy, but after Lee Hsien Loong took office, Singapore started to urge Southeastern Asian countries to go against China on the South China Sea issue, and encouraged the US and other Asian-Pacific countries to form the TPP free trade deal to isolate China, Chu said.
"The fact is Lee Hsien Loong's attempts to isolate China have failed, and we hope he can fix ties with China in the future," Chu said.
Dirty laundry
As the Lee family continued to air their dirty laundry in public, it not only drew attention in Singapore but also aroused enthusiastic discussions among Chinese netizens.
Some Chinese Net users are questioning whether China should learn modern management skills from Singapore by saying that "Singapore is just like a developed and capitalized version of 'North Korea,' so what can we learn from it?"
Singapore's advanced civil service system and management skills have nothing to do with the dispute in the country's top family, and in many areas, China still needs to learn from Singapore, Xu said.
Source:http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1051967.shtml
By Yang Sheng Source:Global Times
City-state suffers series of failures under current PM
The dispute between Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings might challenge the stability of the country and bring pressure for political reform, experts said.
Lee Hsien Yang, the second son of Singapore's first leader Lee Kuan Yew, and his sister Lee Wei Ling, posted a statement on Wednesday, accusing their older brother of using their father's legacy to reinforce his own power and personal popularity.
"The dispute between the prime minister and his siblings is actually about the use of the former leader Lee Kuan Yew's legacy in Singaporean politics," Xu Liping, an expert on Southeast Asia at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday.
As Lee Hsien Loong's achievements in government, compared to his father's, are not as impressive, this open family feud might affect his political status to some extent, Xu said.
The dispute was apparently sparked by disagreement over the fate of the family home at 38 Oxley Road.
The late prime minister had asked for it to be demolished upon his death, part of his long-held belief against monuments and self-aggrandizement, but the house has been preserved.
"However, we believe that [Lee] Hsien Loong and [his wife] Ho Ching are motivated by a desire to inherit Lee Kuan Yew's standing and reputation for themselves and their children," read Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling's statement.
Political ambitions
The two siblings also said in the statement that Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, the chief executive of state investment firm Temasek Holdings, also "harbor political ambitions" for their son Li Hongyi.
"To appoint a successor within the first family in Singapore is becoming increasingly unacceptable, and pressure on the ruling party, the People's Action Party, is actually growing," Chu Yin, an associate professor at the University of International Relations, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Chu said that the Lee family's public feud shows that democratization in the country is increasing and that Lee Hsien Loong is not an unchallengeable figure in Singapore.
In response to his siblings' allegations, Lee Hsien Loong released a statement on his Facebook account on Wednesday, saying that he was "very disappointed that my siblings have chosen to issue a statement publicizing private family matters." He denied the accusations, including any political plan for his son.
Differences among siblings should "stay in the family" and the statement had "hurt our father's legacy," the statement said.
His son, Li Hongyi, also said on his Facebook account on Thursday that "For what it is worth, I really have no interest in politics."
"The dispute is not only a private family issue, but also shows that the younger siblings hold very different political values to the prime minister, and their opinion is very similar to Singapore's opposition party, which is getting popular in Singapore and bringing pressure for political reform," Chen Jiulin, former chief executive of China Aviation Oil in Singapore, who lived and worked in Singapore for 11 years, told the Global Times.
"Lee Hsien Loong can't be compared to his father. Singapore's economy has obviously declined in recent years, and its state-run investment companies have suffered heavy losses. In the diplomatic sphere, Singapore has also suffered failures like the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)," Chen said.
In Lee Kuan Yew's era, the Sino-Singaporean relationship was healthy, but after Lee Hsien Loong took office, Singapore started to urge Southeastern Asian countries to go against China on the South China Sea issue, and encouraged the US and other Asian-Pacific countries to form the TPP free trade deal to isolate China, Chu said.
"The fact is Lee Hsien Loong's attempts to isolate China have failed, and we hope he can fix ties with China in the future," Chu said.
Dirty laundry
As the Lee family continued to air their dirty laundry in public, it not only drew attention in Singapore but also aroused enthusiastic discussions among Chinese netizens.
Some Chinese Net users are questioning whether China should learn modern management skills from Singapore by saying that "Singapore is just like a developed and capitalized version of 'North Korea,' so what can we learn from it?"
