The NHB’s review follows a formal application by Lee Hsien Yang, the youngest of the siblings, to demolish the property following Dr Lee Wei Ling’s death on 9 October 2024.

In a statement on 15 October, Lee Hsien Yang reiterated his commitment to his father’s last will, stating that he had a “legal and moral duty as the sole living executor” to carry out Lee Kuan Yew’s wish for the house’s demolition once Dr Lee vacated it.

However, as public debate resurfaces, Lee Kuan Yew’s eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, has remained silent on the issue following his 2023 retirement as Prime Minister, leaving his position open to interpretation and leading some to question whether his priorities may have shifted post-retirement.

In 2015, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, then Prime Minister, along with his siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang, supported demolishing the house in line with their father’s wishes.

“Most importantly, how we honour Mr Lee must be faithful to the ideals he lived by and fought for… It was not monuments but ideals that were his chief concern, the ideals upon which he built Singapore,” he said in Parliament.

He added, “As a son, I would like to see these wishes [for demolition] carried out.”

However, this family pledge among Lee Kuan Yew’s three children has been overshadowed by a public feud that erupted in 2017 and remains unresolved. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang accused Lee Hsien Loong of abusing his powers as Prime Minister to influence decisions on the family home—a charge Lee Hsien Loong has consistently denied.

In his 2017 Ministerial Statement, Lee Hsien Loong said, “I have recused myself from all Government decisions relating to 38 Oxley Road… From that point on, I have been out of the loop whenever the Government handles matters concerning the house. I play no part in any of the discussions or decisions.”

However, he distanced himself from his siblings’ position, which differed from his own stance in 2015, stating: “My father’s primary wish on the house has always been clear—he always wanted it knocked down… Where my siblings and I differ is on whether my father was prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible.”

In emphasising that no one is above the law, Lee also stated, “The legacy of Mr Lee is much more than an old house… That in Singapore, even Mr Lee’s house and Mr Lee’s wishes are subject to the rule of law”—a position echoed by supporters advocating for the house to be gazetted in light of NHB’s latest statement.

In multiple Facebook posts, Dr Lee alleged that her eldest brother’s actions contradicted their father’s wishes, a claim she reiterated until her final days. Referring to him as a “dishonourable son,” she argued he had failed to honour Lee Kuan Yew’s explicit instructions for 38 Oxley Road.

This dispute created a lasting rift among the siblings, with no known family gatherings or reunions since.

Dr Lee’s recent funeral further highlighted this estrangement; Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching, attended only as members of the public. While some viewed their absence from family roles in the arrangements as unfortunate, both were later seen attending a wedding on the same day, appearing at ease—further fueling public speculation about the fractured family ties.

On 24 October 2024, in response to Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition request, the NHB announced its intention to conduct a thorough heritage review, keeping open the option of designating the property as a national monument.

Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community, and Youth, stated that “no option should be precluded or closed off,” underscoring the need to evaluate the site’s legacy in light of its historical significance to Singapore’s founding years. This review will be led by NHB’s Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board, which will ultimately recommend a course of action to the Ministry of Culture, Community, and Youth.

The current review takes place against the backdrop of a 2018 ministerial committee report, commissioned during Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure as Prime Minister, which examined various options for 38 Oxley Road, including partial preservation and full demolition.

The committee refrained from making a recommendation while Dr Lee was still living in the property, deferring the decision to future administrations.

This was the same context in which Lee Hsien Loong stated in Parliament in 2015 that the decision should be left to “the government of the day” once his sister vacated the house, emphasising his wish to remain impartial as both a son and head of government.

The Singapore government has repeatedly pointed out that while Lee Kuan Yew’s will unambiguously requested demolition, he did acknowledge in a letter to the Cabinet— written after meeting with People’s Action Party ministers on 21 July 2011—that if preservation became unavoidable, the property should be properly maintained rather than neglected.

However, his 2013 will clearly stated his preference for demolition.

Perhaps to illustrate his intent and dismay over the pressure upon him, Lee Kuan Yew removed Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching as executors of his will on 23 July 2011, two days after the Cabinet meeting, leaving the responsibility solely to Dr Lee and Lee Hsien Yang, two of the original four executors in his first will (dated 7 December 1995).

He also specifically included a paragraph in his second will (dated 20 August 2011) calling for the immediate demolition of his house following his death or immediately after Dr Lee moved out.

For Lee Hsien Yang, the demolition application represents the culmination of years of public debate and family tension. “It has been nine years,” he recently noted, alluding to his brother’s 2015 statement in Parliament and the 2018 ministerial committee’s decision to defer the issue.

NHB’s current review, which revisits issues examined in 2018, has raised eyebrows, as it replicates work already done and revisits the 2018 ministerial committee findings, which concluded that the decision should be left to a future government.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who was part of the ministerial committee, has not commented on the matter; instead, an unnamed government spokesperson responded to Lee Hsien Yang’s application, accusing him of creating “false urgency” over the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, indicating a continued reluctance to address the issue directly

Members of the public have consistently supported respecting Lee Kuan Yew’s last wish. A 2015 YouGov poll revealed that 77% of the 1,000 respondents favoured demolishing the house in accordance with his wishes. Of those in favour, 61% felt it was important to honour his wishes, while 39% cited the need to respect his privacy.

