Serious 38 OR in Parliament

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

CoffeeAhSoh said:

Click to expand...

look at this pundek clearer....... she looks like the bayee who fugg her cantonese mother

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

decent02 said:

Actually hor I dun mind going every week just to have a glimpse on FMH. But then hor I will also see Lao hooker like engineer Lee that make me want to puke

Click to expand...

if you pull out your drill from the engineering tunnel, shallow or smelly or dirty as it may be, you get rewarded with diamond dusts.......

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

LHL appeared a little jittery yesterday, folding his arms and tapping his fingers nervously. The chair no comfortable for him or WP questions hit his nerve so hard he felt guilty?

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Siblings clearly aiming to bring PM Lee down, says ESM Goh

Former prime minister Goh Chok Tong says he reaffirms his “full confidence in the integrity of” his successor Lee Hsien Loong.

SINGAPORE: It is clear that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling’s goal is to bring their eldest brother Lee Hsien Loong down as Prime Minister, said Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on Tuesday (Jul 4).

The former prime minister was speaking on the second day of parliamentary discussion over a public dispute between the children of Singapore’s late founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, centred on allegations made in mid-June of PM Lee abusing his powers to block the demolition of their 38 Oxley Road family home.

“Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore?” ESM Goh asked of PM Lee’s siblings.

“It is now no more a cynical parlour game. If the Lee siblings choose to squander the good name and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, and tear their relationship apart, it is tragic but a private family affair.”

“But if in the process of their self-destruction, they destroy Singapore too, that is a public affair.”

Said ESM Goh: “Unsubstantiated accusations have been dished out on Facebook and the media, ad nauseam. Singaporeans are getting sick and tired of all this. We cannot, and will not, allow ourselves to be manipulated as pawns.”

He said the family feud, while “blown out of proportion”, has tarnished Singapore’s reputation and caused “huge collateral damage” to its Government and its people.

VOUCHING FOR PM, DPM

Although of the view that a minister should sue against baseless allegations, ESM Goh nonetheless said he understood PM Lee’s dilemma in not wanting to take his siblings to court.

“Being the eldest in the family, he must harbour hopes of reconciliation, however remote it seems now, even at a cost to his own political standing,” he said.

“I reaffirm my full confidence in the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known and worked closely with him for more than 30 years. I brought him into politics in 1984, and I should add, it was not at Lee Kuan Yew’s behest.”

“He was my Deputy Prime Minister for 14 years. He has been Prime Minister for some 13 years.”

“This episode, in fact, reveals PM’s political sensitivity and integrity. He gave the proceeds from the sale of 38 Oxley Road away so that no one could accuse him that he would benefit should the Government acquire the land. He had put country before self and family interest.”

ESM Goh also said that the PM and DPM’s accounts of events accord with his knowledge of how the Government and ministers operate.

“I am also fully satisfied that DPM Teo acted independently as chairman of the Ministerial Committee,” he said, adding that he had also attempted to mediate between the DPM and Lee Hsien Yang.

“I told Hsien Yang that the dispute over the demolition of the house was actually between him and the Government. It was not with Hsien Loong, as PM has no say over the fate of the house. I emphasised this point to him.”

ESM Goh further defended Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, stating: “I brought him into politics, after he distinguished himself in the Singapore Navy. He stood with me in the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC. He went on to serve key appointments with distinction. Today, he is Minister in charge of the Civil Service and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security.”

“To suggest that he would do PM’s bidding blindly is to insult the Civil Service and Singapore Armed Forces, never mind the PAP and DPM.”

“YOUR PARENTS WERE PROUD OF YOU”*

ESM Goh also addressed the opposition Workers’ Party, calling on its leader Low Thia Khiang and Member of Parliament Png Eng Huat to “state their position clearly on PM’s and the Government’s integrity”.

“After so much has been said by both sides and the Government, it is clear that the allegations are baseless. There is enough distortion out there,” said ESM Goh. “Follow up with a clear statement of your own that you have come to the conclusion that the allegations are baseless.”

In closing, he urged the Lee siblings to sort out their differences, misunderstanding, and reconcile.

“It is surely not worth the feud being passed on to the next generation,” said ESM Goh. “Stop trying to drag each other down and move on. Stop your family quarrel… if that is not immediately possible, at least stop making things worse.”

“Keep the quarrel private and seek mediation or arbitration to resolve your differences. No one doubts your deep filial piety. Hsien Loong, Wei Ling, Hsien Yang, your parents were proud of you.”

ESM Goh then recalled a statement by Lee Kuan Yew in 1996: “The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children – upright, well-behaved and honourable. …. They were brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame…. upon yourself and family”.

