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 22 of 92.
“We do that in a number of situations when we say that people are being investigated, and I have given you a number of illustrations when we said, when we revealed that investigations are ongoing. When you say that investigations are ongoing, the implication with it is that, certainly, you are suspected by the Police. It happens. Mr Leong did not think there was anything wrong with that statement being made about Mr Karl Liew. He did not think there was anything wrong about Mr Chew when we said that he had attempted to flee the jurisdiction. That was before he was charged. We do that. I would not say frequently but it has happened a number of times. And as I said, if you look at it, and if it is a question that is asked here or even outside, Police have released that information. But nobody in their right minds will, therefore, think that either the Police or Members here are, therefore, saying that they have been found guilty. The only person who has made that statement without basis is Mr Leong, when he airily said they were actually guilty. I certainly will never say that. But that does not mean that we cannot say so and so is being investigated. We have to look at the prejudice to the person, possible prejudice, and I have explained in my answer, why there was very little prejudice here, to disclose that they are being investigated. Likewise, the fact that they have run out of jurisdiction – I mean if you want, we can keep saying each time they have run out of jurisdiction and escaped from the Police. We use a short-hand term: they have absconded. They say they are fugitives. What is the difference? But did anybody say that they have been found guilty? You do look at the prejudice that might be caused when you make statements; you need to be careful.”
“Sir, I do not propose to debate the post further, except to say this. By speaking about them having lied on oath, as the Courts have said, or them absconding, we do not therefore, prejudge their guilt. They will have to come back; they will have to be charged, if the Police see fit to charge. And the Courts will have to decide. As I said in my answer on Monday, when we said that Mr Karl Liew is being investigated for having lied on oath, the comments that were made, we are not prejudging his guilt. Likewise, when we say that he has absconded, when he himself has described himself as a fugitive, it is entirely in order. If he is charged for absconding from jurisdiction, he can then explain what he meant. And, certainly, our statements here are not evidence. Our statements here are meant to further our discussions, in furtherance of what actually happened. It is a description of the process that they have run away, without cooperating with the Police. That is what "absconding" means – run away without cooperating with the Police. It can also mean that they have committed an offence of absconding – fugitives from justice. But let us not split hairs here. When you have run away and you describe yourself as a fugitive, I do not think there is anything wrong in calling you an abscondee, particularly when you have said you will cooperate and then run away without cooperating. I did not say that they have been charged and found guilty. So, let us drop these pretences. Let us just get to the point. But in any event, Sir, unless there are any other clarifications on my Statement, that is the end of my Statement.”
“Sir, I highlighted two points for illustration. That is what I would say.”
“Sir, I take it that Member does not withdraw the statements. We will then proceed to consider what the next steps ought to be. If at any time Member changes his mind, before a decision is reached, he can let us know. Thank you, Sir, that is the end of my Ministerial Statement.”
“I went through it, but for his benefit, I will say that again. I explained why Parti Lyani's case was relevant. In that case, the High Court had expressed the view that Mr Karl Liew had not acted honestly and had lied on the witness stand – possible offence of perjury. He was being investigated, we disclosed that, here, before it was made public, before he was charged. In this case, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern have been said to have lied on oath – possible offence of perjury. That was disclosed here too. It is directly relevant. If the Member thought that that was not relevant, I am happy for a debate. I am not saying everyone has got to agree with what I said. Hardly. Disagree, explain, debate and so that the public can have a better understanding, if you think it is not relevant. But do not be a coward. Keep quiet here, go out and say, "Oh, it's an attempt to muddy the waters", that is casting aspersions on me, that I am doing this to confuse. That is not acceptable. That is just one example. The allegations against Senior Minister Teo and myself too. So, I invite Mr Leong to delete his post, withdraw the statements and apologise, Sir.”
