SPEECH BY ER DR LEE BEE WAH, MP FOR NEE SOON GRC, AT THE SPECIAL SITTING ON 38 OXLEY ROAD HOUSE IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 JULY 2017
Madam Speaker,
First of all, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his courageous and open approach to this matter by calling for the House to debate the issues raised. I note that the dispute has been covered in the international press, including the unproven allegations about PM and our system. The whole affair has tarnished the reputation of our government as clean and altruistic. That is precisely the reputation that the late MM Lee spent his whole life building. If he was alive, he would be deeply hurt by the quarreling of his children in public.
Many of my residents have been discussing about this issue. Many wonder why the siblings took such private issues to the public. Many residents have asked many questions. Today, on behalf of my residents, I would like to ask the following questions:
(1) National Heritage Board
Let me begin by raising questions about the National Heritage Board exhibition. This exhibition received items from the executors of the estate, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, under two unusual conditions. One was that the executors of the estate could buy back all the items at $1 as long as 38 Oxley Road was not demolished. Second was that part of the demolition clause from the late MM Lee’s Will – (a) that the part that expressed the wish for immediate demolition of the house after Dr Lee Wei Ling moves out of it, should be prominently displayed. Then (b) that the part of the Will outlining what was to be done if the house could not be demolished was to be omitted from the exhibition.
Morgan Lewis helped draft the deed. Suet Fern was asking NHB to accept the terms which were bad for the NHB and misleading the public. Is this acceptable conduct for Morgan Lewis? And for Suet Fern, a lawyer and a board member of NHB? Can Minister Lawrrence Wong please explain.
(2) Will
Many asked what is the quarrel all about? What is the core of this matter? What is the problem with the will? Who drafted the will?
Hsien Yang says it was drafted by Kim Li. But Kim Li denies.
We don’t even know who drafted the will? Was it Suet Fern? If so, why not just come out and admit it? What is he afraid of? Why does he try and deny that his wife drafted it, when emails seem clear?
So, now, what is it to do with Government? What is Government supposed to do? Can anyone enlighten us?
3)Ministerial Committee
Also, in view of MM Lee’s latest Will is with the demolition clause, how much weight will MM Lee’s wishes bear on the decisions to be made by the Oxley House Ministerial Committee?
What has the committee done that Hsien Yang claimed that he was “pushed into a corner”?
In yesterday’s Straits Times, Hsien Yang said that he wouldn’t want to preserve the house nor would he want to build a condominium because it would not be in accordance with MM Lee’s values. Doesn’t that sounds a lot like what DPM Teo said – that he would not support the two extremes of total preservation and letting the public in, and building private residences on the other hand.
So, what is the dispute? Why are we quarrelling about this?
Madam Speaker, allow me to continue in Chinese.
很多居民告诉我，这样一吵，对新加坡和李光耀先生的名声都不好。他们问我，这件事到底在吵什么？为什么不可以平静地解决？
他们尤其想问，一些基本的事实，为什么不能完整真实地告诉新加坡人？例如在李光耀纪念展上，李显扬先生和李玮玲医生限制只能展出“拆屋条文”的前半段，却不肯展出承认房子可能保留的后半段。文物局为什么答应这样的条件？这是否是有意误导新加坡人？
另一个例子，是最后遗嘱是谁写的这件事。李显扬先生说是柯金梨写的，但柯金梨否认。而他们的电邮显示，他的太太林学芬有份撰写。那李显扬为什么要否认呢？想必无论如何，李光耀先生一定不想他混淆事实。
另外一个问题是，李显扬先生说，他不想保存房子，也不想再发展成公寓。而张志贤副总理也说，他本身不支持两个极端的解决方案，即完全保存并开放，以及重新发展成私人大楼。似乎两人的看法相近，那为什么李显扬先生还要闹得满城风雨？他大可以跟总理一样，给部长委员会做出法定声明，让部长委员会决定。他为什么宁愿破坏家庭和国家的名声，也不愿意这么做呢？
李显扬先生和李玮玲医生的目的，到底是尊重父亲的意愿，还是另有用心？他们在一开始的声明中就说，对总理的领导没有信心。这是否意味着，他们要闹到总理下台为止？房子也许只是一个借口？如果真的是这样，那肯定违背了李资政生前的意愿，也违背了新加坡人的民主权利。
李资政曾说，他给孩子们读华校，是要他们学习传统价值观。如果他还在世，看到手足反目、国家出丑，一定很痛心。所以我吁请李显扬先生，如果他真的想尽孝道的话，有什么问题可以私下解决，不要再伤害父亲最爱的新加坡了。毕竟，解铃还需系铃人，谢谢。