On Monday, netizens reacted sharply to Mothership’s Facebook post about Ambassador Lui Tuck Yew’s open letter to the New York Times (NYT).
The letter sought to rebut claims by Harvard professor Li Shengwu, who appeared in an NYT video criticising the Singapore government’s judicial practices.
The video, titled How Tyranny Begins, features Li calling out a “pattern of using police investigations and criminal prosecutions to dispose of or exile opponents.”
In his letter, Lui dismissed these as “misleading analogies” and affirmed that Li was free to return to Singapore or even contest the next General Election (GE).
However, Facebook commentators raised serious questions about these assertions, the broader implications of government actions, and Lui’s credibility as a spokesperson.
Scepticism over claims of “freedom to return”
One of the most consistent threads in the comments was doubt over Lui’s claim that Li Shengwu is free to return to Singapore. While the statement was technically accurate, many questioned what would happen if Li were to do so.
One user cynically noted, “He is free to return, but what about freedom after he steps foot in Singapore? Will investigations or charges suddenly surface?” This sentiment was echoed by others, one of whom wrote, “The government always says people can return, but they conveniently omit whether they’ll be free to leave afterward.”
Others brought up Singapore’s history of legal and political actions against critics. “Look at what happened to Jeyaretnam and Devan Nair,” remarked a commentator, referencing figures who faced legal and political struggles. Another pointed out, “This just reinforces the belief that the government uses laws to silence dissenters, especially those who are vocal overseas.”
Some comments expressed outright disbelief in Lui’s assurances. “If Li Shengwu comes back, they’ll find a way to detain him or slap him with fresh charges,” a user claimed. Another sarcastically added, “It’s like inviting someone to dinner and arresting them before they’ve even had their meal.”
Polarising views on Li Shengwu
Li Shengwu himself became a focal point of debate. Supporters applauded his courage to speak out, even while abroad. “Li Shengwu has the intelligence and courage to call things as he sees them. That’s a quality sorely lacking in Singapore,” wrote one user. Another commented, “He should return and contest in the GE. Let Singaporeans decide if they support his views.”
Critics, however, accused Li of exploiting his family name and leveraging his platform for personal gain. “He’s just riding on the Lee family name to stir up trouble,” remarked one. Others viewed his comments as an unpatriotic betrayal. “How can you claim to love your country while badmouthing it to foreign media?” a user questioned.
A particularly stinging comment read, “Li Shengwu is masquerading as a hero while his real goal is to create division and chaos.” Another opined, “If he’s so confident about his convictions, why not come back and prove it by contesting in the GE? Put your money where your mouth is.”
However, some commentators defended Li Shengwu against these criticisms, noting that the focus should be on the issues he raised rather than whether he contests elections.
One user wrote, “He’s Ah Gong [Lee Kuan Yew]’s grandson, so he definitely has his smart gene.”
Another highlighted the imbalance of power, remarking, “Li Shengwu can only fairly air his views publicly in the USA, without fear of ISA or POFMA, which the SG government often uses its coercive powers to intimidate.”
A third user argued, “Li Shengwu has won a number of international accolades to put Singapore on the world map. What has Lui won except being a loyal party man?”
Such comments suggest that Li’s criticisms resonate with a segment of the public who see value in his perspectives, even if they are contentious.
Criticisms of Lui Tuck Yew’s credibility
Lui Tuck Yew, a former transport minister, faced heavy criticism in the comments. Many dredged up his record during his tenure, particularly his handling of public transport issues. “This is the same guy who couldn’t manage train breakdowns, and now he’s Singapore’s voice on the world stage?” wrote one sceptic.
Another commentator bluntly stated, “Lui Tuck Yew ran away from his role as transport minister when things got tough. Now he’s talking about courage? Laughable.” Some questioned whether Lui was merely a government mouthpiece. “He’s just doing what he’s paid to do – defend the party line, no matter how unconvincing it is.”
One comment directly challenged Lui’s authority to call out Li Shengwu. “What gives Lui Tuck Yew the right to lecture anyone? His own track record is questionable at best.” Another sarcastically remarked, “The man couldn’t fix the MRT, and now he’s fixing foreign relations? Good luck, Singapore.”
Lui’s silence on the Attorney-General controversy
Another point raised by commentators was Lui’s failure to address Li’s remark in the NYT video regarding Attorney-General Lucien Wong’s appointment.
In the video, Li alleged that his uncle had “taken his own personal lawyer and made that lawyer Attorney-General.”
While Lui rebutted other points made by Li, this specific allegation was conspicuously absent from his letter, which some netizens viewed as a deliberate oversight.
One user commented, “Appointing an Attorney-General who has to recuse himself time and time again due to conflicts of interest speaks volumes.” Another added, “Why didn’t Lui address this issue? It’s a serious accusation, and his silence on it only fuels suspicion.”
Others linked the controversy to broader governance concerns. “The fact that this question is being sidestepped shows how the government chooses to selectively address criticisms,” a commentator noted. Another questioned the justification of such appointments, writing, “The AG was LHL’s personal lawyer, and yet we’re expected to believe there’s no conflict of interest? It doesn’t add up.”
This lack of response to the Attorney-General controversy underscores the perception among some netizens that the government is unwilling to fully engage with sensitive or potentially damaging topics. For critics, this omission has further strengthened their belief in the validity of Li Shengwu’s comments.
Broader concerns about government practices
Beyond the individual figures, the post opened up broader conversations about government transparency and the use of legal measures against critics.
Many commentators pointed to the government’s past actions, including the use of POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act), as evidence of a pattern of suppressing dissent.
One user wrote, “If Lui believes Li Shengwu’s claims are false, why didn’t they POFMA the NYT? Or is it because POFMA only works in Singapore?” Another added, “This is just another example of the government using its legal tools selectively.”
Some comments also questioned the intent behind the rebuttal. “By responding, they’ve made this a bigger issue. It’s the Streisand Effect in action,” wrote a commentator, referring to the phenomenon where attempts to suppress information only amplify it.
Others debated the fairness of Singapore’s judicial system. “They claim no one is above the law, but who is writing the laws? The government has the power to amend them whenever it’s convenient for them,” said one user. Another remarked, “If rule of law is so important, why do so many feel like it’s applied unequally?”
Calls for accountability and transparency
Amid the heated discussions, some commenters called for more constructive discourse. “Why not have a live debate between Lui Tuck Yew and Li Shengwu? Let both sides present their case publicly,” suggested one user.
Another asked, “If the government wants to refute Li’s claims, they should provide detailed evidence to back up their statements. Empty rebuttals don’t work anymore.”
