Fathership

Is Lee Hsien Yang using dead sister as canon fodder for 38 Oxley Rd?

The reemergence of the 38 Oxley Road dispute at this sensitive time raises ethical questions about the exploitation of personal tragedy for personal or political gain.

|10 min read
Is Lee Hsien Yang using dead sister as canon fodder for 38 Oxley Rd?

Dr. Lee Wei Ling, the only daughter of Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew passed away on 9 October 2024 at the age of 69. The cause of death is believed to be brain haemorrhage due to complications arising from a rare brain disorder called progressive supranuclear palsy.

As condolences poured in from all corners of the globe, a shadow loomed over the solemnity of the moment—a rekindling of the long-standing family dispute over the fate of the iconic residence at 38 Oxley Road.

In a series of Facebook posts, Lee Hsien Yang, the younger son of Lee Kuan Yew, is accused of leveraging his sister's death to reignite the battle over their father's estate. The timing has raised eyebrows and questions about the motives behind this move.

A family divided

Since the passing of Lee Kuan Yew in 2015, the Lee siblings have been embroiled in a public disagreement over whether to preserve the house as a heritage site or to honour their father's wish to have it demolished.

While Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong has advocated for a balanced approach that considers both national heritage and personal wishes, Lee Hsien Yang and the late Lee Wei Ling had been adamant about demolishing the property to preserve their family's privacy.

With Dr. Lee Wei Ling's passing, the dynamics have shifted. Observers note that Lee Hsien Yang now stands alone in his quest, potentially weakening his position. Yet, rather than stepping back, he appears to be doubling down.

Strategic timing or coincidence?

Just hours after the announcement of his sister's death, Lee Hsien Yang released a statement urging immediate action on demolishing 38 Oxley Road, citing it as his sister's "final wish."

The swiftness of the statement has led to public speculation about whether he is using the emotional weight of the moment to pressure stakeholders and sway public opinion.

"It feels orchestrated," says a netizen. "The nation is mourning, and suddenly the focus shifts back to a contentious family issue. The timing can't be ignored."

Public sentiment

The public reaction has been mixed. While some sympathise with Lee Hsien Yang's desire to fulfill what he claims were his sister's wishes, others find the timing inappropriate.

"Using a personal loss to advance a controversial agenda is in poor taste," says Singaporean resident Kenneth Lim. "This should be a time for grieving, not reigniting old disputes."

"Grief can cloud judgment, but it can also be manipulated," notes another netizen. "It's crucial to distinguish between genuine intentions and strategic maneuvers."

Lee Hsien Loong's Response

Political insiders suggest that Lee Hsien Loong is taking the high road, unwilling to engage in a public spat during a time of personal loss. "He's showing restraint, which is commendable," says a former Member of Parliament.

What's next for 38 Oxley Road?

The fate of 38 Oxley Road has implications beyond the Lee family.

The house is a symbol of Singapore's history, the place where crucial decisions shaping the nation were made. The government's role in deciding its future adds layers of complexity involving legal, cultural, and societal factors.

If Lee Hsien Yang proceeds with legal action to hasten the demolition, it could lead to a protracted battle that overshadows national interests. Alternatively, this could be an opportunity for reconciliation, should the family choose to come together in honouring both their parents' wishes and the country's heritage.

The reemergence of the 38 Oxley Road dispute at this sensitive time raises ethical questions about the exploitation of personal tragedy for personal or political gain.

In the coming days, the actions of the Lee family will be under close scrutiny.

Whether they choose a path of unity or continued discord will not only affect their legacy but also reflect on the values they wish to impart to Singapore.

Lee Hsien Yang's Eulogy for Lee Wei Ling

Wei Ling and I have always been completely different, but we have always been close. We grew up together, and in the nature of our family, were each other’s closest family. She was almost 3 years older; Loong was in turn about 3 years her senior, but was a loner. So Ling and I grew up playing with each other. Of course, when we were little, there were physical fights. One scar I still carry from a particularly vigorous encounter serves as a reminder.

