38 Oxley Road

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [3 July 2017],

"That the two Ministerial Statements made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on 38 Oxley Road be considered by Parliament." − [Prime Minister]

Question again proposed.

12.30 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, the allegations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling on 14 June 2017 are serious. I had initially hoped that the dispute is just a family dispute which many other families would have. Unfortunately, the allegations made by the two younger siblings of the Prime Minister go beyond a dispute whether to demolish 38 Oxley Road. The two of them allege that the Prime Minister had misused his position and influence over the Government. They further allege that the system has no checks or balance to prevent abuse of Government and fear the use of Organs of State against the two of them and Suet Fern.

Mdm Speaker, I struggle to understand the thrust of their allegations. Are they saying that our Deputy Prime Minister, the Ministers and other officebearers are subservient to the Prime Minister's wishes and cannot think for themselves? That the senior civil servants would set aside their personal beliefs and convictions just to obey the Prime Minister blindly without question?

The allegations of abuse are short on details and not substantiated. After reading several of the media releases of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, I surmised that the crux of the siblings' unhappiness is that the Prime Minister failed to comply with the desire of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish 38 Oxley Road. They are unhappy that a Ministerial Committee was set up to consider the options regarding 38 Oxley Road.

However, because these allegations of abuse came from no less a person than the Prime Minister's own siblings and they attack the integrity of the leader of the Government, it behoves the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers involved to set out the basis for their decisions so that they can be scrutinised by members of the public.

Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Teo had issued Ministerial Statements on these allegations and the rationale for the setting up of the Cabinet committees yesterday. Prime Minister Lee also stated that he had recused himself from deliberations about Oxley Road.

Is Parliament the proper place to discuss these issues? I have no doubt because the allegations go towards the question of whether there was abuse of power and this affects the integrity of the Government and the system. If the Prime Minister does not defend the allegations in Parliament, where does he do so? On social media?

The Prime Minister has also invited all Members of Parliament to speak freely and ask queries so that he can clear any doubts which we, Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people may have. And we have seen PAP Members of Parliament, Opposition Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament rise to ask many questions yesterday.

For the Members of Parliament who had called on Prime Minister Lee to sue, I felt a sense of dismay. How many of us present in Parliament today would truly want to sue our own siblings or even relatives in Court for defamation? Whatever unhappiness that we may have with our own siblings, our own brother or sister, would we really, really want to take them to Court? Is not blood thicker than water? Would you not think of how your parents would feel if they see their own children squabbling so publicly or, worse, sue each other in Court? Many of us, each time we read in the newspaper about a child suing their parents or a sibling suing another sibling, we shake our heads in dismay.

The Prime Minister said yesterday right at the start of his speech that he was not in Parliament to make a case against his siblings. Parliament is not the place for that. But what is private, he will try to resolve privately. For that statement, he has my utmost respect.

There are certain queries which the public has and I hope that the Prime Minister's answers will clear the air. Many of the queries have already been answered in the Ministerial Statements yesterday. I just have a few more queries.

Were there any decisions made by Ministers within the Committee because the Prime Minister had explicitly directed them? How much influence did the Prime Minister have in the decision whether to demolish or not to demolish 38 Oxley Road? Did the Committee consult the Prime Minister before any decision was made even though he had recused himself from any decision on the property? How can members of the public be assured that Cabinet members involved in the decision would make rational decisions and not worry that they would lose their jobs if they were to make a wrong decision about Oxley Road? Were they in awe of the Prime Minister and would defer to his wishes even though those wishes were not expressed? I think these questions are best answered by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, as any reply by the Prime Minister may be seen to be self-serving.

Next, I wish to ask the Prime Minister about his Ministerial Statement that he offered to sell the Oxley Road property to Dr Lee Wei Ling for $1 but later sold it to Mr Lee Hsien Yang for the full market value? In addition, the Prime Minister asked him to donate half of the value of the property to charity. Why did the Prime Minister do so? Could Mr Lee Hsien Yang be frustrated with the fact that after buying the property at full market value, he now finds out that the Government is unwilling to allow the demolition of the property or is not ready to allow any re-development of the property? Was Mr Lee Hsien Yang aware that the Government is still deliberating about what to do with Oxley Road when the Prime Minister offered to sell the property to him at full value?

I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to share as much information as possible so that the citizens of Singapore can continue to have confidence in the political system and the rule of governance within the Singapore Government.

Next, I refer to the statement by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling regarding the desire by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to demolish 38 Oxley Road.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling were insistent that 38 Oxley Road is to be demolished as stated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the seventh will dated 17 December 2013. The allegation about the Prime Minister's abuse of power seems to centre on their unhappiness that a Ministerial Committee was set up to consider the options about the future of 38 Oxley Road.

Had this property been any apartment or condominium, I would have agreed that this is a private matter. But, unfortunately, the property concerned is 38 Oxley Road. Many Singaporeans recognise that 38 Oxley Road holds special historical significance to Singapore and the late Minister Mentor Lee would have recognised this fact as well.

Last year, I filed an Adjournment Motion and appealed to the Government to consider the preservation of the Dakota Crescent rental flats. At that time, I lamented at "the demolition and loss of other prominent buildings like the National Library, the National Theatre, the Van Kleef Aquarium and Queensway Cinema". I argued that our children and the future generations should not be left to read about Singapore's heritage, culture and history only through history textbooks, photographs or some sanitised heritage trails."

Because 38 Oxley Road holds greater historical significance and heritage value to Singaporeans, I agree that we ought to consider all options for this property because, once demolished, part of our history would be gone forever, permanently.

Thus, whilst many of us understand the reason why Minister Mentor Lee wanted to demolish 38 Oxley Road, I would be greatly disappointed if the Prime Minister had ordered the Government to demolish the Oxley Road property without going through due process of considering the heritage and historical value of the property. If the Prime Minister had done so, this means that Minister Mentor Lee's wishes are above the law. How then will the Government account to Singaporeans whose properties were previously conserved against their wishes?

If 38 Oxley Road had been demolished without due process to consider the value of conserving the property, many Singaporeans would then have accused the Prime Minister of having a different law for Mr Lee Kuan Yew as compared to other Singaporeans. This would truly be an abuse of his position as Prime Minister. Hence, I cannot understand why Mr Lee Hsien Yang would claim that the Prime Minister had abused his position. Prime Minister Lee had a duty to all Singaporeans to consider the heritage value of 38 Oxley Road.

Even as the experts review the options for 38 Oxley Road, I urge the Government to ascertain what were the exact wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew regarding 38 Oxley Road, a property of historical significance.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling had claimed in their media release that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew removed the Prime Minister as executor and had specifically inserted into his will his wish for 38 Oxley Road to be demolished.

In response, the Prime Minister issued a statutory declaration on 15 June 2017 questioning the circumstances behind the making of the seventh will.

I have two concerns after I read the statutory declaration. First, why did the Prime Minister not challenge the will if he had doubts about the circumstances behind the making of the will? Why did he allow the Grant of Probate to be extracted without challenge?

Second – and here, I wear my hat as a practising lawyer – rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules prohibits a lawyer from acting for a testator who intends to make a significant gift to any member of the family of that lawyer. In fact, the lawyer shall advise the client to seek independent advice in respect of the gift. The Singapore Court of Appeal had also stated that a solicitor, before preparing a will, should discuss the matter with the testator on the legal issues. This is a basic fundamental principle that most lawyers would be aware of.

The rationale for the rule is really to avoid any potential conflict of interest, to avoid any allegation that there was undue pressure on the testator by the witness and to ensure that the testator has been independently advised.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his Facebook post, had said that Ms Kwa Kim Li from Lee & Lee had drafted the will. Ms Kwa promptly denied that. Why did Mr Lee Hsien Yang say this? Surely, he knows who drafted the will? Subsequently, he said in a Facebook posting that his wife, Ms Lee Suet Fern, had put the will into language. Why such a choice of words? Is this a roundabout way of saying that the will was drafted by his wife? She then asked her firm's lawyers to witness Minister Mentor Lee's execution of the will.

My concern is whether Minister Mentor Lee, at age 89 or 90 at that time, was independently advised about the contents of the will. This is of legal significance because it may mean that the demolition clause in the will may not be valid and it will affect the way the Government assesses the intent of Minister Mentor Lee about the demolition clause.

If there had been any misconduct in relation to the drafting of the will, then it is no longer a private matter. I hope the matter will be treated with proper seriousness by the authorities. No one should be above the law, regardless of whether the person is the Prime Minister himself, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children or anyone related to the family.

The challenge by Mr Lee Hsien Yang is that Prime Minister Lee is abusing his authority to ask Cabinet to preserve 38 Oxley Road against the wishes of Minister Mentor Lee. This means that the Government has an obligation to better understand what Minister Mentor Lee's wishes were. If Minister Mentor Lee had in March 2012 authorised his architects to submit the development application for 38 Oxley Road, then the demolition clause in the will seems to contradict Minister Mentor's position.

The Government should look further into the circumstances behind the making of the last will and, in particular, whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew was independently advised when he signed the last will. It raises both serious legal and moral questions.

Mdm Speaker, it has been a sad month for Singapore. For many Singaporeans, the quarrel is not just about the Oxley Road property. There are ways of resolving this dispute without the need to make such public accusations. Just because Prime Minister Lee does not agree with the siblings' proposal to demolish the house does not in any way mean that there is abuse of power. Even if Prime Minister Lee does agree with his father's desire to demolish the property, I would say that Prime Minister Lee still owes a duty to Singaporeans to consider the preservation of the property.

What grieves me and many of my residents is that these allegations have brought dishonour to the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew helped shaped our ideas, our values and, with his team of leaders, made Singapore successful. I truly hope that there can be some resolution to this matter through private mediation instead of having more public accusations hurled against the Prime Minister.

The continuation of these baseless accusations distract the Government from its actual duty of providing leadership for the country. But sadly, from this morning's response, it seems that this is unlikely. The legacy of Minister Mentor Lee seems likely to be damaged by the continued accusations and I would say Singaporeans just have to move on.

12.44 pm

Mr Charles Chong (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, many questions have already been raised by Members in this House and some of these have already been answered. I would, therefore, keep my speech very brief and just ask two questions.

It was reported that the Public Service Division (PSD) sent out a survey to public officers on the dispute over 38 Oxley Road. While PSD said this was because the allegations made went beyond private matters, some questions remain as to whether this sort of poll was appropriate.

This is particularly so as it is not clear whether there are any actionable steps which can be taken with the survey results. Could the Minister clarify as to: (a) what were the results of the poll? (b) what will the data in the poll be used for? (c) whether there is any concrete action that will be taken to follow up on the results of the poll.

My next question. The statements and postings made by both sides of this dispute have exposed a deep rift within the Lee family. Whether people care to admit it or not, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Lee family name are inextricably linked with Singapore. For many Singaporeans, conflict of this nature within the Lee family extends beyond being just a private family dispute, especially when so many public allegations and counter allegations have been made and continue to be made, particularly on the way we govern ourselves. And then, there are the other related issues as to the way we behave towards each other and the example we set for the next generation.

There is a sense of disquiet because, for those of us who consider Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the foremost founding father of modern Singapore and the legacy that he has left us, we feel personally affected. We feel that Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not wish to see his family in this current state. But more importantly, I think Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not wish to see his family affairs demolish the standing and the reputation of Singapore that he had spent his lifetime building.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks there is any hope of reconciliation within his family. I do not think anyone would dispute that this is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew would want for his family and for Singapore. And I think this is also what most Singaporeans hope would happen because there are no real winners in this sad episode.

12.47 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, let me first say that, from a financial governance standpoint, I am satisfied that there were no financial implications or any misuse of public funds in this episode.

For the Prime Minister, there was no personal financial gain from the transaction and he now also has no financial interest in 38 Oxley Road.

Quite the reverse, a substantial sum of money, the equivalent of about one and a half times the property value of 38 Oxley Road actually went into charity and for a very good cause. I am sure those beneficiaries will be very grateful for the substantial donations.

Madam, I want to speak on two areas. Firstly, what is left to be said about the alleged abuse of power on 38 Oxley Road; and, two, more importantly, where do we go from here? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Prime Minister's Statement on 19 June, he urged Members of Parliament to raise all questions without reservation with him and the relevant Ministers on the serious allegations raised by his siblings, in order to clear any doubts.

Indeed, abuse of power is a very serious allegation. It violates the core governing principles and values which Singapore has been upholding all along. These accusations will affect public confidence and trust in the Government and the system of governance.

I have, indeed, responded to the Prime Minister's appeal and had wanted to raise some tough questions with the Prime Minister and the Ministers.

However, after seven hours of debate yesterday, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's detailed Statements with attached documents, several Ministers and more than 20 Members' speeches, what should be asked has been asked and we have heard reasonable answers to almost all of them. So, I cannot find any other allegation that warrants further questioning.

In fact, if the Prime Minister did not follow normal procedures and gave instructions to the Cabinet and relevant agencies to demolish the house in order to fulfil his late father's wishes, that would actually be a case of abuse of power.

I cannot see anything improper with setting up the Ministerial Committee led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo to look at the various options for the house and the Prime Minister recusing himself from it. I do not see any evidence of abuse of power. In fact, this is the normal workings of the Government.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and Minister Lawrence Wong addressed the issue of the Deed of Gift, explaining under what circumstance the Prime Minster got hold of the Deed. Looking at the entire process of NHB's dealings with the Estate Executors on the exhibition of items from the house, we have discovered some other areas that are not quite right. For example, one of the beneficiaries, that is, the Prime Minister, was totally unaware of the Deed of Gift and the Deed of Gift contains certain unusual clauses. More seriously, the role that Ms Lim Suet Fern played in the process gave rise to suspicion of conflict of interest.

I am not going to repeat the questions that other hon Members have raised. I hope the Prime Minister and the Ministers can give a comprehensive and complete reply.

But I have one additional point of doubt which I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is, what transpired in the meeting between the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Cabinet on 14 July 2011.

In Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's 14 June post, they claimed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after coming back from the meeting with the Cabinet, was anguished and despondent. He felt that he should not have listened to the Prime Minister to meet with the Cabinet.

