Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore
“Yes, of course, every time I sell the land, I put money into the Reserves, but I am not putting the money into the Reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart.”
“Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“" I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow.”
“I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers. But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,557 lines we hold for Lee Hsien Loong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 32.
“I thank Mr Leong for clarifying that he is not against Ministers living in GCBs. He just wants to play it up. Because having said that he has nothing against Ministers living wherever they feel they wish to live, he then raises this, alleged perception of conflict of interest and unfairness, when we have spent the last five hours explaining why there is no actual conflict of interest, why potential conflicts of interest have been cut off and, therefore, there is no possibility of a reasonable perception of conflict of interest arising. Therefore, when he says the PAP Code of Conduct, do I intend for it to be stringently applied, what he really means is, should I or should I not allow Ministers to rent GCBs or to rent Black and Whites? My answer is, I do not object to Ministers renting Black and Whites. They live within their salary. They live within their means. Some have come into office with means because they have had successful careers before. Some may have inherited wealth, who knows? Some come in without much. They live with what they have. They comply with the laws. They do things properly. And most importantly, they continue to do their duties as a Minister and to serve their constituents and to serve Singaporeans and to make a contribution on my team, as an honest, capable – there was a phrase in the Minister's swearing-in text: "...in all things to be a true and faithful Minister." That is what we expect of all PAP Ministers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think if Members remember the history of this issue, the question of the Minister instructing the civil servant was not public knowledge until we brought it out. The issue has been there since I do not know, April? Over a few months? And the outrageous allegations were being made that the Ministers had enjoyed improper benefits and inside tracks and were getting a sweet deal, and all sorts of very grave innuendos were being stated. Nobody cared how he found out about the properties. Now that the report has come out and all those grave suspicions have been dispelled, you focus on this question and you ask should he have asked the Deputy Secretary? My view is that he could have done it a different way, he could have done it this way. He has given the House the reasons why he did it this way. I think those are cogent reasons, which I accept.”
“CPIB's instructions from me were to establish whether any corruption or criminal offence had been committed, criminal wrongdoing had been committed. You cannot do that without going into all the facts of the case and, in the process of going to the facts of the case, they came to conclusions on preferential treatment, on disclosure of privileged information, on abuse of position. And they put it into their report and in their letter to me, that they had found none of these. They went into it. And I think these are issues which are relevant to whether the Ministers complied with the Code of Conduct or not. So, I did not ask them to investigate the conduct, but they came to these conclusions and because their main focus had been the more narrow one of the legal question of criminal offence, therefore, I complemented the CPIB investigation with Senior Minister Teo's review, and he rode on what the CPIB did. He did further fact-finding on the establishment of the policies, the backgrounds and the overall way the system and SLA operated, and his conclusions are in the report. And they are consistent.”
“In this case, we have investigated it, the Ministers have been cleared. In other cases which come up, we will investigate it and whichever way the facts fall out, they will be taken to their logical conclusion. This is the foundation not just for the people's trust in the PAP Government, but for the integrity and good functioning of our political system. And this is my commitment and the PAP Government's unwavering commitment to Singaporeans. [Applause.]”
“Their report explained this and CPIB established that this imprecision was not due to any ill-intent on the part of the SLA officers, nor was there any evidence of any mala fide abuse of position in the valuation. The imprecision is embarrassing to SLA and the Government, particularly as the SLA has put out a statement earlier to say that the Ministers both paid higher than the guide rents. But that cannot be helped. CPIB calls it as it is with no regard to whom it might convenience or embarrass. SLA has acknowledged that CPIB's interpretation is a correct one, and they will review their practices and improve upon them. Senior Minister Teo's review relying on CPIB's findings confirm the broader issues that there was no conflict of interest or unfair advantage enjoyed and that all rules and procedures have been complied with. And his report sets out the basis for his conclusions. These are not just his personal opinions, but conclusions based on documented facts, verified and laid out in the report. So, it is very important that we have had this accounting in Parliament. Members have had full opportunity to ask questions and clarify doubts. The Ministers, Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, have done nothing wrong and they retain my full confidence. But this accounting in Parliament is not just to resolve the issue of the rentals on two black and white properties in Ridout Road, important as that is. It is also a demonstration of how the PAP is determined to uphold the standards which it has set itself from the beginning in 1959. This Government has not and will never tolerate any compromise or departure from the stringent standards of honesty, integrity and incorruptibility that Singaporeans expect of us.”
“He issues the Rules of Prudence to PAP Members after every General Election. I have done it now, I think, four times. He has to set the right personal example of proper conduct. He decides whether a Minister has acted properly or not in accordance with a code and the rules. If he thinks so, he should say so; if he thinks not, he must say not. He cannot say, "I have no view. I do not wish to influence my Ministers and my Members of Parliament." Ultimately, the Prime Minister is still accountable and he has to justify his position here to Parliament and answer to Singaporeans at the ballot box. That is how our system works. That is how it has been kept clean. That is my general approach and the attitude that I have taken in this case. When CPIB and Senior Minister Teo submitted their reports to me, I accepted all their conclusions and ordered the reports to be published and placed before the House, before this meeting today so that everybody can read them, digest them and be ready to come here and have an informed discussion. These reports provide a good basis for Parliament to discuss the issue. The conclusions are quite clear, as the Ministerial Statements you heard earlier have explained, from Senior Minister Teo and Second Minister Edwin Tong. CPIB found no corruption or wrongdoing, no preferential treatment, no disclosure of privileged information, no abuse of position for personal gain. The AGC confirmed this after reviewing the investigation papers. And the Leader of the Opposition paid CPIB and paid the Government a compliment just now when he said nobody is suggesting corruption on the part of the Ministers. CPIB did find an imprecision in how SLA defined the guide rent for 26 Ridout Road.”
“I did not consider Senior Minister Teo to have been involved in the transaction, even though Minister Shanmugam had informed Senior Minister Teo of the arrangements he had made to recuse himself, including that then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah had been told to approach Senior Minister Teo if the matter had to go beyond her. Because no such issue arose and nothing was ever raised to Senior Minister Teo. He was the backstop – and nothing reached him. It has been suggested, including today, by some Members that even though Senior Minister Teo might not have been involved in the Ridout Road transactions, just because he is a Minister, he is not sufficiently independent to conduct this investigation. I take a different view. When it comes to corruption and wrongdoing, crimes, we have an independent process, as CPIB investigations are referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers for an opinion. We are dealing with laws, with legality and, ultimately, the Courts are the arbiter of what is legal or illegal. But ethics and standards of propriety, those are the Prime Minister's responsibility. I have to set the standards of what is ethical, what is proper. I cannot outsource them, for example, to appoint an ethics advisor to tell me what is proper or not proper. I have to know what is proper or not. Otherwise, I should not be here. An ethics advisor cannot be the one to decide and to advise the Prime Minister whether Ministers acted with propriety or not. Some countries have tried this. You have read about some of them in the newspapers over the last few months. It has not always resulted in more ethical conduct or better government. In Singapore's context, the Prime Minister has to set the standards.”
