OPINION: "Straight Instant Karma or Black Irony in the Lee Family Feud?" By Goh Meng Seng, 27 June 2016

Who would expect The Black Irony? By Goh Meng Seng, 27 June 2016.

Some call it Straight Instant Karma, some would just call it Black Irony.

"The dead are at the mercy of the living" - Jean-Paul Sartre, French existentialist philosopher (1905-1980).

Once a powerful man on the island, feared even by his own political minions in the party, has eventually suffered great humiliation and disrespect, only to become a puppet political tool for his own son and party to milk to the fullest.

Patrick Lee Song Juan (SDA) celebrates Mr Lee's resignation from cabinet

Who would imagine that such a great shrewd politician of his time, who was exceptionally street smart to milk the political capital of his contemporaries like Lim Chin Siong, would end up nothing more than a "sacred political cow" to be milked eternally by his own party, against his own will after his death?

Who would imagine that a ruthless politician like him, who locked up thousands of his detractors and dissidents, breaking their families and soul in solitary confinement, forcing many others to run road as well, would end up with the very machinery, or rather the Monster he created, instilling that same fear in his own son, forcing him to consider the Run Road option?

Who would expect a man who had undaunted will-power that created Singapore after his will and preferences, couldn't even get that little respect from the very party he created, to grant him that simple wish to demolish his own house?

Who would expect a man who had used his expertise in law, to create draconian laws which were deemed necessary for forceful land acquisition for urban renewal, could possibly end up at the end of this huge stick, to have his own Minister openly declare that his own house and property could be forcefully acquired by the government against his will?

Who would expect the mantra "for the greater National good", which he created to justify all bad policies against the people, be used against his will eventually?

Who would expect that a man renowned as the First among equals, top lawyer graduated with top grades from Cambridge, could be so blatantly insulted to be a senile fool who couldn't even understand this own Will he signed?

Mr Goh Meng Seng

Who would expect a man with such great mastery of words, twisting and turning his words just to get what he wanted, could be subjected to such Third class wordy abuse of twisting himself?

Who would expect a man who had preached about Confucianism all his life ended up with the filial piety concept being treated as trash while his children fought among themselves under his name?

For all his life, he diligently worked hard and created his dream system of semi dictatorship and Asian authoritarian rule, but in the end, he was so helplessly turned into the victim of his own pet monster, under the control of his own son.

For those who are in the system enjoying every bit of that power of tyranny, don't be too happy yet. What can happen to him, could well befall upon you one day.

That is Black Irony of the Day

[This post is shared with the kind written permission of Goh Meng Seng. Mr Goh is Secretary-General of the People's Power Party (PPP) and a former Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP).]

OPINION: "Potential Defamation Unanswered", by Goh Meng Seng, 22 June 2017

Thought of the Day - Potential Defamation Unanswered, 22 June 2017, by Goh Meng Seng

It is really unusual for the PAP government, especially its Prime Minister and Ministers, to allow highly Defamatory allegations made without a hawkish response to sue the pants off of those who made it. This is especially so when such potentially Defamatory allegations are made by influential individuals in the society or its opponents in politics.

Mr Goh Meng Seng

Thus, many Singaporeans are puzzled why the current slate of Ministers and PM would allow LHY and LWL to continue their attacks, which are all potentially highly defamatory against PM Lee and his Ministers, to go unanswered.

Many PAP apologists may say that PM Lee didn't want to aggravate the situation by launching legal actions against his own siblings. But what about his Ministers? Does it mean that all along their reputation, which was valued by past defamation lawsuits to be worth hundreds of thousands and millions, has suddenly become valueless?

Of course, many Singaporeans were quickly reminded by some activists of what GCT and LKY had said: PAP Ministers must always defend their own reputation and integrity when they are defamed.

It is kind of ironic here to have LKY's own children break that mythical justification which was used against lots of past and present opposition members and activists.

Many people have asked: Why Why Why didn't PM Lee and his Ministers take legal actions against LWL and LHY?

Actually, LWL has unintentionally let the cat out of the bag. She mentioned that the very first joint statement with her brother LHY was supposed to be longer but was edited away by their LAWYERs. Why do they need lawyers to vet through their statement? Of course it is to make sure that the statement, when challenged, is defensible. This is especially so for the defamatory parts.

But yet, after their lawyers vetted their statement, it still carried a few explosive allegations which are potentially defamatory if found untrue.

It then means that their lawyers are satisfied that all the allegations made in that statement are fully backed up by solid evidence!

This is not the usual type of impromptu attacks we see on the internet. It is a carefully planned and executed attack launched by both LHY and LWL.

If you are observant enough, whenever PM Lee or his Ministers try to deny or rebut some of the allegations stated in the first joint statement, LHY will come up with rebuttal furnished and supported with "FACTS" and evidence, mostly from the huge archive of emails!

