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 4 of 32.
“These can lead individuals astray. And if there is a terrorist attack, it will cause great fear and distrust between Muslims and other Singaporeans. Beyond race, language and religion, we must work at building bridges between different groups in society. Traditionally, when we talk about social cohesion, we think of race, language and religion. But if you look at it in other dimensions, there are other gradients, other possible fault lines, other ways where we have to strengthen our social cohesion and become closer together. One of them is between unions and management. Another one is between old citizens and new. The Labour Movement is one institution vital to our social cohesion. Because of the tripartite partnership, labour management relations are a source of strength for us, unlike in many other countries where unions and managements are bitterly opposed. Whereas in Singapore, labour harmony is secured with the help of a strong National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), as we sing at every May Day Rally, slightly out of tune. But in the new economy, fewer workers are doing jobs traditionally covered by the trade unions. Many more are freelancers and professionals. So, if these new groups are left out, and that union coverage shrinks as a result of the changing work force composition, and you have more people who are not represented, not taken care of, do not feel protected and look for other solutions, it would weaken tripartism and our social compact. So, it is better for the Labour Movement to embrace them, to adopt their concerns and to become more inclusive. And that is what Mr Chan Chun Sing did in NTUC, widening the Labour Movement membership beyond trade unions, to include the NTUC U-Associates, the PMETs and freelancers.”
“And when crises hit, we go through them side by side. We have made much progress in our nation-building. We are now much more cohesive than 50 years ago, when we did not live in integrated HDB estates, townships nor did we do National Service together. Or even 20 years ago, before the 9/11 and before SARS. But nation-building will always be a work in progress, because the forces that pull Singaporeans in different directions never go away. Race, language and religion are enduring fault lines. From the start, we knew that they could divide and destroy us. Today, though our social cohesion has grown stronger, but these tidal pulls have grown stronger too. Take, for example, the influence of China and India on our own ethnic groups on Chinese Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans. These are two vast nations, even civilisations that are growing in strength and confidence. It will be a very long time before we become immune to their ethnic, cultural or economic pulls. Furthermore, the relationship is complicated, because on the one hand, we want to maintain our separate identity as a multiracial, sovereign country but, on the other hand, we want to say we speak Mandarin, we have overseas Indians, we have ethnic links, we have cultural ties, we have an inside track. So, between the two, there is a tension and we have to keep that balance and maintain our position, and our cohesion. Likewise, with the Malays. Over time, a Singaporean Malay identity has emerged clearly but still, it overlaps with the Malays in Malaysia, both in terms of race as well as religion. And the call for a global "ummah" – a community of the Muslims around the world – has powerful appeal. Furthermore, we are exposed in this Internet age to extremist and exclusivist teachings.”
“Educators have very different views, and even parents have very different views; whether it is PSLE, it will be better off without the PSLE. But we are taking the first steps to change the status quo, by doing away with T-scores. And if anyone can come up with a better alternative, certainly, we will consider it. In the end, the Government must focus on practical, effective policies. As a society, we must uphold clear social norms that minimise social barriers and encourage mobility, so as to keep our meritocratic system working well for all Singaporeans. Meritocracy is about individuals having opportunities and being successful. But we must also be successful together, as one people, one society and one nation. Not just successful alone, but successful together. And that is what social cohesion is about. We must feel a sense of social responsibility and concern for our fellow citizens, without which our society cannot hold together. What holds us together is not our pink NRICs, but the shared experiences that we build together over time. We grow up together in national schools, and we are comfortable around each other, regardless of our family backgrounds. We go through National Service, building brotherhood and camaraderie when we march and fight together. We eat at hawker centres, regardless whether we are rich and poor. So, the guidebook is wrong. We live in HDB estates. We learn the habits and preferences of different races and religions and we help neighbours out when they are in need. We travel together on public transport. And unlike in some other countries, there is no social stigma to living in public housing or taking the bus or the train. We celebrate our successes together, such as SG50 recently, and every National Day.”
“When that opens, even more students will benefit from this experience. We are doing many things to improve social mobility, but I have to be honest with you – there are no easy solutions. Many societies have faced this problem. Many ideas have been proposed and tried out. Political philosophers, statesmen, all powerful human minds have been brought to bear to try to deal with this conundrum of how to keep the society spry, open, stable and there have been no magic bullets. There have been varying degrees of success. And the most successful models perhaps are the Scandinavian countries, but even they have seen widening social inequality in recent times. We have to understand that this is what they call a wicked problem. It is a problem with no easy solution, which we will discuss rightly, repeatedly in this House through the years. Our strategy in Singapore has been more successful than most. With universal education, with home ownership, with the Government’s determination to widen opportunities and make the most of every citizen, we have made meritocracy work in Singapore. And now that our society is more settled, we must work harder to keep the pathways open and to level people up. The Government is not ideological. We are pragmatic. We will try anything that works. We will learn from our own experience and the experience of others. But we must also be realistic. Spot what looks promising, but please also recognise what will not work. Some people have suggested, I read in the newspapers, a Universal Basic Income, which is a neat idea; so far, unproven anywhere in the world. The Finns tried it and aborted the experiment early. It did not work for them. Others want to abolish the PSLE. That is in fact very hard to do.”
“So, in a group of 130-odd, there were people from 50 to 60 different schools, different language streams and very different social backgrounds. And we all had to get together because they had us mixed up properly. We went through the course together, we became good friends, and came away understanding the diversity of our society better, and how we could all work together. Because for 17 days, at that impressionable age, it is an intense experience. You are put through physical stress, you are emotionally put to your limits, you have to work with others, there is very little that you can do alone. And if you do not make friends, you are miserable. And you have to make friends across boundaries. So, I recounted this and Nicholas told me that today, well, because of the larger numbers, they cannot take in students from 60 or 70 schools at a time, but they take in students from two to three schools at a time. And nowadays, the students all speak English, but still, he finds clear differences in the cultures and interests of the students from the different schools and even in the way they use language. So, it is all speaking English, but different interests, different vocabulary, really different world perspectives, almost. At OBS, the students still learn to work in teams. So, when they pitch a tent or build a raft, or safely belay someone on an obstacle course, they must work closely with teammates; you cannot do it alone. And so, the students learn to bridge their differences and to trust one another. After 50 years, OBS remains a valuable opportunity for students to mix and interact across different schools and social groups. And we will do more of this, so we are building an extension of OBS on Coney Island.”