“Let me read out section 31(g) of Parliamentary Privileges Immunities and Powers Act: "No person shall publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise, which falsely or scandalously defames, or which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in Parliament or anything done or said by him in Parliament." You have your view points, you think that someone is not telling the truth, you think that someone is being dishonest, you think someone is trying to muddy the waters – do that in Parliament. Let us have a debate. But you do not go out after keeping quiet here and try and mislead the public. That is the rationale for section 31, and that is why we have to take a serious view. Parliament is a place for discussion – I agree entirely with Mr Leong. But it is not a place for playing hide and seek. You debate here. In my view, he has breached section 31. That is my view, in the context of his post. And Sir, through you, I ask that he deletes his post, accepts that he has misrepresented the position, and he should apologise. I do that through you, Sir.”
“Well, then that is a false basis because the issue came about because there was a question that was raised and answers were given. Sir, we have had this exchange today, for one reason only: Parliament is a place for debates. Parliament is a place where we exchange viewpoints. And on the basis that we are all trying to do our best for Singapore, we, through the exchange of ideas and debates, try and get to a point. But when someone is in the House, does not raise a point, says that, well, he was digesting it; and then, goes out and puts a Facebook post with both improper statements and untrue statements: then he is abusing Parliamentary privilege, he is in breach of parliamentary rules. And that is why we have to pull it up and ask a number of questions. That is why I decided to ask the Member a number of questions. Because Parliament should not be brought into disrepute with this kind of conduct. Sir, we take a serious view of his conduct. This is not the first time Mr Leong has breached the rules of parliamentary procedure. I will give three instances. On 25 February 2021, Mr Leong apologised in Parliament for misrepresentations he had made. On 10 May 2021, he again seriously breached parliamentary procedure and was told so. On 8 March 2022, he again had to apologise in Parliament, for his improper and uncalled for comments. This has unfortunately become a pattern with Mr Leong. In Parliament, we are prepared, as I said, for serious debate. Members can be as tough as they wish. And if anyone has questions, they can be raised as we are discussing, rather than keeping quiet here and then, going out and casting aspersions.”
“Thank you. Sir, Mr Leong also asserted in his post that this is a private matter, quote, "fundamentally a family dispute", and that it is not appropriate for Parliament, which is supposed to be a forum for debating issues of public interest, to discuss the issue concerning Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern. Members will recall – issues relating to 38 Oxley Road were first made public by Mr Lee Hsien Yang, himself, in 2017; then in a series of public statements. The Ministerial Statements in 2017 Parliament debates on 38 Oxley Road all took place here in Parliament. Earlier this month, a question was asked in Parliament on 38 Oxley Road. We answered. I explained on Monday why the matter had to be answered, in response to a Parliamentary Question. I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Leong, Sir, on which part of the explanation does he disagree with, through you.”
“I asked whether the Member is prepared to withdraw his allegation that Parti Lyani's case was referred to, in order to "muddy the waters".”
“Sir, this is a serious allegation. Will the Member withdraw his allegation that Parti Lyani was referred to, in order to "muddy the waters"? And will the Member accept that it was quite wrong to have suggested motives on a false basis? Because I have explained why it is relevant. You can disagree here, but if you do not disagree, and you keep quiet, and you go out there, then I am entitled to ask this, and say it is not my intention to leave the matters be here, if the Member would not withdraw his allegation.”
“"You cloud the waters", "you introduce new things" so that people cannot see the facts. It is irrelevant and you are introducing it. That is what you are saying. Can I ask that question, Sir, for the last time?”
“So, it is neither relevant nor irrelevant. So, what is it?”
“Can I take it that you say the Parti Lyani case is relevant to the current discussion?”
“Sir, may I ask what is the meaning of "muddy the waters"?”
“Sir, through you, can I ask, when you say a case is used to muddy the waters, what you are saying is it is not relevant and it is used to confuse Parliament. That is, in essence, what "muddy the waters" means. So, I want to ask through you, Sir, again, does Mr Leong accept that the Parti Liyani case is relevant?”
“Sir, I am asking something quite different. I am asking a clarification for Mr Leong on his Facebook post, which suggested the Parti Liyani case that I referred to is not relevant. And I would like to know from Mr Leong why he says that it is not relevant. And if he does not know the answer, he can just tell us.”
“Thank you. So, now I have asked, why does the Member say in his Facebook post that the Parti Liyani case is not relevant? I want to know the substance. Why do you say it is not relevant?”
“No, I have just said, this is what happened. That is correct, is it not? We can check the video.”
“Sorry, Sir, can I ask the Member? We had a debate, exchange, answered his question. I asked him. He did not put up his hand. And Mr Perera asked a follow-up question. And there being no further questions, the matter, Parliament proceedings moved on. That is what happened. Can I put that on the record? And can I invite the Member to agree that that is what happened?”
“Sir, I specifically asked and I do not recall the Member raising his hands. We can look at the video because these things are on video now. I give an opportunity to the Member to correct himself. It would be accurate to say that we asked and Member did not respond. Would the Member agree, Sir?”
“On this debate, I expressly invited Members' response. He was given adequate time. So, let us not confuse the matters.”
“Point of order. Is he saying I am not telling the truth when I invited Members to respond to me? If he disagrees —”
“I explained why the Parti Liyani case is relevant. It is an illustration of a fairly similar case where we also released the identity of a person who was being investigated and where the Member was present and did not object. So, Sir, again, I will have to trouble you. I seek a clarification from Mr Leong, through you. Why does he say the Parti Liyani case is not relevant?”
“Well, for the record, one person pleaded guilty in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has been found guilty. And it is a very serious statement to come here, make allegations without doing your homework and then propagate this sort of stuff – all over the place; really unparliamentary and not acceptable. And then to say, "Well, I have read", "It seems to be big". Unfortunately, this is a thread running through all of Mr Leong's statements. He does not do his homework. He does not check. He just says all sorts of things. And that is not the way debates ought to go. I am glad Mr Leong has withdrawn that statement. Next, and therefore the basis on which Mr Leong says, "Oh, you know it is similar to this case", it is not there. And I had given various other reasons why there are differences. He never dealt with any of them. Next, Parti Liyani. Sir, Mr Leong said that my referring to Parti Liyani is an attempt to muddy the waters because the case is irrelevant. The Member has ascribed an improper motive to me. The essence of his statement is that I used an example which is irrelevant and that it was used to confuse Parliament. If that is what he thought, if he had said it, I would have responded immediately. Sir, let me make this clear. We have no problem, I certainly have no problem with Members challenging me, debating. The tougher the debate, the better it is, because the public then gets a better sense of which opinion is better or where the facts are. So, we welcome debate, we want debate. But when a statement is made in Parliament and the Member does not respond; and then goes out, and particularly when I said is there anything that you disagree with or you do not understand, and he keeps quiet. He keeps quiet and then goes out and says this.”
“Can I suggest that Member works a little bit, finds out what he is talking about, before coming here and making serious allegations? If I were to tell him that his statement is false, it is untrue to say that they have all been found guilty elsewhere, certainly not in Singapore, is he prepared to withdraw his statement?”
“Can I know what is the basis on which the Member says that he is under that impression; that they have all been found guilty?”
“I raise a point of order. I had asked a simple question. Is the Member saying they have been found guilty, all of them, in any Court of law? Or is he otherwise prepared to withdraw his statement? That is all I have asked. If he says he is not prepared to withdraw, we leave it and we follow up.”
“He said there are double standards because the individuals in the KOM case are, I quote his words, "actually guilty". Sir, the Member has Parliamentary privilege to speak, but that has to be exercised responsibly. When we want to say that someone is "guilty", I would like to remind all Members to have a care. Mr Leong has said that persons investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) are, I quote, "actually guilty". That is making assertions against a number of persons, that they are guilty of criminal offences, that they have been found guilty of criminal offences, when in fact, they have not been found guilty. Not all the persons. The Cambridge dictionary definition of "guilty" is "responsible for breaking a law". So, Sir, I will now invite Mr Leong, through you, to either substantiate his statement, that they are all guilty, or withdraw his statement. One cannot, under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, make these sorts of statements about people. And if he does not withdraw, then Sir, we will consider what else needs to be done.”