Right from the outset, Ling was always a tomboy and a fighter, and until I outgrew her, I was disadvantaged in our skirmishes. She was tough and strong and, whilst we disagreed and continued to disagree on much, I loved and admired her dearly. She carried that spirit of a fighter throughout her life, seeking to right wrongs, with a preparedness to speak truth to power. She was straight as an arrow, and would not mince her words. She had a reckless streak and could be impetuous. She saw herself as a modern day Don Quixote: an idealist, a hero, determined with dogged tenacity, stoic and ever-conscious of the need to withstand suffering.

Ling strove hard throughout her life to excel. She was outstanding academically - studious, driven, and intense. Perhaps her competitive fighting spirit came from a desire to be recognised and valued by our parents, even though she was second born and a girl. She loved animals and wanted to be a vet but was persuaded by our parents to pursue medicine instead. Always wanting to earn their approval, she graduated at the top of her class in medical school in Singapore and won a slew of prizes. Today, when I look back, I wish our family had acknowledged and recognised at home her accomplishments. It would have meant the world to her.

Physical fitness was also something she excelled at and both my father and myself value physical fitness from her encouragement. She was a superb long distance runner. Because of her, my father gave up golf and took up jogging. While I am reasonably fit, and could easily pass my physical fitness tests with flying colours, Ling was always a better long distance runner. Ling and I attended karate class together and she became a Karate black belt; she was not someone to be messed with! She exercised with fanatical devotion and her typical regime would involve hours of exercise on a cross trainer, a rowing machine and swimming. As she aged and became prone to injury, she resented having to scale back her exercise regime. Ling sought in running, and in life, to “fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run”

Ling was a brilliant doctor with strong clinical skills. Fern and I would consult her whenever any of our 3 sons was sick or had medical issues, and she was invariably spot on in her diagnosis, even in areas outside her speciality. We valued and trusted her judgement and skills as a doctor. She in turn sought investment advice from me. Bedside manners were not her forte, and completely in character, she never sugar-coated her diagnosis to patients. But she was straightforward and would always be her patients’ best champion. I have heard myself countless stories of patients’ gratitude for this, and have learnt of a few more since her passing.

Surprisingly, Ling discovered she enjoyed penning her thoughts and views, and for many years had a very popular weekly newspaper column. She was deeply disappointed when it was terminated in 2016.

Each week we would always hear at home her excited plans for her next article and her book compendium of articles made the bestsellers list to her huge delight. Ling loved the outdoors and was a keen, if disorganised, hiker. She loved the sense of adventure, the freedom and the adrenaline rush that it gave her. In early 2020 before Covid, on her request, I travelled to Machu Picchu with her. It was high on her bucket list, and was a long trip. Machu Picchu was built on a very remote and isolated steep outcrop and was challenging for her as her incipient illness had affected her sense of balance and mobility. Nonetheless, with a little help she managed to get around the citadel. She loved and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I am so glad we made that trip together.

As often is the lot of an unmarried daughter, the caring of our parents as they aged fell on Ling. She nursed and cared for each of them through their illnesses and old age frailties, and for this I remain eternally grateful.

Ling lived her entire life at 38 Oxley Road. It was the only home she knew and she wanted to live out her days in her home. It was for this reason that Papa gave her that right to live there. He knew it meant much to her. In the years following Mama’s first stroke in 2003, Ling cared for Mama and became Papa’s primary companion and confidant at home. Although, as two strong personalities they sometimes disagreed, they also became much closer.