“But if such a perception exists and discourages promising students from applying to the school, it is not good for RI, it is not good for Singapore. RI knows what it has to do in order to uphold its egalitarian tradition. MOE will work with them, and other popular schools too, so that these schools never become self-perpetuating, closed circles. Government policies and programmes must, and do, support social mobility and meritocracy. We make sure that the fundamentals are done well – quality education, home ownership and affordable healthcare, which improve the life of every Singaporean. We give everyone a good education, and now we are investing heavily in preschool, to give all Singaporean kids and in fact, almost babies as well, a good start in life. We have a strong social safety net, with targeted assistance schemes, so that those with difficulties are not left behind and forgotten. And we intervene with extra help – whether in education, housing, healthcare or jobs training – for those who need it, to enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities. Above all, our education system must stay open. We have set aside places in primary schools for children without affiliation to these schools, and we will do more if necessary. We are expanding opportunities for students from different schools to interact, through sports, community activities and the Outward Bound School. Last year, I visited Outward Bound School for their 50th anniversary celebrations. I had attended the course 50 years ago. I chatted with Nicholas Conceicao, who is the Executive Director of OBS. And I told him that when I went to OBS 50 years ago as a 15-year-old, they only took in two students per secondary school.”
“It must not be difficult or impossible for others with talent or ability, but lacking the right backgrounds and connections, to be welcomed into the elite group, to rise to the top, to take their rightful place and make their full contribution. If this happened, not only would social mobility be frustrated, but soon, the elite group would start to only look after its own interests and fail in their duty to lead and care for the rest of society. And that would be disastrous for Singapore. Let me share something which Ong Ye Kung told me recently. Raffles Institution (RI) is one of our most popular schools. I did not go to RI, but I can tell you it is a good school. It has a strong tradition of accepting students from diverse backgrounds, so long as they make the cut. But over the years, RI has become less diverse. The new RI principal has been putting in effort, speaking to parents of potential students in primary schools across Singapore, to encourage them to apply to RI. To his surprise, some of the parents told him they did not want to send their child there. Why? Not because they thought their child could not keep up with the academic demands, but because they feared he would not be able to fit in with other more well-off students. Actually, I think this fear is unfounded. Because, in reality, RI students do come from varied backgrounds. And just over half the students live in public housing, 53%. And all the students get along confidently and comfortably. And bursaries and scholarships are readily available. So, no parent needs to worry that he cannot afford to send his child to RI or that his child will feel out of place.”
“We should frown upon those who go for ostentatious displays of wealth and status, or worse, look down on others less well-off or privileged. We should emphasise our commonalities, not accentuate our differences. And so, you see, if you look around the Chamber, everybody informally dressed, discussing serious matters of state. In any other Parliamentary chamber, in this part of the world or anywhere in the world, we will be togged up in our Sunday best, just to show that we are somebody in society. But that is not the Singapore way. There is a further obstacle to social mobility – elite groups who become closed circles, preventing outsiders from getting in. Every society has its elite. They occupy the key leadership positions in society – in government, in academia, in business, in professions, in politics. Members of the elite share similar backgrounds, interests, and social spaces. They may be alumni of the same schools, they may have done business with one another, or they may have worked in the same professions. They know one another and have interacted with one another in different roles over long periods through their lives. Such networks are natural structures in society. They are useful for people to know one another, to get things done informally, to share an implicit understanding of the interests of their society, and to feel a collective sense of responsibility for the society. Such networks are an important part of our social capital. But social networks must always remain open and permeable. They must not close up, they must not form glass ceilings.”
“In other words, if you cannot speak proper English, well, you are down there. If you can speak proper English, the doors open for you. And I think this would close the doors on many from less privileged families. And that is why the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) continues to have campaigns to teach people to speak proper English. There are other social markers that can signal and entrench class differences. Members may recall the recent fuss over an unauthorised secondary school Social Studies guidebook. It contained a table that had sweeping generalisations about people in Singapore from high and low socioeconomic status (SES). For instance, those from supposedly low SES speak Singlish, play soccer or basketball and eat at hawker centres, while those from high SES speak formal English, play golf or tennis, and only eat at fine restaurants. The story went viral. Many Singaporeans were appalled, and rightly so. Luckily, it was not a guidebook approved by MOE. Lifestyle choices can indeed become separators in society, distinguishing marks. What you eat, how you dress, where you go for holidays, what games you play, what clubs you belong to. In every society, people have ways to show who is in and who is out. You take one look at a person, or you listen to him just for a moment and you can already place him. There are distinctions in Singapore society too. But the general tone in Singapore is one of restraint. If you wear a chunky gold watch and dress flashily, instead of being impressed, people may think you are a loan shark! And that is as it should be. We must discourage people from flaunting their social advantages.”
“For example, the UK and India have long entrenched hierarchies and very fixed notions of class and or, in India, caste, which they have found very difficult to overcome. Singapore is still a young country of 50 years and notions of class and hierarchy have not yet calcified. Our social cues, our markers, our norms – they are still evolving, and we do not want them to evolve in a wrong direction and contribute to class divisions and rigidities. Social cues are important because they can become ways to pigeonhole or to exclude others, knowingly or unknowingly. In Britain, your accent and the way you speak, can define your status in society. Do you have a posh private school accent? Do you speak like a professional who has been to Oxbridge? Do you speak as a working-class person, with a local accent, regional accent? Do you speak with a Cockney twang? Then, you know you come from a certain part of London, and you are a certain class of person, not very high up the totem pole. George Bernard Shaw wrote, “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him". It is a pun. It pigeonholes him into his social class, you listen to him, you know, do you respect him, do you look down on him, do you give him orders or do you say "Yes, Sir?" And he went on to say "absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him”. And it is true, if you do not have an upper-class accent, you are marked down straightaway. And that is why Singapore schools put emphasis on teaching students to speak good English. Otherwise, those children whose parents already speak good English at home will be fine, but others will grow up at a permanent disadvantage. And without everyone being proficient, speaking standard English, Singlish will become a class marker.”
“Individual Singaporeans must see progress in their lives, must feel that the future is bright and must know that each one of us has our stake in it. This means sharing growth widely and equitably to improve the lives of all Singaporeans. It also means fully maximising the talents and efforts of our people, and getting the most capable and reliable people into the most consequential jobs where they can make the most difference and the greatest contribution. In other words, making sure there is social mobility so that our meritocracy continues to work. How do we know if our meritocracy is working? Well, first of all, every child must have a good start in life, regardless of which family you were born into. Secondly, every talent has to be recognised and developed to the fullest. Thirdly, every opportunity has to be open to anyone with the right attitude and ability. And finally, a capable person must face minimal social impediments, minimal social impediments to be accepted, to contribute and to be in a position to lead in society. And in the long term, this last part – keeping the social impediments down – is the most difficult to sustain. We want Singapore society to maintain an informal and egalitarian tone, where people interact freely and comfortably as equals, and there are no rigid class distinctions or barriers that keep good people down. This is important but it is beyond the Government’s ability to bring about alone. Society itself has to be open and permeable. Each one of us must carry those attitudes, values, and norms, that willingness to welcome talent and welcome ability to keep the system the way it is. Any society which has been stable for a long time tends to stratify and it becomes less socially mobile.”
