Another Lee Squabble

[streetsmart73]

Originally Posted by Auratus

Lu lai lu jialat, kana expose no choice but admit. Ownself poll ownself, LOL.

Why only a handful of yes individuals whose bread and butter livelihood depends on the same person.

Want clarity make it a national poll; gutless

[streetsmart73]

Originally Posted by Auratus

What were said by his siblings amount to defamation to the Prime Minister, who holds the highest level in the public service, he should bring them to court.

Actually, his siblings are throwing sticks and stones at him hoping that he will bring them to court. Instead LHL only want to talk about it in parliament, with national coverage, at the absence of both his siblings.

One sided rebuttal holds kosong waters

[lenghan]

The Poll is conducted on taxpayer's $$$$
Is LHL allowed to use public $$$$ for his own ends?????
But of course these people would come up with 1001 excuses why this was done and why it is justified.....ownself check ownself!!!!!

He'll then use the "results" in Parliament on 3rd July to tell the whole world that he has the support of the civil service and blab blab blab

In fact this "Poll" was meant to be a "secret" but was eventually leaked.
It was never reported on our MSM until it was leaked!!!!

[loveikan]

Originally Posted by lenghan

The Poll is conducted on taxpayer's $$$$
Is LHL allowed to use public $$$$ for his own ends?????
But of course these people would come up with 1001 excuses why this was done and why it is justified.....ownself check ownself!!!!!

He'll then use the "results" in Parliament on 3rd July to tell the whole world that he has the support of the civil service and blab blab blab

In fact this "Poll" was meant to be a "secret" but was eventually leaked.
It was never reported on our MSM until it was leaked!!!!

Obviously someone is not happy with the charade.

[AroHong]

Did you guys read about some company that suddenly appeared and claim that they can down load the replies to Facebook posts and evaluate if the response is pro or anti LHL?
Now they are claiming 70% anti LHY comments. 😆

[lenghan]

Originally Posted by AroHong

Did you guys read about some company that suddenly appeared and claim that they can down load the replies to Facebook posts and evaluate if the response is pro or anti LHL?
Now they are claiming 70% anti LHY comments. 😆

Probably true that there are many anti LHY comments cos the entire "organ" is at work ....ownself bluff ownself haha......

[loveikan]

Originally Posted by AroHong

Did you guys read about some company that suddenly appeared and claim that they can down load the replies to Facebook posts and evaluate if the response is pro or anti LHL?
Now they are claiming 70% anti LHY comments. 😆

Originally Posted by lenghan

Probably true that there are many anti LHY comments cos the entire "organ" is at work ....ownself bluff ownself haha......

There are nearly 70% anti LHY mah.

[Ong88]

Originally Posted by AroHong

Did you guys read about some company that suddenly appeared and claim that they can down load the replies to Facebook posts and evaluate if the response is pro or anti LHL?
Now they are claiming 70% anti LHY comments. 😆

This type of company were right about Trump and brexit.

No joke.

I was for Trump and brexit in the Twitter wars.

This Oxley war I not tweeting

But I am for #PreserveOxley cos #People'sLastLaugh

[jwhtan]

In back-to-back exchanges on Tuesday (June 27), Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah and Mr Lee Hsien Yang
accused each other of evading what they felt were central questions in the public dispute over the house on 38 Oxley Road.
On Monday night, Ms Indranee had initially asked why Mr Lee Hsien Yang was seeking from the Government “an immediate commitment on demolition” of the house.

In response, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a Facebook post on Tuesday morning: “We have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now,
only after (his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling’s) departure.” He further asked why the Government had set up a Ministerial Committee to consider the options for the Oxley Road house,
when it was a decision for a future government to make.

In her latest Facebook post, Ms Indranee said Mr Lee Hsien Yang has not answered her question about why the Government is being hurried into a decision on the house,
which is the family home of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the birthplace of the ruling People’s Action Party.

Nevertheless, she noted that Mr Lee Hsien Yang has clarified that he “is not asking for the house to be demolished now.
He is only asking that it be demolished after Dr Lee Wei Ling’s departure”.
“This way everyone is clear on exactly what the issue is,” she said.

She added: “The decision this Government is being asked to make now is that the building will be demolished in the future.
This is so even though the circumstances which trigger the need for a decision have not arisen. Given that Dr Lee still resides at the premises,
this decision would only need to be made 20 (to) 30 years from now. As Mr Lee Hsien Yang would know, this Government cannot, as a matter of principle,
bind a future government that is elected by the people 20 (to) 30 years from now.”

