Below is a Facebook note shared by Mr Benjamin Pwee about the Lee family saga which is unfolding in social media. Mr Pwee was responding to an article written by Straits Times’ Chua Mui Hoong, “Time to reflect and seek the common good”.
Below is the note in full by Mr Pwee and reproduced with permission.
Well-written, Mui Hoong. I have kept silent till now, now it’s my turn.
I too knew Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) up-close-and-personal in the six years I was in the Foreign Service, acting as his interpreter, notetaker and follow-upper on all his dealings with China. And his inimicable personal style of austere leadership came through in every conversation I was involved with him. And for all the criticisms levied against him, he was a historical leader and man of and for a specific time in Singapore’s history.
Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Lee Weiling (LWL)’s first salvo was to question if Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) is being true to LKY’s values. For me, this is the heart of the current saga that has meaning for all Singaporeans. Whilst matters of the will and personal motivations make for exciting soap drama, these concern the Lee family personally. It does not concern us.
What DOES concern us, is the 2 younger siblings’ use of this house/will incident, to bring into question LHL’s leadership integrity and (ab)use of state/government authority and powers to achieve personal desired ends. Including all the claims of phones being tapped, overseas travel being restricted, friends being affected, etc.
And on this count, our role as Singaporeans is to look back at the performance and track record of the current government’s and political leaders’ use/misuse of state organs and authority to achieve pre-intended goals, without sufficient public consultation, or proper debate in Parliament, or legal respect for private property. And this is not about the few and far in:between instances of things with national heritage or historical value. Its about entering personal property without consent of owner, defining what constitutes permissible free speech and what doesn’t, and other less significant incidences.
So we as members of the public indeed need not be involved with matters of the will or the house or motivations of the players in the current saga. Our role and responsibility is to seriously consider the claims of LHY and LWL against LHL, the government and the current ruling party, and to look back at their track record, way of handling disputes, style of government, and ask ourselves, WHICH of LKY’s values do WE as a voting population want OUR democratically elected political leaders to continue, and which of LKY’s values, style, style of government, way of handling disputes, and means of achieving desired ends, do we NOT want our elected leaders to continue.
And the current house-and-will saga is merely the foil to spotlight this core issue up publicly for us to see and consider.
I would like to end by personally appealing to LHY, LSF and LWL, to stay on in Singapore and step forward to be part of a small but growing group of credible voices who CAN fearlessly bring the current political leaders and government into public account, for the good of all Singaporeans. Don’t jump ship and leave, and leave lesser mortals like us to try play this role. Be part of the credible politically balancing voices that Singapore so desperately need. And one doesn’t have to be in politics or be in opposition to do so.
Benjamin Pwee served in Administrative Service of the Singapore Civil Service for eight years, holding various posts in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 1995 to 1998, he was the First Secretary (Political and Economic Affairs) at the Singapore Embassy in Beijing, where he acted as interpreter and note-taker during Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s visits to China. He was also involved in key projects like the Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park and the PSA-Dalian Port Development projects. In both ministries, Pwee served under then-Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng. (Wikipedia)
Mr Pwee is currently the Managing Director of E-deo Asia, a regional business strategy consultancy firm and also the Secretary General of Democratic Progress Party. He has contested in the General Election in 2011 and 2015 at Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

金管局对三名涉内幕交易人士发出禁令

根据金融管理局昨日发出文告,三名交易员因涉及内幕交易,利用内幕资料在买卖股票和差价合约的交易中牟利,被当局发出禁令,禁止他们超过10年内,都不得涉足金融行业。 金管局对大华继显前代表E Seck Peng,以及首域投资前代表 Leong Chee Wai,发出长达15年的禁令。 至于另一位首域投资前代表则被禁止13年不得参与相关活动。 金管局称,三人在禁令期限内,不得涉足新加坡证券暨期货法令下所规范的任何活动,也不得涉及管理、担任董事火灾任何资本市场服务公司担任股东。 当局称,他们在长达七年时间内,涉及“提前交易”(front-running),利用职务之便套取机密消息牟利,赚取806万9000余元,触犯政权与期货法令。 今年七月,他们已面对法律制裁,Leong Chee Wai和Toh…

Police calls for next-of-kin for 57 yr-old deceased to come forth

The Singapore Police Force has announced that it is appealing for the…

Chan says 50K jobs created for SGs from 2015 to 2018 but didn’t mention increase of 87K new citizens same period

On Thursday (16 Jan), it was reported that Minister for Trade and…

选举局:总统选委会不筛选总统候选人选

本月13日,《海峡时报》评论编辑蔡美芬(Chua Mui Hoong)发表一篇评论:《行动党和支配政治》,抨击执政政府有意在政治和学术圈维持支配地位,惟必须当心因为过于蛮横,而被视为随时准备打压异议者的支配政党。 她先是非议此前教育部长王乙康,在国会上针对剧作家亚菲言的言论,指出副总理王瑞杰声称“要谦逊聆听和尊重国人的观点”,一同建设更好的新加坡,言犹在耳,而王乙康的做法,又是否代表整个政府领导层的立场? 他也认为实则耶鲁-国立大学学院异议课程被腰斩的事件,不过反映了政府近期对于异议采取更为严厉的手段,例如通过《防假消息法》;历史学者覃炳鑫,指行动党政府在1963年假借国安为由,以“冷藏行动”对付异议者,结果遭到“审问”和穷追猛打。 她认为这些都是人民行动党在公开场合彰显自己支配地位的例子,它的力量几乎延伸至生活各个层面;在国会中掌控83个多数议席;至于总统虽是直接选举产生,但政府仍能通过总统选举委员会,在筛选候选人人选时产生影响。 选举局反驳总统选委会不筛选候选人 不过,选举局高级副总监Tay Chai Luan,在本月19日在《海时》反驳,有关蔡美芬指“总统选举委会对候选人筛选能产生影响”一说有误,并解释该委会从未筛选候选人选,仅依据宪法指定的条件,确保候选人符合参选资格,无权阻止任何合格人士参选。 “总统选举委会(PEC)是独立机构,其组成规定也列在宪法中。由公共服务委员会主席担任主席,成员包括新加坡会计与企业管理局主管、少数种族权利总统理事会主席委任的四位成员、总统顾问理事会主席、大法官和总理等。” 在2017年的总统选举,总统选举委会成员分别是:…