SINGAPORE: The Singaporean government has issued a strong rebuttal to recent allegations by Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), accusing him of turning a “personal vendetta” into an “international smear campaign” aimed at discrediting his family, father, and nation.
The government’s response was issued in response to statements made by LHY in his recent interview with the Associated Press (AP), in which he expressed concerns about what he views as a decline in Singapore’s governance since the death of his father, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, in 2015.
Now residing in the United Kingdom under political asylum alongside his wife, Lee Suet Fern, LHY claims he left Singapore to escape what he sees as targeted actions by the government.
In his interview, he alleged that Singapore’s authorities are using legal tools to suppress dissent and that more citizens are seeking refuge abroad due to repressive measures.
LHY directly criticized his estranged brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, accusing him of endorsing policies that restrict freedoms of assembly and speech.
LHY argued that recent legislative changes have curtailed civil liberties, pushing political dissenters into exile and creating a “thin veneer” of democracy in Singapore.
He also claimed that the government employs tactics like defamation suits, financial penalties, and surveillance to stifle political opponents, including his family members.
In response, Singaporean authorities released a statement categorically denying LHY’s accusations, describing his remarks as part of an escalating vendetta against “his father, his family, and his country.”
The government specifically refuted claims made in LHY’s asylum application, which alleged that officials acted to prevent his son, Li Shengwu, from entering politics, pointing out that Shengwu has expressed no political aspirations.
Tensions between LHY and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) have grown, particularly following LHY’s alignment with an opposition party in 2020.
LHY argues that this move led to a wave of “bogus, abusive, and unwarranted” government actions, including criminal charges, defamation suits, and intensified surveillance targeting him and his wife.
The ongoing family dispute reportedly stems from conflicting views over the family home at 38 Oxley Road after Lee Kuan Yew’s death.
As the sole remaining executor of his father’s will after his sister’s passing, LHY has advocated for demolishing the house in line with his father’s wishes, a proposal that government officials have opposed.
The government also responded to LHY’s concerns about the integrity of Singapore’s anti-corruption measures.
They referenced specific cases mentioned by LHY, including the S$3 billion asset seizure in a 2023 money laundering investigation and connections to Malaysia’s 1MDB and Brazil’s Keppel Offshore & Marine scandals.
The government emphasized that each of these incidents had been “thoroughly addressed” through legal proceedings or parliamentary review, noting that ten offenders in the money laundering case were convicted, and further actions included freezing assets of 17 individuals abroad, along with Interpol notices.
Regarding the 1MDB scandal, the government emphasized its “robust actions,” which included closing local branches of Swiss banks Falcon Private Bank and BSI Bank, fining eight banks, and issuing lifetime bans against several executives.
In the Keppel Offshore & Marine case, officials stated that the issue was resolved in cooperation with Brazilian authorities, leading to charges against two former Sembcorp Marine employees in Singapore.
The government also highlighted Singapore’s high standing on global transparency indices as an indicator of its clean governance, pointing to the recent indictment of former Cabinet minister S Iswaran on corruption charges as further proof of its commitment to combating corruption, even when charges were later downgraded.
The government further asserted that LHY’s family has benefited from Singapore’s economic growth, emphasizing that LHY was able to join an opposition party in the 2020 elections and continues to support opposition efforts from abroad.
To underscore Singapore’s commitment to democratic values, authorities noted that it remains the only Southeast Asian country to hold regular elections without suspending its constitution or imposing martial law since gaining independence.
In response to LHY’s claims of persecution, the government clarified that both he and his wife remain Singaporean citizens and are free to return to the country at any time.
“Lee Hsien Yang is not a victim of persecution. He and his wife remain citizens. They are and have always been free to return to Singapore,” the government said.
Public scepticism mounts over government’s rebuttal to Lee Hsien Yang’s criticisms
Following the Singapore government’s strong response to Lee Hsien Yang’s remarks, online public opinion has largely been sceptical, with many commenters questioning the government’s narrative and involvement in what they perceive as a family dispute.
On Facebook posts from CNA and Mothership, which garnered over 1,300 combined comments, notable responses included criticism of state media involvement and concerns about government transparency.
M Ravi, a former human rights lawyer and activist, remarked that the claim “Singapore is not repressive” is a joke.
He pointed out that the government’s extensive attack on LHY in the state media demonstrates how intolerant the regime is toward criticism, emphasizing the need for independent media.
Another commenter expressed disbelief at the situation, noting that it serves as a perfect example of the adage, “don’t believe everything you see on the Internet.”
Others commented regarding the nature of LHY’s criticisms, arguing that he did not smear his father or country but only addressed issues with one brother and a party that no longer represents its original leadership.
Some commenters questioned the government’s motives, asking why they do not acknowledge the personal vendetta against LHY for wanting to fulfill their father’s wishes regarding the demolition of Lee Kuan Yew’s house.
They pointed out that many Singaporeans agree with LKY’s wish to demolish the house, leading to confusion about the government’s hesitation.
The government’s portrayal of the situation was also challenged, with one commenter asserting that LHY’s criticisms are factual and highlighting concerns about the lack of true democratic freedoms in Singapore.
They argued that the government’s fragile ego is hurt because LHY, now in London, can criticize them without fear of repercussions, insisting that times have changed and Singaporeans deserve a government that adapts.
Public responses show significant scepticism toward the government’s portrayal of LHY’s criticisms as a “smear campaign” and its handling of the matter on a public platform, raising broader questions about press freedom, transparency, and government priorities.
