View Single Post
Old 20-06-2017, 05:01 AM   #576
Supremacy Member
clon33's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,784
There are 2 misrepresentations in this chart.

First, the committee, is not a 'secret' committee. The word 'secret' only caught on when Mr. Lee H Y used it frequently.

In fact, it was clarified and should be familiar to many higher-ranking civil servants, i assume, that a number of committees of various matters exist.

And not all have to be listed to Singaporeans. Btw, do we all actually know how many committees exist in the entire Singapore government. My point is, they exist to solve problems.

Secondly, the will was brought into question only because of the heritage site to be conserved (or demolished).

And the committee wanted to know the first PM's wishes probably. If the committee did not even refer to the will, the next thing we know is they will probably be hammered again for being disrespectful.

The impression that this chart gives to the regular observing crowd is, 幸灾乐祸,making fun of others' misfortunes.

What Singaporeans wants and deserve, are people who can solve problems.
Not imagining corruption, imagining abuse of power, so much creativity can be used to solve issues.
Firstly, stop lying and misleading others. Clearly you didnt even bother to read
- PMO statement
- PM Lee's statutory declaration
- Lee siblings fb posts with evidence to refute all accusations

It is a secret committee because the Lee siblings requested for information about the committee repeatedly for 1 year, but was denied. They even mentioned Lawrence Wong brush them off when they raised the point of conflict of interest of Shanmugam being on such a committee. Below is LHY's post on fb.

Lee Hsien Yang
DPM Teo has finally revealed the composition of the shadowy committee members. This was information that Wei Ling and I had asked for repeatedly from the outset for almost a year, and been denied. It is clear that a committee of one's subordinates, should not be sitting arbitrating an issue related to their boss. That is why the Committee is fundamentally flawed. As the subordinates of the PM, how can they possibly be in a position to deal in this private disagreement? This is the wrong forum.

We had expressed specific concerns on the possible membership of Shanmugam and his conflict of interest having advised Lee Kuan Yew and us on options to help achieve Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, and the drafting of the demolition wish. This represents a clear conflict of interest. When we raised this in writing, we were brushed off by Lawrence Wong with "Nothing you have stated precludes any member of the Cabinet from taking part in the Committee's work or its deliberations, with the exception of the Prime Minister." We found the refusal to identify the members of the committee, and to confirm Shanmugam's recusal particularly troubling as he is an experienced Senior Counsel and Minister for Law who should well understand the problem of conflicts of interests. Only now do we find out that he is indeed a member of this Committee.
Saturday at 6:02pm

Secondly, PM Lee himself said this is a Lee family private matter. Under what legal authority does the legislative branch (PAP Ministers) have to
- use state organs for a private matter?
- interfer with the judiciary branch? (court issued grant of probate)
- violate the principle of separation of powers in Singapore? To prevent abuse of power between legislative branch (PAP Ministers) and judiciary branch.

The PMO statement clearly stated that investigations started because of PM Lee's statutory declarations.
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 asked Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang some further questions about how the Last Will was prepared, and the role that Mrs Lee Suet Fern and lawyers from her legal firm played in preparing the Last Will.

From PM Lee's statutory declarations (3,882 words), it is clear he was using the secret committee to challenge the validity of LKY's will. Point 37 specifically alleged that LKY was unaware of the demolition clause being inserted.

37. I continue to have grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the Last Will. I am not aware of any facts which suggest that Mr Lee was informed or advised (by NJK, whom LSF claimed had handled the preparation of the Last Will, or any other lawyer) about all the changes that were made when he signed the Last Will, or that Mr Lee was properly advised about the contents of the Last Will. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr Lee even knew that the Demolition Clause had been re-inserted into the Last Will.

It is fundamental law of evidence, that he who alleges must prove. There is a proven will by probate. Whoever alleges otherwise has the burden of proof. So, LHL can go and prove that his father was a fool or senile when he signed the last will and codicil.

LHY has accussed PM Lee of
- lying to Parliament
- lying under oath
- abuse of power using state organs

The evidence brought forth by LHY comes directly from
- PM Lee's parliamentary statement
- PM Lee's statutory declaration to the secret committee

How can all the PAP Ministers and the government continue to keep mum about such serious allegations?

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said before ministers that are defamed but do not sue, must leave cabinet.

"We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet."
- Goh Chok Tong, Asiaweek, Dec 3, 1999

Last edited by clon33; 20-06-2017 at 05:47 AM..
clon33 is offline   Reply With Quote