DPM Teo denies that the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road abused power or did wrong

2378
Munich Young Leaders 2011, München, 03.02.2011. Foto: Marc Darchinger D34D0734

Mr Lee Hsien Yang had earlier today asserted that PM Lee escalated grievances on ‘private family matter’ to committee of subordinates to bypass court system. He said that the “mysterious ministerial committee refused to list the options it was considering for 38 Oxley Road, even after repeated requests from Lee Kuan Yew’s Estate.”

LHY in his own words: PM Lee escalated grievances on ‘private family matter’ to committee of subordinates to bypass court system

DPM Teo is responding to the accusations by Mr Lee through his press secretary, said that the allegations were a “selective and inaccurate account of his exchanges with the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road”. DPM Teo said “just because (Mr Lee) found some questions inconvenient to answer, that does not mean that the Committee abused its power or did wrong.”

The following is the response by DPM Teo’s press secretary in full.


Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s statement on 2 July 2017 presents a selective and inaccurate account of his exchanges with the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road (the House).

The Committee sought Mr LHY and Dr Lee Wei Ling (LWL)’s views on the late Mr Lee’s wishes and thinking in July 2016. In its initial letters, the Committee had made clear to Mr LHY and Dr LWL the purpose and scope of the Committee’s work. This includes (1) Why the Committee was formed; (2) Who it reports to (namely Cabinet); (3) What it would look into; and (4) Why Mr LHY’s input would be useful.

The Committee told him clearly that:

  1. It was listing the various options for the House, to present to Cabinet;
  2. the Committee was not going to make any recommendations;
  3. the Government had no intention of making any decision on the House, as long as Dr LWL resides there. Mr LHY himself had acknowledged this, in one of his subsequent replies.

As such, it was clear to all parties involved that the Government was not making an immediate decision on the House, and that no decision may be necessary for another 20-30 years.

(The following are the) letters dated 27 July 2016 and 24 August 2016 to Mr LHY which make these points clear.

The Committee has no power to decide on the validity of the Last Will. It was made clear to Mr LHY that the Committee is not the place where decisions on the legal validity of the Last Will can be made, and this is a matter between him and Mr Lee Hsien Loong (LHL).

The Committee also made clear to Mr LHY from the outset that his provision of any reply was purely voluntary. On this basis, Mr LHY proceeded to make various submissions to the Committee, both last year and into this year.

The circumstances of the Last Will became relevant because Mr LHY’s representations to the Committee placed reliance on one part of the Last Will as the primary evidence of Mr Lee’s intent. He wanted the Committee to focus on one part of the clause relating to Mr Lee’s wishes on the House, and not its other part.

When the circumstances related to the drafting of the Last Will were brought to the Committee’s attention, Mr LHY’s views on this were sought. In the same vein, the Committee had also posed questions to Mr LHL, based on representations made by Mr LHY and Dr LWL.

Just because Mr LHY found some questions inconvenient to answer, that does not mean that the Committee abused its power or did wrong.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean will provide a fuller explanation in Parliament on 3 July 2017.

Get the latest news, opinions and commentaries. Available on Android  

46 comments

  1. DPM Teo’s dialog was baseless the weakest among all his subordinates, infact you mention that in the past LKY has given his belongings to NLP ,can we know what were the belongings given ,do you have a list because your words can only utter but with no facts and actions from your part,this is like a old record player that goes round and round ,how do the people in his consituency manage to keep up with his words hence ,what he claims only he can understand .

  2. The Lift problem is more important for the Safety of The Citizens rather than The LAHANAT familee dispute.WAKE UP;you can you see CLEARLY where PAP Priorities are.!!

  3. Teo Chee Hean if you think you have been defame please sue if you have the balls. No need to ask anymore questions. Unfortunately you are a coward just like your Boss.

  4. Twist and turn… twist and turn. Old man say demolish. Have some respect! Your legacy is what you’ve done for the country. Not about statues or buildings you stayed.

