Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong wrote an article for ST today (‘Small group crying wolf, but most citizens want strong laws‘, 6 May 2019).

In the article, he claimed that only a small group of people are “crying wolf” over the recently proposed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA), which the government is very keen to push through the Parliament before the coming GE.

In particular, he was attacking the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) lobby group representing technology companies. Tong refuted the many points brought up AIC’s managing director, Jeff Paine, who wrote a recent article about “How the online falsehoods Bill can be improved”.

“His piece misstates the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill in material respects,” Tong said.

Tong also countered Mr Paine’s claims that the consensus in Singapore is that the new Bill will impact freedom of expression.

“It is unclear how he (Paine) concludes this,” Tong countered. “The Government is confident that there is broad and deep support among an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans for laws to tackle online falsehoods. The Government believes, with good reason, that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans want strong laws to deal with online falsehoods.”

Likewise, it is also unclear how Tong came to this conclusion that majority of Singaporeans are for POFMA. He only said the government believes it is the case “with good reason”. He did not elaborate what these “reasons” are.

“If the Bill becomes law, Singaporeans’ rights of expression will not be affected,” Tong assured. “Only perpetrators of falsehoods will be affected. And of course technology companies, which benefit from such falsehoods, will see some of their profits go down.”

“The concerted attempts by a small group of persons to mislead have not got any traction among most Singaporeans. The small group of persons I have referred to, speak in a shrinking echo chamber, with increasing shrillness. Some take refuge in alarmist language (including comparisons with nuclear wars) in desperate attempts to get attention. That is the extent of the ‘overwhelming consensus’ that Mr Paine refers to,” Tong said.

“Crying wolf repeatedly gets no attention. In saying this, I am not referring to some academics who have expressed concerns – their concerns are based on a misunderstanding of the Bill, and that will be explained in Parliament.”

And being careful not to step on the toes of the middle-ground Singaporeans whose votes would likely decide who would win in the coming GE, Tong said, “Nor am I referring to some middle-ground Singaporeans who have genuine questions about the Bill. Those questions will continue to be answered (by the government).”

In other words, Tong seems to imply that questions from middle-ground Singaporeans on POFMA are deemed “genuine” but those from the opposition supporters are not and won’t be answered by the government.

Dr Lee Wei Ling publishes emails online to counter family lawyer’s assertion on mainstream media

Meanwhile, PM Lee’s sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, published an email correspondence on her Facebook page last week (30 Apr), accusing lawyer Kwa Kim Li from Lee & Lee of “lying” about the latter’s supposed non-involvement in her father’s last will in 2013.

The news was picked up by online sites as well as Yahoo News (‘Lee Wei Ling accuses lawyer Kwa Kim Li of lying about non-involvement in father’s 2013 will‘, 30 Apr 2019). However, mainstream media like ST and CNA have kept mum for unknown reasons. They have decided not to report anything about the latest twist to the late Mr Lee’s last will saga.

Dr Lee said, “Kwa Kim Li (KKL) of Lee & Lee has denied involvement in the events that led to this 2013 will… KKL has been lying. She has also breached her duties to her client, my father.”

“Lee & Lee have always been lawyers for my father’s personal matters including all his wills, powers of attorney, and Advance Medical Directives including his affirmation in August 2014 of his AMD,” Dr Lee added.

As evidence of Kwa’s alleged involvement, Dr Lee attached a photo of an e-mail supposedly sent by Ms Kwa to the late Mr Lee on 12 December 2013. In it, Ms Kwa appears to tell Mr Lee – whom she addresses as “Uncle Harry” – that she will be preparing a “codicil”, to reflect their discussed amendments to his will. She allegedly wrote, “I will prepare the codicil for you (Mr Lee) to sign this week, or when you are ready.” A codicil is actually an addition or supplement that explains, modifies, or revokes a will or part of one.

Dr Lee also said that she has “more” evidence of the correspondence between Ms Kwa and her late father. “From late November 2013 all the way till Friday 13 December 2013, my father had had discussions and exchanged e-mails with KKL of Lee & Lee on what he wanted in his will… The will my father signed on Tuesday 17 December 2013 reflected these prior discussions with his lawyer KKL,” she said.

Two years ago, Kwa, who is the managing partner of the Lee & Lee law firm told ST that she didn’t prepare the last will of the late Lee Kuan Yew. ST was quick to publish a news report informing the public about it (‘Lawyer Kwa Kim Li says she did not prepare Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s last will‘, 17 Jun 2017) along with CNA.