“It has built up a strong reputation as an anti-corruption outfit and it has the necessary legal powers guaranteed in the Constitution to carry out a further investigation. Everybody in Singapore knows what it means when CPIB invites you to "lim kopi". And they can invite anybody: Ministers, officials, businessmen, ordinary Singaporeans – whoever it is necessary for them to interview in order to establish the facts and the truth and whether there is culpability. I tasked CPIB to look into this on 17 May. I was then in Nairobi, on an official visit to Kenya. CPIB's investigation went beyond the legal question of whether there was criminal conduct. It extended to broader issues like whether there was preferential treatment enjoyed by the Ministers, whether any privilege information was disclosed to them, whether the Ministers had abused their position in the process of the rentals. But I wanted these broader questions examined more thoroughly because, as Prime Minister, my duty is not just to be satisfied that, legally, there was no wrongdoing, but whether, quite apart from the law, there was any other kind of misconduct or impropriety. Therefore, after I returned from Africa on 22 May, COVID-19 notwithstanding, I tasked Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean to do a broader review of SLA's policies and processes to complement CPIB's investigation. Senior Minister Teo is my most Senior Minister in terms of years in Cabinet and experience. I appointed him to show that I had every intention to maintain the Government and the PAP's long-standing high and stringent standards of integrity and propriety. I wanted to put my most experienced, most qualified, for this purpose, most capable person on the job.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am responding to Ms Denise Phua's question to give my take on this Ridout Road issue, which we have been debating now, five hours. I think the focus of the debate has been on values: integrity, propriety, incorruptibility. Ministers in Singapore are paid a clean wage – realistic, competitive but clean wage. They do not get perks. There is no official house to live in. You get a salary. It is for you to judge what you need it for for your lives: save it, give it away, spend it, put in a house, travel, whatever. Therefore, where Ministers decide to live, whether they want to rent, whether they want to buy, these are personal choices. And thus, I see nothing wrong with Ministers renting properties from SLA or, for that matter, from a private landlord, provided it is properly done and all procedures are followed. Therefore, when I heard that two of my Ministers, Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan, had rented black and white bungalows at Ridout Road, my assessment, without going into it in depth, was that I did not believe there was wrongdoing involved. I had every confidence that my Ministers and the SLA officials who dealt with them would have done the right things and handled the rentals properly. However, after SLA's statement on 12 May, the issue continued to attract public interest. And so, when the two Ministers asked me to conduct an investigation, independent of their Ministries, I decided that notwithstanding my confidence in them and in the system, it would be best for me to task CPIB to conduct a formal investigation and to establish definitively if there was any corruption or wrongdoing. Why CPIB? Because CPIB is independent.”
“Speaking in Parliament at the end of the debate on the President's Address – not this debate but that debate in 1968 – he said, and I quote: "Industrial development requires at all times a sustained effort, a willingness to mobilise savings, a readiness to take risks, a propensity for innovation, a passionate vision of the future, a willingness to make the painful adjustments required by modernisation and, most important of all, a readiness on the part of the people as a whole to postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future...If we are not prepared to pay this price", he said, then, there "will be little or no economic development".”
“We must nurture the deep and precious trust that we have – between the Government and people, and also among Singaporeans – and work hand-in-hand towards a shared vision of our future. This is what Forward Singapore is about – bringing Singaporeans together to refresh our social compact and come up with a collective roadmap for our way forward. Members have heard Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and other 4G Ministers outline the Forward Singapore agenda earlier. We will make sure meritocracy works for all. We will leave no one behind, as Singapore progresses. We will enhance safety nets against the uncertainties of life. We will fashion a common understanding and purpose that binds us together. All this is absolutely essential and the Government will fully back this agenda with policies, programmes and resources. It is an ambitious agenda that will not be easy to realise even in good times. In these turbulent times, it is all the more important that we get it done and get it right, so that we can stay united as one people, one Singapore. But just being united will not be enough. It is equally important that we have the go-getter spirit of self-reliance and enterprise, to create prosperity for our nation and achieve the best we can in a very troubled world. This has always been our attitude. Long ago, in 1968, Singapore was heading into a major storm. The British forces were here, they contributed about one-fifth of the economy and they were soon to withdraw from Singapore. Our unemployment was already 10%, dangerously high. We faced the prospect of mass unemployment and economic collapse. Mr S Rajaratnam had just become Minister of Labour and was girding Singaporeans for tough measures and hard times ahead.”
“In Singapore, when faced with a divisive issue, our approach has always been to find a middle way, bridge the differences, strike compromises and heal divisions. Not grand posturing, not playing cultural or identity politics, not dividing and polarising people. Our instinct always is to keep Singaporeans together. We have to keep thinking and acting like this. Please do not take our harmony for granted. It is a very precious thing, very fragile. We must continuously work on it and build up our social cohesion and national strength. The troubled external environment will create new stresses and strains in our society. High inflation because of the Ukraine war will cause difficulties for many households, especially lower- and middle-income families. Tensions between China and the US will expose our population to emotional pulls, commercial pressures and influence campaigns, from one side or the other, to take their point of view and support their cause. The fracturing of the global trading system will mean slower, more uncertain growth and greater disruption to industries and jobs, businesses and workers. We must not allow these pressures to divide Singaporeans along fault lines in our society, whether old or new, like the "haves" versus "have nots", the "liberals" versus "conservatives", the "locals" versus "foreigners", "new" versus "old" citizens and above all, differences between races and religions. In this new troubled world, it is all the more important for us to close ranks. Divided, we stand no chance. We must do our best to see eye-to-eye on the fundamentals and try to appreciate each other's perspectives, even if we cannot always agree. We must not shy away from hard choices, but deal squarely with difficult issues based on facts and sound analysis.”
“A hot war in Europe, deepening hostility between two superpowers, which are closely interlinked with each other, and protectionism undermining the foundations of the multilateral trading system. These three simultaneous crises will set in train a whole series of changes and shocks that will severely disrupt the world, our region and surely, Singapore. In such a troubled environment, what can we do? First and foremost, we must remain one united people. We have come through repeated challenges over the last six decades, because we worked together, took adversity in our stride and kept faith with one another. We painstakingly created the harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society. We avoided the schisms and factions that have troubled other societies. In recent years, we have tackled sensitive issues that could easily have caused deep rifts among our people. Two years ago, we allowed Muslim nurses to wear the tudung with their uniforms. Last year, we repealed section 377A of the Penal Code while safeguarding the institution of marriage. We handled these issues firmly and fairly, in a way that maintained mutual trust and understanding between different communities and kept ourselves together. You may think, "Nothing happened, so what was the fuss about? We should just have done it – and a long time ago". But look what has happened elsewhere – opposing groups getting worked up, mobilising their followers, pitting citizens against each other and dividing society. This could easily have happened here too and it can still happen to us. Many foreigners, especially our critics in the West, do not understand this about us.”