More recently, nearly 2,000 comments were posted on a Mothership Facebook post, with a clear majority expressing support for demolishing the house.

Many speculate that the government may be postponing a controversial decision that opposes the majority’s views ahead of the upcoming general election, expected by November 2025.

Whether or not Lee Hsien Loong will eventually voice his opinion remains uncertain. Wong’s silence also raises questions about the nature of the leadership transition and whether he is simply positioned as a “seat warmer” in Lee’s shadow.

The issue continues to evoke strong feelings among Singaporeans, who wish to see Lee Kuan Yew’s final wishes fulfilled and to put an end to the prolonged family dispute that has embarrassed the country for years.

The post Where does Lee Hsien Loong stand on the future of 38 Oxley Road as the government revisits the issue? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Voter backlash over recent political scandals and dissatisfaction with the LDP’s response to economic challenges contributed to the party’s significant setback, marking its worst election result since 2009.

The LDP and its long-term coalition partner Komeito, who previously held a combined 279 seats in the 465-seat Lower House, saw their numbers drop to 209 seats, according to Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The results signify a powerful statement from the electorate, which appeared disillusioned with the LDP’s longstanding dominance and recent political controversies. In the weeks leading up to the election, the LDP was embroiled in a scandal involving unreported proceeds from factional fundraising events.

Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida resigned amid criticism over his perceived failure to adequately address the issue, with Shigeru Ishiba assuming leadership in an attempt to reform the party’s image.

In an unusual move to mitigate the fallout, Ishiba withheld official LDP endorsements for candidates linked to the scandal.

However, a subsequent revelation that these non-endorsed candidates still received equivalent funding from the party—20 million yen each (approximately US$132,000)—sparked fresh public discontent. Amid inflationary pressures and memories of rising prices, the scandal added fuel to existing economic grievances.

Prime Minister Ishiba acknowledged the challenging outcome, stating on TV Tokyo that the election had been “very tough” for the LDP and pledging to carefully consider coalition arrangements once the final results are tallied.

His stance on coalition possibilities underscores the precarious position of the ruling bloc, which now falls short of the Lower House majority threshold of 233 seats. Coalition ally Komeito’s leader, Keiichi Ishii, also lost his district seat last month, a further blow to the coalition’s unity and strength.

The election outcome has energised Japan’s main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ), which secured 143 seats—an increase from its previous 98.

CDPJ leader Yoshihiko Noda, speaking at a press conference, described the election as a turning point for Japan’s governance and expressed a commitment to collaborative efforts with other opposition groups to form a new government.

LIVE 第50回衆議院議員総選挙投開票日野田佳彦代表会見 @NODAYOSHI55 https://t.co/YevgfbvyFm

— 立憲民主党 (@CDP2017) October 27, 2024

This shift in political dynamics introduces fresh uncertainty into Japan’s government formation process and presents possible paths to coalition arrangements.

Smaller parties such as the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) and the Japan Innovation Party may now wield influence, despite holding differing policy views from the LDP.

The DPP, holding 27 seats, and the Japan Innovation Party, with 35 seats, could become pivotal in potential power-sharing discussions, though ideological differences with the LDP may complicate negotiations.

The election is viewed as a major referendum on the LDP’s approach to both political ethics and economic management.

The party’s diminished standing reflects public frustration with its handling of inflation and high-profile issues like the 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Criticism surrounding Abe’s assassination extended to alleged ties between LDP members and a Christian movement linked to the case, further weakening public trust.

Ishiba, who recently called the snap election to seek public backing for his leadership, attempted to position the LDP as a reformed entity by promising a fresh start at a pre-election rally, where he pledged to make the party “fair, just, and sincere.” Despite these assurances, the results suggest that voters were unconvinced by this new approach.

In Japan’s post-war history, the LDP has maintained an almost continuous grip on power, except for brief intervals.

Most recently, it lost control of the government in 2009 to the now-defunct Democratic Party of Japan, only to regain power in 2012.

The current election marks another rare interruption in this nearly uninterrupted reign, underscoring voter appetite for accountability and governance reform.

With the LDP’s future uncertain, the political landscape in Japan is set for possible turbulence as parties explore coalition frameworks to address the country’s pressing economic and security issues.

The final election count, expected in the early hours of 28 October, will likely guide the immediate steps for Ishiba and his coalition as they navigate this critical juncture in Japanese politics.

The post Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party loses majority amid political scandal and economic concerns appeared first on The Online Citizen.

The government described LHY’s claim for immediate demolition in accordance with his father’s will as “inaccurate” and criticised him for creating a “false urgency” surrounding the issue.

