Tag: Lee Wei Ling

  • Lee Wei Ling: This Is About Singaporeans, Not About Our Home

    Lee Wei Ling: This Is About Singaporeans, Not About Our Home

    I am out of Singapore, with erratic and slow internet connection. The article that appeared in the Singapore press gave PM’s version of the story. Our letter was carefully vetted by our lawyers and obviously not in my own voice.

    My American friend who is the tour leader of my Scottish island holiday thought it a family quarrel. If it were merely a family affair, we would not have taken it public. The main message is not Hsien Yang & I fearing what PM will do to us. The most important point I want to put across is if PM can misuse his official power to abuse his siblings who can fight back, what else can he do to ordinary citizens. But our lawyer edited that main message out, and as Hsien Yang got most of the bullying, he could not help but allow his emotion to be expressed in the press statement. That is what led my American friend to conclude that it is a family quarrel.

    38 Oxley Road was bought by my parents, it is for them to decide what its fate is. My Father had told us, his children, repeatedly, that being family property, there is no need to donate to charity if Oxley were sold. Hsien Loong, as a condition for selling the house to Hsien Yang, and in his attempt to punish Hsien Yang for blocking what he wants to do with the house, stipulated that in addition to paying Hsien Loong the market value of the house, he must also donate 50% of that value to charity.

    Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are finally showing their true colours. I think these Colours show them unsuitable as PM and most certainly as PM’s wife of Singapore.

     

    Source: Lee Wei Ling

  • PM Lee Hsien Loong ‘Saddened’ By Statement From Siblings Lee Wei Ling And Lee Hsien Yang

    PM Lee Hsien Loong ‘Saddened’ By Statement From Siblings Lee Wei Ling And Lee Hsien Yang

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has expressed his disappointment and sadness over a statement issued by his siblings “publicising private family matters”.

    “I am deeply saddened by the unfortunate allegations that they have made. Ho Ching and I deny these allegations, especially the absurd claim that I have political ambitions for my son,” said Mr Lee, in response to a six-page public statement issued by his siblings on Wednesday (June 14).

    Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said in their statement that they had lost confidence in their brother, PM Lee.

    In response, 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. My siblings’ statement has hurt our father’s legacy. ”

    In their statement, which they publicised on their Facebook pages around 2am, the two siblings said they felt closely monitored and fear the use of organs of state against them and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s wife, Suet Fern.

    They also said the situation is such that Mr Lee Hsien Yang felt compelled to leave Singapore “for the foreseeable future”.

    The two siblings allege, among others, that since their father Lee Kuan Yew’s death on March 23, 2015, there have been changes in Singapore that do not reflect what the late Mr Lee stood for.

    At the centre of their statement, titled ‘What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values?’, is the 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 estate of the late Mr Lee.

    In their statement, they reiterated their father’s wish that the house be demolished upon his passing, and said their brother and his wife Ho Ching had opposed this wish as “the preservation of the house would enhance his political capital”.

    The two siblings also alleged that preserving the house would allow their brother “and his family to inherit a tangible monument to Lee Kuan Yew’s authority”.

    Prime Minister Lee responded to this by saying: “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.”

    The statement from the siblings came 1 1/2 years after Dr Lee, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and PM Lee issued a joint statement in Dec 2015 saying the brothers had each agreed to donate half the value of 38 Oxley Road to charities named in their father’s obituary notice.

    Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had said they would like to honour their father’s wish for the house to be demolished after Dr Lee ceases to live in it.

    PM Lee had said he had recused himself from all government decisions involving the house and, in his personal capacity, would also like to see this wish honoured.

    This morning, he ended his response by 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.”

     

    Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/

  • Lee Wei Ling: Contempt Of Court Bill Is Unfair And An Attempt To Silence Public

    Lee Wei Ling: Contempt Of Court Bill Is Unfair And An Attempt To Silence Public

    I just read CNA. The report seems to imply that I retract my entire first post of today. I only retract the part related to the comment on Mr. Tang Wee Sung. Mr. Shanmugam has informed me that even after the new law has been passed, it is not illegal to criticize a judgement or the AGC after the judgement has been delivered. Much of the proposed bill is ambiguous to a person not trained in legal matters.