“It is a vicious cycle. Countries trust others less and less to play by the rules. Therefore, they are increasingly going their own way, and "on-shoring" or "friend-shoring" supply chains. This then triggers a tit-for-tat response from the other side. We are once again heading towards a world where protectionism is a default and trade rules are secondary, like what happened in the period between the First and Second World Wars. The economic cost to the world will be very high. The The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently estimated that fragmentation of the global economy could, in the long run, reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 7% cumulatively. Seven percent is a very high figure – but I think it is a conservative estimate because the reality is probably worse. Seven percent is the effect on goods and services not traded, but deglobalisation will also impact on the exchange of ideas and innovation, technology development and diffusion, as well as capital flows and cross-border financing – all of which to growth prosperity and human well-being. These are all vital for economic growth, especially for an open economy like ours. A deep decoupling of the world economy would undo what has taken countries decades to collectively achieve. What can we do? The current global situation, both strategic and economic, is graver than we have experienced for a very long time. Singapore has survived difficult periods before – the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, and closer to home, the proxy fights in Vietnam and Cambodia; the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Crisis; public health crises like SARS and most recently, COVID-19. But what we have now is unprecedented.”
“This has very serious implications, especially for small, open economies. For Singapore, a stable, well-functioning international trading system is vitally important. We cannot survive other than as an open economy. We rely on the free flow of trade and investments across the world and a common set of rules that applies to all countries, no matter their size. This has helped us greatly to compete against bigger countries, attract investments from around the world and to grow. For the last few decades, there was a broad international consensus supporting globalisation. Countries were lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers, harmonising rules, seeking win-win economic cooperation. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies talked about their vision of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Even when countries clashed on political or security issues, they still continued to do business with each other. And, from time to time, countries might violate the rules set by the World Trade Organization (WTO), but even then, the exceptions had to be justified and defended. Now, things have changed. All over the world, countries are prioritising domestic and national security considerations. Countries no longer talk about trade being win-win. Too often, when countries quarrel, their bilateral trade becomes embroiled in these disputes. They impose restrictions on imports or exports. It depends – if you need my imports more than me, I restrict my exports. If it is the opposite, you will restrict your imports. So, sometimes it is high-tech items like semiconductor chips and sophisticated machinery. Sometimes it is agricultural products like bananas, barley or wine. They seek to inflict maximum political pain while blandly denying any hostile intent.”
“Singapore is good friends with China, and we are also old friends of Taiwan. Singapore rigorously upholds our “One China” policy and continues to support the peaceful development of cross-strait relations. China considers Taiwan as the most important issue and the “One China” principle to be the reddest of its red lines. But in the West, an alternative narrative is gaining currency – that the problem in cross-strait relations is a broader ideological issue of democracy versus autocracy. This is even though most countries, including most Western countries, have officially adopted “One China” policies. This difference of views is very worrying. Right now, tensions over Taiwan are high. All sides continue to make moves, responding to one another. After Dr Tsai Ing-Wen met US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during her recent stopover in the US, China launched three days of extensive military exercises all around Taiwan. A CCTV report described them as "comprehensive and precise simulated attacks on the key targets in the island and surrounding waters". The risks of a miscalculation or mishap are growing. US-China relations will not improve anytime soon. Even if the two powers avoid a direct conflict, which thankfully, I believe neither side wishes to see, enduring enmity and bad relations between them will be very costly for both and will mean big trouble for the rest of the world. It is a very worrying outlook, but we still hope that relations between the US and China do not get worse, and that both sides can keep lines of communications open and with time, gradually repair their relationship on the basis of mutual trust and respect. The third big issue is that the global multilateral trading system is under siege.”
“Between the US and China, there is deep mutual suspicion and fundamental mistrust. In America, the Democrats and Republicans disagree with each other on almost everything. But they are united on one issue – China. The prevailing view in America is that their efforts to work out a cooperative relationship with China have failed, and China’s growing strength and assertiveness is becoming a grave threat to US interests and values. And therefore, the US must go for “extreme competition” and maintain “as large a lead as possible”, in their words, over China, in foundational technologies such as semiconductor chips, quantum technology, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology and green technologies – all the things that count. And it is not just the US government. Negative perceptions are prevalent among the population too. The latest Pew survey found that over 80% of adults in the US have an unfavourable view on China, and nearly 40% – four in 10 – would describe China as an enemy of the US rather than as a competitor or partner. Surveys in China similarly show that Chinese public perception of the US has deteriorated. More consequentially, China’s leaders have become convinced that the US is seeking to “contain, encircle and suppress” China, in the words of President Xi Jinping. They believe that Washington wants to hold back China’s growth and weaken the Communist Party of China’s hold on power. They say the East is rising and the West is declining, and they think the time has come for China to take its rightful place in the world. They consider issues like Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet to be China’s domestic matters, vitally affecting its security and integrity, on which they see no room for discussion or compromise. But the most dangerous flashpoint of all is Taiwan.”
“The US and NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with more and more sophisticated military equipment – like longer-range artillery, the Patriot air defence system and main battle tanks. If the Ukrainians, using these Western-supplied weapons, make a breakthrough on the battlefield, we cannot predict how Russia may react. What does this mean for the rest of the world? Even short of worst-case scenarios, the impact is bad. The war continues to disrupt global energy, food and fertiliser supplies. We are all feeling it in higher prices. There are also significant implications on international relations. Relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, the US and Europe, have completely broken down and will not return to normal anytime soon. Two months ago, Russia suspended its participation in the New Start Treaty, its only remaining nuclear arms control treaty with the US. For China, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has presented a difficult problem. The US and Europeans want China to use its influence to get Russia to stop the invasion. China would prefer not to aggravate Europe and the US, by providing military support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. But China is hard-pressed to condemn Russia’s invasion, or pressure Russia to stop fighting. It shares a very long land border with Russia, and it has to consider its own substantial relations with Russia. So, the war has made it difficult for China to improve relations with Europe, even though I think both sides would like to do so. It has also complicated China’s already very troubled ties with the US. Which brings me to the second big issue – which is US-China relations. When I visited China last month, this was on everyone’s minds. Likewise, in all my recent meetings with US visitors.”
“Also last month, at the invitation of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, President Halimah made a State Visit to Malaysia, where she was very warmly received. Our two countries have much to gain by working together, both in new areas, like the green and digital economies, also on ongoing projects like the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link between Singapore and Johor Bahru. We are building the RTS Link marine viaduct across the Straits of Johor, starting from both sides and meeting in the middle. Construction is progressing steadily. The next big milestone is when we complete the drop-in span to join up both sides of the marine viaduct. And I look forward to witnessing this with Prime Minister Anwar before too long. So, with our immediate neighbours – Indonesia and Malaysia – relations are stable and encouraging. But further afield, the situation has turned much more troubling, even dangerous. Singaporeans need to realise the gravity of the external situation. We are facing not just one storm, but several. And let me highlight three big ones. First is the war in Ukraine. After more than a year, the war is deadlocked, with no good outcome in sight. Neither side can win, nor can either afford to lose. In fact, things have been at a stalemate since last November. The Ukrainians are understandably reluctant to stop fighting before they reclaim all of their territory, but this will be very difficult. The Russians are most unlikely to be defeated entirely despite heavy losses. They have a large population and can still conscript more troops and mobilise more resources. There is always a danger of the conflict escalating.”
