COLLAPSED HIGHWAY CONTRACTOR OWNED BY PAP GRASSROOTS LEADERS


A structure on an incomplete highway collapsed early Friday (July 14) morning near the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) exit to Tampines Expressway (TPE).

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) said one worker, a PRC, was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, while 10 others have been sent to Changi General Hospital.

At around 7am, it said all workers at the construction site have been accounted for and that search and rescue operations had been completed.

SCDF was alerted to the incident at about 3.35am, according to a post on their Facebook.

The collapsed structure looked to have been about 5 metres high, according to an ST photographer who arrived at the scene at 4.30am.


COLLAPSED HIGHWAY CONTRACTOR OWNED BY PAP GRASSROOTS LEADERS 
Dear A.S.S. Editors,
Or Kim Peow Contractor is the firm responsible for building the highway along Upper Changi Rd, but what's interesting is, it is owned by OKP Holdings Pte Ltd, whose Chairman and Directors are grassroots leaders!
Chairman Or Kim Peow is in Potong Pasir CCC and was awarded Public Service Awards a few times before. His 3 sons are Directors of the company (surprise surprise!) and were similarly awarded for their contributions to public service. Or Toh Wat is the Group Managing Director and chairs Potong Pasir CC's Management Committee. Another son, Or Kiam Meng, is the Executive Director and Patron of Anchorvale CC's Management Committee. The third son, Or Lay Huat, is a member of Tampines GRC, the First Vice Chairman of Tampines West CCC, and a Treasurer of the School Advisory Committee at East View Primary School.
And that's not all ok! Other directors of the company also held senior positions in the public sector. Chen Seow Phun was an MP from 1988 to 2006. He served as Minister of State for Communications, Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology, and Minister of State for National Development. He was Board member with the HDB, EDB, Port of Singapore and Singapore Power Ltd. Another director, Tan Boen Eng, also held senior positions at IRA, Singapore Pools and was a member of the Singapore Sports Council.
Whoa don't play play, all big shots sia. How come so many big shots but still cannot ensure safety precautions, still kena fined, still got lapse? What are they going to do about it now that they kena so many accidents? Eh pls la, make sure you run your company properly first before boasting about your involvement in "serving the community"!
#AnyoneCanBeGrassrootsLeader
Jason LA.S.S. Contributor

 HIGHWAY CONTRACTOR FINED 2 YRS AGO FOR NOT TAKING SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

The contractor in charge of building the affected highway, Or Kim Peow Construction, was fined $250,000 2 years ago for failing to take safety precautions and causing a worker's death in an accident at Yio Chu Kang flyover. In 2015, 4 workers fell when the platform they were on gave way. The accident happened because the company did not check if the platform was properly put up.

At the time, the Manpower Ministry said: "This is a clear case of a company that does not take workplace safety seriously".

But 2 years later, they're still using the same contractor and look what happened! Shouldn't they be blacklisted especially for a big project like this? What's going on? Anyhow only!

Is This How Our Parliament Function?


Those are the words of PM Lee during the rounding up of the debate regarding his family feud on the Oxley Road House saga. In the 2 days of wasted time and wasted human resources, we saw how torrid the Parliamentary session of a Korean Drama proportion it turned out to be. And this is reflected in the facial expression of many of the MPs and Ministers, including PM Lee himself.





Where is that damned Pokemon?
Free tonight?







Bieber Fever hit Parliament.

Lee Wei Ling's evidence against Lee Hsien Loong

Here are the evidence and document thrown out by Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang after the Parliamentary debate on the Lee Family Feud. What we are reading and hearing here, could very well be the true colours of the world most expensive Prime Minister. Some of these traits we have also heard before in the past, notably, the well-documented case of him slapping of Dhanabalan, some 20+ years ago.

https://goo.gl/vyPYD3

https://goo.gl/xKPNRq

[QUOTE Lee Wei Ling]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Over this period we have disclosed a wide range of evidence. For clarity, we provide here a summary of what we have shown to date:

1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath -- some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private through improper means.

2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.

3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.

4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.

5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.

6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.

7. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes.

8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lee Hsien Loong has made many contradictory statements in public and private, including under oath -- some must be lies. He seeks to play the filial son in public while acting to thwart our parents’ wishes in private through improper means.

2. Using his position as PM, LHL misled his father into believing LKY’s house was either already gazetted or would ‘inevitably’ be gazetted on his passing.