“We are making good progress also, developing frontier technologies in artificial intelligence (AI), fintech and in advanced manufacturing. We have attracted leading AI researchers and companies to Singapore. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has built a reputation as a leading centre in AI. The Alibaba Group recently opened a research institute on AI together with NTU, which is its first outside research institute outside China. When I visited Beijing recently, I went to see Didi Chuxing. It is the equivalent of Grab or Uber. And I met some NTU graduates there. And the Didi Chief Technology Officer (CTO), Bob Zhang, told me the graduates were doing very well. So, our people are well prepared. In fintech, MAS has developed Singapore to become a fintech hub, just within the last two to three years – the right rules and the right encouragement, the right openness, the right light touch and the flower blossoms. They have green fingers. More than 400 fintech firms are now based here and so are over 30 innovation labs and research centres set up by multinational corporations (MNCs). In advanced manufacturing, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) is collaborating with multi-nationals, with local companies and universities to develop new technologies in aerospace and precision engineering. For example, we have a Joint Laboratory with Rolls Royce and Singapore Aero Engine Services that was opened last year. These projects will create good manufacturing jobs, and SMEs will benefit and so will workers, because through these research collaborations, they will get access to the new technologies. So, there are many possibilities for us to grow our economy and to reinvent and redevelop Singapore. But growth alone is not enough.”
“We are in a strong position today, because our economy has grown steadily for the past 50 years and more. We have enjoyed high growth for much of this half century – even from time to time exceeding 10% per annum. Since Independence in 1965, our GDP has grown more than 40 times in real terms. Today, our per capita income is higher than Japan's. We can see it in all our lives. Now that we have become more developed, our growth forecast is moderated to 2% to 4%. This has made some people anxious. They worry that their children will not have better lives than they themselves do today. But let me put the numbers in perspective. First, 2% to 4% is in fact quite good for a mature economy. South Korea and Taiwan are growing around this rate too. Japan is growing even slower. Second, 2%-4% is just an estimate, based on our current stage of economic development. It is not the limit to our efforts or to our ambitions. Individual companies and individual industries can certainly do better, especially if they come up with a more innovative product or if they expand into new markets, till virgin ground. We are pushing ahead with our economic upgrade. We can see the opportunities. The only question is whether we can seize them. Take, for example, the digital economy. A lot is happening around us. In Indonesia, in Jakarta, the tech scene is vibrant, buzzing with energy and talent. And Indonesia has produced four unicorns. Unicorns are not animals. They are companies which have become worth more than $1 billion; and Indonesia has four of them – Gojek, Traveloka, Bukalapak and Tokopedia. Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia have lively tech sectors too. So, if we can build up our own tech sector while connecting with theirs, we will prosper together.”
“But I plan to visit Malaysia on Saturday to meet Dr Mahathir and to tell him that I look forward to working with him again for mutual benefit. Indonesia is having elections too – local elections this year and national elections the next. I have good working relations with President Jokowi, as I did with President Yudhoyono before. I hope we can maintain friendly and productive ties with Indonesia too. Regardless of political cycles or election outcomes, we will work hard on relations with our two neighbours. Their success makes for a more peaceful and prosperous region, and that is good for us. In the President's speech, she spoke about how Singapore must remain a nation of opportunities. This, to me, is the heart of our nation-building journey. Our forefathers came to this land, because they sought better lives for themselves and their families. When Independence was thrust upon us and the odds were stacked against us, our pioneer generation dug in and slogged to build a nation. Their children and grandchildren took up the torch after them, and improved Singapore year by year. This sense of opportunity, of possibility and hope is the spark that has inspired generations of Singaporeans to dream big, and to work hard to realise those dreams. We must always sustain this confidence that we can build a better life for ourselves and future generations of Singaporeans, that we can make tomorrow better than today. Nationally, this means growing our economy, creating new possibilities and expanding our horizons. Individually, it means improving the life of every Singaporean, in a fair, open and a cohesive society. One of the top priorities of the Government is therefore to keep the economy growing.”
“If they tilt towards more conflict, it will be bad not only for the two powers, but for the rest of the world as well. That is obvious. But if relations tilt to the other extreme, and the two powers agree to divide up the world between them, and set rules that only benefit them, that would be just as detrimental, especially for small countries which will have no say. As a small and open country, Singapore will always be vulnerable to what happens around us. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew used to say, "When elephants fight, the grass suffers, but when they make love, the grass suffers also". Therefore, we must be aware of what is happening around us, and prepare ourselves for changes and surprises. Close to home, Malaysia saw a historic change last week, in its General Election. Pakatan Harapan, led by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, now forms the government. For the first time ever, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-led Barisan Nasional (BN) lost power. This is a momentous development. As Malaysia's closest neighbour, we need to pay close attention to our relationship with them. The two countries have deep historical, economic and people-to-people ties. We hope Malaysia is stable and prosperous. We have enjoyed good relations with Malaysia under the former Prime Minister Najib Razak and cooperated on major projects that benefit both sides. We have also worked with Dr Mahathir and several of his team before. We completed joint projects with Malaysia when Dr Mahathir was last the Prime Minister, including building the Second Link at Tuas. And I also know Mr Anwar Ibrahim well because he was my counterpart when I was Deputy Prime Minister. The expectations of the new Malaysian government are very high, and I think Dr Mahathir will be very busy in the days to come.”
“They feel that other countries are benefiting more from the global system, and benefiting at the expense of the US. They want to make sure that the US will always benefit directly – item by item, country by country, and not just generally, from upholding a system which is good for everybody and therefore indirectly good for the US. So, the US has made trade a top issue, especially trade with China. The trade tensions between US and China hurt business, but more broadly, their unilateral and tit-for-tat actions undermine the multilateral trading system. In other words, it is not just the two participants who are affected or the amount of, whether it is steel or aluminium or soya beans or cars which is not exported and which cannot be traded, but the whole multilateral system, the system of rules which ensures that countries big and small, have played on a level-playing field have their place in the sun and can contribute to and benefit from this international network of cooperation. And it is a system which we have depended upon in Singapore. Therefore, the trade tensions threaten global prosperity, especially for smaller countries like Singapore. The trade disputes can also affect the overall relations between the powers. The US and China are jockeying for position and advantage. The US is still stronger, especially militarily, but China is growing in power, influence and confidence. Increasingly, the US has to accommodate China. And if there is mutual distrust and rivalry between the two, it is but a small step from a trade disagreement to a wider and more serious quarrel. The US and China are far from going to war with each other, but it is not clear which way their relations will tilt.”