“This would have soured the entire relationship, which would have benefited neither side. I am very happy to have now settled these issues with President Jokowi. We signed the agreements in Bintan a year ago. Now, both governments have ratified them. So, we are almost there. Both governments have submitted the new FIR arrangements to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for approval. Once the ICAO has done so, all three agreements – FIR, DCA and ET – can come into force simultaneously. By putting these long-standing issues to rest, Indonesia and Singapore can move forward with greater confidence and trust and focus our energies on collaboration. We are working on promising new areas, like the digital economy, sustainability and renewable energy. We are making headway. We signed several memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on them when President Jokowi visited Singapore last month. With Malaysia, we also have a broad cooperation agenda. It spans many different areas like trade, investments and connectivity. At the same time, we have some significant bilateral issues to tackle, including Singapore’s development works at Pedra Branca, delimitation of maritime boundaries, water issues and airspace issues. I hope to make progress on them with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. It is important that both sides manage these issues well and not allow any single issue to dominate and disrupt our overall bilateral relationship. I am glad that we are maintaining frequent exchanges at all levels with Malaysia. I hosted Prime Minister Anwar in January for his introductory visit, and we met again recently in Boao in Hainan Island and took our discussions further.”
“Mr Speaker, the last time Parliament opened in 2020, we were in the heat of battle against COVID-19. I am grateful we have come through the pandemic well. With minimal casualties, livelihoods intact and our people united. Not many countries can say this. We owe much to our healthcare and frontline workers’ steadfast efforts and sacrifices, and to Singaporeans for your trust and support. I am glad that we have smoothly transitioned to living with the virus. Last month, this House took stock of what we did right and where we need to do better the next time. Now we must stay firmly focused on the challenges ahead. As a small country, our external environment has a huge impact on us. Thankfully, relations with our closest neighbours are stable and positive. With Indonesia, we have made major progress. Last year, President Jokowi and I witnessed the signing of a set of three bilateral agreements under an Expanded Framework, comprising the Flight Information Region (FIR) Agreement, the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and the Extradition Treaty (ET). Airspace, military training, and extradition – these are three long-standing sensitive issues in our bilateral relationship, going back decades. Airspace is vital for Singapore, and politically important to the Indonesians. The FIR agreement provides both sides a workable way forward. The DCA covers Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) training, including in traditional areas in the South China Sea. It is particularly important for our Air Force and Navy. The ET is something that Indonesia has long pressed for, but it was not straightforward to do because our legal systems are so different. If we had left these issues unresolved, they would have festered and quite likely one day turned rancorous.”
“We must all never fail to serve Singaporeans to the best of our ability, responsibly and honestly, and uphold this institution of Parliament as the foundation of a robust and healthy democracy. I call on all Members in this House, old and new, Government and Opposition, elected and nominated, to weigh the facts, vote with your conscience and join me to do your duty to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motions. [Applause.]”
“Online, people call this Raeesah-gate, after Watergate. And just like in the original Watergate affair, while investigating Ms Raeesah Khan’s transgressions, the Committee unexpectedly stumbled upon a cover-up by Workers' Party leaders, even more serious than the original offence. The Committee did not expect this. But, now, with the findings before us, it is our responsibility, Parliament's responsibility, for the Members of Parliament (MPs) to take the necessary and appropriate course of action. Mr Speaker, Sir, trust is crucial for democracy to work well. Being truthful is fundamental to establishing trust. Honesty is non-negotiable. If you tell lies, how can the public trust you? If someone in a position of responsibility tells lies and visibly gets away with it, how can the public trust the system? If Parliament condones lying among its own Members, how can Singaporeans trust the institution of Parliament? If we let flagrant, egregious transgressions pass, it will erode trust in our leaders, respect for Parliament and support for our whole political system, and Singapore will be heading for trouble. As the longest serving Member of this House, I feel a greater responsibility for this than most. When I first entered this House 37 years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr E W Barker and Mr Jek Yeun Thong were still Members. Six of the 10 who signed the Separation Agreement on 9 August 1965. I have witnessed first-hand how the founding generation built up this place and handed it to us in good shape. For me, this is a sacred trust. And it should be a sacred trust to every MP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we take a Western or an Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly. The public will mistrust not only individual leaders, or particular political parties, but the whole political system. This has happened too often elsewhere. If that happens, what do you do? What can you do? How can democracy function when there is no one we can trust to put in charge? How do you put Humpty Dumpty together again? How do you restart from zero? Press reset? A democracy not founded on integrity stands on shaky ground and will sooner or later totter. If instead of trust being “the coin of the realm”, as George Shultz puts it, lies become “the accepted currency of public life”, as John Major said, all the sound and fury of contestation and debate will signify nothing good for the country. As Singapore politics grows more competitive, we must make sure that the competition is honest, impartial and above-board, where the system runs properly and our institutions remain sacred and respected by all, where good people work together constructively to serve Singaporeans, wherever they stand on the political spectrum. And most basic of all, where Singaporeans can trust those who represent them to conduct themselves honestly and honourably, and act on behalf of the public and of Singapore. Mr Speaker, the Committee Report is long and detailed, but the core issues are few and stark. We have scrutinised Ms Raeesah Khan’s actions, and their rights and wrongs. She has admitted her wrongdoings and will be punished appropriately for them. We thought the matter could be closed off straightforwardly, but there turned out to be a much larger problem.”
“Absent that sense of shame, people may comply with laws for fear of punishment, but they will lack the moral compass to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and to take responsibility when they have fallen short of the standards expected of them. What I personally find most disappointing in the Workers' Party narrative and in their response, including in this House today, is the complete absence of any admission that the three MPs have done anything wrong. There is no contrition. Whether from a Western or an Eastern view, if lack of shame becomes the public norm, our political system will break down, progressively and irreversibly.”
“We are told that politicians are 'all the same' and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life." "But politicians are not 'all the same'. And lies are just not acceptable." "To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead." "But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.” "If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is … nothing and no-one. And where are we then?" "If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in government will be lost too." John Major's is a Western view, but in Eastern societies, too, norms and values are crucial. In fact, even more than in Western philosophy because Western philosophy says "checks and balances" but Eastern philosophy says "your virtue, your moral standing, that is what gives you the right to govern." In Confucian thought, there are four social guidelines, there is "四维", that hold a state together: rituals, righteousness, probity and shame – "礼义廉耻". Probity, or desisting from corruption, is about upright behaviour; it is a norm that can be enforced using laws. But shame, a reaction to wrongdoing, is a moral disposition; it is about one's own sense of right and wrong, whether we know we have done the right thing, or we know we have fallen short even when nobody said so. That has to come from within ourselves, from our own values, our own consciences.”
