WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO LEE KUAN YEW’S VALUES?
We feel extremely sad that we are pushed to this position. We are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s current prime minister and the role of his wife, Ho Ching. We have seen a completely different face to our brother, one that deeply troubles us. Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, on 23 March 2015, we have felt threatened by Hsien Loong’s misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system has few checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.
We feel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against us and Hsien Yang’s wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feels compelled to leave Singapore:
“It is with a very heavy heart that I will leave Singapore for the foreseeable future. This is the country that my father, Lee Kuan Yew, loved and built. It has been home for my entire life. Singapore is and remains my country. I have no desire to leave. Hsien Loong is the only reason for my departure.”
If Hsien Loong is prepared to act thus against us, his younger sister and brother, both contributing members of Singapore’s establishment, to advance his personal agenda, we worry for Singapore. We question whether able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be side-lined to ensure Hsien Loong’s grip on power remains unchallenged.
This is by no means a criticism of the Government of Singapore. We see many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout the public service, but they are constrained by Hsien Loong’s misuse of power at the very top. We do not trust Hsien Loong and have lost confidence in him.
Since Lee Kuan Yew’s death, there have been changes in Singapore that do not reflect what he stood for. Nobody ever doubted that Lee Kuan Yew always held the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. He was authentic and spoke his mind. The same cannot be said for our brother, Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching. We believe, unfortunately, that Hsien Loong is driven by a desire for power and personal popularity. His popularity is inextricably linked to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. His political power is drawn from his being Lee Kuan Yew’s son. We have observed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching want to milk Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy for their own political purposes. We also believe, based on our interactions, that they harbour political ambitions for their son, Li Hongyi.
Singapore has no such thing as the wife of the prime minister being a ‘first lady’. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, his wife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwart supporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly, and set a high bar for the conduct of a prime minister’s wife. She would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in government, her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview.
Throughout his entire life, Lee Kuan Yew’s sole focus was on Singapore and its future. He was a strong opponent of monuments, particularly of himself. On suggestions that monuments or ‘what-have-yous’ be made for him, he replied “Remember Ozymandias”. He was referring to Percy B Shelley’s sonnet about the Egyptian Pharaoh with a penchant for self-aggrandising monuments. The boast etched in a plaque below his statue commanded lesser mortals to “look on my works”. Only the vastness of desert sands remains: no empire, nor monuments, no great works. Lee Kuan Yew wanted none of these honours as edifices. Much more important to him was that what he had done should last.
It is for this reason that Lee Kuan Yew made clear throughout the years in public and private his wish that his home at 38 Oxley Road be demolished upon his passing. In his last Will and Testament of 17 December 2013, he again reiterated his wish and directed his three children to ensure that it be fulfilled. Indeed, his opposition to monuments was so strong that he had made clear that even if the house were gazetted (against his wishes), it should only be open to his children and their descendants.
However, we believe that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are motivated by a desire to inherit Lee Kuan Yew’s standing and reputation for themselves and their children. Whilst our father built this nation upon meritocracy, Hsien Loong, whilst purporting to espouse these values, has spoken of a “natural aristocracy”. Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching, have opposed Lee Kuan Yew’s wish to demolish his house, even when Lee Kuan Yew was alive. Indeed, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching expressed plans to move with their family into the house as soon as possible after Lee Kuan Yew’s passing. This move would have strengthened Hsien Loong’s inherited mandate for himself and his family. Moreover, even if Hsien Loong did not live at 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital.
What has been distressing are the lengths to which Hsien Loong and Ho Ching have gone and are willing to go to get what they want.
On Hsien Loong’s insistence, Lee Kuan Yew met with the Singapore Cabinet on 21 July 2011 to discuss the fate of his personal home. Wei Ling met Lee Kuan Yew on the steps of their home as he returned from that meeting. He was anguished and despondent and told Wei Ling “I should not have listened to Loong and gone to meet Cabinet.” He was pained that Hsien Loong, his own son, opposed his wishes in this manner.
Lee Kuan Yew believed that Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were behind what was represented to the family as a government initiative to preserve the house. In due course, Hsien Loong himself made his position clear to Lee Kuan Yew. On 3 October 2011, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: “Loong as PM has indicated that he will declare it a heritage site.”
Lee Kuan Yew specifically inserted into his will his wish for 38 Oxley Road to be demolished so as to make it difficult for Hsien Loong to misuse the Cabinet to preserve it. He also removed Hsien Loong as an executor and trustee of his will. The wish, which was instructed to be made public as needed, was Lee Kuan Yew’s direct appeal to the people of Singapore. It was his only request of them on his passing.
