Debated in Parliament on 3 Jul 2017.
Debate resumed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, many Members of Parliament (MPs) have asked what this dispute is about. That is a very good question. On what to do with the house in the future, the Committee is studying a range of options. What is so wrong about that?
Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said that he personally would not support options at either end of the range. At the one end, preserving the house for visitors to enter and see, which would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee. On the other hand, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences.
Initially, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said, he had "not thought beyond demolition". If that is true, he could not have ruled out redevelopment. Then, he later said that before the Ministerial Committee was formed, he had offered a memorial garden. So, it appears that he had thought beyond demolition, earlier. He did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now.
After I pointed out the four possible options for the property, including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for redevelopment, Mr Lee Hsien Yang now says that he has no "inclination" to develop the house for profit. "Inclination" is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind.
Why is he being so careful? If he changes his mind, then the land is potentially worth a lot. Why does Mr Lee Hsien Yang not just rule it out categorically?
But let us take his statement at face value and see what else Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Saturday. His exact words were "preservation of the house would be trampling on Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values, and it would be an affront to these same values to develop a luxury "LKY" condominium". Well, is not that exactly the same thing that Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said, leaving aside the bit about values? In other words, no total preservation and no development?
If that is the case and if he is saying exactly the same thing as Deputy Prime Minister Teo, where is the dispute? Both agree that the extreme ends of the range are out. So, if the Ministerial Committee is studying the intermediate options within the range, what is wrong with that? Nothing has been decided. How can studying these options be an abuse?
On the will, the concerns of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee with the Ministerial Committee and all the allegations appear to have been triggered by questions on the will. Why are they so concerned? We know from the facts disclosed that issues have been raised with regard to the will and who drafted it.
If it was drafted by Mrs Lee Suet Fern, then an issue arises because she is the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will. Under our law, the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent. As our Court of Appeal has said, "the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromisingly observe and discharge". So, if the lawyer has an interest in the will, the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice.
Some have said, "But Mr Lee was a very good lawyer. He was Cambridge-educated. Are you saying he did not know what he was signing?" No one is saying that at all. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he received independent advice as the law uncompromisingly requires. And we do know that Mr Lee had consistently in his lifetime taken independent advice − for his lawsuits and for his first six wills. So, the issue of whether he was independently advised is a serious issue.
However, it is not for the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet to decide on this issue, nor is the Ministerial Committee or Cabinet attempting to do so.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo has already explained that the Ministerial Committee looked at the will as part of trying to understand Mr Lee's thinking on the matter. The terms of the will, insofar as they relate to the house, would be relevant to that. The siblings provided different views on the drafting of the will. Each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other side's views, as is only fair. You cannot hear one side without hearing the other. But the Committee is not conducting an investigation, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo made it clear that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid. It is simply trying to understand, as best it can, what were Mr Lee's wishes. So, really, there is no basis for all these allegations that have been levelled against the Ministerial Committee.
Mr Png Eng Huat read out a catalogue of allegations from the Internet. Is he associating himself with these allegations, or simply regurgitating them? If he is adopting them, then please put forward some specific evidence. Mr Png also referred to allegations that improper influence had been asserted over civil servants. This is a very serious allegation, not only against Ms Ho Ching, but also against the Permanent Secretaries and senior civil servants as well. There are clear rules within the Civil Service to guide the conduct of public officers.
Mr Png referred to the cataloguing of Mr Lee's items. MCI had explained this last week. The involvement of MCI photographers is in line with MCI's policy of supporting former Prime Ministers and Presidents after they leave office. After Mr Lee's passing, MCI photographers were deployed to take photos of various personal and official items belonging to Mr Lee at 38 Oxley Road. This was done for the purposes of national archival and documentation. Similar photographic recordings were done during Mr Lee's lifetime, of his study at home, and of the basement dining room.
If there are any specific instances of alleged impropriety beyond that, these should be identified, rather than making general unsubstantiated allegations. The Government takes this very seriously. There are stringent rules in place and serious consequences for those who have been found to have contravened the rules.
I move now to conflict of interest. Questions about alleged conflict on the part of the Attorney-General (AG) were asked. The laws and rules on conflict are very clear. These rules on conflict will be observed. The AG and Deputy AG Hri Kumar will not be involved where there is any conflict. They have abided by the rules of conflict, and there is no basis to suggest that either the AG or the Deputy AG has not observed those rules.
An example of how the rules work would be when lawyers move from AG's Chambers (AGC) to the Bench and vice versa. So, take, for example, former Deputy AG Tan Siong Thye, who was from AGC. He recuses himself from any AGC-related matters, now that he has returned to the Bench. Likewise, the Chief Justice, in relation to any matters he handled when he was at AGC.
Similar rules apply in private practice as well. If a lawyer moves to a new firm, he observes the rules on conflict. He does not involve himself in his new firm on matters which his old firm had acted for.
This has been debated before, in relation to the appointment of the AG and Deputy AG.
