38 Oxley Road committee: Interest in Lee Kuan Yew's will confined to understanding his wishes, says Indranee
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/38-oxley-road-committee-interest-in-lee-kuan-yew-s-will-confined-8975642
Reds Lim
When I went to Ms Indranee's FB to read the discussion there, I was very disturbed when I read a certain post. I managed to find the source of its content.
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/.../parliamentary-statement-calls...
Very sad when I read this:
"38 Oxley Road
There have also been calls to turn Mr Lee’s home, 38 Oxley Road, into a museum and a memorial to him. But Mr Lee was adamant that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished after his passing. He wrote formally to the Cabinet at least twice to put his wishes on the record - once soon after my mother his wife had died, and the second time soon after he had stepped down from office in 2011. He said, talking about Oxley Road, that “it should not be kept as a kind of relic”. He said that he had seen too many other houses of famous people “kept frozen in time … as a monument with people tramping in and out”. They invariably “become shabby”, in his words. My mother also felt strongly about this. She was most distressed at the thought of people coming through her private spaces after she and my father had passed away, to see how they had lived.
Mr Lee stated his view on this matter in one of his books, Hard Truths. This caused a public reaction, as some people wanted the house preserved. So in December 2011, after he had retired from the Cabinet, and after he had written to us the second time, I held a special Cabinet meeting and invited Mr Lee to attend, in order to discuss 38 Oxley Road.
The ministers tried hard to change his mind. After the meeting, Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet, and I quote from his letter:
“Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.” End of the quote and that was the letter." .... etc
I note the following key points, with emphasis inserted:
- The ministers ***tried hard to change his mind***
- Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished ***as I wanted***
- I have reflected on this and decided that ***if*** 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs ...
So the justification for preservation is based on the word "if"?
It doesn't appear to me that Mr LKY was happy when he wrote that letter. Is LHY unhappy because of this: "I held a special Cabinet meeting and invited Mr Lee to attend, in order to discuss 38 Oxley Road"?
Please don't accuse me of self-interest for wanting my founding father to be happy. Read the section "Ideals, not Monuments". Any motivation of self-interest to reject the idea of monuments which Mr LKY did?
Turning our attention to Mrs Lee. "She was most distressed at the thought of people coming through her private spaces after she and my father had passed away, to see how they had lived." I will make a guess again, that Mr LKY thought very hard about Mrs Lee's feelings when he pondered over what he wanted to do with the house after his death.
Another question: if the Cabinet was that zealous to respond to public reaction at that time, will you do the same now and do the right thing?
I had looked forward to 3rd July, but now I know this: Nothing to see here.
Please don't distract me with "validity of the 7th will".
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/.../parliamentary-statement-calls...
Very sad when I read this:
"38 Oxley Road
There have also been calls to turn Mr Lee’s home, 38 Oxley Road, into a museum and a memorial to him. But Mr Lee was adamant that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished after his passing. He wrote formally to the Cabinet at least twice to put his wishes on the record - once soon after my mother his wife had died, and the second time soon after he had stepped down from office in 2011. He said, talking about Oxley Road, that “it should not be kept as a kind of relic”. He said that he had seen too many other houses of famous people “kept frozen in time … as a monument with people tramping in and out”. They invariably “become shabby”, in his words. My mother also felt strongly about this. She was most distressed at the thought of people coming through her private spaces after she and my father had passed away, to see how they had lived.
Mr Lee stated his view on this matter in one of his books, Hard Truths. This caused a public reaction, as some people wanted the house preserved. So in December 2011, after he had retired from the Cabinet, and after he had written to us the second time, I held a special Cabinet meeting and invited Mr Lee to attend, in order to discuss 38 Oxley Road.
The ministers tried hard to change his mind. After the meeting, Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet, and I quote from his letter:
“Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.” End of the quote and that was the letter." .... etc
I note the following key points, with emphasis inserted:
- The ministers ***tried hard to change his mind***
- Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished ***as I wanted***
- I have reflected on this and decided that ***if*** 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs ...
So the justification for preservation is based on the word "if"?
It doesn't appear to me that Mr LKY was happy when he wrote that letter. Is LHY unhappy because of this: "I held a special Cabinet meeting and invited Mr Lee to attend, in order to discuss 38 Oxley Road"?
Please don't accuse me of self-interest for wanting my founding father to be happy. Read the section "Ideals, not Monuments". Any motivation of self-interest to reject the idea of monuments which Mr LKY did?
Turning our attention to Mrs Lee. "She was most distressed at the thought of people coming through her private spaces after she and my father had passed away, to see how they had lived." I will make a guess again, that Mr LKY thought very hard about Mrs Lee's feelings when he pondered over what he wanted to do with the house after his death.
Another question: if the Cabinet was that zealous to respond to public reaction at that time, will you do the same now and do the right thing?
I had looked forward to 3rd July, but now I know this: Nothing to see here.
Please don't distract me with "validity of the 7th will".
Ricky Lim ·
Based on the above narration, it still boil down to 1 point :-
"Personal interest, Personal wish vs National Interest".
