The Secretary-General of Singapore’s Democratic Party, Chee Soon Juan has written a letter addressed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to question him whether a by-election will be held at Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, following Halimah Yacob’s resignation.The full letter is attached below.
The AGC said it decided to act after Mr Li, 32, the eldest son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, failed to remove the Facebook post and to apologise by an extended deadline of 5pm on Friday.
In the Facebook post on July 15, which Mr Li set to “friends only” privacy setting but which was published by several websites and widely circulated on social media, he said foreign media had been cowed into self-censorship because of previous legal action.
He shared a link to a Wall Street Journal newspaper article giving a summary of the recent dispute which saw his father and aunt Lee Wei Ling on one side, and his uncle on the other, over their late father Lee Kuan Yew’s home on 38, Oxley Road. The article was titled Singapore, A Model Of Orderly Rule, Is Jolted By A Bitter Family Feud.
He also included a link to a 2010 New York Times commentary that was critical of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government over what it deemed as censorship of the foreign press.
AGC, in its statement on Friday, said it issued a letter of warning on July 21 to Mr Li.
In that letter, Senior State Counsel Francis Ng noted that the New York Times article described the Singapore Government as “an authoritarian regime which aggressively uses the Singapore judicial system to silence its critics, even where such criticisms are fair or valid”. The article also described the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the designer of “draconian press laws”, which have been used to suppress legitimate criticism, he wrote.
Referring to Mr Li’s Facebook post, he said: “The clear meaning of the post, in referring to ‘a pliant court system’, is that the Singapore judiciary acts on the direction of the Singapore Government, is not independent, and has ruled and will continue to rule in favour of the Singapore Government in any proceedings, regardless of the merits of the case”.
“This assertion is reinforced by your reference to, and clear endorsement of, the article,” he added, referring to the New York Times story.
Mr Li was asked to comply with the following by 5pm on July 28:
– Delete and remove the post from his Facebook page and any other social/online media and other documents in his possession, custody or control; and
– Issue and post prominently a written apology and undertaking in the terms stated in the AGC’s letter on his Facebook page.
Mr Li then wrote to the AGC to request an extension of time till 5pm on Aug 4 to respond to the AGC’s letter.
The extension was granted. But he failed to purge the contempt and to apologise by the extended deadline, said AGC.
In a Facebook post earlier on Friday, Mr Li said the post in question was not an attack on the judiciary.
“It is not my intent to attack the Singapore judiciary or to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Any criticism I made is of the Singapore Government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press,” he said.
“However, to avoid any misunderstanding of my original private post, I have amended the post so as to clarify my meaning,” he added.
His amended post was not made public on his Facebook page.
Responding to AGC’s decision to start contempt of court action against him, Mr Li wrote in a Facebook post on Friday night: “Well, this is a new development. Fortunately, my friends know how to call a spade a spade.”
Source: www.straitstimes.com
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has refused to look into Dr Lee Wei Ling’s and Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations that PM Lee Hsien Loong had abused his powers and made false statements in Parliament.
In its reply to the SDP on 21 July 2017, the AGC said that it “does not undertake investigations into the matters alleged in the letter. The persons who are the subjects of any criminal offence alleged to have been committed may lodge a police report.”
This is a curious, if not altogether hypocritical, stance. The AGC recently indicated that it would “look into” Mr Li Shengwu’s private Facebook posting which criticised the judicial system even though there was no mention that anyone had made a police report against Mr Li.
Surely, if the AGC could “look into” private Facebook messages, it can look into the serious accusations of the abuse of power by the Prime Minister.
Also, in 1997, then AG Chan Sek Keong had investigated the matter of Mr Goh Chok Tong and other ministers entering polling stations on voting day even though they were clearly not authorised to do so.
As in the 1997 incident, the “persons who are the subjects” of the alleged offence are the people of Singapore. If AG Chan – despite his inane answer that Mr Goh and company had not committed an offence as they were inside the polling station and not waiting outside it – could investigate the incident, surely AG Lucien Wong can investigate the present matter.
The added problem, of course, is that AG Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer prior to his appointment. This crucial fact was not disclosed to the public at the time the appointment was made.
Given the situation, the SDP has written to President Tony Tan to revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment. Under Section 22(1) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to do so.
Mr Lucien Wong was sworn in as AG on 16 January 2017. However, the fact that Mr Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer was revealed to the public only in June 2017. The President may not have been aware of this fact or its full implications.
The association of Mr Wong with PM Lee prior to his becoming the AG has created an acute conflict of interest which cannot be ignored. It is important that President Tan does the right thing in the interest of the people of Singapore and revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment as AG.
Any further delay or refusal to act will cause even greater erosion of confidence in our public institutions.
Source: http://yoursdp.org
When Hsien Loong offered to sell Oxley to me for SD$1.00, I immediately asked Hsien Yang to be part of the deal with me. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to deal with the house on my own. Hsien Yang did not ask to join me in purchasing the house for $1. Also, Hsien Yang had long planned to demolished the house when I no longer need it & convert it into a public garden. Neither of us were planning to profit from the deal.
As for the donation to charity, Papa was very clear in his mind, he & Mama had paid for the property at the full financial value when they bought it, there was there for no need to donate to charity any money related to transactions on Oxley.
Source: Lee Wei Ling
If he truly is a leader and if he really cares about Singapore, then Lee Hsien Loong must make the ultimate sacrifice and step down as PM.
Singapore has been dragged through the mud by the dispute. Enough is enough.
If there was no wrongdoing on the part of the government and there was no abuse of power, then Lee Hsien Loong must do the honourable thing and resign. He can take his siblings to court as a private citizen and defend his own integrity. Keep it a family matter.
What’s there to be afraid of? He won’t be PM for much longer.
Who will step up? Everyone’s favourite Tharman already ruled himself out. Heng Swee Keat dropped out of the running after his stroke. Ong Ye Kung is still in his first term as MP and Minister.
Who else is ready? And can Singaporeans accept Chan Chun Sing or Lawrence Wong as PM? It cannot get any worse than what it is now. Singapore needs to move on. The ball is in Lee Hsien Loong’s court.
Khalid
Reader Contribution