So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Cabinet exerted pressure on Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time to give up his idea of demolishing the house, or whether they told or misled Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the Government would preserve the house, regardless of his views. We must be clear about this.

Next, I would like to reflect my residents' views on this dispute and their expectations.

As this is a matter of a family dispute going public, many Singaporeans have felt upset and sad. Because Singaporeans never expected that this could happen to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our beloved founding Prime Minister who Singaporeans are grateful to. Singaporeans are also concerned because this incident happened to our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The Prime Minister is not only the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he is also the top leader of our Government. This incident would definitely cause some degree of damage to our reputation.

The Prime Minister had stated before that he had always wanted to settle his disagreement with his siblings within the family. But, now, since the dispute has been made public, the Government has no choice but to respond in order to restore the confidence of the people in the Government. And the Prime Minister has also apologised to the people.

Every family has its own difficulties and, within the family, it is common that different members have different views on certain issues. Singaporeans do not wish to be part of this family dispute. Looking at the exchanges on Facebook, people feel upset and helpless.

A resident told me that he had stopped reading or following the postings and allegations on social media. Many people cannot bear to see this kind of dispute happening to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the family of Prime Minister Lee. They do not wish to choose sides in this family dispute. They feel that they have somehow been dragged into this dispute inadvertently.

I think many Singaporeans hope that this dispute will come to an end quickly and be resolved within the family so that the Government and society can focus its energy on more serious issues and challenges that are facing us.

I am sure Singaporeans would like to know what is next after today's debate in Parliament. Can we get out of this cycle of allegations? How can we deal with the impact of this dispute thereafter?

From the point of national identity and historical legacy, 38 Oxley Road is definitely important to Singaporeans. However, this is not a problem that we need to address immediately. What is more, Dr Lee Wei Ling has expressed the wish to continue living there. So, I hope the Government will not have its attention divided by this dispute, because there are more pressing issues, such as the economy, security, employment and an ageing population.

The political situation in the world is changing rapidly and has brought about much uncertainty for Singapore. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Lee will be going to Hamburg to attend the G20 meeting. Although Singapore is not a member of the G20, Singapore has been invited by the host country every year. This time, the Prime Minister will be meeting President Trump for the first time. We hope that the Prime Minister will make good progress in his discussions with various Heads of State during this trip and continue to widen the economic development space for Singapore.

Coming back to today's topic, of course, as Singaporeans, we should be concerned about allegations of abuse of power. Parliament should get to the bottom of it. However, we must also have confidence in the system which we have built up over the last 50 years. Although our system is not perfect, many countries envy us and want to learn from us.

Although we are a small island without any natural resources, we have been able to continuously adapt to the external environment, grow, create economic miracles and raise the standard of living for Singaporeans. This is not something that can be achieved by a Government that has abused its power.

At this time, we need a strong, capable and decisive Government in order to meet the various short- and long-term challenges. The trust and confidence of the people in Government leaders are absolutely important and are key to our success.

We cannot turn back the clock to go back to before 14 June. The accusations have brought invisible harm but there is no use crying over spilt milk. What we should do now is to rebuild confidence and trust in our system.

As Prime Minister and the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister is in a dilemma between the country and the family on how to deal with 38 Oxley Road. Mencius said that "people come first, the country second and the king, last." From this incident we can see that the Prime Minister, in all his decisions and dealings, has put the country and the system before himself and his family. This may well be the root cause of the dispute between him and his siblings.

We look forward to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's replies.

12.59 pm

The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, like many fellow Singaporeans, I am deeply saddened that the differences in views between the Prime Minister and Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, over how to honour their father's wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road has been made so public, with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling accusing the Prime Minister of abuse of power.

I served as Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Principal Private Secretary, or PPS, when he was Senior Minister, from mid-1997 to early 2000. During that period, I had the benefit of many interactions with Mr Lee. I also interacted with Mrs Lee, both in Singapore and on several overseas trips. I learnt that both of them, especially Mrs Lee, valued their privacy deeply. They would be deeply anguished if they were alive to see the siblings' disagreement played out so publicly.

The issue before Parliament, as several Members had pointed out, is not about the preservation or demolition of the house, but rather, the allegations directed at the Prime Minister and the Government by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling of an abuse of power.

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo have addressed these allegations. Many Members have also given their views on this. I hope Members of this House and other Singaporeans will reflect on these and decide for themselves if any abuse has taken place. My own view is: no, there has been no abuse of power. We have heard no specific allegations of acts of abuse against the Prime Minister and the Government that demand a deeper inquiry. What has been levelled are general allegations and aspersions cast. The two days of this Parliament sitting bear this out. No Member, including from the Workers' Party, has articulated any specific allegation of abuse of power.

I would, therefore, not dwell on the issues that have already been discussed quite extensively.

It has been only a little over two years since Mr Lee passed away. The memory of the outpouring of grief at that time is still fresh in the hearts and minds of fellow Singaporeans. We committed ourselves then to honour the ideals and principles of Mr Lee and our founding leaders. Today, we should revisit this question calmly − what would Mr Lee's wish be? And how do we honour his wishes?

When I was PPS, Mr Lee was in the midst of writing his memoirs. He was almost 75 years old, and Mr Goh Chok Tong had been Prime Minister for seven years. Despite his age, Mr Lee worked with an amazing intensity. Over and above his daily work, he would labour deep into the early hours of the morning, every day, on the memoirs. I asked myself: why?

During that time, Mr Lee met with many local and foreign visitors. From time to time, the visitors would ask Mr Lee what he was most concerned about. Over and over again, I heard Mr Lee say that he feared that the younger generation of Singaporeans might not understand what got us here and what we would need to do to continue to succeed. That was why he was labouring hard to distil the lessons of Singapore's development and share these with young Singaporeans.

So, if you ask me what were the defining wishes of Mr Lee's life, I would say, Mr Lee's greatest wish was for Singapore to remain successful beyond his lifetime. He dedicated his entire life to making a success of Singapore, against the odds. The best way to honour him and to fulfil our duty to future generations of Singaporeans is to continue to work for the survival and success of Singapore.

What would that take? Mr Lee said that there is no simple formula for running a country, but he tried to distil and pass on as many insights as he could. We can spend many hours debating the principles for Singapore's success. I would like to highlight just three that are relevant to this debate − a sense of history, the rule of law, an honest and effective government.

First, a sense of history. Mr Lee said that there was no textbook for running a country and that his memoirs were not a "how to" manual. At different times, we would face different conditions. But he was convinced that we all need a sense of history − not just in knowing what happened in the past, but why it happened − that would help to anchor and guide us for the future.

In 1980, at the 25th anniversary of the founding of the PAP, Mr Lee said: "To understand the present and anticipate the future, we must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people. One must appreciate not merely what took place but especially why it took place and in that particular way. That is true of individuals, as it is for nations."

With that in mind, 38 Oxley Road holds special historical significance because of all the things that took place there in our early history. In his memoirs, Mr Lee had a chapter on "Widening the Oxley Road circle", recounting how the founding fathers gathered in the basement dining room of Mr Lee's house, the birth of the People's Action Party in 1954, the difficult decisions they had to take whether to contest the elections in 1955 and 1959. Mr Lee also recounted how, during that tumultuous period, the Chinese school students "started turning up at Oxley Road looking for advice on a hundred and one problems they encountered whenever they came into conflict with or were obstructed by authority".

What happened in the basement dining room and at Oxley Road is relevant not just for the history of the PAP. I was surprised to hear Mr Png Eng Huat yesterday take such a narrow and partisan view of history. Those years marked a pivotal moment in our nation's history − in fact, they were the start of a series of events that led to Independence. It is, therefore, right and proper that we consider this history in any decision to demolish or preserve the house, or parts of it.

In July 2011, Mr Lee came to the Cabinet meeting to set out his views on 38 Oxley Road. Mr Lee stated his preference for the house to be demolished after his passing. Despite his seniority and his role as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, he did not once use his status to advance his case. He just stated his preference and then listened intently to the views of Cabinet Ministers. Except for the Prime Minister who did not speak, Cabinet members were unanimous in persuading him that the house should not be demolished. All of us who spoke felt deeply that, as a young nation, we needed a deeper sense of history and that the house was of historical significance.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked earlier if any Cabinet member had put any pressure on Mr Lee. The answer is no. Mr Lee looked very thoughtful after the session. We did not hear from him until later, when he sent the note in December 2011 that the Prime Minister presented yesterday. To me, that note, sent five months after the meeting, showed that he had been mulling over the issue during that period, and, importantly, he had taken other views on board.

Yesterday, Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke on the rule of law and what it meant to Mr Lee. She said, "I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his house… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over communitarian interest… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the Government cannot acquire his own property." She has put it very well. Mr Lee knew more than almost anyone the laws relating to the acquisition and preservation of property, having exercised powers over his years in office. I was at that Cabinet meeting and can attest that Mr Lee put his views to us, and then listened seriously to Cabinet members. I was struck at that time by how scrupulously he presented his case, without once invoking his seniority or contributions and how he listened so intently to what we had to say.

Mr Lee's willingness to take into account new evidence and alternative views on the issue reminded me of how he had changed his view on language education for the young. Bilingual education was Mr Lee's lifelong challenge and he studied the matter deeply. When I was PPS, there were those who advocated that children acquire languages better if they were exposed to them earlier, in their pre-school years. But, based on his own readings and experiences, he believed that the benefits of early exposure washed out as the child grows.

More than a decade later, when I was Education Minister, Mr Lee asked to see me. He told me that, after evaluating the evidence over the years, he was now convinced that there were benefits in giving young children early exposure to languages. In 2011, he decided to set up a fund, with his own money, and brought in several other donors. He asked that I guide MOE to use the fund to boost bilingualism across all levels, with special attention to the pre-school years. With his approval, I named it the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism.

I share this experience to show Mr Lee's willingness to change his views if he was presented with robust arguments. His note to Cabinet on 38 Oxley Road, five months after he saw us, was an important change. Cabinet had stated our case to Mr Lee and we did not expect to hear back from him. Each time he had written on this issue to Cabinet had all been of his own volition, not at Cabinet's request.

So, when he wrote to us in December 2011, it showed me two things: one, that he had taken five months to mull over very carefully; and, two, he felt that it was proper and important to inform Government of his thinking, now that he was prepared to consider the possibility that the Government of the day might decide not to demolish the house.

Until the Prime Minister shared it yesterday, I did not know that Mr Lee then went on to apply for URA approval to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house. This shows that Mr Lee had a plan and he put it into action.

That letter of December 2011, in which he said the whole building should be refurbished "if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved", was the last communication Cabinet received from Mr Lee on this subject. I do not want to venture into how Mr Lee's views might have changed further if he were alive today. But we must remember that Mr Lee's lifelong and unwavering dedication was to making a success of Singapore. His efforts in his later years were about the success of Singapore beyond his lifetime.

I talked about Mr Lee's belief that we need a sense of history to keep Singapore successful.

The second principle for Singapore's success, which I would like to highlight and is relevant in this debate, is the rule of law. From what I have shared about that Cabinet meeting where Mr Lee came to give his views, and about his letter to Cabinet five months later, you would see that he observed a strict separation between his and Mrs Lee's private wish and the duty of Government. He had a strong personality and formidable track record, but not once, not once, did he insist that only his view should prevail − exactly like Ms Chia Yong Yong had said. I found that deeply admirable, for someone who was the founding Prime Minister of Singapore and who had been the Prime Minister for over 31 years.

In this regard, Members have heard the speeches of both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo on how the Prime Minister recused himself from deliberations relating to the house and kept a strict separation between his private duty as a son, and his duty as the Head of Government. As several Members have pointed out, the irony is that if the Prime Minister were to do what Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling wanted, to impose his private wishes as a son and have the house demolished, we would not have this disagreement made public, but he would have abused his power.

A sense of history. Rule of law. The third insight which I would like to share that Mr Lee had for Singapore's success was to keep Government honest and effective.

In the preface to his memoirs, Mr Lee wrote, "I wrote this book for a younger generation of Singaporeans who took stability, growth and prosperity for granted. I wanted them to know how difficult it was for a small country of 640 square kilometres with no natural resources to survive in the midst of larger, newly independent nations all pursuing nationalistic policies… we cannot forget that public order, personal security, economic and social progress and prosperity are not the natural order of things, that they depend on ceaseless effort and attention from an honest and effective government that the people must elect."

An honest and effective government is a simple and powerful idea, but one that is achieved only by years of dedicated effort. Mr Lee devoted enormous amounts of effort to build up the Public Service, in persuading suitable men and women to stand as Members of Parliament and to testing some out as officeholders. He always put an emphasis on having a deep sense of values and service.

Mr Lee believed profoundly in doing the right things, the necessary things. In this vein, both his sons took up SAF scholarships and both returned to serve in different ways. The young Lee Hsien Loong was a Senior Wrangler at Cambridge University − the top Mathematics student in his year. Trinity College offered him a fellowship. He could have devoted his life to Mathematics and probably have great success. But he wrote to his tutor: "It is absolutely necessary that I remain in Singapore, whatever I do… because Singapore is where I belong and where I want to be." In fact, the young Lee Hsien Loong never told his parents about this; he simply came home and got to work in the SAF. Mr Lee Kuan Yew only learnt about it later. There is this deep sense of service for a young man in his early 20s.

Many Members have cautioned that we must keep the Government's focus on the major issues confronting Singapore and not be distracted. I fully agree. As we have learnt in this debate, the family disagreement has been playing out over the last two years. Instead of allowing this episode to distract him or the Government, the Prime Minister has continued to focus, not just on the issues of the day, but on further laying the ground to address the medium and longer term challenges to Singapore. These relate to our security, foreign relations, jobs and the economy, healthcare and infrastructure, among others. Various Cabinet meetings and other forums have been deliberating on these various issues. I hope these two days of debate can help clear the air, rebuild trust and confidence, so that everyone can focus fully on the challenges that we face.

Mr and Mrs Lee's three children have each made their contribution to Singapore, in different ways. The Prime Minister has been in public service all his life and is still in public service. Mr Lee Hsien Yang served in the SAF and later Singtel. Dr Lee Wei Ling has been a passionate paediatric neurologist and built up the National Neuroscience Institute well when she was heading it. I appreciate Dr Lee's care and concern for me when I was hospitalised last year. She remains Senior Advisor at the NNI and made the effort to visit and advise me on my medical condition.

