Mr Ashok Kumar Mipuri, Singapore’s ambassador to the United States has issued a rebuttal to an article that was published by the New York Times about the Lee family saga on 4 July 2017, stating that “there is no national crisis in Singapore.”

The NYT article entitled, “Dispute Over Singapore Founder’s House Becomes a National Crisis” covered the allegations that Dr Lee Weiling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had made against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in June and commented that the dispute over the fate of 38 Oxley Road has “shattered Singapore’s image as an orderly authoritarian ideal and hinted at deeper divisions about its political future.”

Mr Mipuri’s letter criticized the article for promoting the absurd notion that Singaporeans link the legitimacy of their government with the fate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s house. The NYT time had written that “just as it was difficult to separate Mr. Lee from the country he built, it is impossible to erase the politics from the house. Preserving it would provide a physical reminder not only of Mr. Lee, analysts said, but also of the current prime minister’s connection to him.” and quoted Li Shengwu, Lee Hsien Yang’s son saying that the People’s Action Party viewed the house as a symbol of their legacy and a symbol uniquely associated with them which gives the party legitimacy.

The article further quotes from individuals such as Kirsten Han, an activist and freelance journalist and Sinapan Samydorai, the director of Southeast Asian affairs at Think Center, who noted that the issues arising from the saga is far more than a simple family dispute but a question of whether the Prime Minister abused his political power.

In his letter, the ambassador parroted Ministers on how PM Lee has made a full statement in Parliament against his siblings’ accusations and explained how he had recused himself from all government decisions concerning the house.

Mr Mipuri further states that “no Member of Parliament made any allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing against the PM during the debate, nor has anyone else produced specific evidence to back the siblings’ vague allegations.” Something which the PM Lee and other Ministers have also said in Parliament during the Parliamentary debate on 3 and 4 July.

While the letter from Mr Mipuri was published on 11 July, but the letter that was published by Channel News Asia shows it to be dated on 8 July.

Mr Mirpuri’s letter is reproduced in full below: 

To the Editor:

Family Dispute Over House of Singapore’s Founder Erupts as National Crisis” (news article, July 5) promotes the absurd notion that Singaporeans link the legitimacy of their government to the fate of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s house.

In response to accusations by his siblings of abuse of power over the house, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a full statement in Parliament. He explained how he had recused himself from all government decisions concerning the house, and also sold the house to his brother, so that he no longer has any interest or influence over the house.

No member of Parliament made any allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing against the prime minister during the debate, nor has anyone else produced specific evidence to back the siblings’ vague allegations. There is no national crisis in Singapore.

ASHOK KUMAR MIRPURI
WASHINGTON

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

传总理将禁国人离开所住区域 政府忙辟谣假消息

网络出现总理李显龙今晚将宣布新措施,禁止国人离开自身所居住的区域,致使政府必须透过Gov.sg辟谣。 政府透过Gov.sg的Whataspp简讯,向民众澄清上述传言乃假消息。 当局也敦促众人不要传播未经核实的消息,并指出有关总理的声明,应以总理官方社交媒体平台如脸书、推特和Telegram官方账号为准。

“Terrible” and “beautiful” – reactions to new N’Day song

The new National Day song to mark Singapore’s 50th anniversary as an…

李玮玲揭总检察署向律师公会投诉林学芬

总理李显龙妹妹李玮玲医生于昨晚10时42分,在个人脸书揭露总检察署针对李显扬妻子林学芬,为建国总理李光耀准备遗嘱一事,向新加坡律师公会提呈逾500页的投诉信。 总理弟弟李显扬也分享了该贴文。李玮玲认为有关投诉重提过去李显龙透过个人律师的指控,总理认为林学芬在参与草拟遗嘱上身份有利益冲突,因为她是李显扬的妻子,而他的丈夫却会是遗嘱分配的受益人。 虽然总理前律师黄鲁胜已回避此事,然而现任的副检察长仍是前人民行动党议员Hri Kumar。 李玮玲认为,这是史无前例地在涉及私人遗嘱事项上,动用司法程序。 “李显龙对父亲的遗嘱,以及父亲要拆除欧思礼路38号故居的意愿感到不满。父亲在五年前完成遗嘱和附录时,就已经告知所有子女和律师。在2015年,在李显龙的敦促下完成遗嘱认证。” 当时,包括李显龙等各造,都接受有关遗嘱乃是父亲的真实意愿。但是李显龙仍透过其部长成立的委员会,在2016和2017年攻击有关已受承认的遗嘱。 在初期,有关委员会也从未向李玮玲和李显扬透露有关委会成员名单。直到2017年总理夫妇被指涉滥权后,才公布名单。 李玮玲在帖文中写道:“李光耀作为备受尊崇的律师,从未对其遗嘱有任何非议。没有任何受益人向律师公会投诉,包括向律师黄鲁胜咨询意见的李总理。为何直到现在,由总检察署攻击父亲的遗嘱。我们的看法是整件行动没有任何价值。” 李玮玲也提到过去一年半总检察署也对李绳武的私人脸书贴文事件紧咬不放,那些分享贴文的人士也没被针对。 总检察署:林学芬有失职表面证据 另一方面,总检察署在答复媒体询问时指出,李显扬妻子林学芬作为专业律师,在位李光耀准备遗嘱一事,有失职之嫌的表面证据,表面触犯法律专业(专业行为规章)第25节条文和第46节条文。…