Only 6 questions among 124 filed in Parliament today are about Oxley Road dispute and all are from WP

37392

Parliament has convened today, in part to hear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong address the allegations of abuse of power leveled against him by his siblings. Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, Teo Chee Hean, is also slated to speak on the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road that he chairs.

Despite lifting the party whip and despite Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob urging all Members of Parliament (MPs) to examine the matter thoroughly and engage in robust debate, it appears that MPs from the ruling party have not filed questions to pose to their party head on the matter.

The Order Paper for today’s session shows that 6 questions from a total of 124 that were filed to be raised in Parliament today are posed to the Prime Minister regarding the family feud he has been embroiled in. All six questions come from MPs from the Workers’ Party.

Workers’ Party MPs are set to grill PM on the following this afternoon:

Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules are in place to ensure that Ministers and senior officeholders with personal or pecuniary interests in the subject matter of Government decisions do not influence or participate in the related deliberations and decision-making and how are the rules enforced; (b) in respect of Government opinions or decisions relating to the estate and assets of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, what conflicts or potential conflicts of interest did the Government identify to exist from among the members of the Cabinet and with regard to the Attorney-General; and (c) how are these conflicts or potential conflicts of interest managed.

Mr Leon Perera: To ask the Prime Minister (a) under what circumstances are Ministerial committees whose existence is not made public are convened to address issues; (b) how many of such committees currently exist and whether their terms of reference and composition can be publicly announced unless forbidden by national security concerns; and (c) in respect of Ministerial committee reviewing the fate of No 38 Oxley Road, whether independent heritage experts and processes for public opinion sensing will be engaged by the committee.

Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to prevent, limit, detect, and address situations where Ministers or political appointees use state organs to obtain information not related to the performance of their duties, advance personal interests or punish detractors, critics, or political opponents.

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister in view of public concerns over allegations of abuse of power over the matter of 38 Oxley Road, whether he supports a motion to set up a special Select Committee of Parliament, comprising Members from all parties, to receive relevant evidence and with public hearings that are broadcast live.

Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules and directives are in place to prevent Ministers and political appointees from abusing their positions by allowing or condoning their family members to access, influence and direct senior civil servants on matters beyond their professional course of work; (b) how often are these rules and directives communicated to Ministers, political appointees and senior civil servants and in what form; and (c) how will such cases be treated when abuse of position and power is proven.

UPDATE: 16 PAP MPs, 5 WP MPs and 6 NMPs spoke on the issue in parliament. An earlier version of this article indicated that it appears that MPs from the ruling party have declined to question their party head on the dispute. We update this post to clarify that it appears that MPs from the PAP have declined to file questions prior to the session, as accurately reflected in the parliamentary session’s order paper.

PAP MP Louis Ng said that by not disclosing the questions prior to the parliamentary session, the debate is real and not staged.

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

182 comments

  1. Facebook Profile photo
    Tiffany Teo Tiang Yu ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This was the best opportunity to grill PM on key issues such as conflict of interests in governance and the setting up of a secret ministerial committtee. Did we get clear answers, although there was some commendable effort by the WP? And why the media dwelled chiefly on the point that Lhy had agreed to the house’s renovation plan? Why they did not highlight what the PM had neglected to tackle? Such as the keeping of the committee despite his father’s explicit statement on demolition of the house in his last will. And how about ho chin’s alleged meddlings? In a word the parliamentarians did not help clear the air. Almost to the last man the PAP MPs were there to act as pupppets in nominal representation of the people. The whole show was a farce, although that does not mean the PM’s discourse has not gone anywhere in the public.

  2. Facebook Profile photo
    Tiffany Teo Tiang Yu ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This was the best opportunity to grill PM on key issues such as conflict of interests in governance and the setting up of a secret ministerial committtee. Did we get clear answers,although there was some commendable effort by the WP? And why the media dwelledchiefly on the point that Lhy had agreed to the house’s renovation plan? Why they did not highlight what he neglected to tackle? Such as the keeping of the committee despite his father’s explicit statement on demolition of his house in his last will. And how about ho chin’s alleged meddlings? In a word the parliamentarians did not help clear the air. Almost to the last man the PAP MPs were there to act as pupppets in nominal representation of the people. The whole show was a farce, although that does not mean the PM’s discourse has convinced only a few minds in the public.

  3. Sas Karma says:

    isn’t this a waste of tax payers money discussing whatever hell in Parliament when so many Singaporeans are currently jobless and barely making ends meet? what is the use of this pm still sitting in the cabinet when the country is facing the worst economic downturn. And Nothing new has made this country any better all these years since he helm power. Please resign pm Lee. seriously you are a liability and brought Shame to our country, your parents and Singaporeans. Please save us, give us a better person that can bring this country forward and bring all citizens together than divide us.

  4. This is the reason why Singaporeans can’t be bothered with local politics.

    The stench of nonchalant attitudes by PAP MPs is a turn off.

    Why do they even bother being in Parliament, one wonders.