Source: CNA/mn

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

No abuse of power on considerations for Oxley Road: Heng Swee Keat

Mr Heng said that the allegations levelled against the Prime Minister and the Government are “general”, and in his view, there has been no abuse of power.


SINGAPORE: There have been no specific allegations of acts of abuse against the Prime Minister and the Government that demand a deeper inquiry, said Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat on Tuesday (Jul 4).

He was speaking in Parliament on the ongoing dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling.

In his speech, Mr Heng noted that the issue before Parliament is not about the preservation or demolition of 38 Oxley Road, but the allegations directed at PM Lee and the Government by PM Lee’s siblings of an abuse of power.

Mr Heng stressed that in his view, there has been no abuse of power.*

“What has been levelled are general allegations and aspersions cast,” he said. “The two days of this Parliament sitting bear this out.”

“No member, including from the Workers’ Party, has articulated any specific allegation of abuse of power.”

Advertisement

Mr Heng, who served as Principal Private Secretary to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew from mid-1997 to 2000, spoke of his interactions with Mr and Mrs Lee during that period.

“I learnt that both of them, especially Mrs Lee, valued their privacy deeply. They would be deeply anguished, if they were alive, to see the siblings’ disagreement played out so publicly.”

MR LEE KUAN YEW WILLING TO CHANGE HIS VIEWS IF PRESENTED WITH ‘ROBUST ARGUMENTS’

Drawing on his experience of working with Mr Lee, Mr Heng spoke of Mr Lee’s willingness to change his views if presented with “robust arguments”. In particular, he highlighted Mr Lee’s change of mind over the demolition of his family home at 38 Oxley Road.

He related how Mr Lee had stated his preference for the house to be demolished after his passing during a Cabinet meeting in July 2011.

“Despite his seniority and his role as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, he did not once use his status to advance his case,” he said. “He just stated his preference, and then listened intently to the views of Cabinet members.”

With the exception of PM Lee, who did not speak, Cabinet ministers were unanimous in persuading him that the house should not be demolished, said Mr Heng. “All of us who spoke felt strongly that as a young nation, we needed a deeper sense of history, and that the house was of historical significance.”

“Mr Lee looked very thoughtful after the session,” he recounted. “We did not hear from him until later, when he sent the note in December 2011 that PM presented yesterday.”

“To me, that note, sent five months after the meeting, showed that he had been mulling over the issue during that period, and importantly, he had changed his mind.”

“I was at that Cabinet meeting, and can attest that Mr Lee put his views to us, and then listened seriously to Cabinet members,” added Mr Heng. “I was struck at the time by how scrupulously he presented his case, without once invoking his seniority or contributions, and how he listened so intently to what we had to say.”

He added that Mr Lee’s December 2011 note to Cabinet on the house was an “important change”, particularly because Cabinet did not expect to hear back from him.

“It showed me two things: One, that he had taken five months to mull things over very carefully; and two, that he felt it was proper and important to inform Government of his thinking, now that he was prepared to consider the possibility that the government of the day might decide to demolish the house,” he said.

“Until PM shared it yesterday, I did not know that Mr Lee then went on to apply for URA approval to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house,” he added. “This shows that he had a plan, and he put it into action.” *

IMPORTANT TO REVISIT QUESTION OF MR LEE’S WISHES

Mr Heng also spoke of the importance at this juncture to revisit the question of what Mr Lee’s wishes were, and how these wishes can be honoured. He stressed that Mr Lee’s “greatest wish” was for Singapore to remain successful beyond his lifetime, and the best way to honour him is to “continue to work for the survival and success of Singapore".

To that end, he brought up three principles relevant to the debate: a sense of history, rule of law, and an honest and effective government.

“Mr Lee was convinced that we all need a sense of history – not just in knowing what happened in the past, but why it happened – that would help to anchor and guide us for the future,” he said.

Therefore, he said it is “right and proper” to consider the historical significance of 38 Oxley Road in any decision to demolish or preserve the house, or parts of it.

Second, Mr Heng said from the Cabinet meeting and Mr Lee’s letter to Cabinet five months later, it is clear that Mr Lee had observed a “strict separation” between his and Mrs Lee’s private wish, and the duty of Government.