LHY, the youngest son of LKY, earlier called on Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to make an immediate decision, citing his father’s 2013 will, which stated the house should be demolished once it was no longer occupied by Dr Lee Wei Ling.

Dr Lee, the only remaining resident, passed away on 9 October 2024.

According to a government spokesperson from the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), LKY had accepted that the house might be preserved, noting that he submitted redevelopment plans for 38 Oxley Road in 2012, which were approved by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

The spokesperson noted that in submitting these plans, LKY was proceeding on the basis that preservation might ultimately be chosen.

While the government acknowledged that LKY’s preference was for the property to be demolished, it argued that he had accepted it might not be, and he had also given input on how the property should be preserved if that course were taken.

The MDDI spokesperson reiterated an allegations that LHY and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), had influenced the final will with “unseemly haste” in 2013, bypassing LKY’s longtime lawyer, possibly impacting the final demolition directive.

In 2020, LSF was also found guilty of misconduct concerning her involvement with the will.

The MDDI spokesperson added that Singaporeans hold varied views on the fate of the property, and many would prefer to put questions around LKY’s will and the future of the house behind them and move forward.

While accusing LHY of “creating a false urgency,” the MDDI spokesperson stated that the government, in contrast, aims to keep all options open—including full or partial demolition or preservation of the property.

“Instead of closing all options now, we should keep the options open and consider them carefully, in the fullness of time, taking into account Mr LKY’s wishes, the historical value of the site and what it can mean for current and future generations of Singaporeans.”

LHY Reposts Call for PM Lawrence Wong to Act on 38 Oxley Road in CNA Facebook Comment

Notably, following the government’s statement, LHY commented on a CNA Facebook post, reiterating his call for Prime Minister Wong to take immediate action on 38 Oxley Road. He reminded Mr Wong of his previous roles in overseeing LKY’s legacy.

Mr Wong, who was Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in 2015, had played a role in displaying LKY’s furniture and artefacts at the National Museum and had called for fidelity to the values and ideals of the founding generation.

LHY further argued that Wong’s current indecision was inconsistent with those ideals and accused the government of delaying the issue unnecessarily.

Context of the debate

The fate of 38 Oxley Road has long been a contentious issue, particularly within the Lee family and among Singapore’s political leadership.

In his final will, LKY made it clear that the house should be immediately demolished once Dr Lee no longer lived there.

Despite this, members of the People’s Action Party (PAP), including senior cabinet members, attempted to halt plans for demolition, citing the need to study various options, particularly in light of the public dispute between LHY, Dr Lee, and former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2017.

Publicly, however, PAP leaders have made their intention clear—they wish to preserve the house due to its symbolic value as the residence of Singapore’s founding prime minister, even though LKY had expressed a preference for its demolition.

This has led to a prolonged debate between the family and the government, with LHY and his sister Dr Lee—even in her passing—arguing in favour of respecting their father’s wishes.

NHB’s new study raises further concerns

The NHB’s decision to launch a new study on the preservation of 38 Oxley Road has added fuel to the controversy. The move comes despite a comprehensive 2018 report that had already examined the house’s potential historical and architectural significance.

This has led to scepticism about the necessity of yet another study, with pundits suggesting that it may be a delaying tactic by the government to avoid making a final decision that goes against popular opinion ahead of the upcoming General Election.

Political implications

Mr Wong, who succeeded Lee Hsien Loong in 2024 as Prime Minister, now faces the responsibility of addressing this sensitive issue.

His leadership will be scrutinised not only for how he navigates the wishes of the Lee family but also for how he manages the delicate balance between heritage preservation and personal legacies.

As the debate intensifies, LHY’s public appeal to Wong places pressure on the government to resolve the matter.

With the upcoming General Election scheduled by November 2025, the issue of 38 Oxley Road is likely to become even more politically charged, testing the leadership’s ability to make a decisive and transparent resolution.

For now, LHY has made his stance clear: the time for a decision is now, and further delays would dishonour the wishes of Singapore’s founding prime minister.

The post Singapore govt accuses Lee Hsien Yang of creating ‘false urgency’ over 38 Oxley Road demolition appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Rather than addressing LHY’s appeal personally, Wong’s response was issued through an unnamed government spokesperson on Friday, prompting questions over whether this approach contrasts with the decisiveness expected of Singapore’s leadership.

On 25 October, LHY publicly appealed to Wong to honour Lee Kuan Yew’s will, which called for the house’s immediate demolition once Dr Lee Wei Ling no longer resided there.

With her recent passing, LHY argued that this condition had been met and called on Wong to demonstrate leadership by fulfilling his father’s wishes. “This is your responsibility,” he stated, urging Wong to “Please lead” on the matter.

However, Wong has not addressed LHY’s appeal directly, opting instead for a statement from an unnamed Ministry of Digital Development and Information spokesperson.

The spokesperson countered LHY’s claims, calling them “inaccurate” and accusing him of “creating a false urgency.”

