K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 92.
“The Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021) were made by the Rules Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Justice and comprises the Attorney-General, Supreme Court and State Court Judges, and two practising advocates and solicitors appointed by the Chief Justice. The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) conducts routine engagements with the Bar on matters concerning the legal profession as a whole. Any feedback received on ROC 2021 will be relayed to the Rules Committee accordingly. Since ROC 2021 came into effect, the Registries in the Supreme Court and the State Courts have been engaging with the Bar at different platforms to gather and respond to feedback on ROC 2021. These include dialogue sessions with the Law Society's Civil Practice Committee as well as presentations at the Law Society's Litigation Conferences in 2022 and 2023 where members of the Bar had the opportunity to share their feedback and learning points. A Pro Tem Focus Group on ROC 2021 was also established by the Court Registries which serve as an open channel of communication for the Bar to communicate to the Courts any feedback regarding ROC 2021. The Courts have been receiving and continue to take in valuable feedback, proposals and comments from users regarding issues encountered in the implementation of ROC 2021. Where appropriate, proposals for further refinements may be implemented through amendments to ROC 2021 and the Practice Directions.”
“The Government had earlier advised Religious Organisations (ROs) with expiring leases to consider taking up short-term tenancies as the review of the Place of Worship (PW) land allocation and pricing framework was ongoing. This was to allow these ROs to benefit from the revised framework once the review was completed. Now that the revised framework has been announced, ROs on these short-term tenancies can terminate the tenancy at any time by giving a one-month termination notice and transit to a long-term lease for their existing site right after the tenancy is terminated. They would not be subject to a balloting system for lease renewal. As the rent for the tenancies is paid on a monthly basis, the tenant can pay the rent for the final monthly cycle in full, or on a pro-rated basis. There is no need for reimbursement of rent from the unused tenancy period. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has reached out to ROs on the short-term tenancies to invite them to apply for lease renewal under the revised framework.”
“Between 2013 and 2022, there were 1,794 persons convicted of serious hurt offences, ill-treatment and sexual offences against children under the age of 16. Of these, about 2% were working in educational settings, such as schools, learning centres, tuition centres and enrichment centres, at the time of the offence. The yearly breakdown is in the table below.”
“Between 2018 and 2022, there were 315 Police reports of abuse or harassment of public healthcare workers who were on duty. The breakdown requested by the Member is in the Table below. The Member also requested the number of cases for which Protection Orders were issued. The Ministry of Home Affairs does not have this information, as the Protection Orders are obtained by the victims separately applying to the Protection from Harassment Court and are not issued by the Police.”
“The annual rate of repeat drink-drivers is calculated by taking, in each year, the number of repeat drink-drivers caught, divided by the total number of drink-drivers caught. The annual rate was 22% in 2018, 24% in 2019, 20% in 2020, 21% in 2021, and 24% in 2022. In the last five years, three repeat drink-drivers were involved in fatal accidents, and 139 were involved in injury-causing accidents. We do not track the number of drink-driving accidents that result in damage to property.”
“Pawnbrokers and licensed moneylenders operate under different regulatory regimes. They have different frameworks applicable to the regulation of administrative fees charged. Pawnbrokers offering cashless payment methods to pawners may impose an administrative fee of up to $2 for each pawn ticket issued when a new pledge is made, or when the redemption period is extended. This administrative fee was introduced in January 2023 to encourage digitalisation in the industry, by helping the industry defray costs incurred from adopting third-party cashless payment services. Such adoption increases the convenience for pawners who now have the option of using cashless payment modes, such as NETs and PayPal. On the other hand, licensed moneylenders may impose an administrative fee of up to 10% of the loan quantum for each loan disbursed. This administrative fee was implemented to help licensed moneylenders defray costs associated with the risk of operating the moneylending business, such as the cost of loan defaults. Pawnbrokers and licensed moneylenders are only permitted to impose administrative fees according to the moneylending and pawnbroking laws. The Registries of Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers conduct regular inspections on, and investigate any alleged misconduct by, the licensed moneylenders and pawnbrokers to ensure their compliance. Any licensed moneylender or pawnbroker charging fees not permitted by law may be subject to regulatory actions, such as issuance of a warning, prosecution and suspension or revocation of its licence. Members of the public who believe they have been wrongfully subjected to fees by any licensed moneylender or pawnbroker may lodge a report through the Ministry of Law's website.”
“I thought I should answer one point that Mr Leong made, suggesting that there was a coincidence on $26,500, if I heard him right. There is no coincidence. I think he may have missed the facts when they were being set out. I have explained. I did not know what the guide rent was. It is set out in the CPIB report and there is no coincidence in the way he suggested on $26,500. I also set out what was the first offer I made.”
“Some have moved out into bigger residences, some have received scholarships to study overseas, some have moved back to stay in new developments in Nee Soon so that they could be near to take care of their ageing parents. These are gratifying reminders that our system works well. We have good social infrastructure to uplift those who can excel, support the vulnerable, make every town a caring and liveable home. It has been a deeply fulfilling journey for me these 35 years. The heart is the same, the commitment is the same from the time when I started when I was 29. And I do not think where I stay or stayed has affected whether I have been able to serve. And now, I have chosen to live in a bungalow in Ridout Road. As I said, the money that I made in my previous job as a lawyer is essentially paying for the rental. It does not change my empathy any bit from when I was living in the GCB or the previous houses. Sir, in summary, in answer to the clarification question, I was doing well in my profession. I was asked to come forward and serve. I could have said no and carried on with my legal career. But I felt that if the Prime Minister wanted me on his team, I had something to contribute, I could make a bigger contribution to Singapore in that way. So, I did. It is for others to decide if I have measured up as a Minister. But in good conscience, I can say, I have put my heart and soul into it and carried out my duties to the best of my ability. [Applause.]”
“Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that I made a special sacrifice in taking a pay cut or moving from my family home. It was not a sacrifice. It is a privilege, a privilege to serve Singapore, Singaporeans. I have done this now for 35 years – 20 years as a backbencher and 15 years as a Minister. I have spent more than half my life in Parliament and more than half my life with Chong Pang. I do not hide what I earned as a lawyer. It is public knowledge. My residents judge me by my heart and my commitment to serve, not by how much I earn and where I live. They know I am there for them. That I am there to help. I have lived in an HDB flat – a rental flat, 3-room flat, 5-room flat – condominium, semi-detached, bungalows, GCBs, before I moved to 26 Ridout Road. My empathy did not increasingly decrease as my houses got larger, or as I made more money. Over the years, no one raised any issue of my empathy or my ability to serve, in the 10 years I was living in my GCB at Astrid Hill. Is the empathy affected? Does it get more affected when you move from a GCB that you own to a Black and White that you rent? Is that the way we are going to judge politicians? I hope Members will seek to make Singaporeans and everyone understand what is involved because we should not start judging people on the basis of where they live or how successful they were in the private sector and then say, "You are too successful, you cannot come in to serve". I think that will be a wrong principle and it is contrary to everything that made Singapore successful in the first generation. So, over the years I have seen generations of Chong Pong residents.”
“Then, in 2008, I was asked by the Prime Minister to become a Minister because Prof Jayakumar who had been Minister for Law for 20 years by then, was stepping down. I was 48, at the peak of my career. It would have been much easier for me to continue being a full-time lawyer than to join Cabinet. I did also seriously think about the cutback in income. It was going to be very significant. I had to assess what it would mean for me, my family, and assess that against what I could contribute by serving Singaporeans as a Minister. I asked myself, "on my last day on earth" – this is a question I ask frequently when I reflect back on my life – what would I have wanted to have done with my life? Spend all my time making more money? Or also spend some time doing some good work for the community and others and perhaps some good for the country? Many things that people spend time on will not seem worthwhile to have done in the rear-view mirror when your life is about to end. So, having twice or three times more money would not make me twice or three times happier or fulfilled. So, I accepted the Prime Minister's invitation, agreed to enter full-time politics as a Minister. It was and continues to be an honour and a privilege to serve Singaporeans and Singapore. As I said, all I have, I got from Singapore. It was Singapore's system, the system that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee and their team set up to provide stability, good standards of living, good schools and opportunities that allowed me and so many others to achieve what we have, despite where we started, and in spite of race, language or religion. So, I was fortunate to have been born in Singapore and I want to help make policies to make sure other Singaporeans have the opportunities that I did.”
“The point I am making is, a person's ability to serve should not depend on where he lives or how poor or rich he is. And what about myself? I do not believe the homes I lived in have affected my ability to serve and empathise. I was doing well in my career as a lawyer while I was serving as a backbench Member of Parliament for more than 20 years before I became a Minister. As I explained, this was how I was able to buy my family home and pay the rental for 26 Ridout Road. I became a Member of Parliament in September 1988 when I was 29. At that time, I was a few months away from becoming a partner. I knew it would be very challenging to manage my career and be a Member of Parliament at the same time. But I agreed to stand for elections in 1988, become a Member of Parliament and do what I can to make Singapore a better place. Every hardworking Member of Parliament will know that the requirements of being a Member of Parliament in terms of time, energy are considerable. From the beginning of my journey as a Member of Parliament, I found it demanding but I also found it inspiring. Demanding because my legal career required my full attention. But it was inspiring because I was doing what I could to forge a community in Chong Pang. I enjoyed interacting with my residents. I drew meaning and purpose from serving my residents. When I came into politics in 1988, most Chong Pang residents were generally less well-off. Many were like my parents, who had to work tirelessly to provide the best for their children. They are good hard-working people. They want a better life. They want their children to do better, and I want to be there to help them to do so. So, although it was challenging to juggle between being a Member of Parliament and my legal career, I carried on.”
“He then served as Minister in various Ministries, including Finance, Defence, National Development where he was also responsible for building HDB flats. He lived in a very large bungalow at Dalvey Road. Staying there and his wealth did not prevent him from feeling the plight of Singaporeans who had no homes to live in and doing his utmost to solve their problems by building HDB homes for them. Others, too. Mr EW Barker was the Minister who drafted the Separation Agreement. He stayed in Queen Astrid Park. Should Mr Lee have said to him, "Eddie, you're a successful lawyer living in Queen Astrid Park. You can't serve Singapore"? Dr Goh Keng Swee stayed in a very large black and white bungalow at Goodwood Hill. He was Deputy Prime Minister, key architect of modern Singapore – economy, defence, education, across the board. Mr Hon Sui Sen served as Finance Minister; Chairman, Economic Development Board (EDB), President of the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS). He also rented a black and white at Malcolm Road. Or I should add, at that time, it was among the benefits that senior officials could rent houses reserved for them. When we moved to a clean wage policy, these Black and Whites and other state-owned properties were made available to anyone and the rentals were determined by the market. But they remain the same type of black and white houses that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and I are staying in, not any more prestigious or less prestigious then or now, and some, of course, quite rundown, as compared to modern GCBs. So, it becomes a matter of personal preference. I should add that I am not in any way seeking to compare myself or other current Ministers with the Ministers I have mentioned.”