From 2010, LHL improperly misrepresented to our father LKY that gazetting of 38 Oxley Road was either "inevitable" or that the house was already gazetted. We now know that no decision had been made. In doing so, LHL improperly represented the government’s position, and acted under a clear conflict of interest.

In Parliament, LHL claimed that, because LKY “considered” alternatives to demolition, citing the renovation plans by Ho Ching as proof that LKY wavered in his demolition wish. The contradictions are many.

As the email below reveals, LKY and we were in fact very skeptical about the renovation plans, as these were inconsistent with LHL’s insistence that the house would be gazetted. The evidence also shows that LKY considered alternatives only because of LHL’s misrepresentations to his own family. Finally, it contradicts a claim made by Lee Hsien Loong through his lawyer that no decision had in fact been made on the house and that he never informed LKY that 38 Oxley road was to be gazetted as a national monument.

Ultimately, is it even proper for Hsien Loong to be making decisions on a matter where he has a direct personal interest?

Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY: https://goo.gl/VRhwiC

3. LKY’s final will is a reversion to his 2011 will on his explicit instructions. Stamford Law attended to the attestation of the Will at LKY’s request.

LKY’s Final Will of December 2013 was a reversion to his 2011 will on his express instructions. Stamford Law, was called upon to witness the execution of this will simply because LKY’s lawyer, Kwa Kim Li was not contactable at the time. This was also at the express instruction and insistence of our father, who did not wish to wait. Lee Kuan Yew in an email on 16 December 2013 (the day before the signing of the final will):

LHL stated in a letter dated 15 September 2016 to the Cabinet committee and in a statutory declaration dated 24 February 2017 that this will of 2011 had been drafted by Kwa Kim Li, with clause 7 drafted by Lee Suet Fern. LHL: “Whilst the First Will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, the Demolition Clause was drafted by my sister-in-law, Lee Suet Fern.” The 2013 will was essentially a reversion to the 2011 will. 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 signing his will, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted 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. At the end of the day, only a court-proven final will is the legally binding will. Lee Kuan Yew’s final will was confirmed by court on 6 October 2015.

Hsien Loong and Ho Ching were unhappy with Wei Ling’s right to live at 38 Oxley Road and sought to push back on this in LKY’s wills 2 to 6.

Further details:
Drafting and Witnessing of the Will: https://goo.gl/TqiMqu, https://goo.gl/q9CUZo
Wei Ling’s Right to Live at 38 Oxley: https://goo.gl/CkFc2d, https://goo.gl/gFApyD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Ho Ching improperly took LKY’s personal items from his house without permission, somehow “representing” PMO to loan these items to the NHB.

These items were part of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate, and not owned by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under Lee Kuan Yew’s will, the executors (not the beneficiaries) have absolute discretion over these items. To take them without prior permission constitutes both theft and intermeddling.

Ho Ching took the items on behalf of PMO, despite having no official position in PMO. Neither PMO, nor LHL had the proper standing to authorize the removal of these items or loan them.

Further details:
NHB Receipt of Items taken by Ho Ching: https://goo.gl/TXQKxX
The NHB discovers a “clerical error”: https://goo.gl/gkbrWS


5. Unhappy that the Estate’s gift of LKY’s furniture and personal items to the NHB required the display of LKY’s demolition wish from his Will, LHL acquired a copy of this deed of gift in his official capacity as PM, then improperly handed the deed to his then-personal lawyer for his personal legal fights against LKY’s Estate to frustrate the gift.

Lee Hsien Loong received confidential documents in his public capacity as PM, and used these in his personal legal disputes with the estate of Lee Kuan Yew. Documents were passed to Lucien Wong, Lee Hsien Loong’s then personal lawyer and now Attorney General.

The NHB had chosen the items it wanted. Lorries came to collect the furniture from the house. The agreement specified that Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish had to be displayed as part of the exhibition. Nonetheless, because of LHL’s unhappiness over the display of the demolition wish, NHB tried to backtrack on the agreement. This was a major gift by the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew to the people of Singapore. LHL should not have involved NHB or AGC in his personal disagreements with the Estate of LKY. He should have raised his issues directly with the Estate. (DPM Teo in Parliament on 4 July 2017: “If the NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through this Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement.”)

