• Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Yang issue statement to say they have 'lost confidence' in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
• PM Lee refuted allegations by his siblings that he had misused his power in relation to their late father's house, saying he was disappointed and sad they had chosen to air a private family matter in public
• PM Lee officially rebutts with an explosive account of events regarding changes in LKY's 7 wills
• Was Lee Kuan Yew rushed into signing his last will?
• PM Lee Hsien Loong apologises for dispute with siblings, will deliver ministerial statement in Parliament on 3 July 2017
• Lee Hsien Yang’s goal is to bring Lee Hsien Loong down as Prime Minister: ESM Goh Chok Tong
• 38 Oxley Road dispute debate in Parliament: Day 1 & Day 2
• Lee Hsien Yang and Wei Ling say they accept offer to settle dispute in private or go to court
PM Lee Hsien Loong saddened by siblings' Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang allegations
He denies charges and will consider matter further after he returns from overseas leave
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor and Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has refuted allegations by his siblings that he had misused his power in relation to their late father's house, saying he was disappointed and sad they had chosen to air a private family matter in public.
"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," PM Lee said in response to a six-page statement his two siblings issued yesterday.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said they had lost confidence in their brother, PM Lee, adding that they feared the use of state organs against them.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he and his wife Suet Fern felt compelled to leave Singapore "for the foreseeable future" because of this.
Titled "What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?", their statement is the latest development in a long-running dispute over the demolition of their father's house at 38, Oxley Road.
The two siblings are joint executors and trustees of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate, and have pushed for the Government to honour his wish, as stated in his will, for the house to be pulled down.
They alleged that PM Lee and his wife wanted the house preserved for their own political gain, adding that the PM had abused his position to drive his personal agenda. They further alleged Mrs Lee had outsized influence and power that went beyond her role as the PM's wife.
PM Lee said: "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."
He added: "My siblings' statement has hurt our father's legacy."
After the statement was publicised on the duo's Facebook pages around 2am, it was widely shared online and picked up by media.
The news also sparked talk in the legal fraternity about possible changes at law firm Morgan Lewis Stamford, at which Mrs Lee Suet Fern is managing partner.
Last year, Dr Lee had also called PM Lee a "dishonourable son" in a Facebook post, because of their disagreement over the house.
This time, she and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said PM Lee and his wife had opposed their father's wish for the house to be pulled down, as "the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital".
In December 2015, PM Lee had said in a joint statement with his siblings that he hoped their father's wish would be honoured, adding that he would recuse himself from all government decisions on the house. The Government also said it would not make any decision on the house as long as Dr Lee resided there.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang told The Straits Times that PM Lee had not kept his promise, citing the formation of a ministerial committee on the house. To him, this was a sign of PM Lee's interference.
But Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong said in a statement the committee was formed to consider options for the house and their implications.
He also said PM Lee "has not been involved in Cabinet's discussions concerning this committee. As he had previously stated, he has recused himself from all government decisions (on) the house."
He denies charges and will consider matter further after he returns from overseas leave
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor and Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
"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," PM Lee said in response to a six-page statement his two siblings issued yesterday.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said they had lost confidence in their brother, PM Lee, adding that they feared the use of state organs against them.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he and his wife Suet Fern felt compelled to leave Singapore "for the foreseeable future" because of this.
Titled "What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?", their statement is the latest development in a long-running dispute over the demolition of their father's house at 38, Oxley Road.
The two siblings are joint executors and trustees of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate, and have pushed for the Government to honour his wish, as stated in his will, for the house to be pulled down.
They alleged that PM Lee and his wife wanted the house preserved for their own political gain, adding that the PM had abused his position to drive his personal agenda. They further alleged Mrs Lee had outsized influence and power that went beyond her role as the PM's wife.
PM Lee said: "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."
He added: "My siblings' statement has hurt our father's legacy."
After the statement was publicised on the duo's Facebook pages around 2am, it was widely shared online and picked up by media.
The news also sparked talk in the legal fraternity about possible changes at law firm Morgan Lewis Stamford, at which Mrs Lee Suet Fern is managing partner.
Last year, Dr Lee had also called PM Lee a "dishonourable son" in a Facebook post, because of their disagreement over the house.
This time, she and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said PM Lee and his wife had opposed their father's wish for the house to be pulled down, as "the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital".
In December 2015, PM Lee had said in a joint statement with his siblings that he hoped their father's wish would be honoured, adding that he would recuse himself from all government decisions on the house. The Government also said it would not make any decision on the house as long as Dr Lee resided there.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang told The Straits Times that PM Lee had not kept his promise, citing the formation of a ministerial committee on the house. To him, this was a sign of PM Lee's interference.
But Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong said in a statement the committee was formed to consider options for the house and their implications.
He also said PM Lee "has not been involved in Cabinet's discussions concerning this committee. As he had previously stated, he has recused himself from all government decisions (on) the house."
The committee was also looking into how the late Mr Lee's will was prepared, and the role Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers in her legal firm played in preparing it, Mr Tan said.
The two siblings also alleged PM Lee and his wife harbour political ambitions for their son Hongyi. PM Lee called it an "absurd claim".
He said: "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."
He ended his statement saying: "As my siblings know, I am presently overseas on leave with my family. I will consider this matter further after I return this weekend."
He ended his statement saying: "As my siblings know, I am presently overseas on leave with my family. I will consider this matter further after I return this weekend."
Lee Hsien Yang says he feels compelled to leave Singapore
He has not decided when or where to go, but would rethink if PM Lee is no longer in power
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is making preparations to leave Singapore with his wife, but does not know yet when he will leave and where he will be going.
He told The Straits Times yesterday that it was the only sensible option left for him. "There are many ways people are made to feel uncomfortable," he added. "I am a person who spent his life here, who has done public service, contributed in the private sector. This is my home. I wouldn't do this unless I really felt there is a serious issue.
"And I have felt this is not where I can continue to live, the way I have been living in the last two years."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, 59, chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, was elaborating on a statement that he and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had issued in the wee hours of yesterday morning.
They said they felt closely monitored and feared the use of state organs against them.
The situation made Mr Lee feel compelled to leave Singapore "for the foreseeable future", said the statement which centred on a dispute over the house of their late father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Following the release of the statement, The Straits Times went to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's home around 10.30am.
He had already left for work. His wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, 59, a top corporate lawyer, was on her way to work. She said they were making preparations to leave Singapore.
But Mr Lee told The Straits Times later yesterday that he had yet to decide when to leave or where he was heading.
He also added that if PM Lee was no longer in a position of power, "I would reconsider my position".
He has not decided when or where to go, but would rethink if PM Lee is no longer in power
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is making preparations to leave Singapore with his wife, but does not know yet when he will leave and where he will be going.
He told The Straits Times yesterday that it was the only sensible option left for him. "There are many ways people are made to feel uncomfortable," he added. "I am a person who spent his life here, who has done public service, contributed in the private sector. This is my home. I wouldn't do this unless I really felt there is a serious issue.
"And I have felt this is not where I can continue to live, the way I have been living in the last two years."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, 59, chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, was elaborating on a statement that he and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, had issued in the wee hours of yesterday morning.
They said they felt closely monitored and feared the use of state organs against them.
The situation made Mr Lee feel compelled to leave Singapore "for the foreseeable future", said the statement which centred on a dispute over the house of their late father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Following the release of the statement, The Straits Times went to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's home around 10.30am.
He had already left for work. His wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, 59, a top corporate lawyer, was on her way to work. She said they were making preparations to leave Singapore.
But Mr Lee told The Straits Times later yesterday that he had yet to decide when to leave or where he was heading.
He also added that if PM Lee was no longer in a position of power, "I would reconsider my position".
He also said his three adult sons, Shengwu, Huanwu and Shaowu, do not live with him any more and would make their own decisions.
Eldest son Shengwu, a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, posted the statement on his Facebook page and said: "I generally avoid commenting on Singapore politics, but this is an exception. In the last few years, my immediate family has become increasingly worried about the lack of checks on abuse of power.
"The situation is now such that my parents have made plans to relocate to another country, a painful decision that they have not made lightly."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee, 62, are joint executors and trustees of the estate of their late father, and have pushed for his house at 38, Oxley Road to be demolished, in keeping with his wish as stated in his will.
In December 2015, PM Lee, 65, had also said in a joint statement with his two siblings that he hoped the Government would allow the late Mr Lee's wish to be honoured, adding that he would recuse himself from government decisions on the house.
But yesterday, his two siblings said in a statement they had lost confidence in him, and alleged that he had worked behind the scenes to preserve the house as it would allow him "and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew's authority".
Eldest son Shengwu, a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, posted the statement on his Facebook page and said: "I generally avoid commenting on Singapore politics, but this is an exception. In the last few years, my immediate family has become increasingly worried about the lack of checks on abuse of power.
"The situation is now such that my parents have made plans to relocate to another country, a painful decision that they have not made lightly."
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee, 62, are joint executors and trustees of the estate of their late father, and have pushed for his house at 38, Oxley Road to be demolished, in keeping with his wish as stated in his will.
In December 2015, PM Lee, 65, had also said in a joint statement with his two siblings that he hoped the Government would allow the late Mr Lee's wish to be honoured, adding that he would recuse himself from government decisions on the house.
But yesterday, his two siblings said in a statement they had lost confidence in him, and alleged that he had worked behind the scenes to preserve the house as it would allow him "and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew's authority".
As proof of this, Mr Lee Hsien Yang cited the setting up of a ministerial committee on the house.
He said this showed PM Lee did not recuse himself from all government decisions on the house as he had pledged to do.
But Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong said in a statement yesterday that the PM "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".
He added in a statement that the committee was set up to consider the options for the house and their implications. These included looking into aspects such as the historical and heritage significance of the house and the late Mr Lee's thinking and wishes in relation to it.
But Mr Lee Hsien Yang questioned why this was necessary, since the Government had said it would not be making a decision on the house as long as Dr Lee was residing there. "Wei Ling is there today. She has no intention to move out. Why is this committee in existence?" he said.
To this, Mr Tan said the committee had made it clear to Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang that the Government has no intention of doing anything with the house as long as Dr Lee continues to reside there.
In his statement, Mr Tan also said the committee had asked Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang questions on how their father's will was prepared, and the role played by Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers of her firm in preparing it.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang told The Straits Times the will was prepared by his cousin Kwa Kim Li, a lawyer at Lee & Lee, the firm his father and mother, Madam Kwa Geok Choo, had co-founded in 1955.
He added that his wife had only prepared the words of his father's wish to have the house demolished.
He also said the committee should not be looking at a will which has been deemed valid by the court in probate: "A will in probate is beyond doubt and is the established and binding will of an estate."
He added that he and Dr Lee felt strongly about the house being demolished as they wanted to honour their late parents' wishes.
"Both my parents wanted it, we feel we owe a duty to honour our parents' wishes. My parents asked this of all three children and they told this to us many times in our lives. It is the least we could do for them, and actually I think many people would like to see that wish fulfilled," he told The Straits Times.
PM Lee said in a statement yesterday he was disappointed his siblings had chosen to publicise private family matters.
"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," he said.
PM Lee said in a statement yesterday he was disappointed his siblings had chosen to publicise private family matters.
"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," he said.
Home of former PM Lee Kuan Yew at 38 Oxley Road at centre of dispute
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
A long-running question over what to do with the home of the late former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at 38, Oxley Road has come into focus again after two of his children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, issued a statement on the matter yesterday.
In their statement, they reiterated their father's wish that the house be demolished upon his death.
The two siblings, who are joint executors and trustees of their father's estate, also said that their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and his wife Ho Ching had opposed this wish as "the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital".
The issue of the house made the news back in 2015, several weeks after Mr Lee Kuan Yew died at the age of 91 on March 23 that year.
On April 12, 2015, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang stated publicly that the late Mr Lee had asked for his house to be demolished after his death, and asked Singaporeans to respect this wish.
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
A long-running question over what to do with the home of the late former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at 38, Oxley Road has come into focus again after two of his children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, issued a statement on the matter yesterday.
In their statement, they reiterated their father's wish that the house be demolished upon his death.
The two siblings, who are joint executors and trustees of their father's estate, also said that their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and his wife Ho Ching had opposed this wish as "the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital".
The issue of the house made the news back in 2015, several weeks after Mr Lee Kuan Yew died at the age of 91 on March 23 that year.
On April 12, 2015, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang stated publicly that the late Mr Lee had asked for his house to be demolished after his death, and asked Singaporeans to respect this wish.
In his will, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said that the house should either be demolished immediately after his death or after Dr Lee moves out of it.
If demolition is made impossible owing to changes in the law, rules or regulations, it was the late Mr Lee's wish that the house should not be open to anyone except his children, their families and descendants.
There had been calls after his death to turn the pre-war bungalow, which he had lived in since the 1940s, into a museum or heritage site.
PM Lee told Parliament at a sitting on April 13, 2015 that Mr Lee Kuan Yew knew about calls from the public to turn his Oxley Road home into a museum and a memorial to him, but was adamant that the house should be demolished after his death.
PM Lee told Parliament at a sitting on April 13, 2015 that Mr Lee Kuan Yew knew about calls from the public to turn his Oxley Road home into a museum and a memorial to him, but was adamant that the house should be demolished after his death.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew had written formally to the Cabinet at least twice to put his wishes on record, PM Lee said.
The first time was soon after his wife, Madam Kwa Geok Choo, died in October 2010, and the second time was after he stepped down from the Cabinet in May 2011.
In his statement delivered in Parliament, PM Lee said that his father's position on 38, Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and added that Singaporeans should respect his wishes.
PM Lee explained that his father was averse to the idea of preserving his home as he had seen too many houses of famous people "kept frozen in time... as a monument with people tramping in and out", and they invariably "become shabby".
The Prime Minister also said that a decision on the fate of the house was not required yet as his sister, Dr Lee, continued to live there.
Three MPs had tabled questions on ways to honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew during that Parliament sitting in April.
PM Lee replied that decisions on how best to honour the late Mr Lee should not be rushed into so soon after his death.
He also told Parliament that he had asked Esplanade chairman Lee Tzu Yang to head a committee to conceptualise a Founders' Memorial that honours not just Mr Lee but also his core team, including Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S. Rajaratnam, Mr Othman Wok, Mr Hon Sui Sen and Mr Lim Kim San.
The 15-member Founders' Memorial committee began work on how to honour Singapore's first generation of political leaders in June 2015.
Since then, it has made recommendations on two possible sites for the memorial: Fort Canning Park and Bay East Garden at Gardens by the Bay. A final decision on the site has not been made.
It also announced that PM Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had each agreed to donate half the value of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley Road house to eight charities, in honour of their father.
The December 2015 statement also stated that PM Lee has recused himself from all government decisions involving the Oxley Road house.
In their statement issued yesterday, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang revealed that the house was bequeathed to PM Lee, but he sold it to Mr Lee Hsien Yang in late 2015. The brothers also agreed on the donations to charities.
In the statement, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said they were disappointed when National Development Minister Lawrence Wong wrote to them in July last year to inform them that a ministerial committee had been set up to consider options for 38, Oxley Road and their implications.
An online poll released in December 2015 by Hong Kong- based market research firm YouGov had found that a majority of those surveyed supported demolishing the house.
An online poll released in December 2015 by Hong Kong- based market research firm YouGov had found that a majority of those surveyed supported demolishing the house.
Of the 1,000 people it polled, 77 per cent said they backed Mr Lee's wish, while 15 per cent wanted the house preserved.
Ministerial committee studying options for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley house
It has asked PM Lee's siblings questions about how the late Mr Lee's will was prepared
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
The future of the house at the centre of a dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings is being studied by a ministerial committee.
The existence of the committee was disclosed yesterday by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, the PM's younger siblings.
In a Facebook statement, both said they were told by National Development Minister Lawrence Wong last July that "a ministerial committee had been set up to consider options with respect to 38, Oxley Road and their implications".
The pre-war house in Oxley Road had been the home of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew since the 1940s. He died in March 2015 at the age of 91.
Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong, who confirmed the establishment of the committee in a separate statement yesterday, said it was set up to consider options for 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," Mr Tan said in the statement.
He also said the committee has been looking at how the late Mr Lee's will came to be made and the roles played in this by Mrs Lee Suet Fern - Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife - and the law firm that she heads.
The statement from the Cabinet Secretary was issued in response to claims by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee in their statement that PM Lee made "extensive representations" to the committee and that he is in "a direct position of power over the committee" because the ministers in it report to him.
Mr Tan said: "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."
He said the committee had sought the views of the Prime Minister, as well as those of his siblings, "to ask if they wished to say anything about the late 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," Mr Tan noted.
In the statement, Mr Tan also refuted Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee's claims that setting up the committee contradicted PM Lee's statement in Parliament in April 2015, in which he said there was no need for the Government to decide the fate of the house until Dr Lee stops living there. PM Lee had said in Parliament: "At that point, speaking as a son, I would like to see these wishes carried out. However, it will be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter."
