I went into a fit of giggles when this popped up on my feed. How on earth did it even make NYT?! The title! Bangkok-based Southeast Asia bureau chief Sui-Lee Wee delved into 'Why Singapore's First Family Is Locked In A Bitter Feud Over a House', published in The New York Times on January 11, 2025.
Isn't this a simple issue is very simple. It's a matter of the living generation adhering to the wishes of a private will of a private citizen vs the historical significance of preserving a house of a monumental political figure in a country's history.
As a member of the public and a citizen, I honestly would like to see the house preserved and be opened to the public as is. But in order to honor the will, if the house is gutted and redesigned to become a working museum/gallery with only the facades and the structural walls preserved, then it would lose a lot of the historical significance of the house.
That's how the accusations flew here and there with the police involved and family questioned, and one suspended for professional misconduct. Accusations intensified after the last named member of the family still living there passed away last year. Every one has an opinion. When each family member is equally illustrious, there are plenty of egos at stake. The wording of the will is debated upon, the integrity of crafting that will is questioned. The matter reached Parliamentary debate.
The reporter spoke with Yang who now lives in London. I highly doubt she would be able to get a comment from our ex-PM since he last publicly declared that he has recused himself from the matter of the house, leaving it to the government of the day and the Monuments Board.
Yang, 67, described what he called a pattern of persecution by the Singapore government in recent years. In 2020, his son was charged with contempt of court for criticizing Singapore’s courts in a private Facebook post. That year, his wife, a lawyer who had arranged for the witnesses at the signing of the patriarch’s will, was barred from practicing law for 15 months. Then the couple faced a police inquiry about lying under oath. In 2022, they left Singapore.
In October, Yang announced that Britain had granted his asylum request, ruling that he and his wife “have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country.”
Singapore’s government rejected the claims, saying that the couple was free to return home. It said it was accountable to voters and an independent judiciary. Yang, it added, was engaged in “an extravagant personal vendetta” against his brother, Loong.
Loong, 72, who now holds the title of senior minister, declined to comment because he has recused himself from the matter of the house.
Every time I see "the couple was free to return home", I roll my eyes. Do they think people are that dumb. Sure, you're free to return, but there's a risk that you're not allowed to leave anymore, and you'll likely have assets frozen. And in this mistrust flying around, who would want to return to be persecuted for standing in things that they believe in, and of all things, a private matter about a house.
However, at the end of the day, it is the wishes of the family versus the wishes of the government/State. And when that is in conflict, does the Court even get the right to make a judicial judgment? This is why families fracture.
I'm tired of reading about this matter. We have no say in all these anyway — which is pretty much what the incumbent government's style is towards its citizenry. Papa knows best. Let me lead. You follow. No questions allowed. Is there even a need to involve the police and the judicial court to sort this out? I suppose when it involves the 'first family' of Singapore, it does. And like any other families, they have their ghosts and demons to sort out. Not every set of siblings need to like one another or even be harmonious as our society norms preach.
No comments:
Post a Comment