“We are also in the midst of a political transition, with the fourth generation (4G) Ministers preparing to take over within the next few years. Therefore, it is timely for the Government to set out a broader vision, a longer-term agenda in the President's speech. I asked the 4G Ministers to draft the President’s speech, because they would have to carry out this agenda, continuing beyond my time as Prime Minister. I gave my inputs and I endorsed what they produced, because as a Prime Minister, I am still ultimately responsible for the Government's agenda. But my main role is to be supportive, to help the 4G Ministers present and implement the agenda, and to see through as much of it as possible while I am a Prime Minister. Today, I will speak about five aspects of the President's Speech. First, coping with the external changes; next, growing our economy; third, ensuring social mobility; fourth, maintaining social cohesion; and finally, ensuring good politics and leadership. Let me start with the external environment. Globalisation, which has delivered growth and stability for many countries, including Singapore, has come under pressure. Countries, particularly in the West, are questioning the benefits of openness and free trade, and of the free movement of people. The US has been, thus far, the champion and sponsor of the post-war international system. They promoted free trade. They opened their own doors to immigrants. They were generous to others, sharing technology and know-how. They spent blood and treasure to maintain global peace. They believed that all these was in their own "enlightened self-interest". But now, many Americans no longer believe this, including the Trump Administration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. The President’s speech marks the formal opening of the Parliament session. The speech itself describes the Government’s agenda for the rest of the term. The Addenda to the speech then lay out the specific programmes of each Ministry. This is a tradition we inherited from the UK, where the Queen delivers a speech drafted by the elected Government – although it is called the Queen's Speech – and the speech highlights the Government’s legislative programme. However, our President’s speech this year is slightly different. It sets out not only the programme for the current term, but also longer-term priorities beyond this term of Government. The speech took this approach because Parliament is re-opening at a special moment in our history. The world situation is very uncertain. The global order, which is based on openness, globalisation and free trade, has come under great pressure. Relations between the big powers – especially the United States (US) and China, and also the US and Russia – are under stress. It is not clear whether the institutions and international rules that have underpinned world peace and security for the last few decades will change. And if they change, there will be significant long-term implications for Singapore. Singapore too is at a turning point. We are opening a new chapter after SG50. It will be a new phase of our social and economic development. We have the responsibility, and the privilege, of reimagining and rebuilding Singapore over the next 50 years and more. We are also going through a significant generational change. A new generation born long after Independence is coming to the fore, with different views and aspirations.”
“There is already a concerted and coordinated effort among Government Ministries to tackle these challenges together in various fora. It is, therefore, not necessary to set up a specific inter-Ministerial committee to look into these issues.”
“Only by living, working, studying, serving, playing, mourning and celebrating together do we become one people, one nation. In Singapore, we are deliberate and proactive in our approach on social integration. The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth has responded in a separate reply on our measures to promote social mixing and integration. In particular, our urban planning and public housing policies have enabled ethnic and social integration, and distributed access to good schools, healthcare, parks and recreation across the island. We design shared spaces within our neighbourhoods, such as the playgrounds and parks, shopping malls and hawker centres, and sports facilities, in order to maximise social interactions. Hawker centres are a uniquely Singaporean institution where people of all backgrounds mingle and enjoy good, affordable hawker fare. We have a good mix of flat types in each Housing and Development Board (HDB) neighbourhood. The People’s Association (PA) organises all sorts of activities in our neighbourhoods and precincts, bringing together people from all walks of life. In National Service, Singaporeans train and serve together in the defence of our nation, strengthening our national identity and fostering cohesiveness. The issues of mitigating income inequality, ensuring social mobility and enhancing social integration are critical. If we fail – if widening income inequalities result in a rigid and stratified social system, with each class ignoring the others or pursuing its interests at the expense of others – our politics will turn vicious, our society will fracture and our nation will wither. This is why this Government will strive to keep all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion or social background, together.”
“The Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) Financial Assistance Scheme, and substantial bursaries and subsidies, make quality education affordable to all. There are countless examples of children from low-income families who have risen to the top in the professions, academia, Government and the private sector with the support of these schemes. New programmes, like KidSTART, will further strengthen the support system for children from lower-income and vulnerable families. We are also investing in our people through SkillsFuture to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to improve themselves and their prospects throughout their lives. Because of these measures, our social mobility is good, compared to other countries. One study, looking at the proportion of children from the 20% of households with the lowest incomes who do well in life and later reach the 20% of households with the highest incomes, found a higher proportion in Singapore making this transition than in the United States or Denmark. We must not and will not let up on maintaining social mobility, because it will get harder to narrow and bridge class divisions as our society matures. The third aspect is social integration. We want Singaporeans to feel that we are one society; that we share experiences, values and outlooks; that we identify with and care for one another; and that we are united and will fight together in the face of adversity. Moderating income inequality and ensuring social mobility will help to strengthen our cohesion. In Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious context, we have to do even more to reinforce our shared values and actively create opportunities for interaction and integration both across different social classes and among different races and religions.”
“For example, the Workfare Income Supplement scheme tops up their cash earnings and Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts and helps them build up their retirement savings. Over the years, we have made significant changes to our system to fund this increase in social expenditure – from the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1994 to the increased reliance on Net Investment Return Contributions (NIRC) as a source of revenue. NIRC is now our largest revenue source, exceeding any single tax, including GST. But though we have far more extensive social safety nets now than we did in the 1970s and 1980s, it is important to strike the right balance: providing sufficient transfers to support those who need extra help so that they can help themselves, but without diminishing their incentive to work or discouraging enterprise. The second aspect of this is social mobility. Some degree of income inequality is natural in any economy. It gives people the motivation to strive to do their best and improve their lives. But in a fair and just society, this inequality must be tempered and complemented by social mobility. Every citizen, no matter what his social background is, must have the opportunity to do better and move up in society, based on his efforts and talent. Nobody should feel that his social position is fixed based on his parents’ income level or position in life. Many Government policies are directed at improving social mobility and countering the tendency of a mature society to stratify. Education is a critical plank of the Government’s efforts. We have made major investments in our preschools and school system to ensure that every child has access to quality education and a good start in life, regardless of income.”
“We must keep Singaporeans together. Maintaining social harmony is very much at the top of the Government’s priorities. There are three aspects of this issue: income inequality, social mobility and social integration. They are interrelated. Over the last half century, income inequality has increased in almost all developed economies, including Singapore. The problem is most acute in large cities, for they tend to be where a country’s wealth is created and concentrated. Singapore is both a city and a country. Our Gini coefficient is higher than that of many other advanced countries. But it is similar to or lower than other large metropolitan centres, such as Beijing, Shanghai, London, New York and San Francisco. Despite the longer-term trend of growing inequality, over the last 10 years, income inequality in Singapore has declined slightly. The Gini coefficient has fallen from 0.470 in 2006 to 0.458 in 2016. After we account for Government taxes and transfers, the 2016 figure was even lower at 0.402. And unlike in many developed countries, the real per capita household income of the lowest quintile increased by 40% over the same period, keeping pace with the median household. As globalisation and technological disruption have widened income inequality, the Government has, over the years, intervened more aggressively to support the less well-off. In the long term, quality education, home ownership and affordable healthcare are the fundamental means by which our citizens, especially those from poorer backgrounds, can improve their lives. In addition, we have many targeted, means-tested assistance schemes which provide transfers and subsidies to lower-income groups.”