According to the spokesperson, Lee Kuan Yew’s will did indeed favour demolition, but the late leader acknowledged the possibility of preserving the property should future generations choose to do so.

The spokesperson added that the government is committed to “keeping options open” to allow for broader public consideration, underscoring a cautious and flexible approach to handling the legacy of 38 Oxley Road.

The government also shared images of Lee Kuan Yew’s email to the Cabinet from December 2011, in which he acknowledged that Cabinet members unanimously felt that the house should not be demolished, despite his intention to do so.

“I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished,” he wrote. “It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.”

Many netizens online have interpreted this statement from Lee Kuan Yew as a reluctant acceptance, given the opposition from Cabinet members. Lee Hsien Loong, who was the Prime Minister at the time, has stated that he recused himself from the decision.

One netizen commented, “In normal English: We bullied an old man into accepting the one thing he didn’t want to be his legacy, and now we are going to be performatively mad at everyone who isn’t happy about it.”

Wong’s decision to remain silent has raised questions about whether his response aligns with the firm, confrontational style famously modelled by Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.

Known for his uncompromising, direct approach to governance, Lee Kuan Yew once declared in a rally speech, “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him. Or give it up. This is not a game of cards. This is your life and mine. I’ve spent a whole lifetime building this, and as long as I’m in charge, nobody is going to knock it down.”

This statement, resonating with generations of Singaporeans, captured Lee Kuan Yew’s boldness and clear-cut resolve in the face of contentious issues.

Lee Kuan Yew’s son, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), attempted to emulate his father’s iconic message in his 2015 rally speech, although many found that his tone fell short of his father’s well-known impact.

In fact, LHL had previously deferred the decision to a future government in 2015, when he addressed the matter of his family house in Parliament.

He said, “Mr Lee’s position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years, and fully consistent with his lifelong values. We should respect his wishes, as well as those of Mrs Lee.”

“Dr Lee Wei Ling has informed me that she intends to continue living in the house at 38 Oxley Road. Therefore, there is no immediate issue of demolition of the house, and no need for the Government to make any decision now. If and when Dr Lee Wei Ling no longer lives in the house, Mr Lee has stated his wishes as to what then should be done. At that point, speaking as a son, I would like to see these wishes carried out. However, it will be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter.”

He reaffirmed this in his 2017 ministerial statement.

Now that Wong has taken the baton from LHL as Prime Minister, surely his administration is the Government of the day to decide.

To some, Wong’s silence may suggest an unwillingness to engage directly on a complex, potentially polarising matter, particularly since the governing party’s preference is likely to run counter to majority views that favour respecting Lee Kuan Yew’s last wishes.

LHY’s public call adds to a legacy debate stretching back to a ministerial committee report in 2018, led by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, which proposed three main options: preserving the house as it stands, conserving only historically significant areas, or demolishing the structure entirely. Wong, a member of that committee, is no stranger to the complex discussions surrounding the property.

The government’s spokesperson also referenced judicial findings from 2020, which suggested that LHY and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern, had misrepresented the circumstances surrounding the drafting of Lee Kuan Yew’s will.

This context, the spokesperson argued, sheds light on LHY’s motives, suggesting his calls should be considered cautiously.

However, the government under Wong seems to overlook the fact that correspondence between Lee Kuan Yew and his lawyer, Kwa Kim Li, shows Lee Kuan Yew made these statements believing his house was going to be, or had already been, gazetted. In his last will, he tried to enforce his wishes, stating that his strongest desire was for the family house to be demolished.

As Singaporeans reflect on the balance between Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy and modern leadership expectations, Wong’s indirect handling of LHY’s appeal raises larger questions about how Singapore’s leaders approach the nation’s foundational symbols.

Wong’s response, or lack thereof, speaks to the evolving nature of leadership in Singapore—a divergence from the founding father’s direct style that may signal a more measured, cautious approach.

Yet, in the face of LHY’s direct challenge, the public is left to ponder: Where is the iron in Lawrence Wong?

The post Where is the iron in Lawrence Wong? Hiding from direct response to Lee Hsien Yang? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

An unnamed government spokesperson informed the media on Friday evening (25 Oct) that LKY’s son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), were found to have lied under oath.

The spokesperson added that the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges described their conduct as presenting “an elaborate edifice of lies… both on oath… and through their public and other statements.”

“The affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant,” the government spokesperson stated, adding that “Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s continued allegations must be seen in this light.”

According to a document shared by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in Parliament, the government asserts that LHY and LSF attempted to perpetuate the falsehood that Ms Kwa Kim Li (KKL), LKY’s lawyer, was involved in preparing LKY’s Last Will, while concealing their own role in persuading LKY to sign it.

However, the government seems insistent on overlooking certain facts regarding KKL’s involvement in LKY’s Last Will.

Following the conclusion of LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal and the verdict by the Court of Three Judges, another Disciplinary Tribunal concluded in May 2023 that KKL falsely claimed she had received no instructions from LKY to make changes to his Will and misled the estate by denying her involvement in drafting the Last Will or in reflecting LKY’s final wishes as conveyed to her.