    As per my current understanding, I stand by the rest of the statements I posted. The bill which will be passed in parliament tomorrow gives the government the right to comment whilst denying that to people. This is inconsistent with equality before the law and is an attempt to muzzle public opinion

    In Straits Times on 12/8/2016, it was reported that the contempt of court laws are set to be entered into the statutes.

    Minister Shanmugam stated that
    1) It gives the public a better sense of what action can unduly influence court proceedings, known as sub judice. Ironically, Sub Judice rules were set up for situation where there is laymen jury who may be naïve enough to be misled by rumours or lead by emotion rather than logic as in religious or racial issues. It was this weakness of having a jury swayed by ignorance or emotions that lead our founding PM Lee Kuan Yew, to do away with Juries in Singapore courts. If your judges are so vulnerable, then the cabinet is at fault for its choice of candidates proposed to be promoted to be judges.

    2) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishments. The maximum penalty is a fine up to $20,000 and/or jail term up to 12 months. This is very serious penalties for someone who may just want to speak out against an unfair judge and/or an unfair government. When I wrote in ST against the then penalty for Mr Tang Wee Sung, whilst I wrote out of my pity for Mr. Tang and the sense of how brutally unfair the penalty suggested by our Attorney General’s Chambers was, the letter published in Straits Time was worded with the help of Mr Shanmugam and his partner at Allen and Gledhill, Mr Lucian Wong. I would have written even if neither senior lawyers supported me, but the wording of my letter would have been very amateurish. Now being on the side of the government, Minister Shanmugam seems to see justice only from the point of view of the government and the AGC always being right.
    In fact, it is bizarre for me after what Mr. Wong and Mr. Shanmugam encouraged and supported me to do then, that Mr. Shanmugam now wants to demolish a tiny trail leading to some degree of justice for someone whom the government considers a nuisance.

    3) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishment and sets a limit on fines and prison sentences which as seen from above can be very serious.

    This has led to widespread concern amongst Singaporeans who understand the implications of this proposed law and one need only search the internet to find multiple posts stating why this bill will gag public debate on issues that are important to Singaporeans. I will not repeat what has been clearly stated in petition against this bill which was published Straits Times on 12/8/2016.

    Rather, I am amazed that there has not been more vocal protest by more Singaporeans. A phenomenon I observed this morning may provide the answer. I woke up and stepped out of my air-conditioned bedroom and immediately smelled smoked. I asked my two maids who sleep in bedrooms with their windows open whether they smelt anything smoke and they did not. I called a friend who also sleeps in air-conditioned bedroom and he too smelt smoke as he stepped out of his bedroom. Smell is a sensation that we quickly get used to and then no longer notice it if it lingers for less than an hour. Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare. This current government is not like previous PAP governments. I urged all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.

     

    Source: Lee Wei Ling

  • Court Application Filed On Lee Kuan Yew Interview Agreement With Government

    Court Application Filed On Lee Kuan Yew Interview Agreement With Government

    The executors of the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew have filed an application seeking guidance from the Courts on proper interpretation of an interview agreement between the late Mr Lee and the Government.

    The court application was filed by Mr Lee’s younger children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, on Sep 2 and a pre-trial conference was held on Tuesday (Sep 22).

    The agreement relates to the custody and use of certain interviews given by Mr Lee, Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, to the Oral History Department, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said.

    The Government will establish the proper interpretation and status of the agreement before the Court, the AGC added.

    The next pre-trial conference will be held on Oct 27.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Lee Wei Ling: Timeout After Papa’s Passing

    Lee Wei Ling: Timeout After Papa’s Passing

    My life changed on March 23 when Papa died at the age of 91. As he aged and his health failed in the five years prior to that, I took his welfare into account in every decision I made. His death was hardly unexpected; yet, Papa’s passing affected me more than I had anticipated.