“If the governing party falls short and Singaporeans come to deem an opposition party more honest and incorruptible, more competent and more trustworthy, then the governing party should be voted out, and that opposition party should be voted in to form the next government. We cannot assume that the PAP will always continue in Government. Nor can we assume that the Workers' Party, or some other opposition party, or any other opposition party, will always stay in the opposition. I do not know when, or how, there will be a change of governing party in Singapore one day. My job as party leader is to make sure the PAP governs well to the best of its ability, so that it retains the mandate of the people for as many elections as possible. But my duty as the leader of the country is also to maximise the chances that whichever party wins future elections, it will uphold and be held to the same high standards of proper conduct and honesty as the PAP, so that our democratic system can continue to operate properly, whichever party is in charge, and would not go down the drain. Because a small island city-state like Singapore – the only one in the world like this – needs a strong, effective and good government, whoever leads it. With our lives and future at stake, everyone participating in the system must be held to the same standards. There can be no excuses, no double standards and no pardoning of inexcusable behaviour, just because the offending party portrays itself as the underdog. Mr John Major, the former British Prime Minister recently made a speech, triggered by "partygate", I am sure, lamenting the state of British politics today. It was a cri de coeur cry from the heart. Let me read you a few excerpts: "There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time.”
“That is how every parliamentary democracy evolves and it was precisely because I recognised this, that on election night in 2020, after the Workers' Party won a second GRC in Sengkang, I offered to make Mr Singh the Leader of the Opposition and equip him with the resources and support to play this role. That is the way a responsible government can help a credible, responsible opposition to emerge and contribute to the maturing of our political system. But the office of Leader of the Opposition carries certain responsibilities: setting the tone for opposition MPs; enforcing standards of conduct on his own party; and, above all, maintaining his own integrity and keeping himself beyond reproach. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a blank cheque. Mr Speaker, integrity is the linchpin of democracy. The stakes of today's debate might have been lower if the opposition were a negligible presence, as they were from 1966 until the 1980s. The PAP was overwhelmingly dominant. The public, generally, had low expectations of opposition parties and politicians. The tone of the country and its governance was set by the PAP and the high standards that the PAP imposed on itself. But with Singapore heading towards a more contested political landscape, the competence and honesty of the opposition is no longer an inconsequential matter. The question of "what are the right values and how should we uphold them?" becomes of fundamental importance for both the opposition and the governing party. Every election, henceforth, will be about who wins the mandate to run this country. If the system is working properly, the governing party will be re-elected so long as it remains honest, competent and trusted.”
“They say, why not just let the matter rest? Can we not find a compromise solution? After all, it would be easier for the Government not to have to pursue this matter against the three MPs. We have a full enough agenda. But, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP is the Government, we will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to uphold the right norms in this House and to imbue Singaporeans and their leaders with the values critical to sustain trust in the system and critical to our success. Mr Singh succeeded Mr Low Thia Khiang as Secretary General of the Workers' Party. Mr Low served for a very long time – 30 years as an MP, 17 years as party leader. He sat opposite me, where Mr Singh now sits. Mr Low was a formidable political opponent, but he was a patriotic Singaporean. He set a different tone for the Workers' Party. He said he hoped the Workers' Party could help to build a "First World Parliament" in Singapore. He must be saddened that, instead, this is what his successor has done. Because what has happened is a betrayal of what Workers' Party claimed that it stood for. But judging by Mr Low Thia Khiang's public comments, he is confident the party can ride this out. And it need not be a setback for our democracy either, provided we hold Mr Singh and his colleagues accountable for dishonouring the standards of this House, and also for possibly breaking the law. Mr Speaker, we are all engaged in the same project – to build up Singapore's democracy and create a political system that will serve Singaporeans well for many years to come, and, to do that, we must uphold the right norms and reinforce the right values. I know Singaporeans want to see more political contestation and I accept that. I expect that is the way Singapore will go in the longer term.”
“If the charges are filed, Mr Pritam Singh and also Mr Faisal Manap can defend themselves in Court. The Court will have to be satisfied that their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, if they are innocent, they have nothing to fear. I commend this course of action to the House. And if I were Mr Singh, I would vote in favour of both Motions. Fine Ms Khan, because she is guilty beyond doubt. In fact, Mr Singh's own party member Mr Dennis Tan, who was on the Committee, thinks she should be fined more heavily for the second offence. And if Mr Singh maintains that he and his fellow Workers' Party leaders have done nothing wrong, he should also vote in favour of referring his own case and that of Mr Faisal Manap to the PP. Indeed, he should demand a Court trial, in order to have the full opportunity to defend himself, to vindicate his reputation and clear his name. That is what I would do if I were Mr Singh. Regrettably, pro-Workers' Party voices on the social media have taken quite a different tack. Before the matter can be conclusively determined, if necessary, in Court, they are doing their best to confuse the issues and rouse sympathy. They are asking the public to clear the names of the three MPs, suggesting that referring the case to the PP is political persecution. What they are really saying is this: do not look too carefully at what Mr Singh did. Just remember who he is. He is the Opposition that you voted for. He is the Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of his position, he should not be referred to the PP and any action against him must, by definition, be politically-motivated. Because who he is is more important than what he has done – even if he may have committed a crime. Some people may be taken in and sympathise with this story.”
“And this, I hope, Members appreciate, if true, is a very grave matter. So, Members must decide what Parliament will now do about this. Can we pretend nothing happened? Or if that is too much to stomach, given the strong evidence laid out by the Committee, perhaps we lower our standards just a little, note that untruths were told but argue that it was, after all, not so serious a lie and no harm was done. If we do either of these things, we, too, would become complicit in dishonouring and demeaning Parliament. We must take the transgressions seriously and act on it and I am glad that is the conclusion the Committee has come to and recommended to the House. What alternative choices did the Committee have? It could have recommended to Parliament to administer a token slap on the wrist. But that would show that we were taking a very serious matter rather lightly. Worse, by lowering our norms, we would be telling Singaporeans that it is really not so bad for elected leaders to lie. Alternatively, the Committee could have recommended that Parliament itself metes out an appropriately heavy penalty. This is something that Parliament has the power to do. But had the Committee recommended that and Parliament decided on the penalty itself, the Opposition would surely have cried foul and accused the PAP of using its majority to persecute the Opposition. In fact, they are already insinuating this as a smokescreen to obscure the real issue, that the Workers' Party had lied while under solemn oath. I believe, therefore, that what the Committee recommends is the best way forward. Since a criminal offence appears to have been committed, let Parliament refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. Let the Public Prosecutor consider the evidence afresh. Let the system work.”