Singapore's advanced civil service system and management skills have nothing to do with the dispute in the country's top family, and in many areas, China still needs to learn from Singapore, Xu said.
Source:http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1051967.shtml
Last edited:
WHY THE LEE KUAN YEW FAMILY FEUD IS A METAPHOR FOR SINGAPORE
There are three key issues to understanding the saga surrounding the home of the Lion City’s late founding leader. Here’s what they are
BY HAN FOOK KWANG
21 JUN 2017
The family feud regarding the estate of Singapore’s late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew is extremely damaging to Singapore.
Everyone can see this even if they do not understand all the complex details that have emerged from this sorry saga. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – Lee Kuan Yew’s son – recognises this only too well and has apologised to the nation for the grief it has caused. The many issues that have been raised can be confusing, from the different versions of the will to which lawyer was involved in which deed.
But here’s the thing – you do not need to understand every single part of the unfolding drama to know what really matters and is important for Singapore. In fact, you should not let the toing and froing over the details prevent you from getting to the issues of public concern.
So, what are the key issues? There are three.
First, it is a valid question to ask how involved ministers should be on this issue. The only matter that concerns the government is whether to preserve Lee Kuan Yew’s house at 38 Oxley Road – something that it has the right to do under the Preservation of Monuments Act. Any other issue, including how the late Lee Kuan Yew decided on his will and who his lawyers were, has nothing to do with the government, or with you and me, least of all a committee of ministers.
In his last will, Lee Kuan Yew, said he wanted the family bungalow demolished after his death, but his children have fallen out regarding this instruction. Lee Hsien Loong has expressed “grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the Last Will”, and favours preserving the house. His siblings want the home demolished, and have accused the prime minister of seeking to use the home as a monument to enhance his political capital.
The government has clarified that the committee would confine itself to looking only at various options for the house while paying particular attention to respecting Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes for his house.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean further added that the committee wanted to get a clearer sense of Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking on the house, and wrote to all the siblings, who provided differing accounts of their father’s wishes. He pointed out that the committee’s interest in Lee Kuan Yew’s will was “confined to the light that it sheds on his wishes for the house”.
This might well have been the committee’s intention, but it now finds itself embroiled in an unwieldy dispute over Lee Kuan Yew’s actions and wishes. Was it wise or necessary for ministers to be involved in such matters as the will, which are difficult to ascertain? Should they not have confined themselves to deciding only what to do with the house – demolish, preserve or some intermediate option?
In retrospect, ministers should have stayed clear of the dispute over the will. They should have told PM Lee: As the eldest child, please resolve the matter with your siblings. Do not involve us. We expect you to solve it, hopefully amicably. Involving the government risks harming its good name and that of its ministers.
In fact, this is precisely what has happened with ministers having to defend their actions setting up the committee and explaining its remit. With fresh revelations and allegations every passing day, cabinet ministers find themselves more and more deeply involved in the saga.
Did they foresee this when they formed the committee and asked the parties involved to submit statutory declarations about the circumstance surrounding Lee Kuan Yew’s writing of his will? By adopting such an adversarial and legalistic approach at the outset, they set themselves and the government up for an ugly confrontation with the younger Lees.
It is not too late to reconsider the necessity of this ministerial committee and, in particular, its remit. Can the three Lees agree on this: Disband the committee and, as part of the agreement, cease from discussing the matter in public? They should make another attempt to resolve their disagreements privately. If they can’t, appoint a mediator acceptable to both sides.
A further possibility: Let the Founders’ Memorial Committee, which has already been formed to look into how best to commemorate Singapore’s pioneer leaders, decide on the fate of the house. Why leave out the most important decision from this group of distinguished Singaporeans who were selected to look into the building of an appropriate memorial?
The second issue of public concern is about the prime minister being accused by his siblings of all sorts of serious transgressions. They say he has misused and abused his powers, using the state to pursue his personal agenda, including spying on them. In other words, they accuse him of being corrupt. They also say he has lied and misrepresented the late Lee Kuan Yew over what he said about demolishing the house after his death.
Under normal circumstances, Prime Minister Lee would not allow these statements to go unchallenged and he would have had to sue the defamers in a court of law. If he does not, he will find it difficult to sue anyone in future even if they accuse him of the most blatant corruption and dishonesty.
