Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Wei Ling say they have 'no confidence' in Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong
ricky l
The unhappiness is about "keeping the Oxely House or demolished it" - in exercising Mr Lee KY will or not exercising the will for a larger consideration.
But very heavy and damaging statement is made on the "confidence of leadership" in the context of this dispute.
I think this is out of proportion - because it is difficult to associate how the dispute of the "keep or demolished" of the House - has to do with "confidence of leadership" in running Singapore.
This has a great impact on the Singaporeans - when a private matter boil over to the "confidence of leadership".
But very heavy and damaging statement is made on the "confidence of leadership" in the context of this dispute.
I think this is out of proportion - because it is difficult to associate how the dispute of the "keep or demolished" of the House - has to do with "confidence of leadership" in running Singapore.
This has a great impact on the Singaporeans - when a private matter boil over to the "confidence of leadership".
ricky l
So the dispute of "keep or demolish" --- is about :-
(1) a filial son and daughter to demolish the very Important Heritage - that Singapore have - that can rally and inject confidence into future Singaporeans in the event of crisis
- by blind compliance to a will.
(2) or a larger, further vision - of understanding the importance of a significance Heritage - that have given birth to Singapore, that have help Singapore to survive crisis over crisis - British independence, Peninsula breakage, communalism, racial riot, and lead Singapore to what we are today --- and into future existence, survival and prosperity.
-- not to comply to the will to demolish --- for the greater, larger good of Singapore.
Thus, the decision is about "blind compliance" versus "non-compliance for the greater good".
This make a difference between "followers" versus "a Leader".
(1) a filial son and daughter to demolish the very Important Heritage - that Singapore have - that can rally and inject confidence into future Singaporeans in the event of crisis
- by blind compliance to a will.
(2) or a larger, further vision - of understanding the importance of a significance Heritage - that have given birth to Singapore, that have help Singapore to survive crisis over crisis - British independence, Peninsula breakage, communalism, racial riot, and lead Singapore to what we are today --- and into future existence, survival and prosperity.
-- not to comply to the will to demolish --- for the greater, larger good of Singapore.
Thus, the decision is about "blind compliance" versus "non-compliance for the greater good".
This make a difference between "followers" versus "a Leader".
ricky l
This is a State decision versus a personal wish.
ricky l
A State decision comprise Government Institutions that will have consider many implications - for this heritage consideration vis-a-vis social, community development.
To you is a small matter.
But how do you know that are much larger implications that have already been articulated above - if you are unable to understand what is written.
To you is a small matter.
But how do you know that are much larger implications that have already been articulated above - if you are unable to understand what is written.
ricky l
This 3 heritage is the cornerstone of Singapore history :-
(1) Merlion - Sang Nila Utama of Temasek.
(2) Stamford Raffles - founding port of Singapore and English colony
(3) Oxley House - Mr Lee Kuan Yew and PAP founding members - for modern Singapore.
(1) Merlion - Sang Nila Utama of Temasek.
(2) Stamford Raffles - founding port of Singapore and English colony
(3) Oxley House - Mr Lee Kuan Yew and PAP founding members - for modern Singapore.
ricky l
Unless the siblings understand the significant of Oxley House contributing to Singapore Heritage and its contribution to National Interest.
Like Alkaff mansion, Sun Zhong Sun villa etc - which is very part of the Heritage.
And I believe Mr LKY will upon listening to the merits of keeping Oxley House as Heritage may agree not to demolish it - because it contribute to the greater good of Singapore.
Then overcoming the legal aspect of the Will - will not be insurmountable.
Like Alkaff mansion, Sun Zhong Sun villa etc - which is very part of the Heritage.
And I believe Mr LKY will upon listening to the merits of keeping Oxley House as Heritage may agree not to demolish it - because it contribute to the greater good of Singapore.
Then overcoming the legal aspect of the Will - will not be insurmountable.
ricky l
The 2 siblings and the critics here should give this a thought :-
(1) When Singaporeans see the Merlion in ClarkeQuay - it remind us that Singapore is a Lion City discover by Sang Nila Utama - it remind us of our history, our heritage of our past - as we called ourselves Temasek.
(2) When Singaporeans see Sir Stamford Raffles statue in Raffles Place - it remind us that Singapore is an English colony that build our bustling port - it remind us of our history, our heritage of ancient Singapore.
(3) Similarly, When Singaporeans see the Oxley House - it will remind us that our founding Father LKY and founding PAP members are the one that make many critical decisions that turnaround Singapore and help to build this modern Singapore - it remind us of our history, our heritage of the struggle and crisis that our founding Leaders and our pioneer Singaporeans - have to overcome crisis over crisis - such as :-
(a) British Independence - how we overcome it.