“Dealing with inequality is always a work-in-progress and how can we continue to find ways to bring about greater equality? We must encourage those who have more, who have achieved more, to come forward and contribute their time and talent and resources to help make a stronger society. We need people to step forward, help fellow Singaporeans, including in Public Service. So, if you look at Mr Lee's approach, since the start, he brought in people who were doing well outside and those who had the heart to serve. Some were independently very wealthy, but he persuaded them to give up their careers in the private sector to come in to serve Singapore. They, together with Mr Lee, did more than most to make Singapore a more equal society. Of course, if there are other good workable suggestions on how we can do better, that will be good, but we should not penalise people who do well. Sir, on Mr Murali Pillai's second question on empathy, if you live in such a place, how can you have empathy? I just spoke about Mr Lee's approach. Whether you should serve or not should depend on your heart: do you want to help serve, make lives of Singaporeans better? Mr Lee brought in people as Ministers and Members of Parliament regardless of their background and it did not matter if they were rich or poor, from trade unionists like Mr Mahmud Awang from the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union, Mr Ho See Beng from the Printers Union, to highly successful businessmen and professionals, like Mr Lim Kim San and Mr E W Barker. For example, Mr Lim Kim San, he was a shrewd successful businessman when Mr Lee brought him into Public Service. Mr Lee said he helped change the fortunes of Singapore as HDB Chairman.”
“So, for my part, the circumstances that I grew up with are seared into me. And when you have gone through the experiences I have, you will never forget them, regardless of how successful you become. So, how should you deal with inequality? You do not deal with inequality by preventing poor kids from doing well. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set up a system that allowed a poor Indian kid to become a successful lawyer, to do well. You tackle inequality by providing for social mobility, by helping people to move up. You do this, for example, by providing good support, opportunities, help everyone to move up and redistributing income from those who have succeeded to the poor or less well-off through taxes. You can tax the rich more and redistribute while making sure to keep the system fair. If you tax too much, the wealthy will leave. If you do not tax enough, it would not be a fair system. So, you have to get it just right and, in Singapore, the top 10% of personal income taxpayers account for, I believe, 80% of our total personal income tax revenue, and those at the lower 20% receive about $4 in benefits for every tax dollar they pay. So, in Singapore, those who are wealthier must understand Singapore is a small place, we sink or swim together, and they need to contribute, pay more taxes. We have to make sure that those who are less well-off are properly taken care of and there are social mobility and opportunity. Personally, based just on the two, three years' income, between 2005 and 2007, before I became a Minister, I probably paid more than $2 million in taxes and, rightfully so. A famous American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, once said, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization". In my case, all I have, I got from Singapore. It is only right for me to give back.”
“It might take a fair bit of time, but anyway. Sir, I mean I understand the question. Many Singaporeans face challenges in today's economic climate. Rising prices for many things, high inflation. So, inequality is one of the biggest issues we are grappling with not just here in Singapore, but the world over. How we deal with it and the values that inform our approach are important. I often speak about inequality when I speak outside to audiences because it is a critical issue for Singapore and also because it is seared into me, because I have gone through it myself, seen it first-hand. So, it is not just an academic exercise for me. I grew up in rental housing. I stayed in Bukit Ho Swee as a young boy. Then, as a teenager, I lived in a 3-room flat in Block 3 Ghim Moh. I still remember the address. About 20 years later, as a senior counsel, I owned a GCB in Astrid Hill and, prior to that, I owned a house in Oei Tiong Ham Park, also very nearby, though I never lived in that house. The distance between Block 3 Ghim Moh and Astrid is only about one kilometre. It is a short walking distance. But the psychological and financial distance within Ghim Moh and Astrid or Oei Tiong Ham is oceans-wide. As an undergraduate, when I lived in Ghim Moh, I used to cross the old Bukit Timah Railway Line, walk up East Essex Lane to the bus stop along Holland Road, to take a bus to Law School. Twenty years later, I would drive along Holland Road. At the same bus stop, instead of walking up the left, I made a right turn into Coronation Road West to go into Queen Astrid Park, to go to my house there. I think a lot about inequality and the gap, not least because I have straddled the gap and have lived at both extremes – rental and GCB.”
“Mr Murali Pillai has asked two questions. One about inequality and the other about empathy. I think it goes back to the point that Mr Pritam Singh referred to as optics as well. It is tied to that. With your leave, Sir, I would like to take some time in answering this question because this is quite important. So, I seek your indulgence.”
“I think what is right to confirm is that phones were looked through and since there was no relevant material, they were given back to us in the course of that interview.”