Further details:
Letter from Lucien Wong/LHL challenging gift: https://goo.gl/yeMzBr
Explanation from PMO on using information for personal use: https://goo.gl/ELaoc6
LHL acquires Deed of Gift in Public Capacity as PM: https://goo.gl/KPpXsJ
NHB attempts to backtrack on gift after collecting items: ​https://goo.gl/UhqsRW

6. LHL signed a settlement agreement with LKY’s Estate, in which he agreed to recuse himself from governmental decisions involving the house and reaffirmed his father’s Final Will. Despite this, LHL made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge LKY’s Final Will. Only after being forced under public scrutiny did this secret committee reveal its members and deliverables.

The secret committee refused to disclose details about itself, despite many requests from the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew.

7. Amongst others we had also raised specific concerns on the possible membership of Shanmugam and his conflicts of interests and ethics, having advised LKY and us on options to achieve LKY’s wishes, and in the drafting of the demolition wish. This was brushed off by Lawrence Wong: “Nothing you have stated precludes any member of the Cabinet from taking part in the Committee’s work or its deliberations, with the exception of the PM.” Only now do we find out he is a member of this Committee.

As part of LHL’s settlement agreement with the Estate of Lee Kuan Yew (December 2015), he affirmed Lee Kuan Yew’s will, and promised to recuse himself from all matters concerning the house. LHL also made clear the reason he did so was to leave the Executors free to deal with the house: “One reason for transferring the house to you is so that you are free to do what you want, and I need not get involved.”

Nonetheless, this secret ministerial committee was set up in July 2016 to examine the house, even though the government’s position had been that no decision needed to be taken and it was for the government of the day to decide some time in the future. Despite his ‘recusal’, Lee Hsien Loong made extensive submissions to the ministerial committee. In these submissions, he sought to undermine Lee Kuan Yew’s demolition wish and will. Is it an abuse of power to have PM Lee’s subordinates act as secret judges on what he claims is a “private family matter”? How can PM Lee at his whim ignore his legal obligations under our settlement agreement? How can such a committee of subordinates ever be impartial in a dispute where the Prime Minister has clear vested interests? How can a secret ministerial committee be the correct forum for re-examining the validity of a court-declared binding will?

Further details:
Was LHL’s Cabinet Committee a secret?: https://goo.gl/4Qfsb6
Committee was neither transparent nor proper: https://goo.gl/7sT17S
Private family matters and secret committees: https://goo.gl/ZxZujD


8. Through extensive exchanges between the committee and LKY’s executors, it is clear that the committee had little interest in examining options about 38 Oxley, instead parroting LHL’s attacks on LKY’s Final Will to the executors. These attacks were completely spurious and without merit, seeking to challenge or pervert LKY’s last wishes.

The ministerial committee’s correspondence to us focused almost entirely on attacking Lee Kuan Yew’s Final Will rather than examining options about 38 Oxley. LHL’s statutory declaration to the committee claims that “there is no evidence” that Lee Kuan Yew was aware of the demolition clause. This is false. Lee Kuan Yew initialed directly beneath the demolition clause.

At the time of the signing, Lee Kuan Yew was a sitting MP, alert and of sound mind. As a Cambridge-educated lawyer, he was more than capable of understanding a four-page document.

In January 2014, Lee Kuan Yew personally drafted a codicil (legal addendum) to his will,  which was witnessed by his secretary and bodyguard.​ Again, he kept his children informed. Lee Kuan Yew understood entirely the contents of his will - he was mentally sharp enough not only to read his will, but to draft new parts without assistance. He subsequently also executed an Advance Medical Directive.

It is improper for LHL to use a committee of his subordinates to try to undermine the will. The correct place for such objections was during probate hearings. Probate for Lee Kuan Yew’s will was granted in Oct 2015, so the will is full, final, and legally binding. If LHL wanted to object to our father’s will, the correct time and place to do so was during the probate process. He chose not to at the time, and indeed urged the executors to file for probate.

Lee Hsien Loong now claims : “I did not challenge the validity of the Last Will in court because I wished, to the extent possible, to avoid a public fight which would tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family.” Objections to probate are regularly heard ‘in camera’, away from the public eye, so a desire for privacy is no excuse. The courts have found that Lee Kuan Yew’s will is final and legally binding. By now trying to undermine the court ruling via a committee of his subordinates, Lee Hsien Loong has disregarded the separation of powers. Is everyone allowed to attack their father’s will through secret committees, or is this privilege reserved only for the PM?

8. When we were forced by LHL’s relentless attacks through the committee to take this issue public, LHL used a parliamentary session to whitewash himself, setting himself once more before his subordinates in parliament, another improper forum. He has refused to subject himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.