Email correspondence between LKY and KKL in November and December 2013, as well as the contents of the Last Will signed on 17 December 2013, indicate that the provisions of the Will largely correspond to their discussions.

Aside from the re-inclusion of the demolition clause for the Oxley Road property, the details in the Will reflect topics and terms previously discussed between LKY and KKL.

These emails also show that KKL had contacted LKY regarding matters related to the Oxley Road property, consistent with his stated intentions.

Furthermore, communications involving both LSF and LHY with LKY suggest that LKY was fully aware of the Will’s content, expressing a desire to finalise it without delay.

This alignment between the correspondence and the final provisions in the Will challenges the government’s assertion that LKY was misled, as it suggests that his instructions were clear and consistent with the document he signed on each and every page.

Additionally, KKL kept a copy of the Last Will and could have advised LKY to make revisions if he had been misled about his intentions, given that LKY had revised his Will multiple times in the past. Yet no changes were made to this version before his passing in 2015, and probate was granted to the Will in October 2015 without contest.

Given these details, the government’s repeated insistence that LHY and LSF misled LKY about his Last Will could be perceived as character assassination and a deliberate manipulation of facts.

It should also be noted that everything said and done by LKY was based on his belief that the Oxley house had, in some form, been gazetted by the Singapore government, despite his preference for it to be demolished.

This is reflected in his emails with KKL, where she references his thoughts about the house potentially being “de-gazetted.”

To suggest that LKY changed his mind about the 38 Oxley property or was open to other options only serves to muddle the truth with misleading statements.

Unfortunately, POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) cannot be applied to scrutinise these statements made by the government.

(Emails and Will were obtained from LSF’s Disciplinary Tribunal records.)

The post Evidence contradicts government claims of manipulation in Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Netizens have questioned Zhang’s one-sided opinion, suggesting it serves as establishment propaganda.

In a video commentary published on 25 October on 8World News’ social media and her own YouTube page, Zhang discussed the controversy surrounding Lee Hsien Yang’s recent asylum claim in the United Kingdom, which has garnered significant public attention in Singapore.

Zhang expressed personal opinion, criticising LHY’s s “rebellious actions” have deeply damaged the Lee family’s and Singapore’s reputation.

In an exclusive interview with The Guardian, LHY claims his departure was driven by what he describes as a campaign of political persecution by the Singaporean government under his brother’s administration.

He accused the Singaporean authorities of using legal actions and investigations to intimidate and repress him and his family.

In the video, Zhang introducing the concept of political asylum, explaining it as protection granted to those who can demonstrate credible fear or evidence of persecution on various grounds.

Zhang juxtaposed this with the Singapore government’s stance that Lee Hsien Yang and his wife are not legally restricted from returning to Singapore and that claims of persecution are unfounded.

She referenced a Financial Times report implying that the U.K. might have accepted Lee’s view that his son’s political ambitions were obstructed by former PM Lee Hsien Loong’s influence.

She expressed skepticism toward these claims, pointing out that Lee Hsien Yang criticised his father, the late Lee Kuan Yew, by describing Singapore as a “dictatorship.”

Zhang viewed his statements as attacks on his father’s legacy, specifically the establishment of rule of law, which she argued remains a defining element of Singapore’s governance.

“What is Lee Hsien Yang thinking? I’m at a loss for words, except one word fills my mind: “unfilial son (逆子)”,” Zhang criticised.

Zhang Misquotes LHY, Claiming He Derided His Father for Establishing a Dictatorship in Singapore

However, upon reviewing the original Guardian report, it is evident that Zhang has misquoted LHY.

The article itself provides context about Lee Kuan Yew, highlighting his role in transforming Singapore into an economic powerhouse while also mentioning the imprisonment of hundreds of opposition figures.

The characterization of Lee Kuan Yew as the “democratic world’s favourite dictator” actually originates from a 2015 opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Netizens Criticize Zhang Haijie’s One-Sided Remarks on LHY

In the comments section on 8 World News’s social media page, some users criticized Zhang Haijie’s remarks on Lee Hsien Yang, saying her comments “went too far,” appeared one-sided, and even sounded condemnatory.

One user commented, “Has the media now become a political tool?” suggesting Zhang’s remarks might serve as establishment propaganda.

Others advised Zhang to stay out of the Lee family’s affairs, noting, “Since ancient times, even the most impartial judge has found family matters difficult to resolve; it’s best if you watch your words.”

Some disagreed with Zhang for labeling Lee Hsien Yang as an “unfilial son,” pointing out that she is not even a member of the Lee family.

One comment remarked, “This program should be renamed ‘One-Sided Remarks,’ urging everyone to engage in an objective discussion about the issue instead of being misled by the ruling party’s biased narrative.”