“What Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said has jogged my memory. While there were no messages on my phone, all the messages that I exchanged they had and, in fact, I was asked questions on some of them. Because some people keep messages for five years and those messages were taken by CPIB from others who had sent me messages. I do not know what they have, I do not know what they do not have, but I was shown some. So, I assume that messages that were sent to me, messages that I sent, which were still available, were seen by them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Singh asked if they looked at our emails or our phones, whether they seized the phones. My phones did not have any relevant messages, because they automatically delete and the CPIB looked through it. There was no need to seize them because that is a setting on my phone. They asked for and looked at my emails.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a short point before Second Minister Edwin Tong responds. On questions and innuendos, I want to make it very clear. As I said in my Ministerial Statement earlier, I welcome questions. I think it is important that we discuss this robustly, thoroughly, fully. That is how we keep the integrity in the system. And I do not run away from any of the questions. In fact, I wanted a full in-depth investigation. And there was a full in-depth investigation. The point about innuendos, I mean, we can go through the different questions. The main point for this House is, our conduct, the reports, what we did, what we did not do – was there anything wrong, did we benefit in any way? These are relevant questions because, for this Government and Singapore, the bedrock is integrity, financial integrity. We are prepared to come up and have ourselves be questioned, to answer, explain, let Singaporeans judge for themselves what did we do. The Leader of the Opposition has talked about optics. I think, if necessary, we will talk about the optics, too. But first, we want questions. We want to answer all the questions and I fear no questions.”
“In my mind, there was a possibility of a potential or perceived conflict of interest. I did not think there was going to be any actual conflict of interest because, as I said, rentals do not come up to MinLaw. But there is a potential conflict of interest if I remain in the chain of command. So, that was very much in my mind, which is why I went and took the step. The way this Government operates, Senior Minister Teo, previously in charge of the Civil Service, knows all about how our rules operate, and that is why I went to him and said, if this comes up, can the then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah come to you? In fact, I could have left it with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah. Our people are honourable, competent. The then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah could have dealt with it herself. But I did not even want to take that chance. I wanted to make sure that there was somebody more senior than me who can have a say in the matter if it came up. So, yes, the answer is yes, it was in my mind, which is why I took the steps that I took.”
“Sorry, Sir, I missed part of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question. So, maybe if the Member can repeat it again. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, it is that, in the Minister's mind, there are indeed no perceived conflicts of interest, on hindsight, that you would otherwise have alternatively acted in a different way.”
“The Ministerial Code of Conduct does not mean you get to absurd results. It has got to have commonsense, it has got to be the spirit, it has got to be the letter, and it has got to be applied sensibly and properly, but rigorously. What is the perceived conflict? Can someone explain to me? Rather than just repeating the word, what is the perceived conflict? Strip it of all this legalese that people use, in essence, what is being said is, if you are in charge of a Ministry, you must not engage in any transaction which is available to public citizens. That, in essence, is what is being said. If that is so, that is a new principle, because some people may perceive you to be in conflict. But that is not the principle in the Code. That is my answer to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.”
“Let me give Members some examples. Minister for Health goes to a hospital for a knee replacement. A hypothetical example. [Laughter.] He goes to a hospital for a knee replacement. He is not in actual conflict, he is not asking them to charge him anything less; otherwise, Prime Minister will ask CPIB to look at it. He is not bringing forward his surgery ahead of others against medical advice. That could be abuse of power. But someone can say, "You are the Minister for Health. You have a say in appointing the CEOs. You are the person who decides on the structure and, in some ways, their career progress. They might treat you better than they might treat others. And therefore, you are in perceived conflict." Can a government work on this basis? That it is entirely up to a subjective viewpoint on perception, perceived conflict? Or the Minister for Home Affairs, in a personal capacity, goes to file a Police report. Can someone say, "Well, that creates a perceived conflict of interest because you are in charge ultimately of the Police Force and they might, therefore, handle the investigations differently. And therefore, that is a perception of conflict." In anything dealing with that report, the Minister must recuse himself, he must have no part to play, he must treat himself as a private citizen and the matter must be handled by others appropriate within the Police and the Ministry. I can give you a string of examples. The Minister for Education, his son applies to a school which has some discretion whether to admit children or not. Is he in a perceived conflict of interest? I have thought about it. The reason why we are ranked as highly as we are and the reason why this Government is not corrupt is because we take these things seriously.”
“I thank Assoc Prof Lim for this question. I think it is an important question, and it is at the heart of a lot of misunderstandings, even from lawyers. Actual conflict – I think I am glad to hear Assoc Prof Lim and others agree that there is no actual conflict. But just so that we understand what it means, actual conflict is, you have an interest and you make a decision. We all agree that was not there. From what I hear from the Members, there was no potential conflict either because I recused myself. Potential conflict, as I explained, arises when you have an interest and you may potentially make a decision. Members agree, from what they are saying, that there was no potential conflict, they accept the conclusions of the report on that. The confusion arises on perceived conflict. And let me explain what is at the heart of the confusion. When you talk about conflict, what are you talking about? You are talking about someone in conflict. There is an interest on one side and there is a duty on the other side. If one of those does not exist, there is no conflict. If there is no actual conflict nor potential conflict, what does perceived conflict in this context mean? It seems to me, in essence, the essence of Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's questions and some of the other questions, including Ms Sylvia Lim's questions, is that if others perceive you to be in conflict, therefore, you are in conflict; and therefore, you are in breach of the Ministerial code. It does not matter that you took no part in it, it does not matter that you recused yourself, it does not matter that the matter was decided perfectly properly, as long as a member of the public or anyone else can take the view that you are in perceived conflict, you are in conflict. You cannot run any government on that basis.”