Why are we speaking up?: https://goo.gl/Nah2ra https://goo.gl/4zwhbC
Parliamentary Whitewash: https://goo.gl/c1a5SG
Evidence of LHL’s misrepresentations to LKY: https://goo.gl/VRhwiC

Conclusion

We have disclosed evidence that warrants serious concern. We have done so carefully after considerable thought and review, including consideration of our parents’ integrity and values. This is just a brief summary of evidence to date. There is much evidence we have yet to show.

Some of this evidence is too complex to be well-suited to social media. We reserve this to show to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one.

QUOTE [Lee Hsien Yang]


The government asks of us, “Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore?”
We are not making a criticism of the Government of Singapore, as we made clear from the beginning. What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong. Since Lee Kuan Yew’s passing, we have felt threatened by LHL's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda.
Our private family dispute would have remained a private family dispute, if PM Lee had not used government agencies and a secret ministerial committee to force his way. Sadly, it is Lee Hsien Loong who has dragged the government into a personal dispute.
In Singapore, the PM and his wife should not be above the law. The PM should abide by the same high standards that are expected of even junior civil servants. To show evidence that he has failed to meet these standards, is not to attack the Singapore system, but to preserve it.
Our father’s legacy is more than bricks and mortar. He made sure that all government officials acted with justice and integrity. He accepted nothing less than incorruptibility, especially for the very top. Singapore can yet live up to his legacy.

A Neutral Third Party View of the 38 Oxley Road Saga






This is a fair, impartial view of the whole saga, from a neutral third party from a more democratic state of Hong kong, rather than from the Singapore press, or the Singapore oppositions.

Did The Prime Minister Lied 7 Times in Parliament


Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong today (July 3) made multiple lies in his opening speech in Parliament.


First lie: Singaporeans support defying Lee Kuan Yew’s will

Lee Hsien Loong blame Singaporeans for wanting to preserve 38 Oxley Road, and he is “conflicted” by the peoples’ wishes. He said: “after Hard Truths was published, there was a strong public pushback. Many Singaporeans did not agree with LKY. They wanted the house to be preserved.”

The truth is, as per Png Eng Huat's speech in Parliament: A reported Poll on 23rd December 2015 showed that 77 per cent of Singaporeans wanted LKY's wishes for the house, to be carried out.

Second lie: Teo Chee Hean created the Ministerial Committee

Contrary to previous claim saying that DPM Teo Chee Hean created the Ministerial Committee, the truth is, Lee Hsien Loong unwittingly admitted in Parliament today, that he abused his premiership powers on the house and that he was the one initially in-charge of making decisions on the house.

The PM also admitted that he was the one who appointed Teo Chee Hean as the chairman of the Ministerial Committee.

Third lie: Siblings are unhappy PM received equal share of will

Lee Hsien Loong also lied that his siblings are unhappy he got his equal share of the house, when the truth is, the siblings are actually unhappy about their older brother abusing his PM powers to stop the demolition through a government gazette:

“I learned that my siblings were unhappy that I was getting the house. I was not sure why, but I thought the best way to resolve the matter was to transfer the house to them.”

Fourth half-truth: Lee Hsien Loong give away full value of the house

Lee Hsien Loong claimed that he gave away the full value of the house by donating the amount he received, however, he omitted the fact that he deliberately made things difficult for his younger brother by demanding Lee Hsien Yang to pay 50% above market value for his share.

Fifth lie: Lee Hsien Loong is not involved with Ministerial Committee

Lee Hsien Loong told an open lie claiming that his subordinates are not answerable to him, and claimed his deputy is “fully in charge”. This can only be validated to be possible only if his subordinates are no longer reporting to him, and their performances are not evaluated by him. But this is not the case.

Sixth admission: Lee Hsien Loong has “every right” to see confidential documents

Lee Hsien Loong said that as Prime Minister, he had “every right to see the deed”. The PM then abused the same right to file a lawyer’s letter to his siblings through his personal lawyer. As the son of LKY, he has no right to do so, hence self-admission of abuse of power of Prime Minister.

“As Prime Minister, I had every right to see it. After reading the Deed, I became very concerned over what NHB had agreed to… I therefore wrote to my siblings through lawyers to object to what they had done.” This is an admission of conflict of interest.

