PAP MP volleys “tough questions” on Oxley spat to PM and Parliament


Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Mr Christopher De Souza, asked 10 questions in Parliament yesterday, aimed to uncover whether there is truth to the allegations Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have recently thrown against their brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Saying that he believes that it is the aspersions that have been cast upon organs of state that have catapulted this issue from the private domain to the public sphere, De Souza – a lawyer who has served in state courts, the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Chambers – indicated that it is important to investigate whether the mission of the organs of state are subservient to the agenda of any personality, as it has been alleged by Lee Kuan Yew’s youngest children.

He then volleyed the ten following questions to the Prime Minister and to Parliament:

  1. Is it true or false that organs of state are being used to target Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling?
  2. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang questioned whether “able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be sidelined to ensure Hsien Loong’s grip on power remains unchallenged.” Is it true that ensuring the Prime Minister’s power remains unchallenged trumps independent political legitimacy?
  3. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, “a few of the attacks we had to face in private are now public. False accusations, character assassination, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us.” Is it true or false that the Government uses Singapore press to target Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang?
  4. The siblings have said that they see “many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout public service who are constrained by Hsien Loong’s misuse of power at the very top.” Is it true that public service is constrained by the Prime Minister’s misuse of power at the top?
  5. Is it true or false that the leadership and direction of the government is directed for personal purposes or any other improper purpose?
  6. Is it true or false that organs of the state may be used for personal agendas?
  7. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee is merely a facade that the Prime Minister is able to influence in one way or the other?
  8. Is it true or false that the ministerial committee never told Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling about options they were exploring?
  9. On 15 Jun 2017 at 9.25pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, “Hsien Loong’s public statement contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath. Is it true or false that the Prime Minister lied to Parliament?
  10. On 14 June 2017, Lee Hsien Yang said, “Hsien Loong has asserted to the committee that Lee Kuan Yew would accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road. In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew’s clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all government decisions involving 38 Oxley.” Is it true or false that the Prime Minister has misguided a ministerial committee to fulfill his own personal purposes?

Claiming that the parliamentary debate is an “example of the rubric of accountability,” De Souza said that while he does not doubt the Prime Minister’s integrity or loyalty to the country, he has a sacred duty to the constituents he serves to ask the “tough questions.”

He said that he hopes the responses to the questions he has raised will bring an end to the saga which has impacted Singapore’s standing in the eyes of the international community.


  1. No answer lah.
    I think the best answer deduced from the debate from the defending speakers are term as “baseless accusation*

  2. Mr Christopher…you r d best. Your questions are succint n well put. I hope PM will answer them as succintly as you have put it. Better if he can give a yes/no answer to your questions.

  3. Agree with the Honorable Mr D’Souza here.
    If there’s a modicum of truth made in the assertions by the PM’s siblings, then the PM has to resign. Or else he has to sue them to at least safeguard the integrity of the PMO.

    • He is one of the few MPs I respect….but honestly, the respondent to these questions just needed to answer false. And then life goes on.

    • Agree but at least let that go on record as that being his response.
      I always believe that the truth prevails at the end and historians will be able to decide which of the two parties were the ones closer to the truth.

    • Don’t need to jump to resignation lah, like you said modicum of truth.

      What needs jumping to, is legal action, so we’ll know for sure of the truth is just a modicum.

    • Not sure if there’s a judge with the wherewithal and cojones to hear out this case without fear or favour.
      Furthermore, the danger for the Lee family is that in legal proceedings, the full assets of LKY & his wife might be disclosed. They’ll need the mother of all super injunctions for that!!

  4. Two days of debate in Parliament and nothing has been decided. Cannot leave it dangling and PM must response to the allegations made otherwise sue them and bring them to court. The whole truth must be known to everyone.

  5. Somebody, please help them out. Since it has been out in the open for the past two to three weeks and we know what the allegation is, can we ask the siblings to withdraw the allegation as long as the house is demolished. As to whether, the brother and sister-in-law would still want to emigrate, it is entirely up to them. Hong Kong is a good place to live in, for the time being, to invest in Chinese MSCI indexed stocks and RMB bonds. The sister will feel very lonely without them around. Although the married niece will still be very good company.

    More problematic to solve is the political careers of the third generation. Rumour is that the two key contenders for political career cannot be in the same party. Maybe one or most likely two new political parties can be formed to accommodate that?

  6. This lawyer ask smart questions but he’s very stupid man. Didn’t LHY asked u idiots to investigate & present them in parliament? WTF is he talking now? U idiots have so many questions to ask but DON’T HAVE the fucking balls to get LHY & LWL to be present & cross examine.

  7. The COI should be about why DPMs Teo & Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Law Minister, K Shanmugam Sc, intervened in a PRIVATE matter. But there should be a separate FRAUD inquiry by SPF on how PM Lee demanded 50% above market value for his share of the house .. then convened a SECRET committee of Ministers to deny LHY his right to do with HIS house according to their father, our Lord LKY’s explicit wishes. In other countries this is known as CORRUPTION.

  8. Now the plaintiffs has evidence to back them up , this has to be file in court to clear the air , no point hear from one sided , as a leader of a COUNTRY you take no nonsense be it your family members or relatives you got to do your job as you hav been voted to lead this COUNTRY SINGAPORE

  9. He is a lawyer the words he use in these questions. Think deeply what’s is behind it. Just answer true or false is not the answer. Should add to do you have any evidence to back your answer. That what the whole Singapore citizens and the world wants to know.

Comments are closed.