“I thought I have explained this a number of times. When an agent goes and asks SLA, SLA will ask, "Who are you asking for?" They are not just going to give it to every agent. There must be a principal identified. I did say, in my understanding, the person who is asking has got to be a credible prospect. So, who is asking? And the agent will then say, "It is Minister K Shanmugam". And as I said to Mr Dennis Tan, is that better? Or is it better to ask a much more senior officer and let him know? As to whether I told the Deputy Secretary that this is in the interest of transparency, I think the context was clear, because he told me, if I recall correctly, that he will keep the Permanent Secretary informed. So, everybody understood – yes, this is why I am asking him, he will keep the Permanent Secretary informed, and he will get me a list and then we see how we will proceed, rather than going direct to SLA.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I have Mr Giam's question again, please?”
“Yes, Sir. In specific answer to Mr Dennis Tan, Senior Minister Teo answered. I think I explained in some detail why specifically the Deputy Secretary, and the Member heard the Senior Minister. What was in my mind is, I should let MinLaw know because, that way, the Permanent Secretary will know, the Deputy Secretary will know. These are senior Administrative Service officers. I could have written direct to SLA or I could have asked my agent to write direct to SLA; and I know based, on practice, they do give this information. And I explained why I thought that it was better to ask the Deputy Secretary. It was a judgement call. It was better to ask the Deputy Secretary rather than going direct to SLA. If I had gone direct to SLA and SLA receives a letter, is that better? Or is it better that there is the Deputy Secretary who, together with the Permanent Secretary, knows that this is happening, gets a list, and I look at it and then I recuse myself if I want to proceed? So, everything is transparent, aboveboard. And I think it was important for me to have told my Ministry. So, this is not on a private errand or something. I looked at it as I am telling my Ministry and saying – I mean I did not express it – but that is the understanding; they understood me and I understood my thinking. Which is, if I ask you, you get it, I look at it. That way, the Ministry knows what I am doing, rather than writing directly. And I see that as something that is entirely proper.”
“Inevitably, there were and are many untruths circulated about me, my rentals. Inevitable because I am a political figure and obviously a target. For example, the falsehood that SLA had built a car porch for me or that I had cut down trees illegally or that I am paying less than market value, all the innuendos, some of which we heard in Parliament about land being added as if it is a special favour, even though the fact shows that I did not want it. And I have explained why. It is a cost centre. The CPIB has established these and other allegations to be untrue. But I have not been the only one attacked. My son has also been attacked. Allegations online that the contract to renovate the Ridout properties – in plural – was awarded by SLA to a company where my son is the CEO. I do not keep track of SLA's contracts. There are established processes for the awarding of contracts by Statutory Boards. My son tells me that his company does not have any contracts with SLA, nor that they do any work on the Ridout properties for SLA. You get these utterly false and defamatory statements. Do these people really believe that CPIB would not have found these out if it were true? I say to these people: you want to come after me, you come after me. I am perfectly capable of defending myself and they will find out that I will defend myself. But leave my family alone. This is how some conduct politics – try and make it difficult or impossible for family members or people who are prepared to come into public service – by putting out deliberately false information.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, since this relates to me in a way, can I be permitted to add to this?”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, yes. As I said in my earlier Statement, they read out to me section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and I think in section 27, caution was in these terms: "Every person required by the Director or any officer to give any information on any subject which it is the duty of the Director or that officer to inquire into under this Act and which it is in his power to give, shall be legally bound to give that information." I think a breach of it could expose you to a penalty of up to a year in jail or a $10,000 fine. Yes, this is a standard practice, and I am sure Minister Vivian Balakrishnan was administered, too. I certainly was administered.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can add on to Second Minister Edwin Tong's clarification. I did not tell SLA that I was not confident about them maintaining the adjacent land. Based on my recollection, the essence of what I told SLA was that they have many state properties across Singapore to manage. In comparison, I – as a prospective tenant of 26 Ridout Road – would be able to give more attention to the adjacent land. It is right next to me. I also had an interest, specific interest, in the proper upkeeping of the adjacent land and any disamenities arising from it would affect me directly. So, those were the reasons I gave to SLA. Behind that is my thinking: that they have to look after all of Singapore, and my confidence in their ability to maintain that land in the way that I will maintain it. It does not mean that they will not maintain. But in any given context, when I am maintaining it, one piece of property, it will always be different, compared to someone who has got to manage all over Singapore. So, I told that to CPIB and that appears in CPIB's report. But I told SLA, "You have all of Singapore to manage. I can manage this one property, if you are willing." I know that it is a cost centre for them and it is a cost centre for me. But I will be able to better manage. So, that is the context in which I said to CPIB I was not confident. So, I think one has got to understand this context.”
“If they are secret, SLA cannot rent out these properties. Once that is understood, then the question is: should I have asked SLA directly or through the Deputy Secretary? And I have explained the reasons why I went through the Deputy Secretary. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“If I may add on to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the question is: why did I ask the Deputy Secretary? I think I should clarify precisely why. I could have approached SLA directly. They would have given the list. I know that they would give this information to credible, potential tenants. We call them prospects. You are a landlord, you have properties you want to rent, it is in your interest to give the information if you believe that the person is someone who is able to rent what you have. You will make available the information. So, I could have asked SLA directly, and I know that SLA has given this information to others who will fall within the category of credible, prospective tenants: embassies and so on, companies, business persons. And I think from SLA's perspective, I would be a credible, prospective tenant who is not going to run off without paying the rental. But I asked the Deputy Secretary, a senior Administrative Service officer, so that MinLaw knew and there was total transparency, instead of asking SLA directly. He would usually let the Permanent Secretary know. And as senior Administrative Service officers, he and the Permanent Secretary will be able to go beyond me and report to the Head of Civil Service or the Prime Minister if they felt that anything needed to be brought up to that level – either the Deputy Secretary or the Permanent Secretary. And that is how our system works. So, I believed it was better to ask him rather than ask SLA directly. Sir, the purpose of asking the Deputy Secretary is important. Some of the comments that have been made so far, I think, are made based on not realising that SLA will give these lists and has given these lists to others. They are not privileged or secret information.”
