Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Blow, blow the Wind of Change!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ministerial Committee versus Hague Tribunal


Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, another member of the SPP, described the Ministerial Committee as a “tragic joke”.
“It is like the Boss of a company has a quarrel with Mr Someone. Then the Boss gathers a number of his employees and empowers them to decide who is right: he (the Boss) or Mr Someone. Boss submits a long testimony to this group of his employees giving them his account of the events and his opinion about Mr Someone’s motives.
How on earth can such a group of subordinates, who are otherwise answerable to the Boss, be expected to act independently and to able to make an objective decision? Does such a dubious committee really have the option to decide against their Boss?
It is a rule of natural justice that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause: “Nemo judex in causa sua”. Asking your underlings to determine the outcome of a case in which you have a personal interest in, is to me a breach of that rule.
Tragically, the joke is on us, the citizenry. For it does not bode well for us when we cannot detect, turn a blind eye to or condone conflict of interests and use of state powers for personal benefits.”
After reading Jeannette Chong’s comment about the Ministerial Committee it straight away reminded me of the ‘UN supported’ Hague Tribunal that ruled against China on the SCS Islands case. In this tribunal, supposedly a private court that willing parties went for an arbitration but the western media trying to con the world that it was a ‘UN backed’ organization as if it was an UN body, it was set up unilaterally by the Philippines and its backers ie the USA and Japan, without China participating, chose its own judges, paid the judges to decide in their favour against China. And the Americans and some western countries including little USAs went about trumpeting that it was a fair and ‘UN backed’ court and that its decision must be complied with. Today all these silly buggers are like what the Hokien phrase said, ‘chui tat lan’, all voiceless, become dumb, after their scheme was exposed as hollow, silly and mischievous.

Now, would this kind of court be a tragic joke, ridiculous? Setting up your own court, choosing and buying your own judges to judge against another party that did not agree and did not want to be a part of it? Compares the Ministerial Committee to this kangaroo court, which is the bigger joke? Was there any natural justice, did supporting this kangaroo court bode well for Singapore as a country that has been touting the rule of law?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Lee Family Feud – The public trial begins with the jury out there
Many of you have not noticed and still waiting for 3 Jul for the pre trial
of the Lee Family Feud. What has actually happened is that the trial has
commenced with the used of main and social media by the respective parties.
Hsien Loong’s position is being reported in the main media and Hsien
Yang/Wei Ling are getting their points heard over the social media, ie
facebook and other social media sites.


Both parties are throwing out punches and parrying with counter punches and
all reported fully in the respective media. This is as good as an open trial in court but
reported in freely for everyone interested to read. And it is as good as it
gets without the legal counsels trying to distract from the main issues
with their legal jargons and nuances. It is not that the legal counsels are
not involved. Every statement made by either party is carefully vetted and
advised by their respective counsels before being aired in the media.


Trump has been so disappointed with the main media with their lies and
private agenda and has resorted to Twitters to air his points as clearly as
what he intended to. Using the alternative media is now a tool of choice
for one to express one’s position without being distorted by the main
media or not being reported.


Hsien Yang/Wei Ling are adopting the same methodology, to use a media that
they can trust and have full control over what they want to say. Now who is saying social media is untrustworthy, producing fake news when such important issues are published in social media and deliberately avoiding the main media for their 'credibility' issue. Hsien
Loong is also using his choice media to say his peace, a media that he can
trust to say exactly what he wants.


And what comes out of this episode is a trial by public media, in an open
court and both know that the judges would be the people. Yes it would be judged by a jury and the jury is the public, the people at large. They are speaking
to the people to explain their case. And in a way acknowledged that the
people are the unofficial judges that they have to convince and win over.


This is a new development in the age of technology and instant
communication presenting exactly what the authors wanted to present. And
you, the people out there, you are the judges. Welcome to the brave new world
of instant media. And in such a trial, the person using social media
actually has an advantage over the main media as their positions are aired
instantly while using the traditional media would have to wait for the
media to be printed and delivered in the streets. The audience is wide and
plenty and not restricted to just a few learned judges to decide what is
what. Here everyone reading is a judge and would make his own judgement on
the case. Enjoy being entertained and being given the privilege to judge
this case in the comfort of your home. No need to pay for train or bus fare
to attend court, and at your own time.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Lee Family Feud – Objectively speaking

There are basically two parts to this family feud. One is about the fate of the family house in Oxley Road. The second part is about allegations about Hsien Loong’s integrity. The first part is easy to deal with, legallee, oops, sorry should be spelt legally.