Now let me tell another story - a same emotional story.
But this story bring out the following point :-
"National Interest for the greater good win over Personal interest, Personal wish"
(1) The grandmother was buried in Lim Chu Kang cemetery.
(2) After decades of burial, the son - receive a letter from the Government that the grandmother tomb need to be exhume and the remain need to be cremate and store elsewhere.
(3) Being a believer of Taoism, the son is anguish and distress - because digging the grave of ancestor is a taboo.
(4) The grandson A on the same day receive a dream from the grandmother that her remain will be dig out soon. The grandmother through the dream say "Grandson A, you promise me in my tomb that one day you will transfer me to Phor Kark See Temple - so that I can receive daily chant of Buddhism teaching. Now the chance has come."
(5) Grandon A woke up from the dream and about the same time, receive a call from his Father that your Grandma remain will be dig out - and he express the anguish.
(6) Grandson A immediately console his Father and inform him about the Grandma dream.
Also Grandson A say to his Father :-
"a. As Singapore is a land-scare Country, the Gov has no choice but to rotate the land - so that other people have chances and not monopolise the scarce land.
b, The Grandson A dissuade the Father from appealing to the Gov and console the Father that digging out the tomb is not a bad omen and a taboo. The dream from Grandma - could be a "Blessing in disguise".
(7) The Grandson A further told the Father - I will personally together with you bring Grandma remain to Phor Kark See Temple and chant Buddhism mantra to Grandma.
(8) During the day of exhumation, Grandson A together with his wife and son drive with the Father to the Grandma tomb.
(9) The grave digger dig out Grandma remain and instead of passing over to the Father, instead handover to GrandSon A mysteriously.
(10) Grandson A repectfully takeover the remain of Grandma and led his Father, his wife and his son to his car and drive all the way to Phor Kark See Temple.
(11) Upon reaching Phor Kark See temple, respectfully chant mantra to Grandma remain and the urn in the Phor Kark See Temple.
(12) Now years after years, Father, all grandson A's siblings and their children (except one sibling's family who are Chrisitan) - visit Grandma in Phor Kark See Temple. Soon all grandson's siblings and their children from Taoism - fully become Buddhists - and many are solid believers.
So the message is :-
"A taboo that will cause "hoo-ha", "hue and cry" - for digging out the tomb of an ancestor - for Taoism is a big taboo.
But Grandson A turn the big taboo - into a wholesome, holistic opportunity - by conveying the message that "National Interest for the greater good - to share the land with others" plus "the need to comply with Gov policy" --- is a virtue.
Now let us look at Mr Lee HY and Ms LWL - how does they compare to the above family, a humble commoner --- who turn "Personal interest, personal wishes --- against National Interest for the greater good?'
And far from it --- by levying serious charge of "abusing of power", "losing confidence of leadership"?
"Personal interest, Personal wish vs National Interest".
Now let me tell another story - a same emotional story.
But this story bring out the following point :-
"National Interest for the greater good win over Personal interest, Personal wish"
(1) The grandmother was buried in Lim Chu Kang cemetery.
(2) After decades of burial, the son - receive a letter from the Government that the grandmother tomb need to be exhume and the remain need to be cremate and store elsewhere.
(3) Being a believer of Taoism, the son is anguish and distress - because digging the grave of ancestor is a taboo.
(4) The grandson A on the same day receive a dream from the grandmother that her remain will be dig out soon. The grandmother through the dream say "Grandson A, you promise me in my tomb that one day you will transfer me to Phor Kark See Temple - so that I can receive daily chant of Buddhism teaching. Now the chance has come."
(5) Grandon A woke up from the dream and about the same time, receive a call from his Father that your Grandma remain will be dig out - and he express the anguish.
(6) Grandson A immediately console his Father and inform him about the Grandma dream.
Also Grandson A say to his Father :-
"a. As Singapore is a land-scare Country, the Gov has no choice but to rotate the land - so that other people have chances and not monopolise the scarce land.
b, The Grandson A dissuade the Father from appealing to the Gov and console the Father that digging out the tomb is not a bad omen and a taboo. The dream from Grandma - could be a "Blessing in disguise".
(7) The Grandson A further told the Father - I will personally together with you bring Grandma remain to Phor Kark See Temple and chant Buddhism mantra to Grandma.
(8) During the day of exhumation, Grandson A together with his wife and son drive with the Father to the Grandma tomb.
(9) The grave digger dig out Grandma remain and instead of passing over to the Father, instead handover to GrandSon A mysteriously.
(10) Grandson A repectfully takeover the remain of Grandma and led his Father, his wife and his son to his car and drive all the way to Phor Kark See Temple.
(11) Upon reaching Phor Kark See temple, respectfully chant mantra to Grandma remain and the urn in the Phor Kark See Temple.
(12) Now years after years, Father, all grandson A's siblings and their children (except one sibling's family who are Chrisitan) - visit Grandma in Phor Kark See Temple. Soon all grandson's siblings and their children from Taoism - fully become Buddhists - and many are solid believers.