Mr Tan said the committee's work "will help a future government when a decision needs to be taken about the house".
He added that it also "made clear" to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee that the Government has no intention of doing anything with the house as long as Dr Lee lives there.
Mr Lee made it public, before he died, that he wanted his house demolished. But after his death, there were public calls to preserve the house and turn it into a museum or memorial.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee subsequently issued a statement as executors and trustees of their father's last will, outlining their father's wishes regarding the house.
Mr Tan, in his statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office , also said the committee received representations from PM Lee on various facts and circumstances in relation to how Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will was prepared.
He said the committee asked Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang further questions about how the will was prepared, and the role that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers from her legal firm played in preparing it.
Mr Tan said the committee has also invited Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to put their response by way of a statutory declaration, as PM Lee had done.
They have not responded to date, and have indicated that if they respond at all, it will be by the end of this month at the earliest, he said.
There was no further information immediately available on the make-up of the committee yesterday.
It has asked PM Lee's siblings questions about how the late Mr Lee's will was prepared
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
The existence of the committee was disclosed yesterday by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, the PM's younger siblings.
In a Facebook statement, both said they were told by National Development Minister Lawrence Wong last July that "a ministerial committee had been set up to consider options with respect to 38, Oxley Road and their implications".
The pre-war house in Oxley Road had been the home of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew since the 1940s. He died in March 2015 at the age of 91.
Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong, who confirmed the establishment of the committee in a separate statement yesterday, said it was set up to consider options for 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," Mr Tan said in the statement.
He also said the committee has been looking at how the late Mr Lee's will came to be made and the roles played in this by Mrs Lee Suet Fern - Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife - and the law firm that she heads.
The statement from the Cabinet Secretary was issued in response to claims by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee in their statement that PM Lee made "extensive representations" to the committee and that he is in "a direct position of power over the committee" because the ministers in it report to him.
Mr Tan said: "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."
He said the committee had sought the views of the Prime Minister, as well as those of his siblings, "to ask if they wished to say anything about the late 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," Mr Tan noted.
In the statement, Mr Tan also refuted Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee's claims that setting up the committee contradicted PM Lee's statement in Parliament in April 2015, in which he said there was no need for the Government to decide the fate of the house until Dr Lee stops living there. PM Lee had said in Parliament: "At that point, speaking as a son, I would like to see these wishes carried out. However, it will be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter."
Mr Tan said the committee's work "will help a future government when a decision needs to be taken about the house".
He added that it also "made clear" to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee that the Government has no intention of doing anything with the house as long as Dr Lee lives there.
Mr Lee made it public, before he died, that he wanted his house demolished. But after his death, there were public calls to preserve the house and turn it into a museum or memorial.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee subsequently issued a statement as executors and trustees of their father's last will, outlining their father's wishes regarding the house.
Mr Tan, in his statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office , also said the committee received representations from PM Lee on various facts and circumstances in relation to how Mr Lee Kuan Yew's last will was prepared.
He said the committee asked Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang further questions about how the will was prepared, and the role that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers from her legal firm played in preparing it.
Mr Tan said the committee has also invited Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to put their response by way of a statutory declaration, as PM Lee had done.
They have not responded to date, and have indicated that if they respond at all, it will be by the end of this month at the earliest, he said.
There was no further information immediately available on the make-up of the committee yesterday.
No political ambitions for my son, says PM Lee
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday refuted allegations by his younger siblings that he harbours political ambitions for his son Li Hongyi.
Such a claim is "absurd", he said in a statement responding to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling.
"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," said PM Lee.
He did not name his son in the statement, but his younger siblings had publicly accused him and his wife Ho Ching of using Mr Lee Kuan Yew's legacy for their own political purposes - and that included harbouring political ambitions for Mr Li.
PM Lee has a daughter Li Xiuqi and a son Li Yipeng from his first marriage. He married Ms Ho in 1985 and they have two sons, Mr Li Hongyi and Mr Li Haoyi.
He had previously said in interviews that his children are not keen on entering politics.
In an interview with a Chinese television station in Beijing in November 2014, PM Lee said none of his children was interested in politics.
"They have to find their own path in life," he said when asked whether he was steering them towards politics. "They have to choose, because a child's personality and aptitude have to be taken into consideration."
In a 2012 interview at the World Economic Forum, CNN's Fareed Zakaria asked PM Lee if his children would enter politics.
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday refuted allegations by his younger siblings that he harbours political ambitions for his son Li Hongyi.
Such a claim is "absurd", he said in a statement responding to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling.
"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," said PM Lee.
He did not name his son in the statement, but his younger siblings had publicly accused him and his wife Ho Ching of using Mr Lee Kuan Yew's legacy for their own political purposes - and that included harbouring political ambitions for Mr Li.
PM Lee has a daughter Li Xiuqi and a son Li Yipeng from his first marriage. He married Ms Ho in 1985 and they have two sons, Mr Li Hongyi and Mr Li Haoyi.
He had previously said in interviews that his children are not keen on entering politics.
In an interview with a Chinese television station in Beijing in November 2014, PM Lee said none of his children was interested in politics.
"They have to find their own path in life," he said when asked whether he was steering them towards politics. "They have to choose, because a child's personality and aptitude have to be taken into consideration."
In a 2012 interview at the World Economic Forum, CNN's Fareed Zakaria asked PM Lee if his children would enter politics.
PM Lee replied: "They have to decide for themselves. At this point in time, the odds are not on it. They have so many opportunities - internships, job offers, the world is their oyster."
Mr Li Hongyi is in the public service. The 30-year-old is deputy director of the Government Digital Services Data Science Division of the Government Technology Agency of Singapore, a statutory board under the Prime Minister's Office.
He studied at Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) and Raffles Junior College.
In 2006, he won the Lee Kuan Yew Award for Mathematics and Science and received a Public Service Commission Overseas Merit Scholarship, a top government scholarship, to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States.
After graduating from MIT, he worked in Google for two years from 2011 to 2013, before returning to serve a six-year bond, according to his LinkedIn profile.
After graduating from MIT, he worked in Google for two years from 2011 to 2013, before returning to serve a six-year bond, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Family conflict gets wide media coverage
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Social media was abuzz yesterday as Singaporeans woke up to the news of a renewed public dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Many responded with concern at what they saw as the airing of dirty linen in public. "Domestic affairs should not meddle with the nation's interest. What will the other nations think when they see this? I hope it won't lower the nation's bargaining power," said Mr Chason Li Zhong Ng on Facebook.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had posted a statement on Facebook yesterday saying, among other things, that they had lost confidence in their brother.
By Joanna Seow, The Straits Times, 15 Jun 2017
Social media was abuzz yesterday as Singaporeans woke up to the news of a renewed public dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Many responded with concern at what they saw as the airing of dirty linen in public. "Domestic affairs should not meddle with the nation's interest. What will the other nations think when they see this? I hope it won't lower the nation's bargaining power," said Mr Chason Li Zhong Ng on Facebook.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had posted a statement on Facebook yesterday saying, among other things, that they had lost confidence in their brother.
PM Lee, who is overseas on leave, responded in a statement saying he was disappointed and saddened by his siblings "publicising private family matters".
Many netizens, commenting on PM Lee's Facebook page, were supportive of his position.
Those commending PM Lee's two siblings praised them for publicly airing their concerns on the running of the country.
Mr Alvin Teo said on Facebook: "The PM's integrity and character are a matter of public interest. I'm glad there's someone in the family who speaks up (though their claims cannot be verified yet)."
Many netizens, commenting on PM Lee's Facebook page, were supportive of his position.
Those commending PM Lee's two siblings praised them for publicly airing their concerns on the running of the country.
Mr Alvin Teo said on Facebook: "The PM's integrity and character are a matter of public interest. I'm glad there's someone in the family who speaks up (though their claims cannot be verified yet)."
Some felt that Mr Lee Hsien Yang's statement that he would leave the country was a poor example to set for fellow Singaporeans.
"If you truly love your country, stay. Work out your differences and forgive," said Facebook user Carmen Luanne Choy.
Stories on the spat by mainstream and alternative media were shared widely. It was the top-read story on The Straits Times' website after it was published.
"If you truly love your country, stay. Work out your differences and forgive," said Facebook user Carmen Luanne Choy.
Stories on the spat by mainstream and alternative media were shared widely. It was the top-read story on The Straits Times' website after it was published.
The saga gained much traction in international media as well, and was widely reported by wire agencies and news outlets such as The New York Times, Agence France-Presse, Financial Times, BBC and The Star.
It was the most viewed story on the South China Morning Post international website, with the headline, "Siblings of Singapore PM 'fear for their safety', accusing him of harassment and trashing Lee Kuan Yew's values".
The statement by the duo centres on a long-running dispute over the fate of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road.
The siblings reiterated their late father's wish for the house to be demolished after his death, and said PM Lee and his wife Ho Ching had opposed this wish.
Some netizens in their comments called for the late Mr Lee's wishes to be respected, while others said the house should be preserved as a national monument to inspire future generations.
Facebook users Simon Tan and Terence Foong suggested that there might be a way to please both parties - creating a 3D map of the house to let Singaporeans visit it in virtual reality even after it is demolished.
"The Government's view to preserve the house as a legacy for future generations is not wrong, but going against the wishes of our late (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) will make it tough," said Mr Tan.
"The Government's view to preserve the house as a legacy for future generations is not wrong, but going against the wishes of our late (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) will make it tough," said Mr Tan.
Timeline
• 2010-2011: Mr Lee Kuan Yew writes formally to the Cabinet twice to put his wishes to demolish his house at 38, Oxley Road on record.
• December 2011: Mr Lee is invited to a special Cabinet meeting to discuss his house. After the meeting, he writes a letter to the Cabinet in which he acknowledges their unanimous view that his house should not be demolished.
• Dec 17, 2013: The date of Mr Lee's last will.
• March 23, 2015: Mr Lee dies.
• April 12, 2015: Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issue a public statement which outlines their father's wishes on demolishing the house, and ask Singaporeans to respect his wishes.
• April 13, 2015: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tells Parliament a decision on the fate of the house is not required yet as his sister will continue to live there. He adds that as a son, he would like to see his father's wishes carried out, but it will be up to the government of the day to consider the matter.
• Dec 4, 2015: The three siblings issue a joint statement announcing that PM Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have each agreed to donate half the value of the house to eight charities. The statement also says PM Lee has recused himself from all government decisions involving the house.
• June 14, 2017: Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issue a statement saying, among other things, that they have lost confidence in PM Lee. In response, PM Lee denies their allegations, and says his siblings' statement has hurt their father's legacy. Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang also say in the statement that they were informed about a ministerial committee set up to consider options for the house in July 2016.
• 2010-2011: Mr Lee Kuan Yew writes formally to the Cabinet twice to put his wishes to demolish his house at 38, Oxley Road on record.
• December 2011: Mr Lee is invited to a special Cabinet meeting to discuss his house. After the meeting, he writes a letter to the Cabinet in which he acknowledges their unanimous view that his house should not be demolished.
• Dec 17, 2013: The date of Mr Lee's last will.
• March 23, 2015: Mr Lee dies.
• April 12, 2015: Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issue a public statement which outlines their father's wishes on demolishing the house, and ask Singaporeans to respect his wishes.
• April 13, 2015: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tells Parliament a decision on the fate of the house is not required yet as his sister will continue to live there. He adds that as a son, he would like to see his father's wishes carried out, but it will be up to the government of the day to consider the matter.
• Dec 4, 2015: The three siblings issue a joint statement announcing that PM Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have each agreed to donate half the value of the house to eight charities. The statement also says PM Lee has recused himself from all government decisions involving the house.
• June 14, 2017: Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issue a statement saying, among other things, that they have lost confidence in PM Lee. In response, PM Lee denies their allegations, and says his siblings' statement has hurt their father's legacy. Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang also say in the statement that they were informed about a ministerial committee set up to consider options for the house in July 2016.
Many historical sites already lost
As a filial son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong should obey his father's last wish to demolish his house, but as Prime Minister, he has a duty to preserve a historical monument. After all, isn't that the reason why conservation laws are enacted in the first place?
Many significant sites have been torn down in the name of progress. The death houses of Sago Lane, the tongkangs along the Singapore River and Great World Amusement Park are just some of them.
The demolition of these landmarks did not cause an uproar because they were of no major significance to anyone.
But demolishing the house of the nation's founding father at 38 Oxley Road is a different matter altogether.
Everything that is associated with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's life should be made public after his death.
As a wise sage, the late Mr Lee should have known better. I can only surmise that his wish stemmed from a fear of having the sanctity of his house turned into a "tourist trap" of sorts.
Some possible ways to get out of this sticky situation include:
- Holding a referendum to decide.
- Carrying out the instructions in the will and building a replica somewhere else.
- Demolishing the house but building nothing in its place. A conspicuous empty plot of land can also speak volumes of the nation's indebtedness to this great man.
- A combination of the above.
Lee Peng Hon
ST Forum, 15 Jun 2017
Many significant sites have been torn down in the name of progress. The death houses of Sago Lane, the tongkangs along the Singapore River and Great World Amusement Park are just some of them.
The demolition of these landmarks did not cause an uproar because they were of no major significance to anyone.
But demolishing the house of the nation's founding father at 38 Oxley Road is a different matter altogether.
Everything that is associated with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's life should be made public after his death.
As a wise sage, the late Mr Lee should have known better. I can only surmise that his wish stemmed from a fear of having the sanctity of his house turned into a "tourist trap" of sorts.
Some possible ways to get out of this sticky situation include:
- Holding a referendum to decide.
- Carrying out the instructions in the will and building a replica somewhere else.
- Demolishing the house but building nothing in its place. A conspicuous empty plot of land can also speak volumes of the nation's indebtedness to this great man.
- A combination of the above.
Lee Peng Hon
ST Forum, 15 Jun 2017
Oxley Road dispute: Time to reflect, and seek the common good
Those in family dispute should set aside hurt feelings and self-interest
By Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
On my Facebook, some people are saying that the ongoing feud within the Lee family is like a multi-episode TV drama, with plot twists and characters that could have come straight from a scriptwriter's most overwrought imagination.
There is intrigue; a will - in fact, several wills; accusations and counter claims among siblings; money - always, there is money; feuding women; and a whiff of dynastic ambitions, swiftly denied. Politics, power, money, family drama.
They add to a potent mix. And as accusations levelled at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who died in March 2015, swirl, many Singaporeans are following the statements and Facebook posts put out by his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, brother Lee Hsien Yang and third-generation Lees, with a mix of prurient interest and concern.
On Facebook, people talk of this being a popcorn moment, like when you settle down for a movie.
It would all make for great entertainment.
Except, of course, it is not.
Because this is clearly not just a "family matter" being played out in public. Matters of public interest have arisen.
By Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor, The Straits Times, 17 Jun 2017
There is intrigue; a will - in fact, several wills; accusations and counter claims among siblings; money - always, there is money; feuding women; and a whiff of dynastic ambitions, swiftly denied. Politics, power, money, family drama.
They add to a potent mix. And as accusations levelled at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the eldest son of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who died in March 2015, swirl, many Singaporeans are following the statements and Facebook posts put out by his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, brother Lee Hsien Yang and third-generation Lees, with a mix of prurient interest and concern.
On Facebook, people talk of this being a popcorn moment, like when you settle down for a movie.
It would all make for great entertainment.
Except, of course, it is not.
Because this is clearly not just a "family matter" being played out in public. Matters of public interest have arisen.
First is whether to preserve the Lee family home where the patriarch Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo raised three children. This house was also the site of meetings that led to the founding of the People's Action Party, and a frequent meeting place for the first generation of leaders. It has historic value.
Disagreement over whether to demolish the house or have it conserved for history is central to the ongoing spat. It turns out, too, that inheritance shares and value are also involved.
My former colleague Cherian George summed up the issue well in a post on Thursday, when he said of the senior Mr Lee's wish to demolish his house:
"This was in line with his well-known abhorrence of emotional pulls in politics, whether in the form of race, religion, language or charismatic personality. He wanted to build legitimacy around performance, not identity, and to train Singaporeans to exercise a more clinical, legal-bureaucratic rationality.
"You don't need to be a disciple of Lee Kuan Yew to recognise this as a worthy principle for Singapore governance. Nor do you have to be a traitor to Lee Hsien Loong to acknowledge the risk, red-flagged by his siblings, that this principle will be compromised by preserving their house as a monument, against their father's wishes."
I was part of a team that interviewed Mr Lee for the book Hard Truths. His frugal habits and simple house came up in an interview in August 2009. He immediately said he had told the Cabinet: "When I am dead, demolish it." We probed him for a few minutes on this. But he was quite insistent, citing the cost of preserving it, and the fact that many historic abodes turn into "shambles" after a while.
According to PM Lee, Mr Lee had first stated he wanted the house demolished in earlier wills, but took out that requirement in later wills. In his final will read out after his death, there was a clause which specifically stated that he wished for the house to be demolished.