Users emphasize Lee Hsien Yang’s independent thinking and stand up for his beliefs

Another user stated, “Don’t jump to conclusions! Everyone has their own aspirations. Just because he (LHY) comes from a family in the ruling party doesn’t mean he has to conform to everything; he should be allowed to think for himself and have his own beliefs. ”

Therefore, we can’t label him as rebellious; instead, we should recognize his ability to make his own judgments.”

One comment read: “I’m not surprised by this news at all! If Li Shengwu were to join the opposition party, his influence would indeed be a significant threat to the ruling People’s Action Party.”

Dr Lee refers her brother LHL as a “dishonorable son” and accuses him of abusing power to ‘build a dynasty’

While Zhang employed the weighty term “unfilial son” to criticise LHY, it remains uncertain whether she recalls that the late Dr Lee Wei Ling, sister of Lee Hsien Loong, referred to her brother as a “dishonourable son” for attempting to create a “Lee family cult.”

Dr Lee, who passed away on 9 October 2024, was a steadfast advocate for her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s wish to demolish their family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LKY had wished for his home to be demolished after his daughter no longer lived there.

Both LHY and LWL supported this wish, but Lee Hsien Loong, then the Prime Minister, contended that their father had been open to government decisions regarding the house.

This disagreement led to a series of legal and personal conflicts that have strained the family relationship, culminating in LHY’s decision to leave Singapore.

While publicly Lee Hsien Loong has stated that he recused himself from government decisions related to his family, LHY accused him in a recent Guardian article that that the legal actions against him and his family could not have occurred without the involvement of his brother, Lee Hsien Loong.

“In a tightly controlled country like Singapore, these kinds of actions could not have happened without the agreement and acquiescence of Lee Hsien Loong,” he said.

He told the Guardian he believed the current allegations against him and his wife were politically motivated attempts to destroy him.

He also said he had been among the targets of Singapore’s “very extensive surveillance system”.

LHL has not commented publicly on this specific allegation.

Despite the founding fathers’ wishes against the establishment of memorials, the Singapore government, under LHL’s leadership, has initiated plans to build a memorial for the founders, which is expected to cost US$335 million.

The post 8World News anchor Zhang Haijie faces criticism for labelling Lee Hsien Yang as ‘unfilial son’ appeared first on The Online Citizen.

This mid-year figure already surpasses totals from previous years, suggesting that by the end of 2024, the number could rise further.

In contrast, the number of refugees from Singapore under UNHCR’s mandate has remained relatively stable, with 40 recorded in 2024. However, this stability does not necessarily reflect a lack of need but may instead highlight the challenges many asylum-seekers face in obtaining refugee status.

The process of securing refugee status is notoriously difficult and involves rigorous scrutiny of applicants’ claims. A notable example is the case of Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and his wife, Lee Suet Fern (LSF), who applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in 2022.

Their application took two years to process, with the UK finally granting them refugee status in August 2024. This lengthy and thorough review illustrates the complexities involved in proving a well-founded fear of persecution, particularly for high-profile individuals.

The UK asylum system is known for its impartial and stringent evaluation, and the couple’s eventual success suggests that UK authorities deemed their fears of political persecution credible.

Despite the stable number of recognised refugees from Singapore, the growing number of asylum applications suggests underlying political and civil tensions.

The difficulties in obtaining refugee status—such as demonstrating specific forms of persecution based on political opinion, race, or religion—may explain why more Singaporeans have applied for asylum than have been granted it. This disparity highlights the challenges of navigating the asylum process, even for individuals with legitimate claims of persecution.

Moreover, the official figures on asylum-seekers may only tell part of the story. Figures, such as Terry Xu, Editor of The Online Citizen, have left Singapore due to fear of political persecution but have not formally sought asylum.

Xu, who was sued for defamation by former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and jailed for criminal defamation over the publication of statements alleged to accuse cabinet members of corruption, has relocated to Taiwan to continue his work free from state interference.

His example suggests that the number of people leaving Singapore for political reasons may be significantly higher than the 322 asylum-seekers documented by UNHCR, as many exiles opt not to go through formal asylum channels.

Looking at Singapore’s past, the 2013 documentary To Singapore, With Love by filmmaker Tan Pin Pin provides historical context on political exiles.

Many of these exiles fled the country due to political persecution in the 1960s and 1970s, and now live in countries like Malaysia, the United Kingdom, and Thailand.

Through interviews, Tan highlights their enduring emotional ties to Singapore, despite being unable to return due to fears of arrest or prosecution. The Singapore government banned the film domestically, citing concerns that it undermined national security.

Nevertheless, To Singapore, With Love remains a powerful testimony of how political dissent has historically led to forced exile, offering a historical backdrop to the current wave of Singaporeans seeking refuge abroad.

The film underscores the continuity of political suppression, suggesting that today’s asylum-seekers are part of a longer history of citizens being pushed to leave the country.

While Singapore is seeing a rise in the number of its own citizens seeking asylum abroad, the country itself does not provide a legal framework for protecting asylum-seekers who arrive on its shores.