“It means lying despite solemnly affirming that you will tell the truth, in this case, not once, not twice, but repeatedly, over many hours of extensive questioning and on several days. The Committee's assessment is that these untruths were not accidental or incidental errors but deliberate premeditated acts done with a definite intent to mislead and to deceive. They are not just breaches of parliamentary privilege but, if proven in Court, they amount to perjury, lying under oath, and perjury is a serious criminal offence. So, there are two distinct problems. One, whether the three Members of Parliament instructed Ms Khan to lie; and, two, whether the three Members of Parliament themselves lied under oath. Both, if established, reflect very badly on the Workers' Party leaders and, in particular, on the Leader of the Opposition. Both issues, if not dealt with properly, will dishonour Parliament and bring this august institution into disrepute. Some asked: was Ms Khan not the one who lied? Why are the Workers' Party leaders being treated more harshly? As the Leader of the House noted just now, if the Committee is right, then Mr Singh and his fellow Workers' Party leaders themselves lied and presented untruths to the Committee. They lied under oath to protect themselves, to cover up their role and to push the blame solely onto Ms Khan, claiming that she and other witnesses, like Ms Loh Pei Ying, had lied to the Committee. This is, indeed, more serious than what Ms Khan did, if it is so. By lying under oath, they sought to frustrate the Committee process. They displayed the same kind of misconduct that the Committee was set up to address. They betrayed the trust reposed in them as Members of Parliament and, not least, Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition.”
“Ms Raeesah Khan lied in Parliament twice on 3 August last year and the third time when questioned two months later on 4 October. Subsequently, she admitted to lying to Parliament. To deal with this breach of Parliamentary privilege, we convened the Committee of Privileges. Ms Raeesah Khan was called up, as were other witnesses. The Committee deliberated extensively before reaching a reasoned conclusion that Ms Khan was guilty and should be fined for each occasion she lied. I hope all Members can agree with these findings and the penalty to be imposed on Ms Khan. But in the process of the Committee's deliberations, two other significant issues arose. The Committee has drawn them to Parliament's attention and suggested to Parliament how to deal with them. First, whether the three Workers' Party leaders, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Sylvia Lim, had instructed Ms Khan to continue with her lie in Parliament. If they did, this is surely as serious or more serious than misconduct as Ms Khan speaking an untruth in Parliament. Parliament will need to deal with this, but only after we have cleared the second even graver matter and this graver matter is, as the Leader has explained, whether, after having taken solemn oaths to tell the truth, the three Workers' Party leaders told untruths to the Committee of Privileges in order to cover up their instructions to Ms Khan to continue lying. It became clear to the COP that there were striking contradictions between what the three Members of Parliament claimed to the Committee were their honourable intentions and the hard evidence of what they actually did or very often failed to do. And there were serious inconsistencies even between the accounts of the Workers' Party leaders. Being untruthful under oath is no small matter.”
“An enormous asset. The opposite happened in other countries, for example, in the US and the UK. In the US, trust in the political system has all but broken down. Three-quarters of Republican voters have been made to believe that the last presidential election in 2020 was stolen, that Mr Biden is not a legitimate president and Mr Trump should be the president today. How do you uphold a system when a large segment of the population is convinced that the elected government is illegitimate? Every issue is politicised, government becomes gridlocked, the country suffers. And that is a key reason why many Americans refused to be vaccinated or to wear masks, why they revolt against measures to keep themselves safe and why they have suffered so many COVID-19 deaths. Or look at the ongoing uproar in Britain about the "partygate" scandal in Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments no less. The scandal has been attributed to failures of leadership and judgement in an official government report. By ignoring its own rules, the current UK government has caused a severe breakdown of trust and lost credibility in its COVID-19 controls. Singapore may be a "high trust" society today, but nothing guarantees that we will always remain one. It is essential that we steadfastly maintain our high standards, ensure that we have leaders who embody the right values, call out wrongs when wrongs are done, mete out punishment when punishment is due, preserve the sanctity of our institutions, never take public trust for granted and never allow lies, half-truths and falsehoods to become the accepted norm in politics. That is what is at stake as we deliberate Parliament's response to the Committee of Privileges' Report.”
“But if we allow ourselves to slacken, loosen standards here just a bit, overlook a lie there just this time, the virtuous cycle will stutter and start to fail. What is the key factor that keeps this virtuous cycle going, keeps Singapore on the up and not on the down? It is trust. On his 100th birthday, Mr George Shultz, the former US Secretary of State, reflected on this. This was a year and a bit ago, December 2020. He wrote an op-ed upon reaching 100 years old and he said it was one of the most important lessons in his long life that trust is the "coin of the realm". "When trust was in the room," he wrote, "good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details." We saw how this worked in the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust was a key factor why some countries did better than others. I have been saying this for two years but, recently, there was a study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal, which confirmed this. It studied multiple countries and found that countries with high levels of trust and, together with low corruption, saw lower infection rates and higher vaccine coverage because the people's trust in government and their trust in one another made much more difference to the outcome than the resources spent on healthcare and even whether they had a universal healthcare system or not. What mattered mostest was: did they trust one another, did they trust their leaders? Singapore is fortunate to be one of these "high trust" societies. We have tried to build upon it during the pandemic but it is something that we have today because we have nurtured it for decades and built it up patiently, assiduously, step by step, never allowing it to be eroded and, therefore, having this with us when we go into battle.”
“But he deliberately chose not to because he knew that, without the need to contest and win elections, the governing party would, over time, become complacent and flabby and that would be disastrous for Singapore. So, the founding fathers took the more robust way. They kept politics contestable, they built up institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the Police and Armed Forces and, later, the Elected President and the Council of Presidential Advisers to enable Singapore to operate on a more resilient basis, not dependent on a few key people pulling all the levers, pushing all the buttons, making everything work. Still, to operate these institutions, you need good people and they needed to recruit, train and deploy Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges, civil servants, experts in many fields, people of ability and commitment with a sense of public service and, above all, with honesty and integrity whom Singaporeans could rely upon to do their duty, put Singapore first and make this country succeed. And that is how the system we have today came to be. It is incumbent on all of us, each succeeding generation, to protect and build upon this system that we have inherited and this requires us to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law. If we can do that consistently, persistently, unflinchingly, then we have a shot at making things work. People can trust our leaders, systems and institutions, our democracy can mature, deepen and grow more resilient. As both the governed and the governing embrace and express the right norms and values, Singapore can continue to flourish.”
“All too easily – a slip here, a blind eye there, a fudge, a trim – and gradually things go downhill. The texture of politics changes. Respect for politicians declines. After a while, the electorate comes to think this is the norm and you cannot expect better. And so, standards get debased, trust is eroded and the country declines further. Many political systems today would be quite unrecognisable to their founding leaders. Ben-Gurion's Israel has morphed into one which can barely form a government, despite four general elections in two years. Meanwhile, a stream of senior politicians and officials in Israel face a litany of criminal charges, some have gone to jail. While Nehru's India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder, though it is also said that many of these allegations are politically-motivated. What is to prevent Singapore from going down the same road? Nothing. We are not intrinsically smarter or more virtuous than other countries. Modern Singapore does not come born with a fail-safe mechanism. Our founding fathers did their best to build strong foundations and institutions. Even after the Barisan Socialis, which was then the main opposition party, decided to vacate its seats in Parliament in 1966 and left the field entirely to the PAP, our founding fathers maintained our parliamentary democracy and multi-party system. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew once explained at that time, with the PAP completely dominant, he could have changed the Constitution and made this a one-party state.”