So the message is :-
"A taboo that will cause "hoo-ha", "hue and cry" - for digging out the tomb of an ancestor - for Taoism is a big taboo.
But Grandson A turn the big taboo - into a wholesome, holistic opportunity - by conveying the message that "National Interest for the greater good - to share the land with others" plus "the need to comply with Gov policy" --- is a virtue.
Now let us look at Mr Lee HY and Ms LWL - how does they compare to the above family, a humble commoner --- who turn "Personal interest, personal wishes --- against National Interest for the greater good?'
And far from it --- by levying serious charge of "abusing of power", "losing confidence of leadership"?
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
The most mysterious part about this grave digger :-
(1) He is a Malay
(2) When he handover the remain of the grandma to Grandson A, both his eyes are "gleaming and both eyes flash with green light".
(3) And the most mysterious thing about this Malay --- when he place the remain of the Grandma to the Grandson A, he say "Amituofo".
(4) Goose pimples emerged all over the Grandson A body.
(1) He is a Malay
(2) When he handover the remain of the grandma to Grandson A, both his eyes are "gleaming and both eyes flash with green light".
(3) And the most mysterious thing about this Malay --- when he place the remain of the Grandma to the Grandson A, he say "Amituofo".
(4) Goose pimples emerged all over the Grandson A body.
Like · Reply · Just now
Chew Chwee Heng ·
Many
had voiced out if there is any doubt with the will, just settle it in
the court. We do not need any more PAP MPs, ministers to do the
interpretation of the will. Their interpretations will only make general
public feel that the PM is using the whole government bodies to back
him up, including using the Parliament as a ground for his own defence.
Court should be the right forum to settle all the disputes.
Ricky Lim ·
As an independent observer :-
(1) Actually there is no need to waste an extra step to resolve the whole dispute by going to court - a long drawn agonising step and re-visit all the painful events again.
Just exercising the Preservation Law will override the last Will and resolve the dispute - if not for the fact that Mr Lee HY and Ms LWL make the private affair public - and make serious allegation about the "abusing of power" and "losing confidence in the leadership".
Of course if the charges are levy against the Government, the Government will have to respond to the charges.
The responses is not wrong.
(2) As Mr Lee HY's wife is a managing partner of a law firm and being lawyer trained, there is a possibiity that she may have covered up all the "legal loopholes" to mask the personal interest and conflict of interest - that may lead to the ineffectiveness of the last Will.
This is the reason why the "circumstances as to the drawing of the last Will" come under scrutiny and various Ministers are casting doubts on these dubious circumstances.
As I am no legal expert, I am not sure that by bring to court - will the truth be establish - if all "legal loopholes" are covered up.
(1) Actually there is no need to waste an extra step to resolve the whole dispute by going to court - a long drawn agonising step and re-visit all the painful events again.
Just exercising the Preservation Law will override the last Will and resolve the dispute - if not for the fact that Mr Lee HY and Ms LWL make the private affair public - and make serious allegation about the "abusing of power" and "losing confidence in the leadership".
Of course if the charges are levy against the Government, the Government will have to respond to the charges.
The responses is not wrong.
(2) As Mr Lee HY's wife is a managing partner of a law firm and being lawyer trained, there is a possibiity that she may have covered up all the "legal loopholes" to mask the personal interest and conflict of interest - that may lead to the ineffectiveness of the last Will.
This is the reason why the "circumstances as to the drawing of the last Will" come under scrutiny and various Ministers are casting doubts on these dubious circumstances.
As I am no legal expert, I am not sure that by bring to court - will the truth be establish - if all "legal loopholes" are covered up.
Like · Reply · Just now
Lim Robert
Please do not downgrade MM that he cannot understand simple english and need to be advised. He was a brilliant lawyer and ranked above all cabinet Ministers. It was immaterial about the drafting of his will. MM read it and signed it.
Ricky Lim ·
I believe this will also depends on his state of health :-
(1) His eyesight - are they failing and will not be able to read line by line ---- bearing in mind he was very frail the last few years.
(2) His state of health - is he suffering from illness that prohibit him to read, understand and conceptualise.
(3) His state of mind - is he suffering from headache, giddiness etc - that make him not able to think in depth.
(4) The trust he has on the person who draft and make him sign - thinking that he/she will not trick him.
(1) His eyesight - are they failing and will not be able to read line by line ---- bearing in mind he was very frail the last few years.
(2) His state of health - is he suffering from illness that prohibit him to read, understand and conceptualise.
(3) His state of mind - is he suffering from headache, giddiness etc - that make him not able to think in depth.
(4) The trust he has on the person who draft and make him sign - thinking that he/she will not trick him.
Like · Reply · Just now
Ricky Lim ·
Having
say so, why did Mr LHY's wife - whose husband Mr Lee HY now benefit
more from the last Will - so eager and so enthusiastic to involve in the
drafting of the last Will - other than to benefit from it?
And why Mr LHY's wife immediately resign from her current post - and now deal with overseas's account?
And why Mr LHY's wife immediately resign from her current post - and now deal with overseas's account?
No comments:
Post a Comment