Singapore has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, leaving those fleeing to the country vulnerable to refoulement—or deportation back to their home countries.

From 2019 to 2020, the UNHCR documented cases where individuals were denied entry into Singapore and deported without their protection needs being assessed, further highlighting the challenges faced by those seeking refuge in Singapore.

Growing oppressive environment in Singapore

Concerns about civil liberties and political freedoms in Singapore are underscored by recent human rights reports.

The 2024 Rights Tracker report by the Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI) gave Singapore a score of 7.3 out of 10 in the “Safety from the State” category, indicating that many people are vulnerable to human rights violations such as arbitrary arrest or ill-treatment.

Singapore’s score in “Empowerment” was even lower, at 4.2 out of 10, reflecting serious limitations on civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association.

These scores suggest that many Singaporeans do not fully enjoy the political freedoms expected in a democratic society, possibly contributing to the rise in asylum applications.

Reporters Without Borders has also consistently classified Singapore as having a “very bad” press freedom environment since 2020, ranking it similarly to nations with severe media restrictions, such as China.

Government control over the media, frequent defamation lawsuits against journalists, and sedition charges used to silence critics have created a culture of self-censorship. Additionally, the 2019 “anti-fake news” law, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, has expanded the government’s power to control information, allowing authorities to mandate corrections on any content they deem false.

The rising number of asylum-seekers and political exiles points to broader concerns about Singapore’s civil and political rights environment.

Despite the government’s insistence that legal actions against individuals like LHY are legitimate and not politically motivated, the UK’s decision to grant LHY and LSF asylum after a thorough two-year process adds weight to claims of political persecution. The UK’s impartial asylum process, which found the couple’s fears credible, further highlights these concerns.

The increase in asylum applications also reflects wider frustrations in Singapore, where citizens are increasingly contending with rising living costs and economic pressures.

Although Singapore remains globally respected for its economic success, many Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the gradual erosion of civil liberties and political freedoms. High-profile cases like that of LHY and LSF, along with individuals like Xu who have left Singapore, have brought this issue into sharper focus.

Much like frogs in boiling water, Singaporeans may not have noticed the gradual tightening of freedoms until rising living costs, restricted civil liberties, and political tensions made the situation critical. The asylum granted to LHY and LSF serves as a stark reminder of these mounting pressures on civil liberties in Singapore.

The post Rising number of Singaporeans seeking asylum reflects deeper political and civil concerns appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Uploaded on Thursday (24 October) by the TikTok account @sadiqsegara, the video shows the group waving several Chinese national flags while chanting “Heng, Ong, Huat!”—a Hokkien phrase meaning “Prosperous, Lucky, Rich!”

The caption read: “suddenly felt like in China.”

A subsequent video from the same account also showcased a lion troupe and a dragon dance accompanying the procession.

Although the original video of people waving the Chinese flags has since been deleted, it has been widely shared by other netizens.

Opposition Politician Criticises Incident, Calling China Flag Display “Overboard”

Opposition politician Mohd Hafez Sabri from The Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) expressed his concern over the video, criticising the behaviour as “overboard.”

He questioned, “Why are they so excited to raise the flag of other countries while in our homeland? What kind of ceremony is this?”

The Deputy Head of PAS Youth further highlighted that under the National Emblem (Control of Display) Act 1949 (Act 193), Section 3 states that no person shall display any national emblem, including the flag of a foreign country, in a public place or school.

Organiser Clarifies Chinese Flags Were Waved by Visiting Delegation at International Guan Gong Festival

In response to the incident, Soon Boon Hua, chairman of the Guan Gong Cultural Association, issued an apology.

He clarified that the Chinese flags were waved by a delegation from China who participated in the International Guan Gong Cultural Festival.

“This was never part of the programme,” he said.

 He explained that the International Guan Gong Cultural Festival has been held for many years, taking place in various states from Johor to Kedah, with Perak being one of the involved locations.

He assured that the organisers typically raise the Malaysian flag, Jalur Gemilang, as a symbol of patriotism during celebrations in different states.

“The procession and celebration in Teluk Intan on 24 October was no exception,” he added.

“As the organiser, I apologise for the incident and will look into how we can improve this programme.”

The post M’sia Guan Gong Cultural Association apologises for China flags waved in Perak event appeared first on The Online Citizen.

According to data released by HDB on 25 October, a total of 8,142 HDB resale flats changed hands during this period, representing a 10.7 per cent increase from 7,352 units in the preceding quarter.

HDB attributed the rise in both resale prices and transaction volumes to strong, broad-based demand coupled with supply tightness in the market.

This tightness is expected as fewer new flats are set to meet the minimum occupation period in 2024 compared to the previous year.

HDB reiterated its position, emphasising that the “vast majority” of resale flat transactions in the third quarter were sold for considerably less than S$1 million, while those priced at S$1 million and above remained a minor segment of total transactions.

HDB noted that the latest quarterly figures largely reflect market conditions prior to the cooling measures implemented on 20 August 2024, which reduced the loan-to-value limit for HDB loans from 80 per cent to 75 per cent.