“As Workers' Party cadre Ms Loh Pei Ying, who was Mr Pritam Singh's former assistant, told the Committee: "It pains me greatly, but to me, beyond anything else, it's important to be truthful to my country". I believe every Member of this House will agree with her. Our democratic system also depends on the people of Singapore: voters endorsing, insisting on and backing the same norms and values, so that they can discern for themselves – as Ms Loh did – when something is wrong and hold accountable those in power, or aspiring to power, when their actions fall short of these high standards. That is how a democracy can function properly. Inculcating voters and their leaders with the right values is the work of decades. It takes unremitting effort and passion, and it does not always succeed. Most countries are founded and start off on the basis of high ideals and noble values. But more often than not, beyond the founding leaders and the pioneer generation, over decades and generations, gradually things change. Things start off with passionate intensity. The leaders, who fought for and won independence, are often exceptional individuals of great courage, immense culture and outstanding ability. They came through the crucible of fire and emerged as leaders of men and nations. They are the David Ben-Gurions, the Jawaharlal Nehrus and we have our own, too. Imbued with enormous personal prestige, they strive to meet the high expectations of their peoples to build a brave new world and shape a whole new future for their peoples and for their countries. But beyond that initial fervour, succeeding generations often find it hard to sustain this momentum and drive. They start out as healthy democracies with idealism and zeal. But over time, the tone of the society changes.”
“It is where the most important matters of state are discussed, laws are enacted, supplies of money are voted, with the Government setting the direction and proposing policies, while answering to the public through Parliament and the Opposition holding the Government to account while also being a government-in-waiting should the ruling party lose the support of the people. To fulfil its vital role, Parliament must be respected and its Members, processes and proceedings must be trusted. Clear norms and incorruptible values are essential to protecting the dignity and standing of Parliament. The system cannot work if the standing of Parliament is called into question. This is why we need to set the right norms of conduct among Parliamentarians and guard them carefully. Tell the truth always and do the right thing by Singapore, even when it is hard or awkward; in fact, especially when it is hard or awkward. If something goes wrong, or something wrong has been done, own up and take responsibility. Do not hide, dodge or spin further lies, to obfuscate and cover up the original fib. The right norms can only be upheld by people with the right values because norms are not merely social conventions that people comply with for appearance's sake. They have to be expressions of internal values that people believe in and hold dear. MPs must be people with integrity at their core, who speak and act in an upright manner, always putting duty before self, and country before party. And our highest duty – our ultimate loyalty – is not to our party, but to Singapore. That is why when taking office, MPs swear "to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore". In fact, this applies to everyone engaged in Singapore politics, MP or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Order Paper, we are debating what actions Parliament should take, having received the Report of the Committee of Privileges. But as the Leader of the House told us just now, the broader issue before us is how democracy should work in Singapore. What are the institutions, the norms, the values, that are essential for our democratic system to function properly? How do we apply these general principles to specific cases, like the one before us now, so as to protect these institutions, norms and values? And how can we secure our democracy for the future, so that it can long deliver happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation? These are the three more fundamental questions that I wish to discuss today. The quality of a country's democracy hinges on its people's values: what they judge to be right or wrong, what they deem important, the causes they espouse, the ideals they embrace. Whichever example you look at, at whatever point in history, you will find that good and functioning democracies have clear, strong norms. These norms are upheld both by the governed and those who govern them, or those who aspire to govern them one day. That is how healthy democratic systems can elect good, incorruptible people with the right values and drive a virtuous cycle where good democracy begets good governance, and good governance begets good politics. This cycle must be underpinned and sustained by strong institutions. Parliament sits at the apex of our system of democracy.”
“The Government has established coordinating processes and structures at various levels to bring together Ministries and agencies for Whole-of-Government (WOG) decision-making and information-sharing. These include meeting platforms chaired by the Minister or Permanent Secretary, that organise Ministries to deliberate on strategic issues and trade-offs within a sector, committees or workgroups focusing on specific projects that require alignment across several agencies, and work processes to ensure all relevant agencies are consulted before major initiatives are approved by the Cabinet. Agencies working on new policy initiatives are expected to take into account the implications of existing legislation on their policy proposals. Should their initiatives require legislation to be introduced or amended, they will work closely with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and all relevant stakeholders. Proposals for major policies and new legislation, incorporating feedback from the relevant Ministries including on their fiscal impact and public communications requirements, are also tabled to Cabinet for approval. COVID-19 has been a stress test of inter-agency collaboration, both in developing new policies in a prompt manner, as well as in operationalising them. On the whole, our public agencies have adapted quickly and acquitted themselves well. But there will always be room for improvement and lessons to be learnt. We therefore continually review our processes and outcomes, to identify and remedy any shortcomings, and to strengthen inter-agency alignment and communication across the whole of Government.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I do not think I need to respond very elaborately to Mr Leong. On his first point, we have addressed the questions extensively. He does not add anything new to it. In fact, it reinforced the problem. Exactly. Mr Pritam Singh is not the only one making this argument. And if everyone makes this argument, everyone is going to be in trouble. As for the other issues of rebalancing and not a revolution, I think these are matters which can eminently be discussed and are suitable for debate in this House. But it is not the focus of my speech today. I am talking here about which way Singapore politics is going, what their risks are in going in this direction, what we must do in order to make it turn out right and how it has worked out well for us in Singapore. And how we must try to continue to let this work for as long as we can, to serve Singaporeans, a new generation, new desires, but the same high quality of service of Government of commitment in order that there can continue to be more Reserves to argue about in the next Parliament.”
“And they could make the same argument as you have, that it is good to have an Opposition in Singapore, "Vote for us. Somebody else will look after the government of Singapore". So, supposing that the PSP had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and the Singapore Democratic Party had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and more voters had taken such an attitude, where would Singapore be? Is that the right outcome for Singapore? So, therefore, something is wrong when you say I really want one government, but I will vote for another one. And the system will go wrong when you do that. I think it is necessary that people understand this and understand what is at stake when you elect a government of Singapore. Elections are not just about the Town Council. They are also about electing the government for the country and that is necessary for people to bear firmly in mind.”
