fbpx

Troubling speeches by MPs in Parliament on the Parliamentary debate over PM Lee’s accusations

by Robin Chee, first posted as a comment on TOC's Facebook page. 

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s speech is deeply troubling.

Firstly, he made the claim that most Singaporeans are tired of this saga and wish to move on. On what basis is he saying that? From his casual observations or the random poll of his friends and constituents?

Secondly, he chided Png Eng Huat for reading out the siblings’ allegations on Facebook, which he believed is almost akin to spreading rumours.  So, highlighting claims by accusers is similar to spreading rumours? If that’s the case, I seriously don’t know what’s left for opposition MPs to say anymore. And PAP MPs better not read out or state any unsubstantiated claims by any supporters in future, even if it’s to showcase a general mistrust in the opposition by the people.

Thirdly, he asked the opposition to state their position on the matter. How on earth is that possible when the main accusers and stakeholders are not present? PM made an even more astonishing suggestion later on. He suggested the WP to reach out to the siblings and be the middle-men to help them make their arguments.

So, within a short span of a few days, the WP have to successfully persuade the siblings to release all the evidence (if any) of wrongdoing to them and then prepare a detailed representation in the short duration of 2 days? Would it be fair for the siblings to voice their accusations through a third party? Would they want to? Come on, this is just plain absurd and ridiculous.

Heng Swee Keat’s example of Lee Kuan Yew changing his mind about the bilingual policy as an illustration to support his argument that LKY may change his mind about whether to demolish the house is just plain laughable. How is a change in mindset about an educational policy be similar in magnitude to the fate of one’s much treasured precious private home?

Indranee Rajah tried to explain the possibility that LKY may not have the privilege of receiving independent advice before his final will and thus may not have made the will with all the relevant support is shocking and insulting. Are you saying that the founding father of Singapore who topped his Cambridge Law class and who had remained lucid and intellectually supreme even up to his death was incapable of understanding the implication of agreeing to the clause in the last will which indicates demolition of the said house? Oh and using Mr. Heng’s example in the previous point, since it is not surprising that LKY had changed his mind before his death, could he have also changed his mind to preserve his house in the second and third last will too? So why the big hoo-ha about the last will “suddenly” including the demolition clause?

Indranee claimed that Lucien Wong and Hri Kumar are one of the top legal minds in the nation so they should take the best person for the job despite the very real perception of a conflict of interest in the eyes of the public. According to which specific study/surveys/reports are you referring to, Indranee? Even if you can claim that these reports are not inherently subjective, you did admit that Lucien Wong or Hri Kumar are one of the top legal minds but they are not the top, are they? So, wouldn’t it make more sense to take someone as good but without the very real perceived claims of a conflict of interest?

More importantly, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong claimed that he personally recommended Lucien Wong for the role of Attorney General because he had witnessed first-hand how competent he was. Isn’t this a deeply troubling method of selection as the other potential candidates did not get a chance to work for PM and thus demonstrate to PM how competent they were?