PM Lee has raised questions about the circumstances in which that last will was made and if Mr Lee was fully aware of the content when he signed it, including the reinstatement of the so-called "demolition clause".
While much is now made of trying to determine what Mr Lee's final, authentic wishes were for the house, ironically it might not matter very much. At least, it should not be the final word on the matter.
Mr Lee believed community and society's needs took precedence over the individual's claims. Just as his Land Acquisition Act rode roughshod over other families' wishes, it is perfectly consistent with the ethos of Mr Lee's regime that the state has power to override Mr Lee's own wishes and those of his family.
This is not to say it should or must.
Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or-demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome.
This is not to say it should or must.
Whether one comes down on one side or the other of the save-it-or-demolish-it divide, most would agree that the process of deciding this is as important as the outcome.
Mr Lee himself, after all, as a leader and a lawyer, believed in the rule of law and proper government process for all manner of things, including gazetting of national monuments. As for who gains and by how much, should the house be demolished and redeveloped for sale, that is no one's business but the Lees'.
Issues of public interest, such as whether to conserve the house of the founding prime minister, can be resolved calmly, over the long term, by rational discussion and public consultation. There is little value in Facebook wars.
Issues of public interest, such as whether to conserve the house of the founding prime minister, can be resolved calmly, over the long term, by rational discussion and public consultation. There is little value in Facebook wars.
The other issue of public interest that has arisen is the charge made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee that PM Lee "misused his position".
In words carefully crafted to raise questions without making specific accusations, the post said: "Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew on March 23, 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."
The post mentions the writers' fear of the use of organs of state, and their concerns over the lack of checks and balances. The one specific accusation made is that PM Lee "misused" his position and influence over the Singapore Government.
These are serious allegations to make, albeit sweeping and vague. Whatever the differences among the Lee siblings, casting doubts and aspersions on the system that Mr Lee had worked his whole life to build with Singaporeans must surely be an unfortunate, even if unintended, blow to his legacy.
Yet, no doubt many will say that the fact that members of the Prime Minister's own family fear that the organs of state might be improperly used against them is not insignificant, especially in view of the Singapore state's past reputation as a police state.
In 2017, that reputation is receding, as citizens have more rights and feel more empowered, and as the Government also becomes more responsive and accountable. But that might be due to voluntary restraint by the executive.
To be sustainable and iron-clad, checks on executive power must reside in institutional mechanisms, such as laws, regulations and scrutiny by other arms of government, not in voluntary self-restraint by those in power.
To be sustainable and iron-clad, checks on executive power must reside in institutional mechanisms, such as laws, regulations and scrutiny by other arms of government, not in voluntary self-restraint by those in power.
Many other issues are being thrown into the mix - some of major public interest, many of nothing more than prurient interest.
Maybe it is because I have met Mr Lee many times as a journalist, sat across from him, watched his face, seen his eyes and heard the intonation of his words, as he spoke about the country he so loved and the family so close to his heart.
I can't view this as a popcorn moment; I can't watch this family drama unfold as pure entertainment. As a political journalist, I had the rare, unusual duty of being present at the Mandai crematorium for both Mr Lee's last journey, and that of his wife.
Mr Lee was not only the Lee siblings' father, but also the Founding Father of Singapore, and many of us as ordinary citizens claim a small - no matter how small - part of him and want to honour his memory.
The public fighting would have grieved him so.
There is a time for everything, and the time for family feuding is not now, when the country faces multiple challenges on the terrorism front and in foreign policy; when we all fear our jobs and livelihoods disappearing as technologies disrupt the workplace.
There is a place for everything, and the place for fighting over a family will and inheritance is not via Facebook and social media.
Singapore is a mature country with a mature polity. There are probate courts. There are family courts. There has been much effort to promote mediation as a means for dispute resolution in tricky cases. There are men and women of integrity and influence who can be appealed to, to mediate.
What is required is that those involved set aside hurt feelings, pride, fears and self-interest and seek to find a common good.
Mr Lee used to talk about "knocking heads" whenever people proved intractable or unyielding to reason. I think he would say that his children need a dose of that right now.
Oxley Road dispute: How it unfolded
A family feud between the children of the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew spilled over into the public sphere last Wednesday when Dr Lee Wei Ling and her brother Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they had lost confidence in their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. At the centre of the dispute is their father's house at 38, Oxley Road. The two siblings alleged that PM Lee wanted the house preserved against their father's wishes, for his political gain. But PM Lee has refuted their accusations and raised misgivings over the preparation of their late father's will. Danson Cheong traces the timeline of the tussle.
By Danson Cheong, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
JUNE 14
2am: Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang release a Facebook statement saying they had lost confidence in PM Lee and feared the use of state organs against them. They also accuse him and his wife Ho Ching of wanting to make use of the late Mr Lee's legacy to further their political ambitions for their son Li Hongyi. They also reveal that a ministerial committee has been set up to consider options for the house.
2.20am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang's son Li Shengwu shares the statement on Facebook, saying his "immediate family has become increasingly worried about the lack of checks on abuse of power".
Younger brother Huanwu also shares the statement, saying he has made a "painful exception" in doing so. They are the first third-generation members of the family to comment publicly.
9.40am: PM Lee denies the allegations, saying he is disappointed his siblings have chosen to publicise a private family matter, and, in doing so, hurt their father's legacy. He adds that he is deeply saddened by their "unfortunate allegations".
5pm: Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong confirms the existence of a ministerial committee, saying it is an internal committee formed by the Cabinet to consider options for the late Mr Lee's house and their implications. Mr Tan says PM Lee has not been involved in the Cabinet's discussions concerning the committee, and his views were sought only in his personal capacity as Mr Lee's son.
JUNE 15
12.20am: Dr Lee responds to the Cabinet Secretary in a Facebook post, saying there is "no way" the ministerial committee was formed without PM Lee's consent and approval.
3pm: Mr Li Hongyi denies he has political ambitions, saying on Facebook: "For what it is worth, I really have no interest in politics."
9pm: PM Lee, through his lawyers, issues a statement raising grave concerns about the way his father's last will was made. It is a summary of the statutory declarations PM Lee made to the ministerial committee.
9.25pm: In a Facebook post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang says there are contradictions between what PM Lee has said publicly in Parliament and what he has said under oath to the ministerial committee. "Is his statement to Parliament false, or is his statement under oath false?" he asks.
10.16pm: Dr Lee releases personal e-mails of correspondence involving the late Mr Lee, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam, in a bid to prove Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife have not acted against her interest. She accuses PM Lee of being selective in using quotes from her e-mails to Ms Ho Ching to suggest otherwise.
JUNE 16
3.44am: Mr Li Shengwu posts on Facebook a comment he gave to newswire Agence France-Presse: "I believe that it would be bad for Singapore if any third-generation Lee went into politics. The country must be bigger than one family."
7.30am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang comes to the defence of his wife's law firm. In a Facebook post, he accuses PM Lee of lying about their father's last will being drafted by the firm and its lawyers.
1.05pm: On Facebook, Mr Lee Hsien Yang says the late Mr Lee's last will was drafted by his cousin Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo. He adds that a paragraph dealing with the demolition of the house was drafted by his wife at Mr Lee's direction, and later inserted into the will by Ms Kwa.
6.23pm: Mr Lee Hsien Yang alleges that the ministerial committee is "entirely uninterested" in exploring options for the house; it is focused solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause.
11.11pm: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong calls on Singaporeans to not let the dispute "define who we are". "We are bigger than our troubles, stronger than our differences. Whatever damage Singapore may suffer, wilfully inflicted or otherwise, I know Singaporeans will not lie meek. We will not be dragged down by a family's petty disputes," he says.
11.40pm: Lawyer Kwa Kim Li tells The Straits Times she did not prepare Mr Lee's final will.
JUNE 17
1.29am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang posts a Facebook statement saying that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will was prepared on his late father's instructions to revert to his first will from 2011, drafted by Ms Kwa.
"Lee Kuan Yew's final will was simply Lee Kuan Yew's first will of 20 August 2011 re-executed on his instructions," says Mr Lee Hsien Yang, adding that his father had read the will carefully and initialled every page, including below the demolition clause.
1.50pm: Mr Lee Hsien Yang posts another Facebook statement defending the validity of the last will. He cites a file note by two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation who witnessed the will signing that "LKY read through every line of the will and was comfortable to sign and initial at every page".
5.04pm: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean releases a two-page statement on the ministerial committee looking at options for 38, Oxley Road. He says the committee is not secret, and that he had set it up. He also reveals details on the committee, such as its members, who include ministers Grace Fu, K. Shanmugam and Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lee used to talk about "knocking heads" whenever people proved intractable or unyielding to reason. I think he would say that his children need a dose of that right now.
Oxley Road dispute: How it unfolded
A family feud between the children of the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew spilled over into the public sphere last Wednesday when Dr Lee Wei Ling and her brother Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they had lost confidence in their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. At the centre of the dispute is their father's house at 38, Oxley Road. The two siblings alleged that PM Lee wanted the house preserved against their father's wishes, for his political gain. But PM Lee has refuted their accusations and raised misgivings over the preparation of their late father's will. Danson Cheong traces the timeline of the tussle.
By Danson Cheong, The Sunday Times, 18 Jun 2017
JUNE 14
2.20am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang's son Li Shengwu shares the statement on Facebook, saying his "immediate family has become increasingly worried about the lack of checks on abuse of power".
Younger brother Huanwu also shares the statement, saying he has made a "painful exception" in doing so. They are the first third-generation members of the family to comment publicly.
9.40am: PM Lee denies the allegations, saying he is disappointed his siblings have chosen to publicise a private family matter, and, in doing so, hurt their father's legacy. He adds that he is deeply saddened by their "unfortunate allegations".
5pm: Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong confirms the existence of a ministerial committee, saying it is an internal committee formed by the Cabinet to consider options for the late Mr Lee's house and their implications. Mr Tan says PM Lee has not been involved in the Cabinet's discussions concerning the committee, and his views were sought only in his personal capacity as Mr Lee's son.
JUNE 15
3pm: Mr Li Hongyi denies he has political ambitions, saying on Facebook: "For what it is worth, I really have no interest in politics."
9pm: PM Lee, through his lawyers, issues a statement raising grave concerns about the way his father's last will was made. It is a summary of the statutory declarations PM Lee made to the ministerial committee.
9.25pm: In a Facebook post, Mr Lee Hsien Yang says there are contradictions between what PM Lee has said publicly in Parliament and what he has said under oath to the ministerial committee. "Is his statement to Parliament false, or is his statement under oath false?" he asks.
10.16pm: Dr Lee releases personal e-mails of correspondence involving the late Mr Lee, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam, in a bid to prove Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife have not acted against her interest. She accuses PM Lee of being selective in using quotes from her e-mails to Ms Ho Ching to suggest otherwise.
JUNE 16
3.44am: Mr Li Shengwu posts on Facebook a comment he gave to newswire Agence France-Presse: "I believe that it would be bad for Singapore if any third-generation Lee went into politics. The country must be bigger than one family."
7.30am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang comes to the defence of his wife's law firm. In a Facebook post, he accuses PM Lee of lying about their father's last will being drafted by the firm and its lawyers.
1.05pm: On Facebook, Mr Lee Hsien Yang says the late Mr Lee's last will was drafted by his cousin Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee, co-founded by the late Mr Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo. He adds that a paragraph dealing with the demolition of the house was drafted by his wife at Mr Lee's direction, and later inserted into the will by Ms Kwa.
6.23pm: Mr Lee Hsien Yang alleges that the ministerial committee is "entirely uninterested" in exploring options for the house; it is focused solely on challenging the validity of the demolition clause.
11.11pm: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong calls on Singaporeans to not let the dispute "define who we are". "We are bigger than our troubles, stronger than our differences. Whatever damage Singapore may suffer, wilfully inflicted or otherwise, I know Singaporeans will not lie meek. We will not be dragged down by a family's petty disputes," he says.
11.40pm: Lawyer Kwa Kim Li tells The Straits Times she did not prepare Mr Lee's final will.
JUNE 17
1.29am: Mr Lee Hsien Yang posts a Facebook statement saying that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will was prepared on his late father's instructions to revert to his first will from 2011, drafted by Ms Kwa.
"Lee Kuan Yew's final will was simply Lee Kuan Yew's first will of 20 August 2011 re-executed on his instructions," says Mr Lee Hsien Yang, adding that his father had read the will carefully and initialled every page, including below the demolition clause.
1.50pm: Mr Lee Hsien Yang posts another Facebook statement defending the validity of the last will. He cites a file note by two lawyers from Stamford Law Corporation who witnessed the will signing that "LKY read through every line of the will and was comfortable to sign and initial at every page".
5.04pm: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean releases a two-page statement on the ministerial committee looking at options for 38, Oxley Road. He says the committee is not secret, and that he had set it up. He also reveals details on the committee, such as its members, who include ministers Grace Fu, K. Shanmugam and Lawrence Wong.
The damage wrought by Lee family feud
By Tom Plate, Published The Straits Times, 21 Jun 2017
After my first trip to Singapore, as a Los Angeles Times columnist for my first interview with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then titled Senior Minister, I returned home feeling I had seen something special and had met someone special. This was in 1996. Back then, the average American thought of the place as no more than a "caning and chewing gum" circus. How silly and uninformed that view was.
My fondness for Singapore was never to wane during subsequent trips and interviews, not only with Mr Lee but also with other huge talents such as diplomat Tommy Koh, foreign minister George Yeo, global thinker Kishore Mahbubani, former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, newspaper editor Cheong Yip Seng and others. I feel gratitude for their time and mentoring even today.
Many years later, I related this to Mr Theodore Sorensen, the iconic policy adviser and speech-writer for John F. Kennedy, months before he left us at the age of 82. Ever sharp until the end, Mr Sorensen, a mentor in graduate school, tried playfully to curb my enthusiasm. The occasion was a 2010 party at Singapore's UN mission in New York for my book Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew. Chuckling, Mr Sorensen related that after his first visit to Singapore, Mr Lee asked for an assessment. "Minister Mentor," Mr Sorensen reportedly said (and knowing the sharpness of his needle, I'm sure he did say this), "I now feel my life is complete. I have been to Utopia."
To be sure, Mr Lee never remotely claimed to have created utopia in the actual, but in ambitious thrust, he tried, as did the many hard-working Singaporeans he carried with him to transform a third-world backwater into a first-world city state. Yet about this we would joke - relaxed, he was very witty - with my once suggesting that if Singapore were utopia, then its citizens had to be Martians, not human beings. This remark somehow got to him, but then he smilingly said: "We're not Martians!"
Judging from the sordid Lee family rift that has now just surfaced, it looks as if the Singapore elite is more earthbound than suspected. From the Prime Minister - Mr Lee's son, in office since 2004 - to his thoughtful daughter, a brilliant neurologist, this near-utopia today looks creepy-swampy with back-stabbing and name-calling. On the surface, the unseemly divisiveness focuses mainly on the late founder's last will, and his wish for the modest home of his last 70 years to be demolished, not glorified into some Chinese Mount Rushmore (Singapore itself being the monument). I won't venture to sort out all the details, which have been ably reported by this newspaper (South China Morning Post). But I believe this was in fact his last wish, and feel as does a former colleague and current resident of Hong Kong who is also a devoted Singapore watcher: "I'm shocked. I feel sorry for LKY."
Sure, this family falling-out is not of global import, but for those who sincerely care about the LKY legacy, as the "old man" himself certainly did, it is very sad to witness. It would be joked back in the Lion City that LKY's power of will was so strong, if from the grave he sensed his Singapore veering off-track, he'd reach out and knock the place back into shape. Alas, it's too bad that option is not actually available. "So very sad," e-mailed a friend from Singapore who knew "the old man" well. Another, from Hong Kong, e-mailed: "A Shakespearean tragedy for some, but a tragicomedy for others - and not only Hongkongers."
Modern Singapore's global as well as regional image reached near Olympian stature, due not only to its economic success but also to its founder's talents as the city state's public face. He was a skilled orator (though the late Nelson Mandela, in my view, retires the gold medal), and a serious thinker (though more in deft, concise formulation than pure origination). In some ways, he could be modest: Regarding contemporary China, for instance, he'd say that, because of his historic relationship with Deng Xiaoping, his insights might be overestimated. "I visit China maybe once a year," he once said. "What do I know?" Yet some scholars who once shunned him like a civil-rights felony regarded him almost as if he were an Old Testament prophet.
Though sometimes wrong, on the big things he had an uncanny knack for being right. Regarding the "Clash of Civilisations" thesis, he was only wary of Islamicism ("because of that Book", he'd say, referring to overly literal adherences to tiny parts of the Quran). And his fervour for one-citizen, one-vote democracy was no warmer than Plato's (it can produce "erratic results", he'd say, a view many Americans would accept). Though the leader of such a tiny state (but more populous than Ireland and New Zealand), Mr Lee was viewed as a giant, not just in Asia.