The mainstream media reports came after PM Lee said that his father’s final will was made in “very troubling circumstances”. PM Lee raised the question of whether there was a conflict of interest when Mrs Lee Suet Fern – Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s wife – helped prepare the final will since her husband stood to gain from the removal of his sister Lee Wei Ling’s extra share of the estate in the will.

But Hsien Yang countered that his wife’s firm did not draft any of their father’s wills at all. “The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee,” he said, referring to the sequence of events surrounding the final will. He added that the will’s seventh paragraph, in which the late Mr Lee stated that he wanted his house to be demolished after his death, “was drafted at LKY’s (Lee Kuan Yew’s) direction”.

It was “put into language by Lee Suet Fern, his daughter-in-law, and when he was satisfied, he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will”, explained Hsien Yang. In other words, Hsien Yang was saying Kwa was indeed the lawyer responsible for the last will of her client, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

It’s not known why Dr Lee took 2 years to find the purported email evidence to counter Kwa now. In any case, it’s either Kwa or Dr Lee is right. It’s not known what Tong would think in this case, with regard to the proposed POFMA Bill.

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

Asian Regional Congress to focus on death penalty for drug offences

More than 300 lawyers, magistrates, parliamentarians, sociologists, theologians, journalists, NGO members and…

总理称要打造能接受失败的社会

昨日,李显龙总理出席新跃社科大学部长论坛,与约500名学生对话与交流。论坛讨论的课题,包括教育面对的挑战,对创业的看法、以及青年对未来工作前景的疑虑等等。 有学生询及,对于创业精神和害怕失败的观点,李显龙先是坦言创业不易,什么都要自己来,但即便有最好的点子都可能失败,那就舍弃掉那点子尝试其他的,故此不应为失败感到耻辱。 李显龙续称,如果年轻人有这样的态度,不论是政府还是人民行动党物色新人,看到这年轻人,在履历上填写他们曾设立公司,但是公司倒闭了或面对困难,“我不会怪他们,我会问他这是什么、为何你要这要么做,如果他表现坚定、坚信自己(的努力),只不过最终没成功,我还是会录用他。” 他说,自己不会指望看到有人声称自己开了十间公司,而且每间都是独角兽,生活不是这样的。 另一方面,李显龙也认为,新加坡将面对最大的教育挑战,这是因为要创造一个适合成人持续受教育的体系,仍有许多调整工作。 “X世代”,即80、90后的学生重返校园,都可能会面对无法适应的情况,故此50、60岁年长学生也会面对问题,故此如何调整制度,让他们也可以持续学习? 他承认有必要提升较完善的支持网络,也确保雇主能理解,让学员能在工作和学习之间保持平衡。

High ministerial salaries necessary to attract private sector talents into public service – but the 4G lineup are all seasoned civil servants

With the elections looming – speculation is that it’ll happen this year…

【冠状病毒19】比利时、荷兰也现二次感染病例

日前,世界各地传出有康复者二次感染的症状,包括香港、荷兰、比利时等。对此,上海复旦大学附属华山医院感染科主任张文宏表示,人类短期内难以通过疫苗达到群体免疫,故即使疫苗面世,在未来数年内仍须保持常态化的防疫态势。 继香港传出全球首宗二次感染的病例后,荷兰及比利时各有一名康復患者再度染疫,引发全球关注。此次二次感染患者包括香港33岁男子,于四月中康复出院,惟本月欧洲旅游后,再对病毒呈阳性;荷兰的二次感染患者为一名老人,其免疫系統虛弱;而比利时一名女子则在首次确诊后,三个月左右再度染疫。 对此,上海复旦大学附属华山医院感染科主任张文宏表示,人类短期内难以通过疫苗达到群体免疫,而且针对香港出现的二次感染病例,指该病例是个别案例,非一般意义上的复阳,需进一步观察再感染患者是否成为常态。 张文宏也表示,再感染关乎免疫的持久性,也关乎未来疫苗保护的时间和重复接种的间歇时间。全球目前有2千200多万人曾感染,假如再感染成立,那么在冠病高发和流行地区,再感染或成为常态。不过他也指出,目前四种较常见的冠病病毒,感染后免疫时间都超过4个月。 而荷兰病毒专家科普曼斯则表示,早已预料会有二次感染,认为要观察有关情况是否经常发生。比利时病毒专家范德兰斯特则指,女患者两次感染的病毒菌株差异,“足以称得上是不同的病毒株”。 他解释,这名患者首次确诊时只有轻微症状,“那么你身体产生的抗体较少,不足以保护你免受第二次感染”。