Seventh lie: Ho Ching and Li Hong Yi’s positions are not nepotism

Lee Hsien Loong claimed there is no nepotism in his family and that his wife Ho Ching is Temasek Holdings’ CEO is appointed by the President. However President Tony Tan is a puppet president and his council is appointed by the PM himself. This is very clearly illustrated when we all saw the PM used his power to push for a Malay President in the coming Presidential Election. Actions and words contradict each other.

On his son's claim that he is not interested in politics, the truth is Li Hong Yi is now a senior official at the propaganda ministry, Ministry of Communications and Information, which is very much a political machinery of the PAP.

“Third, my siblings have made allegations about nepotism, concerning my wife and my son. And that I want 38 Oxley Road kept standing, in order to inherit my father’s credibility and bolster my standing. Hongyi, my son, has publicly said he is not interested in politics. Nor have I pushed him to enter politics. My wife, Ho Ching, is CEO of Temasek Holdings. As CEO, she reports to the Board, chaired by Mr Lim Boon Heng. As a company, Temasek Holdings answers to its shareholder, the Ministry of Finance, under Minister Heng Swee Keat.

I have every confidence that both Lim Boon Heng and Heng Swee Keat understand the meaning of good proper corporate governance. It is the Temasek Board which appoints the CEO, and the appointment has to be confirmed by the President, who is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisors. If Ho Ching ever behaves improperly, I have no doubt that the Temasek Board, the President and CPA know what their duty is.”


Reply by Lee Hsien Loong on Statement by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling

Reply by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on the Statement by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling

I am very disappointed that my siblings have chosen to issue a statement publicising private family matters. I am deeply saddened by the unfortunate allegations that they have made. Ho Ching and I deny these allegations, especially the absurd claim that I have political ambitions for my son.

While siblings may have differences, I believe that any such differences should stay in the family. Since my father’s passing in March 2015, as the eldest son I have tried my best to resolve the issues among us within the family, out of respect for our parents.
My siblings’ statement has hurt our father’s legacy.

I will do my utmost to continue to do right by my parents. At the same time, I will continue serving Singaporeans honestly and to the best of my ability.  In particular that means upholding meritocracy, which is a fundamental value of our society.

As my siblings know, I am presently overseas on leave with my family. I will consider this matter further after I return this weekend.

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
14 JUNE 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PM Lee rebuts Lee Hsien Yang: I did not deceive my father 

The feuding Lee brothers are a long way from reconciliation and the family 
saga is unlikely to end soon. 

In his closing speech in Parliament on July 4, Prime Minister Lee Hsien 
Loong rebutted — in a span of a few hours — his brother Lee Hsien Yang’s 
latest allegations that “convoluted, and ultimately false” claims were 
made about the wishes of their father, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. 

PM Lee denied that he deceived his father LKY over the fate of the house at 
38 Oxley Road. 

Responding to questions in Parliament on July 4, PM Lee made clear that his 
father understood the assessment that the house would be gazetted. 

“The simple answer is that I did not deceive my father. 

I explained to you yesterday how my father’s primary wish on the house had 
always been clear – he always wanted it knocked down. Where my siblings and 
I differ is on whether my father was prepared to consider alternatives 
should demolition not be possible 

After his meeting with the Cabinet on 21 July 2011, Mr Lee asked me for my 
view of what the Government would do with the house after he died. 

I gave him my honest assessment. I told him, you have met the Cabinet and 
heard the Ministers’ views. If I chaired the Cabinet meeting, this being 
the view of the Ministers and the public, in all likelihood, I would have to 
agree that the house be gazetted. And if I was not PM then and did not chair 
Cabinet, all the more likely the house would be gazetted. 


PM Lee cries during closing Parliament speech on July 4, 2017 

He managed to compose himself. 

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) wrote to the cabinet three times to express his wishes on 
38 Oxley Road. 

The first time was after the passing of his wife Kwa Geok Choo in 2010. 

After retiring from the Cabinet, he met Cabinet members for the second time 
on July 20, 2011, to reiterate his wish to knock down the house. 

The ministers were unanimous in expressing their opposition to knocking the 
house down. PM Lee did not express a view, because he was both the son and 
PM. 

In August 2011, about a month after the Cabinet meeting, LKY willed 38 Oxley 
Road to PM Lee as part of the share of his estate, and told the family. 

PM Lee shared emails which his wife Ho Ching had sent to keep the whole 
family informed of their plans and no objections were raised. 