But the prime minister also knows that it would be fatal for him politically to sue his own brother and sister. The fallout from it and the court case would damage him permanently. It is also a highly risky business because you have to be prepared for your character and all your actions to be closely scrutinised in court. The People’s Action Party leaders know this better than anyone because it was once their preferred method of dealing with their political opponents. Indeed, the party’s success is founded on the claim that its leaders are men of the highest integrity and that it will go to the ends of the earth to protect that reputation.
Since he will not sue, the matter has now become a full blown political battle. Lee Hsien Yang has taken to social media and the foreign press to argue his case and it is nothing less than that the Singapore system has become corrupted under his brother’s rule. In his latest interview with the South China Morning Post, he said: “Singapore’s social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was: civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach.” He said this social compact was now broken and accused his brother of being ready to use his “public powers to achieve his personal agenda”.
That’s throwing the political gauntlet straight at the prime minister over and above 38 Oxley Road. For this political battle, unlike the decision whether to sue, the prime minister has no choice but to engage and defend his integrity and his record. It is what political leaders are elected to do and the prime minister must show what he is made of. He has now decided to do this by way of a parliamentary debate on July 3 and will lift the party whip to encourage full participation. I hope MPs take advantage of the opportunity, though, knowing how tenacious the Lees are, the infighting is unlikely to end in the House.
Singaporeans might wish this political fight did not take place. But they cannot wish it away now. Some good might come out of it if, as a result, people understand better how the country is making the transition to a post-LKY world especially in the political sphere and how the government is being run. Do Singaporeans want to know and participate in this discussion? Do they have the political maturity to do so and in a way that will ensure the country becomes stronger in the process? It will be a critical test for post-LKY Singapore.
Finally, an important issue in all this is, of course, Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. Some people believe that, in fact, this is what it is all about. The founding Prime Minister’s legacy is important, what he stood for and how he achieved so much for Singapore. But even more important is how a people move forward, beyond the record and achievements of their past leaders.
Lee Kuan Yew himself was acutely aware of this, which was why he was against hero-worshipping and monument-building. He knew that history is too full of leaders who misuse the past for their own selfish political ends.
Singapore is at an inflexion point, with the memory of its founding leaders still fresh, but facing a brave new world under very different circumstances that will test its survival skills. It cannot break completely away from the past but neither does it want to be a prisoner of its history.
Demolish or preserve the house? You couldn’t find a better metaphor for the country and Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy.
SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS: DECISION CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED
The Singapore government late on Tuesday responded to Han Fook Kwang’s commentary. It said the set-up of a ministerial committee was necessary to help the current government carry out its legal responsibility of making a decision on the future of 38 Oxley Road.
“Cabinet cannot outsource decision-making,” Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in the statement. “We still hope that differences of views on private matters can be resolved within the family,” the deputy premier said. “But ultimately, the cabinet of the day and its ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters where the public interest is involved, or due process is required.”
Source:http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opini...y-lee-kuan-yew-family-feud-metaphor-singapore
There are three key issues to understanding the saga surrounding the home of the Lion City’s late founding leader. Here’s what they are
BY HAN FOOK KWANG
21 JUN 2017
The family feud regarding the estate of Singapore’s late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew is extremely damaging to Singapore.
Everyone can see this even if they do not understand all the complex details that have emerged from this sorry saga. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – Lee Kuan Yew’s son – recognises this only too well and has apologised to the nation for the grief it has caused. The many issues that have been raised can be confusing, from the different versions of the will to which lawyer was involved in which deed.
But here’s the thing – you do not need to understand every single part of the unfolding drama to know what really matters and is important for Singapore. In fact, you should not let the toing and froing over the details prevent you from getting to the issues of public concern.
So, what are the key issues? There are three.
First, it is a valid question to ask how involved ministers should be on this issue. The only matter that concerns the government is whether to preserve Lee Kuan Yew’s house at 38 Oxley Road – something that it has the right to do under the Preservation of Monuments Act. Any other issue, including how the late Lee Kuan Yew decided on his will and who his lawyers were, has nothing to do with the government, or with you and me, least of all a committee of ministers.
In his last will, Lee Kuan Yew, said he wanted the family bungalow demolished after his death, but his children have fallen out regarding this instruction. Lee Hsien Loong has expressed “grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the Last Will”, and favours preserving the house. His siblings want the home demolished, and have accused the prime minister of seeking to use the home as a monument to enhance his political capital.