All of us − the children of Mr and Mrs Lee, as well as fellow Singaporeans − share one goal, which is to honour the legacy of Mr and Mrs Lee. In his Facebook post made this past Saturday evening, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, "I simply hope to ensure our father's wishes are honoured when the day comes." I believe I speak for all Members in this House and many Singaporeans, when I say, we all hope to do the same, to honour Mr Lee's wishes, and furthermore to honour his legacy and the ideals and principles of our founding leaders. Madam, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] By the time I served Mr Lee Kuan Yew as his Principal Private Secretary, Mr Lee was the Senior Minister. Yet, he continued to devote all his time to thinking about the future of Singapore. His every thought and action was focused on securing Singapore's well-being and success.

If Mr Lee Kuan Yew were still alive, I believe he would want Singapore to remain successful. That is why we cannot allow this dispute to sidetrack us from the bigger task of honouring Mr Lee's wish for a successful Singapore.

There cannot be a home without a nation. Mr Lee Kuan Yew devoted his entire life to build a greater house than 38 Oxley Road − and that is Singapore. This house − we cannot allow to be demolished. Let us continue to honour Mr Lee's spirit of unwavering dedication, strengthen the foundation of this house and build a better Singapore together.

(In English): Madam, I have said earlier, we all wish to honour Mr Lee's wishes and legacy. To do so, it is important to understand what he stood for, what he devoted his life to. Mr Lee has devoted his entire life to achieving the survival and success of Singapore. Let us not have this difference sidetrack us from the bigger task of honouring Minister Mentor Lee's wish for a successful Singapore. Let us get back to the business of serving our people.

In the years to come, when Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer living at 38 Oxley Road, a future government may agree to demolish the house, as our founding Prime Minister wished.

But there is another house that Mr Lee Kuan Yew built lovingly, a greater house than 38 Oxley Road − and that is Singapore. This house − we cannot allow to be demolished.

1.21 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, can I have your permission to deliver my speech in Malay, please?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Zainal Sapari: (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Please allow me to begin my speech with a poem:

Money lost can be regained

Wealth cannot be taken to the grave

Don't look back in regret

When family ties are lost forever

During the Parliamentary debates yesterday and today, many questions were posed and explanations given, but I agree that there is still no clear evidence that supports allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister or the Government.

In fact, many felt that we should pay attention to more important issues that affect Singapore, such as the economy, employment and the terrorism threat. However, if the serious allegations made by Prime Minister Lee's siblings are not debated and addressed, it will have an impact on Singapore's reputation of having a government that is honest, corruption-free and transparent.

I agree with Dr Janil Puthucheary's view that this sitting is the best platform to give all Members of Parliament an opportunity to ask about matters that Singaporeans would like to know regarding the abuse of power.

Here, I would like to ask whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang's accusations that this Parliament session is held to cloud the truth or hide wrongdoings can be deemed as contempt of Parliament. I hope that he realises that this debate would not have taken place if he had not made baseless allegations about the abuse of power by the Prime Minister and the Government.

During the Lee family's dispute over the past weeks, there was some discomfort when several Ministers made statements on this issue. Perhaps, can some clarifications be given as to why there is a need for these Ministers to weigh in on this matter?

Some have also suggested setting up a Select Committee to look into the allegations levelled by the Prime Minister's siblings. I hope that the Prime Minister can state his position on such a Select Committee in order to dismiss any negative perceptions that the Government wants to suppress the truth.

Regarding the will, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he made a statutory declaration on the circumstances that led to the last will. Why did he not raise this matter before the Probate was issued?

I would also like to seek clarification on why there was a need to form a Ministerial Committee, since we already have a Founders' Memorial Committee. Why was the Founders' Memorial Committee not asked to give suggestions on the possible options for the house at 38 Oxley Road? Since its members comprise individuals that can be considered as independent, perhaps this would have been a better approach and the Government could have prevented any negative perceptions.

Also, yesterday, after hearing the statement by the Minister for National Development, Mr Lawrence Wong, about the Deed of Gift, I would like to ask a few questions. Firstly, why did NHB accept the unusual terms that were stipulated? Were the NHB officers involved unable to exercise good judgement? Secondly, or perhaps, did they accept the terms because it was stipulated by a Lee family member and they were given special consideration?

If the NHB officers were instructed to accept the terms, despite their unusual nature, by the Minister-in-charge, this would certainly be considered as an abuse of power.

Furthermore, I would like to ask, from a national governance perspective, what are the checks and balances that exist in Government to ensure that conflicts of interest and abuse of power are avoided and do not take root in our governance structure? How do our Organs of State ensure that Ministers and other officeholders do not abuse their power? Do we have a whistle-blowing policy that can take action if there is a case of possible abuse of power by them?

As my fellow Members have stated, we should pay attention to issues that affect the livelihood, shelter and security of Singaporeans.

I think that many are hoping that this dispute can be resolved amicably and the Lee family can begin efforts to reconcile amongst themselves.

I began with a poem and, so, please allow me to end with a poem:

Parents lived in harmony

Making sacrifices day after day

Siblings should never part company

But to love each other like a dead knot.

1.28 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Good afternoon, Mdm Speaker, and good afternoon to all present in the House.

Mdm Speaker, in the last couple of weeks, Singaporeans and the international community seem to have established a common fixation in the media. While most of the time, whenever Singapore is mentioned internationally, more often than not, it would have been accolades and achievements rather than negativities. Unfortunately, this time around, we seem to have attracted international and media attention for the wrong reasons. That is my opinion. The subject matter is none other than the family feud of the late Lee Kuan Yew's family with regard to the property at 38 Oxley Road and the allegation of the abuse of power of our Prime Minister and his colleagues.

To Mr Prime Minister, I would like to express my regrets on the current situation in which he and his siblings are embroiled in. I am certain no one would like to be in this situation. For that, he has my sympathy. I wish and hope, through time, that he and his siblings will be able to make amends, re-establish and re-build the family bond, which will be the wish of every parent, even when they have passed on.

First, I would like to touch on the 38 Oxley Road issue. Mdm Speaker, the issue of the property at 38 Oxley Road somehow intrigued me. To demolish or not, it has now become a point of contention between the siblings of our Prime Minister. I have always had the understanding that the late Lee Kuan Yew had always wanted the house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished, after his and his daughter's passing. I have always had the understanding that he wished not that the house be turned into a monument and expressed this openly while he was still alive.

Several counter arguments were raised and various ideas were mooted so as to commemorate and make a remembrance of his great contribution to Singapore's success and what Singapore has become today. Again and again, these suggestions had been rejected by him. A statement that I could not phrase exactly and that has the message which caught my attention was: "If you wish to remember me and my contribution, just look around you." And I thought this statement encapsulates the spirit and essence of his wish. The late Lee Kuan Yew's contribution is everywhere around us, not only clean roads, not only green plants and trees, not only modern buildings and first-class economy, but it is more than that.

The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's contribution to our nation is immense. He left behind a system and system of governance which are envied by many nations, big and small. Singapore's achievement from third-world to first-world status is phenomenal. He transformed the little red dot into a developed nation with first-class airport, first-class airline, first-class maritime port, high employment and GDP per capita, high literacy rate and many more; a nation based on meritocracy and a champion of corruption-free principles. He was the architect of these attributes.

Thirty-eight Oxley Road is too small to remember this great man. I wish that every Singaporean and future ones know what he has done and achieved. What better way than to instil knowledge into our young and future generations through education in schools. Let us invite into our school education curriculum on what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wants us to be, based on his principles and beliefs. Education should be used as the platform for us to remember and commemorate his contribution. From meritocracy to good governance in our institutions, especially Public Service, these are some of the principles and attributes which I believe the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew would want Singapore and Singaporeans to keep and maintain in future. And I sincerely believe this will be more effective and sustainable.

Let us leave the decision on the fate of 38 Oxley Road to the family of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Like many of us, including myself, we always wish such decision be made private and I hope we can give just that and our respect.

If needed, we may want to consider a replica of 38 Oxley Road on another location, or even a small park as a commemoration.

Next, I would like to touch on the issue of abuse of power.

Mdm Speaker, the siblings of our Prime Minister highlighted the issue of "abuse of power". I regard this issue as a serious allegation which we cannot ignore. Any allegations on our Prime Minister shall not be downplayed, neither should it be dismissed and it must be substantiated with evidence of such. While this is not evidently clear, I believe it warrants attention based on the following reasons.

The accusers, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are the siblings of the Prime Minister and the children of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our most respected leader in our nation's history. They are not nobody. They hold respected positions in their own field. They have lived with the system of governance throughout their lives in Singapore, which made them very much aware of the pits and falls of the system.

They must have also understood their late father's views on the principles of the system of governance which has been the hallmark of Singapore's excellence and world-class reputation. They would have also known and able to detect and discern if any abuse of power is exercised by anyone or by any authority. They would have also understood the seriousness of their allegation which propelled them to bring it into the open, and, lastly, they must also have been aware of the consequence if the allegation made is baseless.

While there is neither clear nor conclusive evidence provided hitherto by the accusers, I would like to suggest that we treat it seriously and launch further investigations into this matter. We should allow the accusers to present their case and provide evidence to an Independent Committee or Commission of Inquiry so as to ensure open and fair treatment. It will be our duty as parliamentarians and lawmakers to ensure that such serious matters are properly dealt with. I believe every Singaporean has the right to know and hear the full extent of this important matter.

I am of the opinion that failure to address this allegation and to handle it with utmost transparency and impartiality may lead to a retardation of trust in our Public Service. Henceforth, I urge the House and the relevant authority to take a similar stand in ensuring that the image and excellent reputation of our Public Service institution are safeguarded.

Mdm Speaker, I have confidence and look forward to the resolution of the matters that I have highlighted.

1.36 pm

Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, this sad public squabble between the Lee siblings is blown out of proportion. But it has embroiled all of us. It has tarnished the reputation of Singapore and distracted the Government from far more important work.

Because the allegations against the Prime Minister have been made by members of the Lee family, they are given weight. The public is confused and concerned, even as Singaporeans continue to trust the Prime Minister and the Government. There is thus an urgency to explain, restore trust and get back on track. It is our duty and responsibility to do this, to account to our voters.

My main concern is neither the fate of 38 Oxley Road nor the family feud. They are far removed from the daily concerns of Singaporeans. It is the wilful attack on the integrity of our leaders and the insidious erosion of public faith in our institutions that I want to address. The nub of the issue for us in Parliament is integrity and trust − in the Prime Minister and our system of government. Absent these, Singapore will descend to a Third World country.

Incorruptibility of our Government is what distinguishes Singapore. The Prime Minister is central in upholding that incorruptibility. He holds the key levers of state power, entrusted by the people. When trust in the Prime Minister disappears, his moral authority and political capital shrivel. Therefore, the constant self-policing, restraint and care of the Prime Minister in wielding the immense power at his disposal are paramount. There is no hiding from public scrutiny. One's entire character is laid bare and there is only total dedication to the job. This is the standard we want to uphold.

My view remains that when a Minister thinks that an allegation made against him is without basis, he has to sue. The Prime Minister has explained in his speech why he would prefer not to sue. I can well understand his dilemma. Being the eldest in the family, he must harbour hopes of reconciliation, however remote it seems now, even at a cost to his own political standing. Indeed, I have urged him as well as Lee Hsien Yang to sort out their differences, misunderstanding and reconcile. It is surely not worth the feud being passed on to the next generation.

Given the immediacy of the issue, I commend the Prime Minister for his courage in opening himself and his Ministers to scrutiny in Parliament.

Is the Ministerial Committee shrouded with secrecy? Are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and the Ministers Prime Minister's puppets? You have listened to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's explanation yesterday. I brought him into politics after he distinguished himself in the Singapore Navy. He stood with me in the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC. He went on to serve key appointments with distinction. Today, he is Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. To suggest that he would do Prime Minister's bidding blindly is to insult the Civil Service and Singapore Armed Forces, never mind the PAP and Deputy Prime Minister.

Many of the other Ministers served under Lee Kuan Yew, too. And they have stood up to him. Lee Kuan Yew told them that he wanted to have his house demolished after his death. They said no. They are not yes-men.

I have come to the conclusion that neither money nor the house is the real issue. The dispute over 38 Oxley Road is only a fig leaf for the deep cracks within the family, cracks which perhaps started decades ago. What then is the agenda of the Prime Minister's accusers?

Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore? I have kept my ears open. From what Lee Hsien Yang and his wife are freely telling many people, it is clear that their goal is to bring Lee Hsien Loong down as Prime Minister, regardless of the huge collateral damage suffered by the Government and Singaporeans.

It is now no more a cynical parlour game. If the Lee siblings choose to squander the good name and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and tear their relationship apart, it is tragic but a private family affair. But if in the process of their self-destruction, they destroy Singapore too, that is a public affair.

Unsubstantiated accusations have been dished out on Facebook and the media, ad nauseam. Singaporeans are getting sick and tired of all this. We cannot, and will not, allow ourselves to be manipulated as pawns.

There must be a clear conclusion at the end of this debate. Either we clear Prime Minister over the allegation of his abuse of power or we censure him.

I have heard the Prime Minister's and Deputy Prime Minister's Statements. I have also been following closely the lengthy postings that Lee Hsien Yang has shared online. I have heard the views and questions of Members, and paid close attention to those from the Workers' Party and the Nominated Members. I reaffirm my full confidence in the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known and worked closely with him for more than 30 years. I brought him into politics in 1984 and, I should add, it was not at Lee Kuan Yew's behest. He was my Deputy Prime Minister for 14 years. He has been Prime Minister for some 13 years.

In this episode, in fact, he has revealed his political sensitivity and integrity. He gave the proceeds from the sale of 38 Oxley Road away so that no one could accuse him that he would benefit, should the Government acquire the land. He had put country before self and family interest.