Papa was always very open and public about his wishes. In that period from 2003 to his passing in 2015, Papa spoke with Ling extensively, including on his hopes and his concerns for the future. Everyone knows that Papa was always against any deification of himself and was against monuments or memorials; Ling knew how very strongly he felt. In Apr 2016, she wrote “Lee Kuan Yew would have cringed at the hero worship just one year after his death”

In 2017, she persuaded me to stand up with her for our father’s wishes. I am proud to have stood with her. Ling was not one who was afraid to talk about or prepare for death. She provided that only myself and my middle son, Huan, should make decisions on her care. As they were both middle children, she had always seen in Huan a kindred spirit, and the two of them had holidayed together. It has been my privilege, with Huan’s help, to deal with her affairs and organise her care arrangements during her illness. I am deeply grateful to her doctors Dr Philiip Yap of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and Prof Tan Eng King of NNI. In addition, Wee Tin, Jackie, Nurse Michelle, Lina, Cheng Piau and many others, have all helped with the care for Ling. Thank you.

She wanted a very simple funeral and for her ashes to be scattered at sea.

I said my goodbyes to Ling in June 2022. I wish I could have been here today for this final farewell. Huanwu has been a stalwart in organising her care in

my absence, and I am very grateful to Huanwu and Shaowu for being there for Ling at this time.

Ling directed me to convey the following statement on her passing:

“My father's, LEE KUAN YEW, and my mother's, KWA GEOK CHOO, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 to be demolished upon the last parent's death. LEE KUAN YEW had directed each of his 3 children to ensure that their parents' wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.“

Farewell Ling, You will always be my special big sister.

Read next article ⬇️

WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

|3 min read
WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

Workers' Party (WP) new face, Harpreet Singh, recently let slip that he doesn’t want to be “parachuted” into a “safe seat", according an interview with The Straits Times.

Harpreet's comment reveals the party’s belief in “safe seats” like Hougang and Aljunied, suggesting internal confidence in their electoral strongholds.

By admitting there are “safe seats,” Harpreet confirmed what many suspect: Hougang (WP’s turf since 1991) and Aljunied (theirs since 2011) are as close to a sure bet as it gets in Singapore’s PAP-dominated landscape.

In GE2020, WP held Hougang with 61.2% of the vote and Aljunied with 59.9%. These margins, while not overwhelming, reflect consistent voter loyalty in a political landscape dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP), which won 83 of 93 seats in the last election.

Yet, WP leader Pritam Singh continues to warn of a potential “opposition wipeout,” as highlighted in a Channel News Asia report early this year.

Pritam's wipeout narrative

Pritam Singh’s emphasis on a potential wipeout, as articulated in his call for party unity, appears designed to galvanize supporters and prevent complacency.

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

Yet, this narrative risks undermining the WP’s credibility.

Harpreet’s admission of safe seats suggests the party privately believes its core constituencies are secure. Publicly warning of a wipeout, then, could be perceived as disingenuous, especially by a discerning electorate.

If voters sense the WP is exaggerating risks to manipulate sentiment, trust in the party could erode—a dangerous prospect when authenticity is a currency in short supply.

It is also not helpful that Pritam himself was convicted for dishonesty.

Earlier this year, Pritam was convicted on two counts of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The case stemmed from his handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statements in Parliament in 2021, where she fabricated a story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station.

Playing the 'underdog' card

Pritam Singh isn’t daft. He’s a lawyer, an MP, and a guy who’s navigated Singapore’s political minefield for years. His wipeout narrative isn’t about doubting WP’s grip on Hougang or Aljunied—it’s about firing up the base.

In Singapore, where voter apathy can creep in, scaring supporters into showing up is Politics 101.

But there’s a flip side. Overplaying the underdog card risks crying wolf.

If WP’s seats are as safe as Harpreet implies, Pritam’s gloom-and-doom could erode trust.

Voters aren’t stupid—they see through spin.

And in a city where trust in institutions is high (78% of Singaporeans trust the government, per a 2023 Edelman survey), coming off as manipulative isn’t a great look.

Pritam’s banking on fear to mobilize, but he might be underestimating how savvy Singaporeans are.

With GE2025 around the corner, WP should ditch the drama and double down on policy.

Safe seats or not, elections are won by showing up for the heartlands, not by shouting “wipeout” from the rooftops.

In a nation of pragmatists, substance trumps spin every time.