The government has clarified that the committee would confine itself to looking only at various options for the house while paying particular attention to respecting Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes for his house.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean further added that the committee wanted to get a clearer sense of Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking on the house, and wrote to all the siblings, who provided differing accounts of their father’s wishes. He pointed out that the committee’s interest in Lee Kuan Yew’s will was “confined to the light that it sheds on his wishes for the house”.
This might well have been the committee’s intention, but it now finds itself embroiled in an unwieldy dispute over Lee Kuan Yew’s actions and wishes. Was it wise or necessary for ministers to be involved in such matters as the will, which are difficult to ascertain? Should they not have confined themselves to deciding only what to do with the house – demolish, preserve or some intermediate option?
In retrospect, ministers should have stayed clear of the dispute over the will. They should have told PM Lee: As the eldest child, please resolve the matter with your siblings. Do not involve us. We expect you to solve it, hopefully amicably. Involving the government risks harming its good name and that of its ministers.
In fact, this is precisely what has happened with ministers having to defend their actions setting up the committee and explaining its remit. With fresh revelations and allegations every passing day, cabinet ministers find themselves more and more deeply involved in the saga.
Did they foresee this when they formed the committee and asked the parties involved to submit statutory declarations about the circumstance surrounding Lee Kuan Yew’s writing of his will? By adopting such an adversarial and legalistic approach at the outset, they set themselves and the government up for an ugly confrontation with the younger Lees.
It is not too late to reconsider the necessity of this ministerial committee and, in particular, its remit. Can the three Lees agree on this: Disband the committee and, as part of the agreement, cease from discussing the matter in public? They should make another attempt to resolve their disagreements privately. If they can’t, appoint a mediator acceptable to both sides.
A further possibility: Let the Founders’ Memorial Committee, which has already been formed to look into how best to commemorate Singapore’s pioneer leaders, decide on the fate of the house. Why leave out the most important decision from this group of distinguished Singaporeans who were selected to look into the building of an appropriate memorial?
The second issue of public concern is about the prime minister being accused by his siblings of all sorts of serious transgressions. They say he has misused and abused his powers, using the state to pursue his personal agenda, including spying on them. In other words, they accuse him of being corrupt. They also say he has lied and misrepresented the late Lee Kuan Yew over what he said about demolishing the house after his death.
Under normal circumstances, Prime Minister Lee would not allow these statements to go unchallenged and he would have had to sue the defamers in a court of law. If he does not, he will find it difficult to sue anyone in future even if they accuse him of the most blatant corruption and dishonesty.
But the prime minister also knows that it would be fatal for him politically to sue his own brother and sister. The fallout from it and the court case would damage him permanently. It is also a highly risky business because you have to be prepared for your character and all your actions to be closely scrutinised in court. The People’s Action Party leaders know this better than anyone because it was once their preferred method of dealing with their political opponents. Indeed, the party’s success is founded on the claim that its leaders are men of the highest integrity and that it will go to the ends of the earth to protect that reputation.
Since he will not sue, the matter has now become a full blown political battle. Lee Hsien Yang has taken to social media and the foreign press to argue his case and it is nothing less than that the Singapore system has become corrupted under his brother’s rule. In his latest interview with the South China Morning Post, he said: “Singapore’s social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was: civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach.” He said this social compact was now broken and accused his brother of being ready to use his “public powers to achieve his personal agenda”.
That’s throwing the political gauntlet straight at the prime minister over and above 38 Oxley Road. For this political battle, unlike the decision whether to sue, the prime minister has no choice but to engage and defend his integrity and his record. It is what political leaders are elected to do and the prime minister must show what he is made of. He has now decided to do this by way of a parliamentary debate on July 3 and will lift the party whip to encourage full participation. I hope MPs take advantage of the opportunity, though, knowing how tenacious the Lees are, the infighting is unlikely to end in the House.
Singaporeans might wish this political fight did not take place. But they cannot wish it away now. Some good might come out of it if, as a result, people understand better how the country is making the transition to a post-LKY world especially in the political sphere and how the government is being run. Do Singaporeans want to know and participate in this discussion? Do they have the political maturity to do so and in a way that will ensure the country becomes stronger in the process? It will be a critical test for post-LKY Singapore.