  5. Only new info that i gathered from the letters = in fact contradicts what the dpm press sec trying to imply that “… Just because Mr Lee Hsien Yang found some questions inconvenient to answer…”

    The letters stated that if LHY and LWL did not want to respond = understand and will be respected + if they have nothing further to add beyond what’s in public record…

    what LKY wanted for 38 = unwavering + already clearly stated in many public records, interviews and the section of his will which he allowed to be made public = LWL and LHY still need to respond meh??

    “if u prefer not to respond will understand and be respected” = suddenly become “there are questions inconvenient to answer”??? #comeiclapforyou

    1. Mr LKY knew that open to public may disturb his wife and his souls.
      If this option is what he wanted,LHL must adhere to his wish to demolish the building if he is 孝顺。
      Let see whether LHL see the picture and think out of the box.

  6. Peter Heng says:

    He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it – Martin Luther King, Jr.

  7. Cai Lee says:

    It this how our government work….very sad paid so much but don’t understand simple question. When answering also diverting a direct question with no concrete answer but left other guessing just like dealing with SMRT when will SMRT breakdown be solved… don’t like SMRT system taking uber grab raxi lah or own a car lah.

  8. Dilys Tan says:

    1. Was LhL aware or approved your decision to set up or initiated this committee together with a few cabinet ministers to decide the fate of his brother property?
    2. Do you know that LHY has paid 150% of the property price to LHL & some charities?

    This is confusing DPM Teo! That’s not what we expect from our ruling party!

  9. Jasen Lee says:

    It is not Singapore’s Affair. Bring all your “Committee” to any place and clear it among yourselves. Do you all know what all of you are doing? Forming the Committee is not a State Affairs. Why use “Ah Kong’s” (Our Country’s) Money? Easy to take? Out of words to describe all of you.

  10. Chong Win says:

    You say one thing I say one thing….who is right who is wrong….i think thats the reason why we have courts to settle such things right ?

  11. Facebook Profile photo
    Jack Yu ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It is really a Great Singapore Joke and our government is a world laughing stock, they don’t know who made the last will of LKY after he signed it and died more than two years ago.

  12. WH Wong says:

    Quote

    the Committee had made clear to Mr LHY and Dr LWL the purpose and scope of the Committee’s work. This includes (1) Why the Committee was formed; (2) Who it reports to (namely Cabinet); (3) What it would look into; and (4) Why Mr LHY’s input would be useful.

    Unquote

    Surely point (2) would be unsettling to anyone who is aware of what possible conflict of interest means! Ask yourself who is the head of this cabinet?

    1. This sycophantic cock sucker used to deep throat for the father. If the father returned, he would used his dead Dick and slap it hard across both sides of the face till he fainted!

  13. Jeff Heng says:

    If seriously that’s the case, PAP standard should have sue him long ago. Why need to do it in parliament? Why PAP don’t dare to challenge him in court? Why need a secret committee to settle family dispute? Why need to preserve Oxley road claim to be for Singaporean when Mr LKY clearly stated it will not be allow for public but only for his families or next of kin. Clearly is a family issue right?? Why need taxpayer to pay you all morons minister to settle family dispute??

    1. Simon Loke says:

      Yes. If the preserved house is only for the family n their descendants n not benefiting the public, why use tax payers’ money to preserve n maintain?

  14. Li Hong says:

    Alamak. Provide explanation in parliament? One side story. Very insincere. The gist of the saga is that the govt do not want to demolish the house. Even if lwl stay in 38, it can still be a political propaganda tools for the pappies.

  15. Ah Soh says:

    This will never end. One rejoinder will evince another rejoinder. This is wasting time and cost taxpayers’ money. It will only end in a Court of Laws where injunctions can be applied for to stop further airing of a case after court ruling.

  16. NC Tay says:

    LHY’s fault la…use the ang mor too cheem the highly paid ministers cannot understand. They are not paid enuff to understand this level of ang mor.

  17. Joe Tey says:

    He still doesn’t get – PRETEND to don’t get – that the Secret Committee should not even exist in the first place. That it even exists IS an abuse of power already. Fck whatever questions it wants to fcking ask.

Comments are closed.