LKY being a lawyer by training and knowing what his rights were as a citizen, knew very well that his will is but the will of a private citizen. He could write his will but ultimately it is the govt that would make the decision on what it wants to do with the house. And the govt has all the right and reasons to gazette it as a national monument under the National Heritage Board. LKY had conceded this point if you read his will carefully. He is not above the law and the law or the state has the final say in this matter.

What is this thing called the Ministerial Committee and why was it delving into the intricacies of the will? The Ministerial Committee should do all its due diligence on what is the best thing to do with the house and make a recommendation to the govt on what should be good for country, taking note of LKY’s last wish. And if it so chooses to gazette the house as a national monument, it would be nice and polite to explain to the family of its decision and make the appropriate compensation for acquiring the property.

The tricky part is how to say it to the family especially when it was LKY’s last wish and many people would like to grant him that for what he had done and would hope that the govt could agree, not that the govt must obey LKY’s last wish. Period.

What is disgusting and patronising is for people to cast aspersion about the intellect and soundness of mind of Lee Kuan Yew when he signed the will. LKY, should these people forget, had a double first in law from Cambridge, a rare honour given to the brightest law student from this great university. Many of those that are making silly remarks about LKY not knowing what he signed in his will, that he carelessly signed without reading, without knowing, is uncalled for. Some even suggested that he needed legal advice from those that would best got a second class upper law degree or the very few first class from NUS.

How many of these people could advise LKY when they could not even hold a candle to him in matters of law and when writing a will is not rocket science?

The less these people try to discredit LKY when he is already not around to use his knuckle duster on them the better it is for their own credibility. No one is really good enough to tell LKY what he should write in his will. This is a no nonsense and very meticulous man. This is a no brainer. He is not senile or mad when he signed his will. And he is no fool. No one could trick him into doing things that he did not want. Want to question his intent?

The second part of this feud is the troublesome one. Hsien Yang and Wei Ling had said many things that questioned Hsien Loong’s character and suitability to be the PM. At the moment these are just allegations and they have to prove what they said with concrete evidence to make it stick. Hsien Loong on his part would have to defend these allegations, to clear his name, that he is an honourable man and a man of unquestionable integrity.

How are these allegations and Hsien Loong’s defence to be settled? Is a PM statement in Parliament satisfactory to prove that Hsien Loong is what he said he is and Hsien Yang/Wei Ling’s allegations were baseless? In Parliament it is a one sided affair with Hsien Loong saying his peace in the absence of the accusers, Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. When there are two conflicting versions to the matters at hand, it is only right and proper to settle it in a court of law where there is a neutral arbitrator to allow both sides to say their peace supported by evidence and then make a judgement on the allegations. How else can such a matter be resolved if the two parties did not meet on a level playing field? If Hsien Yang and Wei Ling could not prove their case, then it is defamation, defaming of the Prime Minister, a very serious thing.

The allegations are serious and would affect Hsien Loong’s credibility as a PM and he has no choice but to defend himself vigorously, not in a Parliament when one side with an absolute majority could just shout down the other side giving the impression that more or the majority means right or the truth.