I still keep a close eye on Government matters. This is an occupational hazard for former Prime Ministers. On this case, the Prime Minister's and Deputy Prime Minister's accounts accord with my knowledge of how the Government and Ministers operate. I am also fully satisfied that Deputy Prime Minister Teo acted independently as Chairman of the Ministerial Committee. I met him in June 2016 to understand his thinking of a possible range of options for 38 Oxley Road. The Prime Minister had recused himself a year earlier. I was trying to mediate between the Prime Minister and Lee Hsien Yang. I conveyed Deputy Prime Minister's thinking to Hsien Yang on 23 June last year. I told Hsien Yang that the dispute over the demolition of the house was actually between him and the Government. It was not with Hsien Loong, as the Prime Minister has no say over the fate of the house. I emphasised this point to him − it was between him and the Government.

I agree with Low Thia Khiang that we should end this sad saga and move on. But how, he asked? I will tell him how.

I have stated clearly my position on the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government. As Prime Minister, I investigated Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong in 1996 over their purchase of apartment units in Nassim Jade. My judgement and integrity were at stake then, as today, when I state my conclusion on the Prime Minister's character and integrity.

After so much has been said by both sides and the Government, it is clear that the allegations are baseless. There is enough distortion out there. I invite Low Thia Kiang and his Workers' Party Members of Parliament, as well as the Nominated Members of Parliament to also state their position clearly on the Prime Minister's and the Government's integrity.

Low Thia Khiang said in his speech, and I quote, that "Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling should not make vague allegations in the public domain against the Prime Minister based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure. Making allegations that appear to be calculated to undermine the Prime Minister's authority does not make for constructive politics." Well said. Follow up with a clear statement of your own that you have come to the conclusion that the allegations are baseless and calculated.

His colleague Png Eng Huat read out quotes from Wei Ling's and Hsien Yang's 14 June Facebook statement. Anyone can simply read. That is akin to spreading rumour. As an hon Member of Parliament, he should state his position on what he has read. That is what we are elected as Members of Parliament for − to have a clear view on issues. In 1996, at the end of the debate on Nassim Jade, Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong stated their positions unambiguously.

Lastly, if reason fails, I appeal to the emotions and sensibility of the Lees to stop trying to drag each other down and move on. Stop your family quarrel, sort out any misunderstandings and reconcile, and if that is not immediately possible, at least stop making things worse. Keep the quarrel private and seek mediation or arbitration to resolve your differences. No one doubts your deep filial piety. Hsien Loong is here, I hope Wei Ling, Hsien Yang, outside, would hear me, your parents were proud of you. This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode:

"The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame... upon yourself and family". [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui. Mr Low, you want to have a word? Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Goh Chok Tong asked us to clarify our position. Do you want that or not?

Mdm Speaker: Are you seeking a clarification, Mr Low?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party has not gone through the due process to decide whether or not, or to conclude whether the allegation made by the Lee siblings is baseless. We will keep our mind open. We are prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister but we do not know. I speak for myself because we have not gone through that process. For me, personally, I will not be convinced until the entire allegation is given a convincing or conclusive airing. That means, we should know what else do they have.

I want to clarify on the Emeritus Senior Minister's speech. He cited the example of the HPL case. I was in this House. Yes, I was convinced. Why was I convinced? And why is this case now different from the HPL case?

Firstly, Madam, in the HPL case, it was a market rumour. I was unaware of any allegation of corruption or wrongdoing.

Secondly, the person at the centre of issue, Mr Ong Beng Seng, issued a public statement to explain the matter to clear the air before the Parliament sitting.

Thirdly, the subject persons, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, both father and son, were not Prime Ministers, not the head of the Government at that time. It was the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who called for investigation based on the market rumour and then came to Parliament for the public explanation and the debate.

But for this Parliament session, it is the Prime Minister, the head of the Government and the Secretary-General of the PAP, who is accused of wrongdoing. In this episode, there is no investigation done, it is "own self defend own self" in Parliament with the PAP Members of Parliament. I wonder how do you convince me, my Party and Singaporeans under the circumstances that this Parliamentary session is conclusive and we all should be convinced, though I said I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister.

Madam, I understand the Prime Minister's difficulty in suing his own siblings and that he was worried that he would further damage his parents' names. But I hope he would clarify some doubts I have on this, nagging question on why he did not sue. First, does he not agree that his family is not any ordinary Singapore family and the person at the centre of the issue is the Prime Minister of Singapore, not any other person?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, I have given a lot of laxity but clarifications are not a speech, please.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I am seeking a clarification based on Emeritus Senior Minister's speech.

Mdm Speaker: Can you please specify the clarification you wish to seek?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am not making a speech. I am seeking clarification arising out of Emeritus Senior Minister's speech because he wanted me to state my position, citing the HPL case and saying why they should not go to the Court. So, I believe I am clarifying.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Low, please proceed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, secondly, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is not worrying that the PAP, as the ruling Party, would be seen as having double standards. Has he forgotten that the former Prime Minister ─ Mr Goh Chok Tong who is now Emeritus Senior Minister ─ sued the Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong during the General Elections in 1997 for just making a police report? But now this allegation is much more serious than that. And, more importantly, we are talking about upholding the legacy of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that the nation, the laws are above family and above individual. By using family as justification, does not this show that blood is thicker than water? Own sibling cannot sue. After all, we are all brothers and sisters, but political opponents and critics, sue until your pants drop. I cannot square, Mdm Speaker, with all these arguments. Sorry.

Mdm Speaker: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh.

Mr Goh Chok Tong : I will be very brief. The response by Low Thia Khiang is not unexpected. I expected that. This is what we call political sophistry. And as for Tang Liang Hong, he is not my brother.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I just want to seek a clarification. This session was called by the Prime Minister for us to question the allegations and seek clarification. So, when I bring up the allegations, I expect some clarification. But then, the thing is, it seems that I am not supposed to bring it up because these are issues that are not substantiated. But these allegations are made by the siblings. So, even when I mentioned that there is a document with Mdm Ho Ching's name listed there as a contact person of Prime Minister's Office, it is an allegation with a documented proof. I am not getting any answers but I am accused of throwing wild allegations at nothing.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, I have some doubts to clarify. I have some difficulty understanding because, first of all, Mr Png Eng Huat is right. This session is called by the Prime Minister and he said, "I will give a Ministerial Statement, please question me rigorously." But then we heard a veiled threat yesterday from Indranee Rajah that you are making allegations when you are asking some questions. Today, I heard someone saying, "You may risk contempt of Parliament" because talking about whitewash and cover-up. So, Mdm Speaker, I really do not understand how do these serve the purpose of the Parliamentary session.

Mdm Speaker: What is your clarification, Mr Low, with regard to Emeritus Senior Minister? No clarification. Well, we will proceed to Miss Cheng Li Hui.

1.57 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, what happened over the last two weeks has shaken, confused and divided us.

It was not so long ago that we celebrated SG50, a landmark year for our young nation. That year, we also witnessed the passing of our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

To say that Mr Lee Kuan Yew played an important role in building Singapore is an understatement. Together with his outstanding team, including Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye and Mrs Rajaratnam, he laid the foundation for modern Singapore. He gave us values that would make Singapore strong and robust ─ values like taking a long-term view and putting national interest before self-interest, like honesty and integrity, and, most importantly, upholding the rule of law. He encouraged us to know our past, our humble beginnings and how we got here. He led by example, living simply and frugally at 38 Oxley Road.

Therefore, the future of 38 Oxley Road, the home of our founding Prime Minister, and the centre of the current dispute between our Prime Minister and his siblings, is not a private matter but one which is of major public interest.

Mdm Speaker, the home I am residing in was the first house bought for my grandmother in 1972 after they moved out from the kampong. I chose to stay at this house as it holds precious memories and also reminds me of my grandmother's values and struggles in life. It holds meaning for me. But only for me.

Thirty-eight Oxley Road is not just the house of our founding Prime Minister but also the place where our Pioneer leaders planned the founding of the PAP, Singapore's Independence, fought key general elections and so on. Part of the Singapore story was written there. It is a part of Singapore's history. It has meaning for all Singaporeans – past, present and future.

I respectfully suggest to the Government that 38 Oxley Road be preserved to remind us of our Founding Father and what he stood for. I know there are some who favour demolishing the house, to honour and respect Mr Lee's last wish in his will.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is chairing the Ministerial Committee, since demolition of the house is irreversible, since there are different views about how we should proceed, since no action will be taken while the house is being occupied by Dr Lee Wei Ling and since there are so many raw emotions involved, would the Ministerial Committee take into account current sentiments, engage the public widely and take their time to study all possible options before putting up a recommendation paper for a future government to consider?

Let us take time to decide. Let time heal the wounds.

Mdm Speaker, my residents and I are also deeply concerned about the allegations of abuse of power by our Prime Minister and his team. Successive generations of leaders have worked so hard to establish our reputation as a country which upholds the rule of law. Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself set the example. I am one of those who were inspired by him to be a grassroots volunteer and later to join politics. I do not fully agree with all Government policies but I believe this is a good Government led by honest leaders and I want to help win as much support as I can. So, the allegations of abuse of power are damaging people's trust and have to be answered fully.

Like other Members, I want to ask the Prime Minister why did he offer to transfer the house to his sister for $1 and why did he sell it to his brother at full value? Did he deceive his father? And if the late Mr Lee believed that the house was gazetted, what is going to happen next? Is there any chance for reconciliation? I really hope that this sitting can clear Singaporeans' doubt and restore confidence and they can move on to more pressing national issues. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The subject of 38 Oxley Road is causing discord in our society. Many elderly residents told me that they hoped we could fulfil the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish and demolish the house.

However, we all know that the biggest wish of Mr Lee was Singapore's prosperity. Thirty-eight Oxley Road has witnessed many historical moments of Singapore. The house has accompanied Mr Lee and the Singapore society through that turbulent era.

Hence, 38 Oxley Road may well represent a spirit which should be passed down to the future generations. It represents the unwavering spirit and perseverance of the Singapore society.

I hope we can think it through and do not rush to demolish the house. Instead, we should first discuss this matter calmly and reach a conclusion afterwards. After all, once the house is demolished, it can never be reversed.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in March 2015, when news broke of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's passing, the nation reacted. Many of us cried. I was manning the Tampines tribute site. I saw tens of thousands of people queuing to pay their last respects. They left cards and notes.

Allow me to read one of the notes I came across from a young Singaporean:

"Dear Sir, thank you so much for dedicating your life to building this nation. Without you, there wouldn't be a generation of youths like us, and our aspirations to continue bringing our nation to greater progress. As youths, we will do you proud and not let you down. Thank you, Sir, you've been an inspiration and will continue doing so. Rest in peace."

Madam, like this young man, many others ended their notes promising that they will carry on his legacy; they will build a stronger nation, one that he will be proud of.

That is why we need 38 Oxley Road to remind future generations of what he and his team have gone through, and to inspire them to write the next chapter of our Singapore Story.

I believe if Mr Lee Kuan Yew were to leave a will for Singapore, his wish would be for our Singapore Story to continue, strong and vibrant, for many generations to come.

2.05 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Madam, many points have been raised. I have two questions for the Ministerial Committee.

I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if the Government would seek the views of residents in the Oxley Road area as part of its deliberations and when this could take place.

I seek this clarification as I have met and spoken to my residents who live in the Oxley Road area. Many of them have lived there for decades. Given that Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said in his Ministerial Statement that the Committee is only coming up with "drawer plans", how would such plans affect the residents there going forward, whilst and during the period that Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to reside in the house?

In that same vein, could the Ministerial Committee disclose and provide updates publicly on the options considered and its implications? The residents of Oxley Road would be directly impacted and thus this concern is raised.

2.07 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications to seek from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

First, we know it takes two parties, at least in this case, to bring a conflict to closure. Post this Parliamentary debate, if the Prime Minister's siblings refuse to back down and continue to publicly air their allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister, what would the Prime Minister and the Government's next step be?

Second, from time to time, committees are formed. Public opinions these days are aplenty and any position taken will always have opinions for and against it. As we continue to uphold the rule of law, how do we ensure that we do not act merely upon public pressure and herd mentality? Rather, decisions are based on what is the issue at hand and whether it is in the interest of Singapore as a top priority.

Third, this debate goes beyond the defence of the Organs of the State. Members in this House and Singaporeans have asked for a quick resolution to this matter. But we all know that the expectations of reasonable resolution differ from one person to another. How then do we move forward as a country if we cannot see beyond these differences?

And lastly, yesterday, Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned that there are 72 buildings gazetted for preservation and 7,000 others conserved to date. How does National Heritage Board (NHB) actively look out for potential architectures that are likely to be preserved, particularly those privately owned, and inform the private owners duly with ample time before a decision is made? If this situation had happened to an ordinary citizen instead of a high-profile family, do they have any recourse?

2.09 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, let me take this opportunity to clarify some of the points that Members have raised to my speech yesterday about the Deed of Gift, the negotiations between NHB and the executors, the role played by Mrs Lee Suet Fern in the process, as well as the due process for conservation and preservation which Miss Cheryl Chan also asked just now.

First, on the Deed of Gift. NHB did not approach Mrs Lee Suet Fern for advice. She had reached out to NHB to assist in the negotiations. At that time, NHB thought that, as a board member, she could be useful as an intermediary to reach a satisfactory outcome with the executors. And, indeed, she helped to raise some of NHB's concerns with them.

Later, as NHB had to engage in more extensive discussions with the executors to resolve the legal issues, the Chairman of NHB approached her on 12 June to recuse herself on matters concerning the Deed, which she did.

Throughout this process of negotiations, some of the terms were changed over the course of negotiations. But as I said yesterday, the executors held firm to several key conditions. The $1 buyback provision was, as the lawyer of the executors said, to quote, "non-negotiable". The display of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes in the exhibition, this was something that NHB originally wanted to limit only to the replica of the house that was exhibited. But the executors required this to be displayed prominently in other areas of the exhibition as well.

So, given the executors' position, NHB really had just two choices − either sign the Deed on the stipulated terms or do without the artefacts completely. We see of this now with the benefit of hindsight, but it is important to recognise that, at that time, no one realised that there were these sharp differences of views between the beneficiaries. The assumption was that the executors spoke for all the beneficiaries and these were the firmed conditions set for the donation of the artefacts. In fact, this was my assumption, too, when NHB initially updated me about their discussion with the executors. I only realised that the situation was very different when I spoke with the Prime Minister.