Read next article ⬇️

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement. It's not a test of neutrality — it’s power.

|3 min read
Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Can Singapore stay neutral in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape?

Former Trade Minister and current Minister of Education Chan Chun Sing’s said in a CNA podcast that it's not about choosing sides—sometimes that’s decided for you—but about making Singapore so valuable that everyone wants a piece.

While Chan’s perspective highlights Singapore’s pragmatic diplomacy, it sidesteps a stark reality: neutrality, in the face of deep economic and strategic entanglements with both the US and China, is a mirage.

Neutrality promises impartiality but Singapore's reality mocks it

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China tariff war due to its deep economic, strategic, and geopolitical entanglements with both powers.

In 2023, China devoured 14% of Singapore’s exports ($83 billion) and supplied 13% of imports, while the US took 13% of exports ($76 billion) and 10% of imports.

US foreign direct investment ($234 billion) is a growth engine, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative exploits Singapore’s ports, processing 37 million TEUs in 2024.

Singapore backs US-led Indo-Pacific frameworks like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Launched in 2022, IPEF’s 14-nation coalition (excluding China) aims to boost trade and supply chains.

China, excluded from IPEF, views it as a US strategy to counter its regional influence, a sentiment echoed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who labeled it an attempt to “decouple” economically and “incite confrontation.”

In 2024, China’s state media jabbed at Singapore’s IPEF role, hinting at trade blowback but nothing came out of it as of today. However, the message was clear: neutrality is a fantasy when your biggest trading partner feels betrayed.

Walking a regional tightrope with ASEAN

Singapore’s security reliance on the US, especially for deterrence in a volatile region, tilts its strategic calculus.

Neutrality would require distancing itself from US defense cooperation, but this is unlikely given Singapore’s need for a counterbalance to regional threats, including China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea that affects ASEAN.

Singapore has no claims but supports a rules-based order, implicitly aligning with US freedom-of-navigation operations against China’s claims. This stance, articulated in Singapore’s 2024 Foreign Policy Report, draws China’s ire, undermining perceptions of neutrality.

As an ASEAN linchpin, Singapore pushes for regional unity but ASEAN’s fractures—Cambodia and Laos cozy up to China, while the Philippines and Vietnam lean US—make neutrality a diplomatic minefield.

Singapore's real play is not neutrality, but power

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement.

Favoring one risks alienating the other, yet remaining aloof could marginalize Singapore in global trade networks.

Instead, Singapore pursues strategic autonomy—hedging bets, diversifying partners, and maximizing flexibility. This approach, allows Singapore to navigate the conflict without being fully subsumed by either side.

In 2023, Singapore's S$600 billion economy grew 1.2% despite tariff headwinds, proving its adaptability.

Singapore’s edge lies not in avoiding sides but in making itself so valuable that sides compete to win its favor.

That’s not neutrality — it’s power.

Read next article ⬇️

PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Even a “short” tariff is cause for worry. It’s like saying a heart attack won’t kill you because it only lasts a minute.

|3 min read
PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Goh Meng Seng’s claim—“Trump’s tariff will not last”—seems to gloss over the issues of uncertainty.

In a Facebook post published by Goh, he said: "Trump's Tariff will not last. At most, it's between China and US but even for that, it will be much moderated."

His Facebook post, while likely aimed at calming nerves and challenging the PAP’s narrative, underestimates how even a fleeting tariff can ripple through a trade-dependent economy like Singapore’s.

The problem with "It won't last"

Goh’s assertion that Trump’s tariffs are a short-term blip sounds reassuring, but it misses the forest for the trees. Uncertainty is the real poison in global trade, and Singapore, with its open economy, is particularly allergic.

Even a temporary 10% tariff on Singapore’s exports to the U.S. spooks investors and businesses. A “short” tariff could still scare off a chip fab or logistics hub - of which Singapors economy is largely based on, costing billions in future growth.