At the reading of Lee Kuan Yew’s will, Hsien Loong was very angry that the will gave Wei Ling the right to remain living in the house and that it made clear Lee Kuan Yew’s wish for its demolition immediately upon her passing or relocation. Hsien Loong threatened us and demanded our silence on our father’s last wish. He wanted to assert in Parliament that Lee Kuan Yew had changed his mind, hoping to inherit the faith Singaporeans had in Lee Kuan Yew through the visible symbol of the house. We refused and fought to release our father’s wish to demolish the house as instructed. We succeeded in making Lee Kuan Yew’s wish public in Singapore only after the international press carried the news. Hsien Loong was therefore forced to state in Parliament that, as a son, he would like to see the wish carried out. He wanted to appear filial in public whilst acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private.
However, Hsien Loong and Ho Ching did not abandon their plans. Hsien Loong took steps to try to frustrate our publicising Lee Kuan Yew’s wish. We executed a Deed of Gift in 2015 with the National Heritage Board for the donation and public exhibition of significant items from our parents’ home, with a stipulation that Lee Kuan Yew’s wish for the demolition of 38 Oxley Road be displayed prominently at the exhibition. However, after the gift’s acceptance we soon received letters with spurious objections from Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer, Lucien Wong. Lucien Wong was made Singapore’s Attorney-General in January 2017. We were shocked to see that Hsien Loong had used his position as Prime Minister to obtain a copy of the Deed of Gift from Minister Lawrence Wong, which Hsien Loong then passed to his personal lawyer to advance his personal agenda. The exhibition only proceeded months later in a diminished format after considerable struggle on our part.
In 2015, various letters were sent by Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer making accusations and misrepresentations on his behalf regarding the circumstances under which Lee Kuan Yew’s last will was executed and the inclusion of the demolition wish. These were refuted in detail by us through our lawyers. Hsien Loong knew that he could not establish his accusations in a court of law and raised no legal challenge. On the contrary, he was likely concerned that the fact that the gift of the house to him had been obtained by him through misrepresentations to our father and the family might be made public. Probate was granted on 6 October 2015 and Lee Kuan Yew’s will, including the wish to demolish 38 Oxley Road, became the full, final, and legally binding word on his intentions as to his estate.
Hsien Loong initiated a settlement with us in May 2015; the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew was contemplating a challenge of the disposition of the house to him based on his misrepresentations. Hsien Loong represented that this sale of the house would give us a free hand to demolish the house. Final agreement on the settlement was reached in late 2015. Hsien Loong insisted that Hsien Yang should pay him full market value for the house (and donate an additional half the value of the house to charity). In exchange for this, we asked for and obtained a joint public statement issued by all 3 children of Lee Kuan Yew in December 2015 that we hoped that the Government would allow the demolition wish to be fulfilled and that all Singaporeans would support this cause. We also obtained an undertaking from Hsien Loong that he would recuse himself from all government decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and that, in his personal capacity, would like to see the wish honoured.
We had hoped that through this settlement, he would not hinder us from honouring our parents’ wishes. However, we were disappointed that despite the settlement and Hsien Loong’s undertakings, in July 2016, Minister Lawrence Wong wrote to inform us that a Ministerial Committee had been set up to consider options with respect to 38 Oxley Road and their implications. This also directly contradicted Hsien Loong’s statement in Parliament in April 2015 that there was no need for the Government to take a decision in respect of 38 Oxley Road until Wei Ling no longer resided there, and that it would be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter.
Hsien Loong, despite his undertakings to recuse himself, proceeded to make extensive representations to the Committee. He is conflicted. His political power is related to being Lee Kuan Yew’s son and thus he has every incentive to preserve Lee Kuan Yew’s house to inherit his credibility. He also sits in a direct position of power over the Committee comprised of his subordinate ministers, thus wielding considerable influence for any outcome he desires.
Hsien Loong has asserted to the Committee that Lee Kuan Yew would “accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road.” This play on words is not only dishonest, but nonsensical. Lee Kuan Yew accepted, as he had to, that the Government had the power to preserve 38 Oxley Road against his wishes. But this does not mean that he wanted 38 Oxley Road preserved.
In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and his supposed support for the demolition of the house as Lee Kuan Yew’s son. misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions involving 38 Oxley Road and his supposed support for the demolition of the house as Lee Kuan Yew’s son.