“He had a strong personality and formidable track record, but not once did he insist that only his view should prevaiI,” he said. “I found that deeply admirable, for someone who was the founding PM of Singapore, and who had been PM for 31 years.”*

He added that PM Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean had already given speeches on how PM Lee had recused himself from deliberations relating to the house, and “kept a strict separation between his private duty as a son, and his duty as the Head of Government.”*

“The irony is that if PM were to do what Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling wanted, to impose his private wishes as a son and have the house demolished, we would not have this disagreement made public, but he would have abused his power,” he said.*

And he said that an honest and effective government can only be achieved by “years of effective service.”*

Mr Heng urged the House to not have the differences “sidetrack us from the bigger task of honouring Mr Lee’s wish for a successful Singapore, and get back to the business of serving the people.”*

“In 30 or more years, when Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer living at 38 Oxley Road, it is probable a future government may agree to demolish the house, as our founding Prime Minister wished,” he said.*

“But there is another house that Mr Lee Kuan Yew built lovingly, a greater house than 38 Oxley Road – and that is Singapore.”*

“This house, we cannot allow to be demolished.”*

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

FamiLEE saga: Parliament debate is good, but court ruling even better

Jul 04, 2017 11.03AM |*Bertha Henson


NOT a single People’s Action Party MP yesterday suggested to the Prime Minister that he should sue his siblings for defamation. There were a few who wondered why he didn’t challenge his late father’s will, but no one suggested that he take his siblings to the cleaners for airing dirty laundry.

The suggestion was left to the opposition MPs and Nominated MPs to make. Instead, we heard Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary speaking on why Parliament is*the appropriate forum*to debate the FamiLEE saga.

It is appropriate for Parliament to discuss the issue – or MPs would be remiss in their duty to voters. In fact, had PM Lee Hsien Loong*not volunteered to make a ministerial statement and to answer queries, it would be odd if no one raised questions on the supposed abuse of power (the Workers’ Party did good on it) or moved a motion to have it discussed.

Patrons of The Middle Ground enjoy priority access to our best stories. To become a patron, click*here.

PM Lee said he was doing so to clear the air and had asked that MPs question him rigorously. The question that the PAP MPs have not asked is why he didn’t sue his siblings for defamation. Perhaps, they are satisfied with his reasoning.

In his ministerial statement, PM Lee*said: “In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance but this, I would surely sue.’’

“But suing my own brother and sister in court would further besmirch my parents’ names. At the end of the day, we are brothers and sister, and we are all our father’s children,’’ he*said.

He gave other reasons, such as how the court process would drag out for years. This, even though he said he thought he had a “strong case’’. He appealed to the people’s sense of family: That family squabbles will happen and they are “they are not something to flaunt in public’’.

It is a bit late in the day for the PM to say this given the amount of dirty laundry already hung out. The PM said he had tried to keep the dispute private for as long as he could but when public attacks were levelled at him, he had to defend himself by, among other things, releasing a statutory declaration which revealed his suspicions surrounding his father’s last will. (Interestingly, PAP MP Sun Xueling*said*that Mr Lee Hsien Yang can sue the PM based on the statutory declaration)

The opposition MPs made quick work of the PM’s hesitance to take his siblings to court. There were barely concealed jibes made by WP chief Low Thia Kiang about why the PAP wasn’t resorting to its trademark defamation route now when lesser mortals have been taken to task for less infamous remarks.

Even if at the end of today, Parliament moves a motion thanking the PM for clearing the air and declaring itself satisfied with his answers, would that draw a line under the matter?

I’d wager that it won’t.

I have always maintained that the PM should sue his siblings for defamation because there must be consistency in the G’s words and actions.

The G has always made it clear that it would not countenance attacks on its integrity and which would erode confidence in its institutions. In the case of blogger Roy Ngerng, he did not openly call the PM a “thief”, but the implication in his blog post was enough to set the legal wheels turning.

Here, the PM is being called worse names.

The fact that the words are being said by the children of Lee Kuan Yew lend them an aura of credibility even though they might not be based on facts and lack specifics. That they are left unchallenged in a court of law means that they can be repeated by anyone without fear of retribution.

Surely, we do not countenance a situation where anyone or everyone can begin public conversations with: ‘’Did you hear what the PM’s own brother and sister said about him…?’’ Worse, how will the PM and the PAP defend themselves at elections if the opposition keeps repeating the siblings’ line? That it was “cleared up in Parliament’’?

I would go further: Since the Lee siblings can get away with it, why should anyone refrain from making scurrilous and unfounded attacks now and in the future? In fact, everything and everyone is now fair game, from the siblings and their wives, individual ministers, and civil servants to institutions like Parliament.

Does the “family’’ argument hold water? Take the “family’’ out and you have thechairman*of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore who is a former Brigadier-General, and a doctor of some renown accusing the PM for lying. That’s a clear-cut court case.

Alternatively, disciplining siblings is also an Asian principle and PM Lee might get kudos for doing so. It shows that family members shouldn’t think that they can get away with rubbishing their elders because they can rely on the familial connections.

Dr Puthucheary made much of how the siblings’ accusations did not have substance, so a special parliamentary committee would be hard put to investigate the matter. But it is precisely because the siblings’ allegations lack specifics that they must be called to account, if not by a parliamentary committee, in a court of law. Show proof or pay dearly for defamation.