His surviving children and their inner circle need to consider whether their public quarrel behoves their founding father. Having inherited a magnificent mantle, they should be ashamed for permitting the dirty family laundry of jealousy and ego to enter the otherwise commendably clean public domain of their Singapore.
Once, at the end of an exhausting day, Mr Lee was asked whether the political system might finally "loosen up, as many have conjectured", after he had "gone to Marx", as the atheist's option is sometimes put. "It is for the present and future generations of leaders to modify and adjust the system," he said. The time has come for the present generation to do just that. If they cannot handle what has been given, they should humbly hand it off to others who might preserve it with more class.
The writer, a columnist and university professor, is author of Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew in the Giants Of Asia series. This article first appeared in South China Morning Post.
Lee Hsien Yang: I've no confidence of a fair account in Parliament
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 30 Jun 2017
Parliament is not the correct forum to look into allegations made in the Oxley Road dispute, said Mr Lee Hsien Yang, adding that he has "no confidence that a fair, transparent or complete account of events will be told".
The younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took to Facebook again yesterday, this time to voice "serious concerns" about the Prime Minister delivering a ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday to refute his siblings' charges.
"Only his side of the story will air, with no promise of truthfulness due to parliamentary privilege," said Mr Lee Hsien Yang. "Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege."
It is the latest twist in an ongoing feud over the fate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road.
The dispute erupted into the public sphere on June 14, when Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, issued a six-page statement on Facebook accusing their elder brother of abusing his powers in a bid to prevent the demolition of the house.
They also declared that they had lost faith in PM Lee as both leader of the country and brother, and made several allegations. Among them is the claim that PM Lee was misusing his influence over the Singapore Government and its agencies "to drive his personal agenda".
On Tuesday, in response to media queries on the various Facebook posts by his siblings, PM Lee said that the allegations about what he supposedly did or did not do "are mostly inaccurate".
PM Lee had added: "As I earlier said, I will be making a statement in Parliament on July 3, 2017. I will at that time deal with the allegations that need to be addressed."
PM Lee has also instructed that the People's Action Party's (PAP) party Whip be lifted, and urged all MPs, including non-PAP MPs, to examine the issues thoroughly and question him and his Cabinet colleagues vigorously, adding that he hoped this full, public airing "will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government".
Yesterday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang described the Prime Minister's move to address the allegations on July 3 as an attempt to "cover up and whitewash himself" in Parliament.
38 Oxley Road debate in Parliament:
Day 1 - 3 July 2017
Day 2 - 4 July 2017
By Tom Plate, Published The Straits Times, 21 Jun 2017
After my first trip to Singapore, as a Los Angeles Times columnist for my first interview with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then titled Senior Minister, I returned home feeling I had seen something special and had met someone special. This was in 1996. Back then, the average American thought of the place as no more than a "caning and chewing gum" circus. How silly and uninformed that view was.
My fondness for Singapore was never to wane during subsequent trips and interviews, not only with Mr Lee but also with other huge talents such as diplomat Tommy Koh, foreign minister George Yeo, global thinker Kishore Mahbubani, former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, newspaper editor Cheong Yip Seng and others. I feel gratitude for their time and mentoring even today.
Many years later, I related this to Mr Theodore Sorensen, the iconic policy adviser and speech-writer for John F. Kennedy, months before he left us at the age of 82. Ever sharp until the end, Mr Sorensen, a mentor in graduate school, tried playfully to curb my enthusiasm. The occasion was a 2010 party at Singapore's UN mission in New York for my book Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew. Chuckling, Mr Sorensen related that after his first visit to Singapore, Mr Lee asked for an assessment. "Minister Mentor," Mr Sorensen reportedly said (and knowing the sharpness of his needle, I'm sure he did say this), "I now feel my life is complete. I have been to Utopia."
To be sure, Mr Lee never remotely claimed to have created utopia in the actual, but in ambitious thrust, he tried, as did the many hard-working Singaporeans he carried with him to transform a third-world backwater into a first-world city state. Yet about this we would joke - relaxed, he was very witty - with my once suggesting that if Singapore were utopia, then its citizens had to be Martians, not human beings. This remark somehow got to him, but then he smilingly said: "We're not Martians!"
Judging from the sordid Lee family rift that has now just surfaced, it looks as if the Singapore elite is more earthbound than suspected. From the Prime Minister - Mr Lee's son, in office since 2004 - to his thoughtful daughter, a brilliant neurologist, this near-utopia today looks creepy-swampy with back-stabbing and name-calling. On the surface, the unseemly divisiveness focuses mainly on the late founder's last will, and his wish for the modest home of his last 70 years to be demolished, not glorified into some Chinese Mount Rushmore (Singapore itself being the monument). I won't venture to sort out all the details, which have been ably reported by this newspaper (South China Morning Post). But I believe this was in fact his last wish, and feel as does a former colleague and current resident of Hong Kong who is also a devoted Singapore watcher: "I'm shocked. I feel sorry for LKY."
Sure, this family falling-out is not of global import, but for those who sincerely care about the LKY legacy, as the "old man" himself certainly did, it is very sad to witness. It would be joked back in the Lion City that LKY's power of will was so strong, if from the grave he sensed his Singapore veering off-track, he'd reach out and knock the place back into shape. Alas, it's too bad that option is not actually available. "So very sad," e-mailed a friend from Singapore who knew "the old man" well. Another, from Hong Kong, e-mailed: "A Shakespearean tragedy for some, but a tragicomedy for others - and not only Hongkongers."
Modern Singapore's global as well as regional image reached near Olympian stature, due not only to its economic success but also to its founder's talents as the city state's public face. He was a skilled orator (though the late Nelson Mandela, in my view, retires the gold medal), and a serious thinker (though more in deft, concise formulation than pure origination). In some ways, he could be modest: Regarding contemporary China, for instance, he'd say that, because of his historic relationship with Deng Xiaoping, his insights might be overestimated. "I visit China maybe once a year," he once said. "What do I know?" Yet some scholars who once shunned him like a civil-rights felony regarded him almost as if he were an Old Testament prophet.
Though sometimes wrong, on the big things he had an uncanny knack for being right. Regarding the "Clash of Civilisations" thesis, he was only wary of Islamicism ("because of that Book", he'd say, referring to overly literal adherences to tiny parts of the Quran). And his fervour for one-citizen, one-vote democracy was no warmer than Plato's (it can produce "erratic results", he'd say, a view many Americans would accept). Though the leader of such a tiny state (but more populous than Ireland and New Zealand), Mr Lee was viewed as a giant, not just in Asia.
His surviving children and their inner circle need to consider whether their public quarrel behoves their founding father. Having inherited a magnificent mantle, they should be ashamed for permitting the dirty family laundry of jealousy and ego to enter the otherwise commendably clean public domain of their Singapore.
Once, at the end of an exhausting day, Mr Lee was asked whether the political system might finally "loosen up, as many have conjectured", after he had "gone to Marx", as the atheist's option is sometimes put. "It is for the present and future generations of leaders to modify and adjust the system," he said. The time has come for the present generation to do just that. If they cannot handle what has been given, they should humbly hand it off to others who might preserve it with more class.
The writer, a columnist and university professor, is author of Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew in the Giants Of Asia series. This article first appeared in South China Morning Post.
Indranee asks Lee Hsien Yang: Why the urgency to demolish Oxley Road house?
By Rachel Au-Yong, The Straits Times, 27 Jun 2017
Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah has questioned why Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, wants an "immediate commitment" from the Government to demolish the 38, Oxley Road house.
In a Facebook post yesterday, she reiterated that the Government does not have to make any decision about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house now, as his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, is still living there as per his wishes.
"Letting the house stand for now does not go against those wishes… The matter may well not need to be decided for another 20 to 30 years. It can be decided by a future government," she said.
She added: "The real question therefore is why Mr Lee Hsien Yang is asking for an immediate commitment on demolition now. What is the urgency?"
Ms Indranee listed four options for the Oxley Road house - demolition, preservation, conservation and compulsory acquisition - in her third post on the feud between the Lee siblings over whether to demolish the house.
Her first post centred on issues surrounding the dispute, including a demolition clause in the late Mr Lee's will, while the second post focused on that final will.
Yesterday, she noted that demolishing the house would pave the way for the owner to appeal for rezoning or to increase the plot ratio.
38, Oxley Road is currently a freehold site zoned for a two-storey landed property, with a land area of 1,120.5 sq m. Media reports have estimated its market value at $24 million.
Ms Indranee said the land value will increase significantly if rezoning or increased plot ratio is granted, and one can expect interest from many developers.
"For example, if a 20-storey luxury condominium can be built on the site, with one condo unit per floor, all with the address of 38, Oxley Road, it could be marketed as a unique trophy address," she noted.
She said that a second option is for the house to be conserved, which means it cannot be developed, but works can be done to the building if they comply with conservation guidelines.
A third option is for the house to be designated a national monument, which means it cannot be redeveloped and will be subject to stringent preservation guidelines.
Since the house is used as a residence, it will be subject to compulsory acquisition - the fourth option - within one year of the preservation order.
Compulsory acquisition will be done under the Land Acquisition Act, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who owns the house, will be compensated at market value.
By Rachel Au-Yong, The Straits Times, 27 Jun 2017
Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah has questioned why Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, wants an "immediate commitment" from the Government to demolish the 38, Oxley Road house.
In a Facebook post yesterday, she reiterated that the Government does not have to make any decision about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house now, as his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, is still living there as per his wishes.
"Letting the house stand for now does not go against those wishes… The matter may well not need to be decided for another 20 to 30 years. It can be decided by a future government," she said.
She added: "The real question therefore is why Mr Lee Hsien Yang is asking for an immediate commitment on demolition now. What is the urgency?"
Ms Indranee listed four options for the Oxley Road house - demolition, preservation, conservation and compulsory acquisition - in her third post on the feud between the Lee siblings over whether to demolish the house.
Her first post centred on issues surrounding the dispute, including a demolition clause in the late Mr Lee's will, while the second post focused on that final will.
Yesterday, she noted that demolishing the house would pave the way for the owner to appeal for rezoning or to increase the plot ratio.
38, Oxley Road is currently a freehold site zoned for a two-storey landed property, with a land area of 1,120.5 sq m. Media reports have estimated its market value at $24 million.
Ms Indranee said the land value will increase significantly if rezoning or increased plot ratio is granted, and one can expect interest from many developers.
"For example, if a 20-storey luxury condominium can be built on the site, with one condo unit per floor, all with the address of 38, Oxley Road, it could be marketed as a unique trophy address," she noted.
She said that a second option is for the house to be conserved, which means it cannot be developed, but works can be done to the building if they comply with conservation guidelines.
A third option is for the house to be designated a national monument, which means it cannot be redeveloped and will be subject to stringent preservation guidelines.
Since the house is used as a residence, it will be subject to compulsory acquisition - the fourth option - within one year of the preservation order.
Compulsory acquisition will be done under the Land Acquisition Act, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, who owns the house, will be compensated at market value.
Ms Indranee said the Government has several further options, such as demolishing the house and building a tasteful memorial or symbolic marker in a park setting.
She cited Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who chairs a ministerial committee to consider options for the house and who previously said that he would not personally support options at the extreme ends of the range - preserving the house for visitors against Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew's wishes or demolishing the house and putting it on the market for private new residences.
Said Ms Indranee: "One can understand DPM Teo's feelings. A luxury condo with that address would confer bragging rights on a select few to say: 'I'm living where Lee Kuan Yew lived.' The history and heritage of the site would be forever lost to ordinary Singaporeans, including future generations. That is probably not the way Singaporeans will want to remember 38, Oxley Road."
Said Ms Indranee: "One can understand DPM Teo's feelings. A luxury condo with that address would confer bragging rights on a select few to say: 'I'm living where Lee Kuan Yew lived.' The history and heritage of the site would be forever lost to ordinary Singaporeans, including future generations. That is probably not the way Singaporeans will want to remember 38, Oxley Road."
She pointed out that while Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said he has not thought about what lies beyond demolition, "it would appear he has not ruled out redevelopment".
Mr Lee Hsien Yang travelled to Hong Kong on Sunday, and told Hong Kong media he was visiting friends. He declined to say when he was returning to Singapore.
In her post, Ms Indranee also reiterated that PM Lee has no financial interest in the house, having sold it to his brother.
In her post, Ms Indranee also reiterated that PM Lee has no financial interest in the house, having sold it to his brother.
For the Government, the question is whether there is an intermediate option that will respect the late Mr Lee's wishes and still preserve the heritage and history of 38, Oxley Road for Singapore and Singaporeans, she said.
One option that was raised by DPM Teo was to demolish the house but keep the basement dining room, where many historical meetings took place, with a heritage centre attached.
This, Ms Indranee said, would "substantially fulfil Mr Lee's wish" as his and his wife's privacy would be respected.
"At the same time, the history and heritage would not be lost and the crucible where the hopes and dreams of a nation were forged can be kept to inspire many more generations to come," she said.
"These options need to be thought through deeply and carefully."
"These options need to be thought through deeply and carefully."
No need to disagree on studying options now for Oxley Road house: DPM Teo
Memorial park at Oxley site among options, says DPM Teo
He describes how he communicated with Lee Hsien Yang on issue, saying the latter seemed to support some ideas
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said yesterday that both he and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had spoken of a memorial park at the site of the house of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew as being one of a range of intermediate options.
He also said the Government and Mr Lee Hsien Yang seemed to agree there was no need to make a decision on demolishing the house now, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still living in it.
Given these points of agreement, he said, there was no need to disagree on studying options for the time a decision needed to be made on the fate of the house.
Mr Teo also said in his statement that the ministerial committee set up for the task was not bent on preventing the demolition of 38, Oxley Road, as may be believed by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the late Mr Lee's younger son.
He made these points in a statement responding to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post earlier in the day, in the ongoing dispute involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two younger siblings.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote that he and his sister, Dr Lee, had never asked the Government to demolish the house right away.
He also said they had offered to build a memorial garden on the site after Dr Lee moves out and the house is demolished. But Mr Teo "was reluctant and did not pursue the discussion further", he added.
Yesterday, Mr Teo, who chairs the ministerial committee, described how he had communicated with Mr Lee Hsien Yang on the issue of the Oxley Road house, adding that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had seemed supportive of some of the intermediate options the committee was studying.
He said he met Mr Lee Hsien Yang several times between April and July 2015, and informed him that PM Lee had recused himself on government decisions on the matter.
"I conveyed Cabinet's deep respect for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and that Cabinet will take very seriously Mr Lee's wishes regarding the house, as expressed in his will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the house.
"I also informed him that no decision is needed now. Dr Lee Wei Ling is living in the house, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government."
From Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post yesterday, it appears he agrees a decision on the house need not be made now, said Mr Teo.
"So there is no difference of views between Mr LHY (Lee Hsien Yang) and the Government on when a decision is to be made," he added.
Mr Teo had explained the committee's responsibilities several times since the dispute between the Lee siblings went public earlier this month, and the two younger siblings accused the committee of harassing them at the Prime Minister's bidding.
Yesterday, he reiterated that the committee was set up to study and lay out the range of possible options for the house, and present them to the Cabinet.
"Cabinet will only decide on which option to choose, when the time comes for a decision to be made on the house," said Mr Teo.
"If, for example, Dr LWL (Lee Wei Ling) ceases to live in the house next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month. If she stays there for 30 more years, then the government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide."
The committee had written to the two younger siblings to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications, he added.
To illustrate, it highlighted in writing that converting the house to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning, he said.
Mr Teo said he had also verbally told Mr Lee Hsien Yang his personal views on some of the options, like demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached.
"My objective was to let him know that the Government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options," he said.
Addressing Mr Lee Hsien Yang's point on the memorial park, Mr Teo said he does not recall which of them made the suggestion. But, he said, Mr Lee Hsien Yang is "mistaken that I expressed reluctance".
Memorial park at Oxley site among options, says DPM Teo
He describes how he communicated with Lee Hsien Yang on issue, saying the latter seemed to support some ideas
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said yesterday that both he and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had spoken of a memorial park at the site of the house of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew as being one of a range of intermediate options.
He also said the Government and Mr Lee Hsien Yang seemed to agree there was no need to make a decision on demolishing the house now, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still living in it.
Given these points of agreement, he said, there was no need to disagree on studying options for the time a decision needed to be made on the fate of the house.
Mr Teo also said in his statement that the ministerial committee set up for the task was not bent on preventing the demolition of 38, Oxley Road, as may be believed by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the late Mr Lee's younger son.
He made these points in a statement responding to Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post earlier in the day, in the ongoing dispute involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his two younger siblings.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote that he and his sister, Dr Lee, had never asked the Government to demolish the house right away.
He also said they had offered to build a memorial garden on the site after Dr Lee moves out and the house is demolished. But Mr Teo "was reluctant and did not pursue the discussion further", he added.
Yesterday, Mr Teo, who chairs the ministerial committee, described how he had communicated with Mr Lee Hsien Yang on the issue of the Oxley Road house, adding that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had seemed supportive of some of the intermediate options the committee was studying.