It really makes one wonder HOW MUCH EVIDENCE they have prepared before launching the joint statement!

Apparently, LHY and LWL are TAUNTING PM Lee or any of his Ministers to sue them by putting up very explosive allegations. They could provide evidence for rebuttal with such EASE each and everyday, putting PM Lee and his Ministers on a DRIP, literally speaking.

I believe they are prepared to throw the whole toilet bowl of evidence against any of them in court if they so decide to sue them. They might even have the ultimate NUKE in their arsenal of evidence which they reserve for the final assault if all else fails.

Thus, it is clear why PM Lee would choose to defend himself in Parliament, with the protection of immunity shield and a safe ground with his PAP MPs in dominance, rather than going to court to face his siblings.

But, as the Chinese saying goes, you can hide from the bad things for a short period of time, but you cannot hide from them forever.

Of course, there are people who think that LHL also has lots of incriminating evidence against his siblings which he may throw out during 3 July 2017. But it is unlikely that these are strong enough to withstand the scrutiny of the court of law, or else he would have challenged the validity of the Last Will straight away. Well, if that is so, a scorched earth battle will become inevitable in the end. There will be no winner, we will all be losers.

Afternote:

Just right after I posted this, LHY posted the EVIDENCE to substantiate his allegation of Ho Ching meddling in government!

[This post is shared with the kind written permission of Goh Meng Seng. Mr Goh is Secretary-General of the People's Power Party (PPP) and former Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP).]

OPINION: "Will I change my mind about believing LHY and LWL?" By Goh Meng Seng, 20 June 2017

Question of the Day by Goh Meng Seng (Facebook post, 20/6/2017)

Will I change my mind about believing LHY and LWL?

All beliefs and conclusions are made based on the best possible information available at the current moment. Nobody can profess to say she/he has FULL information at any point of time.

Goh Meng Seng in NSP days (c. 2011)

Just as a good judge would do, I look at all the information and information submitted by the respective parties and weigh between them. Do they contradict each other or themselves? Is the reasoning behind each statement, proposition or even mere speculation valid or sound? Is there any circumstantial evidence or justifications available for each proposition or argument?

For this FamiLee saga, I can only say one thing:

For anyone, even for a multi-million Ministerial Committee, to try and prove that Mr Lee had changed his mind or was "fickle minded" in his view about his stance on demolishing the Oxley house, is almost impossible to convince anyone, any layman, that LKY would agree to preserve the house as monument for himself.

The reason is very simple. Even if you could have all the ministers coming out to say LKY had told them he has changed his mind and would not want to demolish the house and would like to preserve the house as monument for himself, it would not be convincing at all because there is a glaring conflict of interests here.

And the point is simple. LKY had NEVER ONCE went public, be it written in his book, giving interview or even putting up passing remarks that he had changed his mind! All his public statements made while he was alive were very consistent that he wanted and wished to have his house demolished and no monument to be built for him.

He might have changed his will a couple of times, with the 6th Will leaving out the Demolition Clause but leaving that out doesn't mean he would agree to have a monument built from his own house. There might be other reasons why he left this demolition clause out but that is not important at all.

Most importantly, the Last Will has reinstated his wish that the house must be demolished, in no uncertain terms.

Thus, you can beat around the bushes and try to give all sorts of excuses to preserve the house, but no, you cannot convince anyone that LKY has changed his mind and would agree to these PAP people creating an altar out of his house and make him God sitting there to be worshipped by others. This is NEVER his wish at all.

Unless, of course, you can prove that the Last Will is invalid, for whatever reasons and does not represent his wish at all. And this could only be PROVEN IN COURT of Law, not in the Parliament circus.

There is nothing legally wrong for the current PAP government under his son PM Lee HL to use administrative force to gazette and acquire the house to build a monument for LKY, even if it is against his (LKY's) wish.

Lee Hsien Yang (sibling)

But you just cannot have the cake and eat it too. By doing so you are doing it AGAINST LKY's wish.

This will not be the last nor the first time PAP government has gone against a dead man's wish but the difference is it is against their own founder's wish.

As far as I am concerned, LKY was pretty consistent over this and his two children, LWL and LHY, have been pretty consistent over this as well.

I only believe in something consistent.

Unless, if and only if, LHL could prove it in court that the Last Will does not represent LKY's wish, then I shall reconsider my position.

[This post is shared here with the kind written permission of Mr Goh Meng Seng. Goh Meng Seng is Secretary-General of the People's Power Party (PPP) and former Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP).]

NEWS / OPINION: Workers' Party Statement regarding Lee family feud, 20 June 2017

Workers’ Party Statement, 20 June 2017

The Workers' Party believes the crux of the family issues surrounding 38 Oxley Road is for the family to resolve privately or in Court. We are only concerned with the allegations of abuse of power and the harm these have caused to confidence in Singapore and our political institutions. WP MPs have filed the following parliamentary questions to help clear the air on the allegations.

Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government would consent to a resolution to convene a Special Select Committee of Parliament, comprising Members from all parties, with public hearings that are broadcast live to look into allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister made by members of his family so as to allow his accusers to present all the relevant evidence to Parliament.

Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what rules are in place to ensure that Ministers and senior public office-holders 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) as regards 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; (c) how these conflicts or potential conflicts of interest were or are being managed.

PNG ENG HUAT: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what clear rules and directives are in place to prevent Ministers and other political appointees from abusing their positions to access, influence and direct senior civil servants on matters beyond their professional course of work; and (b) how often are these rules and directives communicated to the senior civil servants and in what form.

Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to prevent, limit, detect, and address situations where ministers or other 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.

Chen Show Mao: To ask the Prime Minister when should a minister or political appointee go to court to defend his or her reputation and when should he or she refrain from private litigation and seek instead to address such allegations publicly, such as in Parliament.

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

Daniel Goh 吴佩松: To ask the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether Deeds of Gifts executed with the National Heritage Board may be shared with third persons, and if so, under what circumstances they may be shared, (b) whether the Deed of Gift of items from 38 Oxley Road was protected by a confidentiality clause, and if so, why did the Board release the Deed to the Prime Minister.

[Source: Workers' Party Facebook page, 20 June 2017.]

Activist Roderick Chia celebrates Workers' Party wins at 2011 GE

OPINION: "Question of the Day- To Demolish or Not To Demolish?" By Goh Meng Seng, 19 June 2017

Question of the Day- To Demolish or Not To Demolish? By Goh Meng Seng (Facebook post, 19 June 2017)

In one of the interviews LKY gave with regards to how he witnessed the sorry state of the "historical residence" of famous people (including Shakespeare).

Mr. Goh Meng Seng in NSP days (2011)

I have personally visited some of the "historical houses" of some "great historical individuals" and I have to agree with LKY's observation. Most of these places have succumbed to age and poor maintenance due to lack of funds, subsequently becoming just a dilapidated house.

As time passes and generations of people come and go, nobody is really interested in such "monuments" anymore. Not even foreign tourists would be interested in these places which claim to be an important part of history.

There are a few which were renovated or "rebuilt" a couple of times in the past decades and still stand well but the amount of interest from both local residents and foreign tourists is still pathetic.

Time moves on while these houses look on. Nothing significant can be said about them now and definitely nothing significant is worthy of interest for the majority of people living now.

For example, a relatively well kept memorial house in Singapore would be the "Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall"; but wait, how many of you know where it is or what it is all about? Have you visited it before? How many times have you visited it in your life, on your own (yeah, not that school organized excursion)? In more specific terms, what percentage of Singaporeans have visited this place? Or have any interest in it at all?

You know how expensive will it cost to upkeep such places? Look nowhere beyond the recent saga of over $800K Rubbish Bin of the old Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall!

The War Memorial Park at the centre of the CBD is more significant than any individual house but yet, not many people visited it, except for the annual delegation of representatives commemorating the deaths in WWII on 15 Feb War Memorial Day, which isn't even a public holiday in Singapore.

Of course for LKY's Oxley house, for the foreseeable future, if it is preserved as a memorial monument for LKY, will have throngs of children visiting it as a deliberate effort of PCF kindergartens bringing their students there just like they did during LKY's death. But what if, 50 or 100 years down the road, PAP loses power? What will become of this place?

Besides, as someone has unwittingly put it blatantly, this house is an important part of PAP's history. Hey, that is PAP's history we are talking about, not particularly about the Whole Singapore's history!

We didn't preserve David Marshall's house as part of important monument for the FIRST Chief Minister of self rule, did we?

In fact under more than five decades of PAP's ruthless rule, many important and significant landmarks have been destroyed, which meant a lot more to many generations of Singaporeans like mine e.g. The old National Central Library: several generations of Singaporeans have visited and studied hard in this library for their subsequent successes in life. And for many, this is also a place of romance in their lives. This is truly a place of great collective memories which was bulldozed without a wink from PAP government.

38 Oxley House? None of us except the Lee family members and their relatives cum friends have visited that place, let alone have any emotional attachment to this house. This is such an insignificant place as compared to the old National Central Library which a lot of Singaporeans have sentimental attachment to and memories of.

Thus, I do not see the rationale nor significance of this Oxley house to be preserved as a monument for LKY. If it is just for story telling of the History of PAP's formation, then a replica of the basement dining area, which was said to have held a lot of political meetings of the pioneers, could be constructed in the National Museum or at Fort Siloso Museum (just like what they did for the Surrender of Singapore to the Japanese). This would be more appropriate than preserving the whole house which will inevitably restrict the urban renewal development of the surrounding areas in Oxley Rise!

[This post is shared here with the kind written permission of Goh Meng Seng. Mr. Goh is Secretary-General of the People's Power Party (PPP) and former Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP).]