“That is not the question I asked. I take it that the Member does not wish to say whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang will come back and cooperate with the authorities. And, Sir, there is nothing flawed with the process. Police have explained the process and I repeat, both in this House and I am prepared to repeat it outside, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has absconded, on the facts. That is my position. That is consistent with what Mr Lee Hsien Yang himself has said, that he is a fugitive. And you have seen the dictionary definitions. So, let us not engage in false rhetoric. I will carry on with my Ministerial Statement. Everyone, including Mr Leong, knows that they have left the country, that they are "fugitives" and they have told the media they are not returning to Singapore. They have absconded. So, let us not hide behind a smoke screen of whether or not a Criminal Procedure Code order was issued. They were asked to cooperate and they have run away. And you can say they have absconded, when they themselves know they are "fugitives". That deals with the two main points I have made. Let me now move on to the Keppel & Offshore Marine (KOM) matter which Member has posted about. I told the Member on Monday, I had explained the differences between KOM and the case involving Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, and why they are different. I had also explained in my answer on 20 March, why in some circumstances when some names are disclosed in legal proceedings, nevertheless, Police may not release the names here. I invited him to point out so we can discuss which area of my explanation he does not understand or disagrees with. He did not respond. Let me address a fundamental point arising from what he said on Monday.”
“Macmillan's definition: someone who has done something illegal and is trying to avoid being caught by the police. You can also look at Longman, Oxford, Cambridge. This is how Mr Lee describes himself, he says that he has run away to avoid the Police. Sir, the Member knows Mr Lee Hsien Yang well; he has said on social media that Mr Lee is a valuable member of his Party. They have posted many photos together. They have shared each other's posts. For all we know, they might be in regular contact with each other. Sir, I would like to ask Mr Leong, through you, is Mr Leong saying in this Chamber, that Mr Lee Hsien Yang will come back and cooperate with the authorities? A simple question. No need to ventilate. We can ventilate later.”
“The blank spaces that Members see were filled in by hand, by the officer. So, the form was given with details filled in. I had said in my response to Ms Sylvia Lim on Monday, that there was an email. Actually, this form was given and there were email exchanges after that. The Police then liaised with Mr Lee Hsien Yang on a suitable date over email and both parties agreed on a date, which was 13 July 2022. On 13 July 2022, the day of the interview, they sent an email to the Police saying they would not be attending the interview; by that time, they had left the country. From what they have said to the Police and what Mr Lee Hsien Yang has said since, it is clear that they have no intention of returning. After Senior Minister Teo gave his reply in Parliament on 2 March 2023, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a Facebook post on 7 March that he has, I quote, "been made a fugitive by [his] own country". I have asked for his post to be flashed on the screen. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.] And on 12 March 2023, he reposted in Instagram, his Facebook post that he is a "fugitive". And he said in an interview with a foreign news outlet released on 8 March 2023 that he is, quote, "unlikely to return to Singapore, at least for the foreseeable future." He himself admits that he is a fugitive. To assist Mr Leong in better understanding the dictionary meaning of "fugitive", I will flash it on the screen and I will just read two. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.] From Merriam-Webster: a fugitive is a person who flees or tries to escape, such as a person involved in a criminal case, who tries to elude law enforcement, especially by fleeing the jurisdiction.”
“That is one point. The second point – Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern have left Singapore and have said they will not come back, after being asked to assist in investigations. I said on Monday, in my summary, that they have essentially absconded from the jurisdiction. The facts have been stated in Senior Minister Teo's answer on 2 March 2023 and in statements issued by the Police, on 2 and 20 March 2023. On 9 June 2022, Police met Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern and asked them to assist in investigations. They agreed to come for an interview. They said they will tell the Police when they will be available. Police then handed them a letter providing details of the investigation and the interview. Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission for a copy of that letter to be shown on screen, please?”
“Thank you, Sir. One more question through you, Sir. If there was possible criminal conduct, would the Member accept that that should be properly investigated?”
“Point of order again, Sir. The Member can talk about what he wishes at the end. My question is a simple one. If they lied on oath, is it possible criminal conduct? Either he knows or he does not know, and we will move on.”