In his representations to the Committee, Hsien Loong seeks to call into question the circumstances which led to the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will and its inclusion of the demolition wish. He and Ho Ching are unhappy because the demolition wish gives Wei Ling an unfettered right to live in the house. These queries he raised to the Committee were already fully refuted in 2015. Except this time, of course, they are being raised to a Committee comprising Hsien Loong’s subordinates.
The reality is that there was nothing suspicious or untoward at all about the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will. Indeed, Hsien Loong chose not to raise any legal challenge. The simple truth is that Hsien Loong’s current popularity is tied to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. Preserving Lee Kuan Yew’s house would allow Hsien Loong and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew’s authority.
Lee Kuan Yew was a lawyer and well knew the sanctity and finality of a will. He gave clear instructions for the execution of the will. He carefully read his final will before signing it, and he continued to review and reflect after signing to put his affairs in order. Two weeks after executing his will, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted unassisted a codicil to his will and executed it. All three children were kept fully apprised of the signing of the final will and the codicil. No objection was raised at that time and indeed Hsien Loong has affirmed the will in public and in private.
Ultimately, it is not difficult to see that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. There is full alignment between Lee Kuan Yew’s final wish and the people of Singapore, since there is overwhelming support among Singaporeans for the demolition of the house. An independent YouGov survey published on 22 December 2015 showed that 77% of Singaporeans supported the demolition of Lee Kuan Yew’s house and only 17% opposed it.
“We are private citizens with no political ambitions. We have nothing to gain from the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, other than the knowledge that we have honoured our father’s last wish. Hsien Loong has everything to gain from preserving 38 Oxley Road – he need only ignore his father’s will and values.”
“The values of Lee Kuan Yew are being eroded by his own son. Our father placed our country and his people first, not his personal popularity or private agendas. We are very sad that we have been pushed to this. We feel hugely uncomfortable and closely monitored in our own country. We do not trust Hsien Loong as a brother or as a leader. We have lost confidence in him.”
Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang
Joint Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew 14 June 2017
A copy is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByodqaSLlpPIWHdRdFE2QlZYbzg/view
Ah Loong says sorry, do you accept his apology?
PM Lee apologises for harm done by Oxley Road dispute, to refute charges in Parliament on July 3
SINGAPORE — Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Monday (June 19) apologised for the harm caused to the country’s reputation and Singaporeans’ confidence in the Government by the private dispute between him and his siblings, adding that he deeply regretted it.
Stressing that he had “done everything possible to avoid this state of affairs”, he pledged to give the matter — which has dominated headlines and discourse in Singapore over the past few days — a “full, public airing” when Parliament convenes on July 3. PM Lee said he will make a Ministerial Statement in the House to refute the allegations against him and the Government.
“As your Prime Minister, I apologise to you for this. And as the eldest of the siblings, it grieves me to think of the anguish that this would have caused our parents if they were still alive,” he said in a statement on Monday night which was also recorded on video.
PM Lee said he has instructed that the People’s Action Party (PAP) party whip be lifted.
“All MPs will then have the opportunity to raise questions for themselves and their constituents ... I urge all MPs, including the non-PAP MPs, to examine the issues thoroughly and question me and my Cabinet colleagues vigorously,” he said. “I hope that this full, public airing in Parliament will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government.”
More at http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pm-lee-apologises-harm-done-spores-reputation-and-sporeans-confidence-govt
Let's warmly welcome the esteemed two-headed snake Ah Shan into the Lee family feud:
Dr Lee Weiling: Minister K Shanmugam knew Lee Kuan Yew’s real wish and concern as LKY had consulted him
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/06/18/dr-lee-weiling-minister-k-shanmugam-knew-lee-kuan-yews-real-wish-and-concern-as-lky-had-consulted-him/
The following is a letter addressed to the President of Singapore, Tony Tan, by former Presidential candidate, Mr Tan Jee Say.
Dear President,
Public Inquiry into Allegations of Interference with the Integrity of Singapore’s Public Service
Singaporeans are disturbed by many things said in the Public Statement of Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang entitled “What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values?” and released three days ago on 14 June 2017 (attached herewith).
In this letter to you as President of Singapore, I will dwell on one particular aspect that is pertinent to your key role of safeguarding the integrity of the public service.
I reproduce the relevant quotations from their statement :
“Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, on 23 March 2015, we have felt threatened by Hsien Loong’s misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda. We are concerned that the system has few checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government.
We feel big brother omnipresent. We fear the use of the organs of state against us and Hsien Yang’s wife, Suet Fern. The situation is such that Hsien Yang feels compelled to leave Singapore.