As Mr Low*said, given the G’s “past track record, not doing so would risk the Government giving the impression that it is afraid of what the Lee siblings might say or reveal’’.

“These will taint the trust Singaporeans have placed on the Government and compromise the high standards that the Government prides itself on achieving and aspire to maintain,” he*said.

There is another merit to having it dealt in the courts. It would put a stop to the Facebook “brawl’’ that Singaporeans have been subjected to in the past fortnight because the legal process forbids further discussion. Surely, even the Lee siblings would respect judicial rules?

This means we can get on with our lives and the G can get back to governing because lawyers will now handle the matter.

This would show that the G means business: nobody, whether family members or not, will be allowed to pull down its reputation and make it a laughing stock. You are not “privileged’’ because of family connections.

Dr Puthucheary said that Parliament cannot force anyone to take private action. That’s a no-brainer assertion. Of course he’s right, but Parliament can say what it thinks is the right course of action.

We have already established, for better or for worse, a standard way of dealing with attacks on the Singapore system. That is, through the courts. To activate the legal process is to reaffirm confidence in the one thing we can agree on in Singapore – the rule of law.

*

*

*

*

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

So the crocodile tears finally came today. He was saving the best for last!

Re: Live Cover 3 July 2017, Mon : PM Lee delivering a ministerial statement in Parlia

4th July debate between LTK and GCT... classic. Those who still undermined LTK should reflect after this debate.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Why the ministers keep saying Singaporeans are sick and tired of the public spat between the siblings?

Nothing can be further from the truth. Singaporeans are rubbing their palms waiting for the mother of all battles to erupt.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Bonut said:

Why the ministers keep saying Singaporeans are sick and tired of the public spat between the siblings?

Nothing can be further from the truth. Singaporeans are rubbing their palms waiting for the mother of all battles to erupt.

Click to expand...

TCSS . Self masturbation. A praises B. B praises C and so on. So far did LHL shows evidence that he donated out the proceeds to charity? Talk only. Sometimes I buay tahan them. Give speech in English already then is there a need to give the same speech in mandarin? Waste ppl time. Their speech can be translated to different languages for media prints or tv telecast.

Re: Live Cover 3 July 2017, Mon : PM Lee delivering a ministerial statement in Parlia

Pinky cry liao... wahahaaaa.
I beri emo

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

LHL has finally pulled out his trump card - cry !

Win liao lor.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Bonut said:

LHL has finally pulled out his trump card - cry !

Win liao lor.

Click to expand...

Alamak use the same trick again.. knn

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Bonut said:

LHL has finally pulled out his trump card - cry !

Win liao lor.

Click to expand...

He cant handle the stress. I expect more stress to come. Best for LHL to step down based on health reasons

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

decent02 said:

Alamak use the same trick again.. knn

Click to expand...

LHL is a one-trick pony?

Re: Live Cover 3 July 2017, Mon : PM Lee delivering a ministerial statement in Parlia

sleaguepunter said:

i doubt the "notes" to be supporting evidences.

more likely to be transcripts of both pinkie and big nose speech.

Click to expand...

In Today's 4th July Parliamentary sitting notes containing emails were distributed to members again by LHL. Those notes are not transcripts. They are supporting documents.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

ckmpd said:

He cant handle the stress. I expect more stress to come. Best for LHL to step down based on health reasons

Click to expand...

I think that's the objective of the siblings. If LHL steps down, there will no longer by any issue of having to recuse himself or conflict of interest or abuse of power because he is no longer in the government.

GCT's speech sounds suspicious. He doesn't sound like he is helping LHL.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

It's all over folks. Hopefully, some PAP dumb fuck voters will see the true colours of the people they vote for. See you again in next GE ...

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

Bonut said:

I think that's the objective of the siblings. If LHL steps down, there will no longer by any issue of having to recuse himself or conflict of interest or abuse of power because he is no longer in the government.

GCT's speech sounds suspicious. He doesn't sound like he is helping LHL.

Click to expand...

Gay Loong has already stated that he will step down from PM and not run in the next elections. And he will not resign over this, no matter what dirt the siblings throw at him. His wife will not allow him to do that. The siblings know this and this is not their objective. Their objective is show the world how he plays out his own brother and does not want to honour the father's will and tear the house down.

Re: Lee Wei Ling & Lee Hsien Yang condemns Lee Hsien Loong

GCT'S a real disgrace, ESM? More like DSM as in the Devil's SM!

“This is what is called political sophistry,” he(GCT) said( in reply to LTK) “And as for Tang Liang Hong, he’s not my brother”.*