What do you think? Can this matter rest without a judgement, without an answer? Can these allegations be left floating in the air and the people left scratching their heads or gossiping behind Hsien Loong’s back?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee Kuan Yew’s will – When white can be black
The will of Lee Kuan Yew is now the hot topic of dispute between his two children and his party, the PAP, and between the eldest son and his younger children. What is so puzzling and disputable about the will of this top legal trained politician? Here is the part that is in contention.
‘I further declare that it is my wish and the wish of my late Wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death, or if my daughter Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out.’
To me or any layperson, the will is so simple and clear. But we are just laypersons and cannot see anything wrong with the will. Only the legally trained experts, called lawyers or legal counsels, could tell you it is not so simple, and the whole will can be torn apart for so many grey or contentious areas. To these legal experts, the simple will is full of holes.
The Singapore public and the whole world have been given a lesson in how the legal experts and politicians are able to cast doubts and spin stories on a simple will by one the greatest lawyers Singapore has produced, and an eminent politician known not for shoddy and wishy washy unclear stuff. This was a man that was precise to a comma or a full stop in their proper place. In this case the legal experts and politicians are having a field day displaying their prowess, applying all their strategies, tricks and tools of the trade to prove that this will is not what it was or meant to be.
The first thing is to cast doubts on the authenticity of the will. If this does not work, cast doubts on the people that were involved in writing the will. If this does not work, question the intent of the beneficiaries, or the intent of the drafters of the will, or even the intent of the owner of the will.
Some have called these types of questions or doubt casting as clever, professionally expected, and legal ways to win a case or an argument. Some have called these brutal, devious, cunning, sly and whatever negative expressions you can find in the dictionary.
The will of Lee Kuan Yew to those that want to question his will is not only suspect for many reasons. In their attempt to cast doubt, the man himself has been dragged out into the open as an old fool, careless, unthinking and with a ‘tiada apa’ attitude when he signed the will. He did not known nor understood what he was signing, or he was conned, deceived or wrongly advised or tricked into signing a will against his wish or intent. He needed legal assistance and advice! And he did not know about it even after he is dead and buried. And now his will is becoming a joke, and he is also becoming a joke. Where is the respect for this man?
Is this how Singaporeans want to remember this man they cried for during his funeral and lined the streets under pouring rain to send him off in his last journey? While the politicians and lawyers are attacking his will directly or indirectly, while targeting his children, it is sad that this man, once revered by many and with many that pledged loyalty to him and even publicly expressed respect to him like a father or a demi god, becomes the victim of the dispute.
Lee Kuan Yew, his name and reputation are now dragged through the mud for all to see. Lee Kuan Yew and his Singapore have become an international joke by the people trying to prove their cleverness on his will.
Is this the kind of ending Singaporeans want for their renowned founding father? Before more damage is done to this man, let’s have some discretion and stop doing more harm to Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore by showing a little respect to the man for what he was. I am starting to feel sorry for this man for the way people turned against him, betrayed him, shown disrespect to him. Did he deserve this treatment?
I rest my case. Please do not throw this man into the toilet bowl in whatever you are doing. If the govt chooses to gazette his house into a national monument, just do it and spare the disgraceful gripes. Why is Lee Kuan Yew’s will an issue when the govt has all the power to gazette it?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rd of July - A day of infamy...or honour?

4th of July is the American Independence Day, a day for celebration. 3rd of July would become a very important day for Singapore and Singaporeans. On this day, Hsien Loong would be defending his integrity in Parliament, defending his position on his father's last wish, and defending the allegations by his brother and sister on the abuse of power or corruption of power. And all the MPs would be there to defend him or challenge him. No, they are there not to simply ask question. At the end of the session there is likely to be a vote of confidence on Hsien Loong's integrity and leadership as the Prime Minister.

All 81 PAP MPs are expected to vote for Hsien Loong and all 6 WP's MPs would vote against him should a vote of confidence is called no matter if the whip is lifted. No need to guess further. There could be a few votes less for Hsien Loong should a few think it wise to go to the toilet or to be on urgent leave on that day.

What would these PAP MPs be voting for? No need to ask the this question on the WP MPs. Would they be voting for honour, honesty, integrity, moral righteousness or loyalty to Hsien Loong and the PAP? Or would they be voting for the good of Singapore, Singapore's reputation as an honest and rule of law country, a country free from corruption of power and money?

On 3rd of July, all the PAP MPs must cast their vote and it will reveal what they are really made of, what they stood for, what is important to them and what is not. Not only that Hsien Loong's integrity would be called to question, every PAP MP's integrity and honour would be called to question. And they would be making a point in Parliament when they vote, of who and what they are.

On 3rd of July, the people will be watching very carefully on what the MPs said and do, on whether they deserve the respect and continue support of the people, their voters and the people of Singapore. 3rd of July would be the day to test the mettle of the PAP MPs. Abstain from voting is not an option, you are in or out.

I remember the day when at the peak of his career, Mahathir thought he was indispensable, told his ministers and MPs in Parliament that he would step down thinking that they would go down on their knees to beg him to stay on. Never would he expect that they were waiting just for that day and for him to say he would want to step down. Without missing a beat, his ministers quickly cut in to thank him for his good deeds and regretted that he was stepping down but reluctantly accepted his stepping down. They gave Mahathir no chance to retract from what he said. It was over. This must have caught Mahathir with his pants down. He could not turn around to say he was joking or did not mean what he said, and wanted to stay on as the PM. He sealed his own fate himself.