Mr Lucien Wong, we have already referred to his credentials previously. He was the senior partner of the largest law firm in Singapore. He is widely acknowledged as the top legal mind, consistently recognised as one of Singapore's best, and his appointment was welcomed by the Bar.
The Law Society has called him "a formidable and creative legal mind" with "proven management skills", a "practical track record" and a "skillset uniquely equipped to deal with the evolution of the changing legal environment in Singapore". As a lawyer of almost 40 years' standing, Mr Wong would have had thousands of clients. There is no reason why this should be an excuse for us to pass him over and choose a less qualified candidate.
Similarly, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst one of the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. If you look at the people from within the Service who have been appointed to key positions − the Deputy AG and the Solicitor-General as well − these are young, some of them in their 40s. We hope that, in the future, from among their ranks, someone can become AG.
Mr Wong's appointment as AG was decided after a thorough and rigorous process. The Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice and the Chairman of Public Service Commission and the incumbent AG on the appointment. The Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) unanimously advised that the President concur with the appointment; and the President, acting in his discretion, also supported it.
It is also not unusual for the AG to be known to the Ministers or the Prime Minister. Members will recall that the Law Minister, Mr Edmund Barker, was very successful, one of our founding fathers, and was an old friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and a partner in Lee & Lee. This did not prevent him from being a good Law Minister.
With respect to past judicial appointments, these have included lawyers who acted for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, such as Mr Joseph Grimberg, or who worked in Lee & Lee, for example, Justice Lai Kew Chai, and Mr Andrew Ang, who is currently on the Bench. All were or are well-respected members of the Bench.
Former Chief Justice Yong Pung How was an old friend of Mr Lee's from Cambridge. He is credited with modernising the Singapore Judiciary during his time on the Bench.
In these roles, all of them observed the appropriate conflict rules. Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and the integrity of the individuals involved, and that is the hallmark of our system.
And, indeed, in many first-world countries, the AG is even a sitting member of parliament or a politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet minister. Similarly, in Australia.
Our system is based on a slightly different model. But as I have said before, it goes too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any Ministers or political party.
On the questions about alleged conflict regarding Minister Shanmugam, Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment on him being Mr Lee's friend − well, being a friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew does not disqualify him from doing Cabinet work. This includes being in the Ministerial Committee to give views.
The Committee's role has already been explained.
Mr Low alluded to Dr Lee Wei Ling's comment that Minister Shanmugam was a "changed person". Well, she has said many things about many people, including the Prime Minister, members of Cabinet and others. Singaporeans will look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.
On the issue of whether Minister Shanmugam is somehow in a position of "conflict", he has explained his position publicly on 17 June. In 2011, some members of the Lee family had approached him for his views about various options for the house. He shared some thoughts and suggestions with them. However, he also made clear to them that legally, the Government had the full power to gazette or acquire based on historical significance, and that many Singaporeans, including Ministers in Cabinet, were likely to take the view that the house should be preserved. He told them that this was also his strong personal view. At that time, Minister Shanmugam was already a Cabinet Minister. He was not consulted as a lawyer and did not advise them as clients.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew had spoken with other Cabinet Ministers about the house as well. It would be absurd to suggest that they can all no longer participate in Government work because they had spoken to him, or some family member about the house.
This is really a red herring, intended to divert attention away from the real issues.
And so, we come back to the key point. What is this dispute really about? The Ministerial Committee is not making any decisions. It is putting up a range of options for Cabinet to look at. Nothing needs to be decided now. Indeed, nothing can be decided now as Dr Lee is still living in the house. That might take 20 to 30 years. Therefore, the house cannot be the reason for the dispute.
The trigger for all the allegations by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee appear to be something else. Whatever it is, there is no reason to drag Singapore and Singaporeans through this dispute. That is contrary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's values.
Mr Leon Perera gave the analogy of a company and its shareholders and he asked why the whistleblowers are not being interrogated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). That is the wrong analogy. If something is really wrong, then the correct thing for the whistleblowers to do is to go to CPIB and file a report. That is the way it should be done if you think that there is something wrong. Or if anyone else thinks that something is wrong, you can file and lodge a formal report. The CPIB cannot be expected to look into unsubstantiated allegations.
On the Ministerial Committee, Mr Leon Perera may wish to look again at the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today where he explained the role and the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee.
So, what do we have at the end of the day? At the end of today, we have had one full day of debate. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling have made plenty of allegations, but we have not seen any substance and no evidence. In Parliament, no one has said that there is any evidence of abuse. I am sure that the MPs have all looked carefully through the allegations. In fact, Mr Low himself had said that the siblings had presented no evidence.
To me, that is most significant because it shows our people that these allegations are just that − allegations. [Applause.]
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she told the House that the AG and the Deputy AG have been observing the conflict rules in their functions. I would like to ask her categorically whether she is saying that the AG and the Deputy AG Mr Hri Kumar are not involved in advising the Government on matters concerning the Lee estate.
