38 Oxley Road

2.10 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, "That the two Ministerial Statements made by me and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on 38 Oxley Road be considered by Parliament."

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, I would like to speak on two matters in this debate. First, I would clarify the issue of the Deed of Gift between the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the National Heritage Board (NHB), as I was then the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. Second, I would elaborate on due processes for proposals on the conservation and preservation of properties.

First, let me touch on the Deed of Gift. From early 2015 onwards, NHB started planning for a major SG50 exhibition on 6 August 2015, just before the Jubilee Weekend. The exhibition was on Singapore's Founding Leaders. Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015, NHB was also in discussion with the executors of the estate about a donation of artefacts from 38 Oxley Road which could be incorporated into the exhibition.

The Deed of Gift was not based on NHB's standard agreement. The executors of the estate, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, insisted on several unusual conditions. These conditions included (a) the right to buy back the items at $1, so long as the house was not demolished, and (b) the display of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish the house. As Members would have heard just now, the Deed of Gift required NHB to display only part of the demolition clause in Mr Lee's will. In other words, NHB was to display the first part, which sets out Mr Lee's wish to demolish the house, but not the second part, which sets out his wish should the house not be demolished. At that time, NHB did not pick up the significance of this partial quote from the demolition clause.

Ms Lee Suet Fern, who was then the Director on the Board of NHB, was also involved in the discussions between NHB and the executors. She supported the conditions stipulated by the executors in the Deed and, her law firm, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, helped in the process of finalising the Deed.

The executors held firm to many of the terms they had stipulated in the Deed. For example, when NHB asked to amend the $1 buyback provision, the lawyer for the executors stated that this clause was non-negotiable. While the terms were unusual, NHB proceeded to sign the Deed with the executors because it recognised the heritage significance of the artefacts and felt that it would be in the public interest for them to be exhibited.

NHB also assessed that several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. So, NHB signed the Deed with the executors on 8 June 2015. At around the same time, I updated the Prime Minister on the plans for the exhibition and the inclusion of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition, including the conditions stipulated in the Deed. I later shared with him a copy of the Deed on 12 June.

As the Prime Minister shared earlier, he felt that the terms of the Deed were onerous to NHB and he told me that, as a beneficiary of the estate, his consent for the donation had not been sought, the executors had not informed him of the donation nor the terms of the donation.

NHB was caught in a difficult position. It had signed the Deed and had accepted the gifts. But it was not clear if the executors were properly empowered to enter into the Deed without first consulting all beneficiaries. This also raises questions about the validity of the agreement. Moreover, the planned exhibition was just two months away and NHB did not have much time left to resolve the issues and then properly prepare for the exhibition.

I discussed this with the then CEO of NHB Ms Rosa Daniel to see what could be done about the matter. Given the circumstances, we agreed that it would be better to take a pause and not rush the Oxley Road items for the August exhibition. We could exhibit them at a later stage, after the issues had been resolved. So, I asked Ms Daniel to inform Mr Lee Hsien Yang that we would like to put off the display of the Oxley Road artefacts from the August exhibition and do so at some time in the future.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded on 10 June that this request was unacceptable and would be a breach of a legally-binding Deed. In fact, NHB had no intention to breach any legal obligation and Ms Daniel clarified this point in an email to Mr Lee Hsien Yang the next day. She said that the Minister's instructions are that NHB is not to breach its obligations if it has entered into valid agreements which are binding on it.

While the executors were insistent that NHB had to follow through on the exhibition, NHB still had the duty to check whether the Deed of Gift was in order in light of the different views of the beneficiaries. Hence, NHB wrote to the lawyers of the executors to clarify whether probate had been granted for the will, whether there were any other beneficiaries entitled to the assets of the estate and, if so, whether the consent had been obtained for the gift to NHB. Before responding to these queries, the executors of the estate put out a media release on 11 June publicising their donation of items to NHB. This was a surprise to NHB because the queries had not been addressed. So, NHB issued a statement that same night to highlight that there remain some questions on the Deed of Gift which NHB was in the process of clarifying with the executors.

On 12 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to NHB that the executors had not obtained probate for the will but that probate was not necessary for the executors to have the power and authority to enter into the Deed of Gift. He also said that NHB should not be concerned about the position of the beneficiaries under the will. But this response still left open the question of whether there were, indeed, other beneficiaries and whether their consent had been sought for the donation of items to NHB for the exhibition under the stipulated conditions.

Throughout this period, I was discussing the matter with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean as the Prime Minister had said that he would leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to handle the specific dealings between NHB and the executors on the Deed of Gift. Deputy Prime Minister Teo's main concern on the conditions was that NHB was being asked to display a partial quote of the demolition clause which did not fully reflect Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes. He felt that NHB, as a public institution, should remain neutral and should not be drawn into a private disagreement or be used to present a particular point of view which was incomplete.

Nevertheless, after weighing all the factors and considering that NHB had already signed the Deed, both Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I agreed that the pluses of having the exhibition with the Oxley Road artefacts in accordance with the Deed outweighed the potential controversy that was likely to arise. This was a major SG50 exhibition on our founding leaders. We had artefacts not just from the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew but also from the National Archives and the families of other founding leaders. And many of these artefacts had not been displayed before. The artefacts helped to enhance the storyline of the exhibition and to bring out the values of our founding leaders for Singaporeans.

Subsequently on 25 June, the Prime Minister informed me that he had written to the executors, in his capacity as beneficiary, indicating to them that notwithstanding his position on the Deed of Gift, he would not object to the exhibition as he did not want to put NHB in a difficult position.

NHB was thus able to proceed with the exhibition with agreement from all beneficiaries. As NHB needed more time to prepare, it sought the consent of the executors to push back the exhibition date. Eventually, the opening was shifted from 6 August to 21 September 2015. In fact, I attended the opening with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Ms Lee Suet Fern. The exhibition was very well received, and it has been extended till now.

Madam, as I have explained, my discussion with the Prime Minister on the exhibition was in his official capacity and I shared the Deed of Gift with him on that basis. In response to the question from Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, the Deed of Gift did not have a confidentiality clause. If Mr Lee Hsien Loong has asked for the Deed of Gift in his private capacity, NHB would have been entitled to give it to him, given his position as elder son and beneficiary of the estate.

More generally, in a scenario where items are being donated to NHB from an estate, and NHB becomes aware that one of the beneficiaries objects to the terms of the donation, it would be necessary for NHB to take steps to verify that there is agreement from all beneficiaries. Otherwise, it could face a potential claim from a beneficiary whose consent was not given. In this case, Mr Lee Hsien Loong told me that his concern was not with the donation of artefacts to NHB but rather the way it was handled and the terms of the donation, as he had shared in his speech earlier. Despite his personal reservations over how the artefacts were conveyed to NHB by the executors in the Deed of Gift, the Prime Minister did not instruct me to stop the display of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition. Instead, he asked me to take instructions from the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter and that was how the matter was handled.

So, Madam, I have given an account of what happened to the NHB Deed of Gift. Contrary to this being an abuse of power, I believe the matter was handled correctly and above board.

Madam, I will next elaborate on the due process that applies to the conservation and preservation of properties which is something that the Deputy Prime Minister had highlighted briefly in his speech.

The Government undertakes a vigorous assessment process for all such properties before deciding whether or not to conserve or preserve them. I will elaborate briefly on what this process is.

First, Government agencies will undertake detailed research on the preservation or conservation merits of the property of interest. Agencies will have to review the historical, cultural, social and heritage significance of the property, its national importance as well as its architectural merits and rarity. In examining the historical significance of a site, for example, NHB will review how the site has played a role in our national history. In examining the architectural merits of the building, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will study which parts of the building are most architecturally significant, or, if it is a cluster of buildings, which are the most significant buildings within the cluster.

Next, agencies would look into the planning considerations of the property and its surroundings. This includes examining whether there are any technical regulatory requirements which may have an impact on the form of preservation or conservation proposals for the property.

Agencies will also review the allowable uses of the site. For example, URA may look at whether a conserved residential building can be adapted for commercial use or for civic and community purposes. But such a change in use will have to be compatible to its surroundings and supported by infrastructural considerations, such as a potentially higher traffic count brought about by the change of use.

Arising from these planning studies, agencies may then review the need for the Government to acquire the property for conservation or preservation. Under the Preservation of Monuments Act, if a building is occupied as a residence and the Government chooses to gazette it as a monument, then the Government has to acquire it within one year of the preservation order or else the preservation order will lapse. But beyond the legal requirement, the question is whether the planning intent for the conserved or preserved site is best served by having the Government owning the site as opposed to leaving it under private ownership. For example, if the intent for the site is to have significant public access and the owner is not prepared to do so, then one option is, indeed, for the Government to acquire the site.

Madam, this sort of research work provides important baseline information for all properties deemed to have heritage and architectural value. In fact, that is the norm. Agencies will engage and undertake these sorts of research work to provide the baseline information we need for all such properties.

If there is a need to decide on the next step for the property, then the Government agencies will proceed to seek views from the relevant stakeholders. Of course, views will be sought from the property owner. Views will also be sought from relevant professionals and subject matter experts. The URA has a conservation advisory panel while the NHB has a preservation of sites and monuments advisory board. The advisory panels comprise professionals in the building, arts and heritage and education sectors, and will provide their inputs on the conservation or preservation proposals tabled by the agencies. URA and NHB will submit the recommendations of their findings to the respective Ministries for decision thereafter. If the Government, acting through the Ministry of National Development (MND) or the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, decides to pursue the conservation or preservation proposal, the property owner will be given the opportunity to respond and appeal.

Based on past cases, the vast majority of owners would agree with the conservation or preservation proposals. A few have appealed but the final decision for conservation or preservation lies with the Government.

Madam, we should follow this due process for all properties with architectural or heritage merit, including 38 Oxley Road. In fact, prior to the formation of the Ministerial Committee, various agencies have already been working on this issue. NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house. MND and URA have been looking at options for the property as well as the planning and zoning implications arising from the different scenarios. This work was being done at the staff level.

Later, in discussing the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and various Ministerial colleagues, we agreed that it would be useful to have a Ministerial Committee to coordinate the work across agencies and to oversee the matter. That is why MND tabled the proposal at the Cabinet meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on 1 June to set up the Ministerial Committee to draw up a range of possible options for 38 Oxley Road. As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, the Ministerial Committee has no preconceived notion on what to do with the property. But the current Government has the duty to do the work now in listing out all the options and to prepare ahead of the implications of each one of them. That is the right and responsible thing to do.

Madam, like many Singaporeans, I am saddened by the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. Many baseless allegations have been made against the Government and I hope this debate will give us a chance to discuss the issues openly, dispel doubts and strengthen confidence in our public institutions and system of government.

Above all, we will continue to uphold the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding leaders and do our utmost to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker: We will take all clarifications after the speeches. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

2.26 pm

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, the controversy surrounding 38 Oxley Road, the private home of our Founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has been the subject of intense public scrutiny for the past few weeks.

At its heart lies the issue of whether the private home of Mr Lee should be demolished in accordance with his personal wishes. Other critical and crucial ancillary issues raised include allegations of abuse of power and the manipulation of our State Organs by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

On the issue of 38 Oxley Road, public opinion has been deeply divided.

Madam, I, therefore, rise to address two main concerns raised by Singaporeans. One, why has the Government set up a Ministerial Committee to consider options that may differ from the personal wishes of the late Mr Lee? Two, why is this issue being debated in Parliament?

Madam, in response to the first question, some argue that this is strictly a private battle. They say any dispute over the last will and testament of Mr Lee should be a matter placed for judicial decision between the estate, executors and beneficiaries. Our Government should not interfere.

Many of my residents have shared their views with me on whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished. Opinions are mixed. There is no consensus. Therefore, no view is without merit. Whether one agrees with or is opposed to the demolition of 38 Oxley Road is a matter of opinion, and valid, reasonable arguments prevail on both sides of the aisle.

However, whether 38 Oxley Road should be demolished is not up for debate today. We have not convened to decide this. The question is whether the Government should have set up the Ministerial Committee and placed itself in the position to consider options that may not be in line with the late Mr Lee's personal wishes.

The allegation made is that steps taken by the Government to consider preserving 38 Oxley Road in any form or manner are invidious, aimed at furthering sinister political ends.

Madam, I do not intend to delve into the merits or the lack of merits of the allegation but merely wish to raise a second perspective to this issue. There is a Chinese phrase that I keep in mind whenever a complex conundrum of an ethical nature confronts me and that is "合 情 合 理 合 法". That is, to see if the action taken was reasonable, logical and legal. If any action meets all these three criteria, then more likely than not, it is an ethically sound one.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the Founding Prime Minister of our country. Our history, the odds and obstacles we faced and how far we have come bears no repeating today. Supporters or detractors alike, there is no one in Singapore who can reasonably deny the crucial role Mr Lee played in bringing Singapore from Third World to First.

Mr Lee played the role of a Founding Prime Minister of a country post-Independence, not unlike Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India or Chairman Mao Zedong of China. Citizens of these respective countries may not all subscribe to the politics or personalities of these political figures, but they stand for more than just their political or personal beliefs. Their place in a nation's history cannot be replaced and should not be forgotten.

Madam, to Singaporeans, Mr Lee stood for far more than just himself. This was clearly evident during his passing and funeral in 2015. Mr Lee stood for the fundamental values of what Singapore represents − multiculturalism, meritocracy, good governance, rule of law, the list goes on. I am sure all Singaporeans agree with me when I say that the ideals of these values associated with Mr Lee should be passed down to latter generations of Singaporeans.

Preserving 38 Oxley Road is one way to do so. I grant detractors that it is not the only way or may not be the best way to do so, but I am of the respectful and humble view that it will be a great dereliction of duty of any Singapore government of the day not to even consider the possibility of doing so.

This is not an alien concept either. In the United States, their very first President, George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Virginia, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Therefore, what we must ask ourselves is this: is it reasonable, logical, legal, that is, 合 情 合 理 合 法, for our Government to set up a Ministerial Committee to consider the possibility of preserving the home of Mr Lee? All things considered, the answer must be yes.

Madam, the next question then is: why are we debating this in Parliament? Some Singaporeans say that Parliament is not the place to settle family disputes. Well, they are absolutely right. A simple answer is that we are not doing so today. We are not here to settle family disputes. We are here today to address the serious allegations made against the Prime Minister and Cabinet for abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs for personal needs. We are here because the integrity of the Prime Minister and our Government has been called into question and Singaporeans have a right to know the full details of these allegations.

How then is this different from all the other allegations made by many others over the years? Why the different approach, some argue. My sense from speaking with Singaporeans on this issue is that the perception of credibility is higher because of the individuals making the allegations. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are children of the late Mr Lee and siblings to the Prime Minister. Being family members to two of our Prime Ministers suggests that they are in a position to know or possess information that ordinary Singaporeans may not. This may not necessarily be true. But there is this public perception, the perception that allegations made by the Prime Minister's siblings or family may be more credible than others.

Madam, it is, therefore, imperative that these allegations are addressed head on. A formal national forum, such as a Parliamentary debate, is ideal to address these allegations. It is important because such allegations have far-reaching implications, not only about the decision to demolish a house, but the integrity and reputation of the Singapore Government is at stake at home and abroad. Amidst an uncertain world and a volatile economy, nothing can be more important.

The Prime Minister's Statement today provides the answers needed to Singaporeans to clear the allegations of abuse of power and manipulation of State Organs. This is clear. We all hope that this matter will be resolved with finality after this debate.

The issues relating to the late Mr Lee's personal wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road, his last will and testament, as well as the dispute between family members, are private personal family matters and should rightly remain so.

However, as pointed out by many Singaporeans leading up to the debate, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are not present in this House to participate in this debate today. There is, therefore, a likelihood that further rebuttals and counter-allegations will continue in social media and the press after this debate concludes. Singaporeans are concerned that a further protraction of this saga will harm and detract Singapore from other far more pressing and urgent national and international issues that confront us.

We do not want this to happen. Once the allegations against the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have been put to rest after this debate, our Government must press ahead with our national agenda.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

2.35 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this is a sad day for Parliament that we have to hear and debate the dispute of the descendants of our Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It is sadder still that this whole saga is centred on Mr Lee's will because his wish on 38 Oxley Road is well-known.

I would like to state from the outset that the Workers' Party (WP) has only a simple and broad position on this unfortunate saga, that is, the WP is concerned about how this saga would affect our nation. The opinions of the WP members and Members of Parliament (MPs) on the other aspects of the issues are just as diverse as public opinion has been in these few weeks.

As an outsider to this dispute, I personally believe that the acrimony between the Lee descendants has much deeper roots than just the fate of the house arising out of the will. This is because all sides seem to be willing to risk the national interest by bringing this private matter into the public domain.

This is a fundamental point that I want to make which I personally feel strongly about. The problem with this whole saga is that the line between the private and the public has been blurred and crossed too many times by the Prime Minister, the Lee siblings and the Government, too. We need to restore the line, make it a bright red line, resolve the aspects of disputes that have crossed into the public domain and push the dispute back into the private domain. We need to do this so as to move on for far more important issues that are truly national issues. This saga is distracting the Government, distracting Singaporeans, distracting the international audience and damaging the Singapore brand.

Mdm Speaker, the line between the private and the public is a very important one for good governance. It is also the foundation of Singapore's unforgiving anti-corruption stance. Unfortunately, in this whole saga, I personally think that the line has been blurred and crossed many times by all sides.

First, 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 in Singapore. It is a reckless thing to do and I do not see how this is in the national interest.

If the accusers have details and concrete evidence that the Prime Minister has been lying and abusing his power, allowing his wife to influence the appointment of public officials, they should make all of them public by now. They should not be waging a continuous media campaign to keep the nation in suspense.

However, the Government has also contributed to the squabble. It does not help that the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues have responded in kind on Facebook and even making counter allegations on the motive and character of the other party.

The Government should set an example and needs to maintain its dignity in the face of insults to its integrity. It should not be involved in a Facebook brawl for the whole world to see. Cabinet members, more than anyone else, should refrain from making insinuations about the character and motivations of the accusers. The Government should not continue with this dispute in the public domain.

Mdm Speaker, good government cannot be achieved in social media. The Prime Minister is faced with serious allegations from his brother and sister. These allegations need to be addressed in a proper manner. As the Prime Minister once said himself, "Such matters cannot be just you say, I say. It is the hallmark of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government in the past to get to the bottom of such matters via the Court." I believe that the "you say, I say" exchange will continue in social media if the Prime Minister fails to take action to put a stop to it.

The Prime Minister, as he had said earlier in the Ministerial Statement, seems to hope to resolve this issue after this Parliament session. But how sure is he that his siblings will not continue to make allegations or adding new allegations against him? He is already being accused of trying to cover up and whitewash himself by using Parliament.

Next, it seems to me that the Minister for Law was a close personal friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other members of the Lee family. He has now fallen out with some members of the Lee family. Dr Lee Wei Ling said he was a changed person. He was previously involved in giving personal advice relating to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. However, he is also now part of the Ministerial Committee which is looking at the issue of the house arising from the will. Is there not a conflict of interest there?

Furthermore, the current Attorney-General (AG), Mr Lucien Wong, was acting as Mr Lee Hsien Loong's personal lawyer in his private dispute against his siblings. But now, the same person is in the position to advise the Government and the Cabinet on matters related to the house and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will. Is there also a conflict of interest here? Was this consideration taken into account when he was appointed the AG? Can the Prime Minister clarify the role of the Law Minister and the AG in this matter and explain to the House whether there is any conflict of interest? If so, how are they going to account to the public for this? Is their current position still tenable?

Mdm Speaker, I am personally perplexed and lost, as are many Singaporeans, on the Lee family saga. However, this is not a Korean drama show. It is a serious matter because it affects the credibility of our entire country. The timing of the public blow-up of the private dispute is also unfortunate. At this juncture, the country faces serious challenges. Singapore is facing a tricky and volatile geopolitical situation and the Government has to navigate our small state between a self-centred America and a more assertive China skillfully and carefully. We also seem to be vulnerable to the worsening security situation in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia with troubling cases of self-radicalisation surfacing at home.

We had only recently embarked on a critical transformation of the Singapore economy and workforce to enable our companies and workers to seize the opportunities of technological disruption to stay competitive. We are still fixing persistent problems with our physical and social infrastructure, in particular, the recent continuous major Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns.