Would there be a similar moment on 3 Jul when Hsien Loong called for a vote of confidence believing that he would get 100% support from the PAP camp but to his horror, 70% voted no confidence in him as the PM? This of course is like the sun rising from the West, not in Singapore. But should such an event happen on 3 Jul, Hsien Loong could end up like Mahathir, unable to stay on as the PM. It would be a self designed bloodless coup and Singapore would have a new PM. OK, OK, don't bet on it that such a thing would ever happen in Singapore. In Singapore everything is carefully planned and under control. Oops, don’t remind me of the MRT. This is just a wild, wild thought, too much hallucination perhaps… TGIF.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singapore idol takes a beating
Barely two years after his departure from the face of Singapore and
Singapore’s political scene, this issue suddenly surfaced overnight. No one
would expect anyone to be attacking or deriding this famous founding father
of Singapore, to be brazenly attacking him personally as a person so soon
after his death, and so soon even when his party is still in absolute power
and his son is the unchallenged PM of the island. This is surprising to
everyone, even to his own party members and to the cabinet and the MPs. Who
in his right mind would dare to attack or throw negative comments at LKY
when his son is still the PM of the island?


Unfortunately this unpleasant truth is now out in the open, in the main
media and in social media. People on both sides of the political divide are
not holding their punches and are embolden by the fact that PAP ministers
are also in the game, attacking or ridiculing LKY as a man with many flaws,
unthinking or unclear in his thinking or maybe senile if not wishy washy.


What is more unexpected is that despite of all the things thrown at LKY,
only Hsien Yang and Wei Ling have stood up to defend their father and
hitting out at those saying bad things about their father. What is more
surprising is that no one on the PAP side thinks it a responsibility to
stand up to stop the barbs hurled at LKY. No minister has done so, no MP
has done so, no old or senior PAP stalwart has done so. It is like anyone
is free to do so, at your own time, your own target, fire.


So many are taking pot shots at LKY and it is not funny anymore. Poor
thing.


Are there anyone out there, within the PAP or in the public, in the civil
service, people who were beneficiaries of LKY’s policies and decisions, be
willing to stand up to defend this man they once revered and cried for?
No, no?


Anyone wants to defend kong kong? Defending kong kong is an honourable
thing to do. Never mind if the politicians are keeping mum. He is not their
kong kong after all.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The price of filial piety - $24m or $36m
There have been many guesses as to how much Hsien Yang paid Hsien Loong for the property at 38 Oxley Road. All that was known was that he paid at market price plus 50% or 150% of the market value of the property of about 12,000 sq ft. Some have made an estimate of $2,000 per sq ft for the land or approximately $24m. This is how the $24m number is being tossed around.
Why did Hsien Yang want to pay so much for this piece of property? For all we know or read, he wanted to fulfill his father’s last wish, that is to demolish the property when Wei Ling decided not to stay in the house. As simple as that. Of course some people have made many other inferences of his motive and intention, like he wants to build a multi storey condo on it and make a big profit from this deal. Hsien Yang has disputed this by saying he has offered to turn the property into a memorial garden for Lee Kuan Yew.
Both Hsien Yang and Wei Ling are fighting very hard to want to grant their father and mother their last wish, to demolish this house. This kind of filial piety is normally immeasurable. But in this case, at least one can put a monetary number to it as the minimum value of filial piety. It is $24m or $36m, a handsome sum they have paid, or Hsien Yang had paid, as a filial son.
How many people can afford or willing to pay so much money to show how much they respect and love their parents? Filial piety does not come cheap. It is rare that one can attach a value to it. This is the least Hsien Yang has paid.