“I appreciate Mr Pritam's explanations. I am in no way undervaluing his motivations, his passion and his desire to do right by Singapore, his wish to have a high-quality Opposition built up in Singapore. I understand that. I think it is good for Singapore that you have honest people in the Opposition, people who believe in what they are trying to do and people who will stand up and fight for their ideals. And from time to time, agree very strongly with the Government. I think that is entirely reasonably. I think it is also good that you have Opposition who take their Town Council responsibilities seriously, who look after their constituencies assiduously and conscientiously and do their best for their voters and give the voters a reason to vote for them. I think it is entirely reasonable. But I would say however, if you stand and you tell people, "Vote for me, I will be a better MP than the other one, the PAP MP", I think that is entirely reasonable. But if you say, "Vote for me; somebody else will vote for the PAP and therefore the PAP will be the government", that the economists will call a free rider. It means that you are taking advantage of somebody else who is doing the duty of electing a government for the nation. And you are not doing your part expressing your true views and preference as a voter whom you want to be the next government. And if everybody takes that attitude, then you are going to end up with a government which you do not want. Because the argument which he makes is that he is very careful, he only chooses candidates he can trust to be WP candidates. I think I will give him that. It is the right and responsible attitude to take. But I think other opposition parties may say they have been trying to get good candidates too.”
“Finally, the Ministers must decide and, from time to time, the decisions are not what the staff consensus come up with, because there are other factors, partly there are political factors, but sometimes, because the Minister must exercise judgement and take responsibility. The staff did not recommend the circuit breaker. We discussed it in Cabinet. There were many pros and cons. I said better think about this carefully, do not make a seat-of-the-pants decision; go back, sleep on it, work out the proposal, work out another proposal, 30% more draconian; come back day after tomorrow, come back tomorrow morning, talk about it, discuss, decide. Cabinet decides. It is a big decision, $5 billion dollars of Supplementary Budget. Civil servants and the elected can make this happen, can carry this. If the new government comes in, can it know how to do this and have that feel and that trust and that confidence of Singaporeans as well as their officials as well as investors and everybody else watching us? Anybody can make it happen? I think that is not in this world.”
“There are countries where the political system continually produces revolving-door Cabinets. Japan, for a time, was like that, before Mr Abe became Prime Minister a second time. Every six months, they have a new Prime Minister, a new Minister for Trade and Industry and so forth. The country did not collapse. Did it do well? No. When Mr Abe came in, and I think this time he was eight to nine years in government, eight years; and got the team together and set directions, the country moved. So, to say that the system is such that with civil servants, the SAF and so on, therefore, it does not matter who is the government, I think that is not being honest. In that case, we can dismiss all the Ministers, they can go on leave, you do not need Ministers, and anybody can be a Minister. But you need to run a system which is finely tuned and capable and you need a very capable hand at the top. The Ministers are not just presiding. The Ministers are executive. They are running the Ministries. They are expected to know all about the Ministries, every in and out of the policy. When he comes here to answer in the Committee of Supply or in case there are Parliamentary Questions, he does not refer to his Administrative Vice Minister, which is what the Japanese have or, in our equivalent, would be the Permanent Secretaries. He must master and explain it. And when he runs the Ministry, he must decide what the contents are, what the direction is, the details; and if necessary, override the officials and decide on the direction. That is how we have done COVID-19. That is how the Ministerial Task Force has operated – long discussions, all views heard.”
“But, if you say, "Vote against the Government because somebody else will look after getting the PAP Government", you just become a free rider. If you vote Opposition, "No harm, the PAP will still be there", then I think the system must fail. Because the system can only work if people vote sincerely and honestly in accordance with what they really want and to produce a result which matches their true intentions. If they vote tactically, the consequence must be, one day, they will get the result which they mark the "X" for but which they did not intend. I think that is a wrong thing to teach people to do. You go to the elections, you vote for the person whom you have trusted in, who will run your system and who will run your government. Our system is designed so that if you do that, it will be stable. If you do not do that, I think you are courting trouble. I can understand why Mr Singh, as Leader of the Opposition and not in a position yet to challenge the Government, would like to make this argument; that the PAP Government will be there, do not worry, you can safely vote for me, I am not going to be the next Prime Minister. But I put it to you that that is not the right thing to do morally, and it is not the right thing to do for Singapore. Thirdly, on the system still running, he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew and, indeed, we have designed it to the best of our ability so that if the PAP is out of government, it shall not collapse straightaway. But let me just ask you whether you really believe, that if this team, that the PAP, one day, hands over to a new Opposition party, the system can work the way it has been working? Yes, you can keep it flying. There is an autopilot, you can fly straight and level for some time.”
“On Monday, when Mr Singh spoke about trade-offs and difficulties, he said, yes, he knows that there is more spending which is necessary, there are old folks, there will be trade-offs and we can raise income taxes. He did not say GST. But he is prepared to raise income taxes. Well, these are political judgements which you have to make. But finally, you have to be able to spend what you are able to earn. I suggest that our fundamental mindset should be that we pay our way forward. And we do not depend on another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves; each time, I am not really compromising a principle. I am just getting a little bit more pregnant. I suggest that is not the way we should think as a generation. We should be thinking for the future for the next generation, and I am, as their founder, I want to help to provide for them. That is a mindset which has brought us here and that is a mindset which will serve our children and grandchildren well. On Senior Minister Teo's anecdote and Mr Pritam Singh's arguments, his arguments do not respond to the anecdote. Because the basic point is this: whatever happens, there will be Opposition MPs elected to this House. It is assured by our Constitution. It has worked out and the Opposition has been making use of this system. The WP in the last election had NCMPs, the PSP in this term has NCMPs. There will be Opposition in this House, to hold a party to account and to hold the Government to account. So, if you think that the Government is doing the wrong thing in terms of MPs' offices, in terms of MPs and the community centres, by all means, vote the Government out, put a new government in, change the government and change the policy.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition. On Reserves, I am not arguing on the technicalities of percentages, drawdowns, NIRC and so on. I am going on a basic principle. That our mindset should be: what is a rainy-day fund, what is my daily expenses, and I meet my needs. We do draw from the rainy day fund a certain stream of income to spend. We thought this over carefully and we debated this in the House. We agreed upon a rule which we felt was a fair distribution between the present and the future generations – which is that, of the expected earnings, half will be taken to be spent, half will go back and be reinvested and will be for the future. We made that decision knowing that there would be ups and downs, knowing that one day, we would be short of money, knowing that we should stick to this for quite a long time and not revisit this as soon as we need money. Mr Singh says we are not talking about bringing the Reserves down. But, as you know in financial investments, there is no certainty about Reserves going up. It can come down for any number of reasons. We may have to draw on them, like we did this year. It can come down because the markets can come down and bring the value of our investments down, despite our best management of GIC or Temasek, as it has happened from time to time. And there is a balance of risks, which we have to accept. And then, there is a fundamental mindset. What are you depending on for the future? What is for now? And I suggest that our mindset should be that what I have planned for the future, I think of as only touching them in extremist.”
“We are here by dint of will and imagination. In defiance of all the odds and of all those who said we would not make it, we did. As in all the previous crises, COVID-19 will be the occasion for us to do better, emerge stronger and become more united. Do not doubt. Do not fear. Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again. Singapore Airlines will be a great way to fly once more. [Applause.] Our economy will prosper anew. Our children and our grandchildren will continue marching forward to build a fairer, ever more just and equal society. [Applause.]”