The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned the fact that there have been friends of Ministers who have been appointed to various Organs of State – and I think she mentioned the Judiciary is one of them – does she not agree that for the AGC, what we are faced with now is not the Judiciary where there is security of tenure, where Judges are appointed and secured until age 65, but we have an AG now who is on a short-term contract of three years? That puts a very different complexion on things.
The third clarification is: does the Senior Minister of State agree or not agree that it is desirable to have distance between the AGC leadership and the Government, which was what was believed by some former Ministers, including Prof Jayakumar, or have standards changed?
On the first question, the short answer is that the AG and the Deputy AG are not advising the Government on any matters in which they have previously been involved. In other words, whatever it is that they may, in private practice, have advised people on, when they come into the AGC and if it impacts on those areas, then they would not advise on it.
So, if the Member's question is, for example, is Mr Lucien Wong advising the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road, the answer is no. For the very simple reason that in AGC, there are other officers.
So, this is not a difficult thing. All lawyers know this. If you had acted on something, and you happen to change organisation or go somewhere else, and there is a conflict, you recuse yourself. It is very simple. It is not a difficult thing to do, and lawyers do it in practice all the time. The AG and Deputy AG are observing these rules. I can assure Ms Sylvia Lim that the rules of conflict are being observed.
On the other point, Ms Sylvia Lim said it is different from the Bench where there is security of tenure but in AGC there is no security of tenure which puts a different complexion on things. It does not put a different complexion on things. All lawyers, good lawyers, understand their duty, which is simply this: if you are in a position of conflict, you do not act, you recuse yourself.
As to whether it is desirable to have distance, the correct question really is, the officers of AGC, do they act independently? In other words, if there is a conflict, do they stand aside? Do they apply their minds to this without fear or favour? Do they do their duty? And the answer to those questions is yes, they do act independently, they apply their minds and they carry out their duties without fear or favour. So, in short, the officers in the AGC, whether it is the AG, Deputy AG or anyone down along the line, all observe proper rules of conduct.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Sir, two follow-up clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Is she saying that the Deputy AG, because he may not have acted on the Lee estate in some capacity in private estate, is now free to advise the Government on such matters, from the Government's perspective? Is that what she is saying?
The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State did not answer directly. She said I asked the wrong question about whether there should be distance between the AGC and the Government because the critical question to her was the officers act professionally and independently. But this is really quite a different take for even Prof Jayakumar. If you read what his interview goes into, he says that he may occasionally have working lunches with the AG but it is important to have the appearance of distance. You cannot get too close to these people because people might assume that there will be some compromise. So, I think it is the appearance itself that is important, not just, in fact, whether people think they are able to act independently. The appearance when you are too close to somebody, it does not create a good feeling.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already answered the question. If there is any matter on which the AG or Deputy AG have acted on when they were in private practice and, if that same matter comes up when they are in AGC, they obviously cannot advise the Government on it and they will not do so.
With respect to the other matters, I have already explained. There have been instances before when either the AG or Judges may have been close friends with Ministers or anyone else, but that has not deterred them from doing their duty. I understand what Ms Lim is saying. She is saying actual conflict and, sort of, appearances. In terms of any actual conflict, I have already stated the position quite clearly. They know their duty and they will carry out their duty. They will not act where there is any conflict of interest.
And as far as appearances go, if the Member has any specific allegation of that, please highlight it. Because as far as I can see, there has been no form of impropriety, appearance or otherwise.
May I remind Members that we are not debating on the role of the AG or the Deputy AG. So, please confine your clarifications to matters which Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah has said. Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Deputy Speaker, first of all, the Senior Minister of State seems to suggest that I said there is no evidence. That is what she said. I said scattered evidence.
Secondly, on the conflict of interest, it seems to me that the Senior Minister of State said that so long as there is a conflict, you stand aside. But the question then is, how would the member of public or anyone else know, whether in such a particular case, I mean, the AG stands aside or does he not stand aside? Thereby, my question is: important appointments like such, even the Minister for Law or senior judges and so on, the public perception of its independence and impartiality is important. Is it not important or is it important?
Next, if there is a question of doubt, then what should the Government do?
Next, a point of clarification actually on a point of order that I wish to clarify with the Deputy Speaker. I heard the Senior Minister of State's speech earlier on. She seems to be attacking Lee Hsien Yang and imputing some character or motive. He is not here in the House to answer. Is that against Standing Order?
Senior Minister of State, do you want to respond to the point of order?
The second question?
That Mr Low has said that you were saying something against Mr Lee Hsien Yang.
Mr Low must be mistaken. All I did was point out that there were certain allegations made against the Government. I stated our position on that. And there is nothing at all that prevents Mr Lee Hsien Yang from responding if he wishes to, publicly. All I am doing is stating the Government's position on various issues.
On the second part, on appointments, as I had said earlier, when the AG was appointed, the Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice, he consulted the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, as well as the incumbent AG on the appointment. Due process was observed and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current appointment of the AG.
On conflicts of interest, I have already answered that. It is not necessary for me to repeat it again.
Indeed, it is only Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim who keep raising this issue. There is no basis for any concern that the AG has not acted in a manner that is entirely proper.
PAPERCUTS