Singapore has no such thing as the wife of the prime minister being a ‘first lady’. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, his wife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwart supporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly, and set a high bar for the conduct of a prime minister’s wife. She would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in government, her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview. ”
Two key points stand out. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have alleged
1. that PM Lee misuses “his position and influence over the government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda” against them and Hsien Yang’s wife Suet Fern, and
2. that even though Ho Ching (wife of PM Lee) does not hold any elected or official position in government, “her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview”.
These are serious allegations from senior members of the establishment who have given much of their life to public service. They should not be taken lightly. They hit at Singapore’s core values.
As President, you have the specific duty of safeguarding the integrity of the public service, and it is incumbent on you to get to the bottom of all this, to establish the facts and if true, hold those responsible fully accountable and put into place means and measures to ensure that no one can abuse his or her public position for private gain without the most severe punishment meted out to him or her.
As this is a matter of grave public concern, it is absolutely vital that you direct this inquiry to be conducted by way of open public hearings so as to ensure public confidence that nothing will be swept under the carpet and that every relevant detail will be examined.
This issue is of extreme urgency and the inquiry should be conducted soonest possible. As this matter takes place under your watch, you cannot simply pass the buck to the next President as you still have more than two months left of your presidential term of office. A period of two months is more than sufficient for this inquiry to be conducted and completed in good order as our public service is well-known for its efficiency.
Yours sincerely,
Tan Jee Say
Greetings from the dishonourable son!
真的不是韩剧吗? 无论如何，太精彩了，万万不能错过呀!
Even PAP member Rio Hoe is demanding answers.
https://www.facebook.com/rio.hoe/posts/10154944556722690
Some people from the PAP have written to me to express their disapproval of my stance on the Lee family saga, given my ties to the Party. Some of them have questioned my loyalty, and at least one person has made threats against me. In response, I will repeat what I said in an earlier comment.
I have never insinuated that the allegations made against the Party leader are true. It is ridiculous to simply take the Lee siblings' word for granted, just as it is inappropriate to simply take the PM's word for granted. This is why I called for an inquiry - so that we can find out more about the matter and come to a more informed conclusion on the issue.
While we must never unthinkingly oppose, we need to be ever-watchful, and take an appropriately firm stance towards those in power, and who claim to wield power on our behalf.
Blind obedience will not bring our country, or the Party, forward.
Therefore, I am eager to hear the Party leader's response, and I do hope that the allegations made against him are false.
I hope that I am not the only person within the PAP who thinks that the national interest must always come first, followed by the Party's interests; and that the Party leader's personal interest, on the other hand, is a separate matter. This is why I believe that it is important that the Party leader deals with the serious allegations made against him so that we can move forward as a party and have our confidence in our leader restored, or reconsider our choice of leader, if necessary.
My point is this - I do not believe in blind obedience. This is not a wild allegation made by some fringe group, but by the Prime Minister's siblings, who are high-profile individuals. It is therefore not disloyal to ask questions and seek answers on the issue.
If the Party leadership believes that by raising these questions, I am disloyal to the Party, it is always open to them to expel me. But I choose to believe that they are more progressive, intelligent and thoughtful than that.
Making threats against me on the other hand, is not only disgraceful, but, given the circumstances, painfully ironic.
Another volley by LHL's younger bro:
Lee Hsien Yang reminds us: PM Lee’s personal lawyer Lucien Wong is now Attorney-General
http://mothership.sg/2017/06/lee-hsien-yang-reminds-us-pm-lees-personal-lawyer-lucien-wong-is-now-attorney-general/
New community formed supposedly to rally behind Lee Hsien Yang lol
https://www.facebook.com/Lee-Hsien-Yang-Join-the-Opposition-Defeat-the-PAP-1701579359882464/
Hah ESM Woody Goh called dishonourable son aka LHL a Petty Little Childish Bitch:
Singapore will not be dragged down by Lee family's 'petty disputes': ESM Goh
SINGAPORE: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has weighed in on a growing dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings over their late father's Oxley Road home.
"Singapore has prevailed through crises and adversity. We are a hardy people, built our family and nation from humble beginnings. What is happening in public between Lee Kuan Yew's children is not us and should not be allowed to define who we are," he wrote on Facebook on Friday evening (Jun 16).
"We are bigger than our troubles, stronger than our differences. Whatever damage Singapore may suffer, willfully inflicted or otherwise, I know Singaporeans will not lay meek. We will not be dragged down by a family's petty disputes," Mr Goh said.