The price I paid for the house was simply a price I paid to ensure my father’s wishes are honoured' Lee Hsien Yang
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The story of loyalty in Red Dot
Until the death of LKY in 2015, loyalty in Singapore is synonymous with LKY. From the politicians, party stalwarts and the common people in the streets, loyalty means loyalty to LKY. The final show of loyalty was the last day of his funeral. No Singaporean leader has ever come close to the kind of relationship and intimacy between LKY and the masses at large. There was a bond between him and many people out there, young and old.
During the GE, this loyalty to LKY was somewhat transferred or inherited by Hsien Loong and the PAP as LKY’s party. Loyalty to LKY, to PAP and to Hsien Loong was never tested or challenged till the current feud between the siblings. There was no occasion to choose loyalty to who. With Hsien Yang and Wei Ling taking sides against Hsien Loong, this loyalty is now in question. Would the loyalty to LKY be just to Hsien Loong or would there be people who would split this loyalty equally among the children of LKY, 1/3 each?
The loyalty to LKY has never been questioned or doubted at least among the PAP members and among the MPs and ministers. This appears to be cracking and apparently some PAP politicians have openly threw stones at LKY, showing scant respect to him while defending his son Hsien Loong and attacking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. There is a new loyalty to Hsien Loong. There is no indication that these people care two hoots about their loyalties to LKY or even gave it a second thought. LKY is history and there is a new loyalty to pledge to.
There is also the loyalty to Chok Tong. Chok Tong is still around and kicking on the side line. I think some must be quite close to Chok Tong and were beneficiaries and recipients of Chok Tong’s generosity and largesse and would be loyal to him especially when LKY is no longer in the equation.
Another element is the DPMs or senior PAP ministers. Do they have their own following and loyal supporters within the party or in the masses? This has never been an issue so far but when the moment comes when people and party members are faced with a choice, put in a position to make a choice, would the splintered loyalties to the different leaders become an influential factor in the fate of Hsien Loong or the next PAP leader? Or would they play down their loyalties to other individuals, suppressed them in favour of one leader like during LKY’s era and pledge their loyalties to Hsien Loong?
Would the different loyalties be fractious enough to pose a challenge to Hsien Loong’s position as the undisputed leader of the PAP or would the present fracas throw up a new leader to challenge Hsien Loong’s leadership? Is his command and control of the PAP as dominant as his father LKY and continue to rule unchallenged at least for some time to come?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee Kuan Yew’s will – A better way…
I desist from using the word wayang. What about a better way to handle the issue with a win win for everyone, especially for Hsien Loong? It can be easily done. For the moment, other then all the allegations from Hsien Yang and Wei Ling about abuses of power and govt organs, Hsien Loong is also being accused of being unfilial. All these could have been avoided with the govt gazetting the property and Hsien Loong still coming out looking good and very filial, and his siblings could not to anything about it or to accuse him of all the allegations.
Here is what I thought would be an easier and nicer way for Hsien Loong to have his cake and eat it, ie keep the property from being demolished and do whatever he wants with it and looking very, very filial and honourable and maintaining Singapore as a rule of law country. There is no need for the Ministerial Committee to go asking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling funny questions. Just get the National Heritage Board to put up a case to gazette the house as a historical and national monument.
Hsien Loong can then go to Parliament and make a plea for the demolishment of the property, telling the House that as a filial son, it is his duty to fulfill his parents’ last wish. He could even shed a few tears to make it even more emotional, to tug at the heart strings of people when the session is aired on TV plus a few photos on the front page Straits Times and other local media. Then he can let Parliament to put it to a vote and knowing that all the ministers and MPs would want to keep the house and would vote for it, he could then say his father is not above the law and he would respect the law no matter how filial he wanted to be. He would then reluctantly agree to let his father’s last wish past as the decision of Parliament is about the rule of law, above a private citizen, and he cannot go against it for personal interest. He could even make a last plea for Parliament to reconsider its decision, maybe a second voting after 3 months or 6 months of cooling off period to think it over and over again. This is what a filial son could do to try to fulfill a father’s last wish, die standing for it.
By then, whatever the decision of Parliament to keep the house, he would be seen as a filial son, honouring his father, and also respecting the law of the country. No abuse of state organs or power, just following the normal process of Parliament. Wouldn’t that be nice? And his siblings cannot accuse him of any abuse of law or being unfilial. Swee swee.
What is so difficult about this, why mess around with a Ministerial Committee and having so many ministers voluntarily standing up to run down the will of his father and at the same time running down LKY in the process? All this is so unnecessary.
It could have been done better surely, and quite easily done too.
PS. An after thought. How nice it would be if the will was put to a vote and Hsien Loong, after declaring that he has a vested in it to grant his father's last wish voted to demolish it while all his ministers and MPs voted to keep it. It could then be used to tell the world that democracy works in Singapore when the ministers and MPs dare to vote against the PM. Damn good PR for Singapore.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A fig leaf covering deep cracks
This is what Chok Tong elegantly put it, a fig leaf covering the deep cracks within the Lee family. Actually the cracks go must deeper and far wider than one would notice. The main show is the fight between the siblings, to fulfill LKY’s last wish or not to grant him his last wish. In Parliament, all the PAP ministers and MPs have taken the side of Hsien Loong, not to demolish the house at Oxley Road. Some when further to cast aspersions on LKY’s state of mind when he signed the will. The main battle is being fought with Hsien Yang and Wei Ling on one side against the PAP govt on the other side led by Hsien Loong.
There is another sub plot going on between the Lee Kuan Yew camp aka known as the PAP old guards versus the Hsien Loong camp aka the young turks. This battle blew up when the ST published an article by Kishore, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, criticizing the loud hailer diplomacy coming from the Rajaratnam School of International Studies on the South China Sea dispute. Kishore’s stand was that small states must be more circumspect and know where it stands unlike the days of LKY. Coming soon after the bollocking from China for spouting too much, talking too loud on an issue that affected every country, not just Singapore that has no stake in it, then the after effects of the Terrex Incident and the non invite to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the proponents of loud hailer diplomacy felt like Kishore was rubbing salt into the wound. They responded vigorously and violently calling Kishore’s comments as ‘muddle, mendacious and indeed dangerous’. This was quickly supported by Shanmugam as a brilliant response to slam the professor. Let me quote the Today paper, ‘Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam on Sunday said Mr Kausikan’s response was brilliant as he slammed the professor’s piece as “intellectually questionable”, adding that Singapore did not get to where it is by thinking small.’
This was not all. Kishore was accused by Kausikan and I quote the same paper, ‘I disagree, it is a thinly disguised attack on PM’. The immediate thought was that it was a way to divert the target to the PM and Kishore would not look very good or would not be in Hsien Loong’s good book for long. Kishore quickly replied that he wrote the piece a few weeks back and the timing to run it to coincide with Hsien Loong having to defend his position in Parliament was coincidental. ‘Hence, it is obviously not an attack on PM. By floating this canard, the officials are distracting attention from their own contributions to our problems.’ Kishore added. Kausikan responded by saying, ‘I accept that he may not have intended it as an attack on PM, but many read it that way…I am glad he has clarified that was not his intention.’
Many would have let this episode come to passé as a bickering between the ex govt officials. But wait a minute. Why was the call by Kishore seen as an attack on Hsien Loong? Why was Hsien Loong in the picture? A Freudian slip has let out a jigsaw piece to explain what all the shouting at China to follow the ruling of the so called ‘UN backed’ Hague Tribunal was all about and also the subsequent events related to Singapore’s relations with China and the USA. This slip makes the picture complete to the observant and why two DPMs have had to make trips to Beijing lately to mend fences.
The battle of the PAP old guards versus the young turks has just started. Fortunately or unfortunately, not many PAP old guards, or LKY camp are still around. The days of the old guards are numbered and fading away. The young turks shall rule the day and more loud hailer diplomacy can be expected. They have been bestowed the imperial edict to do so.
Kishore must be feeling very lonely. His good advice is like casting pearls to the swine. Where are the old guards? Have they pledged new loyalty given that the LKY era is over?
A new era has begun.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hsien Loong, sue, sue, sue
This call for Hsien Loong to sue is getting louder and louder. The WP has called for it in Parliament with Low Thia Khiang firing the first shot. Lim Tean has come out with a 8 minute video to tell Hsien Loong why he has to sue. Similarly the whole social media is flooded with the same call, sue, sue, sue.
Tan Jee Say up the ante by writing to the President to demand an inquiry and also calling for Hsien Loong to step down. SDP's Chee Soon Juan too made a similar call not much different from what Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament.