He said he met Mr Lee Hsien Yang several times between April and July 2015, and informed him that PM Lee had recused himself on government decisions on the matter.
"I conveyed Cabinet's deep respect for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and that Cabinet will take very seriously Mr Lee's wishes regarding the house, as expressed in his will, at a time when a decision has to be made regarding the house.
"I also informed him that no decision is needed now. Dr Lee Wei Ling is living in the house, and a decision made prospectively by the current government could not bind a future government."
From Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post yesterday, it appears he agrees a decision on the house need not be made now, said Mr Teo.
"So there is no difference of views between Mr LHY (Lee Hsien Yang) and the Government on when a decision is to be made," he added.
Mr Teo had explained the committee's responsibilities several times since the dispute between the Lee siblings went public earlier this month, and the two younger siblings accused the committee of harassing them at the Prime Minister's bidding.
Yesterday, he reiterated that the committee was set up to study and lay out the range of possible options for the house, and present them to the Cabinet.
"Cabinet will only decide on which option to choose, when the time comes for a decision to be made on the house," said Mr Teo.
"If, for example, Dr LWL (Lee Wei Ling) ceases to live in the house next month, then Cabinet will have to decide next month. If she stays there for 30 more years, then the government in place, in 30 years, will have to decide."
The committee had written to the two younger siblings to clarify that it would list the various options and study their implications, he added.
To illustrate, it highlighted in writing that converting the house to a park would require studying the implications on the area, including for planning and zoning, he said.
Mr Teo said he had also verbally told Mr Lee Hsien Yang his personal views on some of the options, like demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached.
"My objective was to let him know that the Government was not bent on retaining the house as he seems to believe, but that we are calmly and objectively examining a range of options," he said.
Addressing Mr Lee Hsien Yang's point on the memorial park, Mr Teo said he does not recall which of them made the suggestion. But, he said, Mr Lee Hsien Yang is "mistaken that I expressed reluctance".
"I said that I personally did not support the options on the extreme ends of the range - preserving the house as it is, or demolishing the house to redevelop it for new private residences," said Mr Teo.
There are, indeed, a range of viable intermediate options, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang "seems supportive" of some that the committee is studying. "So, there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made."
There are, indeed, a range of viable intermediate options, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang "seems supportive" of some that the committee is studying. "So, there should be no need to disagree on studying the options for the time when a decision needs to be made."
PSD polling public officers on Oxley Road spat as allegations involve integrity of public sector
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
The Public Service Division (PSD) is polling public officers about the ongoing dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings because, it said, the integrity of the public sector has been questioned.
The PSD said yesterday that "the allegations made go beyond private matters and extend to the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions".
Its statement comes after screenshots of the poll were circulated on Facebook, with some people questioning the use of public resources to conduct a poll on "family matters".
PM Lee's siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, have accused him of abusing his power and using a ministerial committee to harass them over their late father's house, a claim he has refuted.
Responding to media queries about the poll, the PSD said: "We are polling public officers to understand their sentiments on this issue as it involves the integrity of our public institutions, of which they are an important part."
It added that it periodically polls public officers on issues that matter to them as part of "stakeholder engagement".
One of the screenshots of the poll included a note to respondents that says participation is kept strictly confidential and individual responses are not identifiable.
Another screenshot depicts questions in the poll.
PM Lee had said earlier that he will deliver a ministerial statement in Parliament on July 3 to refute his siblings' "baseless accusations".
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
The Public Service Division (PSD) is polling public officers about the ongoing dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings because, it said, the integrity of the public sector has been questioned.
The PSD said yesterday that "the allegations made go beyond private matters and extend to the conduct and integrity of the Government and our public institutions".
Its statement comes after screenshots of the poll were circulated on Facebook, with some people questioning the use of public resources to conduct a poll on "family matters".
PM Lee's siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, have accused him of abusing his power and using a ministerial committee to harass them over their late father's house, a claim he has refuted.
Responding to media queries about the poll, the PSD said: "We are polling public officers to understand their sentiments on this issue as it involves the integrity of our public institutions, of which they are an important part."
It added that it periodically polls public officers on issues that matter to them as part of "stakeholder engagement".
One of the screenshots of the poll included a note to respondents that says participation is kept strictly confidential and individual responses are not identifiable.
Another screenshot depicts questions in the poll.
PM Lee had said earlier that he will deliver a ministerial statement in Parliament on July 3 to refute his siblings' "baseless accusations".
Parliament, not Facebook, the proper forum for Oxley Road dispute
The airing of a family feud over social media does not befit a government and family of Singapore's and the Lees' stature - Parliament is the proper forum for submitting the facts to public scrutiny.
By Robert Boxwell, Published The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
Don't click "Like" if you're sick of the airing of political disputes and celebrity family troubles on social media.
The latest - incessant tweets by US President Donald Trump aside - is the Facebook attack this month on Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong by his siblings. Suddenly the one country in Asia that has seemed above it for the past half-century is embroiled in a scandal.
I have no basis to wade into the arguments on either side of the Lee family feud, but I know two things for certain: social media is not the place for it; and one should never click "send" in the wee hours of the morning because you'll probably "covfefe" it when you wake up.
So, good for Mr Lee Hsien Loong for mostly resisting the temptation to respond in kind. Instead, he said he would "refute" the "accusations" in Singapore's Parliament on July 3, followed by a session for all MPs to "raise questions for themselves and their constituents".
It looks like a page from his father's playbook. In the mid-1980s, as Singapore was muddling into its first recession since independence, a few Members of Parliament began criticising Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his fellow ministers about their salaries. One told constituents on the stump that ministers made as much in a day as some of Singapore's workers made in a month.
Another noted that Mr Lee's monthly salary, about $31,000, was a lot more than salaries paid to his contemporaries around Asia. As the annual budget debate approached in March 1985, Mr Lee prepared to address his critics openly in Parliament.
At the outset of his remarks, on a Friday afternoon, he told Singaporeans he could do one of two things: demolish "the specious arguments of (an accuser) and score debating points"; or talk about Singapore's future. He did the latter which, in the end, effectively did the former. He came prepared with facts, delivered with the same wit and subtle mockery he used to rout the opposition before Singapore's first election in 1959, and hold power for three decades.
How is Singapore to preserve its most precious asset, an administration that is absolutely corruption free, a political leadership that can be subject to the closest scrutiny because it sets the highest standards? he asked. "Just think about your future. How do you ensure that a fortuitous, purely accidental group of men who came in in 1959, and after 26 years of office... have remained stainless?"
Over the course of two hours, he noted the corruption in practically every other country in the neighbourhood, often through vignettes about little shakedowns. "Any traveller knows that from the moment you hit the airport to the time you get into a taxi... you know the difference: whether a place works on rules or it bends rules."
Addressing the pay issue directly, he said: "We have tried to recruit like-minded, equally committed, men. But they are of a different generation, and I am not saying that they would not have made the same sacrifices. I could still pay them on the old rates, but would I be doing the right thing by them and by the country?"
To continue to attract the best people to Government, he argued, leaders had to be paid market rates.
He walked the MPs through a table. The top bankers in Singapore made $147,000 per month. The top architects, $125,000. Lawyers, engineers, stockbrokers, doctors, were all making more than their counterparts in Government. Finally, he came to car dealers. At $32,103 per month, they, too, were making more than Mr Lee and his fellow ministers. "So I could improve my lot by becoming a car dealer," he deadpanned.
The "debate" was done at that point, but he wasn't. An opposition member raised the issue of official residences. "I have an official residence... I have not regretted not using it other than for purposes of entertainment. I think I have brought up a family which has a better sense of proportion as a result of living in Oxley Road."
And he made a point that would become famous in the West a few years later when he repeated it in an interview with a Western reporter: "I am one of the best-paid and probably one of the poorest of the Third World prime ministers."
Mr Lee Hsien Loong doesn't strike me as a chip off the old block in a tough rhetorical sense, nor should he. Thanks to his father's generation, he grew up in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
But his style and wit are not what the public need to see anyway. It's how his actions stand against what he's been accused of by his sister and brother. And he chose a forum that seems to ensure fairness and full disclosure on these issues. He's gone so far as to "drop the party whip", meaning even members of his own People's Action Party are free to give him a full grilling if they desire. Bringing facts to the floor for public scrutiny, like his father did, is the best way to communicate with the people of Singapore.
The cacophony of social media, of fake news and leaks, of gossip and gotcha, is hardly contributing to thoughtful discussion at a time when the world needs it more than ever. No matter your side on the Lee family issue, it's encouraging to see Mr Lee Hsien Loong move his communication off the Internet and into a forum befitting of a government and family of Singapore's and the Lees' stature. Would that other governments around the world take note.
The writer, who is based in Kuala Lumpur, is director of the international consultancy Opera Advisors. This article first appeared in the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong daily.
The airing of a family feud over social media does not befit a government and family of Singapore's and the Lees' stature - Parliament is the proper forum for submitting the facts to public scrutiny.
By Robert Boxwell, Published The Straits Times, 28 Jun 2017
Don't click "Like" if you're sick of the airing of political disputes and celebrity family troubles on social media.
The latest - incessant tweets by US President Donald Trump aside - is the Facebook attack this month on Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong by his siblings. Suddenly the one country in Asia that has seemed above it for the past half-century is embroiled in a scandal.
I have no basis to wade into the arguments on either side of the Lee family feud, but I know two things for certain: social media is not the place for it; and one should never click "send" in the wee hours of the morning because you'll probably "covfefe" it when you wake up.
So, good for Mr Lee Hsien Loong for mostly resisting the temptation to respond in kind. Instead, he said he would "refute" the "accusations" in Singapore's Parliament on July 3, followed by a session for all MPs to "raise questions for themselves and their constituents".
It looks like a page from his father's playbook. In the mid-1980s, as Singapore was muddling into its first recession since independence, a few Members of Parliament began criticising Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his fellow ministers about their salaries. One told constituents on the stump that ministers made as much in a day as some of Singapore's workers made in a month.
Another noted that Mr Lee's monthly salary, about $31,000, was a lot more than salaries paid to his contemporaries around Asia. As the annual budget debate approached in March 1985, Mr Lee prepared to address his critics openly in Parliament.
At the outset of his remarks, on a Friday afternoon, he told Singaporeans he could do one of two things: demolish "the specious arguments of (an accuser) and score debating points"; or talk about Singapore's future. He did the latter which, in the end, effectively did the former. He came prepared with facts, delivered with the same wit and subtle mockery he used to rout the opposition before Singapore's first election in 1959, and hold power for three decades.
How is Singapore to preserve its most precious asset, an administration that is absolutely corruption free, a political leadership that can be subject to the closest scrutiny because it sets the highest standards? he asked. "Just think about your future. How do you ensure that a fortuitous, purely accidental group of men who came in in 1959, and after 26 years of office... have remained stainless?"
Over the course of two hours, he noted the corruption in practically every other country in the neighbourhood, often through vignettes about little shakedowns. "Any traveller knows that from the moment you hit the airport to the time you get into a taxi... you know the difference: whether a place works on rules or it bends rules."
Addressing the pay issue directly, he said: "We have tried to recruit like-minded, equally committed, men. But they are of a different generation, and I am not saying that they would not have made the same sacrifices. I could still pay them on the old rates, but would I be doing the right thing by them and by the country?"
To continue to attract the best people to Government, he argued, leaders had to be paid market rates.
He walked the MPs through a table. The top bankers in Singapore made $147,000 per month. The top architects, $125,000. Lawyers, engineers, stockbrokers, doctors, were all making more than their counterparts in Government. Finally, he came to car dealers. At $32,103 per month, they, too, were making more than Mr Lee and his fellow ministers. "So I could improve my lot by becoming a car dealer," he deadpanned.
The "debate" was done at that point, but he wasn't. An opposition member raised the issue of official residences. "I have an official residence... I have not regretted not using it other than for purposes of entertainment. I think I have brought up a family which has a better sense of proportion as a result of living in Oxley Road."
And he made a point that would become famous in the West a few years later when he repeated it in an interview with a Western reporter: "I am one of the best-paid and probably one of the poorest of the Third World prime ministers."
Mr Lee Hsien Loong doesn't strike me as a chip off the old block in a tough rhetorical sense, nor should he. Thanks to his father's generation, he grew up in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
But his style and wit are not what the public need to see anyway. It's how his actions stand against what he's been accused of by his sister and brother. And he chose a forum that seems to ensure fairness and full disclosure on these issues. He's gone so far as to "drop the party whip", meaning even members of his own People's Action Party are free to give him a full grilling if they desire. Bringing facts to the floor for public scrutiny, like his father did, is the best way to communicate with the people of Singapore.
The cacophony of social media, of fake news and leaks, of gossip and gotcha, is hardly contributing to thoughtful discussion at a time when the world needs it more than ever. No matter your side on the Lee family issue, it's encouraging to see Mr Lee Hsien Loong move his communication off the Internet and into a forum befitting of a government and family of Singapore's and the Lees' stature. Would that other governments around the world take note.
The writer, who is based in Kuala Lumpur, is director of the international consultancy Opera Advisors. This article first appeared in the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong daily.
Lee Hsien Yang: I've no confidence of a fair account in Parliament
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Straits Times, 30 Jun 2017
Parliament is not the correct forum to look into allegations made in the Oxley Road dispute, said Mr Lee Hsien Yang, adding that he has "no confidence that a fair, transparent or complete account of events will be told".
The younger brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took to Facebook again yesterday, this time to voice "serious concerns" about the Prime Minister delivering a ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday to refute his siblings' charges.
"Only his side of the story will air, with no promise of truthfulness due to parliamentary privilege," said Mr Lee Hsien Yang. "Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege."
It is the latest twist in an ongoing feud over the fate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38, Oxley Road.
The dispute erupted into the public sphere on June 14, when Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, issued a six-page statement on Facebook accusing their elder brother of abusing his powers in a bid to prevent the demolition of the house.
They also declared that they had lost faith in PM Lee as both leader of the country and brother, and made several allegations. Among them is the claim that PM Lee was misusing his influence over the Singapore Government and its agencies "to drive his personal agenda".
On Tuesday, in response to media queries on the various Facebook posts by his siblings, PM Lee said that the allegations about what he supposedly did or did not do "are mostly inaccurate".
PM Lee had added: "As I earlier said, I will be making a statement in Parliament on July 3, 2017. I will at that time deal with the allegations that need to be addressed."
PM Lee has also instructed that the People's Action Party's (PAP) party Whip be lifted, and urged all MPs, including non-PAP MPs, to examine the issues thoroughly and question him and his Cabinet colleagues vigorously, adding that he hoped this full, public airing "will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government".
Yesterday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang described the Prime Minister's move to address the allegations on July 3 as an attempt to "cover up and whitewash himself" in Parliament.
He called the parliamentary session "yet another example" of how PM Lee has misused "his position and influence to drive his personal agenda".
The session, he said, is a forum that again places PM Lee before his subordinates who, he claimed, lack sufficient background and evidence of "the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised".
"Even before the session, many of them appear to have felt obliged to give him cover. Many MPs will fear career repercussions if they speak out against their superior," said Mr Lee Hsien Yang. "Historically, few PAP MPs have dared to dissent even when the party Whip was lifted."
He added that there is no opportunity or adequate time for evidence to be properly drawn together, placed before Parliament and considered. Neither will there be any opportunity for an examining body to properly probe explanations or excuses.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang said: "We believe that key issues such as his abuse of power will be simply swept under the carpet. The accused controls both process and outcome in this forum."
In the past weeks, the two younger Lee siblings have raised several instances that they claim illustrate PM Lee's misuse of power and influence.
They have, for one thing, accused him of abusing his power to obtain a deed of gift directly from the National Heritage Board (NHB) in his private capacity.
The deed concerns the donation and public exhibition of items belonging to the late Mr Lee for an NHB exhibition on Singapore's founding fathers last year.
National Development Minister Lawrence Wong, who was then Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, responded to say that PM Lee was given the deed in his official capacity.
Another bone of contention has been a ministerial committee that was set up to study options for the house. The two younger Lees have charged that the committee was shrouded in secrecy, and formed to block the demolition of the house.
Another bone of contention has been a ministerial committee that was set up to study options for the house. The two younger Lees have charged that the committee was shrouded in secrecy, and formed to block the demolition of the house.
Plans for Oxley house 'became less definitive' over time
Govt Communications chief Janadas Devan calls Lee Wei Ling's post 'misleading'
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 1 Jul 2017
Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew may have wanted his 38, Oxley Road house torn down on his death, but as time passed, "it became less definitive whether the house would be demolished - and if so, when".
Chief of Government Communications Janadas Devan said this in a Facebook reply yesterday morning to a post by Dr Lee Wei Ling, the late Mr Lee's daughter.
Earlier in the day, she had posted on Facebook a copy of an e-mail between her and Mr Devan, in which he appeared to affirm that Mr Lee wanted the house demolished after his death.
Dr Lee said: "We thought that Singaporeans should hear directly from Janadas Devan, chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communications and Information."