"We will always look forward, to fight real battles and create a better future for ourselves and our children."
The dispute saw PM Lee's two siblings make a series of allegations against their elder brother, claiming that he opposed their father's wish to demolish the house, and that he had an incentive to preserve the house "to inherit (Lee Kuan Yew’s) credibility".
The allegations led PM Lee to make public the statutory declaration he had submitted to an internal ministerial committee that was set up to consider the future of the late Mr Lee's house.
In it, he expressed "grave concerns" about the way in which Mr Lee's last will was made - in particular, the removal and subsequent re-insertion of a clause stating the late Mr Lee's wish that his house be demolished after his death.
In response, his younger brother, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, said that their father's last will was "final and legally binding" and that PM Lee had "raised no legal challenge to Lee Kuan Yew's will in the many months after it was read".
PM Lee has said that he would consider the matter further after he returns from his leave this weekend.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-will-not-be-dragged-down-by-lee-family-s-petty-8953588
LEE HSIEN LOONG MUST ADDRESS ACCUSATIONS BY SIBLINGS THAT ARE OF PUBLIC CONCERN
The dispute between PM Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, goes far beyond private family matters. It delves into issues of national concern and good governance.
Both siblings have made serious accusations against the PM, among which is the abuse of powers entrusted to him.
The SDP has long stated that the PAP has never been hesitant about using organs of State to crush dissent and silence the opposition. The history of the PAP's rule is littered with numerous such abuses. The difference now is that the PM is accused of wielding such powers against his own family.
Furthermore, Mdm Ho Ching stands accused of influencing the civil service beyond her role as the PM's wife.
The cabinet has also been named in the feud and questions raised about its handling of the dispute over Mr Lee Kuan Yew's residence at Oxley Road.
These issues raise concerns regarding the present administration's ability to take Singapore into a future that requires steady, wise and democratic leadership. That even the PM's siblings openly state that they have “no confidence” in their brother's leadership speaks volumes.
The matters that PM Lee raised in his Summary of Statutory Declarations on 15 June 2017 are personal and do not address the national concerns his siblings raised.
For the sake of our nation's future, PM Lee must address the specific allegations of public concern in a clear and transparent manner. The only way that this can be satisfactorily done is through public hearings.
Before anything else, however, Mr Lee Hsien Loong must state and demonstrate that he will not resort to using State power to deal with his siblings and, more importantly, stop the persecution and intimidation of ordinary citizens of Singapore.
He must also take immediate steps to amend or abolish the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act to relinquish State control over the media in Singapore.
In addition, the PAP Government must repeal the Public Order Act which effectively denies citizens their constitutional rights of freedom of peaceful assembly.
Unless and until Mr Lee Hsien Loong takes decisive steps to renounce authoritarian rule and steer Singapore onto the democratic path, his remaining tenure as prime minister will be a troubled one.
In these challenging economic and geopolitical times, we need strong, accountable and democratic leadership.
http://yoursdp.org/news/lee_hsien_loong_must_address_accusations_by_siblings_of_public_concern/2017-06-15-6174
New fashionable labels bestowed upon the dishonourable son that is PM Lee by his adorable sister: "mischievous" and "dishonest".
Eh ah Loong (by a not totally unreasonable extrapolation of circumstances) you are making ordinary citizens feel increasingly nervous about the security of their CPF savings especially with the dishonest accusation, can you pretty please sue ah Ling to maintain your, and ultimately the government's integrity or not?
The prodigal son comes out of his hiatus to defend his ass:
'Grave concerns' about how Lee Kuan Yew's last will was prepared: PM Lee
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/grave-concerns-about-how-lee-kuan-yew-s-last-will-was-prepared-8948602
Will you wear pink to support Pinky Lee? ;)
I am being forced to leave Singapore: Lee Hsien Yang
SINGAPORE — Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said he is "being forced to leave the country" amid a dispute over the future of the family home of late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at 38 Oxley Road.
In an exclusive interview with TODAY on Wednesday night, Mr Lee added that the dispute is "not just about a house… (but) about the values of my father".
Here is the transcript of the interview:
Lee Hsien Yang (LHY): "I have no desire to leave this country. I am being forced to leave. I have lived here my whole life, I love Singapore and it is my country. Why would I want to move if I did not feel persecuted?"
Could you be more specific about the circumstances that are forcing you to leave?
LHY: Please see (my earlier) press release.
Will your wife be going with you?
LHY: My wife is looking at it. We're looking at what we want to do and what we should do.