Finally, an important issue in all this is, of course, Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. Some people believe that, in fact, this is what it is all about. The founding Prime Minister’s legacy is important, what he stood for and how he achieved so much for Singapore. But even more important is how a people move forward, beyond the record and achievements of their past leaders.
Lee Kuan Yew himself was acutely aware of this, which was why he was against hero-worshipping and monument-building. He knew that history is too full of leaders who misuse the past for their own selfish political ends.
Singapore is at an inflexion point, with the memory of its founding leaders still fresh, but facing a brave new world under very different circumstances that will test its survival skills. It cannot break completely away from the past but neither does it want to be a prisoner of its history.
Demolish or preserve the house? You couldn’t find a better metaphor for the country and Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy.
SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS: DECISION CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED
The Singapore government late on Tuesday responded to Han Fook Kwang’s commentary. It said the set-up of a ministerial committee was necessary to help the current government carry out its legal responsibility of making a decision on the future of 38 Oxley Road.
“Cabinet cannot outsource decision-making,” Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in the statement. “We still hope that differences of views on private matters can be resolved within the family,” the deputy premier said. “But ultimately, the cabinet of the day and its ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters where the public interest is involved, or due process is required.”
Source:http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opini...y-lee-kuan-yew-family-feud-metaphor-singapore
I looked to the 100 odd comments after the article and could not find even one comment supporting this guy….talk about foot in mouth disease.
Lee family feud could hurt Singapore PM at home ... but not in China
Public manner in which Lion City leader’s family members are handling the feud has given Beijing much food for thought
The bitter family feud over the estate of Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew will affect Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s credibility at home, but is unlikely to cast a shadow over his dealings with China, mainland observers and state media said on Tuesday.
Citing Confucian beliefs, experts questioned the incumbent leader’s ability to manage a nation when, as the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew, he appears unable to settle his family dispute.
Ju Hailong, a Southeast Asian affairs expert from Jinan University, said the saga might well hamper Lee’s political ambitions.
“This will definitely affect his political base, as ethnic Chinese hold the value that if a person cannot handle his family well then he loses the ability to run a country,” he said.
Zhang Mingliang, another Southeast Asian affairs expert from Jinan University, agreed that the feud could undermine Lee’s image after he stressed the importance of family harmony in his Lunar New Year messages.
A commentary on a website affiliated with the State Council Information Office said on Tuesday that Lee Hsien Loong had built up his credibility by upholding the principles stressed by his father, including meritocracy and honesty.
But the prime minister’s image would be affected as “even his closest family members distrust and openly accuse him”, it said.
Another commentary, published by Shanghai-based news portal Thepaper.cn, said that as public confidence in the Lee family has eroded, so too have the hopes of Li Hongyi and Li Shengwu – the sons of Lee Hsien Loong and his younger brother Lee Hsien Yang, respectively – of one day taking over the reins as leader of the city state.
Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday apologised to the people of Singapore for the bitter dispute between him, his sister Lee Wei Ling, 62, and Lee Hsien Yang, 59, saying that he felt “deep regret” for the public’s loss of confidence in the government, while also denying accusations made by his siblings as “baseless”.
The two siblings last week issued a public statement claiming their brother used “organs of state” to force them to renege on their father Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes that they demolish the family home after his death.
Despite the undoubted problems on the domestic front, Ju said that the Lee family feud would not affect how China regards Singapore.
While Beijing has expressed concern at Singapore siding with the United States on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, it has also sent officials to the city state for training on governance.
The Singapore model of clean and efficient governance is still of importance to the Chinese leadership, Ju said.
“The future development and reform of China’s political system has a lot in common with the transformation of Singapore’s political system, so Beijing can draw a lesson from it,” he said.
Zhang, however, sounded a note of caution on the matter, saying that the public nature of the dispute between the Lee siblings was in stark contrast to the traditional Eastern belief that family disagreements should not be aired in public.
The Lee siblings, like many of Singapore’s elite, were educated in the West, and are therefore more inclined to be open about things. This might have implications for the way China deals with Singapore, as Beijing prefers to keep things discreet, he said.
“After this family saga, Beijing might think more about whether to apply Eastern or Western philosophies when dealing with issues,” he said.
Source:http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...pores-lee-hsien-loong-cant-control-his-family
Public manner in which Lion City leader’s family members are handling the feud has given Beijing much food for thought
The bitter family feud over the estate of Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew will affect Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s credibility at home, but is unlikely to cast a shadow over his dealings with China, mainland observers and state media said on Tuesday.