Under the circumstances, NHB, in fact, considered this matter very carefully. It was not a rash decision. NHB deliberated over this and they decided eventually to sign the Deed because of several considerations.

First, the artefacts had heritage significance. Second, several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. And third, all things considered, NHB felt that it would be in the public interest to exhibit these artefacts in this major SG50 exhibition.

Next, Members, with your indulgence, let me just touch briefly on the due process which several Members also spoke about.

As I have explained, all sites that agencies – be it URA or NHB – have identified with some architectural or heritage merits, go through a rigorous due process. And there are two parts to this due process.

The first part is the research work which is done internally within the Government and there are various agencies involved in this. The key ones, obviously, are NHB and URA but, depending on the situation, other agencies may be involved like LTA and SLA. The work is done at the staff level but there had been instances where Ministers come together to discuss these proposals which often require inter-agency inputs.

After this research work, we may not need to do anything with the property at all unless there is a trigger to take the next step. This trigger can be by the property owner who submits a development application or it can be by the Government to advance the conservation or preservation proposal. When that happens, then we move on to the next step, which is to engage the various stakeholders, including experts, relevant advisory panels and boards, as well as the property owner. And then, after considering all the factors, a decision is made by the Government through the various Ministries.

Several Members suggested having more participatory processes to engage and involve the public. We certainly do not preclude this. But we should not end up with a decision to conserve or preserve a building solely based on a public referendum. Just looking at the case of Oxley Road as an example, after the publication of "Hard Truths", it appeared that the majority of Singaporeans wanted the house preserved. After Mr Lee Kuan Yew's passing, the surveys would indicate that the majority wanted the house to be demolished. Nothing has changed with the house. The heritage factors are still the same but the opinions have shifted.

So, public mood on these matters can shift, depending on circumstances and emotions. I am not saying that we should not consult but architectural and heritage merits are careful and rigorous assessments that ought to be done by professionals and subject matter experts.

For Oxley Road, this research work is ongoing amongst the various agencies and, the work, as we have discussed, is being overseen by the Ministerial Committee which will ensure that the due diligence work done is comprehensive and rigorous. And that is what we are trying to do − to be ready with all the options, to have drawer plans fully prepared, so that the government of the day is able to make a decision, as and when the time comes.

2.15 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, can I make a clarification on the Minister's speech yesterday?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Minister, I would like to clear the air on some of the details. There was a time lapse between 8 June 2015 when you updated the Prime Minister on the exhibition and the Deed, and 12 June 2015 where you shared the Deed with the Prime Minister. Why was there a time lapse? Did the Prime Minister ask you for the Deed on 12 June 2015? Or did you initiate the sharing? If you have initiated the sharing on 12 June 2015, in what context and for what purposes? Because you have already updated the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015.

Mr Lawrence Wong : Mdm Speaker, the Member is right that when I first updated the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015, I have already shared with him the plans for the exhibition, the artefacts and, substantively, the conditions in the Deed.

As I related yesterday in my account, NHB and I discussed the matter. Recognising that there were differences in views amongst the beneficiaries, we approached the executors to see if we could put off the exhibition in August. But when this could not be done – the executors insisted on this exhibition proceeding – we also had to think through what was a possible way to resolve the issues. We had approached the executors to also ask them whether they had the authority to engage in the Deed and if there was consent from all the beneficiaries.

The questions were not fully answered at that stage. But before the questions could be answered, as I related yesterday, they had put out a press statement saying that these were the items that they had donated and this became public information. NHB then also had to put out a statement that same night to say that there were questions that were still outstanding, that we were seeking resolution from the executors.

So, being mindful that all these had been playing out after my last update to the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015 I had to give him a further update, naturally at that time. He did not ask me, but I had to give him a further update on the matter, telling him what had happened since 8 June 2015, and giving him the full facts of the information, including the specifics of the Deed of Gift.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I thank the Minister. Just one more last clarification. What is the Ministry's position on the use of the copy of the Deed for personal purposes, no matter how justified, that NHB has given to an officer in his official capacity? I think, more specifically, what is the Minister's response when he came to know after 12 June 2015 that the Prime Minister had used the copy of the Deed of Gift in his personal legal communication with his siblings?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, I have already explained that the Deed of Gift does not have a confidentiality clause. I said that yesterday and I have explained that in the circumstances where there are differences of views amongst beneficiaries – and indeed, where something like this may be contested – NHB would want to share the information with the individuals concerned to make sure that there are non-contesting claims about the artefacts. So, while the Deed of Gift was given to the Prime Minister in his official capacity, if he had asked for it in his private capacity, NHB would have shared the information with him, too.

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, a clarification for Minister. The Minister mentioned that NHB viewed Mrs Lee Suet Fun as a mediator, possibly to assist in the negotiations. Her relationship with the executors would have been a conflict red flag. Why was it not flagged out earlier that there could be a potential conflict of interest in involving her? Were there processes which were inadequate? Or was it a case of human lapses? And how do we prevent, moving forward, instances of civil servants being influenced by persons to allow their involvement?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, as I had explained just now, NHB, at the start of this process, thought that Mrs Lee Suet Fun, being a board member, could play a useful role as an intermediary in the discussions with the executors. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, some of these roles ought to have been better clarified and NHB has, indeed, strengthened its own processes internally to make sure that conflict rules are observed within the Board.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask Minister Lawrence Wong on what he shared earlier that, very often, after studies are done on certain properties about the need for preservation, action is often not needed until there is a trigger. Is it possible for him to share with us how often action was triggered in past cases?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, there is a range of different circumstances. Like I have said, the trigger can be due to a property owner submitting a development application, and, therefore, the Government has to make a decision, either to accept the application or to say, "Look, hold on, because there are these conservation and preservation considerations".

Alternatively, the Government itself may decide that we want to go ahead and, therefore, we proceed. There is a range of different circumstances. So, it is hard to generalise. What URA does is to try to give information to the public. In its Master Plan, URA would typically highlight some of the potential areas. Which we have identified ahead of time for conservation. So, that is made public in the URA Master Plan.

Debate resumed.

2.22 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We have had two days of debate on this matter. Members from both sides of the House and our Nominated Members of Parliament have asked probing questions, as they should. I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for their views and questions; more than 30 Members have spoken.

So, what have we covered in these past two days? The debate is, first and foremost, focused on the integrity of Government − whether we have clean and honest Government, and how we address issues of conflict of interest; second, whether there is any basis for the allegations of abuse of power that have been hurled at the Government; and third, where do we go from here?

First, our rules for avoiding conflict of interest. In my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I explained how we maintain separation between private interest and public interest for political appointment holders, as well as public officers. There is the Code of Conduct for political appointment holders, Rules of Prudence for Members of Parliament from the People's Action Party, and the Public Service Code of Conduct.

Let me reiterate. Every political appointment holder and public officer is expected, at all times, to act according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty and integrity in the exercise of his public duties.

As Members of this House know, we treat allegations of misconduct very seriously. As I said yesterday, there are various avenues for members of the public and public officers themselves, to report suspected misconduct. If there is specific evidence on the abuse of power by any political appointment holder, public officer, or his or her family members, I can assure you that they will be held to account and the necessary actions taken, if shown to be true.

Public officers are expected to be above board and impartial in their dealings, including with members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees. Our senior public officers frequently receive ideas and suggestions from members of the public, including those who may be friends or family members. Most of them are well-motivated. I have received many suggestions on what I should do about football in Singapore.

I am confident that our senior public officers will go through the due process to evaluate which of these ideas and suggestions are good and useful ones and to put aside those which are unsuitable, regardless of whom these may have come from.

Mr Charles Chong asked about the poll on our public officers. As part of regular stakeholder engagement, the Public Service Division (PSD) periodically seeks the sentiments of public officers on issues that matter to them. The PSD conducted the poll because the allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang go beyond private matters and extend to the integrity of the Government and public institutions.

Mdm Speaker, our officers continue to have confidence in the integrity of our institutions. Most officers felt that there is some impact on credibility of the Singapore Government among Singaporeans, but that Singapore's reputation will be able to recover. The Public Service will take this opportunity to reinforce in our officers the importance of understanding and living the Public Service Code of Conduct.

Singapore ranks highly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for corruption. Others are watching and evaluating us as we conduct this debate. They are watching us to see how we address these allegations of abuse of power and they will see that we are prepared to do so openly in this House, facing the issues directly to clear the air on these issues. The Prime Minister, myself, the Ministers are held to account by all of you. Every Member must speak freely in this House and we expect them to do so. But when a person casts aspersions on the whole of Parliament and its proceedings, and on every one of us, from outside this House − that is a different matter and there are some rules governing this.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the appointment of the Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General. There were also questions asked about the role of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law with respect to 38 Oxley Road. Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah has comprehensively addressed these issues yesterday and there is no need for me to add anything. We have strict rules on avoiding conflict of interest and they are scrupulously maintained.

Second, the allegations on the abuse of power. Minister Lawrence Wong has addressed issues related to the Deed of Gift between the executors and the NHB for the purpose of a major exhibition on our founding leaders in September 2015. Let me add my perspectives.

To recap, the Deed of Gift had several unusual conditions. One of these was the condition requiring the display of one part, but not the whole paragraph, related to Mr Lee's wishes for the house, as stated in his will. The other was the $1 buy-back clause for the items donated. These were matters related to a private disagreement at that time regarding the will and how Mr Lee had expressed his wishes regarding the house. It was a private matter at that time.

If NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through the Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement. When Minister Lawrence Wong informed me of the conditions set out in the Deed, I was not comfortable with them. And I will explain why. NHB, a public institution, was being drawn into a private disagreement and the exhibition, a major exhibition, was being used to put out only a part of Mr Lee's wishes on the house. Members will recall that Mr Lee had said in his will that the whole paragraph could be made public so that his wishes on the matter could be made known.

Mdm Speaker, there was really no need to make the display of this paragraph a condition for the donation at all. But to make the display of only one part of the paragraph and not all of it, was drawing NHB, a public agency, and this public exhibition it was organising, into presenting a particular point of view, which was incomplete.

NHB had already signed the Deed of Gift and I agreed with Minister Lawrence Wong that in the circumstances, we should proceed with it, rather than have a public controversy.

The point I am making is that, contrary to this being an abuse of power, these were efforts to keep NHB, a public agency, and to keep a major public exhibition neutral − to keep them neutral in a matter which was then a private disagreement.

It is ironical that these efforts to keep our public agencies neutral is now being distorted into allegations of abuse of power for private interests.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Leon Perera and some others today as well, have spoken on the Ministerial Committee.

Mdm Speaker, in my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I have clarified various issues related to the Ministerial Committee. I explained that the Ministerial Committee was formed to examine (a) historical and heritage significance of the property; (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property; and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood, and the options to move forward.

These are all matters which the Government has to take responsibility for, and must plan for. These are not private matters. I have also explained why we are starting the process now, to have drawer plans ready, for reference by the Government of the day, when a decision needs to, eventually, be taken.

There is nothing unusual or mysterious about it. This is just the normal process of Government doing its work, properly, calmly and objectively. Usually, people will find this quite boring, so there is nothing to get excited about when we formed yet another committee.

Several Members, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera have asked why we set up a Ministerial Committee and not rely on the usual Government agency process to study the options on the house? I want to clarify that the Ministerial Committee is not replacing the agencies in their work. Instead, it provides coordination and oversight on the matter of 38 Oxley Road. As Ms Chia Yong Yong had said yesterday, it is only appropriate to give due consideration to Mr Lee's wishes. While at the same time, as the Minister for National Development has just explained, NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house while MND and URA have been studying options for the property, as well as the planning and zoning implications.

The assessment of buildings of significance is an inter-agency effort, where various Government agencies will do the baseline research. The establishment of a Ministerial Committee merely seeks to improve coordination and oversight on the matter. This also does not preclude the conduct of consultations with heritage professionals and the public at an appropriate stage.

Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Jessica Tan asked why the Ministerial Committee did not reveal its composition earlier. Mdm Speaker, we have informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling that "how the Committee functions is within the Cabinet's prerogative to decide". We could decide to bring in other members as and when needed – the Minister for Transport, for example, when we want to look at traffic issues, or the Minister for Home Affairs when we look at security considerations.

Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang decided to send their representations to the Committee to all the Cabinet Ministers. Since the Committee reports to the Cabinet less the Prime Minister, there is no issue with this, and they have been doing so. What was material and relevant had been communicated to them. In any case, should the Cabinet need to make a decision related to this matter, all Cabinet members less the Prime Minister would be involved and collective Cabinet responsibility applies. This is really not an issue.

We should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. But before I come to this, let me answer some of the questions that Mr Lim Biow Chuan had. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the Prime Minister had any influence on the Cabinet or Ministerial Committee's decisions. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not. But Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as a private person, was invited to convey his views to the Ministerial Committee in the same way that his other siblings were. He did so formally and in writing. This is proper and correct; the lines are clear.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked whether we are able to make decisions independently and several Members of Parliament have asked this question as well. Mdm Speaker, when I took command of the Navy in 1991 at the age of 36, I made a decision that I must be prepared to step down at any time if ever I have to do something which is against my principles. I continue to be guided by that.

So, as I have said, Madam, we should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. Essentially, all the siblings knew about the Committee and what its terms of reference are. They knew that neither the Committee nor the Government was going to make a decision on the house, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is residing in the house and no decision is needed now. They knew that the Committee was examining a range of options and had no pre-conceived ideas on the outcome. They also knew that the Committee was not a place where decisions on the legality of the will can be made and this is a matter between the beneficiaries. In fact, they had been making representations to the Committee and sending their representations to Cabinet members at large.

I have provided Members with letters and dates to establish these facts. So, I will leave it to Members, going through the facts and the chronology, whether there is any basis at all to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's claims and allegations about the Committee. Mdm Speaker, I think we should put this matter to rest.

It is not for me to delve into the motivations behind Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's allegations of abuse of power over the Committee. But they should not allege abuse of power simply because they were unhappy or felt uncomfortable about being asked to volunteer their views and clarifications on Mr Lee's wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road.

Mdm Speaker, the allegations made by them have no basis. The opposite is true. Prime Minister Lee did the correct thing to recuse himself. And Cabinet and the Government carried out its roles and responsibilities properly.