Singapore’s role as a transshipment hub means it’s hyper-sensitive to global trade flows. A brief tariff could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing or shipping schedules, leading to delays, higher costs, and lost contracts. For example, electronics, a key export, rely on tight margins—any hiccup can cascade.

If China’s economy slows due to tariffs on U.S. goods, Singapore’s exports to China (think components, chemicals) could tank.

Even a three-month tariff war could shave 1.5% off GDP, per analyst estimates, hitting jobs and wages. That’s not a “bloop”; that’s a retrenchment notice.

Goh’s point might be that Singapore’s resilience—built on diversified trade partners and government agility—can absorb a temporary shock.

Fair enough.

We’ve got FTAs with the EU, ASEAN, and Japan, and the PAP’s track record of rolling out SME aid is solid.

But resilience doesn’t mean immunity. Uncertainty breeds hesitation—businesses pause hiring, and consumers tighten belts.

Why uncertainty is the real villain

Trade isn’t just about tariffs; it’s about confidence.

Singapore thrives on predictability—stable ports, clear trade rules, and a government that doesn’t surprise you.

SMEs, which employ 70% of Singapore’s workforce, can’t plan if tariffs might vanish or double. Should they eat the 10% cost? Pivot to new markets? Lay off staff? The indecision itself is paralyzing.

Trump’s tariffs aren’t just about Singapore. If the U.S.-China trade war escalates, global demand could slump, hitting Singapore’s exports across the board.

Does Goh Meng Seng have a point?

To give Goh some credit, he’s likely trying to counter the PAP’s “sky is falling” narrative ahead of GE2025.

The PAP’s warnings—PM Wong’s “seismic change,” SM Lee’s globalization eulogy—can feel like election scare tactics.

Goh’s post taps into that skepticism, suggesting the PAP’s hyping a temporary issue to rally voters.

And he’s not entirely wrong: Singapore’s economy has weathered shocks before (SARS-08, COVID-19), and a short tariff might not trigger Armageddon. The government’s got tools—subsidies, retraining programs, trade pivots—that could soften the blow.

But Goh’s oversimplifying.

The damage—lost contracts, spooked investors, job cuts—lingers.

And if Trump’s tariffs spark a broader trade war (say, EU retaliates or China doubles down), Singapore’s caught in the crossfire. Goh’s confidence feels like a campaign soundbite, not a strategy.

Goh’s “it won’t last” is refreshingly defiant, but it’s also naive. He’s betting on resilience without acknowledging the chaos a “bloop” can unleash.

Read next article ⬇️

Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Fear-mongering over U.S. tariffs is a PAP scare tactic, says PPP’s Goh Meng Seng. But it’s also necessary given Singaporeans’ complacency in thinking years of economic prosperity would not burst the island's utopian bubble.

|4 min read
Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Singapore’s economy is heavily reliant on global trade, with exports accounting for a significant portion of its GDP (about 170%) — think electronics, shipping, manufacturing.

U.S. tariffs, even at 10% on Singapore’s exports, could disrupt supply chains. Growth forecasts? Down 1.5%.

If U.S.-China tariffs spike, China’s economy slows, and Singapore suffers. Fewer ships, quieter factories, jobs on the line. With living costs up 4%, families are already stretched.

PAP say "be worried"; PPP say "don't bluff"

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has described the tariffs as marking a “seismic change” in the global order, signaling the end of rules-based globalization. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong echoed this, noting that Singapore can no longer rely on a stable global trading system, raising the risk of a recession.

People's Power Party chief Goh Meng Seng calls PM Wong's statement "fear-mongering". They call the PAP’s warnings “scare tactics” to spook voters into sticking with the safe bet.

Crises usually send Singaporeans running to the PAP, but Goh’s betting on change. Voters are livid about housing costs and stagnant wages—why obsess over tariffs when you can’t afford a flat?

PAP has historically benefited from a “flight to safety” during crises, where voters favor stability. However, according to Goh, this strategy may be less effective now, as voters are more polarized and focused on local issues like housing affordability.

