38 Oxley Road

Mdm Speaker, many questions have already been raised by Members in this House and some of these have already been answered. I would, therefore, keep my speech very brief and just ask two questions.

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

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

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

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

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

Mdm Speaker, let me first say that, from a financial governance standpoint, I am satisfied that there were no financial implications or any misuse of public funds in this episode.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money lost can be regained

Wealth cannot be taken to the grave

Don't look back in regret

When family ties are lost forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents lived in harmony

Making sacrifices day after day

Siblings should never part company

But to love each other like a dead knot.

Mdm Speaker, this sad public squabble between the Lee siblings is blown out of proportion. But it has embroiled all of us. It has tarnished the reputation of Singapore and distracted the Government from far more important work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mdm Speaker, what happened over the last two weeks has shaken, confused and divided us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam, many points have been raised. I have two questions for the Ministerial Committee.

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

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

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

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications to seek from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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