This is the first time in Singapore’s history that the call for the Prime Minister to step down is heard so loudly. And if Hsien Loong still refuses to sue, this call is likely to gain credence and volume. More and more people will be embolden to demand Hsien Loong to sue as this is the PAP standard for integrity and conduct of its MPs and ministers, and the PM is no exception. Sue or step down.
Singapore is a rule of law country. The law is blind and there can be no exception. Would the people allow the siblings to get away with the serious allegations of corruption and abuse of power by the PM without being sued and without the PM clearing his name in the court of law? Is Hsien Loong’s explanation in Parliament adequate to absolve him from the allegations and so he is clean and innocent and there is no need for any follow up? Case closed, move on?
Without a proper closure in the courts of law how would it affect the integrity and credibility of Hsien Loong and his standing among his ministers and his reputation among world leaders?
What if the call for his resignation continues to a state of civil disobedience, like another mass gathering at Hong Lim Park? It would not look very good for Hsien Loong nor for Singapore. There must be a proper closure for Hsien Loong to stand tall again, clean and pure and his integrity restored and unquestionable. That is the Singapore standard, the PAP standard.
The main issue cannot be about brotherly relationship or family ties. The main issue is whether the allegations have any basis, true or false. That is the crux of the matter. Not whether to sue or not to sue.