Although the Prime Minister has said this saga will not affect the work of the Government, I am of the view that it is a serious distraction to the Government in dealing with the serious challenges when the Cabinet members − all of them are not members of the Lee family − but have been unnecessarily drawn into the dispute which, to me, is essentially a family dispute.

The Ministers need to focus on rallying Singaporeans to be united in facing the challenges and not be participating in a divisive dispute. The Government needs to move on. I hope that all necessary steps are taken by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to achieve a resolution as soon as possible.

In this regard, I have a couple of personal suggestions for the Government to consider and hope to end the matter and move on.

First, I am of the view that the correct platform to settle the private dispute is the Court. Individuals who make less serious allegations that undermine the reputation and authority of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers have been brought to task for libel. There is no reason why this time it should be different because it comes from the Lee family.

In fact, the allegations are much more serious. Given the past track record, not doing so would risk the Government giving the impression that it is afraid of what the Lee siblings might say or reveal. This will taint the trust Singaporeans have placed in the Government and compromise the high standards that the Government prides itself on achieving and aspires to maintain.

Anyway, this Lee family saga playing out on Facebook has become an ugly media circus. Settling this in Court will enable everyone to put forward their sides of the story with evidence and with dignity.

Second, the Government has the power under the law to decide what to do with 38 Oxley Road, as what Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said. The Government can take the options available under the law by going through the process of assessment to make a decision like any other important heritage sites in Singapore.

I believe that, to a large extent, it is the delay in acting which has led to this sorry state of affairs. Why is there a need for a Ministerial Committee to look into this when the Government clearly has the power to act decisively in the national interest? What further deliberations does the Committee intend to make and how much more time does it need to come to a decision?

Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans are embarrassed. Singapore's international reputation has taken a beating. Some countries which had a high regard for us are laughing at us, and the international media has amplified and maximised the bad publicity on Singapore.

The Lee family saga has shaken international confidence in Singapore, which is known as a country of political and social stability. The country's reputation is at stake, the Prime Minister's credibility has been called into question and the Government's authority has been undermined.

I urge the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do whatever is necessary to bring this dispute to a quick resolution. Settle the dispute in the appropriate forum, which is the Court. Restore the line of distinction between the private and the public.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.

2.49 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Ever since I saw Mr Lee Hsien Yang's Facebook post on 14 June, my mood has been sombre. When this first happened, the face of Mr Lee Kuan Yew is what was in my mind first thing in the morning.

Looking at the situation today, I was thinking that Mr Lee Kuan Yew must be very sad, and maybe very angry as well.

The Prime Minister has said this before, that he hopes to see his late father's wish being fulfilled, but he also said, it will be up to the Government of the day then to make the decision.

On one hand, the Prime Minister hopes to be the filial son of the family, fulfilling his late father's wish; at the same time, as a responsible Prime Minister, he must not interfere with the normal procedures of the Government. Because how to resolve this matter on 38 Oxley Road is a statutory right of the Ministers. In this incident, I see the dilemma faced by the Prime Minister.

In response to Mr Low's question just now, the Prime Minister said he had attempted many possible ways to resolve the dispute privately. However, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has chosen to accuse the Prime Minister openly via the social media platform. As a result, the Prime Minister had to apologise to all Singaporeans who are disturbed and confused by the news of this private family dispute. From this incident, I can see how the Prime Minister is being wronged and how he is exercising forbearance.

Singaporeans put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the family unit. The family represents warmth, mutual trust and mutual care. To bring a private family dispute between siblings to the social media platform for open discussion in the middle of the night, and to consistently throw out new allegations day after day via Facebook posts, are not going to make the issue clearer. Instead, it will only widen the differences and worsen the relationship.

The residents whom I had met hope to see reconciliation, rather than the breaking up of the family. I hope that the consistent attacks on the social media platform can cease, so as to leave some room for every party involved and, at the same time, protect the international image of Singapore.

The allegation that the Government is abusing its power is a serious allegation. It does not matter if this allegation is the key point or a subpoint of this family dispute. It is clear that it has affected the people's confidence in the Government and Singapore's international reputation and, thus, it is necessary for us to clear the air in Parliament.

In the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, he said that there is no need for us to decide if we should demolish the house for the time being, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying there. This decision might only need to be taken 20 to 30 years down the road. I think it is very important to clear the air, because some people have the misconception that we have to make the decision now or that the Government has already decided not to demolish the house. This is not the case.

The Ministerial Committee is only asking some questions currently, so as to get a better understanding of the situation. By right, this should not cause any conflict. The Deputy Prime Minister has explained that the Ministerial Committee actually does not have the power to decide on whether the house should be demolished or not. What the Committee can do is to give the Cabinet some suggestions. Thus, there is no basis to the allegation that the Government is abusing its power.

The parties involved might think that the setting up of the Ministerial Committee itself is an abuse of power. But from what I understand, in the day-to-day work of the Cabinet, it is very common to set up different Ministerial Committees. For example, I am part of the baby formula Committee, led by two Ministers. It seems nothing unusual, it is just part and parcel of the Government's work.

Furthermore, if we were to study carefully the will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, we can see there are actually two parts. The first part is regarding his wish to demolish the house, whereas the second part emphasised that everything must follow the law and Government procedures first. Mr Lee knew very well the relationship between individuals and the law and he would never surpass legal procedures because of his personal wish.

Some people might ask, besides legality, should we not also consider feelings and reasons in this matter? Should we give more thoughts to Mr Lee's wishes? I can see that it is exactly out of respect for reasons and feelings that the Ministerial Committee consulted the Lee family members and mulled over different options. But unfortunately, even consultation like this was criticised.

Then why did Mr Lee Hsien Yang come up with such allegations? Only they themselves know the truth. However, it is clear from the questions raised that the parties involved do not trust the Government nor our law enforcement agencies. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he had no confidence in the Prime Minister and he even suggested that he would leave Singapore unless the Prime Minister is no longer the Prime Minister. He wants the Prime Minister to step down.

Mdm Speaker, trust is the premise for any reconciliation. Only with trust can people communicate and collaborations become easier and happier. If there is a lack of trust, no matter what one does, it will still feel like things are not right.

When there is an enquiry, if there is a trust, what we see is a concern and a normal procedure. But if there is no trust, then what we see is spying and abuse of power.

For an action like packing up of stuff, if there is trust, what we see is assistance, dogsbody work that is of no importance; but if there is no trust, then what we see is interference and theft.

It is precisely because we have trust in Singapore, when you see a Traffic Policeman, you will not worry that he is a robber. And because there is trust, in Singapore, when you see someone is injured in a traffic accident, you would go forward and help him and not think that he is a conman.

This kind of mutual trust among Singaporeans does not come out of the blue; it is formed after multiple elections of credible and principled leaders as the basis and is built upon the way we rule our nation with our Judiciary, Parliamentary, Government and education systems.

These systems ensure that we set correct and effective targets that balance the wants of all walks of society and also the long-term and short-term needs of all Singaporeans. These systems ensure that those who made mistakes would not go unpunished and also ensure that there are checks and balances among the different powers. This enables the Government to give priority to the common interest of the people when making any policy decisions.

These systems were built up painstakingly by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our Pioneers over the years. These truly are the most treasured legacy left behind by Mr Lee.

Ever since Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed away two years ago, Singapore's law and systems have not changed a bit. With or without this recent incident, Singapore's ruling system is still here. Singapore is still Singapore.

Just in 2016, Singapore was ranked No 7 on the Global Least Corrupt Index, overtaking western countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

After this incident went public, I have asked many residents on what they think about the allegation of abuse of power. Their responses were very simple, "We trust our Prime Minister." They said, "We do not think that he is such a person". Such simple responses actually encompass a lot of more important meanings.

Now, what shall we do? Since the eruption of this incident, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had issued at least three statements. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers have also responded and explained the functions of the Ministerial Committee.

When faced with this incident, we can, of course, spend an onerous amount of time putting together every detail and what every party had said, so as to conduct a thorough investigation and get to the bottom of things based on all possible assumptions and imaginations. But we must make a reasonable choice. Do we really want the valuable time of the Prime Minister and Ministers to be spent on refuting allegations on Facebook, rather than solving pressing issues faced by Singaporeans?

Perhaps we should have more confidence in our systems, and in ourselves as well. We can be courageous and confident to face the post-Lee Kuan Yew era and embrace the opportunities and challenges of the new world order.

We can also be courageous to forgive those who have disappointed us, solve differences rationally and face tomorrow together.

In many years to come, 38 Oxley Road might or might not be around, but what I hope to see is that Singapore's core values and the mutual trust among Singaporeans will never disappear.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in English, please.

In the past two weeks, 38 Oxley Road became Singapore's most famous address with global news networks carrying more than 160 articles with screaming headlines. I have had many conversations with residents since the issue broke. The tirade online in the name of fulfilling Mr Lee's wishes is a strange way to honour Mr Lee's legacy. There are many theories as to why it had happened. From sibling rivalry, to warring factions in the family, to a fallout due to money. We do not know any better, not being privy to family matters. But if we were to look at the reasons presented in the joint statement on 14 June, namely, that keeping the house would help fulfil dynastical ambitions and provide political capital, I would say that that has not found traction on the ground.

The Singapore public is a rational and discerning one. To suppose that they will vote based on a "halo effect" bestowed upon the Prime Minister by the simple act of him moving into a house, is an insult to the intelligence of Singapore voters.

That said, I had come into this debate with certain questions on my mind. Could the Prime Minister have done anything better to prevent such a situation from happening? For instance, why offer the house for $1 to Dr Lee Wei Ling and then subsequently sell the house to Mr Lee Hsien Yang for full market value? This lends scope to the idea that the Prime Minister had sought to play Mr Lee Hsien Yang out by making him pay 150% value for the house and then subsequently blocking him with the Ministerial Committee.

I understand that the Prime Minister subsequently donated the proceeds from the house to charity. He then recused himself from Government deliberations on the property. Some question if it is possible for the Prime Minister to thoroughly remove himself from the equation, given that he is the Prime Minister. But I think that would be akin to saying that the Health Minister should not have family members using Singapore's health services or that the Minister of National Development should not buy a house. I think Deputy Prime Minister Teo has explained quite clearly about the code of conduct that public officeholders and civil servants need to adhere to.

What I cannot quite get my head around is why there is so much unhappiness over an issue that apparently cannot be settled now. Dr Lee Wei Ling could be staying there for the next 30 years. Therefore, there is nothing for the Government to do now as no decision needs to or can be made. So, I am not sure what the dispute is about. Why is there any argument since the house cannot be demolished now anyway? It looks to me that a sensible course of action is to consider different options and to talk to the family members about various options and to understand their thoughts about the matter.

Another question I have is why the Prime Minister did not challenge the last will when he first got to know its contents? The Prime Minister obviously believes that the circumstances around the drafting of the last will are suspect and had actually gone to the extent of doing a statutory declaration which has very serious implications if he is subsequently found out to have lied. Mr Lee Hsien Yang can actually sue the Prime Minister for what he, the Prime Minister, has set out in his statutory declaration, namely, that he has grave concerns about the events surrounding the making of the last will and by what appears to be a conflict of interest involving Mrs Lee Suet Fern.

I think we should clarify this because it helps to potentially establish why we face the current situation. I note that the joint statement by Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang was published on 14 June, before the timeline of end of June which was the original proposed date for their response to the questions. Since then, there has been no clarification by the siblings on who drafted the last will and the circumstances in which it was prepared.

Next, now that we are aware that there are two parts to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, it appears ironical that those who accuse the Prime Minister of an abuse of power are asking for an exemption from the rule of law, that they are asking for an upfront commitment to the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, relying only on the first half of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will and ignoring the fact that Mr Lee knew that the laws of the land will always prevail and which he mentioned in the second part of his will. They are also ignoring the fact that since Dr Lee is staying there, there is nothing for the Government to do now. I would think that this Government is not able to give any commitment about what is going to happen in 30 years and that any decision cannot be binding on future governments.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew personally oversaw the passage of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966 and the Preservation of Monuments Act. In the Act, authorities will seek the owner's consent in the case of a private dwelling that has been gazetted for preservation or conservation, but the Government can also acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act if the owners are unwilling.

Given that the Preservation of Monuments Act has been in place since the 1970s, at a time when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the Prime Minister and in the driving seat for enacting Bills to spearhead Singapore's development, it is clear that Mr Lee knew that the decision to gazette a house for preservation or conservation is ultimately the responsibility of the Government and he would have expected due process to be followed even if the matter to be decided had been his own house.

Mr Lee's greatest legacy is the system he had put in place together with our other founding fathers to ensure Singapore's stability, progress and sustainability. The Singapore system is one that is founded on law, respected institutions, a credible Civil Service and leaders with integrity. With these as foundations, our society is one that reflects trust between the Government and the people, and trust among our people.

It is assuring to note that since the issue broke, our stock markets have not tanked, asset prices remain stable, and the Singapore dollar actually rose in the same period. This shows that confidence and trust in our system and in our leaders remain strong.

We will have to decide where we go from here. No less than three statements have been issued by PMO since the allegations broke. The Prime Minister has explained with regard to the allegations of abuse of power levelled against him while both Deputy Prime Ministers have explained the role of Ministerial Committees.

We can continue to debate this issue, attempt to poke holes everywhere and also dwell into what could have been done better and engage in as many imagined scenarios as we can. But even so, I suspect the issue will not close even after today's debate.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang has stated that he does not trust Mr Lee Hsien Loong as a brother, as a leader —

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sun, you have only one minute left. Please conclude your speech.

Ms Sun Xueling: Okay. And he would only reconsider his position to leave Singapore if the Prime Minister were no longer in a position of power. It appears that he wants to bring down the Prime Minister.

I suspect that when an individual chooses to look at the world through a distorted lens, there are conspiracies and shadows everywhere. A clarification becomes an act of aggression, cleaning the house becomes intermeddling and theft.

We will have to make a conscious choice if we want the energies of our Prime Minister and other Ministers named in the saga to spend their time addressing allegations levelled at them over Facebook anytime of the day, but there are childcare centres to be built, seniors to be taken care of, MRTs that need to be looked into, our homeland and cybersecurity defended and economic restructuring to be carried out. There is work to be done, dogsbody work, and I hope our political leaders and the Government can get on with it.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

3.10 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I find that, this time, writing a speech is most difficult because of the allegations that were there. Much has been said and will be said about this matter, and so, this time, I think I will be terse.

On the fundamental level, the 38 Oxley Road case is one whereby private citizens, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, are alleging that the Prime Minister and the Government are abusing their powers. I think it is, therefore, necessary for the Government and Parliament to address these allegations in an open, transparent and fair manner. As mentioned in the Straits Times, in our tightly knitted Singapore community, when relationships are complex and interwoven, where duties and private relationships intermingle, how do we ensure that there are institutional checks and balances to prevent any abuse?

This furore has raised many questions in the minds of Singaporeans I have spoken to. These are some of the questions that have been directed to the Government as well as to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Let me just share some of them here.

Who drafted the last will? Why the rush to prepare and sign the will? And when Dr Lee Wei Ling claimed that the Prime Minister had, I quote, "angrily threatened to gazette 38 Oxley Road", is there anyone else who can collaborate on this allegation? When Dr Lee Wei Ling also alleged that photographers from the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) helped Ms Ho Ching photograph and catalogue the late Mr Lee's artefacts, questions arise, like, why documentation must be done when the family is still in a period of grief?

When Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee alleged, and I quote, "we feel hugely uncomfortable and closely monitored in our country", does Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have any substantial evidence for these statements? Did the Government investigate these statements and, if it had, what were the findings? Were Mr Lee and Dr Lee being interviewed and questioned after they had made these statements? When both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling alleged that the Prime Minister harbours political ambitions for his son Mr Li Hongyi, again, where is the evidence? What is the Prime Minister's position on this?

Since the Government knew of the dispute within the family, why did the state not let the dispute be settled before considering possible actions for 38 Oxley Road? What is the reason for the Government's choice for not taking the probate at face value and focus solely on the historic value of the house? Why must a Ministerial Committee be set up when we have the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Board which can decide on whether 38 Oxley Road should be preserved, demolished or any other options? What is it in this particular case that is beyond the mandate of the Board that they cannot decide or advise and how do we know in future when or whether a Ministerial Committee should be set up to look at preservation of particular sites and monuments?

And in the case of the appointment of Mr Lucien Wong as the AG, was the President formally informed of the current AG's former role as the Prime Minister's personal lawyer? If he was informed, then how did the President address this issue of potential conflict of interest?

What does "open, transparent and fair" mean? To me, it means being able to find satisfactory and trustworthy responses to the above questions. It also means all individuals involved should get a fair hearing, their statements carefully studied by an independent panel and these proceedings made fully available to the public as well, precisely because these allegations are serious and that is why we are here today.

The Parliament sits here to hear, as we have done, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's elaborate statements and I thank them for it. But I would state that it now still sounds like a case of "your words against mine and mine against yours". I believe the public would also want to hear from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling and all the players involved as well in the same manner as a matter of fairness.

As such, Parliament might be the right place to air the Government's position but may not be the right place to settle this issue once and for all, as some of the Members have wished for. So, they may have to consider another independent platform that will allow all parties to present their cases.

Some people have spoken of the desire for closure on this issue. But what kind of closure do we want? A good closure is not just about restoring or maintaining faith and confidence in the Government. It is also about the opportunity to scrutinise and interrogate existing systems and structures. We must ensure this mechanism that we want to hold on to such that it will not be misinterpreted in our efforts in disincubating this issue as a calibrated public relations exercise.

This is crucial on many levels. We have to show that the system we have in place are robust, with checks and balances built in to withstand open scrutiny. A good closure can only be achieved if our system inspires confidence by being truly transparent and allowing for fair hearing from all sides − Government officials and individual citizens. As such, I would like for Parliament to consider setting up a public inquiry on this matter, maybe through a Parliamentary Select Committee, so that all parties involved can have their allegations and statements articulated and scrutinised equally.

It is important for Singaporeans to have an unwavering belief in our system of Government. In a moment of crisis, the resilience of Singapore and our system is at the same time being tested and strengthened. This is a case when the private and the Government disagree. How should we sort this out? And maybe I would suggest for the Government to consider seriously setting up an independent ombudsman to deal with such disputes in future whenever they arise.

I have one more point to say and this relates to the emotional aspects of heritage and memory. We all hold on to our memories. We want to remember and preserve things we hold dearly in a specific way. Some buildings and monuments do not only impact individuals but also the wider community. The loss of our national heritage, whether the National Library, the National Theatre, dragon playground or Bukit Brown Cemetery, can be very emotional, affecting not just the mind but the heart and soul of the people involved. Very often, past decisions have been made favouring pragmatism over idealism. Society has had to accept the decisions and just move on.

So, I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledging that, in the past, such work has been overzealous. However, in this particular case, it is a bit different from the National Library building because the National Library and Bukit Brown Cemetery were public spaces. But now, we have a private estate where the community believes that it has a lot of historical value. And how do we then balance the need of the individuals as well as the state?

In the case of 38 Oxley Road, can a decision be made with wisdom and clarity? Will the closure we all seek ever be fully realised? Many elderly people I meet through the course of my work on end-of-life issues share with me stories about their wills. Although they know what they want, they are very apprehensive and worry about how other family members would think. When I asked them if they have discussed the matter with their family members, they said it is difficult to talk about such things. Such obstacles, combined with feelings of pride and fear and blindness, can lead to decisions that seed future disputes. It is then when conversations become important.

And so, in future, when wills are being made, should we not consider having this possibility whereby family members should be part of the process and maybe be a requirement? Of course, there is contention about that.

Family does not always have a beautiful utopian image that we like to conjure. Family is all about relationships. Where there are disputes, how do we repair a broken relationship? Honestly, I do not know if it is ever possible, because in our Chinese saying, we have said this, "破 镜 难 圆 ", that is, "a broken mirror can never come together".

I would like to end with some words from Shakespeare's King Lear because as I was going through all this, King Lear kept going through my mind. The last words of the play ring very loudly, "The weight of this sad time we must obey. Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. The oldest hath borne most. We that are young shall never see so much, nor live so long."

I hope this incident, whatever its final decision, will only strengthen our resolve to make Singapore exist and its system even more robust, open and transparent.

Mdm Speaker: Before I proceed to call the next Member, let me just remind Members that the debate is on (a) Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road; and (b) the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. So, let us confine the debate to the integrity of the Government, its processes, institutions and leadership and not talk about the merits of the family dispute. Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

3.21 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, please allow me to start my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, please allow me to wish you Selamat Hari Raya, Mdm Speaker, and I also seek your forgiveness, and to all Members in this House and Muslim Singaporeans, too.

Over the past few weeks, an unexpected development caught many Singaporeans by surprise. The quarrel between siblings from the family of Singapore's founder, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was made public and affected all of us.

This is especially since the allegations were mainly aimed towards the eldest son of Mr Lee, who is also the Prime Minister. What is more serious are the allegations levelled by his own siblings that are certainly hard to ignore and instead should be addressed properly without making matters worse.

Within the Malay community, based on my own observations and conversations, many have expressed concern and are quite uncomfortable with matters like having a family quarrel so openly. Some felt that it is a private matter and should be resolved within the family itself, based on some of the issues that were raised.

Some are confused, some have raised questions, and some have queried how such a quarrel could happen. To them, in line with our cultural values, it is not good to talk about such matters. What more when it involves the family of a leader who is renowned and beyond compare? As children, it is our responsibility to protect our family's good name, regardless of their position.

However, we should understand that this is not a trivial dispute, because it involves issues of national interest and also involves our Prime Minister. The allegations that were made can affect the integrity of the leadership and also the Government, as well as the people's confidence, and this should be addressed firmly.

Most importantly, Singaporeans should know the true facts. With that, they can decide for themselves why this dispute is brought to the open now because all it does is confuse matters further to the point that it affects the reputation of the Government and Singapore. Our limited resources should not be spent on addressing issues that essentially should not have been raised until it becomes the focus of the Government, especially since we are facing many national challenges.

I am moved by the Prime Minister's apology, as well as his explanations and clarifications about the actual situation. It is clearly difficult for the Prime Minister, seeing that he is the Prime Minister and also the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Others who are involved in this issue are also prominent people and have served in various capacities in Singapore. That is why today's session is very important.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister and also the Deputy Prime Minister for their focus on safeguarding the Government's integrity in this Chamber. Although I do not think that this session can resolve the dispute, however, as many Singaporeans have wished for, it is hoped that this session can address the various allegations about the Government's abuse of power and any conflict of interest amongst those who are involved, including the Prime Minister, in the matters related to 38 Oxley Road.

It is important for us to address four main issues. Firstly, the role of the Ministerial Committee and the role of the Prime Minister. Second, should the Government involve itself with the issue of who prepared the last will? Thirdly, whether there was any conflict of interest in the issue of the Deed of Gift. Fourthly, is Parliament the most appropriate platform?

I will touch on the first matter in my Malay speech, and the rest in my English speech later.

I understand that the formation of a Ministerial committee is a normal thing as the Cabinet forms Ministerial committees on many strategic matters. Therefore, is the 38 Oxley Road issue such an important matter that it requires a Ministerial-level committee?

In the Prime Minister's speech just now, he has convinced the people that the Government acted independently of the Prime Minister, especially since it has to make a decision in which the Prime Minister himself has a personal stake.

Singaporeans' views about the residence at 38 Oxley Road have been mixed. Tradition teaches us to respect the wishes of the late Mr Lee and the wishes of the family. However, the house is not any house, and its historical significance has evoked an emotional response from many Singaporeans. Many have also voiced out and wrote in for the house to be preserved. Hence, we can understand why the Government took into account and considered the historical significance of the house and explore options for the house.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who also chairs the Ministerial Committee, have explained further about the role of this committee and why it was studying family matters, even though the late Mr Lee had several times stated his desire for the house to be demolished.

If the Government's position is that no decision needs to be made as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling still resides there, why was there a hurry to form this committee? There are other matters regarding the potential value of the site of the house and the Government's jurisdiction about preserving the house as a heritage. These matters require explanations. Otherwise, incorrect facts and allegations can confuse many people. In the end, after the sequence of events have become clearer, based on the facts presented, we are more informed that the Ministerial Committee and the Prime Minister have given the commitment that no decision will be taken as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling still resides in the house.

As long as no final decision needs to be made until it is time to do so, what is the actual intention of making this dispute public? What is the real motivation behind this unhappiness? This can confuse the people and should be resolved honestly before it becomes prolonged.

The house, the family involved, and even the institutions and laws created regarding matters like land acquisition and heritage protection, are all the legacy of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Therefore, I reckon that Singaporeans do not wish to see these institutions and legacy become tainted by this dispute.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the last couple of weeks have been a difficult one for many Singaporeans. As we deal with the information being shared by both parties on social media, we also had to contend with the country's history, systems and reputation being questioned in the international media − a source of concern and, sometimes, embarrassment to many Singaporeans I spoke to.

But at the heart of it all, amidst all the attention and information being shared by many quarters, the one question that I was left to grapple with was: what was the issue about in the first place?

We know that according to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the house need not be demolished until his daughter chooses not to live in it. The Government is also clear that it will respect Mr Lee's wish in this regard. Hence, it is not as if a decision was taken. We have been assured before by the Government that as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in 38 Oxley Road, it shall remain intact.

So, why is this matter being debated now? And we are left puzzled as to what is the underlying motivation behind this dispute. If the Government has committed not to make a decision at this point in time and not on behalf of the government of the future, then what are this dispute and the public allegations all about? Is it just about the house or is there more to this?

The other concern is a question of principle. For decades, many regular Singaporeans have had their homes and land acquired for the greater national good. Some for development of Housing and Development Board flats or MRT lines, while others for heritage and preservation. So many others have sacrificed − not everyone willingly − for the greater good and national interest. If some members of the Lee family believe that they should be exempted from Government deliberations or decisions just because they are a family of standing, then I think this sets the wrong principles and precedence. Based on the Prime Minister's Statement earlier, I can only guess that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised and respected this. Otherwise, he could have left out the second part of paragraph 7 of his will or deliberated the demolishment of the home while he was still alive.

Regardless of the motivations and timing, this issue has raised many questions, particularly certain allegations against the Prime Minister and the Government of abuse of power. Like many Singaporeans, I would like to know if these allegations had an ounce of truth and I trust that this Parliamentary session must shed light because Singaporeans want to know the truth.

Mdm Speaker, there are four particular issues where questions need to be answered. First, the role of the Ministerial Committee. I understand that Ministerial Committees are common and the Cabinet has assembled them on many strategic matters. But was the case of 38 Oxley Road such an important issue that it required assembling a Ministerial Committee? Would it not have sufficed to have URA, NHB or any other relevant Government agency assess the matter and give its recommendations to the Cabinet instead?

And if, indeed, it was necessary, then Singaporeans deserve to know if the Committee was indeed independent. Because the fact that you have to make a decision on the matter where their boss has personal interest does raise questions, but I think the Prime Minister has already also spoken that you have to trust the Cabinet and the Government to remain independent. The Deputy Prime Minister, too, has also shared in his Ministerial Statement of the roles and functions of the Ministerial Committee. But the question I have would be that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had mentioned on many occasions that he wanted the house demolished. What else transpired when he met the Cabinet on 21 July 2011?

The Government has said that it did not need to make a decision now as Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying there. If so, was there a reason to set up the Ministerial Committee now? Is there a hurry to do so?

And how has the Committee interpreted paragraph 7 of the will thus far? Under what circumstances or criteria can the Government declare a house a national monument for preservation to prevent any demolition or redevelopment while the family chooses to live onsite? In its study, what does the Committee estimate to be the potential value of the site, if sold, given the current zoning of the area?

The second area, Madam, that requires clarification is the Deed of Gift. Due to the allegations that have been made, many Singaporeans deserve to know when the Prime Minister came to know of the Deed and if there was any leak outside of the purview. And I think the Minister has addressed that earlier.

Here, the role of NHB comes into question. Why did NHB sign on to take over the items, despite the onerous contractual obligations and knowing that there could be potentially a family dispute?

Since there was potentially a conflict of interest in the matter of Ms Lee Suet Fern, who served on the NHB board and whose firm had prepared the contract on behalf of the family, then why did NHB go ahead and sign it? Was it under any pressure to do so, as you have a Board of Directors working the agreement? Given that many of our top talent in Singapore wear multiple hats, how can we enhance the governance of our Government agencies to avoid potential conflict of interest in future?

The third area that I seek clarification on is on the matter of the last will of the late Mr Lee and the extent to which the Government should be involved in determining its accuracy.

Firstly, why is the Ministerial Committee concerned about the validity of the will? Many Singaporeans wonder why it is necessary for the Government to be involved in ascertaining the accuracy of the will, if at all. Should it not be a private matter, to be challenged in Court, they ask?

There are also some quarters who see the Government taking a role in this because the Prime Minister came out to say that he has "grave concerns" on the preparation of the last will. Perhaps it may be useful for the Prime Minister to clarify in which capacity he made this comment as it would then clarify the Government's perceived role in it.

Lastly, on the platform that has been chosen for this matter, as mentioned by Members, some Singaporeans have asked if a Ministerial Statement in Parliament was the right platform to address this issue.

While I agree that the integrity of the Government should be defended, I hope that we all also realise that this may not stop further allegations from being hurled at the Government. We have already seen, just in the past few days alone, how new actors have been brought into the fray − both Ministers and public servants − as the allegations grew.

How does the Government plan to handle communications and further clarifications from the Lee family if there are still queries beyond what has been explained today? Under what circumstances will the Government or Parliament consider further enquiry or a select committee to investigate any further allegations or disputes of accounts?

I urge all members of the family to take a more private course from here on to address this dispute. Opening it up into the public domain does not serve Singapore's interest at all, as it only tarnishes the country's reputation, something that no Singaporean would want and, not least, the late Mr Lee himself. If the family wishes to honour his wishes and legacy, then this would be a good base to start from.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.35 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the Lee siblings have stated that their big brother has misused his position and influence over Government agencies to drive his personal agenda, and that they feared the use of the Organs of State against them. These are serious charges and deeply troubling.

But to be fair to the Prime Minister, are the allegations outrageous? Are they merely a figment of the Lee siblings' overactive imagination? We in this House will not be able to get down to the bottom of these questions during this debate for one simple reason − there is no natural justice in the procedure adopted. With due respect to the Prime Minister, we are only hearing the Prime Minister's version, the Government's version, today. What else there is, we do not know. Indeed, allegations have been made today that the Lee siblings have been selective in their documentation and may not have been truthful. They are not here to defend themselves.

I am not accusing the Prime Minister of lying. I am simply stating what we all know − that we simply do not have full information to confidently decide on who and what to believe.

Notwithstanding the limited value of this session, I wish to raise one matter that should be of concern to every Singaporean who wishes to see Singapore as a bastion that upholds the rule of law. And, that is, how fundamentally precious it is that we defend with all our hearts and minds the independence of our Organs of State? We must protect the Organs of State as professional bodies with a national mission. The Government should never seek to interfere with or to influence those Organs of State set up to ensure good governance.

For instance, take the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). AGO is an Organ of State. AGO prides itself in its Core Values of Independence and Integrity. In elaborating on its independence, the AGO states that it carries out its audits without fear or favour. In explaining its Integrity, the AGO pledges to strive to uphold the public trust in its work. Such a lofty mission is fleshed out in the AGO's annual reports, which document publicly the financial management shortcomings of Ministries and PMO. The significant contribution of AGO towards good governance and public accountability is clear to all of us.

I now turn to another Organ of State, the AG's Chambers (AGC). According to the AGC website, the AGC recognises that "As principal legal adviser to the Government, the AG plays an important role in upholding the rule of law in Singapore, and thus contributes to one of the key aspirations of her people: to build a democratic society based on the fundamental ideals of justice and equality".

Madam, make no mistake. The AG is a fiercely powerful state actor, more powerful than our Judges. When Judges decide cases, they are constrained by the laws passed by Parliament, and their decisions are public and appealable. By contrast, the AG, as the Public Prosecutor, has almost absolute prosecutorial discretion. He can decide not to charge a person who has committed an offence, to let an offender off with a warning, to reduce charges and so on. These decisions are most weighty, yet they are not public and not appealable. It is not an exaggeration to say that all of us are at the mercy of the AG. But each of us should be fairly treated by him since, under the Constitution, all of us are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Even though the AG is constitutionally a member of the Executive, he is expected to work independently. It is stated on the AGC website that the AG, in his role as public prosecutor, "is vested with the power to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence. The AG is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government". These are the AGC's own words.

Indeed, past Law Ministers had expressly endorsed the need for there to be distance between the Government and AGC. For instance, Prof S Jayakumar recently gave an interview for a book marking AGC's 150th Anniversary. There, he recalled how when he was appointed Minister of State for Law in 1981, he was given an office located at AGC, then in High Street. Prof Jayakumar then recounted as follows: "I told the then AG Tan Boon Teik that it was not proper for a Minister of State for Law to be housed in AGC because it would raise all sorts of questions about the AGC's autonomy."

Fast forward to today. In prior debates this year, I had raised questions about the appointment of the current AG and his newest Deputy AG. The role of the newest Deputy AG as an immediate past MP is well-known. As for the AG, it was also well-known that he had been a senior partner in the same firm as the Law Minister for a long time. They probably understand each other intimately. We now learn from the Lee siblings that the AG also happened to be the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, and that he had advised the Prime Minister specifically on the matters relating to the Lee estate.

Now, there is no legal prohibition on appointing the Government's close friends and former party comrades as the AG or Deputy AG. But, from a system point of view, do these appointments instill public confidence that the AGC will act independently in matters where the Government, or worse, the Prime Minister, has an interest in the outcomes? At the time when the appointments were being considered, were there no other qualified persons to take up those posts? What about the many career Legal Service officers who had dedicated their lives to public service? Was there no one there good enough?

Coming back to facts at hand, I am concerned about the conflicts of interest. How will the AGC act in advising the Government on any decisions it wishes to take on 38 Oxley Road? Has the AGC already been giving advice to the Committee, and who within the AGC is giving the advice? Has the AG recused himself from even touching the file, since he had represented Prime Minister Lee in his personal capacity as a beneficiary? What about the Deputy AG? I understand that he only recently resigned as a cadre member of the PAP. When was this? Will he recuse himself from the matter, too, since his former party leader, the Secretary-General, is personally involved?

Madam, Singaporeans are upset over this saga for a multitude of reasons. One consistent theme is embarrassment at the public airing of family disputes and that family matters should be settled privately. Another thread is whether the Prime Minister, other Ministers and the AG had exercised their powers properly in handling matters touching on the Lee estate. My concern is on the latter, particularly how we protect the rule of law and our institutions. Let us be most alive to the risk of a slippery slope that erodes public trust in the independence of our Organs of State.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

3.43 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, Organs of State are key pillars in Singapore's system of Government. Each has an indispensable mission. When allegations are made against Organs of State, that they cower to personalities, that they are subservient to personalities, then I begin to take those allegations very seriously.

Why? I have spent my adult life in Organs of State. I happened to have served in four − a judicial officer in the Supreme Court, then posted to the AGC and, thereafter, appointments in the State Courts and the Supreme Court, and now, Parliament.

In each office, I have never made the mission of the Organ of State subservient to any personality − never. In every Organ of State I have worked in, we worked toward a higher mission − the good of a working, functional Singapore − for generations of Singaporeans to come.

So, for me, it is the allegations against the Organs of State that have migrated this family issue from the private domain into the sphere of public debate. And so, we are here today, in Parliament, to get to the bottom of these allegations, extract answers and determine their veracity. Not a pleasant exercise, but one that is required.

I will focus on the allegations first, and then, will pose a series of questions arising from the allegations. I will focus on the allegations surrounding the misuse of Organs of State and abuse of power. I think it is better that I do not weigh in on the aspects of the will because I am a partner at Lee & Lee. Not Stamford Law. I am a lawyer at Lee & Lee and declare that for the Hansard record.

So, let us get on with the allegations.

On 29 June 2017 at 5.25 pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said this on Facebook:

"We have serious concerns with Lee Hsien Loong's attempt to cover up and whitewash himself in Parliament on 3 July. We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and influence to drive his personal agenda.

This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places Hsien Loong before his subordinates. They lack both sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised. Historically, few PAP MPs have dared to dissent even when the Party Whip was lifted.

There will be no opportunity or adequate time for evidence to be properly drawn together, placed before Parliament, and considered. Indeed, it could also be an opportunity to continue to mislead or insinuate under this privilege."

The allegation infers that there are issues that need to be addressed that may not have, as of yet, surfaced. I do not want to prejudge the situation. It is my hope that whatever can be addressed at this session be addressed, that is, all that have been brought up since 14 June and whatever else Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling could launch. Deal with the whole lot now, instead of having to reconvene if future and different allegations are made. With that, I would like to ask some questions pertaining to the crux of the allegations.

The first set of questions is relating to the Government as a whole. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have said, "We fear the use of the Organs of State against us and Hsien Yang's wife, Suet Fern." My question: is it true or false that the Organs of State are being abused to target Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling?

Second, "[Dr Lee] Wei Ling and [Mr Lee] Hsien Yang question whether able leaders with independent political legitimacy will be sidelined to ensure Hsien Loong's grip on power remains unchallenged." Is it true that ensuring the Prime Minister's power remains unchallenged, if that is at all true, trumps independent political legitimacy?

Third, to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said, "A few of the attacks that we have had to face in private are now public − false accusations, character assassinations, the entire machinery of the Singapore press thrown against us." Is it true or false that the Government has used the Singapore press to target Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang?

Fourth, they continued to say, "They see many upright leaders of quality and integrity throughout the Public Service who are constrained by Hsien Loong's misuse of power at the very top." Is it true that the Public Service is constrained by the Prime Minister's misuse of power at the top?

Fifth, is it true or false that the leadership and direction of the Government is directed for personal purposes or any other improper purpose?

Sixth, is it true or false that Organs of State may be used for personal agendas?

The seventh set of questions is about the Cabinet and the Ministerial Committee. Is it true or false that the Ministerial Committee is merely a facade and that the Prime Minister is able to influence it one way or the other?

Eighth, is it true or false that the Ministerial Committee never told Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling about options they were exploring?

Ninth, on 15 June 2017 at 9.25 pm, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, "Hsien Loong's public statement to Parliament contradicts the statutory declaration he made to his secret committee. It is wrong to lie to Parliament and it is wrong to lie under oath." My question: is it true or false that the Prime Minister lied to Parliament?

Tenth, on 14 June 2017, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, "Hsien Loong has asserted to the Committee that Lee Kuan Yew would 'accept any decision by the Government to preserve 38 Oxley Road.'… In doing this, Hsien Loong has deliberately misrepresented Lee Kuan Yew's clear intentions for his own political benefit. He has also gone back on his own declarations that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions involving 38 Oxley." Is it true or false that the Prime Minister has misguided a Ministerial Committee to fulfil his own personal purposes?

These series of questions are questions that are drawn from the multiple allegations thrown at the Organs of State, the Prime Minister and his office. In short, the insinuations of Mr Lee's and Dr Lee's allegations are that there has been an abuse of power and that the Organs of State carry out agendas beyond the scope of their mission. Hence, the need for this thorough debate.

It is my view that no mission of an Organ of State in Singapore should lay subservient to a personality. More so this House. Its mission to serve the electorate must never be compromised or seen to be compromised.

It must be so, for this system of governance must last for generations to come and must be held in high regard by Singaporeans through that course. That is why these allegations must be aired, debated, answered to. Such rigour brings accountability, such accountability brings trust, such trust ensures productive leadership, and such productive leadership brings about a working, functional Singapore. Today is an example of the rubric for accountability.

Before I close, I want to say this. I have worked with the Prime Minister for a number of years now, and I have never had cause to doubt his integrity and loyalty to the country. It has been, and I trust, will always be, Singapore first, for him. It is "Majulah Singapura!" for him. However, I also have a sacred duty to the constituents I represent and serve. Therefore, it is incumbent on me and my duty as an elected Parliamentarian and Government Parliamentary Committee Chair for the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law to ask the tough questions.

So, the debate has to be robust. But the debate's robustness is not only to advantage all Singaporeans to get to the bottom of the facts but it is also to show jurisdictions and the press worldwide that we allow facts to speak for themselves in this House. Much has been said by the foreign press about this kerfuffle. The New York Times, SCMP, Cable News Network (CNN) have gleefully covered this. It is my hope that the responses will put an end to the doubts. Then, we can steer Singapore back to important affairs of the state.

What is of foremost importance to me is the continued good reputation of our system of Government and that Singaporeans continue to have confidence in that system, a system built by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding fathers, a system we have a deep duty to advance and to protect.

Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

3.53 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his courageous and open approach to this matter by calling for the House to debate the issues raised. I note that the dispute has been covered in the international press, including the unproven allegations about the Prime Minister and our system. The whole affair has tarnished the reputation of our Government as clean and altruistic. That is precisely the reputation that the late Minister Mentor Lee spent his whole life building. If he were alive, he would be deeply hurt by the quarrelling of his children in public.

Many of my residents have been discussing this issue. Many wonder why the siblings took such private issues to the public. Many residents have asked many questions. Today, on behalf of my residents, I would like to raise three issues.

First, NHB's Deed of Gift. Let me begin by raising questions about the NHB exhibition. As Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned just now, this exhibition received items from the executors of the estate, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, under two unusual conditions. One was that the executors of the estate could buy back all the items at $1 as long as 38 Oxley Road was not demolished. Second was that part of the demolition clause from the late Minister Mentor Lee's will, the part that expressed the wish for immediate demolition of the house after Dr Lee Wei Ling moves out of it should be prominently displayed, whereas the other part of the will outlining what was to be done if the house could not be demolished was to be omitted from the exhibition.

Mdm Speaker, if I heard Minister Lawrence Wong correctly, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC helped draft the Deed. Ms Lim Suet Fern was asking NHB to accept the terms which are bad for NHB and misleading the public. Is this acceptable conduct for Morgan Lewis, Suet Fern as lawyer and NHB Board Member? Can Minister Lawrence Wong please explain?

The second issue is about the will. Many asked, "What is the quarrel all about? What is the core of this matter? What is the problem with the will? Who drafted the will?" Mr Lee Hsien Yang said it was drafted by Ms Kwa Kim Li. But Ms Kwa Kim Li denied it. We do not even know who drafted the will. Was it Ms Lim Suet Fern? If so, why not just come out and admit it? What is he afraid of? Why does he try and deny that his wife drafted it when emails seem clear? So, now, what has it to do with the Government? What is the Government supposed to do? Can anyone please enlighten us?

The third issue is the Ministerial Committee. Also, in view of Minister Mentor Lee's latest will which is with the demolition clause, how much weight will Minister Mentor Lee's wishes bear on the decisions to be made by the Oxley House Ministerial Committee? What has the Committee done that Mr Lee Hsien Yang claimed that he was "pushed into a corner"? In yesterday's Straits Times, Hsien Yang said that he would not want to preserve the house nor would he want to build a condominium because it would not be in accordance with Minister Mentor Lee's values. Does that not sound a lot like what Deputy Prime Minister Teo said − that he would not support the two extremes of total preservation and letting the public in, and building private residences on the other hand? So, what is the dispute? Why are we quarrelling about this? Mdm Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many residents told me that this dispute was bad for both Singapore and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's reputation. They asked me what this whole thing was about. Why can it not be settled peacefully?

They specifically wanted to ask why some basic facts cannot be shared with Singaporeans in full and truthfully. For example, with regard to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Memorial Exhibition, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling set conditions that only the first half of the demolition clause of the will can be displayed and, the second half, which considered the possibility of preserving the house, cannot be displayed. Why did NHB agree to such conditions? Is this deliberately misleading Singaporeans?

Another example is relating to who drafted the last will. Mr Lee Hsien Yang said it was drafted by Kwa Kim Lee but she denied it. However, their email shows that Mr Lee Hsien Yang's wife, Ms Lim Suet Fern, was involved in the drafting. Why would Mr Lee Hsien Yang deny it? I think if Mr Lee Kuan Yew were alive, he would definitely not want him to confuse the facts.

Another question − Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he did not want to preserve the house nor have it redeveloped into a condominium. Deputy Prime Minister Teo also said that he personally did not support the two extreme options, that is, to preserve the house and open to the public on one end, or to redevelop it into a private building on the other. It seemed that they shared the same view. Then why would Mr Lee Hsien Yang make it into the gossip of the town?

He should have done what the Prime Minister did – give statutory statement to the Ministerial Committee and then let the Committee decide. Why would he rather damage the reputation of his family and his country than doing so?

What is the purpose of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling? Is it really about fulfilling their father's wish or do they have some other motives? In their first statement, they said they did not trust Mr Lee Hsien Loong's leadership. Does this mean they will not stop until Mr Lee Hsien Loong steps down? The house is merely an excuse. If it is really the case, then it is against the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish as well as Singaporeans' democratic right.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said that he sent his children to Chinese schools to instill traditional values in them. If he were alive, he would be very sad to see his children in discord and the country being ridiculed.

Hence, I urge Mr Lee Hsien Yang, if he really wants to be a filial son, to settle the issue privately and not hurt his father's beloved Singapore anymore. Ultimately, whoever started the trouble should end it.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.

4.03 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, every major speech I have given in this House has centred on our need to fight for our unity. It is one of the richest parts of the inheritance we have received from our founding generation. If we lose our unity as a country, we will lose our name in this world, and we will lose everything. So, it is something I will always defend.

So, it does grieve and anger me to see so much of our country's reputation and trust being squandered on a social media war, of all things. If all this turns out to be nothing more than some personal game of brinksmanship being played rather than a genuine desire to improve our political process, then I think there will be many angry and hurt Singaporeans to reckon with. Because for us ordinary Singaporeans, be we supporters of the establishment or supporters of the Opposition, this is not about what is to happen to one house, this is about what we want to happen to the country we all call our home. To us on the ground who care, this saga is not a cynical game of cards. This is all our lives, not just one family's, but all of ours.

The allegations of abuse of political corruption, state intimidation and nepotism being made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang are damning. The worst of the allegations, which are not related to the house, are presently light on details, but because of the background and well-respected name of the accusers, the allegations have to be given their due weight.

If the allegations are true, the accused must be held to account. If the allegations are false, the accuser must be equally held to account. Otherwise, how are we, the people, to make sense of those who are less powerful who have been sued or bankrupted for equally or less defamatory remarks?

For many conservative Asians, in the case of family, we will always want to protect our own. I personally would rather never close the option of mercy. Should there still be the slightest possibility for mediation and grace and forgiveness to still intercede in this situation, and allow reconciliation and compromise to be made somehow, I hope it can be taken. The difficulty here though is that because of the seriousness of the allegations of corruption, this situation can no longer be judged according to our personal preference or seen as just a domestic family quarrel. It is a national level political issue and I respect the Prime Minister for recognising it as so by opening himself up to Parliamentary scrutiny.

We pride ourselves as a country that governs by rule of law, so justice must be seen to be served. We, the people, cannot be asked to tolerate a situation where the powerful are allowed to say or do whatever they wish, not be held accountable for it and then freely exercise their option to leave the country behind for greener pastures when they are done with their personal agendas. This is not the Singapore we want to live in. Or the Singapore we have been asked to fight for. The powerful must be bound by the same principles, values and rules that the less powerful are being asked to play by.

So, I agree with the WP's approach that "the crux of the family issues surrounding 38 Oxley Road is for the family to resolve privately or in Court" and that Parliament should only be "concerned with the allegations of abuse of power and the harms these have caused to confidence in Singapore and our political institutions."

The Prime Minister's accusers should have an independent, neutral space where they can be held to account for their words, put down their side of the story on official record, sharing whatever arguments and evidence they have to back their claims. Such a hearing can happen either as an independent Select Committee, or a Commission of Inquiry (COI), which would have full authority to investigate the accusations, to summon evidence surrounding the most biting allegations raised in the original "What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?" document about the supposed misuse of power by the Prime Minister and his wife, the supposed Orwellian threat of state intimidation and monitoring of private citizens, and the supposed nepotism behind key appointments in the Public Service. Because if investigations reveal there are truth and substance to the allegations, their wrongs must be made right. It is presently hard to ask more questions because, so far, details are just so vague and the people who can supply more detailed evidence to these questions are just not in this room.

The Prime Minister has shared his hope that "this full, public airing in Parliament will dispel any doubts that have been planted and strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government." I hope so much for that to be true, too, but from what I know of ground sentiments, I do not think that is going to happen for those who are unconverted or those who are sitting on the fence. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has already made it clear to the many Singaporeans following his Facebook posts that he believes "This Parliamentary session is a forum that again places the Prime Minister before his subordinates" who "lack sufficient background and evidence of the numerous instances of abuse and conflicts of interest, many yet to be raised".

That is why I hope the Prime Minister will consider subjecting himself to an independent Committee of Inquiry on the allegations made against him and his Government. A Committee of Inquiry or Select Committee with enough independent non-PAP, non-subordinate representatives would help to address some of his accuser's concerns. I understand this is not a process to be taken lightly and runs the risk of stretching out the painful saga, but I believe it is a significant display of political courage that will shore up much trust in our system's integrity, and it will also be a significant display of trust also in the people who will be asked to sit on those Committees.

Prime Minister, I respect your decision to put forth your perspective on the Oxley issue as a statutory declaration. It means high stakes for you if you are found to be falsifying your statement. So, it does show me how seriously you have considered the stakes of your words. I also respect your decision to open this up to Parliamentary debate and inviting all of us in this House to ask questions that call you to account because every word will go down on public record in the Hansard. Your earlier sharing that you intend to put your words out in public, free of Parliamentary privilege, is an important move that I believe will build trust.

Because in this culture right now shaped by social media, where words are allowed to flow fast and free, it has become all too easy to forget why things like statutory declarations and Hansards matter. They remind us that for society to be strong, for democracy to be resilient, we must all allow the law to call us to account for our words, the things we choose to say, the things we choose not to say, because words are the way we build or break our worlds. Since the Prime Minister has already made a statutory declaration, it would be most fair and helpful for Singaporeans to have an independent Committee set up that can request that his accusers would also offer theirs.

Beneath all this is the uncomfortable accusation about whether we are a country of one-man rule. Part of the reason why perceptions of authoritarianism continue to fester is that there are still many people who believe and perceive the Government to be opaque in its decision-making and defensive in its communication about its work. This is just a long-standing perspective on the ground that is clear to anyone who looks at contentious Facebook comment threads on any socio-political issues. The idea that anyone would see secret Ministerial Committees as nefarious may seem strange and even silly to those in Government who are familiar with what they are. But to someone hearing about it for the first time, it can be construed to sound mysterious and Orwellian. Where there is no information and understanding given, misinformation and misunderstanding will rush in to fill the vacuum.

This Oxley Road saga is painful but there are many thoughtful commenters who do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. If anything, a deeper and more open conversation about how political power works in Singapore may be just what our system needs to truly grow up as a post-Lee Kuan Yew democracy. Our electorate needs better political education, and more open, empathetic communication about our political processes can help.

Singapore is bigger than Lee Kuan Yew's values. For no matter how great or powerful or righteous any one man may be, the best of men still die and a country must learn to live beyond them. I do not think that is an offensive thing to say because that is a view Mr Lee himself has held. His expressed distaste for idolisation and personal monuments is something establishment and non-establishment Singaporeans can respect and get behind.

If Singapore is to stay strong, we must remember this to be true. We are no country of one man. We are no country for one man. We are a country of many people, many families and many interests.

I have been serving on the Founder's Memorial Committee since 2015. Please let me share some insights. We have been gathering views from thousands of Singaporeans − historians, architects, regular people on the street, young people − about what kind of memorial would best honour the legacy of our Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the pioneering team of leaders that built the nation alongside him. Incidentally, Oxley never actually came up as a major suggestion. They wanted more public spaces like Fort Canning or Singapore River.

What we learnt is that many Singaporeans wanted a memorial that could go beyond a mere recollection of the past. They wanted a memorial to be forward-looking and ever relevant to a new generation, a memorial that did not just centre on one particular personality but powerful principles that could be passed on to endure forever. Many hoped for the Founder's Memorial, whenever and wherever it does get built, to ultimately stand for unity across the divides. I imagine whatever Singaporeans had wanted for the Founders' Memorial, they would want for the Oxley house as well. Whether Oxley stays or goes or becomes a memorial garden with a basement, I hope we can find some compromise that will enable it to not go down in our history as a memorial born first in bitterness. Mr Lee Hsien Yang seems open to that memorial garden idea. So, hopefully that can be the beginning of some common ground that will move us all forward.

Many Singaporeans in the process also referred again and again to the national pledge written by our founders as still the best representation of the story they wanted Singapore to live out, from generation to generation. Singapore was, is and must always be about more than one man's − or one family's − values. Even the national pledge that most closely enshrines all our nation's values was not written by one man alone. It went through a long chain of drafting starting from a Mr Phillip Liau, Mr George Thomson, then Mr S Rajaratnam, various Ministry officials and then Mr Lee Kuan Yew and then submitted to the then Cabinet for final approval.

I have come to believe that nations are really just families writ large. Psychologists who study resilience in families notice that the more children know about their family history, the stronger their sense of personal agency, self-confidence and capacity to face challenges. It also turns out that the pattern of the story told by each family matters. Some families tell their children an ascending narrative with a constantly upward, upbeat, hopeful trajectory. Some families tell descending narratives with a constantly downward depressing and pessimistic trend. But what was interesting is psychologists discovered that both these kinds of families are not resilient. It is those families that tell an oscillating narrative instead − a roller-coaster trajectory of a tale with ups and downs − that consistently produced the most resilient children. They understand that highs and lows were part of life and problems were better faced together rather than apart. The oscillating family story helps them develop a strong "intergenerational self", a purposeful awareness that they are part of something larger than themselves.

So, yes, I know many Singaporeans are deeply saddened by all that has happened so far. Many want this conversation full of suffering to just end. I hope we do not artificially shut down the conversation because learning to talk about our biggest mistakes, our darkest imperfections, our most painful wounds from our past is precisely what our younger generations need right now as a country if we hope to be resilient.

This season in our political history need not be part of a descending narrative but an oscillating one. If this event helps us start to talk more openly about how things work in our country and how we want things to work in our country, the good and the bad, it is possible for us to come out of this saga even stronger as a people.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.15 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

38 Oxley road

(Debate on Ministerial Statements)

Debate resumed.

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans have seen many twists and turns in the past few weeks. We see new Facebook posts and statements every other day.

Many Singaporeans are unsure of what to make of this debate. We want to know what is at the heart of this disagreement because some things just do not add up. I have three examples.

One, Mr Lee Hsien Yang shared that Dr Lee Wei Ling will probably stay in the house for many more decades. The Government also confirmed that, if this is the case, the current Cabinet, minus the Prime Minister, would likely not be the ones making the final decision. Therefore, both sides agree that the decision could be decades away. So, why disagree now? Should not Mr Lee Hsien Yang, or those after him, raise the issue with the future government and the people of Singapore at that point?

Two, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned the possibility of a memorial park with only the basement preserved. And recently, Mr Lee Hsien Yang suggested planting a memorial garden after the demolition of the house. Both options are not that far apart. Why can both sides not continue to talk and come to an agreement over time?

Three, both sides have stressed that the Government has the right to gazette the house, because the Government has the responsibility of determining what is national interest. This means that both sides cherish the core Singaporean principles: that the rule of law must apply; that no one is above the law; and that the law must serve the people.

So, are both sides really that far apart that a family dispute needs to be aired on the national stage with profound implications on Singapore's international standing and at a time of many pressing challenges?

We have heard the viewpoint of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, his wife and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Having listened to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, it is clear that there is nothing to argue about the house. The house and what to do about it cannot possibly be the reason why the siblings have gone public, since the Government has already said that there is nothing for the Government to do for many years, so long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to stay there.

So, what is really behind all these? Is it attacking the Prime Minister by using the house as a proxy? Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he wants the Prime Minister down. Is that the true motive?

Next, I note that over the last few weeks, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has evolved his position on what to do with 38 Oxley Road. Initially, he had stated that he had not thought through the plans beyond demolition. Subsequently, he mentioned the possibility of planting a memorial garden. And in his Facebook post yesterday, he stated that he has no current intention of redeveloping 38 Oxley Road as a luxury condo because it would be an affront to the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

However, a careful reading of his statement shows that this may not be definitive, because his declaration of "not inclined to apply for rezoning" does not rule out redevelopment under all circumstances.

Next, it is important for Singaporeans to be fully informed of the financial implications of various options for 38 Oxley Road. The Government has highlighted various options − conservation, preservation and land acquisition. I have heard that these options are worth around $20 million. Now, if full demolition and redevelopment happen in the future, and if URA under the future government agrees to rezoning, the land could be worth a lot more. I believe a piece of land nearby was recently sold for more than $100 million.

The public debate on what to do with the house will likely last a long time, perhaps even lasting beyond those currently involved. Therefore, it is important for us to put all the facts on the table, including the financial implications, so that from now to the point of decision, Singaporeans can have a fuller appreciation of what drives the various viewpoints.

Next, I would like to ask about the Ministerial Committee. Most Singaporeans I speak to understand that Ministerial Committees are part and parcel of routine Ministerial work. Nevertheless, they can be fully reassured if they have a clear understanding of how this Ministerial Committee works and how it is organised to be exploring independently the options. Can the Government share on the following?

One, who initiated the Ministerial Committee? Did the Prime Minister recuse himself, and did Deputy Prime Minister Teo, as the leader of the Cabinet in the Prime Minister's absence, propose the Ministerial Committee? Two, who selected the members of the Ministerial Committee? Was it the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo or somebody else? Three, what are the operating protocols? For example, were discussion and information shared on a need-to-know basis within the Committee? Are there any other operating protocols that the Ministerial Committee will abide by in the future that would provide us with additional reassurances?

Next, the issue of the seventh will. Much has been said about the seventh and final will. Can the Prime Minister share comprehensively why he did not contest the seventh will?

Last, I hope that Singapore can move beyond this issue after this Parliamentary debate. I am glad that the Government has chosen to respond to allegations through transparency and debate, because having a clean and honest government is what kept Singapore exceptional.

Moving forward, Singaporeans want an immediate and firm reassurance that our Government integrity is beyond reproach. Singaporeans hope that all parties concerned, especially after the debate today, will try to prevent their private debate from continuing to spill over to the public arena. Singaporeans want our Government's undivided attention on pressing national matters concerning the livelihood and security of our people.

After we finish the debating on this Ministerial Statement, Parliament will discuss two more important Bills: one, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act that would keep our financial system intact when the next global financial crisis strikes; and two, the Home Team Corps Bill that would strengthen our people's support for a safe Singapore.

The issues that directly affect Singaporeans' lives must always come first. Let us not keep our people waiting.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

4.47 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, Singapore has been a one-party dominant state since Independence. The ruling party has thus single-handedly shaped the political culture in Singapore. Our political culture is one that does not condone any allegations of wrongdoing or impropriety against the Government of the day. Accusers are expected to back up their claims with evidence and, if they cannot, they are sued. Millions of dollars in damages have been awarded when unsubstantiated allegations amounting to defamation and slander have been made against politicians, so as to preserve their moral authority. Many families have been besmirched by this. In fact, Opposition politicians have been challenged to sue PAP MPs if they feel wronged.

As recently as 2008, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself said, and I quote, "I know the mentality of and the attitudes of the people in Singapore − and they know me by now, that if anybody impugns the integrity of the Government, of which I was the Prime Minister, I must sue….And I must demand that either the Court finds that those defamatory words (are) true, in which case, I am demolished, or there is a penalty."

The anomaly in this matter before the House today surrounds the decision taken by the Prime Minister − ironically it must be said − not to sue in spite of the serious allegations of abuse of power, much to the surprise of many Singaporeans.

Singaporeans have been sued for defamation for much less, one of the most famed examples being former MP Mr JB Jeyaratnam's utterance of the following at an election rally in 1997 where he said, and I quote, "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to the Police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team." When it was suggested to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew by a reporter that it was tenuous to base a defamation suit on Mr Jeyaratnam showing copies of Mr Tang's Police reports to a rally crowd, Mr Lee said this was a matter for the Courts to decide, and that his lawyers had advised him to sue. As for Mr Jeyaratnam's offer to apologise without paying damages, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying, "I'll leave things to the lawyers. I have other things to do."

In the normal course of events, the Government would do precisely that − leave the matter to be settled by lawyers in Court. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling would expect to face multiple defamation lawsuits for alleging that the Prime Minister has either lied or been corrupt in his dealings. As this has not happened and in view of the political culture that I have spoken of, there are Singaporeans who believe that the allegations made against the Prime Minister may have more than a grain of truth to them. Many allegations have been made, and one need only peruse the document made public by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, released on 14 June 2017 titled, "What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?" to remind themselves of them.

I would expect the Prime Minister to make a compelling case today and when this debate closes, but until Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling are fully heard, doubts will continue to linger and this matter will not be put to rest unless a resolution is sought through the Courts. Until that is done, who here would dare bet against a new Facebook post emerging from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling tomorrow?

The Prime Minister has to go to the Courts to rebut these allegations of abuse of power in order to decisively settle this issue.

In 1996, allegations were made against Mr Lee Hsien Loong during the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) saga. This episode erupted as a result of a public perception that both Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong had unfairly received discounts in their purchase of properties from the developer HPL. In that case, a Parliamentary session, procedurally similar to the one we are having in the House today, was held to clear the air over the matter. However, the circumstances and facts of that episode and how it came to be debated in Parliament were diametrically different in a number of important ways.

Firstly, a senior civil servant, the Deputy Managing Director of MAS, reported to the Finance Minister about HPL obtaining a waiver from the Singapore Stock Exchange from seeking shareholder's approval for the purchase of property by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. There was also market talk that Mr Lee had been offered units in all the properties developed by the HPL group.

The Finance Minister duly reported this to the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who ordered an investigation to get the Stock Exchange to provide a list of purchasers of two HPL developments, including questioning both the Senior Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who had also purchased two HPL apartments. In view of his investigation, Prime Minister Goh was convinced that there was no wrongdoing.

Secondly, caveats were openly lodged giving the names of the Senior Minister and the transacted prices after discount. This fact was crucial, as a transparent caveat lodgment did not suggest wrongdoing by any stretch.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Mr Lee Kuan Yew instructed Mr Ong Beng Seng, the Managing Director of HPL and a key player in clearing the air, to confront the media about the propriety of the purchases by himself and the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Lee stressed to Mr Ong that it was not enough for HPL to release a press statement but that a press conference was in order. Contrast this important detail with the absence of any sense of closure on the allegations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in the matter we are debating before the House today.

Finally, during the HPL debate, sitting MPs, some of whom worked for developers, were able to clarify the nature of how developers used complicated pricing strategies to market and sell their properties.

The extent of probity and the affirmative conclusions to various matters in the HPL issue notwithstanding, by the time it came to an end in this House, MPs were in a position to triangulate various facts which, in totality, made it absolutely clear that no improprieties could be alleged by any reasonable person in the purchase of apartments by the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

In the matter before us today, can we honestly say that we are apprised and fully aware of the evidence and facts relevant to the allegations of the Prime Minister abusing his power so as to come to the same conclusion? Frankly, by the end of today's debate, Iike the MPs in this House in 1996, if we can say yes, then there should no lingering suspicions or doubts that the Prime Minister abused his powers in the matter of 38 Oxley Road. And that would be a welcome outcome for Singapore.

However, in view of the highly unusual decision by the Prime Minister not to clear his name in the Courts, the key question before this House is how do we move forward from here?

Parliament can be a platform to look into and address the matter, but the choice of the appropriate Parliamentary forum is crucial. In fact, allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister may conceivably gain even more traction if the wrong Parliamentary forum is chosen.

In the event the Prime Minister eschews going to the Courts to address these allegations of abuse of power even as more allegations are made and left to the people's imagination to ruminate over, I am of the view that the next best option would be for Parliament to prepare to organise a special Select Committee to look into the allegations made against the Prime Minister.

Its remit would simply be to look into the truthfulness of the allegations and get to the bottom of the matter. In light of evidence being made available to it, the Committee can be expected to summon, if it so chooses, the Prime Minister, Mdm Ho Ching, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and anyone else to shed light on the allegations.

I make this proposal for a Select Committee of Parliament in the public interest as I believe it is an avenue to put a stop to these allegations which have now moved beyond damaging just the Government but have damaged Singapore's reputation and the trust people outside Singapore have in its institutions.

Many Singaporeans are unaware that the consequence of ignoring a summons from Parliament are severe and a defaulter can be arrested and brought before the Select Committee to set the record straight. Should any witness be contemptuous before the Committee, beyond hefty fines, Parliament is even empowered to commit that individual to prison for the rest of this Parliamentary term.

Mdm Speaker, the longer this sad episode drags on, Singapore's reputation as a country where the rule of law is a strict guiding principle of our society and the credibility of the Government will be cast in very serious doubt. Like many Singaporeans, I agree that the matters surrounding the will and, like disagreements, are fundamentally family issues and should be privately resolved forthwith either through the Courts or through mediation. But it is the allegations of abuse of power that have to be decisively addressed, otherwise an odour will linger, one that will have severe and significant repercussions for Singapore's reputation. I do not believe a Parliamentary debate like the one we are having today will put the matter to rest, even as I hope I am wrong.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

4.57 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. This whole situation is really quite unfortunate. Singaporeans are used to seeing Singapore being cited for our reputation for good governance. In the last three weeks, what we have experienced is quite the opposite. In fact, it is like a bad dream. As one of my constituents had put it, I quote, "The reputation of Singapore is at stake here and all eyes from the international community are on us". What started out as a "private family matter" is no longer just that. The allegations of the abuse of power by the Organs of State put into question the integrity of the Government, and this is serious. Public interest is now at stake. So, it is imperative that it must be put right.

I thank Prime Minister Lee for recognising that this family dispute, the dispute between him and his siblings and it being publicly aired, have caused damage to Singapore and Singaporeans. I am glad that he has apologised to Singaporeans but, as we all know, damage has been done to the reputation of Singapore and the confidence of Singaporeans. So, an apology is not quite sufficient.

So, while we would have preferred not to have to discuss this in Parliament, given the serious allegations and how things have played out, it is important that we address the crux of the concerns of Singaporeans. To be clear, the dispute between Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children is not what we are here to debate, as this is a matter to be settled between the siblings privately. What I wish to speak about today are the consequential impact of the allegation of the abuse of power and, hence, the question on the integrity of the Singapore Government.

The matter regarding 38 Oxley Road is unprecedented. It is not just a house. It was in that very house that much of the foundations of Singapore's political history started. The owner of the house was not just any person but Mr Lee Kuan Yew, one of Singapore's founding fathers. Hence, the decision on what is to happen to the house on 38 Oxley Road is not a simple decision. It involves not only the interest of Singapore but also the desire to honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his last wishes.

It is because of the unprecedented nature of the matter that "how" the decision is arrived at is as important as the decision itself. Therefore, it is critical that as much information as possible on the process and rationale for the options being considered be shared with Singaporeans.

I know we have a reputation of being efficient, effective, handling things in the best possible way with the least amount of disturbance and resources. But I think this is unprecedented and it matters to Singaporeans, not just because it is about Mr Lee Kuan Yew but it is also because it is about the history of Singapore. Therefore, we have to share as much information about the "how" as it is about the decision.

So, this brings me to the question of the Ministerial Committee. The Ministerial Committee was convened in July last year, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and the Ministerial Committee has been set up to look into various options for what happens to the house 38 Oxley Road and the implications of these options. The options that the Ministerial Committee arrives at will guide the decision that Cabinet and the government of the day will have to make when the time comes for a decision on 38 Oxley Road, when Dr Lee Wei Ling no longer lives there.

It is, therefore, crucial that Singaporeans − and I stress this again, I know some people may say it does not matter because if we have the right people in the Committee it is okay, but it does matter – are given as much information on the process and the considerations made to arrive at the options. This will help assure Singaporeans if there is, indeed, independence.

I would like to ask some questions that have been lingering on the ground as well, questions that pertain to why were members of the Ministerial Committee not disclosed until recently, or under what circumstances are Ministerial Committees which are not publicly convened? I hope these can be answered.

Prime Minister, you have said that you have recused yourself from all Government decisions to be taken on 38 Oxley Road. You have provided information to the Ministerial Committee. I think it is also important for you to share the significance of you providing the Ministerial Committee with the statutory declaration. I do not think people understand the seriousness, or at least not everybody may understand the seriousness of a statutory declaration. I think it is important that you share its significance.

Mdm Speaker, with all that is happening, I do hope that we will find a way to honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew and, at the same time, although it is difficult for many of us to see it at the same time now with all that is happening, I hope that we can bring Singaporeans and unite Singaporeans together, having gone through what we are going through now.

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.

5.03 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mdm Speaker, a number of Members of the House have stood up to suggest that Parliament is the wrong place and that this should not have been brought to Parliament. There are two major arguments being made. One is, if there is no substance to these allegations, why are we spending our time in Parliament dealing with what is essentially a private family matter? The other is that there is potential substance but this needs to be better dealt with somewhere else.

The first point I want to make is that coming to Parliament does not preclude anything else happening outside of Parliament. It is not a zero-sum game. Two weeks have passed since the first allegations were made. Can you imagine that this would have been resolved in the Courts in two weeks? Can you imagine that a special Select Committee could have been constituted, could have called witnesses, analysed the problem, submitted a report in two weeks? Nothing else could have happened in two weeks.

But if it comes to Parliament, as we have done today, and we have to debate the Home Team Corps Bill, which I will be speaking on sometime after this debate – if we have to debate about issues to do with our finances, about MAS or other Statutory Boards and we have a lingering suspicion about our process of Government, about the authority of the Members of this House to debate, to analyse, to deal with the most pressing problems facing Singapore – how could we have gone forward? It is ridiculous to suggest that we cannot talk about this in Parliament. We have to talk about this in Parliament.

The first point, I find more interesting − that there are no specifics, there is no evidence, there is no substance to the allegations. "Do not let this go on, end this saga now, because there is nothing to it" − these are things that have been brought up by PAP MPs, Nominated MPs (NMPs) and Opposition MPs. We have not yet had specifics about what we should be doing differently, other than debate this in Parliament. A special Select Committee is an instrument, a tool empowered by Parliament, as Mr Pritam Singh had argued just now. How can he say that it would be better than Parliament, if he says that there is something wrong fundamentally with Parliament? Yes, a special Select Committee has time, space and the opportunity to gather more evidence and to go into more details. But it is given those powers by Parliament. Ultimately, it provides a report to Parliament and the actions taken on its recommendations are done by Parliament. So, if we are going to choose these routes, the one thing we cannot do, is say that Parliament is not the appropriate place to deal with these matters.

The expectations we have in Singapore are high. The expectations of Parliamentary process, the expectations of prudence, of probity. But even on a very pragmatic basis, we are expected to forward plan just about everything. If Members think back not many minutes, not many hours ago, to the Parliamentary Questions, I was standing at this very same rostrum, having to defend questions about the extent to which we could predict changes in our school landscape 15 years, 10 years, five years ahead of time. We are expected to have drawer plans for just about every eventuality.

When something goes wrong, when a conflict arises, when something is brought out into the public space, people are unhappy about it. One of the first questions that would be asked is, "Could you not have anticipated this? Could you not have thought about it? Do you not have a scenario plan for this?"

I suspect the social media posts and the subsequent storm of interest over the last two weeks were one of the few things that, perhaps, was not anticipated as a drawer plan. But what to do with the property, the house, the heritage values, the conflicting public sentiments, surely, this is something that we need to have a drawer plan on.

I want to make it very clear that what we are doing, this forward planning, this developing of scenarios, this consideration of public views and Opposition views, and diverse views, this is part of how our system works. Coming to Parliament today is a demonstration that our system works, that our governance and our Government, the values and the expectations of our public are a marker of our system working. Our ability to talk about this, the documents that have been shared here today, the record of conversations, the record of interactions that we have had that we bring to bear to make this debate happen, are a marker of the transparency and effectiveness of our system working.

The allegations that are being put across, the mechanisms, a separation from the public and the private space, an attempt to moderate and deal with the influences, potential allegations of the abuse of power, these are markers and demonstrations of our system working. These are markers of transparency, of accountability. Accountability around process, around documentation. Accountability not just at the top − it has to be especially at the top, the Prime Minister has talked about that − but accountability extends all the way through. This code of conduct, these values and these processes need to be understood by every officer in that chain of command so that they know when they are being asked to do something inappropriate, that they know that they have alternative lines of reporting, that they know that they can document these things and it will be there as a matter of record for the Courts, for a special Select Committee or for MPs to access, demonstrate and debate. Everything we have done so far today, our ability to talk about this in this House, is a marker of our system working.

It is the form that many people are carried away with; but it is the substance that is far more appropriate. You can have a special Select Committee but if the Members on that special Select Committee do not do their job properly, it will not have the substance. We could have a debate here in Parliament but if we did not do our job properly, do our due diligence properly, search for questions, search for problems, search for evidence, search for substance to the allegations and bring them forth in this House, we would not be doing our job properly and we would not be giving substance to the form of a Parliamentary debate.

Mr Singh's allegations that somehow this is an inappropriate place because MPs have not been able to bring up evidence, bring up substance to the allegations. That is a marker of an absence of evidence, that is a marker of an absence of a problem, assuming the Members of the Opposition have been diligent about trying to find a problem. I am sure they have. Why would they not?

The substance is important. The words − the words of our Constitution, the words of our laws, the wording of clauses and paragraphs – they need to be turned into deeds, they need to be turned into deeds to demonstrate that we value them, that we value these processes and that we value this idea of accountability.

The Prime Minister has held himself up as an example. He set the bar very, very high but he has made it absolutely transparent what he expects of all of us. Recusal whenever there is the possibility of conflict of interests, a removal of any benefit that you might accrue to yourself, expose yourself to questioning, waiving of the Parliamentary privilege. These are steps to deal with conflicts of interest, deal with possible abuses of power and remove the possibility of conflict of interest, remove the possibility of an abuse of power.

Yet, all of these mechanisms are now being criticised as markers of the exact opposite. It is ridiculous. It is inappropriate. But it is of great interest that no one has been able to substantiate anything in this House. If we are going to have a Select Committee, you need to have some reason to have this Select Committee as opposed to just saying, "I was not able to do my job properly."

These are important and serious allegations. One of the more serious allegations involves the issues to do with the AG, conflicts of interest. I am going to leave it to some of my colleagues in the Ministry of Law to answer that.

The other serious statements are slightly contradictory. I just want to highlight a few of these. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin pointed out a few of these contradictions. You want this thing to be settled quick, you want it to go to the Courts. That is only going to drag it out. You want this thing to be dealt with behind closed doors. The Ministerial Committee operates behind closed doors; information is shared with the participants and the people that are called to it. You want everything out in the public space for reasons of transparency. These are difficult contradictions to navigate.

Parliament cannot make a private citizen sue his own brother; that is a choice for a private citizen to make. And yet, you are asking for us in this Parliamentary House to make a decision about a private act.

You want to strengthen the standing of Singapore. When you stand up in this House, are you weakening it? Are you generating confidence in the public sector and the public servants and the public sector officers who try to make the system work? All of them have an understanding of what it means to separate the public and the private; this is part of their professionalism, their expectations.

You want public transparency and yet you expect the Ministers cannot post on Facebook when allegations come in, when fake news come in, when misinformation comes in. We are not allowed to post on Facebook to counter this? We leave those allegations and misinformation and disinformation out there? We have to decide what it is we want out of this process.

We all want for Singapore to be stronger and a big part of that is going to be taking a position on whether our system of governance, our system of Government and our Parliamentary democracy are correct. Not that there are no problems. Not that there have been no mistakes. The problems and the mistakes are there. But the question is, do we have a system that can detect it, that can deal with it and to prevent it from happening again?

Are you trying to bring down this House? You should not. You should stand by the values of this House. You should accept that this is a good place and the right place to bring these issues out to have a debate. And if there are allegations, make them. If there are facts to substantiate these allegations, bring them here. And if it is appropriate, further action can and should be taken. But no one has said this. No one has been able to substantiate this. There are some things that WP and all the other MPs agree on. That this is something that really should go away and back into the private space because there are no substantive allegations on the issues of the abuse of power.

I also share Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiments about the bright red line between the public and private space. This is the essence of good Government and good governance. It is exactly the key issue that the public and the private space must be separated. But everything we have heard so far is detail after detail, document after document, attempt after attempt, in order to achieve that separation. You can say it is separated but it is the actions and the deeds that you take in order to make that separation real, make yourself accountable, that are far more important. We have had a detailed explanation of how the Prime Minister has done exactly that.

I agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiment that we should end this now or as soon as possible. How? A suit is not going to end this now. A Select Committee is not going to end this now. "End this saga now" is a very nice throwaway sound bite. I am sure it will come up in the headline. But how can you follow that up by asking for the saga to then be protracted by a whole bunch of other mechanisms? End this saga now because you are satisfied because you have not been able to bring any evidence to bear. End this saga now by standing up here and saying that you are satisfied with the explanations that have been given, that you understand the process of governance and Government and Parliamentary democracy.

Then, there will be a strong bright line. Then, our system will be stronger and we can move on with our lives, and we can move on with all the other things that we need to do.

This process is ugly, it is disquieting, it is upsetting. If it was easy and if it was fun, it would not have to be brought here in Parliament. I suppose Government is not there to just deal with the nice things. The Parliamentary debate, the idea of the contest that we have in our speeches and in our discussion that politics itself is contestable, that the issues brought before this House are to be contested over and that we must be rigorously applying ourselves to that contest in order to get the best possible outcome for the people that we serve and for Singapore. That is an important part of what has got us here today, and what will take us forward and make us a resilient and stronger system to withstand any further shocks, allegations and problems that surface.

But that requires that we engage in this and that we believe that this contest is useful, that we believe that iron sharpens iron, that we believe that when we stand in this House, we are doing something worthwhile and not abrogating and abdicating our responsibility to somebody outside, that we are not elected by the people and throwing the problem back to the people. We have to solve and make decisions and analyse the facts on their behalf and hold ourselves accountable to them.

Of course, the proverb is only half correct − Proverbs 27:17, "Iron sharpens iron, as man sharpens man". So, it is always inappropriate to quote a clause out of context or quote only half a paragraph. Because if you try to sharpen iron against iron, both get blunted and a lot of heat is generated. Iron is sharpened against stone. The stone against which we have to sharpen our positions and our thoughts and achieve some clarity on where we are as politicians, as parties, as individual Singaporeans, is a combination of the law and our Constitution as represented by you, Mdm Speaker.

In combination with the will of the people, we have to sharpen our iron against the will of the people and their expectations. But most importantly, we have to do so against our pride in ourselves as representatives of this Parliamentary democracy. Our pride in ourselves as instruments of our democracy and our governance, we must try as hard as possible to contest this space, to do right by Singapore and by Singaporeans.

And if having tried as hard as possible to find the problem, to find some fact, to find some weakness, there is none, then surely, we should acknowledge that. Surely, that is the service that we do to the values of this House and the values of Singapore and the issues before us that we have to provide some resolution to. It is contingent upon us to do that. And that is how, we need, as a House, to close this matter over the next day. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong. Mr Low Thia Khiang, I would prefer clarifications to be taken after all the speeches, please.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Okay, Madam.

5.21 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, please allow me to begin first with a quote from a 17th century writer Thomas Fuller: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you".

Let me share a second quote attributed to Mr Lee Hsien Yang:

"Let us not mince words. Singapore's social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was − civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach."

And, indeed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself had also spoken many times on the rule of law in Singapore, and on how our laws reflect the traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual.

In particular, when he spoke at the Opening of the Singapore Academy of Law in 1990, he stated in the context of land acquisition that his Government puts communitarian interests over those of the individual. He added, "These were contrary to the rights of the individual upheld in English jurisprudence. But because our people shared our values, they supported and abided by our legislation.

If the Government had failed to establish the basis for political stability and social cohesion, the rule of law would have become an empty slogan in a broken-back Singapore. But we have succeeded, and the rule of law today in Singapore is no cliche."

I quote Mr Lee again, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes. If I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think."

The rule of law in Singapore. I repeat, "and I say it without the slightest remorse, that we would not be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened in very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use". If I may add, do I get my house demolished or not? Do I get buried where I choose to be buried? Do we keep the Sungei Road Hawker Zone? We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.

Why do I begin with these quotes?

Because it is my conviction that in all deliberations, whether now or in the future, whether we are referring to 38 Oxley Road or whether we are referring to Sungei Road Hawker Zone, we must remember that under all circumstances, the rule of law and due process must prevail.

I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his house. As one who upheld communitarian laws over the interests of individuals, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over communitarian interests. As one who defended his Government's land acquisition laws, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the Government cannot acquire his own property. If in life he submitted himself to the rule of law, I cannot imagine him overruling it in death. It remains to be seen as to why the demolition was drafted as a wish rather than a directive or a condition under his will. I do not know. But it remains to be seen. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting his will to prevail over that of the communal good. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting to be treated above how other citizens are treated. Perhaps, only those closest to him would know the answer.

Indeed, we must give due weight to Mr Lee's wishes and, for that, I see that there is a justification for a Ministerial Committee, but it is also just for us to understand his reasons as to why he made certain wishes known. My own thinking is that it would not be right for us to demolish the house solely because he wished it. It would not have been right. The Mr Lee that I grew up knowing and respecting would not put his personal interests above the interests of his country. There must be due process, we must consider the interests of the country as opposed to the wishes of a family.

We cannot compromise the rule of law. I cannot over-emphasise this. If I could just share a little personal experience. In June 2015, when I was part of the Singapore delegation to the United Nations Convention for Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York, I was one of the speakers for a Singapore side event on "Urbanisation and Disabilities". I shared the Singapore story of transformation: from attap houses without proper sanitation facilities to high standard public housing with accessible features and universal designs; the transformation of our transportation infrastructure into an inclusive and accessible system, now the envy of many other countries; transformation of our underprivileged being provided education, opportunity, professional and social mobility. I shared the transformation of our journey towards acceptance and inclusion.

There were about 120 people in that room. They were from many different countries. They were surprised at what we achieved, and they were inspired that we did it in 50 years. They asked what our formula was. And I shared my personal view. I said there were three factors that were critical: political will, Civil Service buy-in and mutual trust between the public, people and private sectors. Undergirding those three things are, in my view, at least three important co-dependent factors: the rule of law, political stability and economic progress.

Without any of the three, it could not have been possible for us to look after our people or nurture them. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would degenerate into political and civil infighting. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would not see economic progress to support our social progress. Were we to divert our efforts and our attention to political infighting, we could not have spared resources or attention to care for the underprivileged in our community, to care for our people. So much at stake and what are we doing today?

We are here in Parliament debating serious allegations. We have had so much to deal with − an economy undergoing disruption in Singapore, globally. We have just finished our Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) consultations. There are so many proposals to be implemented. At the national level, we have just finished our Third Enabling Masterplan. So much to be done, so many people to look after − the health of the Pioneers, the health of our children − all these things. How do we educate our young, how do we bring them up with the right values? So much to be done.

On the personal level, we worry for our jobs, our own health, our children's future. We worry about safety, we worry about terrorism. So much at stake, so much to be done, and we are here talking about whether certain allegations against the highest officers in the land are valid or not.

I doubt very much that a debate could resolve this issue. Indeed, I do not think it can. But what I hope we can do today is that we can see for ourselves more clearly that there are certain issues that are none of our business, and certain issues that we need to clear the air. And I hope that by the end of this debate, Prime Minister, you and your Government will give to us the assurance that we can always rely on this Government to uphold and to maintain the rule of law in Singapore because, without that, there is no way we can have the confidence that we would be able to look after our people.

I feel deeply disappointed that, at a time like this, we are not focusing on national issues that matter so much to our people. In as much as we worry about what people think of us, we also need to realise that we ourselves must band together. If people are looking at Singapore and laughing at us, this is the time for us to be together as a people because this is the time for us to show to others that we are not a people to be easily shaken, easily bullied.

I say that this is a time for us to embark on destruction. Let us be one people to destroy − to destroy the divide that splits us as a people; destroy the suspicion that we have towards one another; destroy the memories of unhappiness, of hatred; destroy even partisan differences. This is the time for us to band together and exercise grace and forgiveness; to remember tender moments, happy moments and to remember that that is what our founding fathers would have wanted for us.

I do not know what people a few generations later will think about this debate. I simply hope that when we step out of this House and end this debate today, we will go out remembering that we are not here just to talk about the institutions, our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or his Ministers, but we are here debating and deciding on the future of Singapore − a Singapore that was not built by one man, not founded by the sacrifice of one man, but by the sacrifices of generations of Singaporeans. And, for that, I hope that we will not, never, allow that sacrifice to be in vain.

So, I say again, let us destroy the divide. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.34 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I thank the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their statements, and I am heartened by the effort and time they have spent clarifying the issues, addressing concerns and erasing doubts people might have. Madam, allow me to seek further clarifications which I have gathered from my residents, civil society activists, as well as feedback on my Facebook page.

Firstly, determining a testator's intent with regard to a property often follows a legal process. The Prime Minister did not challenge the will and it was granted probate from the Court. Many questioned what then is the role of the Ministerial Committee with regard to the will? According to Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and as he mentioned earlier, the Committee's interest in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will is simply to help them understand his thoughts regarding the house. Many are confused as to what it is that requires further understanding, and does the Committee not accept the will as the official expression of Mr Lee's last wishes?

Secondly, there may be a conflict between the role of the Ministerial Committee and the process and powers set out in section 11 of the Preservation of Monuments Act. Section 11 states that "the Minister may, after consulting the Board, make a preservation order to place any monument under the protection of the Board." The "Board" here refers to the National Heritage Board. There is no provision in this piece of legislation about taking advice from the Ministerial Committee. How will evidence gathered and decisions taken by the Committee influence the processes set out in section 11? Would the Minister and NHB be in any way bound by opinions or findings by the Committee? At this point, is NHB also concurrently studying about whether to preserve the house? If the plan is to conserve the area, then, similarly, section 9 of the Planning Act states, "Where in the opinion of the Minister any area is of special architectural, historic, traditional or aesthetic interest, the Minister may approve under section 8 a proposal to amend the Master Plan to designate the area as a conservation area." There is no mention of the role of a Ministerial Committee here in this piece of legislation as well.

Thirdly, as explained earlier, I understand the Committee is studying and listing options. But would not the factors this Committee is using, including public sentiments, change in the future? What then is the point of setting up this Committee now and making recommendations now? Things would definitely change in two to three decades. Family members' views might change as well.

Fourth, can the Prime Minister clarify under what circumstances are Ministerial Committees convened? Are there written rules and procedures governing the setting up and functions of such committees?

Lastly, can the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether the same emphasis was placed on other important buildings like the National Library? There has been much talk on social media about this, and I suppose the question really is, how do we decide what to preserve or conserve and when do we set up Ministerial Committees for these decisions? Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about this earlier, but can I confirm if Ministerial Committees were set up for previous important buildings as well?

Beyond all these questions, I appreciate that this is not an easy issue to resolve and definitely not one with straightforward answers. The community is divided in their views. Last Friday night, I had two meetings and this issue was brought up in our conversations in both meetings. At the first meeting, the consensus was to demolish. The second meeting, the consensus was not to demolish. They did not support demolishing the house as they felt we have so little heritage left in Singapore that we should preserve or conserve whatever heritage we have left.

Ultimately, it is easy to understand why we should demolish. It was part of Mr Lee's will. It is perhaps harder to understand why we should not demolish, and can the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to further explain and provide details on what exactly is the heritage value and why an option to preserve or conserve the house should be considered?

In conclusion, Madam, whatever decision we make or options we list, the key is to continue to be transparent about it, and perhaps the most important part is to also be transparent about the process of making the decision or options. It really is not an easy issue to resolve and, as such, I hope, like many Members of this House have suggested, that we set up a Select Committee to look into this and find a way forward.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

5.38 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, I am not here today to debate on how the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew was made or who drafted it. I am not even bothered why the current owner of 38 Oxley Road would want it demolished as soon as possible. These are really none of my business. These are private matters for the Prime Minister to settle with his siblings and they do not concern the state.

I was not a bit affected by this issue until when other Ministers started to weigh in on the matters. The whole episode then took a cringing turn, and allegations of abuse of power began to flow in. That is when the real embarrassment starts. Why are Ministers taking sides in a private dispute on a house that is still legally in the hands of a private individual?

In recent statements made by Ministers on social media, the fate of 38 Oxley Road seems to hinge on whether the house should be demolished completely according to the will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew or preserved, in whole or in part, as a political heritage. One can easily infer from the tone set by these Ministers that the Government is tending towards the latter option, and that, sadly, will drag the Government into the picture to decide on the fate of 38 Oxley Road, in the guise of public interest. Madam, if this Government had not had the slightest interest to take sides and form a secret committee to explore other options for the house in the first place, none of these would have happened.

Some Ministers seemed to allude to the sanctity of the house from a historical context and that it deserves preservation. Some Ministers had commented that many important meetings and critical decisions on the future of Singapore took place at 38 Oxley Road. While that is not a far-fetched statement since it is the birthplace of the only ruling political party in Singapore since 1965, what other roles did the house play in our march from Third World to First? What official and history-making decisions and declarations affecting Singapore were made in the basement of this house, other than it had always been the private abode of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mdm Kwa Geok Choo? Did the Cabinet of the day hold its first post-1965 meeting at Oxley Road? Did the Cabinet meet regularly at the house rather than at the old Parliament House or Istana?

One thing is very clear to me − a political party was founded in the basement dining room of 38 Oxley Road, not modern Singapore. Modern Singapore was thrust into existence, not by its own free will, on 9 August 1965, under circumstances that are well documented in our history books, and 38 Oxley Road hardly gets a memorable mention anywhere. As the Prime Minister has said earlier, this is just an old house.

Thirty-eight Oxley Road probably holds so much intimate and private memories for Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mdm Kwa Geok Choo that none of us in this Chamber, maybe with the exception of the Prime Minister, should even attempt to try to understand or question why they would want their house to be demolished immediately after they are gone. From the accounts given by the Prime Minister today, the fate of the house is really a family matter and it should not be outsourced to the Government to decide.

I wish to put on record that I do not support the effort or intention of the Government to gazette 38 Oxley Road for whatever reasons. A reported poll on 23 December 2015 indicated that 77% of the people said they would want to see Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish for the house to be carried out, although I am of the opinion that such a poll is not even necessary, as this is a completely private matter for the immediate family members to sort out.

Even if the balance of the fate of the house is tending towards preservation in the name of public interest, and the Prime Minister recuses himself in this matter, the buck still stops with him. Surely, the Prime Minister is not a lame-duck commander-in-chief in this matter. He has the power to have the final say, take the whole matter off the Government's hand and resolve it privately or in Court, as he should. The surviving members of the Lee family should not outsource this decision to the Government or any secret committee.

Madam, what is more troubling about this private saga is found in the statement released by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in the wee hours of 14 June 2017. The statement contains disturbing revelations and undisclosed facts and allegations of abuse of powers.

As highlighted by Ms Sylvia Lim, Singaporeans woke up in the morning to find out that our newly-appointed AG, Mr Lucien Wong, was also the personal lawyer of the Prime Minister previously. The fact that the Prime Minister and our current AG had a commercial relationship was never publicly disclosed until now. How long has Mr Lucien Wong been the personal lawyer for the Prime Minister? While such a relationship may not allude to anything, a personal and commercial relation between the Prime Minister and the appointed AG should be publicly disclosed in the name of transparency. When I sought the advice of someone from the charity sector about mundane disclosure, this person said, when in doubt, more disclosure is better than less. So, err on the safe side. Could the Prime Minister explain why the public disclosure of his relationship with the AG is not necessary?

Singaporeans also found out the same morning that the wife of the Prime Minister was alleged to have exerted her influence on the Government and Civil Service in a pervasive manner and "well beyond her job purview." Neither the Prime Minister nor his wife has come out to refute the allegation in no uncertain terms.

Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote, and I quote: "Singapore has no such thing as the wife of the Prime Minister being a ‘first lady'. Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990. During those many years, his wife (our mother) consistently avoided the limelight, remaining his stalwart supporter and advisor in private. She lived discreetly and set a high bar for the conduct of a Prime Minister's wife. She would never instruct Permanent Secretaries or senior civil servants. The contrast between her and Ho Ching could not be more stark. While Ho Ching holds no elected or official position in the Government, her influence is pervasive and extends well beyond her job purview."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in his own words about his relationship with his wife, said, "I made a point, however, not to discuss the formulation of policies with her, and she was scrupulous in not reading notes or faxes that were sensitive."

From both accounts, Madam, it is a given that the wife of the Prime Minister, and for that matter, the wife of any Minister, would have easy access to information and the inner workings of the Government.

While there is a code of conduct to govern Ministers, what safeguards are there to prevent their family members from abusing their positions of influence in their engagement with the Civil Service? The Prime Minister has said that it is the duty of the Minister to correct any abuse of power committed by their family members. Nonetheless, these safeguards should be spelt out clearly so that the core values of the Civil Service would not be compromised. Surely, family members of Ministers and political appointees cannot act with impunity just because they are private individuals and the code of conduct only applies to public officeholders.

So, what are the safeguards for the Civil Service if such family members decide to go beyond their call of duty for all the wrong reasons? So, what prompted Dr Lee Wei Ling to allege that the wife of the Prime Minister is throwing her weight around with the Civil Service? What pervasive influence did she exert that are well beyond her job purview?

In an NHB document released on Facebook, a certain "Ms Ho Ching" was listed as a contact person for PMO, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had alleged that this person is the wife of the Prime Minister, Mdm Ho Ching, of which, she did not deny. So, what official role does the wife of the Prime Minister have in Government that would allow her to act as a contact person for PMO? Would NHB dare to ask the wife of the Prime Minister to show proof that the items on loan were obtained legally? Between state agencies, did they not know that PMO does not have a contact person named "Ms Ho Ching"?

And what business did MCI have in photographing and cataloging a private house? Was the Government working on a secret project? These are allegations that need to be addressed.

In my dealings with the Civil Service, many civil servants are neutral and we must protect them from being put into positions of conflict against their values, personal and professional. Does the Prime Minister not agree that these allegations of abuse of position of influence by family members need to be addressed urgently and emphatically in a transparent manner?

Madam, in conclusion, years from now, how do Singaporeans want to remember 38 Oxley Road, a place where Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew once raised their family, or a house where bitterness resides? The choice lies with the family and not with this Government.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

5.48 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, hearing the stories of families, listening to stories of families from residents, I wanted to share a short story of my own.

I remember one of my last conversations with my late father. He was ill with cancer, not getting better. I was at his bedside visiting him at home. By then, he could not stand up for long. Sitting up was hard. Breathing was a challenge. But he could still talk. We talked for a while. And then he reminded me not to take up too much time with him. Because there were other cancer patients who needed me more as their doctor.

But this story is not unique. It is a story that every Singaporean family relates to in their own way, in their own journey, whether it is other doctors or nurses in our hospitals working to cure illness, to comfort patients, even if it means less time with loved ones who are sick. It is a story that is lived by our teachers in our schools who uplift the lives of young Singaporeans, even though every extra hour at home with their own children would mean one less hour at school with the students they are looking after.

It is a story that will be understood by our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen who know that operational readiness and commitment to defence, making that sacrifice is how we deter external threats from intimidating Singapore. And it is a story that will be known by our Home Team officers who leave their children behind when they go on duty − firefighters running towards danger rather than running away as we saw on videos on social media some months back; Police Officers stepping into harm's way so that other parents' children can live and sleep safe at night.

Yet, I am sure many Singaporeans, and many of my residents have told me, they can only imagine how much harder it is for our Prime Minister. Because while Mr Lee Hsien Loong has his family duty as the eldest son, Prime Minister Lee has a duty to Singapore. And Singapore must always come first.

Putting Singapore first means a duty to uphold the rule of law. Because in a fair and just society, the system and laws have to be bigger than any one person or family because no one comes into this world choosing who their parents are, where they will be born, which postal code they will be born in.

That is why the law must apply equally, regardless of your background. And the law of land acquisition does apply equally to the wealthy and famous, as much as to the farmer in a kampung.

This equality of land law is still something very, very rare throughout the world. If we look all around us, across the arc of human history, dispossession, being disadvantaged in the system, is often what happens to the powerless elsewhere.

In other countries, curbs on private property rights very rarely hit those with power, or those who can influence people in power. That is what happens elsewhere. But not in Singapore. And that is why we have to preserve this Singapore principle of the rule of law.

Let me talk about the Ministerial Committee. The rule of law is also about due process. And there are questions to be asked, that my residents have asked, about the Ministerial Committee looking at 38 Oxley Road. My residents, many are not lawyers; they are lay persons. They are wondering, could this task not have been assigned to the Founders Memorial Committee, which was already looking at how to remember our Founders? Could the question have been put to the Founders Memorial Committee earlier?

Some of my residents have also asked, why should this Ministerial Committee be studying Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will? It is going to be very important to find out why exactly was this Ministerial Committee looking at the will, given what has been said online and given the concerns that many of my residents have raised. Like me, my residents are not legally trained. People ask, how does the Ministerial Committee fit in with a layperson's understanding of due process? This needs to be explained thoroughly because the rule of law is not just about due process. It is about public confidence in that process, confidence that the rule of law applies and is applied equally, the confidence that allows people from all walks of life to believe in the system and continue living in it.

Madam, our Government also has a duty to both current and future generations. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had written about Dr Lee Wei Ling continuing to stay at 38 Oxley Road. This could be for many years more. As long as she wants. Indeed, for as long as she lives. Right now, there does not seem to be a need to rush to decide. So, some of my residents asked: what exactly is being asked of the Government in this dispute? They are perplexed. I am perplexed.

Indeed, if 38 Oxley Road were demolished in haste, as Mr Png Eng Huat seems to allude to, it may well mean fewer choices for future governments and later generations of Singaporeans. There is an issue of intergenerational equity here. Just as we have thought very carefully about our fiscal Reserves and how choices made by one generation should not over-commit the next generation, likewise, there is an issue of intergenerational heritage equity that we have to think about as well. Because once the house is smashed and gone, it is lost forever. In SG100, two generations from now, SG100 Singaporeans might want it to stand again − the house or the basement.

So, we should not rush, especially when emotions are high and feelings are raw. We should take our time. Do not rush to decide. Do not rush to tear down what cannot be rebuilt. Do not rush to unmake what can never be made whole again.

The same principle has to apply to the greater house that Mr Lee and the Founders built. A greater house − the home that is Singapore. Our cohesion as one people, our togetherness, our system of rule of law, that fairness and our stature as a shining red dot, hoping to light the way to a better future. A country where citizens can stand tall in the world, proud of what our country stands for. All this is the greater house that is Singapore.

Our founding leaders, our Pioneer generation spent their whole lives building this up. Let us not allow it to be knocked down on a whim.

Singapore is not perfect. In Singapore, the story is always about getting the country better and making the country even better. So, if there is a problem, it matters whether there is evidence, because the evidence helps us find out where we can do better. But likewise, if there is no evidence, let it be known as well that there is no evidence.

If I may say to those who have been alleging abuse of power, those who have been making online allegations: show us the evidence, bring it all out. There is the whole night tonight to post on Facebook. I am sure WP will appreciate it. I am sure our PAP MPs will appreciate it. I am sure our NMPs will appreciate it. I am sure the people of Singapore will appreciate it. If there is evidence, let it all come out before this debate is over. Do not come back later and say there was no chance to have the issue heard, because there are many other things that Singapore needs to deal with − big, big challenges ahead for Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I am Advisor to the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees' Union (SMEEU). I have met Singaporeans − brothers and sisters − in the Offshore and Marine sector. We know what the recent oil prices have done to that sector. Husbands, fathers, mothers, breadwinners are wondering if they will still have a job next month. Have the recent events helped our brothers and sisters who are worrying about work?

At our Inclusive Job Fair in Clementi and during my home visits as a constituency MP, I have met middle-aged workers wondering if there will be new jobs available if they lose their existing jobs. Has what happened online, has all that helped our workers?

We see terrorism and extremism around the world. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) wanting to set up a province, a wilayat in Southeast Asia, trying to brainwash people through social media from halfway around the world. Has this public dispute, this poison, has it made us safer?

We see world events shaping our environment, shifting the stage that Singapore balances on. Does all this strengthen our place in the sun? Does it help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) stand tall and proud overseas? Does it help our citizens when they seek opportunities elsewhere and engage with overseas counterparts? Or has it cast a long shadow on our little red dot?

Mdm Speaker, this dispute may be between the flesh and blood of our Founding father Mr Lee. But all of us are sons and daughters of Singapore, the Singapore that Mr Lee and his Pioneer generation built. Not just the country of our birth. Our country, our home, our Singapore. And our Singapore deserves a lot better than what happened at 2.00 am on 14 June this year.

Mdm Speaker, the wheel of history will always turn. It keeps on turning. Each of us, in our own way, can shape the future for the sons and daughters of tomorrow. We cannot change the past. But we must always ask ourselves how we can make things better, so that our grandchildren's generation never find themselves wishing they could turn back the clock and start all over again.

Yesterday is already written. But tomorrow is still ours to shape, our days of present futures.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

So, I hope with all my heart that today's divisions can somehow be reconciled, that the pain and sadness felt throughout so much of Singapore can and will be healed, and that whatever happens, our Singapore, our country, will come through this stronger and better than before. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png.

Mr Png Eng Huat: May I just seek a quick clarification from Dr Tan Wu Meng?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have made a speech earlier?

Mr Png Eng Huat: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay.

Mr Png Eng Huat: The Member said that I wanted the house to be demolished in a haste. So, which part of my speech did I say that?

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, from my understanding of Mr Png Eng Huat's speech, he seems to adopt a particular view that the value of the house was confined to just one family in a very narrow way, and I wonder if that meant he was suggesting the house had no heritage value for the rest of Singapore. If I may ask, what is Mr Png's position on whether the house should be demolished, and whether he thinks it should be demolished now?

Mr Png Eng Huat: Actually, I would like Dr Tan to answer first. Which part of my speech says that I want the house to be demolished in a haste?

Dr Tan Wu Meng: I believe the Hansard will reflect that my understanding of Mr Png's speech was that he was alluding to a certain point of view. That seems to be quite a possibly natural conclusion to draw from the points he was making. Will Mr Png reply to my clarification as well, please?

Mr Png Eng Huat: I will send the speech later and it will be in the Hansard. In reply to his question, I am not into cult worshipping. So, that answers the Member's question.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right, we move on. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

6.04 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, today's Sitting is unique in several respects, not least because of the apology by the Prime Minister, for the manner in which a dispute with both public and private dimensions has been aired in the Court of public opinion. His apology was first made a few weeks ago, which was televised and broadcast to all Singaporeans to see, and it was made again today.

We live in an age, Mr Deputy Speaker, when some foreign world leaders make their rounds on talk shows, who use social media to insist that they have nothing to apologise for. In politics, like in law, it is usually the case that to admit fault seems to many to be an invitation to be attacked in return. But a genuine apology to the Government's first and foremost stakeholders − the people of Singapore − disarms. A genuine apology is a gesture of self-humbling, a willingness to be less powerful than one can be. In this regard, I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what comes after an apology is equally, if not more, important.

Today's Parliamentary Sitting aims to set out and analyse truths, not about the validity or invalidity of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final will. After all, a grant of probate was made without protest on 6 October 2015, more than six months ago. Our duty today is to identify and ask questions on behalf of our constituents or, if you are an NMP, our functional groups, regarding the origins of the allegations aired in public.

These allegations have been inimical to Singapore's reputation, and I think they indicate, if nothing else, that the country's leader and his siblings do not speak with one voice.

There are two points I want to make, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first is what process should we choose when we are discussing these questions. And second, it is about participative policymaking.

The fact that the Government endeavours to prioritise the common good that seeks to balance public against private interests, the long term against the short term is clear. It is the way that Singapore has been and, I hope, should always be governed. It is also in keeping with our settled policymaking traditions, as our Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has said recently.

But what about, as there is now, when there is a situation of real or apparent conflict, something that Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned earlier, which may be seen to be contrary to both Ministerial and Public Service codes of conduct? What then? The Government's answer seems to be perhaps establish a Cabinet Committee and, of course, for the Prime Minister or whichever Cabinet Minister is involved to recuse themselves. That makes perfect sense.

However, even if there is no mystery to the Members of this House as to what Cabinet Committees are − there are Cabinet Committees, there are Cabinet subcommittees, there are Cabinet task forces − there is no mystery behind them, and it is not something that only Singapore has. Many Commonwealth countries have them. In the United Kingdom, which is where we get our own traditions from, there are 10 Cabinet Committees, and there are about 15 Cabinet subcommittees. But even in that grand nation, there has been a push to move away from Cabinet Committees for this precise reason of an allegation of secrecy.

Prime Minister Theresa May disclosed the thematic focus as well as the membership of all her Cabinet Committees which are responsible for the day-to-day decisions made and which are designed to take the pressure off the full Cabinet meeting for every decision that has to be made. But in special circumstances, such as this, which have animated the minds of so many Singaporeans, should we go beyond looking at Cabinet Committees? The process of decision-making, Mr Deputy Speaker, and how this is communicated in the eyes of Singaporeans, are important.

To this end, can I clarify perhaps, was there at any time in which a Parliamentary Select Committee was considered before this Cabinet Committee was actually organised? I understand that a Parliamentary Select Committee would be a Select Committee of MPs, not Ministers. But the difference is, looking at Standing Order 101, it allows for bipartisan representation. That gives a sense that any questions that should be asked could be asked at an early stage.

Standing Order 101 also allows the Speaker, or her delegate, to serve as the Chairman of that particular Committee, even if the Speaker is not a Member of that Committee, giving one a sense of neutrality or independence. If we were to go further, where senior Cabinet Ministers may wish to, in good conscience, recuse themselves from the decision-making process, perhaps Parliament could study whatever mechanisms could be put in place.

We should certainly look to the future, as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary mentioned earlier. If you are looking 15 years into the future, or even further, should the processes also not be refined? What happens if this were to recur again in a different Prime Minister's administration? Can we count on so clearly that that Prime Minister would recuse himself or herself from the decision-making process? Should there not be some form of check, some neutrality? Who can be that neutrality? Where is it going to come from?

A suggestion, for example, has been made, and I would support this proposal as well, whether there should be a Parliamentary commissioner, perhaps not a standing institution, but a Parliamentary commissioner who could, from time to time, engage where there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Someone who is independent of the Government and the Civil Service to be appointed in precisely this sort of situation, if nothing else, to insulate the Cabinet from an appearance of conflict. Appearances matter to Singaporeans, Mr Deputy Speaker.

When we look at the divide that has formed over what should be done over 38 Oxley Road, we notice a clear divide. As an example, members of the public from institutions or organisations, such as the Heritage Society, feel that acceding to an individual testator's wishes, whoever he or she may be, without undergoing the process administered by our local heritage and planning institutions, may establish an unwanted precedent for future preservation or conservation cases. If we do this now, what about the next case that comes up? That is what they say.

On the other hand, I understand that in a poll conducted by Black Box research, a local market research consultancy, a significant majority of close to 1,000 respondents voted that the house should be demolished in the event a Court were to declare that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was of sound mind, had acted without undue influence, and knew and approved of the contents of that final will. There is this divide.

Of course, these two examples may be anecdotal, they may not be representative examples. But given that as many of us agree in this House that the fate of 38 Oxley has become a matter of public interest, and if it is a matter of public interest, does the Government intend to include the public in some form of consultation?

In the course of the studies which Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned earlier − one study undertaken by NHB, and the other study undertaken by URA − looking at the possibility of preservation or conservation, where can we involve public consultation, where can we get the views of the public? The opportunity for such consultation calls to mind a desire that was expressed during the Our Singapore Conversation dialogues a few years ago, where the report finally concluded that the Government should "share the reasons behind policies and create or enhance spaces for ongoing interactions". In short, where possible, participatory policymaking. It bears mention that people can become disenchanted if they feel that any information that they are providing is at the final stages of the process, that their consultation may be piecemeal.

It is clear from our style of Government, from Singapore's style of Government, be it in foreign or domestic policy, be it with most important trade or investment issues, or with arts and culture, that one thing that cuts across all these areas – and I think it is deeply within our national psyche – is national heritage, what we think is important for our identity as Singaporeans. This genesis or heritage story that we have is at the heart of what is going on right now. In this policymaking that we go for, when we think about the processes that we put in place and we also think about how to confront these sorts of disputes in future, what can we do to include Singaporeans in this process?

Finally, what is the larger process that we are looking at? It calls to mind the Heritage Master Plan that was spoken about during the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year. And I understand that the Heritage Master Plan, or at least the first stage, will be released in 2018, and that it will be a five-year plan. Perhaps, it all comes together. If heritage is so important to Singaporeans, and I am sure it is, from everything that we see, from all accounts, then that is the greater debate. It is not about family dispute, as sad as that may be. But what Singaporeans want is to protect their heritage, to protect their sense of identity, to know who and what they belong to.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.15 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have several questions, all of which are focused on the Ministerial Committee set up to consider options for the house at 38 Oxley Road. They are as follows.

First, why did the Committee find it necessary to seek views from the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children to get a clearer sense of his thinking in relation to the house in 2016 when his views, as expressed in his last will, were already made public?

Second, how would such subjective information on his wishes help the Committee in its deliberations to identify the options for the house?

Third, noting the letter dated 27 July 2016 from Minister Lawrence Wong to the executors, in the paragraph which states, "the Committee will be listing the different options and the implications of those options and setting them out in the context of Mr Lee's wishes", my question is: was it contemplated that the children of Mr Lee would be approached to provide their own views on these options and, if so, was it conveyed to his children?

Fourth, why did the Committee decide not to disclose its composition of members, save for Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Minister Lawrence Wong, to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling at the time when they were asked to provide their views about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking and wishes in relation to the house?

Fifth, did the Minister for Law advise the late Mr Lee or any of his family members on matters in connection with the house prior to becoming a member of the Committee?

Finally, if he has, why is he of the view that he is not in a conflict of interest position in assuming a position in the Committee that is focused on looking at the options for the house?

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing to hear some MPs expressing the view that today's debate is pointless. I think it trivialises what has happened today. We have heard the Ministerial Statements made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and robust questions have been posed to both of them and their Cabinet colleagues. I have posed some of these questions and these questions are drawn from the allegations that were made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang as well as Dr Lee Wei Ling. The fact that they are not here does not mean that the allegations they have made outside this House cannot be conveyed as well. So, we have done that. Both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs have done the same thing, together with my colleagues who are NMPs.

It is disappointing to hear that they have already prejudged that the debate is pointless. I think we have still not heard the answers from the Ministers, and such conclusions, being prematurely drawn, undermine the confidence in this House. This House is definitely more important than the house at 38 Oxley Road.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.

6.18 pm

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past few weeks, Singapore has become the talking point around the world. However, the reason for this undue attention really makes us feel very uneasy and helpless. Some people take this opportunity to utter all kinds of things, hoping that everything would become chaotic. Even more Singaporeans feel most dismayed by this development, not wishing to see the image of our country and the dignity of our leaders tarnished as a result.

Singapore has transformed from a small fishing village into an independent and developed nation, becoming one of the most competitive cities globally. This did not occur by chance, but derived from the far-sightedness of our Pioneer leaders, the citizens' unity and hard work, the Government's diligence and pragmatism, making all efforts to maintain social cohesion and promote economic development.

Presently, the world is not really at peace. Many countries around the world are facing all kinds of problems, and Singapore is no exception. In the past, we have also encountered setbacks, but our people believed that an open and transparent political system and a government which is administratively robust, would enable everyone to overcome difficulties together.

An ancient saying goes that an honest and upright official finds it hard to judge domestic affairs, as every household experiences its own specific problems. I am not making any judgements, but I do love my country and respect our Pioneer leaders even more. In this constantly changing international order, Singapore's economic restructuring has entered a difficult period. Coupled with domestic and external threats from extremist groups, we deeply believe that the Prime Minister and Ministers would continue to put national interests as their top priority.

I recall that two years ago, here in Parliament, I gave an eulogy at a tribute to Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. I said that "the most valuable legacy that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has left behind is the nation, system and political ideology that he forged together with his comrades". We should endeavour to make it even better, enabling the task of nation-building that he had struggled to achieve in his lifetime to flourish.

Over the past five years, I had had the opportunity to get involved in the work of restructuring the Singapore economy, from the initial National Productivity Council, to the Council for Skills, Innovation and Productivity, and to the present Future Economy Council. I am deeply aware that economic transformation is not easy, especially since the global economy is in a state of flux. At this time, it is even more critical for the Government and the people to stay united in purpose.

Fifty years of nation-building have enabled fellow Singaporeans to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and stability in our society. As we carry Singapore passports, we feel a great sense of pride for our country wherever we go. However, during this period, Singapore has become the target of sensational news. We should not carry our Singapore passport in one hand and go around the world to open up our minds or seek business opportunities and enjoy the convenience and respect from every country, and yet, on the other hand, cast doubts and distrust on our country's political system. Even more disastrous is that when other people cast aspersions on our own country, we choose to keep quiet or avoid replying, unwilling or not daring to come forward in defence. This red passport is accepted worldwide because it symbolises the transparency and reliability of Singapore's political system.

If Singaporeans cannot respect ourselves, lose self-respect, lose trust in our own country's political system, how can we expect to earn respect from others?

Some businessmen have complained to me that recently, whenever they meet business partners abroad, they are always being queried about this dispute and are nonplussed about the appropriate way to respond. I think everyone should stand up and bravely defend the dignity of our nation and our leaders. Singaporeans should demonstrate this patriotic spirit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot allow such propaganda to continue, which would only sow seeds of discord and bring humiliation to our fellow men. Putting national interests above personal honour − this is the most precious value and legacy left behind by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

6.25 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Prime Minister, you had asked that all MPs be candid and ask any questions so as to allow you to clarify matters fully and put to rest any doubt what the allegations of abuse of your powers are and the aspersions cast on the integrity of the system. It is with this spirit in mind that I seek clarification on a few matters.

As a lawyer, I typically extol the advantages of having a will to my clients. It helps your loved ones deal with your assets when you pass on and you can ensure that your wishes are carried out when you are not around. However, I have also seen cases where things go awry and family members disagree on the validity of the will after the individual has passed away. It is, therefore, important that a will is properly drafted and proper independent legal advice is given to the client to avoid any doubt or challenge to the will.

In the circumstances, I find it unsettling that it is not clear who drafted the will. It is odd that we do not know this answer and there are issues as to whether the late Mr Lee was independently advised. Anyone who knows the law would know that you need someone independent to draft the will. Was it done here?

These are serious assertions which may go towards the validity of the will and the propriety of Mdm Lee Suet Fern as a lawyer. The proper forum to challenge a will and raise these issues would be in Court. Prime Minister, you had decided not to pursue this matter in Court. A fight in Court, especially between family members, can be emotionally draining and damaging to the relationship. So, while your reluctance to contest the grant of probate and your initial decision not to challenge the will is understandable, there are, therefore, now questions raised about the appropriateness to now raise these issues before the Ministerial Committee. As the grant of probate has been granted and there is no challenge, the will should be taken as valid and proper. You had, however, in your statutory declaration submitted to the Ministerial Committee alluded to certain questionable circumstances upon which the will was executed. This may appear to be a "backdoor" approach in challenging the validity of the will. Could you, therefore, clarify why you found it necessary to affirm the statutory declaration and your intentions in doing so? Why could you not just rely on the words of the will which, in itself, contemplated a situation where the house is not being demolished?

Related to the above, many have raised concerns on the formation of the Ministerial Committee. Prime Minister, it is noted that you had recused yourself from making any decisions on 38 Oxley Road. However, some are still not convinced that the Ministers are able to put aside their deference to you in relation to this matter.

Personally, I am not quite sure what the Ministers need to defer to you on as there is no decision to be made at this juncture, given that Dr Lee Wei Ling is still staying at the house. I am also not clear of the benefits you gain whether the house is demolished or not. However, there is now doubt on the improper use of your powers in setting up this Committee.

I understand and I note from Deputy Prime Minister Teo's earlier explanation that the Ministerial Committee came about as a result of a proposal put up by the Minister of National Development. May I seek a clarification on whether prior to this proposal you had asked or suggested the formation of this Ministerial Committee to be set up? I believe it would help to dissipate any doubt if you could clarify on this matter.

My next question relates to the Deed of Gift entered into by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang with NHB. As highlighted by Minister Lawrence Wong, there were some strange conditions in the Deed, which included the right of the executors to buy back the items for $1 and a display of a partial quote of the demolition clause in the late Mr Lee's will. The much-quoted demolition clause has two parts; the first part expresses the late Mr and Mrs Lee's wish that the house at 38 Oxley Road be demolished. The second part showed that Mr Lee had, in fact, contemplated the situation when the house could not be demolished. The Deed had only asked for only the first part of the will to be prominently displayed to the public.

Given that the conditions appeared strange, may I know why NHB proceeded to accept the terms and proceeded with the exhibition? Should you also not have a more rigorous process to check whether or not there was a consent of all the beneficiaries obtained? Was there a proper process in place to vet the terms of the Deed and consider whether it was appropriate to enter into the Deed with the Lee siblings? I have also found it disturbing that Mdm Lee Suet Fern was involved in this decision, and may I just seek clarification on the rigour in the process in determining the suitability of entering into this Deed with the two of them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The issue concerning 38 Oxley Road has caused unease among Singaporeans. The integrity of the leadership and system of Government are being questioned. There appears to be a slight loss of faith in the Government that was elected by the people. This is very sad and will have serious implications on our country's international standing. I truly hope that all the questions raised can be answered fully so that there will be no more lingering doubts about the transparency and integrity of the Government. And I also hope that after this debate, all of us can fully focus on the efforts to prepare our society for our future challenges.

(In English) In the past few weeks, the integrity of the system and leadership has been called into question. Even the PAP MPs are not spared as our ability to put aside our deference to the Prime Minister and ask questions on behalf of our constituents are also put to question. Recently, many I spoke to have expressed their wish that there be closure to the matter. Upon listening to Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary's speech as well as some of my other colleagues, it reminded me that the closure on whether or not we achieve this is up to us Singaporeans. As my Parliamentary colleague Dr Tan Wu Meng said, "If we have any questions, any queries, Internet is still open. It is up to us to just put up the questions and allow the Prime Minister to address these concerns. In particular, if Dr Lee Wei Ling or Mr Lee Hsien Yang claims abuse of power, I would ask that they be more specific and put it up for Prime Minister Lee to answer them and not say later that they were not given the opportunity to put up their part of the story."

I believe the Prime Minister and the Ministers will do their best in addressing the questions and I hope that the questions raised can be answered as thoroughly as possible so that any concerns of abuse of powers are allayed. But at the end of the day, it is up to us to place our faith and trust on the leaders that we have elected to do right by us.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

6.32 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, imagine, if you will, a public-listed company where two ex-employees have made allegations on Facebook of abuse of power by the CEO. The Board of Directors meets. It decides to convene an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) of shareholders to debate the allegations. While waiting for this EOGM, individual directors rebut the whistleblowers' claims or the purported whistleblowers' claims on Facebook. However, no one − no independent director, no special auditor, no consultant, no member of management, no Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) or law enforcement officer − has met and interviewed the two self-styled whistleblowers to ask them for proof, to interrogate their claims and investigate their veracity.

Instead, at the EOGM, the CEO rebuts the Facebook posts. He then asks for a vote of shareholders to decide if he should step down. No independent investigation of the claims made, just settled by debate after hearing one side of the story. Would such a company be deemed to have met best practices of corporate governance? Would such a company be seen to be beyond reproach?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this analogy, while imperfect, does illustrate some of the dilemmas this House faces in discussing this matter. It is the process we follow to resolve this issue that I will focus on in my speech.

I shall not speak on the issue of what should be done to the house at 38 Oxley Road or what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted for his house, questions on which the WP does not adopt a Party position, as my colleagues have explained.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, abuse of power and the integrity of our public institutions are serious issues and they are the crux of the matter today − not the house, not the will, not the affairs of the family.

The allegations of abuse of power that have been made include, among other things: the abuse of a Ministerial Committee to pursue a personal agenda; the improper use of a document obtained in a public capacity in private capacity; allegations of intermeddling and appropriation of items without the permission of the estate by the Prime Minister's wife; allegations of the influence of the Prime Minister's wife on governmental functions; allegations of the Government surveilling and harassing the accusers, turning their lives into "an Orwellian nightmare."

The Prime Minister has acknowledged that this controversy has damaged the reputation of Singapore for institutional probity and Singaporeans' confidence in the Government.

If allowed to fester, these allegations will damage Singapore even more in the weeks and months ahead. They must be decisively addressed, the truth established and appropriate follow-up actions taken in respect of the events and incidence themselves as well as any systemic issues that need to be attended to, to prevent a recurrence of similar incidences in future.

Whatever happens today and tomorrow in Parliament − whatever attacks are levelled against the accusers, whatever compromises are suggested, whatever admissions of error or wrongdoing are made − we cannot dismiss such allegations without allowing to the accusers a public platform to defend and expand on their views, share their evidence and be cross-examined, a public platform where all can see justice being done.

Otherwise the matter may never be put to bed. The conclusions made in this House in the wrapping-up speeches after this debate may simply be rebutted on Facebook the next day with reference to fresh information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fear that today, in an attempt to be made to close the issue and move on, without that proper process of fact-finding that gives the accusers a chance to state their case and be cross-examined, if we do that today or tomorrow, the accusations will continue. The Facebook posts may continue. The erosion of public and international confidence may continue.

In fact, in his Facebook post of Thursday, 29 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang stated, "We have begun to show evidence of his misuse of his position and so on. Note the choice of the word "begun."

Can anyone seriously maintain that we can properly and finally put these allegations to rest once and for all simply by debating amongst ourselves in this House today? Nor should we settle for a debate today that ends on the question: do you have confidence in the Government or not, are you calling for the resignation of key figures or not? If not, then let us move on.

It is my view that this should not be the way to deal with these allegations. No one should be asked, "Do you want the Prime Minister to resign, do you have confidence in the current Government, yes or no?" without the benefit of a fact-finding process that allows the accusers to testify and be cross-examined, together with other persons of interest.

This is not a time for calls of "are you for me or against me." To those who might think to make such a call today or tomorrow, I ask you: why are you afraid of a proper, public fact-finding process that allows the accusers to testify and be cross-examined? What are you afraid of?

I will now speak about some issues related to the allegations of abuse of power.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo said that the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road was convened to explore options. There is an established process for gazetting a building as a national monument or some equivalent of that. Why were the established channels not used in this case? I believe other MPs have spoken about this as well. Now, it might be argued that perhaps this case is not like others, because deference needs to be shown to the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

However, if that is the stance of the Government, why was a non-transparent Ministerial Committee chosen as the right organisational form for resolving this? Why not some kind of independent panel with the expertise and resources to perform expert heritage analysis and public opinion sensing? A panel that would not be seen by anyone as potentially compromised by the fact that its members directly report to an individual who has personal ties to the matter at hand.

Even more importantly, the Ministerial Committee seems to have focused primarily on revisiting the issue of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as expressed in his last will. I believe several Members have spoken about this already. The Committee wrote to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling on this question and asked if they would file statutory declarations on the same. The Cabinet Secretary made a statement on this. The Prime Minister released portions of his statutory declaration relating to this. Senior Minister of State for Law Ms Indranee Rajah released several Facebook posts on this.

Surely, the proper platform to challenge the late Mr Lee's will would have been in Court. In fact, other than revisiting the issue of what the late Mr Lee wanted, there would appear to be little evidence available to date of any other work done by the Ministerial Committee in respect of work streams, such as heritage impact assessment, public opinion sensing and so on.

Why did the Ministerial Committee and other PAP politicians focus so much on the issue of what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted? Why was the machinery of Government applied to take up a position on a private family matter of a will which had never been litigated in Court? Is opening questions about the late Mr Lee's will without going to the Courts the legitimate business for the Government of Singapore as opposed to being merely a legitimate concern for one individual member of that Government in his individual capacity?

In the past, the process of independent fact-finding favoured by members of the PAP was suing for defamation in Court and that is certainly one way to resolve this matter definitively. My colleague MP Pritam Singh has eloquently argued for an additional method which is a Parliamentary Select Committee, a call to which I agree and a call to which I think several other Members have also expressed some degree of support today.

Such a Committee would have the advantage of leading a process that could determine the facts and recommend follow-up action to Parliament. The follow-up action could relate to the incidents at hand and it could also relate to systemic changes the Committee may propose to curtail the ability of future officeholders to abuse their powers or to clarify any grey areas in the current rules that may have enabled this unfortunate series of events to occur, to prevent their recurrence.

The Committee's independence would be underscored by the presence of non-PAP MPs on the Committee. In fact, in his message on 19 June, the Prime Minister specifically highlighted that non-PAP MPs would be able to question him in Parliament today. A Parliamentary Select Committee merely builds on that institutional recipe of multi-partisanship that the Prime Minister himself positively alluded to but extends it to include a process of fact-finding involving public hearings and cross-examination of the individuals who have laid these issues before the nation, together with other persons of interest.

The truth would out. If the claims are baseless, the accusers will lose credibility in a very public way. If there is a basis to their claims, that can be acknowledged and followed up. I would note on this point that several Members of the House today have posed questions quite literally to Mr Lee Hsien Yang. How do we envisage Mr Lee Hsien Yang is meant to properly and in an institutional form respond to these questions that have been posed and asked today and he is not here to respond to them?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is strengthened, not weakened when we follow a rigorous, independent process to deal with such allegations. Singapore is strengthened, not weakened when we not only do the right thing but we are seen to be doing the right thing by giving the accusers a right to make their case, be cross-examined and rebut replies.

At the dinner table two days ago, when we discussed this issue in my family, my daughter asked me, "Daddy, why are they ensnaring us in their family quarrel?" My answer to her was, "I'm not sure. But there seem to be some serious national issues that need to be addressed. We will have to hear all sides out."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us have a Parliamentary Select Committee process with televised hearings on the issues of abuse of power, or some other form of public, interrogative fact-finding with the accusers present, to finally put this matter to bed.

Debate resumed.

6.43 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Finance and Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, many Members of Parliament (MPs) have asked what this dispute is about. That is a very good question. On what to do with the house in the future, the Committee is studying a range of options. What is so wrong about that?

Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said that he personally would not support options at either end of the range. At the one end, preserving the house for visitors to enter and see, which would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee. On the other hand, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences.

Initially, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, he had "not thought beyond demolition". If that is true, he could not have ruled out redevelopment. Then, he later said that before the Ministerial Committee was formed, he had offered a memorial garden. So, it appears that he had thought beyond demolition, earlier. He did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now.

After I pointed out the four possible options for the property, including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for redevelopment, Mr Lee Hsien Yang now says that he has no "inclination" to develop the house for profit. "Inclination" is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind.

Why is he being so careful? If he changes his mind, then the land is potentially worth a lot. Why does Mr Lee Hsien Yang not just rule it out categorically?

But let us take his statement at face value and see what else Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Saturday. His exact words were "preservation of the house would be trampling on Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values, and it would be an affront to these same values to develop a luxury "LKY" condominium". Well, is not that exactly the same thing that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said, leaving aside the bit about values? In other words, no total preservation and no development?

If that is the case and if he is saying exactly the same thing as Deputy Prime Minister Teo, where is the dispute? Both agree that the extreme ends of the range are out. So, if the Ministerial Committee is studying the intermediate options within the range, what is wrong with that? Nothing has been decided. How can studying these options be an abuse?

On the will, the concerns of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee with the Ministerial Committee and all the allegations appear to have been triggered by questions on the will. Why are they so concerned? We know from the facts disclosed that issues have been raised with regard to the will and who drafted it.

If it was drafted by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, then an issue arises because she is the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will. Under our law, the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent. As our Court of Appeal has said, "the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge". So, if the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice.

Some have said, "But Mr Lee was a very good lawyer. He was Cambridge-educated. Are you saying he did not know what he was signing?" No one is saying that at all. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he received independent advice as the law uncompromisingly requires. And we do know that Mr Lee had consistently in his lifetime taken independent advice − for his lawsuits and for his first six wills. So, the issue of whether he was independently advised is a serious issue.

However, it is not for the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet to decide on this issue, nor is the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet attempting to do so.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo has already explained that the Ministerial Committee looked at the will as part of trying to understand Mr Lee's thinking on the matter. The terms of the will, insofar as they relate to the house, would be relevant to that. The siblings provided different views on the drafting of the will. Each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other side's views, as is only fair. You cannot hear one side without hearing the other. But the Committee is not conducting an investigation, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo made it clear that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid. It is simply trying to understand, as best it can, what were Mr Lee's wishes. So, really, there is no basis for all these allegations that have been levelled against the Ministerial Committee.

Mr Png Eng Huat read out a catalogue of allegations from the Internet. Is he associating himself with these allegations, or simply regurgitating them? If he is adopting them, then please put forward some specific evidence. Mr Png also referred to allegations that improper influence had been asserted over civil servants. This is a very serious allegation, not only against Ms Ho Ching, but also against the Permanent Secretaries and senior civil servants as well. There are clear rules within the Civil Service to guide the conduct of public officers.

Mr Png referred to the cataloguing of Mr Lee's items. MCI had explained this last week. The involvement of MCI photographers is in line with MCI's policy of supporting former Prime Ministers and Presidents after they leave office. After Mr Lee's passing, MCI photographers were deployed to take photos of various personal and official items belonging to Mr Lee at 38 Oxley Road. This was done for the purposes of national archival and documentation. Similar photographic recordings were done during Mr Lee's lifetime, of his study at home, and of the basement dining room.

If there are any specific instances of alleged impropriety beyond that, these should be identified, rather than making general unsubstantiated allegations. The Government takes this very seriously. There are stringent rules in place and serious consequences for those who have been found to have contravened the rules.

I move now to conflict of interest. Questions about alleged conflict on the part of the Attorney-General (AG) were asked. The laws and rules on conflict are very clear. These rules on conflict will be observed. The AG and Deputy AG Hri Kumar will not be involved where there is any conflict. They have abided by the rules of conflict, and there is no basis to suggest that either the AG or the Deputy AG has not observed those rules.

An example of how the rules work would be when lawyers move from AG's Chambers (AGC) to the Bench and vice versa. So, take, for example, former Deputy AG Tan Siong Thye, who was from AGC. He recuses himself from any AGC-related matters, now that he has returned to the Bench. Likewise, the Chief Justice, in relation to any matters he handled when he was at AGC.

Similar rules apply in private practice as well. If a lawyer moves to a new firm, he observes the rules on conflict. He does not involve himself in his new firm on matters which his old firm had acted for.

This has been debated before, in relation to the appointment of the AG and Deputy AG.

Mr Lucien Wong, we have already referred to his credentials previously. He was the senior partner of the largest law firm in Singapore. He is widely acknowledged as the top legal mind, consistently recognised as one of Singapore's best, and his appointment was welcomed by the Bar.

The Law Society has called him "a formidable and creative legal mind" with "proven management skills", a "practical track record" and a "skillset uniquely equipped to deal with the evolution of the changing legal environment in Singapore". As a lawyer of almost 40 years' standing, Mr Wong would have had thousands of clients. There is no reason why this should be an excuse for us to pass him over and choose a less qualified candidate.

Similarly, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst one of the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. If you look at the people from within the Service who have been appointed to key positions − the Deputy AG and the Solicitor-General as well − these are young, some of them in their 40s. We hope that, in the future, from among their ranks, someone can become AG.

Mr Wong's appointment as AG was decided after a thorough and rigorous process. The Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice and the Chairman of Public Service Commission and the incumbent AG on the appointment. The Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) unanimously advised that the President concur with the appointment; and the President, acting in his discretion, also supported it.

It is also not unusual for the AG to be known to the Ministers or the Prime Minister. Members will recall that the Law Minister, Mr Edmund Barker, was very successful, one of our founding fathers, and was an old friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and a partner in Lee & Lee. This did not prevent him from being a good Law Minister.

With respect to past judicial appointments, these have included lawyers who acted for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, such as Mr Joseph Grimberg, or who worked in Lee & Lee, for example, Justice Lai Kew Chai, and Mr Andrew Ang, who is currently on the Bench. All were or are well-respected members of the Bench.

Former Chief Justice Yong Pung How was an old friend of Mr Lee's from Cambridge. He is credited with modernising the Singapore Judiciary during his time on the Bench.

In these roles, all of them observed the appropriate conflict rules. Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and the integrity of the individuals involved, and that is the hallmark of our system.

And, indeed, in many first-world countries, the AG is even a sitting member of parliament or a politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet minister. Similarly, in Australia.

Our system is based on a slightly different model. But as I have said before, it goes too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any Ministers or political party.

On the questions about alleged conflict regarding Minister Shanmugam, Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment on him being Mr Lee's friend − well, being a friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew does not disqualify him from doing Cabinet work. This includes being in the Ministerial Committee to give views.

The Committee's role has already been explained.

Mr Low alluded to Dr Lee Wei Ling's comment that Minister Shanmugam was a "changed person". Well, she has said many things about many people, including the Prime Minister, members of Cabinet and others. Singaporeans will look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.

On the issue of whether Minister Shanmugam is somehow in a position of "conflict", he has explained his position publicly on 17 June. In 2011, some members of the Lee family had approached him for his views about various options for the house. He shared some thoughts and suggestions with them. However, he also made clear to them that legally, the Government had the full power to gazette or acquire based on historical significance, and that many Singaporeans, including Ministers in Cabinet, were likely to take the view that the house should be preserved. He told them that this was also his strong personal view. At that time, Minister Shanmugam was already a Cabinet Minister. He was not consulted as a lawyer and did not advise them as clients.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew had spoken with other Cabinet Ministers about the house as well. It would be absurd to suggest that they can all no longer participate in Government work because they had spoken to him, or some family member about the house.

This is really a red herring, intended to divert attention away from the real issues.

And so, we come back to the key point. What is this dispute really about? The Ministerial Committee is not making any decisions. It is putting up a range of options for Cabinet to look at. Nothing needs to be decided now. Indeed, nothing can be decided now as Dr Lee is still living in the house. That might take 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the house cannot be the reason for the dispute.

The trigger for all the allegations by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee appear to be something else. Whatever it is, there is no reason to drag Singapore and Singaporeans through this dispute. That is contrary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values.

Mr Leon Perera gave the analogy of a company and its shareholders and he asked why the whistleblowers are not being interrogated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). That is the wrong analogy. If something is really wrong, then the correct thing for the whistleblowers to do is to go to CPIB and file a report. That is the way it should be done if you think that there is something wrong. Or if anyone else thinks that something is wrong, you can file and lodge a formal report. The CPIB cannot be expected to look into unsubstantiated allegations.

On the Ministerial Committee, Mr Leon Perera may wish to look again at the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today where he explained the role and the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee.

So, what do we have at the end of the day? At the end of today, we have had one full day of debate. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have made plenty of allegations, but we have not seen any substance and no evidence. In Parliament, no one has said that there is any evidence of abuse. I am sure that the MPs have all looked carefully through the allegations. In fact, Mr Low himself had said that the siblings had presented no evidence.

To me, that is most significant because it shows our people that these allegations are just that − allegations. [Applause.]

7.00 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she told the House that the AG and the Deputy AG have been observing the conflict rules in their functions. I would like to ask her categorically whether she is saying that the AG and the Deputy AG Mr Hri Kumar are not involved in advising the Government on matters concerning the Lee estate.

The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the fact that there have been friends of Ministers who have been appointed to various Organs of State – and I think she mentioned the Judiciary is one of them – does she not agree that for the AGC, what we are faced with now is not the Judiciary where there is security of tenure, where Judges are appointed and secured until age 65, but we have an AG now who is on a short-term contract of three years? That puts a very different complexion on things.

The third clarification is: does the Senior Minister of State agree or not agree that it is desirable to have distance between the AGC leadership and the Government, which was what was believed by some former Ministers, including Prof Jayakumar, or have standards changed?

Ms Indranee Rajah: On the first question, the short answer is that the AG and the Deputy AG are not advising the Government on any matters in which they have previously been involved. In other words, whatever it is that they may, in private practice, have advised people on, when they come into the AGC and if it impacts on those areas, then they would not advise on it.

So, if the Member's question is, for example, is Mr Lucien Wong advising the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road, the answer is no. For the very simple reason that in AGC, there are other officers.

So, this is not a difficult thing. All lawyers know this. If you had acted on something, and you happen to change organisation or go somewhere else, and there is a conflict, you recuse yourself. It is very simple. It is not a difficult thing to do, and lawyers do it in practice all the time. The AG and Deputy AG are observing these rules. I can assure Ms Sylvia Lim that the rules of conflict are being observed.

On the other point, Ms Sylvia Lim said it is different from the Bench where there is security of tenure but in AGC there is no security of tenure which puts a different complexion on things. It does not put a different complexion on things. All lawyers, good lawyers, understand their duty, which is simply this: if you are in a position of conflict, you do not act, you recuse yourself.

As to whether it is desirable to have distance, the correct question really is, the officers of AGC, do they act independently? In other words, if there is a conflict, do they stand aside? Do they apply their minds to this without fear or favour? Do they do their duty? And the answer to those questions is yes, they do act independently, they apply their minds and they carry out their duties without fear or favour. So, in short, the officers in the AGC, whether it is the AG, Deputy AG or anyone down along the line, all observe proper rules of conduct.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two follow-up clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Is she saying that the Deputy AG, because he may not have acted on the Lee estate in some capacity in private estate, is now free to advise the Government on such matters, from the Government's perspective? Is that what she is saying?

The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State did not answer directly. She said I asked the wrong question about whether there should be distance between the AGC and the Government because the critical question to her was the officers act professionally and independently. But this is really quite a different take for even Prof Jayakumar. If you read what his interview goes into, he says that he may occasionally have working lunches with the AG but it is important to have the appearance of distance. You cannot get too close to these people because people might assume that there will be some compromise. So, I think it is the appearance itself that is important, not just, in fact, whether people think they are able to act independently. The appearance when you are too close to somebody, it does not create a good feeling.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already answered the question. If there is any matter on which the AG or Deputy AG have acted on when they were in private practice and, if that same matter comes up when they are in AGC, they obviously cannot advise the Government on it and they will not do so.

With respect to the other matters, I have already explained. There have been instances before when either the AG or Judges may have been close friends with Ministers or anyone else, but that has not deterred them from doing their duty. I understand what Ms Lim is saying. She is saying actual conflict and, sort of, appearances. In terms of any actual conflict, I have already stated the position quite clearly. They know their duty and they will carry out their duty. They will not act where there is any conflict of interest.

And as far as appearances go, if the Member has any specific allegation of that, please highlight it. Because as far as I can see, there has been no form of impropriety, appearance or otherwise.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I remind Members that we are not debating on the role of the AG or the Deputy AG. So, please confine your clarifications to matters which Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah has said. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Deputy Speaker, first of all, the Senior Minister of State seems to suggest that I said there is no evidence. That is what she said. I said scattered evidence.

Secondly, on the conflict of interest, it seems to me that the Senior Minister of State said that so long as there is a conflict, you stand aside. But the question then is, how would the member of public or anyone else know, whether in such a particular case, I mean, the AG stands aside or does he not stand aside? Thereby, my question is: important appointments like such, even the Minister for Law or senior judges and so on, the public perception of its independence and impartiality is important. Is it not important or is it important?

Next, if there is a question of doubt, then what should the Government do?

Next, a point of clarification actually on a point of order that I wish to clarify with the Deputy Speaker. I heard the Senior Minister of State's speech earlier on. She seems to be attacking Lee Hsien Yang and imputing some character or motive. He is not here in the House to answer. Is that against Standing Order?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, do you want to respond to the point of order?

Ms Indranee Rajah: The second question?

Mr Deputy Speaker: That Mr Low has said that you were saying something against Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Low must be mistaken. All I did was point out that there were certain allegations made against the Government. I stated our position on that. And there is nothing at all that prevents Mr Lee Hsien Yang from responding if he wishes to, publicly. All I am doing is stating the Government's position on various issues.

On the second part, on appointments, as I had said earlier, when the AG was appointed, the Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice, he consulted the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, as well as the incumbent AG on the appointment. Due process was observed and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current appointment of the AG.

On conflicts of interest, I have already answered that. It is not necessary for me to repeat it again.

Indeed, it is only Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim who keep raising this issue. There is no basis for any concern that the AG has not acted in a manner that is entirely proper.