“Thank you. Therefore, you will agree that the C3J and DT have said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied on oath. Second, Sir, can I ask through you, would the Member accept that, if they did lie on oath, that that is possible criminal conduct?”
“So, the Member does not know whether the C3J and DT have said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied on oath. Can I take that to be the answer? Can I ask that through you, Sir, that he does not know?”
“Sir, point of order. I asked a question. I am sure the Member can have plenty of time to ventilate at the end. I asked a simple question: does he agree that the C3J and the DT have said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied on oath. That is all. If the Member can give me an answer, he can give it to me. If he cannot, we will move on.”
“The main points of the answer I gave on Monday, which Mr Leong has avoided, are: first, the Court of Three Judges (C3J) and the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) have said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern had lied under oath and that there was dishonesty. Members can refer to the answer I gave on Monday. Sir, at this juncture, I would like to ask the Member through you, does he agree that the C3J and the DT have said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern lied on oath?”
“Sir, I will address some matters arising from my answer to Mr Leong Mun Wai's Parliamentary Question on 20 March 2023. After the discussion in Parliament, Mr Leong made a Facebook post about it on Monday night. Given the nature of some of his statements, which are serious misrepresentations, I had wanted to address them in Parliament yesterday, at the earliest opportunity. But out of respect for Mr Leong's bereavement over the passing of his mother, I decided to postpone it, though his post was put up a few hours earlier. I also express my deepest condolences to him and I am sure Members will join me in that. The matter I am going to speak about arises from his post. Mr Leong's actions are quite improper, as I will show. What he has done is wrong and contrary to the requirements of Parliamentary procedure. On 20 March 2023, I answered a Parliamentary Question from Mr Leong and Mr Perera. The answer was detailed. I specifically asked Mr Leong to tell us which parts of the answer he disagreed with. He did not respond and we moved on. Then, that same night, Mr Leong put up a Facebook post. He said several things including that: one, my characterisation of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern as having essentially absconded, is inaccurate; two, he also said that by disclosing the investigation into the Lees, Senior Minister Teo and I have risked turning Parliament into "a platform to colour public opinion on criminal proceedings." These statements are a mixture of misrepresentation and inaccuracy, and have to be dealt with. Mr Leong makes these allegations and more, but he does not deal with the main points.”
“The answer relates to Community Centres and Clubs which are on land managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA)1. The vast majority of Community Centres and Clubs are on land managed by SLA. SLA values the rent for tenancies that it issues for Community Centres and Clubs at the prevailing market rate for Civic and Community Institution use, taking into consideration various parameters, such as location, floor area, land area and also the specific types of other uses, for example, childcare centre, shops, within the development.”
“The Traffic Police (TP) do not actively track the occupation of road users involved in accidents. That said, TP have been increasing public education efforts targeted at persons working in food delivery and courier services, through the National Delivery Champions Association, as well as delivery companies, such as Grab and foodpanda. These efforts aim to promote safe-riding practices. TP also partner with the Ministry of Manpower, the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council and the Land Transport Authority, to engage these road users and their delivery companies. For example, in November 2022, the Delivery Safety Workgroup set up by the WSH Council, released a set of guidelines on how delivery companies can enhance the safety of their drivers and riders on the road. These guidelines include, providing drivers and riders with feedback on their safety behaviour using telematics; engaging those who show repeated risky behaviours; equipping them with knowledge on how to be safe and reducing their exposure to unsafe situations, for example: rushing during wet weather and riders carrying heavy loads. Many members of the Delivery Safety Workgroup, which include key food, e-commerce and courier delivery companies, have implemented these recommendations.”
“Under the Road Traffic Act 1961, it is an offence for motorists to obstruct emergency vehicles that are responding to an emergency. The composition sums for this offence are $150 for light vehicles and $200 for heavy vehicles. Offenders will also receive four demerit points. In cases where there are aggravating factors, the Traffic Police will charge the offenders in Court. First-time offenders can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned up to three months, or both. Between 2020 and 2022, no motorists were charged in Court for this offence. The number of motorists offered composition sums was four in 2020, two in 2021 and zero in 2022. Table 1 below shows the breakdown of the motorists offered composition sums, by vehicle type.”