“Ho Ching and I knew my father’s wishes and also my mother’s feelings on 
the house. We wanted to address their concerns should demolition not be 
allowed. We came up with a proposal to renovate the house to change the 
inside completely, to demolish the private spaces… 


The conservation plan was done honestly and openly, not on false pretences”

A public statement by Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang Against Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching

Full text of the disclosure by Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang against their big brother Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore:-

A full statement is here: https://goo.gl/G71SrX
A summary is here: https://goo.gl/hSaj3K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 is 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.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lee Hsien Yang's response to Parliamentary Debate of 38 Oxley Road on 5th July 2017. 

The government asks of us, “Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore?”
We are not making a criticism of the Government of Singapore, as we made clear from the beginning. 
What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong. Since Lee Kuan Yew’s passing, we have felt threatened by LHL's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda.
Our private family dispute would have remained a private family dispute, if PM Lee had not used government agencies and a secret ministerial committee to force his way. Sadly, it is Lee Hsien Loong who has dragged the government into a personal dispute.
In Singapore, the PM and his wife should not be above the law. The PM should abide by the same high standards that are expected of even junior civil servants. To show evidence that he has failed to meet these standards, is not to attack the Singapore system, but to preserve it.
Our father’s legacy is more than bricks and mortar. He made sure that all government officials acted with justice and integrity. He accepted nothing less than incorruptibility, especially for the very top. Singapore can yet live up to his legacy.



SINGAPORE — Alleging that his elder brother Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was the one who “dragged the Government into a personal dispute”, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Wednesday (July 5) that he and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling had not intended to criticise the Government by making public their accusations of PM Lee.

“Our private family dispute would have remained a private family dispute, if PM Lee had not used government agencies and a secret ministerial committee to force his way. Sadly, it is Lee Hsien Loong who has dragged the government into a personal dispute,” said Mr Lee Hsien Yang via a Facebook post.

He was responding to Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s remarks in Parliament on Tuesday, where he questioned the younger Lee siblings’ motivations for making public allegations about their elder brother. Mr Goh had said: “Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore?”

Mr Lee Hsien Yang stressed that he and Dr Lee had “made clear from the beginning” that they were not criticising the Government. He said: “What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong. Since Lee Kuan Yew’s passing, we have felt threatened by LHL's misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda.”

Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a six-page statement posted on Facebook in the wee hours of June 14 that they felt "threatened" in their attempt to carry out their late father Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes, and alleged that PM Lee was misusing his authority to prevent the demolition of the founding Prime Minister’s house at 38 Oxley Road. Both sides have also clashed over the setting up of the ministerial committee weighing options for the house. Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang also accused PM Lee and his wife Madam Ho Ching of harbouring political ambitions for their son.

During the parliamentary debate which spanned almost 11 hours across two days, none of the Members of Parliament who spoke substantiated any allegations of abuse of power hurled against PM Lee by his siblings. In contrast, the Government has been shown to have “acted properly and with due process”, PM Lee said as he wrapped up the debate on Tuesday.  He added that facts and explanations have been put on the record, and Singaporeans have been given “a full account of how the Government works, and what the Government has done, in the case of 38 Oxley Road”.

However, despite Parliament finding no evidence of abuse of power by PM Lee, Mr Lee Hsien Yang reiterated that “the PM and his wife should not be above the law”.  

“The PM should abide by the same high standards that are expected of even junior civil servants. To show evidence that he has failed to meet these standards, is not to attack the Singapore system, but to preserve it,” he said. Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, he said, is “more than bricks and mortar”. “He made sure that all government officials acted with justice and integrity. He accepted nothing less than incorruptibility, especially for the very top. Singapore can yet live up to his legacy,” added Mr Lee Hsien Yang.


PM Lee had threatened to gazette 38 Oxley Road house, says Lee Wei Ling


This gazette threat by LHL is not smoke without fire. This means there is 
smoke and is fire when public is told. 

The siblings reacted publicity when they felt being cornered and ignored by 
LHL who used his power to change the fate of the house set by his father. 


Quote: 
"SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had "threatened angrily" to 
gazette 38 Oxley Road as a national monument after the death of his father 
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling claimed. 

In a Facebook post on Saturday (July 1), Dr Lee said this happened after Mr 
Lee Kuan Yew's will was read to the family, and PM Lee's actions "greatly 
disturbed" her. 

"He was willing to go against Papa's wishes as soon as Papa was gone. He is 

a dishonourable son," she wrote".