    I love my country. But not the monkeys running it from their ivory towers

  5. Facebook Profile photo
    Veritas Wallace ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    looking at the responses of the MPs… i think we may be witnessing the beginning of a major seismic political shift in our history.. it could potentially be a damn-if-you-do-damn-if-you-don’t situation..

  6. Diana Wong says:

    What’s new???
    Opposition will always take any opportunity whether necessary or not, just for the sake of attacking PM Lee and where they (WP) deemed as a vulnerable situation especially tt Mr. LKY is no longer around.

  7. It’s a expected outcome, just think, before they become Ministers how much they are drawing their salary when they working as a civil servants, in their previous job or in the military compared to now, what they are drawing, who would want to ask questions.

  8. Jenny Koh says:

    If I were u I will placate the Family first before putting Spore interest to preserve it.
    It will show strength n solidarity of family rather than being distant n clinically inclined to treat matters like state affairs.

  9. Ronald Lim says:

    WTF? What’s the point of having this session? LHL must take his siblings to court for defamation, otherwise he’s conceded they’re right.

  10. Boring. Self declaration of events without rebuttals – 2 against 1 with such fervent distaste for 1; brings a lot of ???. Edit speech and selective evidence from 1 point of view.

  11. Yang is absolutely right in his comments that which subordinates dare to question their boss?
    Better watch Opera show at Kallang theatre on 19 September 2017 as there are lots of knowledge and wisdom to learn from the ancient Qing Dynasty than the Lee Dynasty!
    Loong ever announced that the parliament is too quiet and peaceful!
    Will the 69.9 % please get SDP into parliament by next GE 2020 or by-elections in 2018

  12. MPs are all holding on to their whips. They each value their pay more than their duty to question the pm unreservedly so no questions from them. This is what the people are paying them for – do nothing that threatens their rice bowl.

  13. Freddy Teh says:

    Pls lah. Got more impt issues to focus on. Like terrorism. Don’t you want to know what measures are in place to protect Singaporeans in the event of a terrorist attack?

    Mr Christopher de Souza: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he
    can give an assessment of the terrorism threat posed by radicalised foreigners
    in Singapore and what measures are being taken to counter the threat.

  14. Wait no bonus n salary cut.whats the point having high salary.they are not being themselves n dare not question their boss.the 70 % shld take note how dumb these people are that they have voted.

  15. Don’t blame the PAP MPs,try putting yourself into their shoes.Who wants to ask for trouble if trouble does not come head on?If they lose their rice bowl who can give a new rice bowl to them,?the most they can get may be just a few words of console and encouragement. Furthermore employment market has been deteriorating.

    1. Steven Lim says:

      That why we need mp from different party not all from same party, so they can check each other without fear. This is check and balance, understand?

    2. Then why WP MP dare to ask for trouble when trouble doesn’t come head on on them? Cause they care about citizens lives. Why should we put ourselves in PAP MPs shoes when they never once put themselves in our shoes? And you scared of them being jobless? They got iron rice bowls won’t break one.

    3. Well if that are voted out, that will lose their rice bowls. Who are they serving – the people ? Or the party leader. Never ever forget – the power is with the people in an democratic society.

    4. Can’t you see?
      This is the inherent problem with the modern PAP and why it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
      No longer are PAP MPs and Ministers the paragon of wisdom and leadership. They are more concerned with preserving their fat paychecks than risking their necks for the benefit of Singaporeans.

      The Old Guards never put themselves first. They always put Singaporeans first. They were always willing to take personal risks if society will benefit.

      We are paying extra for poor servant leaders.

  16. Cai Lee says:

    No PAP ministers dare to ask the leader…not surprising at all. So what you think when citizens want option to government decision from represented PAP ministers … oR will not ask question too. Then whys pay so much for many ministries… waste of our tax payers$$$$$

  17. Waaa answering 6 qn (4.8%) of the total questions submitted means being answerable to Singapore?? Power!! Either they are all repeated qns or irrelevant qns or wait do they even exist?? Are there really 124 qns submitted??

  18. Sunny Sim says:

    Better to have the case to be heard in International court for more trasnperency and justice and why waste money and time this is their private matter

  19. They should just bring in the whip instead to punish 行家法! What crap is this lifting? Meaning at all times all MPs cannot question and debate on issues or advise your boss?

  20. Wondering out loud …. those in white , are they in it for the salary and rewards, to be on the ‘right’ side , or the calling to serve and lead …. Maybe a KPI should be set for future parliament sittings … the 5-10 members of parliament who asked the least questions for the year /term not be eligible to participate in next election …

  21. Ronnie Lim says:

    Finally, I understood the meaning of “lifting the party whip”. It’s to prepare the action of whipping the party members if they asked any question. Haiz…..

  22. Sammy Lee says:

    Absolute proof that the PAP MPs do not look after your interests? Even on such a high profile case that involves Serious Allegations on the PM, wife and Cabinet Minsters plus organs of the state they do not even put up 1 respectable Question? Tsk tsk tsk. You get what you voted for.

    1. Although the “whip” is lifted during this session, it will still be place back in no time. Do you still remember what PAP said during the last few years – For more good years. So who do not want a few more good years ahead. Whatever they claim or ans will not be able to be use against them in courts. Just listen lol.