“The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) oversees national cybersecurity strategy, operations and ecosystem development. CSA works closely with regulators across eleven sectors to protect Critical Information Infrastructure from cyber threats. Among the eleven sectors, GovTech oversees the Government sector. In its report released on 18 July 2017, the Auditor-General's Office observed weaknesses in information technology (IT) controls in four agencies. As far as we are aware, these lapses did not lead to any compromise of data or cybersecurity breach. The agencies will follow up with corrective action. To safeguard our systems and the data within, we regularly update and strengthen our IT policies. We conduct regular internal audits across the Public Service to identify shortcomings for remediation. Going forward, we will increase the number of audits, especially for the more critical and sensitive systems.”
“I have addressed this in my Ministerial Statement on 3 July 2017. Any Minister who is accused of improper conduct must clear his name publicly. He should not allow the allegations to fester and affect the reputation of the Government. If it is a serious allegation, I would expect the Minister to take Court action for defamation, unless there are other special considerations. He may also need to render an account in Parliament, particularly if the matter concerns his discharge of public duties and is of public interest. These are not mutually exclusive options. In all cases, there must be public accounting.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have already stated my position and what I consider the best way to deal with this, which is that we have stated our piece. I think Singaporeans have had a surfeit of news on this subject and I do not think they want more. If more statements are made, we will have to consider the position. And I have already explained the circumstances under which we will consider options, whether a Select Committee, a Commission of Inquiry or legal action.”
“Mdm Speaker, just to answer Mr Kok's second question. I think it would be very desirable if all the allegations to be made came out in one neat bundle and then we can deal with all of them at once. There is nothing to stop my siblings or anybody else who wants to accuse me on this subject to hold a press conference, lay out all their facts and information and charges and open themselves to questioning. And then, we will all be the wiser. It is up to them. But as of now, on the basis of what they have said, there is not a reason to convene a Select Committee or a COI. If they say more and it becomes necessary, we will consider it very seriously. And when such a formal forum is convened, I am sure there will be processes to invite, subpoena, produce witnesses, and then to have the matter resolved to the best of our ability. Whether it is the last word, that is very difficult to say because there is freedom of speech.”
“Mdm Speaker, we all practise making mountains out of molehills. It is a simple matter of a battleship telegram and three old letters which my wife came across in 38 Oxley Road, told me about. I thought they were significant and relevant to the exhibition on Mr Lee which NHB was putting up. And I facilitated and arranged for her to pass it to PMO and for PMO to send it on to the NHB exhibition. That is all. You call that representing the Prime Minister's Office? She did not have a business card from the Prime Minister's Office.”
“Mdm Speaker, I do not think I need to answer that question here. It does not concern the House.”
“Thank you. On the first point, whether I have "lim kopi" with my brother or whether I have sent my lawyer's letter which may be stronger than my kopi-o, I do not think it makes any difference. This is a concocted objection because I think my siblings did not like the message. It is the content, not the medium. Secondly, I think Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has a point. If I am a policeman, I know that there is an investigation against some family members of mine for drugs or money-laundering or something, I have to keep that confidential. I cannot go and tell him. But if it comes to my knowledge that somebody, my wife or my daughter or my son-in-law, went to a Government department and roughed up the place and demanded to be given special attention, or demanded special terms for their deal, then I had better go and tell them straightaway. So, I think it is quite clear. I mean, you need commonsense in applying the Code of Conduct but I presume that we will look for commonsense in Ministers and civil servants.”
“Mdm Speaker, on the first question whether I sue or have a Select Committee if the siblings say more things, it depends on what they say. When they say, we will assess. As I have said, if there is evidence of wrongdoing or serious evidence of alleged wrongdoing, certainly, I will have to decide what to do. And we will have to consider a Committee of Inquiry, a Select Committee, defamation or there may be other options. As for what the terms were, it is nothing very secret. Basically, as the discussions proceeded, more and more wild allegations were made against me, including that I was deceiving my father. So, at some point, I said, "No, this cannot continue. There is no point by selling you the house for $1 and then you keep going around saying that I deceived my father. That was why I sold you the house. So, I will sell you the house if you undertake to stop these allegations". They said that, "In that case, you Lee Hsien Loong undertake to help us get the house knocked down and support us having the house knocked down." I said, "I cannot do that. I do not know what you would do. I do not know whether I will agree with everything that you would do. I have already disagreed with you on NHB. So, it is best you do what you want. I keep my peace or I reserve my right to speak. You leave that separate. But I cannot sell you the house for $1 unless the accusations stop." And that is the impasse and that was the essence of the position when I dissolved Parliament.”
“Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke eloquently yesterday of the many issues she felt passionately about, the many challenges we face as a nation, and why we should be focusing on them and not being distracted by this controversy. Mr Low Thia Khiang called on everyone to focus on rallying Singaporeans to be united in facing the challenges and not be participating in a divisive dispute. I fully agree with them. We must all get back to work. This is not soap opera. Come together, tackle the challenges before us. My team and I will do our best to continue building this Singapore, keeping it safe and making it prosper. Thank you very much. [Applause.]”
“For me, the most difficult and emotional moment in that whole week came when I was reading the eulogy at the state funeral service. When I recounted how, when I was about 13, my father had told me: "If anything happens to me, please take care of your mother, and your younger sister and brother." Singapore was then part of Malaysia. We were in a fierce fight with the central government and the communalists. My father did not tell me, but he knew his life was in danger. Fortunately, nothing happened to my father then. He brought up the family. And I thought we had a happy family, and he lived a long and full life. Little did I expect that after my parents died, these tensions would erupt, with such grievous consequences. And after so many years, I will be unable to fulfil the role which my father hoped I would. So, I hope, one day, these passions will subside and we can begin to reconcile. At the very least, I hope that my siblings will not visit their resentments and grievances of one generation upon the next generation. And further, that they do not transmit their enmities and feuds to our children. I am sad that this episode has happened. I regret that, in addressing public accusations against me, I have had to talk about private family matters in Parliament. My purpose has not been to pursue a family fight, but to clear the air and to restore public confidence in our system. This is how the system is supposed to work. When there are questions and doubts about the Government, we bring them out, deal with them openly, and clear the doubts. If anything is wrong, we must put it right. If nothing is wrong, we must say so.”