(b) Peninsula breakaway
(c) Racial riot
(d) Communal tension
(e) Blood revolution
(f) Plus many challenges and crisis
If the 2 siblings and the critics demolished the Oxley House - what heritage to remind Singaporeans of the history of the making of modern Singapore - except blind filial piety?
Demolished the Oxley House is easy - a 1-hour job.
But how to remind, rally, inspire our future Singapore descendants - of the 50 years that our forefather and pioneers of the struggle we have gone to resolve crisis over crisis - when the very core of the Heritage is being demolished ---- which affect the fate of all Singaporeans?
The 2 siblilings have to answer to Mr LKY as descendants and executors of their Father's will.
But the Government have to answer to the fate of all Singaporeans.
So it is a called upon the 2 siblings to possess - 深明大义 -- Deep Wisdom and Bigger Heart --- to understand the significance of Heritage vis-a-vis the Will.
(1) When Singaporeans see the Merlion in ClarkeQuay - it remind us that Singapore is a Lion City discover by Sang Nila Utama - it remind us of our history, our heritage of our past - as we called ourselves Temasek.
(2) When Singaporeans see Sir Stamford Raffles statue in Raffles Place - it remind us that Singapore is an English colony that build our bustling port - it remind us of our history, our heritage of ancient Singapore.
(3) Similarly, When Singaporeans see the Oxley House - it will remind us that our founding Father LKY and founding PAP members are the one that make many critical decisions that turnaround Singapore and help to build this modern Singapore - it remind us of our history, our heritage of the struggle and crisis that our founding Leaders and our pioneer Singaporeans - have to overcome crisis over crisis - such as :-
(a) British Independence - how we overcome it.
(b) Peninsula breakaway
(c) Racial riot
(d) Communal tension
(e) Blood revolution
(f) Plus many challenges and crisis
If the 2 siblings and the critics demolished the Oxley House - what heritage to remind Singaporeans of the history of the making of modern Singapore - except blind filial piety?
Demolished the Oxley House is easy - a 1-hour job.
But how to remind, rally, inspire our future Singapore descendants - of the 50 years that our forefather and pioneers of the struggle we have gone to resolve crisis over crisis - when the very core of the Heritage is being demolished ---- which affect the fate of all Singaporeans?
The 2 siblilings have to answer to Mr LKY as descendants and executors of their Father's will.
But the Government have to answer to the fate of all Singaporeans.
So it is a called upon the 2 siblings to possess - 深明大义 -- Deep Wisdom and Bigger Heart --- to understand the significance of Heritage vis-a-vis the Will.
While Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s views have been sought in his personal capacity, he has not been involved in the Cabinet’s discussions on the internal Ministerial Committee that is deliberating the fate of the house at 38 Oxley Road, said the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday (14 June).
“As (PM Lee) had previously stated, he has recused himself from all Government decisions concerning the House,” said Cabinet Secretary Tan Kee Yong , who noted that PM Lee is the late Lee Kuan Yew’s eldest son and a beneficiary of the estate. Tan also clarified that the committee was set up to consider the options for the house which once served as the late Lee’s residence.
“These included looking into various aspects, including the historical and heritage significance of the House, as well as to consider Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes in relation to the House.”
In the early hours of Wednesday, PM Lee’s siblings Hsien Yang and Wei Ling issued a statement denouncing him and declaring that they had “no confidence” in the Prime Minister. PM Lee has denied his siblings’ allegations.
In reference to the Ministerial Committee, Hsien Yang and Wei Ling claimed that PM Lee had made “extensive representations” to it and “deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit”. They said their father had made it clear he wanted the residence to be demolished after his passing and that he was “a strong opponent of monuments”.
They added, “He (PM Lee) also sits in a direct position of power over the Committee comprised of his subordinate ministers, thus wielding considerable influence for any outcome he desires.
In response to the joint statement, the Cabinet Secretary said that the committee had sought feedback from all three of the Lee siblings about the late Lee Kuan Yew’s will and how it was prepared.
“In the course of its work, the Committee received representations from Mr Lee Hsien Loong on various facts and circumstances in relation to how Mr Lee’s Last Will was prepared…The Committee has also invited Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang to put their response by way of Statutory Declaration, as Mr Lee Hsien Loong had done.”
Tan noted that the committee had made clear to Wei Ling and Hsien Yang that “the Government has no intention of doing anything with the House as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to reside there.
“The Committee will be listing out the different options with regard to the House and the implications. This will help a future Government when a decision needs to be taken about the House.”
Related stories:
