CPIB Investigation Involving Minister S Iswaran and the Resignations of Former Speaker and a PAP MP

1.20 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, recently, we witnessed a series of high-profile public cases involving political office holders. Members have asked several questions regarding these cases. Let me give the House an account of how these issues have been dealt with, and why. After that, Minister Chan Chun Sing will address the more detailed questions in his Statement.

On the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigation involving Minister Iswaran, briefly, the facts of the case are these: while investigating a separate matter, the CPIB came across some information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. CPIB alerted me on 29 May and pursued this lead further on their own volition.

On 5 July, the Director of CPIB briefed me on the findings he had at that point. He told me that CPIB would need to interview Minister Iswaran to take the investigation further and he sought my concurrence to open a formal investigation. I gave my concurrence the next day, on 6 July.

On 11 July, Minister Iswaran was brought in by CPIB and subsequently, released on bail. I instructed him to take leave of absence until the investigations were completed. Subsequently, I interdicted Minister Iswaran from duty with a reduced pay of $8,500 per month, until further notice.

Such incidents involving Ministers are rare and there is no rule or precedent on how to effect an interdiction on a political office holder. Hence, I used the current Civil Service practice as a reference point. The specific details in Minister Iswaran's case follow generally how the Civil Service would deal with a senior officer in a similar situation. But this was my decision as Prime Minister, because the political contexts for a Minister and a civil servant being investigated and interdicted are different.

I should point out that CPIB investigations are still ongoing. I am unable to provide more details on the case so as not to prejudice the investigations in any way. I ask Members of this House and the public to refrain from speculation and conjecture. We must allow CPIB to do its work, to investigate the matter fully, thoroughly and independently. When the investigation is completed, CPIB will submit its findings to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), which will decide what to do with them. Whichever way the facts come out, the case will be taken to its logical conclusion. That has always been our way.

Next, on the resignations of former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former Member of Parliament (MP) Cheng Li Hui. Let me recap some basic facts that are mostly already public: I first learnt of their relationship sometime after the 2020 General Election (GE), in fact, in November 2020. They were both spoken to and counselled, separately. They both said they would stop the affair. But as it turned out, they did not.

Most recently in February 2023, I spoke to them again, separately. Mr Tan admitted that what he did was wrong. He offered to resign. I accepted but I told him that before he actually resigned, I had first to make sure residents in Kembangan-Chai Chee, his ward, and Marine Parade, his Group Representation Constituency (GRC) were taken care of. Meanwhile, his relationship with Miss Cheng had to stop. A few weeks ago, I came across information that strongly suggested that the affair had continued. I decided that Mr Tan had to go forthwith. Miss Cheng had to resign too because she had not broken off the affair even after being told to stop.

I have been asked – why did I take so long, more than two years, to act? It is a fair question. In retrospect, and certainly now, knowing how things eventually turned out, I agree. I should have forced the issue sooner. But let me explain my general approach as well as my thinking at that point in time.

These sorts of relationships happen from time to time. They have happened in the past and no doubt will happen again in the future. In such cases, what we do depends on many factors: the circumstances, how inappropriate or scandalous the behaviour was, the family situations. We also have to be conscious of the impact on innocent parties, particularly the spouses and children. I had explained this at my press conference on 20 July and so did Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong last week in a BBC interview. This is not a new position; it reflects the PAP's long-standing practice, since the days of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

There is no single template that applies to all extramarital affairs. But there can be at least three situations.

The first situation is where the individuals involved will be talked to, and if they stop, the matter ends there. No further action need be taken.

The second situation is where immediate action has to be taken. For example, when one party has supervisory power over the other party, and we have in the past taken immediate action, in a few cases.

The third situation, where the relationship raises some questions of propriety, beyond it being an extramarital affair per se. The parties will be talked to, but the matter cannot end there. Even if the affair stops, some action has to follow. But what that action is and when it is taken, depends on the nature of the facts and the boundaries that have been transgressed.

The present situation falls into the third category. It is wrong. Mr Tan and Miss Cheng had to stop their affair. I told them to stop. In deciding what more should be done, consider this: would we object to having the Speaker being married to a Member of Parliament (MP)? Would we object to having the Speaker being married to an MP? I think the answer is no – that would be perfectly alright. There is no direct reporting line between the Speaker and an MP. Thus, an open, legitimate relationship between the Speaker and an MP is not in itself objectionable. Hence, this situation of the Speaker having an affair with an MP does not fall into the category where immediate action has to be taken.

However, the Speaker has some official capacity vis-à-vis MPs. An extramarital affair between him and an MP is therefore problematic. It puts other MPs and staff in an awkward position, and it is just not proper. After I spoke to Mr Tan in November 2020, he told me that the relationship would end. I took it to be so. I, therefore, felt there was some leeway to take some time to decide what further steps to take.

In this context, the possible actions that could have followed were on the basis that the extramarital affair had stopped, I would have asked Mr Tan to step down as Speaker some time before the end of the term, but in a way which would reduce the public embarrassment to him and his family. As to whether one or both should also resign as Members – I had not decided at that time, but quite likely, both would have had to leave at some point. By giving the matter some time, I had hoped to give them a softer exit, and save them and their families the pain and embarrassment that they are suffering now. I placed much weight on protecting their families; perhaps too much.

Regrettably, in the end, Mr Tan and Miss Cheng did not stop the affair, and both had to go. On reflection, as I said, I should have forced the issue earlier, certainly before mid-term.

Let me add a personal plea at this point – while there is no doubt the two persons behaved improperly, there are also innocent family members involved. Likewise, for the case involving a former Member across the aisle, in the Workers' Party (WP). All their families are suffering. I hope that MPs and the public can empathise and have compassion for the families and give them the privacy and space they need to heal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a great deal of public interest over the recent series of incidents – CPIB arresting and investigating a Minister, MPs resigning and before that, the allegations about the Ridout Road rentals.

The way we have handled these incidents shows how seriously the PAP takes our responsibility of governing Singapore and being accountable to Parliament and to Singaporeans.

Let me assure Members – when such issues come up, we will deal with them properly and transparently, as we have done. With the Ridout Road rentals, when allegations of preferential treatment surfaced, the two Ministers involved were thoroughly investigated, including by CPIB, and eventually fully exonerated. The investigation reports were tabled in Parliament, and we had a long session answering MPs’ questions in this House.

When CPIB discovered, on its own, that it had reason to arrest and interview a Minister, it opened a formal investigation. Nobody tipped them off. There had been no public scandal. CPIB came across something that needed investigating and proceeded to do their job.

When the Speaker of Parliament and a Government MP fell short of the standards of propriety and personal conduct expected of them, they were asked to resign. We took some time to sort it out, probably longer than we should have, but we did what we needed to do and put the situation right.

The two CPIB investigations, and the response to the personal misconduct case, show two aspects of how this PAP Government works. One, when there is a suspicion or allegation of wrongdoing in the discharge of official duties, especially possible corruption, there is zero tolerance. Two, when people slip in their personal lives, the PAP will look at the facts of each case carefully and deal with the matter as humanely and sensitively as possible, according to the principles that the party has established.

Systems are composed of human beings. In any system, however comprehensive the safeguards, sometimes something will still go wrong. The PAP Government does our utmost to minimise that possibility. We work hard to identify the right people to bring into politics and appoint into responsible positions. We vet them carefully, test and stretch them, before entrusting them with heavier responsibilities. Often, they measure up, but sometimes they fall short. Occasionally, they transgress the norms of conduct, or commit wrongdoing.

Singapore has seen corruption cases involving political office holders in the past: Mr Tan Kia Gan in 1966, he was then Minister for National Development; Mr Wee Toon Boon in 1975, he was then a Minister of State, I think in the Ministry of Defence [Please refer to a clarification by the Prime Minister later in the debate.]; Mr Teh Cheang Wan in 1986, he was Minister for National Development; and earlier in 1979, Mr Phey Yew Kok, then President of NTUC and also an MP.

All these cases were handled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then Prime Minister – thoroughly, transparently, and applying the full force of the law. That is still how the PAP Government deals with such cases. It has not changed under my charge; and it would not under my successor either.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has always maintained an honest and clean Government.

A clean Government and good governance are critical to our democracy. Therefore, we have strict laws in place to check on corruption. On values and personal integrity, we expect Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) to meet social norms.

In Singapore, while corruption cases involving political leaders are rare, it has still happened before. This is because even the most comprehensive safeguards can still go wrong. Recent cases show this. But they also reflect our determination to stand for honesty and against corruption.

We firmly believe that to maintain an honest political system and for the people to continue to trust the PAP, we must deal with issues transparently. Therefore, when anyone, including Ministers or MPs, are involved in corruption or illegal behaviour, there is zero tolerance, and we will investigate fully.

If the investigation finds that there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest, the matter would be closed and those involved exonerated. If the investigation shows that there is misconduct, they would be dealt with the full force of the law.

In terms of personal conduct, the PAP expects the Ministers and MPs to hold themselves to the highest standards and to be self-disciplined. However, when people slip up in their personal lives, circumstances differ and we have to look at the facts case by case, and deal with each of them individually.

For example, the extramarital affair between the former Speaker and former MP should not have happened. Then, I had hoped they would end their affair because their families would suffer the most if the affair was exposed. Indeed, my most important consideration throughout was how this would affect their families. If they had ended the affair, they need not have left politics under these embarrassing circumstances and hurt their families. Regrettably, they did not deal with it properly.

Looking back, if I could do it again, I would have forced the issue earlier.

In any extramarital affair, the families are affected and hurt greatly. Whether it is a case involving the PAP or the WP, I hope everyone would give the families time and privacy to heal.

We cannot guarantee that this sort of incident would never happen again. If it does, we will continue to deal with it in accordance with the PAP’s principles. My team and I are very clear about the importance of keeping our politics clean. This is critical to our democratic system. As we have always done, we will continue to exercise self-discipline and uphold the principles of integrity. This is the promise of the PAP Government.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me assure Singaporeans that we will protect the integrity of our system of Government. For the good of our country, we will carry through what needs to be done in accordance with the law, even if it may be politically embarrassing and painful to the party. I will not flinch or hesitate to do my duty, to keep our system robust and clean. This is how the PAP Government can continue to deserve the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us.

I have spoken often about how precious trust is and how crucial it is for our democracy to work well. The founding generation built up Singapore and entrusted it to our generation in good shape. It is incumbent on us to protect and uphold this system, to keep it incorruptible and clean, and maintain high standards of propriety.

With the investigation into Minister Iswaran, and the resignations of the Speaker and an MP, the PAP has taken a hit, but we will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so that trust is maintained, and the Singapore system continues to work well.

This is my approach, and I am confident it will be my successor’s approach too, and this is how we will keep Singapore safe, strong and prosperous for many years to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow clarifications to be raised on both Statements after the Statement by Minister Chan. Minister Chan.

1.40 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to the CPIB case and the Public Service’s Code of Conduct together.

Several Members – Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Dennis Tan – have posed questions relating to timelines and circumstances surrounding the CPIB investigations involving Minister Iswaran, and on the information put out in the initial statements by the Government. I must emphasise that what information to put out on ongoing investigations are operational judgement calls that law enforcement agencies take. Other parties, including Ministers, defer to the judgement of these agencies, and do not and should not independently release such information.

Those familiar with how law enforcement agencies operate, including CPIB, will know how they usually make their announcements. The standard practice is that agencies do not disclose the names of persons who are being investigated or arrested.

And there are good reasons for this. Say someone has been picked up, arrested, and investigations are ongoing. If it is immediately announced that the person has been arrested and is being investigated, it may prejudice the person. The impression that he has done wrong will be there, even if subsequent investigations do not result in any charges being brought against him. Thus, to be fair to the persons involved, law enforcement agencies generally refrain from immediately naming the persons being investigated.

There are situations where agencies will depart from this norm and mention names. In Minister Iswaran’s case, given that it involved a Minister, CPIB decided to disclose on 12 July that Minister Iswaran was assisting CPIB with investigations into a case uncovered by CPIB. At that point, CPIB did not state that Minister Iswaran had been arrested, as it had wanted to first establish more facts of the case, including hearing his side of the story.

These are decisions for CPIB to make. What law enforcement agencies, including CPIB, reveal at any point in time takes into account their operational considerations in the cases they deal with – including preserving the integrity of evidence, protecting the confidentiality of ongoing investigations and avoiding impact on other related parties.

This is why the Prime Minister’s initial statement and Deputy Prime Minister’s doorstop interview on 12 July took reference from CPIB’s press release on the same day. This was the proper thing to do because Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should not reveal more than what the law enforcement agencies are prepared to disclose. While Ministers do have the final decision-making power, they will usually take the advice of the law enforcement agencies.

Two days later, on 14 July, Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) issued a statement saying that Mr Ong Beng Seng had been "given a notice of arrest" by CPIB. The media asked CPIB about this. By then, investigations had been ongoing for three days and CPIB had obtained more facts. CPIB made the operational judgement call that it would be appropriate at that point in time to confirm that both Mr Ong and Minister Iswaran had been arrested.

Some Members – Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru – have asked about the considerations for timely and mandatory disclosure of information about a political office holder who is under investigation. The primary considerations are what I have just outlined.

Singaporeans are understandably concerned about this matter. In due course, further details of the investigations will be made public. But I hope we can all recognise that we must give CPIB the time and space they need to do their work. This was a case that CPIB had uncovered by themselves. We can rely on CPIB to conduct its investigations thoroughly and independently, and to see this case to its logical conclusion – as it has with every other case it has investigated over 70 years.

May I caution Members that the CPIB investigations are still ongoing. Minister Iswaran has not been charged, much less convicted. Members should, therefore, avoid speculating on or prejudicing the outcome of the investigations.

Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua asked whether all CPIB investigations require the Prime Minister's concurrence and if CPIB is obliged to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to open formal investigations of potential offences that CPIB has uncovered.

While CPIB reports directly to the Prime Minister, it is functionally independent. CPIB does not require the Prime Minister's concurrence to conduct its investigations. In this case, it kept the Prime Minister informed and sought his concurrence to initiate formal investigations of Minister Iswaran because the investigations concerned a Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister concurred within a day of receiving the Director of CPIB's report.

Under Article 22G of the Constitution, in the event the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent to a CPIB investigation, the Director of CPIB can go directly to the elected President for his or her concurrence to proceed with the investigation. In reality, we have never had a Prime Minister who has impeded CPIB's work. I should also remind Members there are Constitutional safeguards for the appointment or removal of the Director of CPIB, which require the concurrence of the President.

There were also several queries by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Leong Mun Wai seeking more details on CPIB's investigation findings.

Members must remember that this is an ongoing investigation. Therefore, I am unable to disclose further details at this juncture. This is to ensure that the investigations are not jeopardised and affected individuals or entities are not prejudiced.

Mr Don Wee asked why Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian continued with their duties while being investigated by CPIB on the Ridout Road bungalow issue.

There is a crucial difference between that earlier CPIB investigation into Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian, and CPIB's ongoing investigation involving Minister Iswaran.

For the Ridout Road bungalows matter, the two Ministers had asked the Prime Minister for an independent investigation into their rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) black and white bungalows and the Prime Minister had tasked CPIB to do the investigation. The Prime Minister had no reason to believe that the Ministers had committed any wrongdoing then and, therefore, saw no need to put them on leave of absence during the investigation.

The CPIB investigation subsequently cleared both Ministers. The Prime Minister could have asked the Ministers to take leave of absence should evidence have surfaced during the investigations that warranted it.

For the case involving Minister Iswaran, CPIB came across some information concerning him while investigating a separate matter. It then decided it should look further into the matter. In these circumstances, the Prime Minister's assessment was that it was necessary to suspend Minister Iswaran from his official duties while the investigation took place.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether Minister Iswaran's gazetted leave of absence from his duties from 7 July to 9 July was related to the CPIB investigation.

For the record, Minister Iswaran took leave of absence from 7 July to 9 July for personal matters. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat covered his duties during that period. The leave of absence arising from the CPIB investigation was effected only on 12 July.

Next, on the Code of Conduct for Ministers. Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there will be a review of the Code. The Code of Conduct for Ministers has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005. The Code sets out the principles and rules on how Ministers should act and conduct their personal affairs. The general principles remain valid.

We will continue to review and update the Code of Conduct for Ministers regularly, taking into account evolving circumstances and needs. For example, the Government recently announced that going forward, officers with access to privileged information that can influence the outcomes of decisions related to state-owned properties must make a declaration before they can rent Government properties managed by their agencies. The same would apply to political office holders.

Let me now address the questions raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam relating to the Public Service Code of Conduct and avenues for public officers to report wrongdoing and protection of whistle-blowers.

The Public Service Code of Conduct sets out the principles and rules that public officers must abide by. It is periodically refreshed to ensure that the integrity and high standards of the Public Service are upheld.

In the course of their work, public officers may come across different requests, be it from colleagues, friends, members of the public or political office holders. When handling these requests, officers are expected to maintain a high level of professionalism and safeguard the confidentiality of official information as well as the political impartiality of the Public Service.

Should an officer be unsure of a request because it seems inappropriate or unrelated to official work, he should consult and seek guidance from his supervisor.

If the request comes from his supervisor or a more senior officer, the officer can escalate the matter appropriately through the chain of command, including directly to his Permanent Secretary, the Head of Agency, the Head of Civil Service or the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service.

The Code of Conduct is reinforced through various channels, such as annual quizzes, declarations, induction programmes for new entrants, milestone programmes and regular Service-wide reminders.

There is an established Internal Disclosure Policy framework within the Civil Service where officers can report any wrongful practices that they have observed in their Ministries to their Permanent Secretaries. Statutory Boards have their own equivalent processes.

All reports are treated with utmost confidentiality and every effort is made to protect the officer's identity. There is a non-retaliation clause to further protect the interests of the officer who made the report. If a report is made in good faith, no action will be taken against the reporting officer even if the investigation finds no wrongful practice.

Between 2020 and 2022, no report which surfaced through this channel was referred to the CPIB for investigation.

In addition, there is a Public Service Protocol for the Reporting of Corruption. Under this protocol, public officers are expected to directly report to the Police or the CPIB at the earliest opportunity when they learn of any act of corruption or have reason to believe that such an act may have been committed in their Ministries. The identity of the person making the report will be kept confidential. This is provided for under the Prevention of Corruption Act. CPIB also accepts anonymous reports.

CPIB treats all reports received seriously, whether the complainant is named or anonymous. Of the 83 cases registered for investigation in 2022, 13 cases – or about 16% – were from anonymous sources. Public sector cases form a small portion of the cases CPIB investigates each year. In 2022, four public sector officers were prosecuted in Court for offences investigated by CPIB.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about the rules for declaring meal invitations and the threshold values for doing so.

The rules for the Civil Service on accepting gifts and hospitality are designed to maintain incorruptibility and to prevent officers from becoming beholden to any person or organisation.

Civil servants must declare to their Permanent Secretaries any gifts they receive from external stakeholders on account of their official position or work. Officers may be allowed to retain gifts that are valued below $50 if doing so does not affect the integrity of the Civil Service. If officers wish to retain gifts valued above $50, they must pay the assessed market value of the gift to the Government.

In the course of their work, officers may be invited to meals by local or foreign stakeholders. They may accept when there are legitimate work-related reasons or when it is impractical or impolite to reject the meal.

Unlike gifts, it is more difficult to ascertain the value of a meal. In such instances, civil servants should declare and seek approval from their Permanent Secretaries if they receive any meal invitation either before the meal or, if that is not possible, immediately after. This is especially if they assess that the value of the meal or hospitality is incongruent with the professional nature of the meeting and may give rise to perceptions of influence peddling and conflict of interest, real or perceived.

I should share with this House that civil servants are sensitised on these matters that even when they receive gifts of fruits or sweets – as is customary on many of our festive occasions – such gifts are usually distributed in the agency or to a community organisation. We do not keep them.

Political office holders adopt a similar spirit and principles in their official activities. There are specific rules spelt out in the Annex of the Code of Conduct for Ministers on the acceptance of gifts and services.

In general, all gifts should be refused and returned to the donor without delay. If the return of the gift is impractical, the gift must be handed over to the political office holder's Ministry to be dealt with in accordance with official guidelines. If political office holders want to retain a gift, they will have to pay the Government for it at the valuation price. Otherwise, the gifts have to be surrendered to the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have come to the end of my responses. May I suggest that the House seek clarifications in three segments: the first segment is on our principles of governance and Ministers' conduct; the second segment can be to address the technical issues relating to the CPIB investigation; and the third segment can address questions relating to the Public Service.

Should the queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for Members to pose identical Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings.

Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.

1.56 pm

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to make two quick factual corrections to what I said just now?

Firstly, Mr Tan Kia Gan, by 1966, was a former Minister; no longer a Minister because he had lost in the previous 1963 General Elections.

Secondly, Mr Wee Toon Boon was the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and not in MINDEF.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

1.57 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of clarification – first, with regard to the standards of the PAP that the Prime Minister spoke of; and second, with regard to the circumstances involving the departure of the former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former MP Cheng Li Hui.

Sir, there has been much public disquiet about the transmission of information surrounding Minister Iswaran's arrest by the CPIB and, separately, on the affair between former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and MP Cheng Li Hui. This is particularly with regard to what the Prime Minister knew and what the Prime Minister did about it over a period of almost three years before coming clean on the matter.

Sir, in this term of government, the Government has either been slow to clear the air or been less than upfront and forthright with Singaporeans when it had to deal with potentially embarrassing issues.

I will give three examples that capture this point, and my clarifications will be contained therein.

Firstly, in May this year, the public was not informed forthwith that CPIB had been instructed to look into the Ridout Road rentals by two Ministers. On 23 May, the Prime Minister released the statement stating Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had been appointed to establish whether there had been any wrongdoing in the Ridout Road rentals in order to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government.

What the Prime Minister did not tell the public but was made known by way of a statement from the Prime Minister's Office written in the third person on 28 June was that the Prime Minister had directed the CPIB to investigate the Ridout Road matter on 17 May – a full six days before his 23 May statement that omitted to mention that he had ordered a CPIB investigation into two of his Ministers. The public came to know about the CPIB investigation more than a month later when investigations were completed, with CPIB confirming no criminal offence was disclosed.

Second, there is considerable public disquiet about the CPIB releasing a statement on 12 July, which stated that Minister Iswaran was assisting with investigations while omitting to disclose the fact that Minister Iswaran had been arrested a day before.

In a parallel universe, Sir, there is a perception that if a Singaporean or Singaporean company took such a cavalier and breezy approach with critical facts under today's PAP, they can expect to receive a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) direction from a PAP Minister for perpetuating false statements of fact.

Has the Prime Minister inquired with the CPIB why it undertook such a course of action that brought unnecessary attention to the CPIB's processes and, by extension, even its impartiality, involving the release of statements in the public interest? If he did not, would he consider to do so?

Thirdly, during COVID-19, the public was belatedly informed by a Minister in this House, that his senior Cabinet colleagues were aware by October 2020 that previous Government assurances on TraceTogether being solely used for contact tracing were effectively false statements of fact. Misrepresentations had hitherto been made by various Government Ministers and possibly in this House even, before October 2020, and they stood uncorrected for months. The PAP Government took almost nine months before it disclosed to Singaporeans that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) sought to collect TraceTogether data for an investigation in May 2020, even as the PAP continued to assert right through the rest of the year that TraceTogether was only to be used for contact tracing.

Unlike as represented by the Prime Minister, these are not events that I quote, "are clustered together", all coming at one go. Instead, they reveal a pattern of behaviour over a period of time of the PAP engaging in half-truths on matters of significant public interest. And this behaviour goes a long way to explain why there is real disquiet among Singaporeans today when the PAP invokes the memory of Pioneer Generation PAP leaders and talks about trust.

Sir, last month the Prime Minister informed this House that he has to set the standards of what is ethical and what is proper, and that the PAP Government does not need an ethics advisor. Can I invite the Prime Minister to reconsider his position in view of the PAP's pattern of behaviour in this term of Government, especially when a potentially embarrassing issue comes up? I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, in view of the complexity of government and governance today, it would not be embarrassing for the Government to consider the appointment of an ethics advisor.

Sir, my clarifications on the former MP Cheng Li Hui and Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin matter are as follows: the Prime Minister said, in comparing the hot mic issue with the inappropriate relationship, I quote, "in comparison, the relationship was the more serious matter as he was the Speaker and she was an MP, and there should not be a relationship".

My question is if the Prime Minister knew of the affair in 2020, why were Speaker Tan and Cheng Li Hui allowed to be on the same Standing Select Committee of Parliament, namely the House Committee, after GE 2020, when the Prime Minister was already aware of the affair? Would not their being on the same Committee have resulted in more interactions between them than necessary or given official reasons to be together? To this end, has the Prime Minister checked, since he knew of the affair in 2020, how many foreign trips have both Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui have been on – at the taxpayers' expense – and was he not aware of them?

My next question: the Prime Minister stated at the press conference in response to a reporter's question that, I quote, "as for comparison with Michael Palmer, I think it depends on the situation of the case and I said you've got to look at the circumstances, spouses, the family's condition and how you manage this as sensitively as you can and yet do your duty, and it depends on the person's response as well as the specifics, so I don't think it's possible to make direct comparisons".

I note the Prime Minister's reference to such sensitivity, an eminently reasonable approach to take with delicate matters. However, the PAP selectively applies these standards, expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the Opposition seek to make the same point.

When former MP Raeesah Khan revealed to the WP leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the Committee of Privileges in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah's lies to Parliament. And the Prime Minister did not bat an eyelid in giving the Leader of the Opposition a sermon on Confucian ethics, morality and shame, even though at the material time, he would have been aware of the affair between Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Member of Parliament Cheng Li Hui.

Can the Prime Minister please elaborate how the Tan Chuan-Jin affair with an MP was different from the circumstances and conditions of former PAP Speaker Michael Palmer's affair with a People's Association (PA) member, which Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean then had said, had to be dealt with, I quote, "decisively".

Finally, why was there a need for so much time to plan for the care of Marine Parade, and specifically Kembangan-Chai Chee residents? In other cases of resignations of PAP MPs, such as Michael Palmer, President Halimah, David Ong and Senior Minister Tharman, nothing close to that length of time was required. Could the Prime Minister detail for us what exact steps were taken between February and July 2023 to arrange for the care of Marine Parade residents? If that was the crux of the issue, then even if the planning for the care of Marine Parade residents was a proper justification for Tan Chuan-Jin to remain a Marine Parade MP for five months, why was he not asked to step down as Speaker first and a new Speaker elected? If he had stepped down as Speaker, could he still not have continued as a Marine Parade MP until the arrangements were made?

And before I round off, Mr Speaker, just one additional question. How were Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui counselled immediately after Prime Minister was informed about the affair in 2020? Did he personally counsel them and how often did he check in on the status of the relationship thereafter?

2.05 pm

Mr Speaker: Before I ask Prime Minister to respond, I have given Leader of the Opposition some leeway. At this stage, we should be asking clarifications and not make speeches. I request Members, going forward, to remember that. Prime Minister.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deal first with the question of transmission of information. The Leader of the Opposition raises three issues, one of which has been extensively debated, in fact, in 2020, during COVID-19; and I do not need to go back there again, which is the TraceTogether and whether we should have announced earlier when we discovered that the Police were using it for their purposes. I think that has been completely explained, closed; that matter is done.

As for CPIB statements, the CPIB does not investigate somebody unless there is a very serious reason to do so. And the CPIB does not reveal that investigation generally until it has reason to believe that this investigation has to carry on, that it has to go somewhere.

Therefore, in general, CPIB investigations are not, in the first instance, announced at all. If you had listened to Minister Chan Chun Sing, you would have heard that explained very clearly why, in general, the CPIB does not announce any investigations at all. And when I asked the CPIB to investigate, it is my prerogative, I do not have to tell anybody. What is important is that I did conduct an investigation and these investigation results were published. That is what matters.

In the case of the 12 July statement, the reason why the CPIB said exactly what they said, if you listen carefully to Minister Chan Chun Sing, that explanation has been given – which was that they had to say what they felt justified in saying at that point for operational reasons and to be fair to the persons involved, and the Ministers, unless we have strong reason to do otherwise, we will go along and we will not go beyond what the CPIB needs and is able to say.

So, I think in terms of the transmission of information, we are pursuing a red herring. We could equally well ask, for example, when did the Leader of Opposition know about problems in his party and what did he do about them? But those are matters which the WP will have to decide and will have to account for to Singaporeans, and the PAP, we establish our own standards and we establish our own practices.

As for the relationship between Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui and the questions on the House Committee and foreign trips, I think I will leave that to Leader to answer subsequently.

On the difference between this case and the case of Michael Palmer and the PA staff, I think there are two differences. One, in Michael Palmer's case, it involved a PA staff who worked in a team which supported Michael Palmer and other GRA advisors in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, subsequently Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC and Punggol East Single Member Constituency (SMC). And there is a reporting relationship there.

Secondly, I think the specifics of the extramarital affair matter, as I explained just now – we have to look at how the families respond, what the other circumstances are, and that differs in every case. I do not wish to go into specifics of how the extramarital affairs are different, but suffice to say, they were different.

As for Raeesah Khan, that raises many issues and those issues have been exhaustively debated in the Committee of Privileges. The matter, further problems were recorded and reported by the Committee of Privileges and the matter has been referred to the Police for investigations. So, I would leave that to the Police to pursue the matter and take it where it may.

As for the time, why I took so long, I counselled Tan Chuan-Jin at the beginning. I saw to it that Cheng Li Hui was also counselled at the beginning. They both agreed to stop. It did not happen. I do not wish to go beyond that and to delve into the ins and outs of how it happened but suffice to say, eventually it came to a break point and did not stop, and they had to go.

I could have done it sooner. I should have done it sooner. I have explained that. Marine Parade was a consideration, but all things considered, I should have moved earlier. But the important thing is we moved. And we brought it out and we are open about it. And when I was asked, I said, yes, I knew sometime after GE 2020 – which is November 2020. I was open about it. If I had not said that, nobody would know that. And therefore, we clear the matter and I think we account to Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the clarification which the Leader of the Opposition posed on Parliamentary trips or official trips.

Since the last General Election, former Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, had gone on five official overseas trips and three working trips. Working trips would be, for example, for the Olympic Games and so on. Of the five official overseas trips, only one was where Miss Cheng Li Hui was present as well. That was the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) General Assembly trip to Cambodia in 2022. There were 15 MP delegates in total for this trip.

I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had, since 2020, organised 18 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 18 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.]

With respect to the House Committee, there are several Standing Select Committees. The names for the composition of the Committees are put forward, in the case of the PAP representation, by myself. After the last General Election, I had sought Leader of the Opposition's nominations for the Opposition MPs, because the rules provide that for Standing Select Committees, the proportion of the ratio of majority MPs and Opposition MPs should be roughly the proportion that they are represented in this House.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. The first point is a point of order. I respect what Speaker mentioned about not making extended speeches, but I was merely doing exactly what had transpired about one month ago when PAP MPs made extended speeches, specifically the Prime Minister, in the course of a Ministerial Statement in response to a question, I believe from backbencher Ms Denise Phua. So, I do seek your indulgence, Speaker, I was not going anything beyond what was already carried out by a PAP MP in the course of a Ministerial Statement last month. I understand what Standing Order 23 says, I understand that a debate is not to ensue and they cannot be more than clarifications, but nothing special was undertaken by me in the course of me asking questions just now. I just want to put that on record.

In terms of the Prime Minister's replies, I think some of them still do not go into the details of matters that Singaporeans are actually quite concerned about, but I will address some responses which the Prime Minister gave.

First, on TraceTogether, that this has been extensively debated and so forth. Not particularly so. There are matters for which questions still arise. I think the Prime Minister made a Statement well after the TraceTogether issue was debated in Parliament, I think this was in March 2021, where he apologised and said, let me quote, I have to be very clear about this matter. This was in a The Straits Times article on 14 March, well after we had discussed TraceTogether. The Prime Minister came out to say, "I think we made a mistake. The app was made for contact tracing, but under the law, the Police have powers to ask for information for criminal investigations. We should have said so upfront; we did not, and we came out and said so."

I must say this statement came after the storm of TraceTogether had passed; and that just reinforces the earlier point that I spoke of.

The Prime Minister spoke about the Leader of the Opposition – what I did, what I knew. I think I had handled this in the course of my press conference where I took 12 questions: when did the affair start; what information I had secured from the parties concerned. And I believe I answered those fully. If the Prime Minister has specific questions for me, I will try and address them here.

On the point of Raeesah Khan, again, I was quite careful not to say anything which would get into the investigation per se, which is still ongoing. But the matter here is about the point the Prime Minister raised about sensitivity. The Prime Minister believes that it is appropriate to respond sensitively, given the circumstances at hand. And the point I was making was we were dealing here with someone who said she had been raped, and I did not sense that sensitivity coming from the PAP at that time. And that is the point I was trying to make.

On other matters, I think there will be further questions from WP MPs. I may come in and follow up with more questions in due course. Thank you, Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, just a quick point of order. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke just now on a point of order, he said, or he claimed he was doing no more than the PAP MPs in making extended speeches with respect to the previous matter, which I think was the Ridout Road matter. I was present for that debate, and I recall quite distinctly the PAP MPs, when seeking clarifications, did not make long speeches. They asked their clarifications.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to Ms Denise Phua. I recall that too. Ms Denise Phua asked a clarification, and it was directed obviously to the Prime Minister's Office. The Ministerial Statement was made by Senior Minister Teo. But because it is under Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister responded to that. When he responded, he was giving a response to the clarification and he can, therefore, give a longer answer. He was not making a long speech on a clarification. Just a point of order and I wanted to clarify that.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Law, Mr Shanmugam.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): For a clarification on what he meant, because I am sure he does not mean it, but his statements are misleading on Ms Raeesah Khan.

My recollection was that the facts are as follows – and we need to be very clear on what the facts are when we speak in this House.

There was a Committee of Privileges (COP). Mr Singh gave evidence. My recollection, and he will correct me if I am wrong and there are others here who were in that Committee, was that the Committee was very sensitive about not describing what exactly happened to Ms Khan. But it was Mr Singh who insisted that the word "rape" ought to be mentioned. I hope he can clarify and confirm that. Otherwise, we can check the record.

So, when someone stands up here and says, "We want to be sensitive", I think we need to look back at what each one did. The word "rape" – my recollection was that it was insisted upon by Mr Singh. So, so much for sensitivity.

Second, what was the point in relation to Ms Khan? It was that in August, Mr Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap were told by her that she had lied in Parliament. This is not about rape. This is not about sexual assault. This is about her lying in Parliament. She says Mr Singh told her to take it to her grave. It was a serious matter – lying in Parliament – serious enough for her to be out of Parliament.

September came, October came, she repeated the lie in front of Mr Singh and no correction. That was the issue.

Thereafter, what happened? Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal Manap sat on a disciplinary panel to decide why Ms Khan did not tell the truth and sacked her. But if she was telling the truth that she had told them, and they admit they had been told, well, the public can judge for themselves. But I think we should be very careful about putting out the facts.

I believe when the Prime Minister said – and he will speak for himself – about sensitivity, it is about how it affects everyone. And I think if we had applied the same degree of sensitivity, no one would have insisted on recording that Ms Khan was raped.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me address the Minister for Law's point, which frankly does not really add much to this debate. But what I would say, and this is what I said in my first comment to the Prime Minister was, it is about the selective standard that is applied. It is normal for the PAP to say, "Look, be sensitive when a matter of this natures comes up."

In referencing the word "rape", my point was this was how serious the matter was for us, as leaders to think about. And I believe I was asked at the COP, "Why didn't you respond earlier? Why didn't you react earlier?" And I said I should have reacted earlier but because I have an MP who had made such a serious point something of a personal nature, I also needed to make sure that she had addressed the matter with her parents. Because, in the words of the Prime Minister, you have to look at the circumstances and the spouses' and the families' conditions.

So, I think the Minister for Law is missing the point here. It was not an insistence because of a lack of sensitivity vis-à-vis the word "rape". That was not it. It was the circumstances we were in to make a decision in double quick time on what to do going forward. I hope that clarifies the matter.

I am not sure what the second clarification was from the Law Minister. If he can repeat it, I will deal with it.

Mr K Shanmugam: I will repeat both.

On the first, I think the Leader has missed the point. I believe the Committee suggested that we do not need to expressly talk about rape and Mr Singh insisted on talking about rape. Not only that, he insisted on bringing in her mental condition. I think most observers felt a considerable degree of disquiet at this – attacking a young lady on the basis of her mental condition and also insisting on putting on record that she had been raped. I think everyone could see why that was done.

The second point was this. The serious issue was lying in Parliament and then lying again, and that had nothing to do with her sexual assault. She could have come up and said, "I didn't tell the truth" and her seniors in the party could have advised her. That is a matter that the COP had gone into extensively and it is a matter, some of it, that is now the subject of investigations. That is the point I am making.

Mr Speaker: Members, I just want to remind everyone that today's Ministerial Statement concerns Minister Iswaran and the resignations of former Speaker and a PAP MP. Again, let me just read out Standing Order 23 for everyone's benefit: "A statement may be made by a Minister in Parliament on the matter of public importance. Members may seek clarification on the statement but no debate. No debate shall be allowed thereon."

Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. A timely intervention, I must say.

I think on the first point, I have stated the difference of opinion I have with the Minister for Law with regard to the use of the word and the reason why the word was important in the context of what the COP were investigating.

On the second point about mental illness, this is a question of fact. This was communicated to us. We recorded it in our notes when she shared her condition and I felt that it was an important point for the COP to consider. It was not a case of putting someone with such an issue out to dry, as the Minister is very enthusiastic to portray.

The second clarification about lying in Parliament, I think I dealt with this. It was really a question of why I did not stand up when she repeated the lie. I had no confirmation as to whether she had dealt with the matter of her rape with her parents. And I was not going to stand up and call her out and say, "No, these are the reasons why that lie had to be said." I think I made that apparent to the COP.

Mr Speaker: Dr Vivian Balakrishan, you wanted to make a clarification?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to address Mr Pritam Singh's suggestion that we had somehow been tardy or reticent with information with respect to TraceTogether.

I do not want this to become a whole repeat of an extended discussion which we had on this matter. Mr Singh would remember this. We had this extended discussion in early 2021.

But just to refresh your memory, TraceTogether is a system that temporarily collected Bluetooth proximity data without GPS coordinates, without movement data and the data is expunged after 25 days.

When I first was involved with the design of the system, it was purely for the purposes of contact tracing, dealing with the clear and present danger that COVID-19 presented to our population.

I made a statement – I think it was in June 2020 – which omitted four important words. The four missing words which I said before was "subject to prevailing legislation". What I had not known when I made the assurance that the data would not be available to law enforcement agencies was that section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in fact applied to TraceTogether data, as it does, to all other information which a person may have access to, which the Police may need for the purposes of investigation.

Anyway, I made that statement in ignorance of the prevailing legislation, and I omitted those four words in June 2020.

Round about, I believe, near the end of October 2020, a member of the public wrote to me and said, "Are you sure? Please check." So, I said thank you and I did get my staff to check. So, that was already into November.

When my staff in the Smart Nation Office then told me actually, section 20 of the CPC may be relevant. That is when you will recall I said in this House, right from this stand, I had many sleepless nights deciding what we do about this. Do we make legislative changes? Or do we instruct the Police, or could we even instruct the Police, to proscribe their access to this data, although legally speaking, they have?

So, there were sleepless nights on my part; intense discussions internally between multiple agencies on part of the Government in November 2020. And my staff will also recall I told them, whatever it is, when we finish this internal review, we will come back here, and we will come clean in my usual fashion and explain the situation.

We did not have a Sitting in December, but I believe it was Mr Christopher de Souza who filed a question. I think it was in December 2020. And on 4 January 2021, the question was answered, I believe, by the Minister of State of Home Affairs, Mr Desmond Tan. On 5 January 2021, I added further clarifications and I also indicated, I think a few days after that, that we will come back to Parliament in February 2021 with legislative changes to circumscribe the access by law enforcement agencies into TraceTogether data.

I have taken some pains and I am sorry to take up the time, but I hope Mr Singh will realise that I have never deliberately engaged in any obfuscation, prevarication or delay. I have at all times acted in good faith. I have tried to make sure that in design, in execution and in coordination of a complex matter in an emergency, I have been transparent and forthright with the people and I object to your characterisation and use of an old debate which was settled in Parliament to suggest that there is a pattern of delay, prevarication and obfuscation. I object to that characterisation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister Vivian's objection. Let me just share some details about what happened in January and February in this House, in the course of that debate.

Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai had asked the Minister, "When did you discover that your statement was going to be affected by the CPC?" Minister did not answer that question. This was in January. The point here is there were Ministers who were in this House who knew that actually they were already in receipt of knowledge in October 2020 about the fact that TraceTogether applied to the CPC. The Minister admitted that.

But that was a month later in February, if I recall correctly, February 2021, where the Minister said – let me pull out the Hansard – I may just have a bit of it here when it was checked: "At the end of October..." – these are Minister Vivian's words – "...when I was asked basically what did I spend November doing? As I said, double checking the legislation and then having, among sleepless nights and conversations, asking: 'Do we carve it out? How do we do it?' So, that occupied us in November."

That is what you said. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that there is a significant delay in time before answers are given by the Government. Was Minister Vivian the only one looking at TraceTogether and the applicability of TraceTogether in May of 2020? I think Minister Shanmugam had a discussion with the Mayor of New York, I believe, talking about privacy concerns, TraceTogether concerns, and my point is, did no one in the Government consider the applicability of section 20 to the CPC? We do not know that. But what we do know is that the Prime Minister then apologised, not in January, not in February, not in October, November or December, but in March, after we had dealt with the issue and that is my point. That is a significant delay.

Mr Speaker: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Singh, is there really a delay? Look at the timeline which I have said, and you have just repeated. First of all, I take responsibility. I am in charge. I was in charge of the programme. I became aware end of — no, I was asked the question by a member of the public, not even in this House, end of October.

I spend November double checking the facts, coordinating, examining the policy options, discussing with my colleagues. And I also told my staff we will clear all these, whichever way it falls. A question was asked by Mr Christopher de Souza in December. Unfortunately, we did not sit in December. Early January, we answered it. I have added further clarifications. I then embarked on a process. In fact, we had to get a Certificate of Urgency for legislative changes. In February, we had this debate. I do not think I delayed or obfuscated and, at all times, I have always been upfront and clean.

Mr Leong knows that as well. I mean, I have been here long enough. People know the way I operate. So, that is why I am objecting to your insinuation that there was any undue delay or any attempt at obfuscation or lack of transparency. That is not the way we do it.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, you have a clarification?

Mr K Shanmugam: I pulled up what the Committee said since Mr Singh has made reference to it. I think we should have on record what exactly happened.

This is the Committee of Privileges (COP) record. I think it is 7294. This is Mr Singh saying, "This is where I think circumstances, in my judgement, were of such a nature that I was prepared to give the Member time, in view of her" – again, I respect what you said earlier, I used the word "rape", but the Committee, in its record, changed it to "sexual assault" and put it in square brackets – "...earlier because this was the word Ms Raeesah Khan used when she described herself, but if Chair and the Committee would want me to use 'sexual assault', I am happy to use that word. I just used that word..." – meaning "rape" – "... because that was the word Raeesah Khan used."

Mr Edwin Tong says, "Yes, and I would prefer not; that we don't go into any other details unless they are strictly necessary." Mr Singh says, "I don't really know the details." Chairman says, "I am quite happy if you can just use 'sexual assault'." Mr Singh then said, "Okay, I will use 'sexual assault'. Just remember that, on record, that was what Ms Khan told us, that she was raped when she was 18."

Then, on the other point on mental health, this is what the COP report says: "In the course of their testimony before the Committee, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal made some assertions about Ms Khan's mental condition. Mr Singh in particular emphasised this. He said that Ms Khan might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and disassociation. Mr Singh said that on 4 October when he met Ms Khan in the Leader of Opposition's (LO) office, she was in a dazed state, suggesting that she was somewhat disoriented. Ms Lim also gave the evidence that at the DP hearing on 29 November, Ms Khan explained that the anecdote was not in the first draft because she was disassociated and did not know what she was doing. Ms Lim also said that she was worried because as far as she and senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders could understand, Ms Khan was doing things without thinking."

"Mr Singh also said that the statement in Ms Khan's 8 August WhatsApp message – 'they've agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave' – was a lie. When Mr Singh was asked why Ms Khan would lie about this, Mr Singh said that Ms Khan had told the DP on 29 November that she suffered from disassociation. He said that Ms Khan may have a problem. His position was that Ms Khan could be predisposed to lying because she had mental health issues. Mr Singh asked the Committee to consider asking Ms Khan to go for psychological assessment."

"When Mr Singh was asked to explain his earlier evidence that there was nothing unusual about Ms Khan's performance as a Member of Parliament between August and September which was in contrast to his evidence that she could be suffering from disassociation, Mr Singh confirmed again that there was nothing out of the ordinary about Ms Khan's performance as a Member of Parliament at the material time."

"Ms Khan was given an opportunity to respond to the assertions made by the three senior Workers' Party leaders regarding her mental health. Ms Khan said that it was extremely out of line for Mr Singh and Ms Lim to have used mental illness as a means to discredit her. Mr Singh had tried to paint a picture of her as someone who was mentally unstable when she was of sound mind."

"In addition, Ms Khan had told the DP on 29 November that whilst her therapist had said that she might have symptoms of PTSD, she clarified that this was not something she was going through. Mental health issues had to be approached with sensitivity. She expressed concern that using a person's mental health to discredit them, as Mr Singh and Ms Lim had done, would set back the movement to progress mental health awareness and support. Attributing such labels on people would discourage them from seeking help when they needed it."

And, Sir, on the record is also expert testimony that Ms Khan did not have those issues.

The third point is, Mr Singh, the Leader of Opposition, suggesting that I knew – because let us not make innuendos – that I knew of Mr Vivian Balakrishnan's statement and deliberately kept quiet?

Mr Speaker: Before I call on the Leader of the Opposition, I want to again remind Members of today's Ministerial Statement and there are 12 Members who had filed PQs on this matter. I would like to give all these 12 Members, if they wish to seek clarifications, the opportunity to do so. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

First, on the point that Minister Shanmugam raised on item 7294, that is my direct testimony and it does not contradict anything that I have said here today or make the point that the Minister is trying to suggest. That is the first issue.

Second issue, on the mental health point. He is referring not to my words or my testimony in the Committee, but how the COP characterised in its report, its interpretation of what had happened vis-à-vis what Ms Khan had said. But would the COP not want to know all the facts of the matter? In fact, in the documents that I submitted to the COP, it was clearly stated in my notes that this is what Raeesah Khan told us. And so, I was merely relaying that to the Committee. To then – as he is doing now – make an inductive leap and characterise that this is now an attack on all people who are suffering from mental health issues and that we are going for the jugular here, I think that is really, really not proper. I do not think you have any basis to say that.

The final point about innuendo and suggestions, my question to the Minister is this. Did the Minister or anybody in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ring the bell in Government to say, actually, section 20 of the CPC applies for TraceTogether well before October 2020?

Mr Speaker: I will now request Members who have filed PQs earlier on this matter, if they have clarifications, to raise them. Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank Mr Speaker. I seek a bit of brief indulgence from Speaker. I filed all three of my Oral Questions on the CPIB case and I hope Speaker will allow me to just ask three clarifications to the Prime Minister.

Sir, it has been said that there are decades where nothing happens, and then there are weeks where decades happen. May I ask the Prime Minister three clarifications?

Firstly, on the timeline of CPIB's disclosures, in hindsight, would it have been foreseeable that HPL would make a disclosure publicly that their Managing Director had been subject to a notice of arrest and asked to provide information on his interactions with Minister Iswaran? And in hindsight, would that have possibly shaped CPIB's assessment of whether to disclose upfront that the Minister had himself been arrested, rather than stating in the initial press release that he was assisting with investigations? That is my first clarification.

My second clarification, without prejudging the issues, pertains to the Public Service Division (PSD). In the event that CPIB makes adverse findings against a particular public officer in the Public Service, will that public officer's previous official decisions be subject to retrospective review to ensure that there has not been any inappropriate influence swaying the decision?

Thirdly, some may call recent events the reputational crisis of a generation for Singapore. Can the Prime Minister and Government assure us and our residents that every effort will be made to repair the damage to Singapore's reputation so that people, businesses and others around the world will know that Singapore is going to settle the matter and put things right, because if we become just another ordinary country, Singapore will be finished.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I will answer on behalf of the Prime Minister as this relates to the CPIB technical issues, which I thought we will address in the second bucket of questions. The short answers to Dr Tan Wu Meng's questions are as follows: one, would CPIB have revealed more information earlier than what it has done? As I have explained, what CPIB revealed from 12 July to the subsequent days, is all dependent on its operational considerations – to preserve the integrity of evidence, the confidentiality of the investigations and also not to adversely affect the progress of the investigation. So, what CPIB revealed at any point in time would be CPIB's operational decisions and that has nothing to do with HPL's declaration or otherwise.

Second, will CPIB or, for that matter, any law enforcement agencies take a retrospective review of all decisions made by any officers being investigated? That is a decision entirely dependent on the investigations required by the respective law enforcement agencies, including CPIB.

Third, on Dr Tan Wu Meng's characterisation that this is a reputational crisis, as the Prime Minister said, "Yes, we have taken a hit", but I have always believed this – circumstances do not define us. Our responses to circumstances define us and how we respond to circumstances will define us and we have every determination that the way we handle this must restore confidence, by the Singaporean public and our international partners.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I think the debate on the – not debate, sorry – the clarification on the Minister Iswaran case, a lot depends on what is the exact date of arrest. There is some confusion, and I think the public will also like to know. We did read somewhere, from some mainstream media, that it was on 11 July. But from what Minister Chan said just now, he seems to give the impression that the formal arrest was not taken until after 12 July. Can I clarify the point first?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish not to repeat what I have said in the Statement. On 12 July, Minister Iswaran was asked to assist in investigations and — sorry, it was on 11 July, Mr Iswaran was asked to assist in the investigation. And as the investigation progressed, CPIB made the relevant operational judgements on what to reveal.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications. Firstly, can I confirm that even though the CPIB has functional independence in its operations, which I think Minister Chan said, it is obligated to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to initiate formal investigations into Ministers? And if this is the case, which are the classes of people or public officers where the Prime Minister's concurrence is required, and under which section of the Prevention of Corruption Act is this specified?

And secondly, in relation to that, based on the provisions in the current statutes, should the Prime Minister and President both refuse to give concurrence to the CPIB, does it mean that the CPIB cannot commence formal investigations into certain classes of people?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned, CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's concurrence to open up investigation because it involves a standing Cabinet Minister.

Has the Prime Minister ever denied CPIB permission to conduct any investigation throughout its history? The answer is no.

And the second answer to Mr Louis Chua's question is that: what if the Prime Minister and the President do not concur? CPIB has the right to proceed with its investigation.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two clarifications from me. First, to follow up on the point about the Prime Minister's concurrence being sought. I was just wondering, in the event of an active investigation into a Minister, for example, if the CPIB then decides to pass it on to the public prosecutor, who then decides to proceed, that is, to charge the individual being investigated, would the Primie Minister's concurrence then also be required?

I know this is not currently required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but I am just wondering, given that we have a slightly different approach with the commencement of investigations. So, I am just wondering whether this will also be the case.

And then secondly, I wanted to know if CPIB apprised the Prime Minister or other political office holders, Cabinet Ministers, about the facts relating to the active investigation into Minister Iswaran? And whether or not any information about evidence was given and whether this was used in deciding whether or not to place Minister Iswaran on interdiction?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me clarify just one thing. Just now, what I said may not be entirely accurate; I will check that and I will get back to the House, as to the hypothetical situation which has not happened, whereby the Prime Minister and the President had not given permission for CPIB to proceed. I withdraw that. I will check that and I will get back to the House.

On Ms He Ting Ru's question, the question is, once the investigation has started, CPIB will submit its report to the AGC and it will be taken to its logical conclusion. There is no requirement for subsequent approval.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First is on the matter of principle in my Parliamentary Question. I asked about the transparent guidelines for mandatory disclosures or announcements when a Minister is personally implicated. I am concerned first as a matter of principle, because a political office holder is involved and also in the context and environment that we are possibly open to leaks and the social media age that we are in, what does that mean in that sort of context? Does it really mean that we actually have to have a different set of rules or transparent guidelines when a political office holder or Minister is involved?

My second supplementary question, Speaker, is in regards to the Prime Minister's point just now about Mr Iswaran's interdiction from duty, and yet, the Prime Minister mentioned that he would still be getting $8,500 per month. Can the Prime Minister explain the reasoning behind the $8,500? In normal circumstances, we would expect someone with interdiction from duty and no role or duties that would be undertaken for the month, would be taking an absence of leave from duty rather than possibly getting the $8,500? I hope the Prime Minister can help answer the question.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, guidelines on disclosures involving Ministers, basically, we have to judge the situation. In this case, CPIB judged and I supported them, that they are going to be interviewing a Minister. They are going to be interviewing other people, word would go around town. It is untenable for us to say we have no comment. And therefore, they put out the statement that they are interviewing a Minister.

There have been, and it is not the previous precedent; those of you who are old enough to remember, I do not think there is anybody else in the House except me who was here when Mr Teh Cheang Wan was investigated. None of that was announced. Because you do not know at first, when you interview him, whether or not there is something there. And if you interview him, if you announce that he is being interviewed, Minister for National Development, and then it turns out there is nothing there, and you come out three days later and say, "the Minister for National Development is innocent", I think you are going to cause great consternation and, at the end of that, his reputation will be damaged undeservedly.

But if you investigate him first, if it turns out there is something there, at some point, you cross a threshold and it is necessary to make an announcement.

In this case, CPIB judged that the threshold to say that they are talking to Mr Iswaran was there right from the beginning, because they were going to call in other people, including Mr Ong Beng Seng, HPL. Therefore, it was not possible for this thing to be kept quiet and it had to be stated upfront.

But would they know where the investigation will lead? At that point, no.

Three days later, after interviewing different people and establishing various facts, they make a fresh assessment. At that point, they are comfortable to say that the Minister was arrested and bailed, because the situation is different.

So, these are operational judgements which our law enforcement agencies have got to make. All the law enforcement agencies, whether it is Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), whether it is the Police, whether it is CPIB. And they do this all the time.

In this case, CPIB did it. Did they know that three days later, HPL would issue such a statement? I think they expected that HPL would have to issue such a statement because there is a regulatory requirement by the Singapore Exchange (SGX). I do not think they would know what Mr Ong Beng Seng would say and it would depend on what had transpired during the three days before Mr Ong put out that statement.

So, I think, we are reading a lot into very little. First of all, nobody knew that Mr Iswaran might or might not have been doing something wrong. CPIB found out. Nobody tipped them off. Nobody blew a whistle. Nobody raised a public scandal, no Parliamentary Questions in Parliament, not even from the WP. But CPIB found out and they told me, and they decided to investigate the matter. They proceeded. It reached the point where they needed to interview the Minister. And then, they came to tell me and say, "Can I have your concurrence?" Because CPIB reports to somebody. It has to report to somebody! It cannot report to God!

So, who does it report to? That is a very interesting question. Once upon a time, we had an SAF officer who went overseas on a course. He went to a Commonwealth country. And the course mate asked him: "How do you keep your system clean, in Singapore, of corruption?" This is a country which grapples with this problem. And he explained how we do it, we have the CPIB, it was zealous, it has a fearsome reputation, you go and "lim kopi", you know what will happen.

And his course mate asked him, "Whom does the CPIB report to?" So, he thought this was an organisational question. So, he said, "Well, it is independent, it has got its own chain of command, it reports to the Prime Minister." And his course mate looked at him again and says, "Who does the CPIB report to?"

Why did he ask that question? Because the question, at the root of it, is the age-old problem – who is to judge the people who judge the people who judge the judges? Who is in charge? Somebody has to be in charge. And in Singapore, the Prime Minister is in charge and if he is corrupt, you are sunk.

But beyond that, we decided to put in an extra safeguard; and that is, if the Prime Minister directs the CPIB "you do not do that", CPIB can go to the President and say that "Prime Minister has refused me consent, do you concur?" And if the President says yes, then the Director of CPIB can proceed. If the President agrees with the Prime Minister that the Director of CPIB does not have a case or has gone rogue, or is doing something ill-founded and says no, well, that is how two keys work. And, therefore, the matter stops there.

Is it guaranteed? No, because the Prime Minister may be corrupt, the President may be mistaken. But it is as best, it is possible to contrive a system with human beings, which will work, provided you put honest people in charge. That is how the system is supposed to work in Singapore.

As for the interdiction and why it is $8,500 per month, we considered this carefully. We are not the first. It is unusual for a Prime Minister to have to do this to a Minister, but we are not the first organisation to confront this problem of a person under suspicion being investigated. And what do you do with him while he is being investigated, before he is either cleared or charged and convicted?

You have to have some arrangement. Can you leave him at work? Well, that depends.

In the case of the Ridout Road bungalows, I had no doubt I could leave the Ministers at work. I did not believe that they were guilty, neither did any evidence come up during the process of investigation that they were. In fact, the investigation cleared them. If the investigation had surfaced something which looked questionable, I would have been told and I would have made the decision on whether they needed to be interdicted and put on leave of absence.

In the case of Mr Iswaran, by the time formal investigations began on 11 July, the CPIB had been working on this case since at least May. So, they had some basis to come to some conclusion and I had to decide what to do with a Minister who is being investigated for what could be quite a serious matter, which is a possible corruption offence. That is why CPIB is investigating it.

And what do I do? Because I do not have a precedent, I do not have a norm, I look at what the Civil Service does as a guideline. Their situation is different.

But here, you have an officer who is under suspicion, who is under investigation, he has not been convicted. A presumption of innocence applies. He is innocent until proven guilty.

So, I could technically have said, "Well, presumed innocent and he goes on leave, full pay, until the matter is cleared." I could also have said, "There is a cloud. I straightaway do not want anybody with a cloud. You are out."

I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.

So, what is a fair thing to do?

And the Civil Service, their practice is, in such situations, you get interdicted, you are put on half pay, subject to a ceiling and a floor, but you are there until the matter is disposed of. If you are, at the end of it, innocent, and nothing is there, your back pay is reinstated to you and made good. If later on, in fact, you are found guilty, well, at that point, your pay will stop completely and other consequences will follow.

I think that is a reasonable model to follow and that is the basis on which I decided that Mr Iswaran will be interdicted and that he will be paid $8,500 per month instead of his normal salary. He was told, acknowledged and that was done.

I think that is the proper way to do things.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said just now that CPIB informed him on 29 May 2023 that they came across information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. After the receipt of this information, did the Prime Minister allow Minister Iswaran to continue his normal duties as Minister for Transport and MP for West Coast GRC?

It appears that the investigation on this case involving Minister Iswaran started some time before July, when the formal investigation was started. This formal investigation was started in July. Can I ask what is the difference between an investigation and a formal investigation by CPIB and when is this threshold crossed?

Concerning the vacation of the seat of the former Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister, did the Parliamentary seat of the former Speaker become vacant in February 2023 when he offered his resignation to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister accepted his resignation?

Lastly, the Speaker of Parliament is supposed to be impartial towards all MPs. Can I ask the Prime Minister did a conflict of interest occur due to the extramarital affair between the former Speaker and an MP when this information was not revealed to the House earlier on?

Lastly, sorry, I think Minister Chan did not answer part (d) of my Question No 14, which was how many declarations of meals were made in the past year and what was the total value of these declarations?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, after 29 May, when CPIB informed me that they were looking into Mr Iswaran's matter, he continued his duties but I was aware of the issue.

I alerted his Ministers, particularly, in MTI, and we had in mind that this matter was in the background, so that if any issues came up which needed to be decided involving Iswaran, we would know that there was this complication which we would have to think about. But I did not have a basis yet to suspend him.

What is the difference between an informal, quiet investigation and a formal investigation?

In a quiet investigation, the CPIB does not exercise all of its powers. For example, it does not arrest people and formally interview them. It makes inquiries, it asks for information, but it has not formally exercised its powers to arrest a person and to compel him to answer their questions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, because under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if you answer the CPIB and give the CPIB a false answer, that is a crime. It is like being on oath.

So, when you go into a formal investigation, a transition point is passed. The reason they needed to go into a formal investigation is because they had reached a point where they had to interview the principal parties who were involved, namely, Mr Iswaran. They also had to interview several other people, including Mr Ong Beng Seng. Therefore, they needed to launch a formal process at that point.

As for Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's seat in February, no, it did not become vacant in February. He offered to resign. I accepted. That was my decision. Taken strategically, the actual implementation was to come at a time convenient to me. In the formal process to resign, he would have had to write to the Deputy Speaker and that is legally done. That was done when eventually, he did resign, I think, on 17 July.

Thirdly, on the Speaker being impartial and whether there was a conflict of interest, I addressed this in my main Ministerial Statement just now and explained why this is a situation where it was improper – a Speaker having an affair with an MP.

Therefore, it is not a matter where you can stop having the affair and carry on as if nothing happened. But neither is it a situation where the Speaker is in a position of command or supervisory responsibility over the MP. The Speaker presides, yes, but the Speaker is not the MPs' boss. The Speaker does not decide the MPs' bonus. The Speaker does not decide the MP's postings, does not assign work to the MPs. So, therefore, you are in a situation where it is awkward, but it is not something which must be stopped immediately.

That is why I asked you to think, have a thought experiment. Would it have been okay if the Speaker is married to a MP? It can easily happen. We have had a Minister married to a MP, both serving simultaneously in the House. Nothing wrong.

The Speaker and an MP serving in the House – is there anything wrong? I do not think so. Everybody will know it. The Speaker will have to be extra careful and make sure that he will bend over backwards not to be seen to be favouring his wife or her husband.

But if it is an extramarital affair, I think that is different. It puts everybody else on edge, in an awkward position – MPs as well as staff. In Singapore's context, people look at it and say, this will not pass muster. Therefore, that is a situation we are in.

It is not a question of my making a conflict of interest decision where I am making a decision which financially benefits me. But it is a situation where a personal relationship crosses with a public relationship. In this case, it is an extramarital personal relationship and that makes it difficult.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Sir —

Mr Speaker: Sorry, let Minister Chan make his response first.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the simple answer to Mr Gerald Giam's fourth question is that we do not track such declarations and add them up, but if there is a declaration that warrants attention by the Permanent Secretary or the Head of Agency, they will take the actions necessary.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask, given the current speculation among the public regarding the nature of the CPIB investigations into Minister Iswaran and HPL, whether there is currently any uncertainty or lack of clarity in the existing Code of Conduct that should be addressed to avoid causing our public servants and even our political office holders to become overly fearful and potentially impeding the discharge of their normal duties?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will reiterate two points.

First, the Code of Conduct. Any code of conduct will lay out the broad principles and the guidelines for people to follow, but they must be complemented by good people who must abide by the spirit of the rules and not just the letter of the rules. And this is how we run our system.

Three things: we need good rules, we need good people, and if any of these things fail, we must have the third limb, which is that we must have a system to make sure that we put things right.

So, in setting out any rules or code of conduct, we are mindful that the rules must be clear, yet, at the same time, not so prescriptive until it becomes paralysing for the system to work. But that is only the first step.

The second step – it is very important. It is to have good people with good values who can interpret the rules, abide by the rules and the spirit of the rules, and, if something goes wrong, we must have the system to put it right.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to Minister Chan, and it pertains to my Question No 11.

How does the Public Service intend to strengthen its whistle-blowing policies and promote better awareness of these policies so that civil servants are protected by non-retaliation policies that are in place?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in my answer, I have laid out the current rules that the Public Service adopts in terms of whistle-blowing and also the non-retaliation policy, so, I will not repeat that.

I will just add that the Public Service will continue to make sure that our rules are relevant and current to the circumstances and needs of the time. We will continue to do this regularly to make sure that our rules are updated, that our people are kept updated and that they have the confidence to do what is right.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I have two clarifications.

First, to revisit the question about why Minister Iswaran's leave of absence is not no-pay leave. The Prime Minister mentioned that in the Civil Service, the practice is to put them on half pay. I can understand the rationale for that in the case of low-wage earners who may need a regular monthly income in order to survive. But I think that hardly applies in the case of a Minister. For $8,500 a month, that might be small change to some, but many Singaporeans have to work very hard for much less than that.

Secondly, about protection for civil servants. Although the Minister said that there is a non-retaliation clause, can the Minister elaborate on what that non-retaliation clause comprises or, if not, to let me know where I can find further information on that?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second question, I have explained the protection of the civil servants in terms of the non-retaliation laws, which basically say this: if anybody thinks that they have a case, they report it in good faith, and even if subsequently the so called "accused" or alleged accused is found to be innocent, there will be no retaliation against the person who made the initial report. That is the spirit of the non-retaliation law and it is in our Public Service rules.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh. Oh, Prime Minister.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow. Here, I have to be fair to the Minister involved as well as do the right thing by the Government and the taxpayer. He is under investigation, it is not a minor matter. He has not been convicted. He has not even been charged. Is it fair for me to say, "Your pay goes to zero"? I think it is not.

What is fair? Well, I looked at the Civil Service. The Civil Service says half pay, subject to a minimum and ceiling. Their ceiling is about here too. So, I decided on this number, $8,500, because much less than half pay. So, I think we have to go on principles, rather than whatever we do, anything you can do, I can do stronger. I think that would not be a wise approach to take.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This question is in relation to Minister Chan's earlier comment in relation to CPIB being functionally independent. My clarification is, what oversight is exercised over the CPIB and whether the CPIB's investigation methods are being audited on a regular basis to ensure impartiality and parity of treatments, regardless of the identity of the subject of their investigations?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second point on the quality of CPIB's investigations, all our law enforcement agencies learn from one another. They also learn from best practices from other parts of the world to make sure that our systems are up to mark. But the most significant test of whether our investigations are up to mark is really this – that when CPIB or any of our law enforcement agencies submit their case to the AGC and it goes to the Courts, are our investigation methods up to the mark? Because if they are not up to the mark, they will be rejected by the AGC and the Courts.

So, the final arbiter, if you like, of the quality of the work that our law enforcement agencies do is actually our Courts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek some clarifications from the Prime Minister. Earlier, the Prime Minister said that sometime after 29 May, the Prime Minister had informed someone in MTI. May I know what is the purpose of this communication, who in MTI was informed of this and what was the purpose of this communication, for example, whether any precautionary measures were carried out?

My second clarification for the Prime Minister is, the Prime Minister mentioned about the interdiction and how he arrived at the pay of $8,500. Just a quick clarification – is this in lieu of both Minister's pay and MP's allowance?

Finally, Mr Speaker, I believe that Minister Chan has not answered the second question of my colleague, the hon Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry. Mr Iswaran has a role in MTI, he is overseeing various matters to do with trade as well as projects like the Formula One (F1) and I thought it was important that the Minister for MTI knows that there is an investigation going on concerning Mr Iswaran, so that he knows how to deal with the issue until the investigation has reached a point and the matter is public. It is necessary. So, that is quite clear.

On the MP's allowance, it has not been interdicted. The MP's allowance is different from the pay, it is not at the discretion of the Prime Minister. If you want to do that, Parliament has to move a Motion to interdict the MP as an MP and Parliament has not done that. And neither in previous cases, has Parliament done that. What has happened is that the MP has been on a leave of absence, and eventually when the case is settled one way or the other, well, then, consequences follow.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to put on record. An MP's allowance will be withheld once the MP is suspended from the service of Parliament, as provided by section 29(3) read with section 19 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. A Motion would have to be moved in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. His or her allowance would be withheld thereafter.

On Ms He Ting Ru's second question, can you repeat your second question, or the second part of your question?

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the question that I asked was, did CPIB apprise the Prime Minister or any other Cabinet Minister about the facts relating to the investigation to Minister Iswaran and including information about evidence that became available?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Director of CPIB only apprised the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru, I assume you had raised your hand earlier, was that the clarification wanted? Thank you. Mr Don Wee.

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. A supplementary question to Minister Chan. In the event that a Permanent Secretary or a director or a chief executive of a Statutory Board is being invited to assist with any investigation, will he or she be asked to take a leave of absence?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Don Wee's question is, it depends on the circumstances. The PSD together with the head of Civil Service and if need be, the Minister in charge of the Public Service will have to make a decision in context.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Two clarifications for the Prime Minister, please.

I do not think Prime Minister has answered the question as to why it took so long to make arrangements to hand over the residents of Kembangan-Chai Chee to others in Marine Parade GRC, from February to July. He has not answered why it takes so long.

The second clarification is that I wonder whether he will agree with me that the period from February to July actually was quite momentous, many things happened in Parliament. We had Budget debate, Committee of Supply, Parliament was prorogued, Parliament reopened. There were Sittings in April and May, and some of us even went with the former Speaker on official trips overseas. So, does he not think that this inordinate delay to settle the matter is really highly regrettable, because it gives a false impression to all of us here, to the general public and even to the outside world?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, as I have said, if I could play it again, I would have acted earlier.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I would like to address, on a different tone, some matters of the heart, pertaining to the issues that the Prime Minister has addressed today. I have three clarifications, two of them pertain to the practicality and sustainability of ensuring that there can always be good talent in our politics and the last question pertains to the threats to the trust and the social compact between our citizens and the Government.

As I need to give some context to these questions, may I beg your indulgence for a little time?

Mr Speaker: Do not test it too much though.

Ms Carrie Tan: Okay, alright. Mr Speaker, I think younger people, when they received the news of what happened, specifically the extramarital affairs, in their idealism, they may struggle to reconcile their expectations towards their political leaders with them as human beings, who have lives, who have complicated feelings, relationships and personal lives. And the reality of an MP's life is that we often disappoint our spouses or children who may be waiting at home on the weekends, or at night when we get held back at work, at events, at contingencies in the constituency. And some couples and families —

Mr Speaker: Ms Tan, I would appreciate if you would go straight to your clarification.

Ms Carrie Tan: Yes. Some families withstand this better than others. So my question is, how can we make political representation more sustainable and family-friendly in Singapore?

And two, sharing a little bit of personal context, I personally would not have decided to enter politics in 2020 if I had not by then found a partner that I planned to settle down with. So, for any political candidate who is still single and have not yet found a life partner upon entering politics, the fact of life is, it is really hard to date or to find potential partners. So, is it possible that we can allow politicians some space for their personal lives away from public scrutiny, just for the sake of ensuring that there will always be willing and capable candidates, albeit single, willing to serve as politicians without being in reality, doomed to singlehood pretty much, until they are past their prime?

The third point is, the Internet is rife with a lot of false information and opportunistic narratives, and the way algorithms on social media platforms push info onto our feeds also perpetuate personal bias and social polarisation. As much as there are many young people who are quite discerning about this, there are a vast majority who are rather passive consumers of certain narratives and information. So, what can we do to better protect our young citizens from being confounded by social media consumption that has the power to cause disillusionment or apathy towards the system? Again, this is a point that I would like us to consider and seek leadership guidance on the prevention of cynicism and apathy from setting into Singapore society towards our political system.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her exposition. I think we can understand where the Member is coming from. We have clear rules of propriety and probity. They do not conflict with the aspirations for our personal and family lives. We know the public's expectations for public figures are high. We aspire to live up to them. Where we fall short, we seek to improve. Where we have done well, we must remain vigilant and not complacent.

There will be personal sacrifices. Ultimately, the will to answer the call to serve is deeply personal. And I agree, we can all do our part to encourage a positive political environment and engender a more constructive political culture so that we do not deter good people from stepping forth to serve.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that there were two keys for the CPIB: the Prime Minister; and failing which, one could go to the President. I am wondering if the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has considered potentially extending this institutional reporting line beyond just essentially one branch of Government, which is the Executive Branch, given that there is also a Judiciary? I believe in Brazil, for example, the so-called Car Wash investigations actually reported to judges, as well as possibly a legislature. In Australia, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is overseen by a joint Select Committee.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers.

But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one. You have safeguards; you have got judges involved; but if you have heard of Lava Jato, "Car Wash", it is one of the, what do they call it, the "mother of all corruption scandals"?

So, the solution is not to be found in more and more and more and more layers of checks and balances. The solution is to be found in honest people with integrity, conviction and courage to make the system work with a reasonable degree of redundancy, so I do not have a single point of failure. And that is what we have done.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for Minister Chan. Thank you for answering the question on Ministerial Code of Conduct.

In the UK, the code of conduct is always revised at the start of every new administration, and there is a setting out of the possible sanctions as well. Would the Code of Conduct for Ministers be similarly reviewed more consistently, and perhaps, the sanctions available to be expressly stated for any breaches?

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion. Today, the Code of Conduct is gazetted, but the sanctions are not spelled out. So, it is gazetted.

The second point is that we take the point. We will continue to regularly review the Ministerial Code of Conduct and all the other regulations that safeguard our system. We will do that.

The third point follows on from what the Prime Minister has said, and I think I have also shared this. We need to have good rules. But ultimately, the rules, by themselves, cannot be sufficient. We need good people – good people that will abide by the spirit of the rules; good people that will interpret the rules; and not people that will try to go around the rules.

And what is the ultimate sanction? In my mind, I think in our political culture, the ultimate sanction is not whether someone has committed a mistake and pays a certain fine or others. The ultimate sanction is what will the public think of us as legislators, as part of the leadership team of this country. And we must do what we can to uphold the standards whether the sanctions are codified or not codified.

Mr Speaker: Any last clarifications? Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, one technical issue. Can I ask Minister Chan, Minister Iswaran was put on leave of absence since 6 July, if I am right. Oh, no, no; that was his personal leave of absence. Yes, okay, that was his personal leave of absence.

But on 5 July, the Prime Minister and the Government already knew that CPIB had requested to investigate him. In fact, the Prime Minister knows that the CPIB has been investigating him informally since May, but the formal investigation would start after getting concurrence from the Prime Minister, on 5 April. That is what I understand. But he was on personal leave of absence.

And then, during the period of personal leave of absence, he represented Singapore to meet the Chief Minister of Johor.

These kind of practices — you know, I fully support what the Leader of Opposition said just now about the standards of Government, about delays, about indecisions and all that. But this is another example, right? If you already knew the Minister has been under investigation for so many months, why did you still let him go and represent Singapore to meet up with the Chief Minister of Johor?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think both the Prime Minister and myself have set out the process of investigation. When we use the word "investigations", I think the Prime Minister and myself have gone through the different stages of investigations and what are the associated actions that we may take in accordance with the needs of that stage of investigation. It does not mean that just because somebody is under investigation, all things will follow immediately. I hope we have made that clear in our presentation. That is the context of how the Prime Minister has judged what duties Minister Iswaran can undertake at different stages of the investigation process.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, a short clarification, please.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, with due respect, sorry, I still have quite a number of questions. So, I will ask one more question first, okay? Yes.

I noted Minister Chan's reply. But by having all these delays in taking the decisive actions, do you not think that this is not in line with the Government's stance of zero tolerance towards corruption? The moment a Minister is investigated, even informally, I think more decisive action should be taken.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, I think we should have a sense of reality. Information comes up, a Minister is quietly being investigated. CPIB tells me as the Prime Minister. Should I straightaway tell the Minister, "By the way, CPIB is quietly investigating you, please have a care"? It is ridiculous.

Supposing I say: "You go on leave of absence". Why? What reason do I give?

He is working. He is being investigated. It is my duty to make sure that while he is working and, knowing that there is a cloud, he does not make any steps which are going to dig the hole further or cause a problem. And if something like that threatens to come up, I will have to find some way to head it off.

Why does CPIB need time to get ready for a formal investigation? Because they must have all the facts and evidence enough to start interviewing the principal person. Otherwise, if you go in and the principal person turns up and you have announced that you have arrested him and then it turns out that there is nothing in the case, I think you have been derelict in your duty. So, you must make sure, as much as possible, that the case is there before you go to the Minister.

And when do you go to the Minister? That depends on CPIB's operational considerations. Who is in town? How do they want to mount this? What else do they want to do at the same time? I defer to them on these operational judgements. They know exactly what they are doing. They have a good track record and a formidable reputation. I rely on them.

They asked for permission on 5 July; I gave it on 6 July. I said the timing is entirely up to you. They said they needed a few days. They acted on 11 July. And that is all there is to it.

The reason this is here at all is because this Government decided to act – "ownself check ownself". Otherwise, it would not even be here.

At some point it may have come out and then we would have a bigger problem. But it did not get worse, and we have started this very serious investigation because our system worked, and we picked up that something was wrong.

That is how the system is meant to work and that depends on the leadership, on the Government, on the whole ethos of our society, to frown on corruption, to have no tolerance for somebody who falls short of the standards we expect. And when something needs to be done, painful or not, we do it. No ifs, no buts. If it has to be done, it has to be done.

Do you think I was pleased when CPIB told me that one of my Ministers needed to be investigated? I was disappointed. I was saddened. But the Director knew. I knew. I said, "You do your duty; I will back you and I will enable you to do your duty."

And I think that is what we, as this Parliament, ought to adopt as our attitude. Rely on them. They will do their job and, in due course, everything will be settled. And I think that is the way we keep Singapore working for a long time to come.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. I would also suggest if you have a few questions, ask all of them at one go. Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. I respect what the Prime Minister said just now with regard to the stance of the current Government, but I would also like to make a point that if our current system is not "ownself check ownself", but there are more checks and balances, perhaps, there will not be delays in all these things. Of course, it is conjecture.

Okay, I will ask two more questions to the Prime Minister which are important for our Motion debate afterwards.

Can I confirm with the Prime Minister that, with regard to Speaker Tan's case, what the Prime Minister is saying now is that in February this year, he did not actually accept the resignation. Basically, he is saying that the resignation is put on hold and you carry on doing what you need to do. Can I have that confirmation? Because if you have accepted the resignation and then you allowed Speaker Tan to continue to perform certain duties, I do not know, the legal colleagues and Members in this Chamber may have other questions that can be raised pertaining to this issue. So, this one point I would like to confirm so that I can say the right thing during the debate on the Motion afterwards.

The second point, can the Prime Minister confirm that he would not have asked Speaker Tan to resign, even after the revelation of those offensive comments that he had made in Parliament, if Speaker Tan had not been in an inappropriate relationship with an MP?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned. In terms of the decision made – I have decided, he has decided.

Would I have asked him to resign if it was just a matter of the hot mic? The answer is no. It was wrong for him to say that. It was bad that it was picked up. It lowers the tone of the Chamber. No Member should say that in the House. Dare I say no Member should say that even outside of the House. But I hazard to guess that maybe not all of us abstain completely all the time. But we do expect standards of behaviour in this House and especially in the Chair. What he said was wrong, but I would not have considered that alone a basis to ask him to resign.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. It is not new, and it is a further clarification, I assume?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, Speaker, one more question.

Mr Speaker: Okay, I would really appreciate it if you would ask all your questions, because there are still a few more hands, and I just want to give everyone an opportunity.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, this is the last question, Speaker. Thank you.

May I ask the Home Affairs Minister, through you, Speaker, whether anyone applied for a permit to conduct surveillance on the two Workers' Party politicians under the Private Security Industry Act? And if not, will the Police conduct any investigation to determine if any laws were broken?

Mr K Shanmugam: I suppose the question, I think, is directed indirectly to me. Sir, can I ask, through you, which provision of the Private Security Industry Act is Mr Leong referring to? I just want to understand the provision so that we can be clearer, then I can answer the question. I just tried to pull it up as he was speaking.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, in reply to the Minister, actually I do not have the specific section of the Private Security Act, with regard to private investigation and all that. But as a layman, I am just concerned that anyone of us in the public space can be secretly taken, you know, and it is —

Mr K Shanmugam: I want to know which provision. If I can have that, then I can proceed to answer.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Speaker, then I would say that I do not have the provision. But can I ask for a general opinion from the Home Affairs Minister, whether such an act of secretly taking the video of other citizens, how is it covered under our law because it is an intrusion into the privacy of the individual?

Mr K Shanmugam: I would say, Sir, through you, that if Mr Leong and the PSP believes that there should be no videos taken of anyone, as a matter of procedure and law, perhaps he can table a Private Member's Bill. Because, as far as I am aware today, there is no legislation.

Last Saturday, PSP came to my constituency, as is usual, they sat in a corner and had their coffee. Many people were there, welcomed them. Then, I did my usual walkabout and PSP sent someone to video me. Obviously, they did not think that they were breaking any laws and I have a photograph of that if Mr Leong wishes.

So, certainly, your party does not think that there is anything wrong in constantly videoing us. So, if you believe that — I think if my recollection serves me right – Mr David Ong was an MP here and was subject to a private investigator's video by the husband of the lady involved.

So, I think on the reference to Private Security Industry Act, I would just say this, Sir, through you, which I have said before. If a question is to be asked, we as Ministers have a duty to answer. But I think, equally, MPs have a duty to do some basic checks before they throw questions. I mean, if you referred to a legislation, then tell us which provision you are referring to. I mean, something must have gone through your mind that the Private Security Industry Act is relevant.

I did a quick check. I do not see anything there that is relevant. So, maybe, I thought you knew something that I did not know. But it appears that, perhaps, you know even less even though you ask the question.

So, I think it would be a waste of very important Parliamentary time if MPs do not do some basic research. That is all I have to say, Sir. I do not believe any section of the Private Security Industry Act applies.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker, for letting me ask another clarification. To the Prime Minister and, perhaps, to Mr Chan as well, I think the issue of whether the Prime Minister's concurrence is required for any CPIB investigation is an important question. I have tried to search for the legal basis for that, but I cannot find any section which actually says that the Director of CPIB has to get the Prime Minister's concurrence. The Prevention of Corruption Act talks about seeking concurrence from the Public Prosecutor, but the Prime Minister is actually not mentioned in the legal provisions, as far as I can find.

So, may I get clarification as to whether it is just customary because CPIB comes under the Prime Minister's Office, that is, CPIB would inform the Prime Minister of such? Minister Chan did say he is going to make a clarification on this point. So, I would like to know when that will happen.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, indeed, thank you for the chance for me to make this clarification. I would say the following things in response to both Ms Lim's comment and, I think, Ms He's question on whether we need permission.

So, first, if CPIB seeks the Prime Minister's permission and if the Prime Minister denies that, our rule says that the Director of CPIB can go to the President. And if the President gives his or her approval, CPIB can proceed. So, that is the first point.

The second point is that in our record, over the last many decades, the Director of CPIB has never been denied by the Prime Minister – this Prime Minister or a previous Prime Minister – to continue and proceed with his investigation. So, that is the second point I will make.

The third point and I have confirmed with the Director of CPIB – when the Prime Minister says no, they can proceed with the investigations and make the case to the President. So, as the Prime Minister enunciated just now, there are two keys: one, is the Prime Minister, whether he agrees; and then after that, the President.

Then, the question posed is, what if the Prime Minister and the President, both do not agree with the Director of CPIB, and I think the Prime Minister has made that clear. So, I just want to make these points on record.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, if I may just seek clarification on Mr Leong's question on private investigators?

Mr Speaker: Well, technically, it is out of order. Actually, I was going to rule it. You want to ask a clarification to Mr Leong's comment about —

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Yes, Sir, and also, to clarify what Minister Shanmugam had said about the Private Security Industry Act.

Mr Speaker: Okay, I will make an exception. I will allow this.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am asking the question because I am the President of the Security Association Singapore, which also represents private investigators.

So, the clarification that I wanted to make was whether Mr Leong was conflating the use of private investigators and the general taking of videos in public. The Private Security Industry Act does provide that in a security assignment or private investigation assignment involving a political figure which is defined as the President, the Prime Minister, a Minister or a Minister of State, then there is a requirement to get the approval from the licensing officer. But in other cases, which is what Minister Shanmugam mentioned, where there were people who took a video of him in public, there is really no need for that and the Private Security Industry Act would not apply.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for the clarification. Any last questions? Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition, arising from his earlier invitation, where he said he is prepared to answer any question about his party's handling of the indiscretion between his two party members.

There is evidence in public of a video by Mr Perera's driver who said he had told Mr Singh as well as other MPs, including Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, about the indiscretions Mr Perera was engaging in, including going to hotels, going to restaurants and so on. Could Mr Singh please tell this House why nothing was done at the material time?

The second clarification is: were any steps taken to protect the identity of the driver as the informant?

Mr Pritam Singh: The first one, can I ask the Member in return, has he perused the entire press conference that was given by the WP on this matter, where the question was answered?

Mr Vikram Nair: I have listened to the press conference. But I have not heard any explanation as to why the driver was not called up for an interview after those details were given. Nor was there anything in the press conference that addressed the issue of whether steps were taken to protect the driver's identity as an informant.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the invitation to ask the question about any matter involving what had happened in the WP between Mr Perera and Ms Nicole Seah was put to the Prime Minister, but I will answer the question that the Member has put forward.

We made an assessment of the circumstances in which the driver came forward with the information. There was certain information that I had received after the fact that he had secured the phone numbers of many WP members and circulated this allegation to many members, significant number of members across the board.

We approached Mr Perera; I approached Mr Perera with the information that was given to me by the driver. I had explained in my press conference what was said by Mr Perera to me and our assessment at the time was, this was what had transpired.

But if the Member had listened to the press conference carefully, and I do not think he did, other facts came to bear, such as corroboratory evidence. I think a Stomp article suggested that this video was the video that came out on the same day that the Prime Minister was announcing the resignation of the Speaker and Cheng Li Hui. Stomp reported that the video had been going around since 2021. I can confirm because I asked the Central Executive Committee (CEC) the question, my CEC, had anybody seen the video. Nobody had seen the video. Maybe the Member had seen the video. Perhaps, he can tell me if he had.

What had transpired in terms of what was shared – there was no corroboratory information for us to work with and there was no other source. If either of these two criteria came into play, then I think something different would have happened. We would have to look into the matter more carefully, beyond what Mr Perera had shared with us.

In terms of protecting the identity of the source, I did not reveal the identity of the source, but I had to check with Mr Perera, "This is the information I received. Can you confirm?"

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair: I can confirm that I did not see the video before it was all over the public domain, but I have a few further clarifications.

Do you not think that if you received credible evidence from someone who is close to an indiscretion – I mean a whistle-blower, this is how issues normally come up – that you should actually take efforts to interview the person to get more information? Was that done?

The second is this: you mentioned that you did not tell Mr Perera or you did not reveal the source of information. How did you tell Mr Perera you came to know about this indiscretion? Did you say the driver told you?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I do not recall exactly the whole circumstances of my conversations with Mr Perera, which happened some time ago now. But on the first point – can you just repeat the first point, the first question?

Mr Vikram Nair: Okay. The first question was, if you receive information from a credible source who is close to the wrongdoing that something has happened, normally, in a proper organisation, that would be treated as a whistle-blower report. Steps would be taken to protect that person and that person would be called up for further interviews. Was this driver called up for a further interview?

Mr Pritam Singh: As I mentioned in my first reply, we had to deal with the information that was shared by the driver, we made an assessment of the total circumstances with which the information was provided to us. And as we found out – after the fact of course – this person was a former police officer with more than I think 10 years' experience, I think this was in the papers. I would have expected somebody close to Mr Perera, very close to Mr Perera to have corroboratory evidence at hand. I would have expected that, especially being a driver.

Mr Speaker: Okay, Mr Nair, last clarification.

Mr Vikram Nair: I think Mr Singh has not answered my question which was, did he call him up for an interview? Was it conveyed to him that he needed to collate further corroboratory evidence?

Mr Pritam Singh: Easy answer. The answer is no.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan, you have a clarification.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I can just ask Mr Leong Mun Wai? Earlier, he had said something about if an MP is under investigation, he expected the Government to do something about it. So, can I ask Mr Leong to clarify, is it his position that if any MP is under police investigation, we should then suspend the MP or dock his salary?

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer is, just now, I mentioned "Minister", but I think it should also extend to all political office holders and politicians.

What I said was that when a Minister is under investigation and – in this case, it is not just an ordinary investigation – even if it is an informal investigation, for the CPIB to undertake and keep the Prime Minister informed, it is something quite serious. I would expect our Government's stance on zero tolerance to include what I said just now. That means once the Minister is under investigation, he should be relieved of his duties. That is, of course, my opinion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Let me ask Mr Leong again because I recall that Parliament referred the Leader of the Opposition to be investigated by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing has come out of that yet. But is it Mr Leong's position that the Leader of the Opposition cannot receive pay or carry out his duties because he is an MP? [Interruption.] No, I am not saying that.

I am asking Mr Leong. Because, to me, surely, you must be convicted before something can happen. Is Mr Leong saying that the minute a person is referred to the Police for investigation, the MP must be suspended, or he must receive a salary cut? Is that Mr Leong's point?

And I just want to assure the Leader of the Opposition, that is not my position.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, maybe I will clarify that I am saying this pertaining to investigations by CPIB.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Singh, I thought we better have it clear on record, because Mr Singh said here, on the record, that he did not reveal the identity of the source to Mr Leon Perera.

At the same time, he also has said, "Leon also shared with me that he was in an ongoing dispute with his driver and was about to terminate his services and had sought legal advice on the allegations of his driver", and a few other statements.

So, I think, just to be clear, Mr Singh's position is that he did not reveal the identity of the source – that is what he just told us – to Mr Perera. Thank you, Sir, for the clarification through you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the driver had been circulating this message in his name to multiple members of the WP. I do not think he was interested in protecting his identity. But insofar as the question directed to me, like I said, the conversation with Mr Perera, Mr Perera would have known who that individual was when I asked him. But I did not actively go and seek to do something nefarious.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, I hope your clarification is related to the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): This is a question for the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service. I think the recent spate of events has affected the morale of the Public Service officers and I want to hear from him what response he has as the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Patrick Tay for the question, and his support and concern for our colleagues in the Public Service. It is an important point. I am acutely aware that these recent developments that we discussed at length in the House today may have caused uncertainty and dented overall confidence in our Public Service and also among some Singaporeans.

Indeed, I have received similar feedback from our Public Service officers. Some wonder if the recent incidents had impacted confidence in our Government and, at the same time, created doubts in the work of our Public Service officers. Others have asked me if they can still do their jobs well and without fear, especially amidst greater scrutiny.

As the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, I have assured all our Public Service officers that they do not need to fear, as long as they continue to do their jobs conscientiously, professionally and faithfully.

I said this during Public Service Week, "Maintain our conviction, uphold our integrity and aspire to the highest standards for Singaporeans and Singapore." So long as they do the right thing, they need not fear, because if they fear or if they start fearing, then this will be the end of the Public Service as we know it today.

I strongly believe – and I share this with my colleagues in the Public Service – that our work in the Public Service is not measured by the here and now, but over the long term. Our commitment to all Singaporeans is that this Public Service of ours will do right, not just for the short term but also for the long haul.

We will also acknowledge like anyone else that we are not perfect. But if there are things that we need to improve on or work on, we will do so and not hide behind excuses. We will continue to do what is right and right what is wrong, because the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans must be at the forefront of everything that we do.

I thank everyone for your support for our Public Service in these difficult moments. You can have my assurance that the Public Service will continue to learn from the recent episodes, apply the lessons and strive to do even better for Singapore and Singaporeans.

4.07 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. Introduction of Government Bills, Minister for Home Affairs.