Protest at Hong Lim Park

Activist Gilbert Goh is organising a public protest on the allegations of abuse of power by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his dealings with his siblings.
The proposed event will be held at Hong Lim Park on Saturday (15 July) from 4pm to 7pm.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First world parliament absolves PM Lee from abuse of power allegations
After two days of vigorous debates with the opposition MPs and PAP MPs asking tough questions and throwing everything they had to Hsien Loong, Singapore’s first world parliament has found Hsien Loong innocent of all the charges by his brother and sister on corruption or abuse of power. ESM Chok Tong said he has full confidence in Hsien Loong’s integrity. Minister Heng Swee Kiat said there is no abuse of power. Hsien Loong also said there is no abuse of power and demand the MPs in parliament to show proof. None of the MPs could come out with any proof that Hsien Loong has abused his position as the PM. The allegations by Hsien Yang and Wei Ling were thus unfounded, unjustified and unproven. It is not easy to tarnish the reputation of our incorruptible politicians, and the squeaky clean political system has stood the test of the day, its integrity intact, faith in the govt restored. They are not paid millions for nothing.
Now that these serious allegations are out of the way and confidence has been restored on Hsien Loong as the PAP leader, the govt and the Civil Service, everything is back to normal. Chok Tong told the Parliament to move on.
What is left outstanding is the dispute on Lee Kuan Yew’s will on his house. This is a private matter and both Hsien Yang and Wei Ling have written a facebook post that they would settle these matters privately or pursue them in court. Latest is that their conditional truce is not agreeable to Hsien Loong and everyone is waiting for Act 2 to start.
The whole episode has ended just like a storm in a tea cup. Hsien Yang and Wei Ling should count themselves lucky for being the brother and sister of Hsien Loong. Otherwise, with such serious allegations and unable to prove them, they would be sued till their pants dropped.
Whatever, the storm has subsided and calm has returned to the island. The MPs and ministers can now go home and have a well deserved rest after posting so many challenging and difficult questions to Hsien Loong in Parliament. Not to forget the ministers and MPs that vigorously came out to defend their leader and forgot that they were supposed to ask questions about the allegations. They also did exceptionally well in their arguments and defence of Hsien Loong. They should deserve more than just a good rest. How about a bigger bonus or promotion?
Singaporeans have again been given a chance to watch how first world Parliament worked in full transparency without everything laid on the table, all above board, nothing to hide, and how false allegations without proof are easily dispatched to the waste bin. Our Parliament is a good example for others to learn from as a role model parliament of the first world.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Act big or act small
This debate between Kausikan and Kishore continues with Han Fook Kwang chipping in with his two cents worth in an article in the Sunday Times on 9 Jul. Han Fook Kwang was trying to point to the changing circumstances and the need to apply intelligently on lessons and policies of the past. Not every event is the same and it is important to understand the new forces in play before blindly applying past methodology that may no longer be relevant today.
One take away from Han Fook Kwang’s comment is his quoting Kausikan, ‘Small states like Singapore cannot allow their sovereignty and national interests to be dictated by others.’ This is sound and good, just like the same saying, ‘Singapore leaders stood up to major powers in the past when they attempted to intimidate them.’ On first glance, both statements are statements of principles and laudable and should be the guiding principles of small states. As such, small states must act big and talk big.
However, take a serious look at the statements and understand them a bit deeper. Both are important statements but must be applied cautiously and discriminately and not recklessly or foolhardy. Do not read the statements superficially.
Take the first statement about not allowing our sovereignty and national interests to be dictated by others. By sticking our guns onto this policy, we must also put ourselves on the other side and not to dictate on other people’s sovereignty and national interests. Get the point? We do not want others to dictate to us, and we must not dictate to others as well. Yes, do not trample onto others…
Similarly we must stand up when others try to intimidate us. There is a big difference between standing up to intimidation and trying to intimidate others, especially when it has nothing to do with us. When the big powers did not intimidate us, it is foolhardy to intimidate the big powers. When the big powers are not infringing on our sovereignty or national interests, it is silly to infringe on their sovereignty or national interests. In the South China Sea issue we are just an outlier, a peripheral party.
I think this is as simple and easy to understand as you can get, no need to explain further. The poking of our nose into the South China Sea dispute is not just being a busy body, not only minding other people’s business, but infringing on the sovereignty and national interests of China and intimidating China. We deserved to be fucked. Period. This is applying past lessons and Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking blindly, foolishly and unintelligently. Don’t fuck around with big powers when they did not fuck around with you.
There is a time to stand firm, act big when you are intimidated but act small and don’t try to intimidate the big powers when there is no need to. Small states have the right to chart its own course, but don’t be foolish to want to chart the course of big states.
A little knowledge is dangerous.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christopher De Souza’s tough questions in Parliament
Responding to Hsien Loong’s call for tough questions in Parliament on the Lee Family feud, MP De Souza submitted 10 tough questions in Parliament. The questions below were from a post in TRE titled PAP MP put forth ‘tough questions’ on familee feud’.
Mr De Souza said that it was important to investigate whether the mission of the organs of state were subservient to the agenda of any personality, as alleged by PM Lee’s siblings.

