Opposition members point out that Oxley-squabble is not just sibling rivalry but highlights major flaws in governance

The Prime Minister (PM) as well as members of his Cabinet have tried to characterise the serious aspersions cast upon him by the PM's brother and sister as petty sibling squabble. But members of the opposition have pointed out that it is not mere sibling rivalry but that the allegations point to matters of public interest, which raise grave concerns. Secretary-general of the Singapore First party, in writing an open letter to the President of Singapore, highlighted that two allegations especially must be dealt with by an official enquiry.

"Two key points stand out. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have alleged

1. that PM Lee misuses "his position and influence over the government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda" against them and Hsien Yang's wife Suet Fern, and

2. that even though Ho Ching (wife of PM Lee) does not hold any elected or official position in government, "her influence is pervasive, and extends well beyond her job purview".

These are serious allegations from senior members of the establishment who have given much of their life to public service. They should not be taken lightly. They hit at Singapore's core values."

https://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay/posts/1404821329597138 Member of Singapore People's Party (SPP), Ravi Philemon, said that 3 things in particular stand out for him.

"Number 1 - the alleged omnipresence of the state machinery and how they are supposedly misused by our Prime Minister.

Number 2 - This is not just a matter of if Lee Kuan Yew's house should be destroyed or not. It is a serious question of if the government is above the law, so much so that it has the right to override the legally binding will.

https://www.facebook.com/PhilemonRavi/videos/1102244393208711/ Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, another member of the SPP, described the Ministerial Committee as a "tragic joke".

"It is like the Boss of a company has a quarrel with Mr Someone. Then the Boss gathers a number of his employees and empowers them to decide who is right: he (the Boss) or Mr Someone. Boss submits a long testimony to this group of his employees giving them his account of the events and his opinion about Mr Someone's motives.

How on earth can such a group of subordinates, who are otherwise answerable to the Boss, be expected to act independently and to able to make an objective decision? Does such a dubious committee really have the option to decide against their Boss?

It is a rule of natural justice that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause: "Nemo judex in causa sua". Asking your underlings to determine the outcome of a case in which you have a personal interest in, is to me a breach of that rule.

Tragically, the joke is on us, the citizenry. For it does not bode well for us when we cannot detect, turn a blind eye to or condone conflict of interests and use of state powers for personal benefits."

https://www.facebook.com/jeannette.aruldoss/posts/10203314203173658 Meanwhile, the Singapore Democratic Party called on the PM to address the specific allegations of public concern in a clear and transparent manner through public hearings. They further urged Mr Lee to state and demonstrate that he will not resort to using State power to deal with his siblings and ordinary citizens of Singapore. https://www.facebook.com/yoursdp/posts/10155736277718455