So, where are we now? I informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang that I would personally not support the options at either end of the range. Those were my personal views. At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see the private spaces. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market to develop new private residences, such as luxury apartments. Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his statement on 1 July 2017, stated the same thing.

The Committee has also been studying various intermediate options and I personally think that there are merits in these intermediate options. These studies are on-going. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has, in his public statements, indicated that he is open to some of these options.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang also acknowledges that no decision is required now because Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the property. So, there is no disagreement on this. This is also the position of the Government.

In his statement on 1 July, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said that he also recognised that "no man stands above the law". So, there is no disagreement on this either. As I have explained, the Government has a duty to go through the due process for when a decision needs to be taken, at some future time.

Mdm Speaker, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have also concluded, it appears to me that there is really no good reason to disagree and create such a public furore. Let us continue doing the work that is needed, calmly and objectively, to study the possible options for the time when a decision has to be made.

As I have said yesterday, I will consult my colleagues to see if it is useful to put out a range of possibilities, to let the public ponder on the matter, without having to arrive at any decision. But I need to weigh this against arousing emotions again, when what we can really benefit from now is time for calm reflection, especially when no decision is needed now.

In summary, the Prime Minister and Ministers have cleared the air and showed that we have acted properly. I have described the robust processes we have for Political Appointment Holders, civil servants and Government Members of Parliament to address potential conflicts of interest. We help officers understand and live the Code of Conduct, and we deal with errant officers firmly.

This shows that the Government is open and transparent, and accountable for what it does. This session in Parliament demonstrates that, too. This also shows that we have institutions to make sure that we can continue to have good and honest Government in Singapore. I hope that these unfounded allegations will stop. They have no basis and undermine confidence in our system of governance and unfairly tar our public officers who are trying their best to do their duty.

Mdm Speaker, I hope that with the conclusion of this debate, we can put the allegations of abuse of power to rest. But where do we go from here, as a nation and as a people?

Like many Singaporeans, I am sure that Members of this House have been deeply saddened, shocked and confused by the events of these past three weeks. I am certain that Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew would not have wanted this to have happened.

I have known Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang for over 40 years. We served together as colleagues and comrades in the Singapore Armed Forces. I have held both of them in high regard for their intellect, objectivity, commitment and dedication to Singapore.

The Hsien Loong I see now today is the same Hsien Loong I have known all these years − an upright earnest person who stands by his principles and does what is right for Singapore. As Ms Sun Xueling, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, others have mentioned, and many Singaporeans know, Hsien Loong has done much for Singapore and he has much more to contribute serving Singapore and Singaporeans as our Prime Minister. I hope that he will contribute his knowledge and experience to Singapore for a long time to come.

Hsien Yang, too, has contributed much. He was my colleague, we worked together. He has contributed much in the Singapore Armed Forces and in the private and public sectors. We have met a number of times since his father passed away. We spoke to each other with consideration and respect as we always have.

It is with deep sadness that the Hsien Yang I see now is not the Hsien Yang that I knew. I see hurt and strong emotions consuming him. I do not understand what underlying deep-rooted reasons there may be for this. But for Hsien Yang, I hope that these strong emotions that I see now in his heart will dampen over time and that he would find peace and solace within himself. He has more to contribute to Singapore if he chooses to do so. I wish Hsien Yang and his family well, as I always have.

I have known Wei Ling also for many years, though not as well. She must have been going through a difficult time over the past few years, living with her parents and looking after them while they were unwell. And losing both of them, while stoically facing her own health challenges.

For Wei Ling, the Government has said that we will not do anything to affect her right to continue living at 38 Oxley Road. I wish her happiness, time to do the things which she enjoys with her friends, now that she has the time and, above all, good health and a long life.

Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed away, it was an emotional period for all Singaporeans. And how much more so it must have been for the immediate members of the family. When emotions are raw, misunderstandings can arise and feelings can be hurt. When I met Hsien Yang and Hsien Loong in the weeks after Mr Lee's passing, and Wei Ling a little later, my words to them were "let time pass".

I hope that with the passage of time and the cooling of emotions that the siblings can resolve their private disagreements within the family. Singaporeans, too, can give the Prime Minister and his siblings space to work through their disagreements. And I hope that is possible.

Mdm Speaker, the Government, however, still has to carry out its responsibilities objectively, fairly and calmly. I would like to assure this House, and all the siblings, that on the matters that I have the responsibility to deal with, in particular, with regard to 38 Oxley Road, I will continue to deal with them objectively and fairly, all the time working for the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, Hsien Loong, Wei Ling and Hsien Yang, are the sons and daughter of Mr Lee. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng, that all of us, too, in our own way, are also "sons and daughters" of Mr Lee. Mr Lee and his generation of leaders fought hard for all of us and gave us the Singapore we have today.

He, and our Pioneers brought us all up. Built this house which we call Singapore. We have learnt the lessons that he taught us and which he demonstrated through his own example. No one is above the law, or bigger than our collective interest, as Ms Chia Yong Yong has passionately pointed out.

Mr Lee himself understood that he, too, had to abide by the processes and system that he helped build; and that the Government has a duty to consider the public interest and not just those of private individuals. He and his generation built the institutions which uphold these principles. But most of all, he taught us, all of us, to uphold these principles.

Mdm Speaker, we, all of us, also are "sons and daughters" brought up by Mr Lee. We have not been written into Mr Lee's will. But what he has left to all of us, is more precious, more valuable. He left us Our Singapore, Our big house, which he worked together with us to build. And which we are all proud to call our home. This episode is a painful one for all of us.

But I am confident that this big house we call Singapore will remain strong and robust. Mr Lee and our Pioneer leaders put in firm foundations − robust processes, institutions and a system of governance which we have continued to strengthen. Members of this House, Ministers, Prime Minister, our public officers, all Singaporeans − we were all brought up to do our utmost to respect and uphold the values, institutions and processes that are built upon the foundations laid by our founding generation.

Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed on, Singaporeans came together. Our hearts wept, we grieved together. The moment united all of us, reminded us of who we are and what we stand for. It uplifted us, giving us renewed spirit to face the future together.

I hope that as we ponder the options for 38 Oxley Road, and how best to remember the struggles of our Independence years and the values that Mr Lee and our Pioneers passed down to us. This should also be an occasion to unite us. There is no reason why this should divide us. Mr Lee, in his wisdom, left us enough room to decide and placed his trust in us to do so.

Mdm Speaker, the house that Mr Lee and our Pioneers left us is a strong one. It is built on firm foundations. I am confident that all of us, all Members of this House, all Singaporeans, our public officers will build upon the firm foundations of our house, Singapore, and make it even stronger.

This is the legacy that Mr Lee and his Pioneer Generation left us. This is what they would expect us to do. We can rise above this, we have the confidence and ability to do so. Let us unite together and fulfil that promise. Majulah Singapura! [Applause.]

2.52 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Members for this debate.

Two weeks ago, when I decided to bring this matter to Parliament, I explained my purpose: (a) to air fully all the accusations against me and my government; (b) to allow Members of Parliament to raise difficult and inconvenient questions, whether you are a PAP Member of Parliament, an Opposition Member of Parliament, or a Nominated Member of Parliament; (c) to enable me and my Cabinet to render account to Parliament and clear the air.

In my Ministerial Statement, I have fully addressed the allegations of abuse of power. In his Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained the Ministerial Committee and how we uphold the integrity of the Government.

I brought the matter to Parliament because I am answerable to Members and to Singaporeans. I have opened myself up to questioning by Members. It is the Members' responsibility to ask me any questions they want and get to the bottom of the issue.

So, I was surprised that some Members asked me why I had brought this to Parliament and questioned if we should discuss this in Parliament. I agree that we should not fight private disputes in Parliament, nor have we done so. But grave accusations of abuse of power have been made against me as Prime Minister and against my government. Doubts have been cast on our Government and the leadership. How can my Ministers and I not discuss them in Parliament? Imagine the scandal if Members filed Parliamentary Questions on these accusations and the Government replied that Parliament is not the place to discuss the matter. So, whatever else I or the Government may or may not do to deal with this matter, we have to come to Parliament to render account. It is our duty.

Therefore, I am glad that in the last two days, we have had a good debate. Members, PAP and non-PAP Members have raised questions and my Ministers have answered them and given a proper account.

What has been the outcome? Over the past two days, the allegations about me abusing power, which prompted the sitting, have been answered. No Members have produced or alleged any additional facts or charges, or substantiated any of the allegations.

Mr Low Thia Khiang talks about "scattered evidence centred on family displeasure". But he has not accused the Government of anything nor has he given any concrete evidence or cited any. Mr Png Eng Huat read out the litany of allegations by my siblings but he did not endorse them and that is significant. Because it shows that the Government and I have acted properly and with due process and that there is no basis to the allegations of abuse of power made by my siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

My Ministers have, in the course of the debate, dealt with most of the questions and points raised by Members. I would like to deal with just a few questions. Firstly, the Attorney-General's Chamber. Secondly, whether I deceived my father. Thirdly, whether I considered or I am considering the legal options. And, finally, where do we go next.

So, Attorney-General Chambers. Ms Sylvia Lim and several of her Workers' Party colleagues have raised questions about the propriety of appointing Mr Lucien Wong as Attorney-General (AG) and Mr Hri Kumar as Deputy Attorney-General (DAG). Because Lucien Wong was previously my lawyer and because Hri Kumar was a PAP Member of Parliament.

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah gave a clear reply yesterday. It is perfectly normal for lawyers to have existing clients and connections and to encounter potential conflicts of interest when they change jobs. In fact, lawyers with no clients and connections probably have no job. But the way to deal with this is also quite standard − for the lawyers to recuse themselves when matters come up which they had previously dealt with in a previous capacity. The rules are quite clear. All professional lawyers know how to handle such matters and every time a lawyer moves from practice unto the Bench to become a judge, the judge has to do the same. Because he has old cases and cases may appear before the Courts and he cannot participate in the cases when they turn up before the Courts.

So, there is no problem of conflict at all for Lucien Wong or Hri Kumar to become AG and DAG. If matters come up which they had previously handled as private lawyers, they just recuse themselves and let others deal with it. And so it is with the dispute with my siblings on the house. Lucien Wong was my lawyer but now that he is the AG, I have lost a good lawyer. He is not advising me any more on this matter. And in the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the Government cannot use Lucien Wong either to advise it on this matter because he is conflicted, he used to represent me. So, in this matter, another officer in AGC takes charge. Lucien Wong is out of it.

When Lucien Wong's name came up as a candidate to succeed Mr V K Rajah as AG, I endorsed him with confidence. He is known as one of Singapore's top lawyers and has a high international reputation, especially in corporate and banking law. I was even more confident because I had direct personal experience working with him on this case, my personal case. I had also consulted him informally on Government matters before, when we were working on the Points of Agreement dispute with Malaysia. And I knew that he was a very good lawyer.

Everyone involved in the appointment was fully aware that this was the basis on which I was recommending him. I told them, I told the Cabinet, Lucien is my lawyer, he is a very good lawyer. But the Opposition will make an issue of this. I do not consider this an impediment because there is no difficulty of conflict of interest. I recommend him.

The AG's appointment has to be confirmed, approved by the President. I briefed the President before the matter formally went to him and I told him the same thing. He consulted the CPA. The CPA recommended that he approved the appointment. He did.

And, indeed, after the President approved Lucien Wong's appointment and it was announced, the Law Society welcomed it. Likewise, my direct knowledge of Hri Kumar, as a Member of Parliament and a lawyer, gave me confidence that he would make a good Deputy Attorney General. I know he has a good legal mind and he has a good heart as a Member of Parliament for people.

It is critical for Singapore to have a strong AGC and for AGC to have a strong top leadership because the AG is a very important and demanding job, as Workers' Party Members of Parliament have themselves pointed out. It is very difficult to find people of the right calibre and range of experience. You can take my word for it. I have been involved doing this, looking for suitable people to be Attorneys-General for quite a long time and I have had to do it several times. It is important that we get the best that are there to become the Attorney-General. The role is becoming more complex and we need the most capable people to defend our interests.

You just look at Pedra Branca. You would have thought the matter was settled nine and a half years ago. No. Four days ago, on 30 June, Malaysia filed an application over the ICJ judgment on Pedra Branca. We are confident of our case. We think the Malaysian case has no merit but, unless we have a top-notch team, we may mishandle the case with very serious consequences. Do you want to take a chance?

We have also outstanding officers within the AGC coming up the ranks and we have promoted them within AGC, we have elevated some of them to the Bench. For example, there is the Deputy Attorney-General Mr Lionel Yee, there are two Solicitors-General Mr Kwek Mean Luck and Ms Mavis Chionh, all promoted to their positions recently. And other career Legal Service officers have been elevated to the Bench to become Judicial Commissioners as a first step, like Pang Khang Chau, Aedit Abdullah, Hoo Sheau Peng and Audrey Lim. So, we look for talent and we groom and develop talent within but, at the same time, we seek to reinforce the AGC with lawyers from the private sector because they will both reinforce the team and add to the talent pool, and also, AGC can benefit from their experience with private sector work.

We have a good team in AGC today. They hold their own with the very best to fight for Singapore's interests abroad. They pursue cases in Court and handle very complicated cases professionally, competently, where necessary, aggressively. And the appointments of Lucien Wong and Hri Kumar will contribute to building this team and make AGC an even stronger institution.

Let me turn to a few of the points which have to do with Oxley Road, starting with what Miss Cheng Li Hui asked just now, whether I deceived my father and made him believe that the house was gazetted. I think when the allegation is that you have deceived Mr Lee Kuan Yew and it is directed at the Prime Minister, that can never be a private allegation. It has enormous ramifications for my standing and reputation, and the matter has to be answered.

The simple answer is that I did not deceive my father. I explained to Members yesterday how my father's primary wish on the house has always been clear − he always wanted it knocked down. Where my siblings and I differ is on whether my father was prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible. After meeting Cabinet on 21 July 2011, Mr Lee asked me for my view of what the Government would do with the house after he died. I gave him my honest assessment. I told him, you have met the Cabinet; you have heard the Ministers' views. If I chaired the Cabinet meeting, given that these are the views of the Ministers and the public, I think it would be very hard for me to override them and knock the house down. I would have to agree that the house has to be gazetted, to be kept. And if I am not the Prime Minister or if I do not chair the meeting, all the more likely that the house would be gazetted. He understood.