Dr Lee also produced an excerpt from a statutory declaration Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had made to a ministerial committee considering options for the Oxley Road house.Govt Communications chief Janadas Devan calls Lee Wei Ling's post 'misleading'
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 1 Jul 2017
Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew may have wanted his 38, Oxley Road house torn down on his death, but as time passed, "it became less definitive whether the house would be demolished - and if so, when".
Chief of Government Communications Janadas Devan said this in a Facebook reply yesterday morning to a post by Dr Lee Wei Ling, the late Mr Lee's daughter.
Earlier in the day, she had posted on Facebook a copy of an e-mail between her and Mr Devan, in which he appeared to affirm that Mr Lee wanted the house demolished after his death.
Dr Lee said: "We thought that Singaporeans should hear directly from Janadas Devan, chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communications and Information."
In it, PM Lee said his father had "taken a number of steps which put beyond any doubt that he came to accept Cabinet's position" that it was unlikely to agree to demolish the house after he died.
In his reply, Mr Devan told Dr Lee: "Your latest post blares, tabloid-style, misleading information."
He said: "The e-mail you quote was written when I was associate editor of Straits Times, not chief of Government Communications."
The e-mail was sent to her by Mr Devan in 2011 after he had met Mr Lee, who was then minister mentor.
"Saw MM today. First meeting on Oxley book, together with team. He was in good form. He said house will be torn down. It is obvious that is what he wants," wrote Mr Devan.
The e-mail continued: "It will be a small-minded people that denies him this personal wish.
"I think he's wrong wishing it, but I'd feel awful denying him what he obviously wants."
Yesterday, Mr Devan said he had met Mr Lee to discuss a possible book on the Oxley Road house. He added that "when he met us in July 2011, he made plain that he wanted the house to be demolished".
"But as the months and years passed, the nature of the project changed as it became less definitive whether the house would be demolished - and if so, when," he wrote in his reply to Dr Lee.
"For example, we were told that you will be staying in the house for as long as you live. Then I learnt plans to build a model of the interior of 38, Oxley Rd was dropped - because, I gathered, Mr Lee was considering plans to gut the interior of the house altogether to remove traces of the private space."
Mr Devan said there was "no doubt then or now" that Mr Lee's preference was for the house to be demolished, but he pointed out that "shifting instructions" from the Lee family from 2011 to 2012, including Dr Lee, "indicated the fate of the house had by no means been decided at that point".
"My personal view remains that Mr Lee's wish to demolish 38, Oxley Rd should be granted the moment you are no longer living in it, which may be 20, 30 or more years in the future," Mr Devan said.
He also said to Dr Lee: "I am as baffled as most Singaporeans why Hsien Yang and you wish to consume all of us in your personal family matters. Please: Think of Singapore, and forget the rest."
He also said to Dr Lee: "I am as baffled as most Singaporeans why Hsien Yang and you wish to consume all of us in your personal family matters. Please: Think of Singapore, and forget the rest."
Oxley Road dispute: What's at stake in July 3 session
Parliament sits on Monday to debate the issues surrounding the Oxley Road family residence of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. What's at stake is nothing less than the quality of governance here.
By Gillian Koh, Published The Straits Times, 1 Jul 2017
The parliamentary sitting scheduled for July 3 must not only help clarify the complicated matters relating to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's property at 38, Oxley Road, but also uphold the image of governance in Singapore that he and generations of national leaders have painstakingly built over the years.
The allegations made about the integrity of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's son, and that of the Government, by his other children in their June 14 public statement will be subject to further examination.
With the declaration that the Whip will be lifted on People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, and the security of parliamentary privilege, all members of the House, including those of the PM's party, have licence to pose searing questions following the PM's planned Ministerial Statement.
It is not just Singaporeans, but also people and leaders the world over who will be watching what ensues after that debate. Hopefully, they will feel that there is a richer base of information, knowledge and argumentation by which to judge if Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, who made the allegations, have a case at all.
What is at stake here?
Singapore has been recognised as an exceptional country that beat the odds of being a small, poor, post-colonial state by operating with a strong rule of law, superior organisational capacity and excellent governance standards. Its public leaders make it known that they hold themselves to high standards of performance and straight-talking integrity in everything they do.
As the founding fathers passed from the scene, the foremost of whom was the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, many here and outside of Singapore wanted to know how deep these standards go, and how long the country will continue to be well governed.
The 38, Oxley Road saga seems to have played right into the hands of Singapore's detractors looking for evidence to prove that only one family calls all the shots here.Parliament sits on Monday to debate the issues surrounding the Oxley Road family residence of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. What's at stake is nothing less than the quality of governance here.
By Gillian Koh, Published The Straits Times, 1 Jul 2017
The parliamentary sitting scheduled for July 3 must not only help clarify the complicated matters relating to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's property at 38, Oxley Road, but also uphold the image of governance in Singapore that he and generations of national leaders have painstakingly built over the years.
The allegations made about the integrity of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's son, and that of the Government, by his other children in their June 14 public statement will be subject to further examination.
With the declaration that the Whip will be lifted on People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, and the security of parliamentary privilege, all members of the House, including those of the PM's party, have licence to pose searing questions following the PM's planned Ministerial Statement.
It is not just Singaporeans, but also people and leaders the world over who will be watching what ensues after that debate. Hopefully, they will feel that there is a richer base of information, knowledge and argumentation by which to judge if Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, who made the allegations, have a case at all.
What is at stake here?
Singapore has been recognised as an exceptional country that beat the odds of being a small, poor, post-colonial state by operating with a strong rule of law, superior organisational capacity and excellent governance standards. Its public leaders make it known that they hold themselves to high standards of performance and straight-talking integrity in everything they do.
As the founding fathers passed from the scene, the foremost of whom was the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, many here and outside of Singapore wanted to know how deep these standards go, and how long the country will continue to be well governed.
How much more plausible, too, if the allegations came from one section of that family against the other.
The irony may be that the PM's siblings seem to be asking for an exemption from the rule of law, acting like they wish for an upfront commitment to the demolition of 38, Oxley Road. Given its special nature, the Government has the obligation to assess what is the public interest at hand, even as it has conceded to a position that no decision is needed as long as Dr Lee lives there. This was expressed by PM Lee in his parliamentary statement on April 15, 2015.
Since the siblings' public statement, government ministers have also assured all that there is no presumption that the property will be preserved or demolished, as the siblings had cast doubt on the objectives of their ministerial committee looking into options for the house. So, let us accept that all the questions about the house are moot till Dr Lee no longer resides in it.
On the other hand, PM Lee has sold all his interest in the property, donated all the proceeds from that, and said he has recused himself from government deliberations on the property.
Since he can never run away from the fact that he is the late Mr Lee's son, the only move the PM could make was to remove himself from the government side of the equation.
So, has he tried to re-insert himself into that equation? And even if he did, would that constitute a conflict of interest or abuse of power? This is what all members of the House will have to help the public ascertain.
It may then be inevitable too, that scrutiny will fall on the motivations and actions of the PM's siblings. We are given to understand that all three children were asked for their input, especially on the circumstances surrounding the crafting of the late Mr Lee's final will, by the ministerial committee. The PM's siblings were due to respond to the committee when they issued their public statement.
So, this saga has fed into local and international interest seeking to understand if Singapore is just another ordinary country, ridden with feudal and dynastic politics.
How citizens respond to the parliamentary debate, online as well as offline, will determine its effect on our self-image and international brand.
In addition to that, if the argument about the abuse of power is judged to be baseless, what should the repercussions be on those who made the allegations? Will it then restore or further erode our international standing? External parties will judge by the quality of debate citizens have on the issue.
There are at least three things we can say about the saga at this stage.
First, the obligation to be held accountable is still strong in government circles.
By taking to Facebook, the PM's siblings can share their candid views, unfiltered, at a time and manner of their choosing. Government leaders, too, have proven to be ready to respond point-for-point even at the risk of losing their audience in the detail, whereas the accusations had been sharp and provocatively put.
There are at least three things we can say about the saga at this stage.
First, the obligation to be held accountable is still strong in government circles.
By taking to Facebook, the PM's siblings can share their candid views, unfiltered, at a time and manner of their choosing. Government leaders, too, have proven to be ready to respond point-for-point even at the risk of losing their audience in the detail, whereas the accusations had been sharp and provocatively put.
As members of a democratic society, we must oblige ourselves to wrestle with the details, before we make our minds up on the issues at hand, which leads us to the next point.
Second, notions of the "abuse of power" and "conflict of interest" are indeed important, though complex ones to grasp, as the details do matter.
This saga must help us understand them better and establish how they are applied to all sides of the story - that of PM Lee, his Cabinet colleagues and the Lee siblings as well as our civic and corporate settings - this is a national teachable moment, so to speak.
Third, the facts with specific regard to PM Lee's interest are that he no longer has a claim to 38, Oxley Road; and yet, that as the PM, he has every right to lead his Government's actions to follow due process and apply the rule of law.
The fact is that probate has been granted on the late Mr Lee's will and nothing will change unless challenged legally. The final fact is that the Government and PM Lee have stated that no decision is needed until Dr Lee no longer resides at 38, Oxley Road.
My final thoughts: I am struck by the deep level of distrust that the Lee siblings have for each other. While no national strategic interest is compromised, there clearly is a large emotional stake involved.
Whether the PM has recused himself from the issue, the Singapore State has the final say within the law and the Constitution. Can the allegations of abuse of power stick if the Government's worst crime, with or without Mr Lee Hsien Loong's influence, is first, to check on what the late Mr Lee wanted, and second, to consider what the public interest is in dealing with the property; not undermine it?
Yet, we can imagine that if there is a PAP government with ministers who had direct interaction with the late Mr Lee in it when a decision is needed, that government will probably seek a compromise between upholding the public interest and not disrespecting the wishes of the PAP's key founding member.
If a non-PAP government were in place instead, we can also imagine that it may be less likely to preserve 38, Oxley Road, given its weaker affinity to the property.
Also, I am struck by the idea that anyone believes much political capital can be made out of residing in or keeping the Oxley Road house, as has been suggested.
In pragmatic Singapore, voters are far more likely to support leaders based on merit, performance, and direct value to their livelihood. They are not likely to allow future leaders, PAP or otherwise, to take short-cuts.
If anything, any political capital arising from this whole episode will be one of deficit, not gain, which is why we must tune in and exercise our democratic discernment come Monday.
Dr Gillian Koh is Deputy Director (Research) at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.
If anything, any political capital arising from this whole episode will be one of deficit, not gain, which is why we must tune in and exercise our democratic discernment come Monday.
Dr Gillian Koh is Deputy Director (Research) at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.
Chee Hong Tat: Lee Kuan Yew wouldn't have wanted baseless allegations made that hurt Singapore
The Straits Times, 2 Jul 2017
Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not have wished for a family dispute to be turned into a public quarrel that hurt Singapore's international standing.
Neither would he have wished for baseless allegations to be made against Government leaders and institutions, undermining confidence in the systems he created, Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat said last night, in a Facebook post on the ongoing feud involving Mr Lee's children.
Mr Chee, who was the late Mr Lee's Principal Private Secretary from 2008 to 2011, said he was greatly saddened to see what had been happening over the past two weeks, "especially when I think of the pain it would bring to Mr and Mrs Lee".
"The wild allegations have damaged Singapore's reputation, something Mr Lee spent his entire life building up," he wrote.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling are embroiled in a running dispute with their elder brother Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong over their father's wishes for his home at 38, Oxley Road.
The younger Lee siblings want to demolish the house, saying it would be in accordance with his wishes, and have alleged that PM Lee wants to preserve the house for political gain, although PM Lee has made clear that as a son, he supports his father's wish for demolition.
The latest statement comes ahead of a Parliament debate starting Monday, during which PM Lee will address allegations of abuse of power in relation to 38, Oxley Road.
The Straits Times, 2 Jul 2017
Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not have wished for a family dispute to be turned into a public quarrel that hurt Singapore's international standing.
Neither would he have wished for baseless allegations to be made against Government leaders and institutions, undermining confidence in the systems he created, Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat said last night, in a Facebook post on the ongoing feud involving Mr Lee's children.
Mr Chee, who was the late Mr Lee's Principal Private Secretary from 2008 to 2011, said he was greatly saddened to see what had been happening over the past two weeks, "especially when I think of the pain it would bring to Mr and Mrs Lee".
"The wild allegations have damaged Singapore's reputation, something Mr Lee spent his entire life building up," he wrote.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling are embroiled in a running dispute with their elder brother Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong over their father's wishes for his home at 38, Oxley Road.
The younger Lee siblings want to demolish the house, saying it would be in accordance with his wishes, and have alleged that PM Lee wants to preserve the house for political gain, although PM Lee has made clear that as a son, he supports his father's wish for demolition.
The latest statement comes ahead of a Parliament debate starting Monday, during which PM Lee will address allegations of abuse of power in relation to 38, Oxley Road.
In his post, Mr Chee said in his three years working with the late Mr Lee, who died in March 2015, aged 91, he had got to know Dr Lee and they became friends.
"Wei Ling is someone I admire and respect. She has strong views and can be very blunt at times, but she has a good heart and genuinely cares for the people around her," he wrote.
"I do not believe Wei Ling will intentionally cause harm to her country. So I have asked myself over and over again, why is she doing this? Has she been misled and misunderstood what happened?"
Mr Chee noted that Mr Lee would always put the country's interests above personal ones, and believed in the rule of law, and that no one was above the law.
"Knowing Mr Lee, he would be the first to insist that the law must apply equally to his will and the house at 38, Oxley Road just as it does to all other Singaporeans... I have no doubt Mr Lee would want his successors in the Government to continue to uphold these systems and values. He would not have wanted his family to be given special treatment," he said.
Mr Chee also noted Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said he is "a man working to honour his father's wishes".
"Singapore was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lifelong passion and it is his legacy. Mr Lee would not wish for a family dispute to be turned into a public quarrel that hurt Singapore's international standing. Neither would he wish for baseless allegations to be made against Government leaders and institutions, undermining confidence in the systems he created," he said.
"If my former Boss were still around, I think he would want everyone to put Singapore as the priority and stop all the quarrelling and finger-pointing, so that we can get back to running the country, solving the practical problems we are facing and improving the lives of our people," he added.
Mr Chee also noted Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said he is "a man working to honour his father's wishes".
"Singapore was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lifelong passion and it is his legacy. Mr Lee would not wish for a family dispute to be turned into a public quarrel that hurt Singapore's international standing. Neither would he wish for baseless allegations to be made against Government leaders and institutions, undermining confidence in the systems he created," he said.
"If my former Boss were still around, I think he would want everyone to put Singapore as the priority and stop all the quarrelling and finger-pointing, so that we can get back to running the country, solving the practical problems we are facing and improving the lives of our people," he added.
Oxley Road dispute: All eyes on PM Lee in Parliament on Monday, 3 July 2017
He aims to restore public confidence in his leadership and in his Government in wake of allegations of abuse of power by his siblings
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 2 Jul 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will deliver a ministerial statement tomorrow to respond to the barrage of allegations by his siblings that he misused his power, in what is likely to be the most closely watched Parliament debate in years.
In doing so, he hopes to restore public confidence and dispel any doubts that have been planted by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, who have accused him of misusing his power in a bid to prevent their late father's house at 38, Oxley Road from being demolished.
The feud between the Lee siblings had erupted into the public sphere on June 14, when Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee posted a statement on Facebook to say they had lost confidence in their older brother's leadership, and feared the use of organs of state against them.
They also made many other allegations against him, such as that he used his position as prime minister to influence a ministerial committee considering options for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house.
In response, PM Lee issued a statement the next day through his lawyers, in which he raised questions and serious concerns about the preparation of his father's last will.
His siblings fired back on Facebook, criticising PM Lee, his wife Ho Ching, and the "secret" ministerial committee which they claimed was focused solely on challenging the validity of the last will.
The public airing of the dispute prompted PM Lee to apologise to the nation for the harm it caused to Singapore's reputation and Singaporeans' confidence in the Government.
He noted that his siblings' "baseless allegations" extended to the conduct of his office and the Government's integrity - which made it necessary to have a "full, public airing" in Parliament, and, in a rare move, lift the party whip so all MPs can examine the issues thoroughly.
Political observers say the dispute ceased to be a private family matter when it started playing out on social media in full view of the public, with allegations that PM Lee had abused his power.
Says Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute: "It has become a national story with global implications for Singapore's image and reputation as a country that has always been on top of things with a well-functioning government and an existing social compact between the Government and the people of Singapore."
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean will also deliver a ministerial statement tomorrow, on the ministerial committee that he set up and chairs to consider options for the Oxley Road property.
These range from demolition to preservation, and include intermediate options like demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached.
Tomorrow's debate will not be the first time the government of the day tackles issues related to its integrity in Parliament.
In 1996, Parliament spent three days debating the sales of condominium units by developer Hotel Properties at discounted rates to then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
PM Lee's standing, as well as public trust and confidence in his leadership, is at stake this time, says Associate Professor Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University's School of Law.