“On age, the Member may refer to my Parliamentary reply to him on 1 August 2022. [Please refer to "Gender and Age Breakdown of New Citizens at Point of Obtaining Citizenship Each Year Since 2000", Official Report, 1 August 2022, Vol 95, Issue 65, Written Answers to Questions section.] On profession, from 2000 to 2022, at point of application, on average, about 37% of new Singapore Citizens (SCs) granted each year were professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), 14% were non-PMETs and 49% were not economically active. The last group comprises those who were not working and were granted SC on the basis of family ties to Singaporeans, being dependants of the main applicants, or were still studying. Based on available data, from 2012 to 2022, at point of application, on average, about 32% of new SCs granted each year had a gross monthly income above the median income of full-time employed SCs of that year. This calculation includes new SCs, who were granted SC on the basis of family ties to Singaporeans, being dependants of the main applicants, or were still studying; and may or may not have been working at the point of application.”
“Based on more readily available data, from 2018 to 2022, Police investigated 389 cases involving offences under Chapter 11 of the Penal Code. Of these, 61 cases were eventually prosecuted in Court. The remaining cases are still under investigation or had been issued with warnings, or no further action had been taken. Police do not track the time taken to complete investigations of offences under Chapter 11 of the Penal Code. It depends on many factors, including the complexity of the case and availability of witnesses.”
“Between 2020 and 2022, a yearly average of (a) 873 children and young persons under the age of 16 were issued with stern warnings or conditional warnings for offences investigated by the Police or Central Narcotics Bureau; (b) 94 were charged and convicted; and (c) none were charged and obtained a discharge, whether amounting or not amounting to an acquittal.”
“This question was addressed in the oral reply for Question No 2 delivered during the Parliament Sitting on 20 March 2023. [Please refer to "Naming of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern when Being Investigated for Giving False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings while Keppel Offshore and Marine Senior Staff were Not Named", Official Report, 20 March 2023, Vol 95, Issue 93, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“While the number of traffic accidents involving elderly pedestrians increased from 2021 to 2022, the Member may wish to note that the 2022 figures are comparable to pre-pandemic figures. The Member may wish to refer to past replies to Parliamentary Questions on how the Traffic Police works with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to prevent jaywalking by elderly pedestrians, as well as plans by LTA to progressively install more lifts at overhead bridges across Singapore.”
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force’s (SCDF) Operation Lionheart deployment reinforced the importance of leveraging technology to assist in rescue operations. The advanced video scope cameras and seismic sensors which SCDF used were vital for locating the two live casualties whom SCDF saved. SCDF and the Home Team Science and Technology Agency will continue to enhance our technological capabilities, such as robotising cockroaches for search and rescue operations. A second takeaway is that during such high-stress missions, it is important to take care of the mental well-being of our contingent members and not just their physical health. Two psychologists were deployed as part of Operation Lionheart. They conducted regular psychological check-ins of the members. We are very proud of our SCDF officers for stepping forward to help our Turkish friends in their hour of need, despite the risks and difficult operating conditions, and for their significant contributions to the rescue efforts. We will be nominating them for the SCDF Overseas Service Medal. As for their canine colleagues, we are looking at according them a special vest or collar of distinction.”
“You do not have to withdraw the question; I will answer the question. I am trying to now recall, but my recollection is that the Bloomberg interview came after the answer given by Senior Minister Teo. And therefore, even the prescience of this Government could not have foretold that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was going to give such an interview. I stand corrected, but that is my recollection of the sequence of events. And if a question is asked in Parliament, we answer. The debate for us is, I have explained the reasons why the answer was given. No one took issue when I disclosed that Mr Liew was being investigated. I assume that everyone accepted the principle and I have explained how that principle applies here. If anyone challenges us on that, I am prepared to debate. But the principle is the same.”
“If that is not being suggested, then I would ask, Sir, through you, that the Member withdraw that part of her question and I would answer the rest of the question.”