“Some people think that there is potential or perceived conflict. Actually, actual, potential or perceived conflict can only arise where I have an interest in the matter, I make a decision on the matter, then that will be actual conflict. If I have an interest and I remain able to make a decision even though I do not actually make any decision, there can be potential or perceived conflict of interest. But once I recuse myself, I cannot make a decision, nor am I potentially able to make a decision. Members have heard Senior Minister Teo earlier. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am sorry that Parliament's time has been taken up to address these issues which arose out of a personal decision I made to rent a home. I know that there are many important things that we have to deal with as a nation. I am, like my colleagues, fully committed to working with Singaporeans to address the issues that matter to them. I will answer any questions Members have because it is important that we do the right thing and to hold ourselves up to high standards of integrity. I did not enter public service to maximise my earnings, or try and pay less than I should, to the state.”
“I also said that if she needed to check anything, she could go to Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and that I will tell Senior Minister Teo this. The then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah told me that she would check with Senior Minister Teo if she needed to. And I told the then-Deputy Secretary at MinLaw that I am recusing myself in this matter, that then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah will deal with the issues, if they arise and, if she needed to, she will check with Senior Minister Teo. And I told Senior Minister Teo that I was looking at possibly renting a black and white bungalow and that if any issue comes up, SLA/MinLaw will check with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and, if she needed to, she will check with Senior Minister Teo. And he agreed. I did that because Senior Minister Teo is senior to me. In this way, there would be a chain of command, which did not involve me, for SLA to check with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and Senior Minister Teo, if there were issues on which SLA wanted guidance. And I also told my agent that, on this matter, I had spoken with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and Senior Minister Teo, and if any issue arose, SLA will go to them to check. And I believe my agent so informed the SLA officers dealing with the lease. I took these steps although rental issues do not come up to Ministers in the usual course. Nor in this case, as it transpired, did anything go up to MinLaw, then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah or Senior Minister Teo for guidance or decision. So, no actual conflict. I had removed myself completely from the decision-making process. And no potential or perceived conflict either, because I had recused myself. There is some confusion on this.”
“We do not have a full set of photos on the original condition of the house. Like other black and white bungalows, 26 Ridout Road required a fair amount of work. It is an old property and it had been unoccupied for more than four years. There certainly were no chandeliers. I did work on the house to the extent that was allowed. It is a conservation property, so there are limits on what you can do. In all, we spent more than $400,000. Actually, on my count, more than $500,000 on improvements, including paying for the car porch and planting many trees. The money that I put in, I knew that I would not benefit from it after my lease is over. It would all go back to the state. That is the deal when one rents a black and white, and I knew that. Finally, there is the important question of conflict of interest. The CPIB investigation and review have made clear that there was no conflict of interest, no breach of rules and everyone acted properly and honestly. Yes, SLA is a Ministry of Law (MinLaw) Statutory Board. But I took myself completely out of this matter. Conflict of interest means I make a decision in a matter where I have an interest. I have an interest in the tenancy, obviously. But I made no decision for SLA on the matter, either SLA or MinLaw. And I took steps to deal with any perceived or potential conflict of interest. On my part, I told my agent everything had to be done strictly in accordance with the rules. I spoke with the then-Senior Minister of State at MinLaw, Ms Indranee Rajah, and the then-Deputy Secretary at MinLaw. I told them that I was looking at black and white bungalows. I asked then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah whether, if any issue comes up to the Ministry, could she handle it. She agreed.”
“Our client would like to propose that the undergrowth in the parts shaded yellow be cleared, leaving only matured trees. Our client will then be happy to maintain this area at his own cost. This will give him some comfort on the health and safety issues while it will save SLA the cost of maintenance of the land. Our client proposes that this arrangement be subject to termination with some notice, if either party finds it not feasible for any reason." The email was not sent in the end, because the contents were communicated at a meeting. But SLA took the position that if I wanted to maintain the surrounding land, the surrounding land had to be part of the lease. I did not want to negotiate and agreed to this. Even now, if SLA agrees to take back the extra land, which is more than 60% of the total, I would be extremely happy to give it up. And I would be happy to maintain it, if SLA agrees because that was what I wanted to do in the first place – pay for the maintenance, but not include the extra land and continue paying the rent we had agreed to until the end of the current contract. Next question. There has been some speculation about the interiors at 26 Ridout Road. After this session, I will share with Members and the public some photos of the house before I moved in. These photos were taken by my agent to point out some problem areas to SLA before the tenancy. I will also include current photos of the same places in the house for comparison. Second Minister Edwin Tong has explained the works that SLA normally does and did. The photos have explanatory notes on the works done by SLA and the works done by me. They are indicative to give a sense of the state of the house and some of the works that were done. There are very few photos. They are not comprehensive.”
“I should add, my family home, I think some people know, is a Good Class Bungalow (GCB). So, I moved from there for the reasons that I have explained. Next, some have asked about the size of the land area. I think the facts have been explained. I did not want the extra land, about 150,000 square feet, which is now part of the lease. Indeed, I offered to maintain that land outside of the house boundary at my own cost, because if the outside land was not properly maintained, there would be serious problems for me. But I did not want it as part of the lease. My reason – if you own a landed property, you want a large land area. You benefit from the capital appreciation. But if you are a tenant, any land under your lease becomes your own responsibility and thus, an additional land area of 150,000 square feet means additional legal responsibility. For example, there are large trees in the property. If any of them fell, it could be serious. And that is not theoretical. In 2017, a tree fell on someone in the Botanic Gardens. A person died, even though the tree had just been inspected and assessed to be healthy the year before. Another issue – mosquitoes. The larger your land, the greater the responsibility for potential health risks, including mosquitoes. I did not need the land and did not want it. In fact, to explain my thinking, I will read out parts of an email which I sent to my agent, and I put up a draft for him to send to SLA. It reads, "We have also been discussing the surrounding state land. Our client is concerned about the thick vegetation in the shaded area and the disamenities from that land, mosquitoes and very real likelihood of snakes. There will be other animals but that might be a lesser concern. Currently, SLA maintains this area.”
“I told my agent to assess how much I should offer based on surrounding properties. My agent advised me that $25,000 a month would be a fair offer, based on rentals for similar properties at that time and taking into account the built-up area and the condition of the property. So, we offered $25,000. I told my agent I should not be paying less than what my neighbours paid, but I am not sure exactly when I told him that. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) came back with a counter-offer of $26,500, which we accepted without further negotiations. I had no idea, when I accepted SLA's counter-offer, what the guide rent or the minimum rent was. These were decisions internal to SLA that I was not privy to. Around the same time, I also rented out my family home while deciding on the sale. It took me a while to decide to sell, and then COVID-19 intervened. My family home was put on the market in November 2021. I will move to the second question now. It has been asked, am I renting out my family home and, in turn, living at 26 Ridout Road so that I can make some money from the rental difference? The first point – I am paying market rent for 26 Ridout Road and that is the critical point. But I will add, in fact, the answer is no, I am not making any money from the difference in rentals. I pay for the rental of 26 Ridout Road mostly from renting out my family home, but taking into account, one, property tax because the family home is now non-owner occupied; and two, income tax on the rental proceeds, there is a net deficit. I top up the deficit. I am, in essence, using my previous lawyer's income to pay for the rental for 26 Ridout Road. Based on my current income, I would not have offered to rent 26 Ridout Road. That is based on my personal approach to finances.”
“The questions I will deal with are: one, why am I living in a rented place in the first place and why am I not living in my own house; two, am I making some money renting out my own property while I live in a house rented from the state; three, the size of the land surrounding the Ridout house; four, what the Ridout house is like; and five, was there a conflict of interest? First, why am I renting? I am renting because I decided to put my family home, where I was living before June 2018, up for sale. In 2016, I was approaching my 60s, age-wise. I reviewed my finances and realised that too much of my savings were tied up in my family home. I had bought the house using my previous income as a lawyer before I became a Minister. When I bought my family home, I had assumed a future stream of income, based on what I was earning in the private sector. After I became a Minister, my income changed and thus I found too much of my savings was tied up in one house. I was advised that it would be wiser not to have most of one's savings in one asset. So, I decided to put my family home up for sale. Before I proceed further, let me make it clear. I did not consider selling my own home because of financial need. That was not the case. And I also do not regret having forgone my previous earnings as a Senior Counsel. It is a privilege to be in public service and, if I am asked, I will make the same choice again. So, to prepare for the sale, I decided to move out from my family home and live in a rental property. I looked at several rental properties, including black and white houses. I have long liked black and white houses. And eventually, in 2018, I decided to make an offer for 26 Ridout Road. I did not know the guide rent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, there have been many questions asked about the Ridout tenancies. I welcome the scrutiny, the questions, because financial integrity and probity are critical for Singapore and for anyone standing up here. Without that, we will be finished as a country. And even though I had not factored in a Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) interview as part of my job description, together with the caution, I believe it to be important. As a member of the Government, it is important that I am held accountable to Singaporeans and to subject myself and this matter to scrutiny. That is how our system works and must continue to work. No one is above the law. CPIB has investigated on whether I have had any unfair benefit. The CPIB investigations have made clear that there was no preferential treatment or abuse of position, the rules were followed, proper market rental was paid, and Senior Minister Teo's report also makes clear there was no conflict of interest. That is a key point, and I will come back to that. I will now answer some questions people have raised with me. Some of these questions relate to the choices I made, and which are very private. Many will appreciate that the choice of a person's home is typically a personal and private matter. But I am mindful that as an elected official whose authority is conferred on me by the trust of Singaporeans, the lines between what is personal and public may not always be clear. So, I will speak of them.”
“All road users, including cyclists, are required by law to use the roads in a safe and responsible way. Under the Road Traffic Act, cyclists who ride without due regard for the safety of others may be liable for an offence. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For egregious cases which result in an accident and injury to other road users, harsher punishments under the Penal Code may be imposed. In January 2022, following a review by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, the Government introduced stricter rules and regulations for on-road cycling. These include limits on cycling group sizes, the number of cyclists who are allowed to cycle abreast, and when cycling abreast is allowed. Composition sums were raised from $75 to $150. To educate the public on these new rules and regulations and to promote a safe and gracious cycling culture, the Traffic Police (TP) have been conducting outreach with stakeholders. For instance, TP partnered the Singapore Cycling Federation to engage more than 200 cyclists at the Festival of Cycling last year. TP and the Land Transport Authority also carry out enforcement operations against errant cyclists. We will monitor the situation and increase outreach or enforcement action as needed.”
“All road users, including cyclists, are required by law to use the roads in a safe and responsible way. Under the Road Traffic Act, cyclists who ride without due regard for the safety of others may be liable for an offence. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For egregious cases which result in an accident and injury to other road users, harsher punishments under the Penal Code may be imposed. In January 2022, following a review by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, the Government introduced stricter rules and regulations for on-road cycling. These include limits on cycling group sizes, the number of cyclists who are allowed to cycle abreast and when cycling abreast is allowed. Composition sums were raised, from $75 to $150. To educate the public on these new rules and regulations and to promote a safe and gracious cycling culture, the Traffic Police (TP) have been conducting outreach with stakeholders. For instance, TP partnered the Singapore Cycling Federation to engage more than 200 cyclists at the Festival of Cycling last year. TP and the Land Transport Authority also carry out enforcement operations against errant cyclists. We will monitor the situation and increase outreach or enforcement action as needed.”
“The use of victim impact statements (VIS) in criminal cases is not specifically tracked and involves manual reviewing of the data. Based on the data reviewed, from 2021 to 2022, a VIS was tendered in (a) 13 State Court cases involving one or more sexual offences; and (b) 14 High Court cases involving one or more sexual offences. VIS has generally been used in sexual assault cases as well as severe cases of violence, especially those involving the abuse of vulnerable victims, such as children, or where serious hurt was caused. The submission of a VIS is not the only way in which evidence of the impact of the offence on the victim is put before the Court. As previously stated in a 2021 reply, the impact of the offence on the victim would typically be evident from the evidence put before the Court, including the account of the victim and other witnesses, as well as medical and psychological reports. [Please refer to “Victim Impact Statement Adduced by Prosecution to Address Sentencing Court in Sexual Offences Cases in Past Five Years and Plans to Review Criminal Sentencing for Sexual Offences”, Official Report, 4 January 2021, Vol 95, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Member may wish to refer to past replies to Parliamentary Questions on the categories of offences for which video recording of interview (VRI) is conducted. In fact, we addressed this most recently in March 2023. [Please refer to "Offences and Cases where Video Recording of Interviews are Used", Official Report, 1 March 2023, Vol 95, Issue 89, Written Answers to Questions section.] We will expand VRI to more categories of offences in future. We currently do not conduct video recording for interviews with witnesses. VRI has, indeed, been useful in providing an objective account of the interview, capturing non-verbal cues, such as the interviewee’s demeanour and expressions. However, it is not possible to state conclusively whether VRI has reduced allegations of statements not being made voluntarily because each case is different. In cases where such allegations are raised, VRI allows the Courts to take the interviewee’s demeanour into account in determining the admissibility or weight to be accorded to the interviewee’s statement.”
“Between January and March 2023, 898 motorcyclists and 119 pillion riders suffered injuries from road traffic accidents. Nineteen motorcyclists and two pillion riders died. The figures for April 2023 are still being compiled. These figures are a slight increase from the corresponding period in 2022. However, they are comparable to pre-pandemic figures. The Traffic Police, Land Transport Authority and Singapore Road Safety Council have implemented various initiatives to strengthen road safety awareness among motorcyclists and other road users. These were shared in Police’s Annual News Release on the Road Traffic Situation on 14 February 2023.”
“The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) administers the saliva test as an on-site screening tool. Where the results are positive, the suspect will be subjected to confirmatory tests, such as a urine test. The saliva test results are not used as the basis for prosecution or for committing a person for rehabilitation. The results of saliva tests, both positive and negative outcomes, are retained as they may be relevant in subsequent investigations. For avoidance of doubt, CNB does not retain the test kit containing the person’s saliva, if it is a negative result. It is disposed of immediately after the test.”
“The number of traffic accidents involving young victims in each of the last five years is shown in the Table below. The Traffic Police, Land Transport Authority and Singapore Road Safety Council have implemented various initiatives to strengthen road safety awareness among children. These were shared in our reply to a question filed by the Member for the Sitting on 30 November 2022. [Please refer to "Traffic Accidents Involving Children Aged 18 and Below", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 78, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“Section 8A of the Misuse of Drugs Act was introduced in 1998 to apply extraterritorial jurisdiction to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who consume drugs overseas. As explained by the then-Minister for Home Affairs in the Second Reading of the Bill, this is to deter individuals who have permanent residency in Singapore from circumventing our drug laws by going overseas to feed their addiction. If they develop drug addictions, this will cause us many downstream criminal and social problems. For now, we do not think there is a need to extend extraterritorial reach to foreigners holding work passes or other immigration facilities, such as the Long-Term Visit Pass or Student Pass, given their more transient stay in Singapore. If they are found to be abusing drugs, we can easily, and do, revoke their pass and deport them.”