“We can have a Select Committee, we can have a Commission of Inquiry, I may decide to sue for defamation or take some other legal action. But until then, let us get back to more important things that we should be working on. Where do we go from here? The Ministerial Statements and the debate have been important and valuable. Facts and explanations have been put on the record. Singaporeans have received a full account of how the Government works and what the Government has done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. The allegations have been aired, have been answered, rebutted, and people can see that there has been no abuse of power by me or the Government. I hope that this two-day debate has cleared the air and will calm things down. It would be unrealistic to hope that the matter is now completely put to rest. I do not know what further statements or allegations my siblings may make. But with the benefit of the Statements and debate in Parliament, Singaporeans are now in a better position to judge the facts and see the issue in perspective. And we can all go back to what we should be focused on and not be distracted from national priorities and responsibilities. I thank Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Ms Chia Yong Yong, Mr Charles Chong and many others, for their good wishes for reconciliation within the family. I, too, would like to think this is possible. It will be a difficult and long road. But I hope that, one day, there will be rapprochement. Deputy Prime Minister Teo reminded us about the national week of mourning when Mr Lee died. It was an emotional week for everybody. For Singaporeans, who lost their founding father; for my family and for me.”
“But do not just repeat allegations and attribute them to others, or ask for a Select Committee or COI because accusations are around, do not know what, but, therefore, we must have a COI to find out what. The accusers may not be in Parliament. But that should not stop Members from talking to them to get their story. Nor would it stop the accusers from getting in touch with Members, including Opposition Members, to tell their story so that the Members can raise it on their behalf in Parliament. That is, in fact, how the Member of Parliament system is meant to work. Those are the Members' duties and that is one reason why Parliamentary Privilege exists. So that Members, who have heard troubling allegations or news, can make these allegations and raise the matters in the House, even if they are not completely proven and may be defamatory, without fear of being sued for defamation. That is how parliaments are supposed to function. But none of this has happened over the last two days. No one says there is evidence of abuse of power. Even the Opposition is not accusing the Government of abuse of power. So, it is not a case of "oneself defend oneself". Why do we need in these circumstances a Select Committee or a COI, and drag this out for months? It will be another Korean drama, full-scale serial. Should we set up Select Committees to investigate every unsubstantiated allegation, every wild rumour? As Mr Low Thia Khiang says, "vague allegations". Vague allegations based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure, as a basis for ordering a Select Committee or a COI? That is not the basis. But if there is evidence of wrongdoing which emerges, or alleged evidence of wrongdoing which emerges, then I and the Government will consider what further steps to take.”
“But suing my own brother and sister in Court would further besmirch our parents' names. Mr Low may think that does not count and it is neither here nor there. I take a different view. Mr Low argued that we should "do whatever it takes to bring the issue to a quick resolution". I agree. But going to Court will not achieve this. It would drag out the process for years, cause further distress to Singaporeans and distract us from the many urgent issues that we must deal with. Several Members − Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Zaqy Mohamad − suggested a Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry as an alternative. But what is the basis for this? There are no specifics to the headline charge of abuse of power. What specifically did I do that was wrong? And what was wrong with that, whatever that may be? Who was involved? When did it happen? After two days of debate, nobody has stood behind these allegations or offered any evidence, not even Opposition Members. The Workers' Party Members say they are not in a position to judge. Indeed, Mr Low criticises my siblings for making "vague allegations … based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure". If Members believe that something is wrong, it is Members' job to pursue the facts and make these allegations in their own name. Decide whether something seems to be wrong. And if you think something is wrong, even if you are not fully sure, then come to this House, confront the Government and ask for explanations and answers. If having heard the Government, you are still not satisfied, then by all means demand a Select Committee or a Commission of Inquiry (COI).”
“So, I felt the need to explain the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the last will to the Ministerial Committee, so that it would understand what to make of the evidence. And because of the gravity of the matter, I voluntarily made my submissions to the Ministerial Committee in the form of sworn statutory declarations or, as they say in the coffee shops – sumpah. That means that if what I had put down is proven to be false, I can go to jail for perjury. The statements cannot be taken back − they are done, sworn, irrevocable. But I did this privately, because it was just to inform the Committee in their deliberations and I did not want to escalate the quarrel. Unfortunately, at 2.00 am on 14 June this year, my siblings made public allegations against me. I was forced to respond. I decided to put out the facts and I released a summary of my statutory declarations. Again, in the first instance, I did not take the legal route and sue for defamation. I stand by what I swore in the statutory declarations and published in the statement, but, really, I do not want to go further along this way if I can help it. I did not, and still do not, want to escalate the quarrel. At each point, I decided not to try to enforce my full legal rights. My priority was to resolve the matter privately and avoid a collision. Some Members still asked why I am not taking legal action against my siblings. For example, Mr Low Thia Khiang advocates my suing my siblings for defamation. This background which I have narrated to Members explains why I have hesitated to do so. As I said yesterday, I have been advised that I have a strong legal case. And in normal circumstances, I would surely sue because the accusations of abuse of power are so grave.”
“They would surely understand that I had many things on my plate and I would respond as soon as the elections were over, which I did. I could not allow myself, the Government or the PAP to be intimidated by such threats. I decided to ask my siblings to clarify the circumstances surrounding the last will. After that, for whatever reason, the 1 September deadline passed uneventfully. After the election, I again tried to settle the matter. I told my siblings that we were not getting anywhere on the $1 offer, with the conditions on what each side could do or say. So, I made them a fresh offer, forget all the previous discussions, new offer, no conditions on what we can do or say, but I will sell the house to my brother at full market value. And the only condition, which is attached now, is that we each donate half of the value to charity. And then, you do and say what you think fit and I am free to be my own person, I am not constrained in any way. And I offered this arrangement, which involved the donation to charity, because it was a variation that we had discussed before Mr Lee died, but ultimately had not adopted. So, we said, well, if you want to settle the matter, there was this old variation, would you like to take it up now? He took it, we signed. And that was December 2015. Again, I hoped that this would settle the problem and we could keep the matter low-key and, perhaps, gradually subsiding. Later on, when the Ministerial Committee asked for views from my siblings and me, I wrote in to give my views. So did my siblings. We both commented on each other's views. My siblings had put a lot of weight on the first part of the demolition clause in the last will.”