PPP: US tariffs on Singapore is "ikan bilis"

The PPP’s claim that the government is overreacting could stem from the fact that Singapore’s 10% tariff is relatively low compared to others (e.g., 26% for India). They might argue that Singapore’s diversified trade partnerships (e.g., with ASEAN, EU, and Japan) and free trade agreements could cushion the blow.

But they miss the forest for the trees. Tariffs aren’t just about U.S. trade—they disrupt global flows.

A slowdown anywhere hits our ports, factories, and wallets. Brushing it off as “ikan bilis” is reckless, like ignoring a leak in a ship.

The PPP’s skepticism taps voter frustration, but it underestimates a real economic storm.

Additionally, some opposition figures may believe the government’s messaging exaggerates immediate risks to rally voters, when the full economic impact might take time to materialize.

COVID-19 measures were also an overreaction but look at where it got Singapore

PM Wong referenced the COVID-19 response, where early government action was criticized as overreach but later proved necessary. This suggests a pattern: proactive warnings about external risks (like tariffs) aim to prepare Singaporeans for tough times, even if the full impact isn’t immediate.

According to Goh, he said to "let the big boys (US and China) hash it out" - reiterating that the tariffs are temporary and for Singapore to focus on domestic issues.

Goh rightly highlights domestic pain—housing and jobs are urgent—but dismissing tariffs ignores how global shocks amplify local struggles.

Some analysts argue that Singapore’s agile economy and government interventions (e.g., support for SMEs) could mitigate damage. The PPP might be banking on this resilience -- an irony seeing that PAP's policies created this resilience - to argue that panic is premature.

Election noise means opinions from political parties need to be taken with a grain of salt

With the General Election (GE2025) set for May 3, opposition parties are differentiating themselves by challenging the PAP’s narrative. Calling out “fear-mongering” appeals to voters frustrated with the PAP’s dominance. The PPP’s critique is partly electoral posturing.

Conversely, the PAP’s emphasis on unity and preparedness could be seen as leveraging the crisis to bolster its campaign.

However, dismissing the tariff threat as “fear-mongering” overlooks the broader economic stakes that affect the livelihood of all Singaporeans, and is nothing short of myopic.

Read next article ⬇️

Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Is the Facebook glitch in the System or the Man?

|2 min read
Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Back in 2015, during the General Election’s Cooling-Off Day — a sacred 24-hour no-campaigning zone— Vivian Balakrishnan’s Facebook page was caught posting.

The Elections Department (ELD) issued a stern reminder about the rules, and Vivian’s team chalked it up to a “technical bug” causing “recurrent auto-posting,” later confirmed by Facebook (Straits Times, 2015).

Most gave Vivian the benefit of the doubt but fast-forward a decade, and that “one-off” glitch is starting to look like a feature, not a bug.

Another "bug" bites

On March 13, 2025, Vivian’s official Facebook page “liked” a post by Calvin Cheng suggesting pro-Palestinian activists be shipped to Gaza with no return ticket — a diplomatic disaster in a single click.

The backlash was instant, with netizens and activist groups like Monday of Palestine Solidarity slamming it as tone-deaf, especially given Vivian’s parliamentary nods to Palestinian causes.

By April 2, Vivian denied liking the post, claiming “unauthorized activity” and reporting it to Meta for investigation.

One too many glitches

Vivian’s social media has gone off-script, and the “bug” excuse is wearing thin.

In 2015, we could shrug it off—social media was still a wild frontier, and bugs weren’t uncommon.

But in 2025, when Singaporeans are dodging phishing scams and securing their Singpass with 2FA, a minister’s verified account getting “hacked” or “bugged” raises red flags.

When a minister’s account keeps glitching, it erodes confidence.

If Vivian’s team can’t secure a Facebook page, how do we trust them with cybersecurity or foreign policy?

With GE2025 looming, Singaporeans want leaders who can keep up — on policy and on Facebook.

Anything less, and Vivian risks being debugged by the ballot box.