    I had not travelled alone since 2009 after he asked me to accompany him on his working trips. After Mama died in October 2010, Papa’s health deteriorated. So I restricted my travels abroad to the ones where I could accompany him as I was concerned about his fragile health.

    Following Papa’s funeral, I was not feeling up to a distant trip so soon. But friends encouraged me to attend a week-long meeting organised by the American Academy of Neurology in Washington DC, which began on April 18. After that, I would visit a close friend living in Ithaca, New York.

    I was hesitant about the trip as I was spent. My muscles were stiff and my body ached. In fact, I remained this way until the day I left Singapore some two weeks later. I travelled in spite of my misgivings because I decided that I needed to prove to myself I was capable of being as daring and reckless as in the past when I travelled alone.

    The journey lasted more than 24 hours. But amazingly, when I landed in Washington DC, I no longer felt stiff or sore and was not hobbled by jet lag either. So I checked into the hotel, washed up and changed into a pair of running shorts and T-shirt – and jogged to the meeting’s venue at a convention centre to register and attend the lectures.

    As lectures started at 6.30am from the second day, I decided to run instead of walk to the venue in order to save a few more minutes for sleep. I would also run back and forth from my hotel to the venue to attend the lectures.

    By embarking on such shuttle runs three to four times daily, I clocked an average distance of at least 10km a day. What made these runs more challenging was that I had to cross busy streets and step up and down the sidewalks, often in the dark.

    At the meeting, I tried to absorb and remember new information and concepts. The regimen I constructed kept my mind away from dwelling on the loss of Papa, except at night when I was trying to sleep. I was moderately cheerful during the day. Learning combined with exercise has always had an anti-depressant effect for me. So I felt as if I was 40 years old once more during the meeting.

    After the conference, I travelled to Ithaca to stay with a close friend. She, too, had lost a loved one recently. I thought we could console each other.

    My friend is four years older and I call her jie jie (“elder sister” in Mandarin); in fact, being motherly is a more accurate description of her behaviour towards me. And when she greeted me, I had an immediate and overwhelming sense of belonging.

    My stay with jie jie was the downtime I needed. I occupied my time with routine – grocery shopping, gardening, twilight walks and drives to scenic sanctuaries. It was early spring in Ithaca, and life was returning after an apparently harsh winter. Daffodils and hyacinths were in full bloom, and the trees were starting to leaf out.

    My friend remarked that the changing of the seasons seemed to reflect the cyclical nature of life and death. For me, it was reassuring just to have the sense of continuity, the familiarity of

    a beautiful Ithaca, and the comfort of an enduring friendship. While this was a welcome change of scene, it was hard not to turn my thoughts to Papa. But unlike the period of two weeks prior and two weeks after his death, thinking of him now evoked a dull ache that was replacing the sharp pain I felt previously.

    I suspect this ache will always remain, but perhaps to a lesser degree as time passes.

    In my article published a week after Papa’s funeral, I wrote that I must now move on to face life without him. That was a declaration of hope rather than a statement of fact.

    I will move on, I have to. But as a friend who had experienced the passing of his parents long ago recalled, that sense of loss and the ache will never completely disappear.

    But today, the sun was out, and as I ran up my friend’s driveway, the budding trees and flowers greeted me. We went for a walk at my favourite waterfall, Taughannock Falls, where I have asked my friend to scatter my ashes after I die. But for now, life is sweet.

    My way of coping with my father’s death is to be grateful that my parents lived happy lives. Old photographs of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew together, young and obviously in love, and more recent ones taken in their eighties and evincing mutual affection, remind me of what my father said when he saw me sorting through pictures of himself and my mother. “How lucky I have been,” he remarked.

    Yes, my parents were lucky until Mama’s devastating stroke in 2008. Subsequently they suffered, as anyone who has lived for so long usually did in the last few years of their lives.

    Still, 60 years of happiness surely outweigh a brief period of suffering. As I see it, my parents were fortunate to have been able to spend their final years in their marital home, a privilege rare among couples.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com