“I only asked for one condition: that if the property was sold later, or acquired by the Government, that the proceeds would be donated to charity. I thought it was a very reasonable offer. My brother wanted in on the deal. He wanted to join in and jointly buy the house with my sister from me for $1. My sister had no objection, so I agreed to this. But during the discussions, disagreement arose. My siblings started making allegations about me and escalating them. So, I told them that they would have to stop attacking me if they wanted the deal done because, otherwise, if I transfer the house to them and the quarrel continues, there is no point. And they wanted me to give a certain undertaking − I would not go into all the details now − but I could not agree to what they asked for, so we were at an impasse. We went back and forth for several months. Every few weeks, my letter would go to them, they would think about it, every few weeks their lawyer would reply to my lawyer. And so we continued the discussion. Faced with these allegations, I reviewed my old family emails. Kwa Kim Li was my father's lawyer before his last will. She did not do his last will. But she sent me and my siblings information about the previous wills of my father and also information about what she knew about the last will. Only then did I understand what had happened before my father died, and became troubled by how the last will had been done. But I still held back from raising the issues with my siblings, because I still hoped for an amicable settlement. In August 2015, I dissolved Parliament and called the General Election. My siblings then issued me an ultimatum, to accept their terms by 1 September 2015, which, perhaps coincidentally, was Nomination Day. I told them I was very busy.”
“That is why I said what I did in Parliament and I see it in no way contradicting my father's wishes or what I had advised my father when he was alive. Now, many Members have asked me other specific questions on matters after my father died. Ms Sun Xueling was unsure why I had offered to transfer the house to my sister for $1, but subsequently sold it to Lee Hsien Yang at market value. Mr Henry Kwek asked why I had not raised matters on the will during probate and why am I expressing concern now and have put my views in the form of statutory declarations. And several Members have suggested that I take legal action to clear my name and put a stop to the matter once and for all. Let me explain my overall approach to handling this family matter and, to do so, I beg your indulgence, Mdm Speaker, but I do have to go a little bit into the family history. It is a complicated story, but one golden thread running through it right from the beginning is my desire to manage the issue privately, without escalating the temperature and the dispute, and without forcing the issue of my legal rights. I adopted this approach because it involves family and I was hoping all along to work out an amicable resolution even if that meant compromising some of my own interests. When I learnt from others, who were meant to tell me, that my siblings were unhappy that my father had willed me the house, I tried to resolve the unhappiness. So, in May 2015, I offered to transfer the house to my sister for a nominal sum of $1. She has been living there for some time, in fact, all her life except when she was abroad − small gaps. And my father had wanted her to continue living in the house after he died if she wished to. So, it was natural to let her own the house.”
“As he explained, the conservation requirements typically do not mean preserving the house in its entirety – the interior layouts are often changed to reflect new family usage needs. So we have the option of redoing the entire interior layout to remove any linkages back to the private family space. Thanks." So, that is the first e-mail. I give you a second e-mail which is 30 April 2012, that means, about four months later, from my wife Ho Ching to my father, again copied to the whole family, to say that the approvals have been secured and will be delivered to him and please let her know anything else needs to be done. And he replied about three hours later, "Noted, nothing to follow up or sign by me. Permission has been granted as I had previously signed in letters to them. Will send them to you." So, you see, it is quite clear, it is quite open, it is not very curt. The conservation plan was done honestly, transparently and not on false pretences. After my father died, I said in Parliament on 13 April 2015, as I recounted yesterday, that the Government will take no decision on the house, so long as my sister was living in it. Why did I do that? Because people were then, three weeks after his passing, still very emotional over losing Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Some wanted to honour him by keeping the house. Others wanted to honour him by knocking the house down. Emotions were high. Whichever decision we made, one way or the other, significant numbers of people would be upset and we are just creating tensions and unhappiness and anxieties for nothing. Best if we postponed this major decision for a calmer time, let time pass before we come to the matter.”
“I am distributing two family e-mails just to give Members a sense of the conversations and the discussions and how they were conducted. The first e-mail is dated 2 January 2012 and it is from Ho Ching to my father. In fact, it is to the whole family − Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Suet Fern − to keep the whole family informed on what we were doing. It is a long e-mail. I will just take Members through the beginning and the end. It says: "Hi Ling, just to update you on one of the ideas for Oxley renewal/development. As Loong mentioned, the first preference is to demolish the Oxley house and build afresh. The next best alternative is to renovate and redevelop parts of the house/annex so that it is liveable/rentable for many more years but with a new internal layout. The renovation renewal idea is to keep or renew the main Oxley house structure, retaining its old world ambience but completely changing the internal layout except for the basement dining room, and redeveloping the back annex into, a two storey annex connected to the main house. Thus, the current private/family living spaces in the main house upstairs will be gone and family privacy protected." And then there is a long description of all the different possibilities. And then we come to the conclusion on the second page: "If there's objection to renting out to, say, expats, then the family could consider moving in at least for the initial years and then Ling can use one of the big bedrooms ... "and so forth where who can go where." Wei Wei (that is the architect) has done various projects including the renewal of Victoria Theatre as well as conservation of private dwellings.”
“I think when the allegation is that you have deceived Mr Lee Kuan Yew and it is directed at the Prime Minister, that can never be a private allegation. It has enormous ramifications for my standing and reputation, and the matter has to be answered. The simple answer is that I did not deceive my father. I explained to Members yesterday how my father's primary wish on the house has always been clear − he always wanted it knocked down. Where my siblings and I differ is on whether my father was prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible. After meeting Cabinet on 21 July 2011, Mr Lee asked me for my view of what the Government would do with the house after he died. I gave him my honest assessment. I told him, you have met the Cabinet; you have heard the Ministers' views. If I chaired the Cabinet meeting, given that these are the views of the Ministers and the public, I think it would be very hard for me to override them and knock the house down. I would have to agree that the house has to be gazetted, to be kept. And if I am not the Prime Minister or if I do not chair the meeting, all the more likely that the house would be gazetted. He understood. In August 2011, about a month later, he decided to will the house to me, as I told Members yesterday, and he told the family. Ho Ching and I knew my father's wishes and also my mother's feelings on the house and we wanted to address their concerns should demolition not be allowed. So, we came up with a proposal to renovate the house, to change the inside completely, to demolish the private spaces, but keep the historic basement dining room. And my wife kept the whole family comprehensively informed. Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk now to distribute the handout to Members?”
“You just look at Pedra Branca. You would have thought the matter was settled nine and a half years ago. No. Four days ago, on 30 June, Malaysia filed an application over the ICJ judgment on Pedra Branca. We are confident of our case. We think the Malaysian case has no merit but, unless we have a top-notch team, we may mishandle the case with very serious consequences. Do you want to take a chance? We have also outstanding officers within the AGC coming up the ranks and we have promoted them within AGC, we have elevated some of them to the Bench. For example, there is the Deputy Attorney-General Mr Lionel Yee, there are two Solicitors-General Mr Kwek Mean Luck and Ms Mavis Chionh, all promoted to their positions recently. And other career Legal Service officers have been elevated to the Bench to become Judicial Commissioners as a first step, like Pang Khang Chau, Aedit Abdullah, Hoo Sheau Peng and Audrey Lim. So, we look for talent and we groom and develop talent within but, at the same time, we seek to reinforce the AGC with lawyers from the private sector because they will both reinforce the team and add to the talent pool, and also, AGC can benefit from their experience with private sector work. We have a good team in AGC today. They hold their own with the very best to fight for Singapore's interests abroad. They pursue cases in Court and handle very complicated cases professionally, competently, where necessary, aggressively. And the appointments of Lucien Wong and Hri Kumar will contribute to building this team and make AGC an even stronger institution. Let me turn to a few of the points which have to do with Oxley Road, starting with what Miss Cheng Li Hui asked just now, whether I deceived my father and made him believe that the house was gazetted.”