He notes that to the public, the endorsement of Parliament is taken as a "foregone conclusion" as it is dominated by MPs from the People's Action Party, which PM Lee leads.
"Ultimately, PM Lee will have to prevail in the court of public opinion," he says.
"How he goes about defending himself and his Government matters immensely to Singaporeans."
He aims to restore public confidence in his leadership and in his Government in wake of allegations of abuse of power by his siblings
By Royston Sim, Assistant Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 2 Jul 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will deliver a ministerial statement tomorrow to respond to the barrage of allegations by his siblings that he misused his power, in what is likely to be the most closely watched Parliament debate in years.
In doing so, he hopes to restore public confidence and dispel any doubts that have been planted by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, who have accused him of misusing his power in a bid to prevent their late father's house at 38, Oxley Road from being demolished.
The feud between the Lee siblings had erupted into the public sphere on June 14, when Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee posted a statement on Facebook to say they had lost confidence in their older brother's leadership, and feared the use of organs of state against them.
They also made many other allegations against him, such as that he used his position as prime minister to influence a ministerial committee considering options for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house.
In response, PM Lee issued a statement the next day through his lawyers, in which he raised questions and serious concerns about the preparation of his father's last will.
His siblings fired back on Facebook, criticising PM Lee, his wife Ho Ching, and the "secret" ministerial committee which they claimed was focused solely on challenging the validity of the last will.
The public airing of the dispute prompted PM Lee to apologise to the nation for the harm it caused to Singapore's reputation and Singaporeans' confidence in the Government.
He noted that his siblings' "baseless allegations" extended to the conduct of his office and the Government's integrity - which made it necessary to have a "full, public airing" in Parliament, and, in a rare move, lift the party whip so all MPs can examine the issues thoroughly.
Political observers say the dispute ceased to be a private family matter when it started playing out on social media in full view of the public, with allegations that PM Lee had abused his power.
Says Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute: "It has become a national story with global implications for Singapore's image and reputation as a country that has always been on top of things with a well-functioning government and an existing social compact between the Government and the people of Singapore."
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean will also deliver a ministerial statement tomorrow, on the ministerial committee that he set up and chairs to consider options for the Oxley Road property.
These range from demolition to preservation, and include intermediate options like demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with a heritage centre attached.
Tomorrow's debate will not be the first time the government of the day tackles issues related to its integrity in Parliament.
In 1996, Parliament spent three days debating the sales of condominium units by developer Hotel Properties at discounted rates to then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
PM Lee's standing, as well as public trust and confidence in his leadership, is at stake this time, says Associate Professor Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University's School of Law.
He notes that to the public, the endorsement of Parliament is taken as a "foregone conclusion" as it is dominated by MPs from the People's Action Party, which PM Lee leads.
"Ultimately, PM Lee will have to prevail in the court of public opinion," he says.
"How he goes about defending himself and his Government matters immensely to Singaporeans."
38 Oxley Road debate in Parliament:
Day 1 - 3 July 2017
Day 2 - 4 July 2017
* Lees' public feud takes conciliatory turn; Lee Hsien Yang and Wei Ling say they accept offer to settle dispute in private
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
The possibility of reconciliation between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings emerged yesterday, with both sides agreeing to try and iron out their differences in private.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they welcomed PM Lee's desire, expressed in Parliament on Tuesday, to manage the quarrel outside the public arena.
In the seven-page statement, they offered a truce, saying they would cease making further accusations against PM Lee on social media "provided that we and our father's wish are not attacked or misrepresented".
Responding in a statement last night, PM Lee said he shares his younger siblings' wish not to carry on their dispute in public.
"That is exactly what I have been trying to do," he said.
The public feud between the three children of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew started on June 14, when Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement on Facebook accusing PM Lee of blocking their father's wish to demolish his 38, Oxley Road home, so that PM Lee could gain political capital from it.
They also charged that PM Lee had abused his power by hijacking organs of state and forming a ministerial committee to preserve the house.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are joint executors and trustees of the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
PM Lee had denied and refuted their allegations in a Ministerial Statement during a two-day Parliament sitting this week.
No MPs had produced additional charges or substantiated the claims made by his siblings, PM Lee noted, saying this showed he and his Government had acted properly and with due process.
He also told the House that it was unrealistic to hope the matter, which had affected the country's reputation, would be put to rest.
But he said he hoped to reconcile with his siblings one day.
Yesterday, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang also provided a 10-page summary of allegations they had made against PM Lee, saying there is "evidence we have yet to show", some of which is "too complex" to be presented online. "We reserve this to show to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one," they said.
PM Lee noted that his siblings had repeated their previous allegations against him, adding: "I have already refuted these and stand by what I have said."
His siblings also claimed yesterday that their attempts at reconciliation, after their initial statement on June 14, were rebuffed.
On this ceasefire offer, PM Lee said: "They wanted me to call off my Ministerial Statement and the debate in Parliament, disband the ministerial committee and not respond to their accusations. I could not agree to do any of that. It would have been improper and irresponsible."
By Toh Yong Chuan, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
The possibility of reconciliation between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings emerged yesterday, with both sides agreeing to try and iron out their differences in private.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement saying they welcomed PM Lee's desire, expressed in Parliament on Tuesday, to manage the quarrel outside the public arena.
In the seven-page statement, they offered a truce, saying they would cease making further accusations against PM Lee on social media "provided that we and our father's wish are not attacked or misrepresented".
Responding in a statement last night, PM Lee said he shares his younger siblings' wish not to carry on their dispute in public.
"That is exactly what I have been trying to do," he said.
The public feud between the three children of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew started on June 14, when Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang issued a statement on Facebook accusing PM Lee of blocking their father's wish to demolish his 38, Oxley Road home, so that PM Lee could gain political capital from it.
They also charged that PM Lee had abused his power by hijacking organs of state and forming a ministerial committee to preserve the house.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are joint executors and trustees of the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who died on March 23, 2015, at the age of 91.
PM Lee had denied and refuted their allegations in a Ministerial Statement during a two-day Parliament sitting this week.
No MPs had produced additional charges or substantiated the claims made by his siblings, PM Lee noted, saying this showed he and his Government had acted properly and with due process.
He also told the House that it was unrealistic to hope the matter, which had affected the country's reputation, would be put to rest.
But he said he hoped to reconcile with his siblings one day.
Yesterday, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang also provided a 10-page summary of allegations they had made against PM Lee, saying there is "evidence we have yet to show", some of which is "too complex" to be presented online. "We reserve this to show to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one," they said.
PM Lee noted that his siblings had repeated their previous allegations against him, adding: "I have already refuted these and stand by what I have said."
His siblings also claimed yesterday that their attempts at reconciliation, after their initial statement on June 14, were rebuffed.
On this ceasefire offer, PM Lee said: "They wanted me to call off my Ministerial Statement and the debate in Parliament, disband the ministerial committee and not respond to their accusations. I could not agree to do any of that. It would have been improper and irresponsible."
In a separate statement, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the remarks by Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang on managing the disagreement in private were a "positive development".
"With this development, I hope that we can all work together and focus our energy on taking Singapore forward."
As for their allegations against the ministerial committee and public agencies and officers, DPM Teo said: "The Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament."
"With this development, I hope that we can all work together and focus our energy on taking Singapore forward."
As for their allegations against the ministerial committee and public agencies and officers, DPM Teo said: "The Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament."
Lee Wei Ling, Hsien Yang offer truce with conditions attached
They want 'attacks' on last will to stop, taking it as Mr Lee's last word on house
By Toh Yong Chuan Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
After three weeks of accusations and rebuttals, the three children of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew have taken a step towards resolving an acrimonious public feud that started over the fate of their family home.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, younger siblings of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said yesterday that they welcome their elder brother's desire to settle their quarrel in private, and "look forward to talking without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies".
For now, they will stop posting further allegations and evidence against him on social media, they added, but with one condition: Provided that their wish and their father's desire to demolish the house at 38, Oxley Road "are not attacked or misrepresented".
This means not "attacking" their father's last will and taking it as his last word on the house, they said.
In a seven-page statement on Facebook, they said: "(We) do not wish to see Singapore embroiled in a never-ending public argument... Ultimately, it is up to the Government, and the people of Singapore, to decide whether and how to hold Lee Hsien Loong to account."
Despite this, they also released a 10-page summary of the allegations they have made against PM Lee and the evidence they have cited to prove their case.
They warned that there is evidence they "have yet to show", some of which is "too complex" to be presented online. They are keeping the option open to show it "to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one", they added.
The two had gone public with their dispute on June 14, accusing PM Lee of abusing his power and thwarting the demolition of their father's house at 38, Oxley Road for political gain.
PM Lee, refuting these charges in a two-day Parliament sitting this week, said the Government had merely been ensuring that due process was followed, and he had kept his private and public interests separate by recusing himself from all government decisions on the house.
He also said he hoped to reconcile with his siblings one day.
In their latest statement, the younger siblings said they have not spoken to their elder brother since April 12, 2015, when their father's will was read. Describing that day as the point of no return, they said PM Lee had shouted at and intimidated them when they quarrelled over their father's wish.
The sticking point was the interpretation of the late Mr Lee's wish for the house as expressed in a clause in his last will. He died on March 23, 2015, aged 91.
The younger siblings believed their father was uncompromising in wanting the house pulled down as he did not want Singaporeans to create a cult around him, while PM Lee believed he was open to preserving parts of it because of its historical value.
They want 'attacks' on last will to stop, taking it as Mr Lee's last word on house
By Toh Yong Chuan Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
After three weeks of accusations and rebuttals, the three children of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew have taken a step towards resolving an acrimonious public feud that started over the fate of their family home.
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, younger siblings of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said yesterday that they welcome their elder brother's desire to settle their quarrel in private, and "look forward to talking without the involvement of lawyers or government agencies".
For now, they will stop posting further allegations and evidence against him on social media, they added, but with one condition: Provided that their wish and their father's desire to demolish the house at 38, Oxley Road "are not attacked or misrepresented".
This means not "attacking" their father's last will and taking it as his last word on the house, they said.
In a seven-page statement on Facebook, they said: "(We) do not wish to see Singapore embroiled in a never-ending public argument... Ultimately, it is up to the Government, and the people of Singapore, to decide whether and how to hold Lee Hsien Loong to account."
Despite this, they also released a 10-page summary of the allegations they have made against PM Lee and the evidence they have cited to prove their case.
They warned that there is evidence they "have yet to show", some of which is "too complex" to be presented online. They are keeping the option open to show it "to a truly open and independent investigation, if there ever is one", they added.
The two had gone public with their dispute on June 14, accusing PM Lee of abusing his power and thwarting the demolition of their father's house at 38, Oxley Road for political gain.
PM Lee, refuting these charges in a two-day Parliament sitting this week, said the Government had merely been ensuring that due process was followed, and he had kept his private and public interests separate by recusing himself from all government decisions on the house.
He also said he hoped to reconcile with his siblings one day.
In their latest statement, the younger siblings said they have not spoken to their elder brother since April 12, 2015, when their father's will was read. Describing that day as the point of no return, they said PM Lee had shouted at and intimidated them when they quarrelled over their father's wish.
The sticking point was the interpretation of the late Mr Lee's wish for the house as expressed in a clause in his last will. He died on March 23, 2015, aged 91.
The younger siblings believed their father was uncompromising in wanting the house pulled down as he did not want Singaporeans to create a cult around him, while PM Lee believed he was open to preserving parts of it because of its historical value.
The basement dining room of the house was where the People's Action Party was founded by the late Mr Lee and his friends.
The two younger siblings said yesterday that they were "gobsmacked" when PM Lee told them he had hired a lawyer to deal with the matter.
"Soon, Hsien Loong ceased to communicate with us directly," they said. "The first Chinese New Year reunion after our father's death, our brother invited all relatives except us."
They also said that they had tried to reach out to PM Lee through intermediaries over the past two years, without success.
On why they went public, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said: "Would you keep quiet, if you were executors of your father's will, and your brother abused his position to challenge your father's court- proven will and undermine your father's dying wish?"
They added that while their father had made "backup plans" in his will in case his wish was not fulfilled, it did not mean he "desires or accepts that the event should happen".
PM Lee had raised serious misgivings about the will, saying it was not clear who drafted it, but his siblings did not address this in their statement yesterday. They said: "We hope that he will cease attacking the will. If the Government respects the separation of powers, it should treat Lee Kuan Yew's will as the last word on the matter."
A ministerial committee formed to study options for the late Mr Lee's house had raised their ire after asking them questions on the late Mr Lee's will.
Yesterday, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said they were glad that the committee has acknowledged it has no authority to rule on the validity of the will, and would not be doing so.
But they added that they would not be making "further submissions to the committee in its current form".
Apologising to Singaporeans for taking their quarrel online, the siblings said they did so because they had no "unfiltered access" to mainstream media.
"We have made a lot of mistakes along the way; please forgive us," they said.
They acknowledged the support they have received, and said they also recognised that some people had different views on the house and its preservation.
"We respect your views and your voice. You have our heartfelt thanks," they said.
PM Lee had raised serious misgivings about the will, saying it was not clear who drafted it, but his siblings did not address this in their statement yesterday. They said: "We hope that he will cease attacking the will. If the Government respects the separation of powers, it should treat Lee Kuan Yew's will as the last word on the matter."
A ministerial committee formed to study options for the late Mr Lee's house had raised their ire after asking them questions on the late Mr Lee's will.
Yesterday, Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang said they were glad that the committee has acknowledged it has no authority to rule on the validity of the will, and would not be doing so.
But they added that they would not be making "further submissions to the committee in its current form".
Apologising to Singaporeans for taking their quarrel online, the siblings said they did so because they had no "unfiltered access" to mainstream media.
"We have made a lot of mistakes along the way; please forgive us," they said.
They acknowledged the support they have received, and said they also recognised that some people had different views on the house and its preservation.
"We respect your views and your voice. You have our heartfelt thanks," they said.
Lee siblings' version of dispute
The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
MARCH 23, 2015
Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew dies at age 91.
APRIL 12, 2015
The late Mr Lee's last will is read to family members, and a quarrel ensues.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, say he shouted at them and intimidated them, and they have not spoken since.
CHINESE NEW YEAR 2016
PM Lee hosts a Chinese New Year reunion for relatives, the first after the death of the late Mr Lee. The siblings say they were not invited.
BETWEEN APRIL 2015 AND JUNE 14, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say they attempted to reach out to PM Lee through various intermediaries, without success.
JUNE 14, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang release a Facebook statement saying they have lost confidence in PM Lee and fear the use of state organs against them, citing a ministerial committee set up to consider options for their late father's house. "We privately offered a ceasefire shortly after our statement of June 14, 2017. Our attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed," say Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
BETWEEN JUNE 14 AND JULY 2, 2017
Accusations and rebuttals are traded over the issue. In the course of things, PM Lee brings up his misgivings over the circumstances surrounding the last will of their father.
PM Lee apologises to Singaporeans for the harm caused by the very public and protracted dispute, and says he will make a ministerial statement in Parliament to answer to the allegations.
JULY 3-4, 2017
Parliament debates the allegations over the abuse of power, with PM Lee and other ministers delivering statements to rebut the accusations.
At the end of the debate, PM Lee says his siblings' "allegations have been aired, have been answered and rebutted", and there is no evidence that he or the Government has abused their power. He also says he hopes to reconcile with his siblings one day.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say "it is impossible for MPs to effectively question PM Lee, when his party controls almost all the seats in the House", despite the People's Action Party having lifted its Whip.
JULY 6, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang welcome PM Lee's gesture to settle their quarrel in private.
They add in their statement that they will not post any further evidence on social media as it will only muddy the facts. This is "provided that we and our father's wish are not attacked or misrepresented".
They also apologised to Singaporeans, saying: "We have made a lot of mistakes along the way; please forgive us."
The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew dies at age 91.
APRIL 12, 2015
The late Mr Lee's last will is read to family members, and a quarrel ensues.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, say he shouted at them and intimidated them, and they have not spoken since.
CHINESE NEW YEAR 2016
PM Lee hosts a Chinese New Year reunion for relatives, the first after the death of the late Mr Lee. The siblings say they were not invited.
BETWEEN APRIL 2015 AND JUNE 14, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say they attempted to reach out to PM Lee through various intermediaries, without success.
JUNE 14, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang release a Facebook statement saying they have lost confidence in PM Lee and fear the use of state organs against them, citing a ministerial committee set up to consider options for their late father's house. "We privately offered a ceasefire shortly after our statement of June 14, 2017. Our attempts at reconciliation were rebuffed," say Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
BETWEEN JUNE 14 AND JULY 2, 2017
Accusations and rebuttals are traded over the issue. In the course of things, PM Lee brings up his misgivings over the circumstances surrounding the last will of their father.
PM Lee apologises to Singaporeans for the harm caused by the very public and protracted dispute, and says he will make a ministerial statement in Parliament to answer to the allegations.