Citing Confucian beliefs, experts questioned the incumbent leader’s ability to manage a nation when, as the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew, he appears unable to settle his family dispute.
Ju Hailong, a Southeast Asian affairs expert from Jinan University, said the saga might well hamper Lee’s political ambitions.
“This will definitely affect his political base, as ethnic Chinese hold the value that if a person cannot handle his family well then he loses the ability to run a country,” he said.
Zhang Mingliang, another Southeast Asian affairs expert from Jinan University, agreed that the feud could undermine Lee’s image after he stressed the importance of family harmony in his Lunar New Year messages.
A commentary on a website affiliated with the State Council Information Office said on Tuesday that Lee Hsien Loong had built up his credibility by upholding the principles stressed by his father, including meritocracy and honesty.
But the prime minister’s image would be affected as “even his closest family members distrust and openly accuse him”, it said.
Another commentary, published by Shanghai-based news portal Thepaper.cn, said that as public confidence in the Lee family has eroded, so too have the hopes of Li Hongyi and Li Shengwu – the sons of Lee Hsien Loong and his younger brother Lee Hsien Yang, respectively – of one day taking over the reins as leader of the city state.
Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday apologised to the people of Singapore for the bitter dispute between him, his sister Lee Wei Ling, 62, and Lee Hsien Yang, 59, saying that he felt “deep regret” for the public’s loss of confidence in the government, while also denying accusations made by his siblings as “baseless”.
The two siblings last week issued a public statement claiming their brother used “organs of state” to force them to renege on their father Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes that they demolish the family home after his death.
Despite the undoubted problems on the domestic front, Ju said that the Lee family feud would not affect how China regards Singapore.
While Beijing has expressed concern at Singapore siding with the United States on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, it has also sent officials to the city state for training on governance.
The Singapore model of clean and efficient governance is still of importance to the Chinese leadership, Ju said.
“The future development and reform of China’s political system has a lot in common with the transformation of Singapore’s political system, so Beijing can draw a lesson from it,” he said.
Zhang, however, sounded a note of caution on the matter, saying that the public nature of the dispute between the Lee siblings was in stark contrast to the traditional Eastern belief that family disagreements should not be aired in public.
The Lee siblings, like many of Singapore’s elite, were educated in the West, and are therefore more inclined to be open about things. This might have implications for the way China deals with Singapore, as Beijing prefers to keep things discreet, he said.
“After this family saga, Beijing might think more about whether to apply Eastern or Western philosophies when dealing with issues,” he said.
Source:http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...pores-lee-hsien-loong-cant-control-his-family
Last edited:
LEE KUAN YEW,SONS, MOTHERS, MONEY AND MEMORY: THEORIES ABOUT THE LEE KUAN YEW FAMILY FEUD
The relatives of Singapore’s late founding leader have descended into publicly fighting over his estate. As the Lion City is gripped by the drama – and left to speculate on its undercurrents – questions arise about governance
BY ZURAIDAH IBRAHIMBHAVAN JAIPRAGAS
20 JUN 2017
more: http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...and-memory-theories-about-lee-kuan-yew-family
The relatives of Singapore’s late founding leader have descended into publicly fighting over his estate. As the Lion City is gripped by the drama – and left to speculate on its undercurrents – questions arise about governance
BY ZURAIDAH IBRAHIMBHAVAN JAIPRAGAS
20 JUN 2017
more: http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...and-memory-theories-about-lee-kuan-yew-family
Last edited:
FAMILY QUARRELS, COLD WARS: EMAILS PUT LEE KUAN YEW’S PRIVATE LIFE ON SHOW AS DAUGHTER’S FEUD WITH SINGAPORE PM HEATS UP
‘Take it to court, lah!’: Lion City captivated as personal details emerge in siblings’ fight over estate of founding leader
BY BHAVAN JAIPRAGAS
16 JUN 2017
more: http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...ld-wars-emails-put-lee-kuan-yews-private-life
‘Take it to court, lah!’: Lion City captivated as personal details emerge in siblings’ fight over estate of founding leader
BY BHAVAN JAIPRAGAS
16 JUN 2017
more: http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...ld-wars-emails-put-lee-kuan-yews-private-life
Similar threads