“I had also consulted him informally on Government matters before, when we were working on the Points of Agreement dispute with Malaysia. And I knew that he was a very good lawyer. Everyone involved in the appointment was fully aware that this was the basis on which I was recommending him. I told them, I told the Cabinet, Lucien is my lawyer, he is a very good lawyer. But the Opposition will make an issue of this. I do not consider this an impediment because there is no difficulty of conflict of interest. I recommend him. The AG's appointment has to be confirmed, approved by the President. I briefed the President before the matter formally went to him and I told him the same thing. He consulted the CPA. The CPA recommended that he approved the appointment. He did. And, indeed, after the President approved Lucien Wong's appointment and it was announced, the Law Society welcomed it. Likewise, my direct knowledge of Hri Kumar, as a Member of Parliament and a lawyer, gave me confidence that he would make a good Deputy Attorney General. I know he has a good legal mind and he has a good heart as a Member of Parliament for people. It is critical for Singapore to have a strong AGC and for AGC to have a strong top leadership because the AG is a very important and demanding job, as Workers' Party Members of Parliament have themselves pointed out. It is very difficult to find people of the right calibre and range of experience. You can take my word for it. I have been involved doing this, looking for suitable people to be Attorneys-General for quite a long time and I have had to do it several times. It is important that we get the best that are there to become the Attorney-General. The role is becoming more complex and we need the most capable people to defend our interests.”
“It is perfectly normal for lawyers to have existing clients and connections and to encounter potential conflicts of interest when they change jobs. In fact, lawyers with no clients and connections probably have no job. But the way to deal with this is also quite standard − for the lawyers to recuse themselves when matters come up which they had previously dealt with in a previous capacity. The rules are quite clear. All professional lawyers know how to handle such matters and every time a lawyer moves from practice unto the Bench to become a judge, the judge has to do the same. Because he has old cases and cases may appear before the Courts and he cannot participate in the cases when they turn up before the Courts. So, there is no problem of conflict at all for Lucien Wong or Hri Kumar to become AG and DAG. If matters come up which they had previously handled as private lawyers, they just recuse themselves and let others deal with it. And so it is with the dispute with my siblings on the house. Lucien Wong was my lawyer but now that he is the AG, I have lost a good lawyer. He is not advising me any more on this matter. And in the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the Government cannot use Lucien Wong either to advise it on this matter because he is conflicted, he used to represent me. So, in this matter, another officer in AGC takes charge. Lucien Wong is out of it. When Lucien Wong's name came up as a candidate to succeed Mr V K Rajah as AG, I endorsed him with confidence. He is known as one of Singapore's top lawyers and has a high international reputation, especially in corporate and banking law. I was even more confident because I had direct personal experience working with him on this case, my personal case.”
“Therefore, I am glad that in the last two days, we have had a good debate. Members, PAP and non-PAP Members have raised questions and my Ministers have answered them and given a proper account. What has been the outcome? Over the past two days, the allegations about me abusing power, which prompted the sitting, have been answered. No Members have produced or alleged any additional facts or charges, or substantiated any of the allegations. Mr Low Thia Khiang talks about "scattered evidence centred on family displeasure". But he has not accused the Government of anything nor has he given any concrete evidence or cited any. Mr Png Eng Huat read out the litany of allegations by my siblings but he did not endorse them and that is significant. Because it shows that the Government and I have acted properly and with due process and that there is no basis to the allegations of abuse of power made by my siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. My Ministers have, in the course of the debate, dealt with most of the questions and points raised by Members. I would like to deal with just a few questions. Firstly, the Attorney-General's Chamber. Secondly, whether I deceived my father. Thirdly, whether I considered or I am considering the legal options. And, finally, where do we go next. So, Attorney-General Chambers. Ms Sylvia Lim and several of her Workers' Party colleagues have raised questions about the propriety of appointing Mr Lucien Wong as Attorney-General (AG) and Mr Hri Kumar as Deputy Attorney-General (DAG). Because Lucien Wong was previously my lawyer and because Hri Kumar was a PAP Member of Parliament. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah gave a clear reply yesterday.”
“Mdm Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Members for this debate. Two weeks ago, when I decided to bring this matter to Parliament, I explained my purpose: (a) to air fully all the accusations against me and my government; (b) to allow Members of Parliament to raise difficult and inconvenient questions, whether you are a PAP Member of Parliament, an Opposition Member of Parliament, or a Nominated Member of Parliament; (c) to enable me and my Cabinet to render account to Parliament and clear the air. In my Ministerial Statement, I have fully addressed the allegations of abuse of power. In his Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained the Ministerial Committee and how we uphold the integrity of the Government. I brought the matter to Parliament because I am answerable to Members and to Singaporeans. I have opened myself up to questioning by Members. It is the Members' responsibility to ask me any questions they want and get to the bottom of the issue. So, I was surprised that some Members asked me why I had brought this to Parliament and questioned if we should discuss this in Parliament. I agree that we should not fight private disputes in Parliament, nor have we done so. But grave accusations of abuse of power have been made against me as Prime Minister and against my government. Doubts have been cast on our Government and the leadership. How can my Ministers and I not discuss them in Parliament? Imagine the scandal if Members filed Parliamentary Questions on these accusations and the Government replied that Parliament is not the place to discuss the matter. So, whatever else I or the Government may or may not do to deal with this matter, we have to come to Parliament to render account. It is our duty.”
“Transfers from the Management Support Scheme to the Management Executive Scheme are not compulsory. Serving officers have the option to transfer to the extended Management Executive Scheme or remain on the Management Support Scheme. As of May 20176, 2,465 (42%) of Management Support Officers have transferred to the extended Management Executive Scheme. While we no longer recruit officers on the Management Support Scheme, it will not be phased out until the last officer transfers out or retires from the scheme. Officers are free to transfer to the extended Management Executive Scheme whenever they are ready. Officers can engage their supervisors and human resource departments on the career pathway that would best fulfil their aspirations before coming to a decision.”
“Mdm Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, "That the two Ministerial Statements made by me and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on 38 Oxley Road be considered by Parliament." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”