JULY 3-4, 2017
Parliament debates the allegations over the abuse of power, with PM Lee and other ministers delivering statements to rebut the accusations.
At the end of the debate, PM Lee says his siblings' "allegations have been aired, have been answered and rebutted", and there is no evidence that he or the Government has abused their power. He also says he hopes to reconcile with his siblings one day.
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang say "it is impossible for MPs to effectively question PM Lee, when his party controls almost all the seats in the House", despite the People's Action Party having lifted its Whip.
JULY 6, 2017
Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang welcome PM Lee's gesture to settle their quarrel in private.
They add in their statement that they will not post any further evidence on social media as it will only muddy the facts. This is "provided that we and our father's wish are not attacked or misrepresented".
They also apologised to Singaporeans, saying: "We have made a lot of mistakes along the way; please forgive us."
Singapore ambassador responds to New York Times article on Oxley dispute
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 12 Jul 2017
Singapore's ambassador to the United States has rebutted an article in the New York Times (NYT) about the dispute over former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's house in Oxley Road.
The report, titled "Dispute over Singapore founder's house becomes a national crisis", was published in NYT on July 4.
It said that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's allegations against their older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, hinted at deeper divisions about Singapore's political future.
The siblings have accused their brother of abusing his power to block the demolition of their father's house.
"These charges have transformed what on the surface is an ugly estate battle into a national crisis that has raised questions about how this island nation is governed, the basis of the governing party's uninterrupted 58-year rule and how the country's leaders are chosen," wrote Mr Richard C. Paddock, a Bangkok-based contributor to the NYT.
In a letter published yesterday, Ambassador Ashok Kumar Mirpuri rejected the article's framing of the Oxley Road dispute.
He wrote that it "promotes the absurd notion that Singaporeans link the legitimacy of their government with the fate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house".
Mr Ashok noted that PM Lee made a full statement in Parliament on July 3 in response to accusations by his siblings of abuse of power over the house. "He explained how he had recused himself from all government decisions concerning the house, and also sold the house to his brother, so that he no longer has any interest or influence over the house," he wrote.
"No Member of Parliament made any allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing against the PM during the debate, nor has anyone else produced specific evidence to back the siblings' vague allegations," he said.
"There is no national crisis in Singapore," he added.
Mr Ashok's letter was edited by the NYT, which deleted a line.
A full copy of the letter was issued to the media by Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs last night.
It contained the line NYT had deleted, which said: "I am surprised that NYT did not seek any comments from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong or the Singapore Government before writing the piece."
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 12 Jul 2017
Singapore's ambassador to the United States has rebutted an article in the New York Times (NYT) about the dispute over former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's house in Oxley Road.
The report, titled "Dispute over Singapore founder's house becomes a national crisis", was published in NYT on July 4.
It said that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's allegations against their older brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, hinted at deeper divisions about Singapore's political future.
The siblings have accused their brother of abusing his power to block the demolition of their father's house.
"These charges have transformed what on the surface is an ugly estate battle into a national crisis that has raised questions about how this island nation is governed, the basis of the governing party's uninterrupted 58-year rule and how the country's leaders are chosen," wrote Mr Richard C. Paddock, a Bangkok-based contributor to the NYT.
In a letter published yesterday, Ambassador Ashok Kumar Mirpuri rejected the article's framing of the Oxley Road dispute.
He wrote that it "promotes the absurd notion that Singaporeans link the legitimacy of their government with the fate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's house".
Mr Ashok noted that PM Lee made a full statement in Parliament on July 3 in response to accusations by his siblings of abuse of power over the house. "He explained how he had recused himself from all government decisions concerning the house, and also sold the house to his brother, so that he no longer has any interest or influence over the house," he wrote.
"No Member of Parliament made any allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing against the PM during the debate, nor has anyone else produced specific evidence to back the siblings' vague allegations," he said.
"There is no national crisis in Singapore," he added.
Mr Ashok's letter was edited by the NYT, which deleted a line.
A full copy of the letter was issued to the media by Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs last night.
It contained the line NYT had deleted, which said: "I am surprised that NYT did not seek any comments from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong or the Singapore Government before writing the piece."
The allegations and responses
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
Allegation: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made many contradictory statements in public and private. "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," they said.
Response: PM Lee has maintained that as a son, he wanted his father's wishes carried out.
But as Prime Minister, he has a responsibility towards the public to ensure that there was due process in considering what to do with the Oxley Road house, which has historical significance for Singapore. He has recused himself from all government decisions on the house.
Allegation: PM Lee misled Mr Lee Kuan Yew into believing that the house "was either already gazetted or would 'inevitably' be gazetted on his passing".
Response: PM Lee said he did not deceive his father. In Parliament, he showed notes that Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet, to show that his father's thinking on the house had shifted over time. He also cited family e-mails which showed that his father signed off on redevelopment plans in the event that it is not demolished.
Allegation: Mr Lee's final will was a reversion to his 2011 will and made "on his explicit instructions".
Response: PM Lee has said the final will is not perfectly identical to the first will. He also raised concerns over the circumstances in which the final will - the seventh version - was prepared.
He asked what role Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, played and whether there was a conflict of interest if she was involved, as her husband stood to gain under the will.
Allegation: Ms Ho Ching, PM Lee's wife, improperly took Mr Lee's personal items from his house without permission. She "represented" the Prime Minister's Office to loan the items to the National Heritage Board (NHB).
Response: PM Lee said he thought the items were "significant and relevant", and so facilitated and arranged for his wife to pass the items to the Prime Minister's Office, which then sent them on to the NHB.
Allegation: PM Lee acquired the Deed of Gift made to the NHB in his official capacity as Prime Minister, but gave it to his personal lawyer for personal legal fights against his siblings.
Response: PM Lee would have been entitled to receive the Deed of Gift about the donation of the late Mr Lee's personal belongings, whether it was in his private or work capacity. As a beneficiary of the estate, he had a right to know what it was donating to the NHB.
In this case, PM Lee was handed the document in his capacity as Prime Minister as he had to be updated on a major exhibition on Singapore's founding fathers, where the items would be exhibited.
PM Lee said this should not stop him from confronting his siblings over the onerous and unreasonable terms they imposed on the gift of items: "If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, especially family, it is my duty to set them right."
Allegation: PM Lee agreed to a settlement agreement with Mr Lee's estate in which he sold the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and made a joint statement asking for their father's wish to be honoured. But he then "made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge" Mr Lee's final will. The committee revealed its members "only after being forced under public scrutiny".
Response: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who chairs the committee, said that it had asked all three siblings for their views on the house. He also said it was made clear that the committee was set up to study options for the house and would not be taking a decision on the matter, but would come up with "drawer plans" for a future government to refer to when the time comes. Several ministers also said that such committees were a "normal process" of government work.
Allegation: The secret ministerial committee had little interest in examining options for 38, Oxley Road. It parroted PM Lee's attacks on the final will.
Response: DPM Teo has said the committee only delved into the late Mr Lee's will because Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang relied on it as proof that their late father was uncompromising in wanting his house demolished.
PM Lee also said in his submissions to the committee that he had serious misgivings about the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the will.
The committee said its interest in the will is only limited to understanding the late Mr Lee's views on the house, and that it did not have the power to determine or question the validity of the will.
DPM Teo also said this was made clear to all three siblings from the start.
Allegation: PM Lee used a parliamentary debate "to whitewash himself". He has also not subjected himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.
Response: PM Lee has said Parliament is the right forum for the matter to be given a full airing, and other contentious issues had been addressed in Parliament in the past.
Before the debate, PM Lee asked for the People's Action Party Whip to be lifted and urged MPs from both sides of the House to question him robustly and thoroughly. He repeated this during his speech.
He also released his speeches as statements outside the House, thus waiving his right to parliamentary privilege which gives his words legal immunity. This means he can be sued for libel for what he said.
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
Allegation: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made many contradictory statements in public and private. "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," they said.
Response: PM Lee has maintained that as a son, he wanted his father's wishes carried out.
But as Prime Minister, he has a responsibility towards the public to ensure that there was due process in considering what to do with the Oxley Road house, which has historical significance for Singapore. He has recused himself from all government decisions on the house.
Allegation: PM Lee misled Mr Lee Kuan Yew into believing that the house "was either already gazetted or would 'inevitably' be gazetted on his passing".
Response: PM Lee said he did not deceive his father. In Parliament, he showed notes that Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet, to show that his father's thinking on the house had shifted over time. He also cited family e-mails which showed that his father signed off on redevelopment plans in the event that it is not demolished.
Allegation: Mr Lee's final will was a reversion to his 2011 will and made "on his explicit instructions".
Response: PM Lee has said the final will is not perfectly identical to the first will. He also raised concerns over the circumstances in which the final will - the seventh version - was prepared.
He asked what role Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, played and whether there was a conflict of interest if she was involved, as her husband stood to gain under the will.
Allegation: Ms Ho Ching, PM Lee's wife, improperly took Mr Lee's personal items from his house without permission. She "represented" the Prime Minister's Office to loan the items to the National Heritage Board (NHB).
Response: PM Lee said he thought the items were "significant and relevant", and so facilitated and arranged for his wife to pass the items to the Prime Minister's Office, which then sent them on to the NHB.
Allegation: PM Lee acquired the Deed of Gift made to the NHB in his official capacity as Prime Minister, but gave it to his personal lawyer for personal legal fights against his siblings.
Response: PM Lee would have been entitled to receive the Deed of Gift about the donation of the late Mr Lee's personal belongings, whether it was in his private or work capacity. As a beneficiary of the estate, he had a right to know what it was donating to the NHB.
In this case, PM Lee was handed the document in his capacity as Prime Minister as he had to be updated on a major exhibition on Singapore's founding fathers, where the items would be exhibited.
PM Lee said this should not stop him from confronting his siblings over the onerous and unreasonable terms they imposed on the gift of items: "If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, especially family, it is my duty to set them right."
Allegation: PM Lee agreed to a settlement agreement with Mr Lee's estate in which he sold the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and made a joint statement asking for their father's wish to be honoured. But he then "made extensive submissions to a secret ministerial committee to challenge" Mr Lee's final will. The committee revealed its members "only after being forced under public scrutiny".
Response: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who chairs the committee, said that it had asked all three siblings for their views on the house. He also said it was made clear that the committee was set up to study options for the house and would not be taking a decision on the matter, but would come up with "drawer plans" for a future government to refer to when the time comes. Several ministers also said that such committees were a "normal process" of government work.
Allegation: The secret ministerial committee had little interest in examining options for 38, Oxley Road. It parroted PM Lee's attacks on the final will.
Response: DPM Teo has said the committee only delved into the late Mr Lee's will because Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang relied on it as proof that their late father was uncompromising in wanting his house demolished.
PM Lee also said in his submissions to the committee that he had serious misgivings about the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the will.
The committee said its interest in the will is only limited to understanding the late Mr Lee's views on the house, and that it did not have the power to determine or question the validity of the will.
DPM Teo also said this was made clear to all three siblings from the start.
Allegation: PM Lee used a parliamentary debate "to whitewash himself". He has also not subjected himself to any independent inquiry on the matters.
Response: PM Lee has said Parliament is the right forum for the matter to be given a full airing, and other contentious issues had been addressed in Parliament in the past.
Before the debate, PM Lee asked for the People's Action Party Whip to be lifted and urged MPs from both sides of the House to question him robustly and thoroughly. He repeated this during his speech.
He also released his speeches as statements outside the House, thus waiving his right to parliamentary privilege which gives his words legal immunity. This means he can be sued for libel for what he said.
PM Lee, DPM Teo welcome Lee siblings' wish to take dispute private
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday night that he shared his siblings' wish to take private their dispute over their father's 38, Oxley Road house.
Separately, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the siblings' move was a "positive development". The statements by both leaders mark a conciliatory turn in the saga, which has played out in a back-and-forth over social media for more than three weeks.
In the statement issued by his office, PM Lee explained why he rejected an earlier offer by his siblings to take their disagreements private after it spilt over into the public sphere last month. Meanwhile, DPM Teo addressed allegations against the Government the siblings again reiterated in their statement yesterday.
The statements by the two top leaders and the younger Lee siblings come after a two-day parliamentary debate this week that PM Lee called for. During the sitting, the Government addressed concerns over the abuse of power brought up by both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, including against a ministerial committee DPM Teo had set up to discuss options for the Oxley Road house.
Both statements are reproduced here.
REPLY FROM PM LEE HSIEN LOONG TO THE PUBLIC STATEMENT BY DR LEE WEI LING AND MR LEE HSIEN YANG
I note my siblings' latest public statement. I share their wish not to carry on the dispute in public and to manage the disagreement in private. That is exactly what I have been trying to do.
My siblings' statement also repeats their previous allegations against me. I have already refuted these and stand by what I have said.
My siblings referred to a ceasefire offer from them. They wanted me to call off my Ministerial Statement and the debate in Parliament, disband the Ministerial Committee, and not respond to their accusations. I could not agree to do any of that. It would have been improper and irresponsible.
STATEMENT BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER TEO CHEE HEAN
I note that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have stated on 6 July 2017 that they welcome Mr Lee Hsien Loong's desire, stated on 4 July 2017, to manage the disagreement in private. Like most Singaporeans, I regard this as a positive development.
With regard to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's allegations against the Ministerial Committee, public agencies and public officers, the Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament.
With this development, I hope that we can all work together and focus our energy on taking Singapore forward.
By Danson Cheong, The Straits Times, 7 Jul 2017
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday night that he shared his siblings' wish to take private their dispute over their father's 38, Oxley Road house.
Separately, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the siblings' move was a "positive development". The statements by both leaders mark a conciliatory turn in the saga, which has played out in a back-and-forth over social media for more than three weeks.
In the statement issued by his office, PM Lee explained why he rejected an earlier offer by his siblings to take their disagreements private after it spilt over into the public sphere last month. Meanwhile, DPM Teo addressed allegations against the Government the siblings again reiterated in their statement yesterday.
The statements by the two top leaders and the younger Lee siblings come after a two-day parliamentary debate this week that PM Lee called for. During the sitting, the Government addressed concerns over the abuse of power brought up by both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, including against a ministerial committee DPM Teo had set up to discuss options for the Oxley Road house.
Both statements are reproduced here.
REPLY FROM PM LEE HSIEN LOONG TO THE PUBLIC STATEMENT BY DR LEE WEI LING AND MR LEE HSIEN YANG
I note my siblings' latest public statement. I share their wish not to carry on the dispute in public and to manage the disagreement in private. That is exactly what I have been trying to do.
My siblings' statement also repeats their previous allegations against me. I have already refuted these and stand by what I have said.
My siblings referred to a ceasefire offer from them. They wanted me to call off my Ministerial Statement and the debate in Parliament, disband the Ministerial Committee, and not respond to their accusations. I could not agree to do any of that. It would have been improper and irresponsible.
STATEMENT BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER TEO CHEE HEAN
I note that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have stated on 6 July 2017 that they welcome Mr Lee Hsien Loong's desire, stated on 4 July 2017, to manage the disagreement in private. Like most Singaporeans, I regard this as a positive development.
With regard to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's allegations against the Ministerial Committee, public agencies and public officers, the Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament.
With this development, I hope that we can all work together and focus our energy on taking Singapore forward.
Related
Lee Kuan Yew's legacy is about to be destroyed by daughter and other son; Lee Wei Ling and Hsien Yang use Facebook to demand demolition of LKY's house
Was Lee Kuan Yew rushed into signing his last will?
PM Lee Hsien Loong releases summary of statutory declarations to ministerial committee looking into options for Oxley Road house - 15 June 2017
PM Lee Hsien Loong apologises for damage to Singapore caused by family dispute over Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and 38 Oxley Road
38 Oxley Road: Symbol of the Singapore story
PM Lee Hsien Loong Ministerial Statement on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" in Parliament on 3 July 2017
38 Oxley Road debate in Parliament:
Day 1 - 3 July 2017
Day 2 - 4 July 2017
Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on Ministerial Committee - 17 June 2017
Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on 38 Oxley Road - 19 June 2017
Ministerial Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" - 3 July 2017
Ministerial Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road - 3 July 2017
Closing Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Closing Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Oxley Road Dispute
Was Lee Kuan Yew rushed into signing his last will?
PM Lee Hsien Loong releases summary of statutory declarations to ministerial committee looking into options for Oxley Road house - 15 June 2017
PM Lee Hsien Loong apologises for damage to Singapore caused by family dispute over Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and 38 Oxley Road
38 Oxley Road: Symbol of the Singapore story
PM Lee Hsien Loong Ministerial Statement on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" in Parliament on 3 July 2017
38 Oxley Road debate in Parliament:
Day 1 - 3 July 2017
Day 2 - 4 July 2017
Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on Ministerial Committee - 17 June 2017
Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on 38 Oxley Road - 19 June 2017
Ministerial Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" - 3 July 2017
Ministerial Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road - 3 July 2017
Closing Statement by PM Lee Hsien Loong on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Closing Statement by DPM Teo Chee Hean on the Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road - 4 July 2017
Oxley Road Dispute
No comments:
Post a Comment