It’s hardly surprising that the Channel NewAsia article adheres to the ruling party’s well-worn playbook of discrediting dissenters—it was entirely predictable. Mr. Lui, unsurprisingly, isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds him, and Channel NewsAsia’s decision to amplify the narrative beyond what was outlined in Mr. Lui's letter is just as expected.
Unlike others who benefit from the establishment and need to protect their handsomely buttered bread, I can openly empathize with Li Shengwu and his family, as their experience feels all too familiar. When the Asia Sentinel highlighted failures to address my concerns with corporate governance lapses at government-linked bank DBS, the response wasn’t accountability or transparency. Instead, I was subjected to false personal smears, accusing me of acting in bad faith. Similarly, after I wrote an open letter to the Chief Justice, there was no attempt at meaningful dialogue. Instead, the authorities targeted Terry Xu, the editor of The Online Citizen, simply for sharing the letter. My intentions were predetermined by the state prosecutor to fit their narrative, without any consultation or clarification with me. It’s painfully clear that the goals were never truth or justice—they were to protect the existing power structure and discredit or punish dissenters. The above headline "...to advance own agenda" follows the same old playbook.
To be clear, I have no political allegiance to any party in Singapore, as I am not a Singaporean. Had the Workers’ Party, SDP, PSP, or any other party been in power during the cover-up of my case, or the attempts to buy silence, I would have just as strongly called them out for making baseless claims about accountability and equality under the law. Mr. Lui on the other hand is aligned with the establishment, which, in my view, disqualifies him from speaking credibly about the realities faced by Li Shengwu, Lee Suet Fern, Lee Hsien Yang, Terry Xu, and the many others who have endured the heavy hand of the state. I could go further than I have in dissecting the latest attempt to smear Li Shengwu and his family, but I’ll keep to a few key points, as I’ve already countered this repetitive narrative in the past.
What must be borne in mind when reading this latest Channel NewsAsia 'hit piece' is that the United Kingdom, renowned for its robust and independent asylum evaluation process, found both Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern to be credible victims of political persecution. Such recognition from a globally respected power cannot simply be brushed aside as bias or ignorance. This verdict speaks volumes about systemic issues in Singapore that no amount of polished PR or state-crafted narratives delivered by Mr Lui, Channel NewsAsia or anyone else can erase.
It also stands to reason — even for those of us with limited education, myself included — that if Lee Hsien Loong or his then-personal lawyer, Lucien Wong (now Attorney General), had legitimate concerns about the handling of Lee Kuan Yew’s will, those concerns should have been raised during the Probate process or at an earlier stage. The fact that they only came to light after Lee Hsien Yang made allegations of abuse of power or after Lucien Wong became Attorney General casts serious doubt on their timing. To put it simply, this sequence of events doesn’t pass the 'pub test.' For those interested, my earlier articles addressing previous 'hatchet' pieces can be found here and here.
What first stands out in the article is the absence of a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order. If ANY of Li Shengwu’s statements were false, wouldn’t this have been the perfect opportunity for the government to wield its favoured “fact-checking” weapon? The silence is deafening and suggests that the so-called “false portrayal” referred to was less about inaccuracy and more about inconvenient truths—truths that threaten the establishment’s carefully curated image on the international stage.
For me, the most glaring hypocrisy in the article was the statement: "Like many others, the couple benefited from the system that Lee Kuan Yew helped build—in their case, more handsomely than most, given their abilities." Is Mr. Lui implying that Lee Hsien Yang’s family benefited from a non-meritocratic system? If so, does he also argue that former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching embody entrenched privilege within Singapore’s framework? And would he question how much Ho Ching benefited from her position at the helm of Temasek and whether she was the most qualified candidate for such a role? Or are these kinds of assertions only made about those who’ve stepped out of the establishment’s protective embrace?
It’s worth noting that Li Shengwu, who completed his education abroad, never returned to work within Singapore’s system. Likewise, Lee Suet Fern was educated overseas and built a career serving international clients. Neither has been part of the framework they are now accused of benefiting from. If Singapore’s system is indeed falling short of true meritocracy as Mr. Lui appears to suggest, the ruling party would do well to take a hard look in the mirror before casting stones at others.
As for the repeated reassurances about Lee Hsien Loong’s “recusal” in matters related to his family, these statements hold little weight whether acting as Prime Minister or Senior Minister. It would be naïve to believe that subordinates don't act with “sontaku”—the Japanese term for pre-emptively fulfilling the unspoken wishes of one’s superiors. Safeguarding their own privilege, or as former President Devan Nair described it their handsomely buttered bread, in the process. To argue otherwise is to ignore the reality of hierarchical systems in which loyalty is as much about anticipation as obedience.
Then to perhaps the most insulting claim of all, the suggestion that Shengwu would be "safe" if he returned to Singapore. Parti Liyani’s experience starkly illustrates what “safety” looks like for those on the wrong side of power. She was wrongly accused, unfairly convicted, and sentenced to two years in prison on dubious evidence—simply because she was a threat to a wealthy and influential family. Her eventual acquittal came only after years of tremendous personal and financial cost. If this is what happens to a domestic worker, how can anyone reasonably believe that Shengwu, a vocal and public critic, would face anything less than the full weight of a vengeful system?
It's noteworthy that Lui and other members of the Singapore establishment continue to assert that no one is above the law in Singapore and therefore they must prosecute. That said, there have been many past and recent instances where stronger language was used (“compliant courts” etc as opposed to Shengwu’s “pliant court system”) where no action has been taken. Just one recent example being published by the Council on Foreign Relations which included "When opposition critics spoke out against some of the government’s actions, PAP members would sue them for libel, often bankrupting them in Singapore’s compliant courts."
Repeatedly, for 4 years running, the United States State Department wrote up concern over the prosecution of Shengwu. If this was ever a proper prosecution and rule of law, the US government would not have expressed concern. So it is not just the UK government that has investigated and acknowledged issues with rule of law in Singapore. This international recognition of political persecution faced by individuals like Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern and others should serve as a mirror, reflecting the urgent need for a genuine re-evaluation of the systems in place. Until that happens, Singapore’s claims to be a model of justice will remain no more than a hollow assertion.
Mr. Lui, as the ambassador clearly should not be mouthing partisan politics, and misses the point that any Singaporean, including Li Shengwu, who wishes to "fight rather than give in" doesn’t need to stand for election—they just need to cast their vote and speak up.
It must be remembered, that when anyone denigrates the PAP and it's politics, they are not denigrating Singapore. This is the crux of the authoritarian mindset, isn't it? Conflating their own partisan interest with that of the country. As Louis XIV said "I AM THE STATE."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s convenient to make Li Shengwu a high-profile scapegoat, but isn't he just one of an increasing number of Singaporeans fleeing their homeland fearing political persecution?
In recent years, the number of asylum claims filed by Singaporeans has surged. The UNHCR reports that claims increased from 100 in 2021 to 322 in the first half of 2024 alone—a remarkable figure for a country that prides itself on “zero tolerance” for corruption. Ja Ian Chong, an international relations expert at the National University of Singapore, attributes this trend to fears of political persecution.
Who should we believe: a ruling party desperate to maintain its grip on power, or individuals forced to seek asylum, often at the heartbreaking cost of leaving their families behind?
Kommentare