Do you have any firm plans?
LHY: No comment.
Are there specific countries you're looking at?
LHY: In due course!
How soon will you be leaving?
LHY: This is not a family spat, it is not just about a house. It is about the values of my father - of putting Singapore first,
rather than power and popularity.
What has been the reception to your posts since their release?
LHY: I have been busy at work.
What about your present posts in Singapore? What will happen to them?
LHY: No comment.
What about your chairmanship at CAAS?
LHY: We have accomplished much at CAAS, with the board and the management. There are many major expansion projects ongoing which positions the aviation industry for the future. It would my privilege and of course I would make every effort to continue to serve Singapore.
What is your next step?
LHY: I am looking to move on and wake up from what feels almost like an Orwellian nightmare.
On the fears of the use of organs of state you mentioned, could you tell us more about that fear?
LHY: The cabinet has just put out a note and talked about some of the things. What is the cabinet committee doing on 38 Oxley Road notwithstanding our settlement with Loong? Why is there even a Cabinet committee when PM Lee (Hsien Loong) had announced in Parliament that so long as (younger sister) Wei Ling is living there, nothing needs to be done? Why when the Government says the government of the day will decide when Lee Wei Ling is no longer (living there) ... is the Government of today convening this Cabinet committee?
The Committee said it had asked you and Dr Lee (Wei Ling) some further questions.
LHY: Yes, we had given answers to them last year. They continue to repeat the same questions. Probate has been obtained on the last will. It is final and legally binding. If Lee Hsien Loong had any doubt about the validity of the Last Will, he should have challenged it in court. Frankly it is completely improper to use a cabinet committee to pursue an issue like this when the proper channel was at the court and probate.
What was your wife's role in preparing the last will?
LHY: My wife's role in preparing the Last Will was nothing. The Last Will was going back to a 2011 will - my father said go back to the 2011 will. The 2011 Will was prepared by my cousin, Kwa Kim Li. My wife helped put into words what my father wanted on the demolition wish. He reviewed it carefully and Hsien Loong was in the loop.
The committee had said you indicated that the earliest you would respond would be by the end of June?
LHY: We have had mountains of correspondence over almost a year but the Committee continues to raise the same questions. They have nothing to do with the subject of the Committee which is being used to make trouble. You asked for an example of persecution and here is a prime one.
But you mentioned you had already responded a number of times.
LHY: I responded many times.
You said you and your sister have been persecuted. Can you be more specific?
LHY: The Committee is one very specific example.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/i-am-being-forced-leave-lee-hsien-yang
When a friend asked him why the matter was not reported in the Singapore news, Shengwu said: “Because the Singapore news is heavily controlled by the government. I’m in a position to know.”
Li Shengwu, 32, graduated from Stanford University with a PhD.
Statement by Cabinet Secretary Mr Tan Kee Yong on the Statement by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling
I refer to the statement issued by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang earlier today, and specifically the references to an internal Ministerial Committee that was set up by Cabinet.
The Committee was set up to consider the options for 38 Oxley Road (the “House”), and the implications of those options. These included looking into various aspects, including the historical and heritage significance of the House, as well as to consider Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes in relation to the House.
The Prime Minister has not been involved in Cabinet’s discussions concerning this Committee. As he had previously stated, he has recused himself from all Government decisions concerning the House.
As part of its work, the Committee sought the views of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s children, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, to ask if they wished to say anything about Mr Lee’s thinking in respect of the House, beyond what has already been stated in public. Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s views were sought in his personal capacity, given his position as Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s eldest son and his interest as a beneficiary of the estate.
The Committee has made clear to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (in response to a query from them) that the Government has no intention of doing anything with the House as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to reside there. The Committee will be listing out the different options with regard to the House and the implications. This will help a future Government when a decision needs to be taken about the House.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have also referred to questions that have been asked about Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will (the “Last Will”). In the course of its work, the Committee received representations from Mr Lee Hsien Loong on various facts and circumstances in relation to how Mr Lee’s Last Will was prepared. The Committee has asked Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang some further questions about how the Last Will was prepared, and the role that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers from her legal firm played in preparing the Last Will. The Committee has also invited Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to put their response by way of Statutory Declaration, as Mr Lee Hsien Loong had done. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have not responded to-date, and have indicated that if they respond at all, they will only be able to reply at the earliest by the end of June.
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/statement-cabinet-secretary-mr-tan-kee-yong-statement-mr-lee-hsien-yang-and-dr-lee-wei
LMFAO this sure is one epic meme. How about a public caning event? :P