There are at least two public references to Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s pressing desire for the Government to demolish the Oxley Road house,
but it had been unclear — until Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s clarification — whether they wanted the house to be torn down immediately,
or they wanted the Government to make an immediate decision to eventually demolish it.

The first reference was in the summary of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s statutory declaration on the issue released on June 15.
In the document, he recounted how his younger brother, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, had “repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the house”
during the reading of their father’s Final Will on April 12, 2015.

A second reference, cited by Ms Indranee, came via a June 17 statement by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.
Mr Teo, in explaining why a Ministerial Committee had been set up to weigh options for the house, noted:
“Soon after Mr Lee’s passing, the Executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s will (Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling)
themselves wanted the Government to commit itself immediately to demolishing the house,
though Dr Lee Wei Ling might continue to live in the House for many more years.”

[jwhtan]

In what looks like the strongest aspersions cast on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the ministerial committee formed to look into 38 Oxley Road yet,
the late Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter Lee Wei Ling has declared the committee is a “façade” used by her eldest brother to “attack” LKY’s will.

Ms Lee Wei Ling responded to Indranee Rajah, who asked why LHY and her have sought commitment from the government that the house will be demolished so soon.

Here’s a list of the points Lee Wei Ling made:
– Any signs of this request for commitment on the government’s part came from her and Hsien Yang responding to questions posed to them by the committee.
But in the next line, she answers Indranee’s question:
– “we seek to honour our father’s final request in his will”, after which she quoted the line about asking his children to ensure his wishes with regard to the demolition are carried out.
– Indranee said the ministerial committee was formed to consider Hsien Yang’s and Wei Ling’s request for the government to commit to demolish the house —
this is false, says LWL, noting that DPM Teo said the committee can only make a non-binding recommendation, not a commitment, in any regard.
“How can a committee be set up to consider a request when its deliverables (discovered only now) preclude it from fulfilling that request?”

Chicken-and-egg situation?
In other words, this has now become a debate on what came first — the Ministerial Committee,
or LKY’s estate (Hsien Yang and Wei Ling) making known its intention to demolish the house.
There has also been some quibbling over whether his estate was requesting that the house be demolished immediately after LKY passed away,
or after Wei Ling moved out of the house.

The first mention of Hsien Yang’s alleged intention to demolish the house immediately after LKY’s passing appeared in PM Lee Hsien Loong’s 41-paragraph statutory declaration :

“24. It was also during the reading of the Last Will on 12 April 2015 that the dispute between LHY and me arose.
At the reading, LHY repeatedly insisted on the immediate demolition of the House.
I said that such a move so soon after Mr Lee’s passing, when the public’s emotions were still raw,
might force the Government to promptly react by deciding to gazette the House, and that would not be in the interests of Mr Lee’s legacy or Singapore.
That discussion only ended when HC intervened to ask LWL if she wanted to continue living in the House.
LWL said she did, which made the question of demolition moot.
LHY then stopped insisting on the immediate demolition of the House.

This was then brought up again by DPM Teo Chee Hean, in his statement sharing how he was the one who formed the Ministerial Committee to look into options for the house:

“Some have asked why then a ministerial committee was established if no immediate decision was necessary?
Due process is needed to consider the various options before making any decision on the house. This can take some time. I also considered several other factors.
First, if Dr Lee chooses to move out of the house in the near future, a decision on what to do about the house might have to be taken at that point.
Second, soon after Mr Lee’s passing, the Executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s will (Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling) themselves
wanted the Government to commit itself immediately to demolishing the house, though Dr Lee Wei Ling might continue to live in the House for many more years.
Three, some of us in Cabinet, including me, felt it would be useful if a future Government deciding on the house had a set of options
that came from ministers who had personally discussed this matter with Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

There were no direct response from Hsien Yang about these assertions, until it was brought up again by Indranee on Tuesday.
In his response to her, he then said: “We have never asked the Government to allow us to demolish the house now, only after Wei Ling’s departure.”
And even if PM Lee’s statutory declaration is factually accurate as detailed above, Hsien Yang is not contradicting his brother —
even if he in April 2015 called for the immediate demolition of the house, it was during the private reading of LKY’s will, not a call for the government to do so.
LWL’s post steers the conflict away from what was said or done in response to what, though — for her,
the ministerial committee cannot consider to commit to any request to demolish the house because DPM Teo said it can only make non-binding recommendations previously.