In August 2011, about a month later, he decided to will the house to me, as I told Members yesterday, and he told the family. Ho Ching and I knew my father's wishes and also my mother's feelings on the house and we wanted to address their concerns should demolition not be allowed. So, we came up with a proposal to renovate the house, to change the inside completely, to demolish the private spaces, but keep the historic basement dining room. And my wife kept the whole family comprehensively informed.

Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk now to distribute the handout to Members?

Mdm Speaker: Yes please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I am distributing two family e-mails just to give Members a sense of the conversations and the discussions and how they were conducted. The first e-mail is dated 2 January 2012 and it is from Ho Ching to my father. In fact, it is to the whole family − Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Suet Fern − to keep the whole family informed on what we were doing. It is a long e-mail. I will just take Members through the beginning and the end. It says:

"Hi Ling, just to update you on one of the ideas for Oxley renewal/development. As Loong mentioned, the first preference is to demolish the Oxley house and build afresh. The next best alternative is to renovate and redevelop parts of the house/annex so that it is liveable/rentable for many more years but with a new internal layout. The renovation renewal idea is to keep or renew the main Oxley house structure, retaining its old world ambience but completely changing the internal layout except for the basement dining room, and redeveloping the back annex into, a two storey annex connected to the main house. Thus, the current private/family living spaces in the main house upstairs will be gone and family privacy protected."

And then there is a long description of all the different possibilities. And then we come to the conclusion on the second page:

"If there's objection to renting out to, say, expats, then the family could consider moving in at least for the initial years and then Ling can use one of the big bedrooms ... "and so forth where who can go where." Wei Wei (that is the architect) has done various projects including the renewal of Victoria Theatre as well as conservation of private dwellings. As he explained, the conservation requirements typically do not mean preserving the house in its entirety – the interior layouts are often changed to reflect new family usage needs. So we have the option of redoing the entire interior layout to remove any linkages back to the private family space. Thanks." So, that is the first e-mail.

I give you a second e-mail which is 30 April 2012, that means, about four months later, from my wife Ho Ching to my father, again copied to the whole family, to say that the approvals have been secured and will be delivered to him and please let her know anything else needs to be done. And he replied about three hours later, "Noted, nothing to follow up or sign by me. Permission has been granted as I had previously signed in letters to them. Will send them to you."

So, you see, it is quite clear, it is quite open, it is not very curt. The conservation plan was done honestly, transparently and not on false pretences. After my father died, I said in Parliament on 13 April 2015, as I recounted yesterday, that the Government will take no decision on the house, so long as my sister was living in it. Why did I do that? Because people were then, three weeks after his passing, still very emotional over losing Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Some wanted to honour him by keeping the house. Others wanted to honour him by knocking the house down. Emotions were high. Whichever decision we made, one way or the other, significant numbers of people would be upset and we are just creating tensions and unhappiness and anxieties for nothing. Best if we postponed this major decision for a calmer time, let time pass before we come to the matter. That is why I said what I did in Parliament and I see it in no way contradicting my father's wishes or what I had advised my father when he was alive.

Now, many Members have asked me other specific questions on matters after my father died. Ms Sun Xueling was unsure why I had offered to transfer the house to my sister for $1, but subsequently sold it to Lee Hsien Yang at market value. Mr Henry Kwek asked why I had not raised matters on the will during probate and why am I expressing concern now and have put my views in the form of statutory declarations. And several Members have suggested that I take legal action to clear my name and put a stop to the matter once and for all.

Let me explain my overall approach to handling this family matter and, to do so, I beg your indulgence, Mdm Speaker, but I do have to go a little bit into the family history. It is a complicated story, but one golden thread running through it right from the beginning is my desire to manage the issue privately, without escalating the temperature and the dispute, and without forcing the issue of my legal rights. I adopted this approach because it involves family and I was hoping all along to work out an amicable resolution even if that meant compromising some of my own interests. When I learnt from others, who were meant to tell me, that my siblings were unhappy that my father had willed me the house, I tried to resolve the unhappiness. So, in May 2015, I offered to transfer the house to my sister for a nominal sum of $1. She has been living there for some time, in fact, all her life except when she was abroad − small gaps. And my father had wanted her to continue living in the house after he died if she wished to. So, it was natural to let her own the house. I only asked for one condition: that if the property was sold later, or acquired by the Government, that the proceeds would be donated to charity. I thought it was a very reasonable offer.

My brother wanted in on the deal. He wanted to join in and jointly buy the house with my sister from me for $1. My sister had no objection, so I agreed to this. But during the discussions, disagreement arose. My siblings started making allegations about me and escalating them. So, I told them that they would have to stop attacking me if they wanted the deal done because, otherwise, if I transfer the house to them and the quarrel continues, there is no point. And they wanted me to give a certain undertaking − I would not go into all the details now − but I could not agree to what they asked for, so we were at an impasse.

We went back and forth for several months. Every few weeks, my letter would go to them, they would think about it, every few weeks their lawyer would reply to my lawyer. And so we continued the discussion.

Faced with these allegations, I reviewed my old family emails. Kwa Kim Li was my father's lawyer before his last will. She did not do his last will. But she sent me and my siblings information about the previous wills of my father and also information about what she knew about the last will. Only then did I understand what had happened before my father died, and became troubled by how the last will had been done. But I still held back from raising the issues with my siblings, because I still hoped for an amicable settlement.

In August 2015, I dissolved Parliament and called the General Election. My siblings then issued me an ultimatum, to accept their terms by 1 September 2015, which, perhaps coincidentally, was Nomination Day. I told them I was very busy. They would surely understand that I had many things on my plate and I would respond as soon as the elections were over, which I did.

I could not allow myself, the Government or the PAP to be intimidated by such threats. I decided to ask my siblings to clarify the circumstances surrounding the last will. After that, for whatever reason, the 1 September deadline passed uneventfully.

After the election, I again tried to settle the matter. I told my siblings that we were not getting anywhere on the $1 offer, with the conditions on what each side could do or say. So, I made them a fresh offer, forget all the previous discussions, new offer, no conditions on what we can do or say, but I will sell the house to my brother at full market value. And the only condition, which is attached now, is that we each donate half of the value to charity. And then, you do and say what you think fit and I am free to be my own person, I am not constrained in any way. And I offered this arrangement, which involved the donation to charity, because it was a variation that we had discussed before Mr Lee died, but ultimately had not adopted. So, we said, well, if you want to settle the matter, there was this old variation, would you like to take it up now? He took it, we signed. And that was December 2015. Again, I hoped that this would settle the problem and we could keep the matter low-key and, perhaps, gradually subsiding.

Later on, when the Ministerial Committee asked for views from my siblings and me, I wrote in to give my views. So did my siblings. We both commented on each other's views. My siblings had put a lot of weight on the first part of the demolition clause in the last will. So, I felt the need to explain the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the last will to the Ministerial Committee, so that it would understand what to make of the evidence.

And because of the gravity of the matter, I voluntarily made my submissions to the Ministerial Committee in the form of sworn statutory declarations or, as they say in the coffee shops – sumpah.

That means that if what I had put down is proven to be false, I can go to jail for perjury. The statements cannot be taken back − they are done, sworn, irrevocable. But I did this privately, because it was just to inform the Committee in their deliberations and I did not want to escalate the quarrel.

Unfortunately, at 2.00 am on 14 June this year, my siblings made public allegations against me. I was forced to respond. I decided to put out the facts and I released a summary of my statutory declarations. Again, in the first instance, I did not take the legal route and sue for defamation. I stand by what I swore in the statutory declarations and published in the statement, but, really, I do not want to go further along this way if I can help it. I did not, and still do not, want to escalate the quarrel.

At each point, I decided not to try to enforce my full legal rights. My priority was to resolve the matter privately and avoid a collision.

Some Members still asked why I am not taking legal action against my siblings. For example, Mr Low Thia Khiang advocates my suing my siblings for defamation. This background which I have narrated to Members explains why I have hesitated to do so. As I said yesterday, I have been advised that I have a strong legal case. And in normal circumstances, I would surely sue because the accusations of abuse of power are so grave. But suing my own brother and sister in Court would further besmirch our parents' names. Mr Low may think that does not count and it is neither here nor there. I take a different view.

Mr Low argued that we should "do whatever it takes to bring the issue to a quick resolution". I agree. But going to Court will not achieve this. It would drag out the process for years, cause further distress to Singaporeans and distract us from the many urgent issues that we must deal with.

Several Members − Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Zaqy Mohamad − suggested a Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry as an alternative. But what is the basis for this? There are no specifics to the headline charge of abuse of power. What specifically did I do that was wrong? And what was wrong with that, whatever that may be? Who was involved? When did it happen?

After two days of debate, nobody has stood behind these allegations or offered any evidence, not even Opposition Members. The Workers' Party Members say they are not in a position to judge. Indeed, Mr Low criticises my siblings for making "vague allegations … based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure".

If Members believe that something is wrong, it is Members' job to pursue the facts and make these allegations in their own name. Decide whether something seems to be wrong. And if you think something is wrong, even if you are not fully sure, then come to this House, confront the Government and ask for explanations and answers. If having heard the Government, you are still not satisfied, then by all means demand a Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry (COI). But do not just repeat allegations and attribute them to others, or ask for a Select Committee or COI because accusations are around, do not know what, but, therefore, we must have a COI to find out what. The accusers may not be in Parliament. But that should not stop Members from talking to them to get their story. Nor would it stop the accusers from getting in touch with Members, including Opposition Members, to tell their story so that the Members can raise it on their behalf in Parliament.

That is, in fact, how the Member of Parliament system is meant to work. Those are the Members' duties and that is one reason why Parliamentary Privilege exists. So that Members, who have heard troubling allegations or news, can make these allegations and raise the matters in the House, even if they are not completely proven and may be defamatory, without fear of being sued for defamation. That is how parliaments are supposed to function.

But none of this has happened over the last two days. No one says there is evidence of abuse of power. Even the Opposition is not accusing the Government of abuse of power. So, it is not a case of "oneself defend oneself". Why do we need in these circumstances a Select Committee or a COI, and drag this out for months? It will be another Korean drama, full-scale serial.

Should we set up Select Committees to investigate every unsubstantiated allegation, every wild rumour? As Mr Low Thia Khiang says, "vague allegations". Vague allegations based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure, as a basis for ordering a Select Committee or a COI? That is not the basis. But if there is evidence of wrongdoing which emerges, or alleged evidence of wrongdoing which emerges, then I and the Government will consider what further steps to take. We can have a Select Committee, we can have a Commission of Inquiry, I may decide to sue for defamation or take some other legal action. But until then, let us get back to more important things that we should be working on.

Where do we go from here? The Ministerial Statements and the debate have been important and valuable. Facts and explanations have been put on the record. Singaporeans have received a full account of how the Government works and what the Government has done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. The allegations have been aired, have been answered, rebutted, and people can see that there has been no abuse of power by me or the Government. I hope that this two-day debate has cleared the air and will calm things down.

It would be unrealistic to hope that the matter is now completely put to rest. I do not know what further statements or allegations my siblings may make. But with the benefit of the Statements and debate in Parliament, Singaporeans are now in a better position to judge the facts and see the issue in perspective. And we can all go back to what we should be focused on and not be distracted from national priorities and responsibilities.

I thank Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Ms Chia Yong Yong, Mr Charles Chong and many others, for their good wishes for reconciliation within the family. I, too, would like to think this is possible. It will be a difficult and long road. But I hope that, one day, there will be rapprochement.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo reminded us about the national week of mourning when Mr Lee died. It was an emotional week for everybody. For Singaporeans, who lost their founding father; for my family and for me.

For me, the most difficult and emotional moment in that whole week came when I was reading the eulogy at the state funeral service. When I recounted how, when I was about 13, my father had told me: "If anything happens to me, please take care of your mother, and your younger sister and brother."

Singapore was then part of Malaysia. We were in a fierce fight with the central government and the communalists. My father did not tell me, but he knew his life was in danger. Fortunately, nothing happened to my father then. He brought up the family. And I thought we had a happy family, and he lived a long and full life. Little did I expect that after my parents died, these tensions would erupt, with such grievous consequences. And after so many years, I will be unable to fulfil the role which my father hoped I would.

So, I hope, one day, these passions will subside and we can begin to reconcile. At the very least, I hope that my siblings will not visit their resentments and grievances of one generation upon the next generation. And further, that they do not transmit their enmities and feuds to our children.

I am sad that this episode has happened. I regret that, in addressing public accusations against me, I have had to talk about private family matters in Parliament. My purpose has not been to pursue a family fight, but to clear the air and to restore public confidence in our system. This is how the system is supposed to work. When there are questions and doubts about the Government, we bring them out, deal with them openly, and clear the doubts. If anything is wrong, we must put it right. If nothing is wrong, we must say so.

Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke eloquently yesterday of the many issues she felt passionately about, the many challenges we face as a nation, and why we should be focusing on them and not being distracted by this controversy. Mr Low Thia Khiang called on everyone to focus on rallying Singaporeans to be united in facing the challenges and not be participating in a divisive dispute. I fully agree with them.

We must all get back to work. This is not soap opera. Come together, tackle the challenges before us. My team and I will do our best to continue building this Singapore, keeping it safe and making it prosper. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

3.30 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Madam. I have two clarifications. First, can the Prime Minister confirm that he will sue his siblings in Court or agree to a Select Committee of Parliament if they make more allegations in public?

The second clarification: what are the terms or conditions his siblings wanted on 38 Oxley Road before General Election 2015 which they had threatened to go public with?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, on the first question whether I sue or have a Select Committee if the siblings say more things, it depends on what they say. When they say, we will assess. As I have said, if there is evidence of wrongdoing or serious evidence of alleged wrongdoing, certainly, I will have to decide what to do. And we will have to consider a Committee of Inquiry, a Select Committee, defamation or there may be other options.

