人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中英文版)新加坡民主党致函总检察长:调查有关指责李总理滥权 Singapore Democratic Party calls upon AGC for investigation on allegations against PM Lee

新加坡民主党致函总检察长:

调查有关指责李总理滥权

日期:201777

新加坡总检察长

总检察署

门派:1 号,霹麒麟街上段

邮区058288

黄鲁胜先生

敬启者:

事项:关于调查总理李显龙被指控事宜

阁下可能已经获悉,有关李伟玲医生和李显扬先生已经指控,李显龙先生以新加坡共和国总理的身份滥用职权事宜。

特别是,总理的弟妹通过个别或者联合的形式对总理进行类似如下的指控。

1.总理在国会做了“虚假申明”

李伟玲医生和李显扬先生于201774日在脸书hereFACEBOOK)个人网页上,指控说:“李显龙关于李光耀的遗愿做出了令人费解,但最终是虚假的申述。”

他们的这项指控是指李显龙于2017年7月3日在国会的讲话。当时李显龙说,已故总理已经改变了他对38号欧思礼路拆除的立场了。他同意保留这栋建筑物。李伟玲和李显扬提出了有关(李光耀)的邮件支持了自己说法。

2.何晶没有任何法定身份可以代表总理公署

李显扬先生于2017622日在他的脸书(FACEBOOK 个人网页here里说,李显龙的妻子何晶女士到过38号欧思礼路住宅拿走了一些物件,她把这些物件交给了国家遗产文物局。李显扬先生指出,何晶并不是民选官员或者是是受总理公署官方委任的官员。但是,她却署名“总理公署联系代表”的职称。

与此同时,李显扬先生在他的脸书(FACEBOOK)个人网页里同时说,他本人和李伟玲医生是李光耀遗产执行人,何晶并没有事先征得他们的同意却从故居里拿走任何物件。李显扬先生把何晶的这种行为描述为“盗贼和干预家事”行为。

3.李显龙对于赠与展现了不适当的行为

李显扬先生于2017622日在自己的脸书FACEBOOK个人网页里here写到,李显龙说,自己以总理的身份已经取得了赠与契约。但是,他却以个人的身份对李伟玲医生和李显扬先生采取了法律行为。

4.关于委任成立部长委员会是值得质疑的

李显扬和李伟玲声称:李显龙在与他們簽署有关李光耀遺產之执行管理的协议后还进一步发布有关秘密的部長委员会的法定公报。部長委員会的設立显然是为了挑战李光耀的遗嘱,而不是如所宣称的目的在于探索欧思礼路的不同选项。政府并没有向他们提供有关这个委员会的信息,直至他们对外提出有关的指责。委員会成立至今尚未清楚说明。

犹有甚者,李伟玲医生和李显扬先生也申明here,有关李光耀对欧思礼路故居的立场。李显龙于20154月份在国会向部长委员会发表自己的法定宣誓声明时说,“李光耀的立场上在过去几年未曾改变过,和他充分地体现了其价值观”

上述对李伟玲医生和李显扬先生对李显龙的指控是极其显见的,总检察长应该予以重视。尽管李显龙已经在201773日和4日在国会说明了一些问题。他的声明必须是视为是属于其政党的看法,那是因为这不是属于在法院进行交叉盘问下进行的。李显龙已经拒绝了公众要求设立一个调查委员会的呼吁。

为了法治与诚信的利益,在不受任何一方的操纵下,对有关的指控和双方达的互相指控进行调查,是展现我们的国家确实落实司法制度。

为此,我们呼吁总检察署在自己力所能及的权利范围内或者指示执法单位召唤所有有关各方证人和收集相关的文件,彻底解决这个问题。总检察署进行调查的结果和行动必须是拥有相关的证据和其他的考量的。

由于最近您的被委任为总检察长的职位和把有关工作分配给副总检察长余文正Yee Woon Chin先生去处理,所引发了一些议论,对于您来说,最重要的是,应该避免本身参与处理这个问题。我们反对委任哈里古玛先生为另一位副总检察长。因为他曾经是人民行动党的国会议员,与该当有着长期密切的关系。

我们相信,在把维护国家最高利益下,您将会把这件事视为最紧急与首要的大事处理。我们期待您的回覆,

您的忠实的

新加坡民主党秘书长

徐顺全

 

Singapore Democratic Party

calls upon AGC for investigation on allegations against PM Lee

7 July 2017

Mr Lucien Wong
Attorney-General
Attorney-General’s Chambers
1 Upper Pickering St
Singapore 058288
Email: agc@agc.gov.sg.

Dear sir,

INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST PM LEE HSIEN LOONG

As you may know, Dr Lee Wei Ling (“LWL”) and Mr Lee Hsien Yang (“LHY”) have accused Mr Lee Hsien Loong (“LHL”) of abuse of power in his capacity as Prime Minister of Singapore.

Specifically, PM Lee’s siblings, individually or jointly, noted that:

  1. PM Lee Hsien Loong had made “false claims” in Parliament

In their Facebook post on 4 July 2017 here, LWL and LHY made a grave charge that “LHL has made convoluted, but ultimately false claims about Lee Kuan Yew’s (“LKY”) wishes.” They were referring to LHL’s Parliamentary speech on 3 July 2017 where LHL stated that the late Lee Kuan Yew had changed his position from demolishing his house, 38 Oxley Road, to preserving it. LWL and LHY have produced emails to substantiate their claim.

  1. Ho Ching had no business acting on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

LHY posted on his Facebook on 22 June here that Ms Ho Ching (“HC”), LHL’s wife, had gone to 38 Oxley Road to remove items in the residence and handed them over to the National Heritage Board. LHY pointed out that Ms Ho was not an elected official nor was she an appointed officer of the PMO and yet she was listed as the “contact representative for the PMO”.

In addition, LHY stated in his post that HC did not seek permission from him and LWL as executors of LKY’s Estate to remove items from the house. This, he said, constituted “theft and intermeddling”.

  1. LHL acted inappropriately on the Deed of Gift

LHY stated in his Facebook post on 22 June 2017 here that LHL had obtained the Deed of Gift in his capacity as Prime Minister but used it in his personal capacity to take legal action against LWL and LHY.

  1. The appointment of the Ministerial Committee was questionable

LHY and LWL have stated that LHL, after signing a settlement agreement with them as executors of LKY’s estate, went on to make a statutory declaration to a secret Ministerial Committee which appeared to have been established to challenge Mr LKY’s will instead of its professed objective of exploring options for the Oxley house. The details of this committee were not provided to them until they went public with their accusations and the origins of the committee have not been clarified to date.

Furthermore, LWL and LHY have claimed here that, with regard to LKY’s position on the Oxley House, LHL’s statutory declaration to the Ministerial Committee contradicts his own statement to Parliament in April 2015 where LHL said LKY’s position was “unwavering over the years and fully consistent with his lifelong values.”

The above are allegations made against LHL that, prima facie, warrant looking into by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). Even though LHL has addressed some of these matters in Parliament on 3 and 4 July 2017, his statements must necessarily be viewed as partisan as they were not subject to critical cross-examination. He has also refused to convene a Commission of Inquiry despite widespread calls from the public to do so.

In the interest of the rule of law and accountability, it is imperative that our legal system demonstrates impartiality by investigating the allegations and counter-allegations by the parties involved without fear of favour.

As such, we call on the AGC to do whatever is within its powers or to direct law enforcement agencies to interview all relevant witnesses and subpoena necessary documents to get to the bottom of the matter. The outcome of the investigation and action(s) led by the AGC should be guided by the evidence and no other consideration.

As there have been questions raised regarding your recent appointment as Attorney-General, it is crucial that you recuse yourself from dealing with this matter and assign the job to Deputy AG Lionel Yee Woon Chin. We also advise against appointing your other Deputy AG, Mr Hri Kumar, to look into the matter given his long association with the People’s Action Party as a member of parliament.

We trust that you will give this matter your urgent and utmost attention as the standing of our nation is at stake. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party


留下评论

(中英文版)新加坡民主党: 国会听证会引发更多有关李显龙领导国家的能力问题 SDP: Parliamentary hearing raises more questions about LHL’s ability to lead country

新加坡民主党:

国会听证会引发更多有关李显龙领导国家的能力问题

201775

新加坡民主党已经就国会于73日后4日举行有关李显龙总理以及张志贤副总理发表的部长声明进行了辩论发表声明。

鉴于李显龙总理在国会回答国会议员的提问时,拒绝把有关(李显龙与李显扬姐弟之间有关李光耀38故居引发的问题)问题到法院进行诉讼或者设立调查委员会,已经引发了李显龙领导国家的能力问题了。

我党认为,他在没有对主动提出对自己就有关所有被指责的问题到法院进行澄清或者设立调查庭的情况下,自言其说地宣称自己已经撇清所有有关的指责。这已经说明,被指责滥用职权李显龙总理是不再胜任其职了。他本身已经无法通过检视自己的情况下,却提出有人质疑政府的诚信将被起诉。这足于说明,作为新加坡国家政府,不论在政策方面和司法行为上,并没有一视同仁和连贯性的对待全体国民。

总理在(73/4日)国会辩论后自我宣称,没有证据显示他个人滥用权力,取得了胜利。这足于在进一步说明,他对国家法治的藐视。这说明了,这是问责实践中的一个明显的障碍。

国会的这场辩论是在李显龙总理于619日就他的弟妹,李伟玲医生和李显扬先生的指责他滥用自己的总理职权,为自身的利益后,发表道歉声明时提出的。他要求国会议员向他提出任何涉及有关这方面的问题,同时,他也让行动党国会议员在解除党鞭制衡的情况下参与这场辩论。

无论如何,在这场辩论会结束后,李显龙总理在发表辩论会的总结声明里宣称,尽管行动党国会议员、工人党国会议员以及管委议员在辩论会期间提出了许多问题后,但是,整个事件已经达到结尾了。

以下是我党声明全文:

正如事先所预见的,国会有关欧思路(Oxley Road 38号住宅事件的辩论的结束是:李显龙利用这个场合为洗清自己所犯下的错误和宣布“有关事件结案。”

实际上,无论如何,核心的问题仍然是未获得任何的答案,那是因为没有人比事实更聪明。这只是有关问题的一面之词。

在自己没有提出把有关事件提交到法院或者设立调查庭的情况下,自我宣布已经洗清(弟妹)指控他滥用职权的一切指责嫌疑,是不配成为一个领导人的。

2015年大选时,李显龙先生在谈到要管理新加坡时,以他的先父李光耀为例,说,“任何人要管理新加坡,都与李光耀分不开。”

他一直拒绝广泛要求设立调查庭。他和弟妹可以在调查庭里彻底地说明清楚有关问题的底细,从中将可以显示总理目前所具有的威信。

李总理在昨天(74日)国会的辩论会上说,“为什么我们需要设立一个特别委员会或者调查庭?……这将是这个问题继续拖延几个月……?特别委员会去调查每一个毫无根据的指控和每一个无稽的谣言?”

李伟玲医生和李显扬先生提出的指控是“毫无根据”和“无稽的谣言”。以73日星期一李显龙在国会的讲话为例,李显扬先生指责李显龙总理在国会发表的讲话是编造具体的谎言。

以上这个最新的例子和过去两个星期以来,一系列严重的指控所听到各种的说法,是不是需要进行调查。

看来,李先生自身是拒绝接受有人质疑政府诚信的指控进行起诉的挑战。李先生的前任,吴作栋先生在1999年说了如下一段话:“假设一名部长被人诽谤,他不敢采取起诉行动对付诽谤者,那么,这名部长必须离开内阁……假设他不敢到法院接受对方律师的盘问的话,那么,其中必然有一些指控是事实的。假设那些指控是没有证据的,那好,为什么(这名部长)不采取法律行动起诉对方呢?”

现在行动党领导人拒绝设立调查庭的态度是反映了,作为新加坡国家政府,不论在政策方面和司法行为上,并没有一视同仁和连贯性的对待全体国民。

总理昨天国会辩论有关问题和,单方面地宣布自己被指控滥用职权的嫌疑已经得到洗清。他宣布,没有确凿证据证明他藐视法律滥用职权。这是问责实践中极其显著的践踏。

确切地说,与其说是厘清问题,倒不如说,国会的辩论和总理拒绝到法院进行诉讼或者设立正式调查庭接受调查,已经引申出他来到这个国家的能力。

在我们国家目前正在面对着不可预测的未来和严峻挑战的时刻,这个问题更显得其重要性。

 

SDP:

Parliamentary hearing raises more questions

about LHL’s ability to lead country

2017/7/5

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has released a statement on the Parliamentary debate that was held on 3 and 4 July over the Ministerial Statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, questioned PM Lee’s ability to lead the country for refusing to go to court or call for a formal inquiry over the allegations against him.

The party states that by declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel, PM Lee is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power. And that he fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued,  reflecting on the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.

It further remarked that the PM’s unilateral claim of victory in the Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law.  Stating that it is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability

The debate was brought about by PM Lee himself after apologising to the country on 19 June over the allegations by his two siblings, Dr Lee Weiling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang for abusing his authority as the Prime Minister of Singapore for his personal agenda. He had asked Members of Parliament to question him on the matter and had the party whip removed, however, by the end of the parliament session, PM Lee declared in his closing statement that the matter has come to a close despite having many of the questions raised by People’s Action Party MPs, Workers’ Party MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament unanswered.

Below is the party’s statement in full

The Parliamentary debate on 38 Oxley Road ended exactly as expected: PM Lee Hsien Loong used the occasion to absolve himself of wrongdoing and announced ‘case closed’.

In reality, however, important questions remain unanswered. This is because when issues are addressed only by one side, no one is the wiser as to the truth.

Declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power.

In the 2015 general elections, Mr Lee Hsien Loong channeled his late father by echoing that “whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”.

That he has resisted widespread calls for him to convene a Commission of Inquiry where he and his siblings can be questioned at length in order to get to the bottom of the matter shows just how little iron the current PM possesses.

Mr Lee said in yesterday’s Parliamentary session: “Why do we need a Select Committee or COI, and drag this out for months?…Select Committees to investigate every unsubstantiated allegation, every wild rumour?”

The allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are hardly “unsubstantiated” and “wild rumour[s]”. To cite but one, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has accused PM Lee of making a specific falsehood in his speech on Monday, 3 July.

This, and other issues raised in the last two weeks or so, are serious charges that merit a thorough hearing and, if necessary, investigations.

As it is, Mr Lee fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued. His predecessor, Mr Goh Chok Tong, made the same claim in 1999: “…if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet…if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?”

That the PAP leader now demurs from such a move reflects abjectly the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.

The PM’s unilateral claim of victory in yesterday’s Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law. It is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability.

Ironically, instead of clearing things up, the Parliamentary hearing and the PM’s refusal to go to court or call for a formal inquiry has further questioned his ability to lead the country.

This is troubling especially in times of such uncertainty and grave challenges for our nation.

 


留下评论

(中英文版)新加坡民主党重申:设立调查庭或者李显龙必须采取法律行动 SDP repeats call for COI or Lee must proceed with legal action

新加坡民主党重申:

李显龙设立调查庭或者必须采取法律行动

鉴于今天的国会开会让总理李显龙重覆他和部长们已经公开陈述的问题,这对于李伟玲医生和李显扬先生所做的严重指控未能起的多大的作用。

他们(李伟玲医生和李显扬先生)的严重指控,对于我们的国家是至关重要的。新加坡目前正在面对着前所未有在经济上和国家安全的安排时刻,政府能够理解其在法制管制扮演的角色是至关重要性的。

滥用权利破坏法制和不鼓励对善政的信心。这就是为什么总理必须重视有关滥用权力的问题。

为此,我们因此提出要求设立调查庭here的建议。设立调查庭的目的是让李显龙总理和他的弟妹被召唤到调查庭。这是极其重要的那是因为总理已经决定不对其弟妹采取法律诉讼了。在法定宣誓下,他们双方能够在独立调查团的盘问下进行举证说明。新加坡人民要求总理予以更多的澄清。昨天(73日)总理无法进一步提供有关事件的答案,人民更有权要知道更多的详情。

对于总理而言,他的另一个选择就是把弟妹控上法院。

在这个前提下,总理说:“在一般情况下,如果碰到滥权指责,他肯定会马上起诉,因为滥权的只会无论多么毫无根据,都是非常严重的,因为不止是针对他,而是整个政府的诚信。可是……上法庭其为弟妹智慧进一步伤害我的父母的名声……到头来,我们是兄弟姐妹,都是我们父亲的孩子”

总理这样的说辞是虚伪的。总理既然已经知道,他的弟妹对他的指控是一项涉及“整个政府”,而却说,在正常的情况下,他将立即采取起诉

事实是,他之所以做出这样的例外选择,是因为这事件涉及他的家庭是不可接受的。当他接受委任为总理职位进行宣誓时,他誓言将在“不惧怕任何威胁、个人利益受到影响或者敌意情况下”完成自己的任务。

总理完全有责任维护他的神圣承诺。他必须为全体新加坡人民和新加坡共和国宪法承担责任。总理选择不对自己弟妹采取法律诉讼的决定,是令人极其不安的。因为这是他维护新加坡政府的诚信,是建立在个人与家庭的基础上。这不是一个具有高标准道德的领导人所具备的条件。

假设李总理不设立调查庭,或者对其弟妹采取法律诉讼行动。那只能说明,他领导的政府必须受到严重的质疑。

SDP

repeats call for COI or Lee must proceed with legal action

Given that today’s Parliament session was a forum for PM Lee Hsien Loong to repeat what he and his ministers have already stated publicly, it served little purpose to clarify the grave allegations that Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have made.

This is of overriding importance to the nation. As Singapore faces unprecedented challenges to our economic and security arrangements, it is crucial that the government understands and practices the rule of law.

Abuse of power undermines the rule of law and does not inspire confidence in good governance. This is why allegations regarding abuses of power by the PM must be looked into.

To do this, as we have stated here, a Commission of Inquiry (COI) where PM Lee and his siblings are called to testify under oath, and where they can be cross-examined before an independent panel. This is especially important since the PM has decided not to take a civil suit against his siblings.

Singaporeans demand more clarity from the PM and they deserve better than yesterday’s non-answers given by Mr Lee in Parliament.

The alternative is for him to take his siblings to court.

 

On this front, PM Lee said: “In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance but this, I would have sued immediately. Because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is in fact an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government. But suing my own brother and sister in court would further besmirch our parents’ names. At the end of the day, we are brother and sister, and we are all our parents’ children.

 

This statement is hypocritical. The PM acknowledges that his siblings’ attack is an attack on the “integrity of the whole Government” and that in normal circumstances he would have sued immediately.

The fact that he is making an exception because the matter involves his family is unacceptable. When he took office as PM, Mr Lee swore the Oath of Office to carry out his duties “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.

It is his duty to uphold this sacred promise that he has undertaken to the people and constitution of the Republic of Singapore. It is highly disturbing that he has chosen not to take legal action to protect the Government’s integrity based on personal-familial reasons. This is not the hallmark of a morally strong leader.

If Mr Lee chooses not to convene a COI or take proper legal action, then his leadership of this Government must be seriously questioned.