“The Government will continue to monitor the property market closely and adjust its policies as necessary to promote a stable and sustainable property market,” HDB stated.

It also advised households to exercise financial prudence when purchasing flats, as the property market moves in cycles, warning that “those who buy high will be hit harder when prices eventually come down.”

Looking ahead, HDB plans to offer more than 5,500 Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) in February 2025, marking the largest exercise of its kind to date.

Approximately 40 per cent of these units will be completed, with the remainder expected to be progressively finished between 2025 and 2028.

In February, around 5,000 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats will also be launched in Kallang/Whampoa, Queenstown, Woodlands, and Yishun. Together, the BTO and SBF offerings will total over 10,000 new flats available for sale.

The SBF launches provide applicants an opportunity to apply for balance flats from earlier BTO sale exercises, which are usually already under construction, nearing completion, or completed.

It was previously announced that SBF exercises would now occur only once a year, reduced from the previous twice-yearly schedule.

HDB has advised prospective home seekers to apply for an HDB Flat Eligibility letter by 15 December to participate in the upcoming sales exercise.

The Housing Board remains on track to launch 100,000 BTO flats between 2021 and 2025, having released 19,637 flats for sale in 2024 alone.

To meet the 100,000-flat target, approximately 17,300 flats must be rolled out in 2025.

The post HDB resale prices Up 2.7% in Q3 amid tight supply and strong demand appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Despite expressing remorse, Najib continued to assert that he was unaware of any illegal transfers connected to the now-defunct sovereign wealth fund.

The 1MDB fund, co-founded by Najib in 2009 during his tenure as prime minister and finance minister, has been embroiled in global corruption investigations.

Authorities in at least six countries have examined the alleged misappropriation of over US$4.5 billion by top officials and their associates.

The case has made headlines for its scale, involving high-profile figures such as fugitive businessman Jho Low and two executives from Saudi oil firm Petrosaudi, all of whom have faced legal action.

In 2022, Malaysia’s highest court upheld Najib’s conviction for corruption and money laundering, sentencing him to 12 years in prison.

He was found guilty of receiving approximately US$10 million from SRC International, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.

Although the initial sentence was later reduced by a royal pardon, Najib, 71, has continuously denied any wrongdoing.

On Wednesday (25 October), Najib’s son, Mohamad Nizar Mohd Najib, read a letter from the former leader at a press conference, in which Najib expressed his regret for the scandal.

“It pains me every day to know that the 1MDB debacle happened under my watch as minister of finance and prime minister,” Najib wrote.

“For that, I would like to apologise unreservedly to the Malaysian people.”

Despite Apology, Najib Maintains Innocence, Denies Direct Involvement in 1MDB Illegal Activities

Although Najib maintained his innocence, claiming he was not directly involved in the illegal activities surrounding the 1MDB funds, he acknowledged that he could have acted differently when concerns about the fund first arose.

In his latest statement, which was also shared on his official Facebook page, Najib admitted that his focus at the time was on the fund’s financial stability and the potential diplomatic fallout rather than on investigating potential criminal activities.

Anti-corruption investigators in Malaysia have stated that attempts to probe 1MDB during Najib’s administration were hindered.

They revealed that witnesses were intimidated, with some even facing death threats, in an effort to block investigations.

The controversy surrounding the fund has had deep political and economic repercussions for Malaysia, tarnishing the country’s international reputation.

Najib’s Apology Follows Government Proposal for House Arrest as New Sentencing Option in 2025 Budget

Najib’s apology comes just days after Malaysia’s government announced its intention to introduce a new law as part of its 2025 budget plans, which would allow house arrest as an alternative punishment for certain crimes.

The former prime minister has been advocating to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest, citing an alleged royal order that he claims accompanied his pardon.

He is seeking confirmation from the government regarding the terms of the order.

In his letter, Najib reiterated his shock over the 1MDB scandal and expressed hope that the judicial system would eventually clear him of all charges.

He referenced a news report that suggested Jho Low and the two Petrosaudi executives, Patrick Mahony and Tarek Obaid colluded to siphon SRC funds without his knowledge in 2009 and 2010.

Both Low and the executives, who were convicted in a Swiss court in August 2024 for embezzling 1MDB funds, have denied any wrongdoing.

Najib also reiterated his long-standing defence, claiming the funds he received were political donations from Saudi Arabia, rather than embezzled funds from 1MDB.

He did not, however, address allegations of receiving over US$1 billion, which authorities have linked to 1MDB transactions, including a US$681 million transfer in 2013.

Najib has consistently denied these allegations.

In addition to his current sentence, Najib faces multiple other corruption trials.

On 30 October 2024, a Malaysian court is scheduled to decide whether to acquit him or require him to defend himself in a separate 1MDB-related case involving charges of money laundering and corruption.

The post Najib Razak apologises to Malaysians for 1MDB scandal but maintains innocence appeared first on The Online Citizen.