LHL has
thrown the gauntlet down in parliament on July 3. He meant it in a video on
Facebook yesterday. He has invited all relevant parties including the opposition to question him on the embarrassing fallout with his
siblings.
He has
also apologised to Singaporeans yesterday.
But before
you run out in a skip and beat, he was apologising for the protracted airing of
the dispute between his siblings, and not apologising for any personal
wrongdoings or misjudgement in the public spat.
In fact,
he said boldly that he will deliver a ministerial statement to refute the
"baseless allegations" when Parliament sits on July 3.
In other
words, there's going to be a rumble in the democratic jungle when politicians
go full throttle in this coming July's huddle.
Mm...I
wonder whether LHY and LWL will be invited to the parliamentary showdown to
either offer their side of the story or question him themselves since they are
deemed the main antagonists in this whole public dispute?
In any
event, if I were ever invited to Parliament on July 3, these will be the
questions I would like to ask my PM Lee.
On
paragraph 7 of LKY’s Last Will:-
1) Is it
valid and properly executed?
2) If so,
what is holding PM Lee back from carrying out his late father's wish after all
conditions are satisfied for its demolition?
3) If not,
because he had "grave concerns" about the preparation of the 7th and
Last Will, why did he not raise it up formally within reasonable time after it
was read out to him three weeks after his father passed away, that is, in April
2015?
4) And if
his reason was because he wanted to "avoid a public fight which would
tarnish the name and reputation of Mr Lee and the family", is he hoping
then to engage in a "private fight" with his siblings by raising the
issue of its validity in a Statutory Declaration ("SD"), which was
subsequently submitted to a ministerial committee, set up sometime last July?
On the
ministerial committee:-
5) Why was
it being convened in the first place?
6) Did PM
Lee play any part in the ministerial committee being convened (or set up), that
is, did he have a hand in starting it, appointing the members in the committee
and setting the agenda/purpose for its appointment and perpetuation?
7) Is the
ministerial committee set up for the purpose of considering the various options
to deal with the 38 Oxley Road house with the aim of gazetting it under the
Preservation of Monument Act, even if it is against the testamentary intent of
LKY, or for the other purpose of investigating whether the Last Will (on the
demolition) was validly and properly executed, or both?
8) If it
was for the purpose of investigating the validity of the Last Will, isn't the
Court of Law a better, more appropriate and competent forum to adjudicate on
such matters?
9) And if
PM Lee had said that he did not want to challenge the Last Will because he
wanted to avoid a public fight that would tarnish the reputation of his father
and his legacy, is he then trying by other means to challenge it by submitting
his SD to the ministerial committee voicing his "grave concerns" and
hoping to keep it out of the public and the judicial eye?
10) Is it
wise, appropriate or proper for the ministerial committee to be made up of his
subordinates (presumably attempting to wear different hats) and "sitting,
arbitrating an issue related to their boss", when the issue in contention
is largely personal, that is, about whether to go against LKY's wish in the
overriding interest of the State or to comply with it, and more relevantly,
about whether the Last Will is valid or not, wherein the dispute is primarily
between their boss and their boss' siblings?
On PM
Lee's parliamentary and public statement:-
11) While
it is not denied that PM Lee told parliament, posted in Facebook and made a
public statement with his siblings that he personally believed his father was
unwavering in desiring that 38 Oxley Road be demolished after his death, and
the same should be duly honoured, why did he then act and protest in such a
manner in his SD (that is, to question the Last Will on demolition) and submit
the same to the ministerial committee, which unavoidably gives the impression
that he hopes the committee would eventually decide to deal with the Oxley
house by all means conceivable except by his father's wish to demolish it?
(Is it
because he is subjecting his personal interest to the State interest? If so,
why even bother to raise such sensitive issues concerning the Will, which he
knows would be seen as firing the first salvo in alleging impropriety on his
younger brother's part and deepen the feud? sorry, that's a bonus, rider
question).
And last
but not least...