As for what the terms were, it is nothing very secret. Basically, as the discussions proceeded, more and more wild allegations were made against me, including that I was deceiving my father. So, at some point, I said, "No, this cannot continue. There is no point by selling you the house for $1 and then you keep going around saying that I deceived my father. That was why I sold you the house. So, I will sell you the house if you undertake to stop these allegations". They said that, "In that case, you Lee Hsien Loong undertake to help us get the house knocked down and support us having the house knocked down." I said, "I cannot do that. I do not know what you would do. I do not know whether I will agree with everything that you would do. I have already disagreed with you on NHB. So, it is best you do what you want. I keep my peace or I reserve my right to speak. You leave that separate. But I cannot sell you the house for $1 unless the accusations stop." And that is the impasse and that was the essence of the position when I dissolved Parliament.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Madam. I have a clarification for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I just have one clarification to put to the Deputy Prime Minister regarding his Statement and it is in relation to the Ministerial Committee.

The hon Deputy Prime Minister has clarified that the Ministerial Committee operated independently. But would the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that there might be a perception that it is not independent by virtue of the structure of the Committee, that the individuals who make up the Committee ultimately do report to an individual with personal ties to the matter at hand even though that is in his individual capacity?

And given that, the risk of that perception seems to have materialised in this case. And given that fact, would a better alternative have been, instead of a Ministerial Committee to look at this, an independent committee outside of the Cabinet where all the members do not report to the Prime Minister to assess it, make a recommendation to the Cabinet, perhaps a public recommendation, and then the Cabinet could still decide and the Cabinet could still own that outcome? Would that not have avoided some of the perceptions associated with the Ministerial Committee?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, the purpose of my explaining how we function was to explain why this perception is wrong, that we are quite capable of operating independently.

As I have explained, this is no different from the board of a major company − the Member must have represented boards or been on some of the boards. And this is the way we deal with conflicts of interest. So, there should be no reason why Mr Leon Perera is unable to understand this, unless he does not want to. That is a different matter. But I have explained how we do this. It is quite common. We are quite capable of acting independently on an issue such as this.

Whether we set up another committee, we could end up having a debate on whether this committee actually is independent or not, who are the members, how is it constituted and so on. And then, eventually, Cabinet still has to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendation or not. So, we still come back to the same issue. So, the important thing here is to know that we have processes in place, that we have honest upright people who can carry through these processes − honestly, independently and promptly.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. This is for the Prime Minister. He said in his statement yesterday, "It is nonsensical to say that because I saw the Deed in my official capacity as Prime Minister, I would not raise the matter with a family member." I am kind of concerned with this statement because I think it blurs the distinction between the public and the private, and I hope that the distinction may be restored.

I have two clarifications. First, it seems, from the public exchange, that this was not simply a case when an older brother straightened out his younger brother over coffee. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, he did not simply raise the matter to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. He sent a strongly worded letter of objection through one of the top lawyers in Singapore. And this letter sounds, to the layman at least, for all purposes, like a letter of demand with the implied threats of lawsuits. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is this method that he has used to raise this matter with his younger brother which has given rise to the perceptions and the allegations on the abuse of power? That is the first clarification.

The second clarification is, I am concerned that what he said will be said as justification for public servants who are acting in the official capacity, coming across information related to their family members doing something wrong and for the public servants then to raise the matter with the family members may possibly alert them to the wrongdoings inadvertently; and, therefore, allowing the family members to try to take actions to avoid legal sanctions. So, I hope the Prime Minister could clarify his statement in respect and in relation to the Code of Conduct for public servants and family members.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Thank you. On the first point, whether I have "lim kopi" with my brother or whether I have sent my lawyer's letter which may be stronger than my kopi-o, I do not think it makes any difference. This is a concocted objection because I think my siblings did not like the message. It is the content, not the medium.

Secondly, I think Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has a point. If I am a policeman, I know that there is an investigation against some family members of mine for drugs or money-laundering or something, I have to keep that confidential. I cannot go and tell him. But if it comes to my knowledge that somebody, my wife or my daughter or my son-in-law, went to a Government department and roughed up the place and demanded to be given special attention, or demanded special terms for their deal, then I had better go and tell them straightaway. So, I think it is quite clear. I mean, you need commonsense in applying the Code of Conduct but I presume that we will look for commonsense in Ministers and civil servants.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): I seek clarification from the Minister for National Development on a related issue. Am I correct to recall that if a beneficiary were to write in to NHB for a copy of the Deed of Gift, the beneficiary will be entitled to a copy? Is that the position?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Yes, Madam, I said that just now.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: So, my follow-up point would be that, if in this case, a copy of the Deed of Gift was given to the Prime Minister in his official capacity and then assuming that he took no action on that but he wrote in again, in his personal capacity, as a beneficiary to ask for a copy and he got the same copy of the Deed of Gift, then he could have acted on the second copy, albeit that they are the same.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Yes, Madam, under the circumstances, I have said that if Mr Lee Hsien Loong, in his private capacity, given his circumstance as a beneficiary of the estate with interest in the assets, had written to NHB for information, NHB would have given him the information.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you. So, it, therefore, makes no difference. Am I correct to say that, in this case, there is no practical difference in whether he received one copy or two copies?

Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia, please address the Chair and please ask for permission from the Chair to ask your questions and not engage in a debate with the Minister.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Sorry. My apologies.

Mdm Speaker: It will be your last clarification.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: So, my question then is: if that were the case, then would it not be no difference whether the Prime Minister received one or two copies?

Mr Lawrence Wong : Indeed, so, Madam, for all intents and purposes, I see no difference.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Madam, I have a question on the last will. The Prime Minister's speech, the Prime Minister explained that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer was not involved in the last will. So, will the Government or will the Prime Minister, in his private capacity, be pursuing this matter?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, I do not think I need to answer that question here. It does not concern the House.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I have a clarification for the Prime Minister. One of the evidence of abuse of power or allegations is that the Prime Minister's wife, Ho Ching, was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office. Was this true?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, we all practise making mountains out of molehills. It is a simple matter of a battleship telegram and three old letters which my wife came across in 38 Oxley Road, told me about. I thought they were significant and relevant to the exhibition on Mr Lee which NHB was putting up. And I facilitated and arranged for her to pass it to PMO and for PMO to send it on to the NHB exhibition. That is all. You call that representing the Prime Minister's Office? She did not have a business card from the Prime Minister's Office.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Madam, I am a Singaporean but Lee Kuan Yew is not my father. Nor do I consider Lee Kuan Yew my father.

I have a question about the Ministerial Committee. I understand it was set up to look into the public interest aspects of the house. But what little we heard about what it concerns itself with was what Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes were, relating to the house. Are not these the proper subjects of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will? I understand probate was granted − and should not this matter? For the will is a private matter, as the Prime Minister said just now relating to the seventh version of the will. What are the public interest aspects of this will?

Mr Teo Chee Hean : Mdm Speaker, I know that Mr Chen is a Singaporean. We all are. I am glad that he has stated his position very clearly on this subject. I took quite a long time to explain the public interest aspects in why we have an interest in wanting to know what Mr Lee's thinking was. We could have taken quite the opposite view, which is to say, we disregard Mr Lee's view totally, and then, we just decide without taking his view into consideration. We could have done that. I think the Government does that also from time to time, regardless of what personal interests and wishes are.

But we felt that, in this case, there was merit in taking Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes and understandings and thinking on the matter.

We had communication from him and we had discussions with him, too. And we take that into account. We had a letter which he sent to Cabinet. That was his last will. But we also wanted to understand what might have been some of his wishes and thinking around some of the possible options that we were considering. And, hence, we asked the children of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If we wanted to understand his views and we decided not to ask his children, I think that would have been very strange, indeed, and the children would have had a reason to be upset with us − why are you not asking us, why are you ignoring us? We asked all the children.

And I have explained why and how the issue or subject of the will, how it was interpreted, came up. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling placed a great deal of reliance on it. They were focused on one part of the will but not the other and offered various reasons for it. And that is how the subject came up, the will itself. So, we offered each party an opportunity to make clarifications if they wished to. In fact, we asked each party whether they would be alright with letting the other party have a look at the other party's views. And I think that was a very open and transparent process.

And if we had gone about our work and said, look, you know, Party A said this and Party B said that, and I cannot tell you what Party A said, and I cannot tell you what Party B said, there might also have been reason to be upset. But we were quite open and transparent. And we were very, very clear with the siblings, all three of them, that it is not the place of the Committee to determine the validity of the will. I said that clearly several times yesterday, and I said that again today, too. I hope that, with my saying it one more time, Mr Chen would understand it.

Mr Chen Show Mao: Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said often that Singapore is bigger than himself. In this light, I do not consider myself a son of Lee Kuan Yew. Others may─

Mdm Speaker: Please state your clarification, Mr Chen.

Mr Chen Show Mao: That is, different strokes for different folks. My question is not about why Mr Lee Kuan Yew's private wishes should be taken into consideration but why do we look beyond a will that has been granted probate, that has been proven in Court, for his last wishes relating to the house? From all we have heard, that is what the Ministerial Committee concerns itself with. And the Prime Minister just now, in his response to questions about what he would do on the will, said it really has no public interest component.

So, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that these enquiries by the Committee beyond the will for clues of Mr Lee's wishes really undermine the work of the probate Court?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chen, we run the risk of going through the two days' debate all over again about why the issue is placed before Parliament. But I shall leave it to Deputy Prime Minister to reply.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I will try to do this without having to go through a 30-minute speech again. But as I have explained, the relevance is there. Certainly, this was not all the Committee was doing. I think Minister Lawrence Wong has explained what else the Committee was doing, what work the agencies have been doing for the Committee, and we have been considering various things. So, this was not all that the Committee was concerned about. We were concerned about the options, we are concerned about the history and so on.

We are not replacing the work of the Probate Court. I have said that already. Mr Chen is a lawyer. But we seek to understand what Mr Lee's wishes were, what was Mr Lee's thinking. And we make no judgement, we are not in a position to make judgement and we will not make any judgement on the validity of Mr Lee's will. I said so yesterday several times, I said so again today. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Madam. I have two questions. One is for Minister Lawrence Wong. I would like to know, have any other Ministerial Committees been set up for other heritage sites, other than 38 Oxley Road.

I think the second question is to the Prime Minister. We have been reading about the confidence in the Government after this whole saga. I think when we talk about confidence, it is not just about what had happened and what had you done. I think what is also important is how do we move on from here. So, assuming after today − and I would think we have a feeling that probably more allegations would come − I can imagine then, the Government would start having to deal with these allegations again. Would that not then affect the function of this Government in some way? So, would not having a COI or a Parliamentary Select Committee for the purpose of setting a platform, setting a kind of agenda, as well as deadlines, such that if Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling were invited to come for this platform and to make their presentations, whether they refuse or they do, that would actually help us to move on?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Madam, I have explained earlier that when you look at sites of heritage and architectural significance, it is typically an interagency process. The different relevant agencies will come together to discuss this and there have been instances where the discussions have involved the relevant Ministers as well.

Of course, with Oxley Road, it is a unique case because it is not just about heritage. The terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee are also to look at the range of options and to understand Mr Lee's thinking and wishes for the house. And that is why we have put together this Committee and we are coordinating the work of the agencies.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, just to answer Mr Kok's second question. I think it would be very desirable if all the allegations to be made came out in one neat bundle and then we can deal with all of them at once. There is nothing to stop my siblings or anybody else who wants to accuse me on this subject to hold a press conference, lay out all their facts and information and charges and open themselves to questioning. And then, we will all be the wiser. It is up to them.

But as of now, on the basis of what they have said, there is not a reason to convene a Select Committee or a COI. If they say more and it becomes necessary, we will consider it very seriously. And when such a formal forum is convened, I am sure there will be processes to invite, subpoena, produce witnesses, and then to have the matter resolved to the best of our ability. Whether it is the last word, that is very difficult to say because there is freedom of speech.

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I would like to enquire how the Ministerial Committee intends to continue with its work, given the strong feelings of the executors.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, as I have explained, I am really quite puzzled actually what is the difference between the position of Dr Lee Wei Ling, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and what we have been doing. We agree that Dr Lee does not need to move out now, so no decision is needed. We agree on so many things. What some of the perimeters are, we agree that rule of law needs to apply. So, I am actually not quite sure why there is a need for such a furore. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh alluded to certain things, but that is not for me to know. But I hope that we are able to proceed and let the due process that needs to be taken get on with its work. There is work to be done.

And I hope that we are able to proceed calmly, objectively in a considered way to do so without all these heightened emotions being involved in this. And at the appropriate time, when we are ready, we will make a decision. Then, we can consider the matter and decide on the matter. And if it is useful, without heightening public emotions again, to air some of these, I would consider whether it is appropriate to do so.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, please make it short and quick.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the subject of the Hotel Properties Ltd saga came up during this debate more than once. It is helpful for us to think about the mood of the day in 1996. There was an editorial in the Straits Times which summed it up quite perfectly actually. Just one line: "More important from the standpoint of a people's faith in their elected leaders and a nation, and its fair system of governance was that the conclusion was reached after an exhaustive process of investigation followed by a full ventilation in the House."

The issue here is the accuser − and I am referring to Mr Lee Hsien Yang here − yes, the Minister for Finance is correct, these are accusations, aspersions. But who is he? He is not just the brother of the Prime Minister; he is a senior member of the establishment, whether we like it or not. President Scholar, Singapore Armed Forces Scholar, Brigadier-General in the Army, CEO of Singtel, Chairman of the Stock Exchange at one point, Chairman of Republic Polytechnic and a member of the International Advisory Board of Rolls Royce even.

While I agree with the Prime Minister that these are just allegations, I am not sure that closure is something that has been achieved in this House. So, my question to the Prime Minister, if these allegations continue, does he not agree that damage would still be done to the Government in some way or another?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, I have already stated my position and what I consider the best way to deal with this, which is that we have stated our piece. I think Singaporeans have had a surfeit of news on this subject and I do not think they want more. If more statements are made, we will have to consider the position. And I have already explained the circumstances under which we will consider options, whether a Select Committee, a Commission of Inquiry or legal action.

Mdm Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 44(2), the Motion to consider the two Ministerial Statements on 38 Oxley Road lapses at the conclusion of debate.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.38 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]