  23. WP had been pretty ineffective as co-drivers.
    They asked good questions, but lacked the preparation, oratory skills, and nerves to carry the day.

    1. And the likes of Josephine Teo, or Khaw Boon Wan’s tolong tolong, or the countless times Koh Poh Koon stuck his foot in his mouth are good debate and prep?

      Double standards.

    2. I’m well aware of the whys.
      Yet knowing the reasons doesn’t negate the fact that they performed badly in one to one debates – lacking preparation, skill, and force of personality.
      Asking good questions, but falter later, is akin to making a good opening chess move, but playing badly later.

    3. Steven Lim says:

      They are outnumbered, no power and resources, because people like you give all power to one party and now kpkb they no good??? I give all weapons to your enemy, nothing to you and ask you to win the fight, can you? Something wrong with your logic ler. Be fair lah.

  24. The stage ….. for who to see, NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW.

    You want to ask many questions. Sorry, limited edition only. Post your question as early as possible. Not all questions will be entertained.

    Only those chosen few will ….. will be address. (To my favour).

    What else do you want to hear? Next time …. when there is another stage show in my schedule. …. ok

    Let’s move on. Give your benefits of doubt everything is in control. Lol hahaha ohm.

    Why waste time? Nothing will be addressed even if you have 2 questions.

    1) is there any conflict of interest husband and wife in the politic run conglomerates Inc ?

    2) Is there conflict of interest among in the 38 Oxley road?

    Just my opinion

  25. Dissolved Parliament and called for a snap election…that will solve the accusations of power hungry…Let the Nation decide who is worth to represent them…and move on.

  26. You have listed only 5 questions raised about the Oxley Road dispute in your article. Checking against the order paper the 6th person is NCMP Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Party Affliation: Workers’ Party)

    I have added his question below:

    1) Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules are in place to ensure that Ministers and senior officeholders with personal or pecuniary interests in the subject matter of Government decisions do not influence or participate in the related deliberations and decision-making and how are the rules enforced; (b) in respect of Government opinions or decisions relating to the estate and assets of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, what conflicts or potential conflicts of interest did the Government identify to exist from among the members of the Cabinet and with regard to the Attorney-General; and (c) how are these conflicts or potential conflicts of interest managed.

    2) Mr Leon Perera: To ask the Prime Minister (a) under what circumstances are Ministerial committees whose existence is not made public are convened to address issues; (b) how many of such committees currently exist and whether their terms of reference and composition can be publicly announced unless forbidden by national security concerns; and (c) in respect of Ministerial committee reviewing the fate of No 38 Oxley Road, whether independent heritage experts and processes for public opinion sensing will be engaged by the committee.

    3) Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to prevent, limit, detect, and address situations where Ministers or political appointees use state organs to obtain information not related to the performance of their duties, advance personal interests or punish detractors, critics, or political opponents.

    4) Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister in view of public concerns over allegations of abuse of power over the matter of 38 Oxley Road, whether he supports a motion to set up a special Select Committee of Parliament, comprising Members from all parties, to receive relevant evidence and with public hearings that are broadcast live.

    5) Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules and directives are in place to prevent Ministers and political appointees from abusing their positions by allowing or condoning their family members to access, influence and direct senior civil servants on matters beyond their professional course of work; (b) how often are these rules and directives communicated to Ministers, political appointees and senior civil servants and in what form; and (c) how will such cases be treated when abuse of position and power is proven.

    6) Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: To ask the Minister for Culture,
    Community and Youth (a) whether deeds of gifts executed with the NHB may
    be shared with third persons and, if so, under what circumstances may they be
    shared; and (b) whether the deed of gift of items from 38 Oxley Road had been
    protected by a confidentiality clause and, if so, why did NHB release the deed
    to the Prime Minister.

  27. WH Wong says:

    What a wayang and waste of time, no wonder pinkie has chosen the pink house as his forum to hogwash himself and cult fans!

  28. Ken Lim says:

    Amidst the feud, I have seen something positive for Singaporeans. It has caused Singaporeans to communicate more often than usual. I was at a pharmacy today and I was watching how one uncle was teaching another uncle on how to use WhatsApp so that they could share the juiciest details around the Lee saga. In fact both men had not been in touch for a really long while. It was heartening to see how one elder was showing transfer of files and making of calls via WhatsApp.

  29. EL Gan says:

    Since the PAP MPs didn’t raise any Question, than this defeats the PM moves to answer the accusation from his siblings thru Parliment. It also demenstrae what the public suspect that these PAP MP are more interested in their rice bowl than the voters.

    1. Low Jerry says:

      This saga has reveal many flaws. The shining ones are cruel hand, MPs cannot speak up without permission. This is to say how can they represent and speak up for the constituency and the people who voted them. Why these people still voted them?????.

    2. Either they fear that or they dont want to interfere or they get nothing only lots of curse and swearing from citizen.I guess some of them favour the other 2 sibbling

    1. Sas Karma says:

      Not all Singaporeans are stupid..30% refused to be dogs ..only 70% stupid singaporeans..and yes.. some stupid IB dogs are in these threads.

Comments are closed.