12) Will
there be a satisfactory, fair and permanent closure to this
"Oxleymoronic" issue - where State interest is being muddled up with
personal interest - so that Singaporeans can finally get on with their life and
go back to watching American, Korean and Hong Kong soap operas with relish and
great relief?
Lesson?
Just one, and it is enough...trust me.
Let me
quote how PM Lee ended his speech on Facebook.
"As
public servants, my Ministers and I will always protect the integrity of our
institutions, and uphold the strict standards separating private affairs from
our public duties. We are determined to repair the damage that has been done to
Singapore. We will continue to lead our nation and serve you to the best of our
ability.”
I have no
doubt that he meant every word in that conclusion, especially the part about
repairing the damage.
But I
sincerely doubt July 3 will be the end of it.
In fact,
from now to July 3, we can expect a flurry of rebuttals (cloth pegs, extended
clothing line, soiled linens and all) to deepen the wedge since LHY had already
said he would respond later after carefully considering PM Lee's Facebook
video.
Our PM Lee
further added that he hopes that "this full, public sharing in Parliament
will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our
institutions and our systems of government."
Well,
again, I personally doubt it about dispelling the doubt part.
For how
can you resolve an issue that has its root in a rivalry that goes beyond
procedural and administrative matters into the alleged source of siblings'
betrayal, hatred and dishonour in an openly guarded, time-restricted and highly
structured administrative setting?
Furthermore,
we can expect Parliament to be conducted with decorum, in mechanically formal
manner, and like the American Presidential debates, but without the opposing
candidate present, I foresee that not everything will be thrashed out, and
therefore only one side would come out of it like a knight in shining
parliamentary armour. At its worst, it may just be interpreted as a whitewashing
session.
Mind you,
this ain't no British or some Taiwan's no-hold-bar parliamentary fisticuffs
right?
In other
words, parliament is a perfect place to debate and discuss about policies,
proposals and plans relating to governmental matters, but it is not (in my
view) equipped (or even prepared for) such matters of the heart where the
issues are highly emotional and deeply dividing, and the contesting
"egos" are collectively half the size of two continents.
Alas, too
much is at stake on either side for anyone to ever wish for a resolution in one
or two parliamentary sitting? Pardon me, I am not that naive.
At best,
we will hear clearer, louder and stronger PM Lee's side of the story and his
side only, and that only widens the chasm between him and his siblings (who are
obviously not invited and may even prefer to fire their turret rounds on social
media instead, where they would at least be assured of a more receptive and
sympathetic audience).
So, in the
end, July 3 will go some ways to clear the air, but it is of limited
effectiveness if the siblings are not invited to a close-door session before a trusted
and respected mediator to thrash out their differences without prejudice or
reservation.
Honestly,
I as a citizen of Singapore do not think it is necessary at this most urgent
time to hear PM Lee apologise to the world (for the public feud) and rehash his
side of the story, which will be rather predictable accompanied by strong
nationalistic and patriotic sentiments to boot.
Instead,
to be truly effective and to advance towards some real hope of resolution, I'd
rather he, as the oldest brother and the first son his late father loved and
trusted with his life, and with the future of Singapore, take the first
initiative to approach his siblings with a heart of understanding, a soul for
brotherly humility and a spirit of amicable settlement, and then talk it out
with them away from the public circus; and if need be, to apologise to them and
ask for their hand of reconciliation and healing to put this whole only-human
ruckus behind them once and for all.
That to me
is the true sign of a leader, and more importantly, the hallmark of a good son
and a trusted older brother who will bear his siblings' load because they ain't
heavy.
...and
after that, after the private caucus with his siblings, no matter how long it
takes, PM Lee then appears in Parliament holding the hands of his siblings and
declares, "It's over."
Not a
single word needs to be added after that, because he would have spoken volume
by that one simple, humbling act in and of Parliament, and the family and
nation will then be on the road together to certain lasting healing.
Cheerz...
No comments:
Post a Comment