He then put forth the following ten questions to the Prime Minister and to Parliament:
1. Is it true or false that organs of state are being used to target Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling?
2. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang questioned whether “able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be sidelined to ensure Hsien Loong’s grip on power remains unchallenged.” Is it true that ensuring the Prime Minister’s power remains unchallenged trumps independent political legitimacy?
3. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, “a few of the attacks we had to face in private are now public. False accusations, character assassination, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us.” Is it true or false that the Government uses Singapore press to target Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang?
4. The siblings have said that they see “many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout public service who are constrained by Hsien Loong’s misuse of power at the very top.” Is it true that public service is constrained by the Prime Minister’s misuse of power at the top?
5. Is it true or false that the leadership and direction of the government is directed for personal purposes or any other improper purpose?
6. Is it true or false that organs of the state may be used for personal agendas?
7. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee is merely a facade that the Prime Minister is able to influence in one way or the other?
8. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee never told Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling about options they were exploring?
9. On 15 Jun 2017 at 9.25pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, “Hsien Loong’s public statement contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath. Is it true or false that the Prime Minister lied to Parliament?
10. On 14 June 2017, Lee Hsien Yang said, “Hsien Loong has asserted to the committee that Lee Kuan Yew would accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road. In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all government decisions involving 38 Oxley.” Is it true or false that the Prime Minister has misguided a ministerial committee to fulfill his own personal purposes?
The questions were tough alright. But De Souza put in all his experience as a lawyer to frame the questions in such a way like questioning or cross examining a witness and only allowed the witness to answer yes or no, in this case true or false. Hsien Loong would not be allowed to say but or if or maybe, just answer true or false. He also made it easy for the people reading the tough questions to come to a quick conclusion. 50% false answers, pass, 70% false answers, good, 90% and above false answers, distinction.
In a way the questions also made life easier for Hsien Loong, just tick true or false. So simple!
What would happen if Hsien Loong tick all as false or as yes? Who will be the judge, the Parliament, De Souza or the public? To me it is the public acting as the jury. It is anytime better than being the accused, the witness, and also the judge.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lim Tean’s speech at Hong Lim Park

For the link to Lim Tean's speech at Hong Lim Park on the Protest against abuse of power on 15 Jul 17 please go to TRE to read article,' Lawyer Lim Tean’s speech at Hong Lim Park on 15th July'.

The 30 minute speech gave a good insight on what had happened in Parliament and what is next to this episode raised by Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. Though Hsien Loong and his camp in Parliament gave the impression that everything had been properly addressed and all the allegations were unfounded and the case is closed, Lim Tean's speech called for a commission of inquiry to be initiated by the President whose two major duties are the safeguarding of the nation's reserve and the integrity of the govt.

The case is anything but closed in the eyes of many Singaporeans. And it looks like Act 2 Scene 1 has just started with the revelation that the AG’s office is looking into a private facebook post by Li Shengwu. Wei Ling has joined the play and questioning AG’s role and interest in a private correspondence. Someone squealed and this private mail is no longer private anymore. It is now all over the media.

Looks like the ball is now in the court of the AG office, to decide if there is a case to proceed on.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 17 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions