Connect with us

Current Affairs

34 pertinent questions for Prime Minister Lee to answer on 3 July

Published

on

I refer to the article “Oxley Road dispute: House debate will clear the air, say MPs and political watchers” (Straits Times, Jun 20).
The article wrote that by putting the issue under scrutiny in the House, will allow the Government to address in public the serious allegations about abuse of power that have been made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the younger children of the late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
PM Lee Hsien Loong in a statement yesterday, urged Members of Parliament from both sides of the House to examine the issues thoroughly and to question him and his Cabinet colleagues vigorously.
ST reported that MPs such as Tampines GRC MP Desmond Choo, said they would canvass views from grassroots leaders and residents so that they can reflect them in Parliament.
“Citizens should also encourage their MPs – PAP or non-PAP – to speak on their behalf and raise tough questions,” said Mr Choo.
In this connection, some of my friends have asked me to collate and pen down their suggested questions:

  1. Since 38 Oxley Road was bequeathed to Lee Hsien Loong – why didn’t you just hold on to the title of the house, and wait to demolish it, when Lee Wei Ling is no longer living there, as per your father’s wishes?
  2. Why was there a need for you to offer to transfer the house to Lee Wei Ling?
  3. What exactly were the terms and conditions of your offer to transfer the house to Lee Wei Ling for $1 – which she did not accept?
  4. Who initiated the idea for you to sell the house to Lee Hisen Yang at  market value?
  5. What was the market value transacted?
  6. Why do you think Lee Hsien Yang would buy the house and also donate an additional 50 per cent of the transacted market value to charity, when as per your father’s wishes – any and all proceeds pertaining to the house has to be donated to charity?
  7. Since the beneficiaries were given equal shares of the estate – does it mean that the sale of the house to Lee Hisen Yang may no longer result in the beneficiaries getting equal shares?
  8. If the joint executors and trustees of the will (Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling) together with the beneficiaries. agree to make a reconciliation of the cashflows derived from the distribution of the estate such that at the end of the day – all the beneficiaries receive equal shares, in line with the late Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes – will you agree to it?
  9. Did you take the 250 per cent charitable income tax deduction on the full market value transacted – which you donated to charity?
  10. Since you had sold the house to Lee Hsien Yang in December 2015 and the three of you made a public statement at the same time about the demolition of the house and that you would recuse yourself – why did you agree to the setting up of a ministerial committee?
  11. Who initiated the setting up of the ministerial committee, and when was it first mooted?
  12. What other ministerial committees were set up in 2016?
  13. What were the ministerial committees set up in the last five years?
  14. Have the existence of any ministerial committees in the past been made public?
  15. As you said you recused yourself – why did you participate – such as making a statutory declaration to the ministerial committee?
  16. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary – “recused” means “to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly :  to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest” – What is your understanding of “recused” when you said this, when you made the public statement with your two siblings in December 2015?
  17. You have released parts of your statutory declaration to the public – why didn’t you release the full statutory declaration? Will you release the full statutory declaration now?
  18. Can you make public the ministerial committee’s terms of reference, minutes of meetings, correspondence, etc?
  19. In your opinion, do you think the Minister of Law has a conflict of interest, in being on the ministerial committee?
  20. When did you first have misgivings about how the will was prepared?
  21. When and who did you consult or talk to regarding this?
  22. What action (if any) did you take, or contemplate to take?
  23. If you took no action – why not?
  24. Since the will was made on 27 December, 2013 (note: Mr Lee Kuan Yew was continuously a Member of Parliament until his death on 23 March, 2015) and “2010-2011: Mr Lee Kuan Yew writes formally to the Cabinet twice to put his wishes to demolish his house at 38, Oxley Road on record” – why is there still a need to “has been looking at how the late Mr Lee’s will came to be made and the roles played in this by Mrs Lee Suet Fern – Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s wife – and the law firm that she heads”?
  25. Do you agree that if there is rule of law in a country – there should only be one issue and one solution – is the will of our late former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew valid?
  26. And therefore, do you agree that only a court of law can determine this, provided the parties involved submit themselves to go through the proper legal process. Will you submit yourself to a court of law?
  27. Do you agree that any other way may arguably be – not the rule of law, but “rule by law”?
  28. Do you agree that it should not be decided by a specially formed ministerial committee (which was not made known to Singaporeans) or the Government?
  29. Since you have said that it was up to the Government of the day to decide when Lee Wei Ling is no longer staying there – why was there such an urgency to set up the ministerial committee in July last year? Do you agree that “the Government of the day” can override any recommendations of the ministerial committee?
  30. How did your lawyers manage to obtain a copy of the Deed of Gift dated 8 June 2015 from the National Heritage Board (NHB)?
  31. Did you obtain the Deed Gift in your public or personal capacity? If in your public capacity, to use this in your personal legal disputes – is it not a clear abuse of authority? If in your private capacity, how can other private citizens go about acquiring confidential deeds of gift from the NHB?
  32. What is your response to your siblings’ allegations that they “fear the use of organs of state against us”, had faced harassment from you, that they were being followed, “some of his friends had suffered “serious repercussions” because of the acrimony among the siblings over the house”?
  33. What “organs of state” do you think they were referring to?
  34. What is your response to “She (your mother) would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants,” they said. “The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in government, her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview”?

As to “Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, in a Facebook post, said: “Like PM, I hope this will be the chance for all of us to discuss things openly and thoroughly, dispel doubts, and strengthen confidence in our institutions and system of government.”
Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad said the move to lift the Whip shows that “PM Lee is not afraid to put the matter under the microscope”.
Political commentator Derek da Cunha, meanwhile, suggested a live telecast of PM Lee’s ministerial statement and the Parliament debate” – the question that may be on the minds of millions of Singaporeans as well as the world is – will there be a live telecast of the Parliamentary proceedings on 3 July?
Otherwise, how well received and accepted will this exercise be, if only a few hundred people get to see and hear it on that day?
My friends who gave the above suggested questions say one of the main reasons why they are doing this, is that they hope that they may be of some use to our Prime Minister’s preparation for 3 July, as literally – “the eyes of the world will be upon us”.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun

A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.

The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.

The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.

Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.

The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.

The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.

If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.

They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.

The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.

The investigation is ongoing.

Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.

Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.

The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.

Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.

However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.

The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents

Published

on

By

The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.

The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.

Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.

The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022

The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.

On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.

The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.

The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.

Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.

The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.

The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration

While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.

This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.

Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.

PDPC Findings and Penalties

The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.

CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.

The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.

In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.

Remedial Actions by CASE

It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.

These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.

CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.

CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.

The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.

The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

Continue Reading

Trending