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 5 of 32.
“This is the "house" that Mr Lee built, not 38 Oxley Road. When Mr Lee was asked what were the most important things to him in life, he said, "My family and my country". It pains me that this episode has put both under a cloud and done damage to Singapore. I hope, one day, I will be able to resolve the unhappiness within the family. But, today, I stand here before Members to answer your questions, clear any doubts and show you that you have every reason to maintain your trust in me and my Government. My colleagues and I will continue to serve you and work with you, as we have always done, to the best of our ability. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]”
“That is the way to strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of Government and refocus our energies on the challenges we face as a nation. The legacy of Mr Lee is much more than an old house. Mr Lee's legacy is Singapore and the values that we uphold. We have built something special in Singapore − a cohesive, multiracial, meritocratic society; a fair and just society, where the same rules apply to everybody, whether you are a Minister or an ordinary citizen; whether you are the Prime Minister or the children of the founding Prime Minister. You are not above the law. My colleagues and I are in politics and in Government to fight to uphold this legacy to keep Singapore successful. We have sworn to serve Singapore faithfully. When private interests and public duties clash, we make sure that our private interests do not sway our public decisions. When allegations of impropriety and corruption are made, we take them seriously and investigate them fully. Ministers are bound by a code of conduct which is tabled in Parliament. And after every General Election, I issue Rules of Prudence to every PAP MP, so that they know how to conduct themselves to protect their own reputation and to safeguard the integrity of the PAP Government and the Singapore system. In Singapore, everyone is equal before the law. Mr Lee understood this most of all. When the dust has settled on this unhappy episode, people must know that the Government in Singapore operates transparently, impartially and properly. That in Singapore, even Mr Lee's house and Mr Lee's wishes are subject to the rule of law. That the Government he built is able to withstand intense and sustained attacks on its reputation and integrity, and emerge not just untainted but, in fact, strengthened.”
“I stand by the statements I have published, but I really do not want to go further if I can help it. Today, I am making this Statement in Parliament to account to Members and to Singaporeans, and to deal with this issue expeditiously so that Singaporeans can understand what it is all about and we can put the matter to rest, I hope, once and for all. Deputy Prime Minister Teo will be making a Ministerial Statement after me. He will explain his and the Government's actions and decisions on this matter. Other relevant Ministers will speak, too. I invite Members to raise all questions, suspicions or doubts directly in this Chamber with me and my team. I have seen the questions filed by the Workers' Party (WP) MPs. It is striking that the questions are general and concern broad principles and rules. They contain no specific allegations or facts about any wrongdoing or impropriety. But if I am mistaken and the WP has come across such allegations or facts, please raise them today. My Ministers and I will deal with all their questions and give comprehensive answers because we have nothing to hide. I have told the People's Action Party (PAP) MPs that I am lifting the Party Whip. Strictly speaking, there is no Whip to lift because there is no vote to be taken. But I said this to emphasise what I expect from this debate − a robust questioning and a full airing and accounting of the public issues and allegations. All MPs, whether PAP MPs, Opposition MPs or Nominated MPs (NMPs), should query me and my Ministers vigorously and without restraint. That is the way to dispel all the doubts, innuendo and tittle tattle that have been planted and circulated.”
“I have brought this matter to Parliament because Singaporeans are entitled to a full answer from me and my Government. Parliament may not be a Court of law, but it is the highest body in the land. It is also where my Government and I are accountable to MPs and to the people of Singapore Many people have asked me why I am not taking legal action, to challenge the will, sue for defamation or take some other legal action to put a stop to this and clear my name. These are valid questions. I took advice. I considered my options very carefully. I believe I have a strong case. In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance than this, I would have sued immediately, because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is, in fact, an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government. But suing my own brother and sister in Court would further besmirch our parents' names. At the end of the day, we are brothers and sister, and we are all our parents' children. It would also drag out the process for years and cause more distraction and distress to Singaporeans. Therefore, fighting this out in Court cannot be my preferred choice. Every family will understand that family disputes do happen, but they are not something to flaunt in public. That is why I have done my best to deal with this out of the public eye. For example, I kept my submissions to the Ministerial Committee private. My purpose was not to pursue a fight with my siblings, but to assist the Committee in its work. Unfortunately, my siblings made public allegations against me, and then I had no choice but to defend myself and release the statements and facts about the matter.”
“After that Parliamentary session, we cleared all the doubts that Singaporeans had and restored their trust and confidence in the Government. Today, I am doing the same. I will open myself to questioning by MPs, including opposition MPs. I want to explain this matter clearly and eliminate all doubts. The family matter is an emotional one, and it is not likely that it can be resolved fully. But, still, I hope that someday there will be a reconciliation among the siblings. In the meantime, the nation must come first. I must maintain the people's trust in the Government. I must assure them this remains an incorruptible, effective and impartial Government, all key to Singapore's survival. Once again, I regret the confusion and trouble my family matter has caused. I hope this Parliamentary session will clear the air. My team and I will continue to do our utmost to serve the people. (In English): Mdm Speaker, may I now continue in English?”
“Whenever the Cabinet deliberates on the house, for example, when it set up a Ministerial Committee, I absent myself and do not participate in the discussions. As the eldest son in the family, it is my duty to protect my parents' and family's reputation. My father willed 38 Oxley Road to me. Later, I discovered that my siblings were not pleased about this. To pacify them, I offered to transfer the house to my sister at a nominal sum of $1. Unfortunately, the deal fell through. Later, I sold the house to my brother, and I donated the full value of the house to charity. I did not want any monetary benefit from the house. I thought that having sold the house, my siblings would be satisfied as I no longer have any interest in the house. I did not expect that they would disregard the family's reputation and air this matter in public, by making baseless allegations against me and the Government. As the elder brother, I really do not know what else I should or can do. But as the Prime Minister, I am very clear that I cannot leave this matter alone because the allegations have affected the people's trust in the Government and Singapore's standing in the world. I must clarify this matter in Parliament, set the record straight, and show that my team and I are determined to defend the Government's integrity and the rule of law. Parliament is a solemn platform where MPs are free to question and criticise the Government. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was in a similar situation. Many years ago, my father and I purchased some private property which drew criticism and affected the Government's reputation. Mr Goh Chok Tong was then Prime Minister. He asked us to clarify the issue in Parliament and be subject to questioning by the MPs.”
“] Mdm Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I speak before you today in Parliament, to explain my position to Members of Parliament and Singaporeans on this matter. Over the past few weeks, the dispute between me and my siblings has become public, creating anxiety amongst many Singaporeans. That my family is in discord is sad. What is even sadder is to see the legacy Mr Lee Kuan Yew painstakingly built throughout his life besmirched overnight. The legacy he left behind is priceless. Everyone hopes that this matter can be resolved and we end this altercation quickly. I understand the people's sentiments. I would also like to see this matter resolved quickly. However, the joint release my siblings made do not pertain to just family matters. My siblings have made allegations against my character and damaged the Government's reputation, affecting people's trust in the Government. I am, therefore, compelled to refute these baseless allegations. I have explained the details in my English speech. After my father passed away, as the eldest son in the family, I naturally wanted to carry out my father's wishes and I did my best to settle the differences between me and my siblings. But as the Prime Minister, I must also take into account the country's interest and allow the Government to deal with matters relating to Mr Lee's house in an impartial manner. I am caught between these two conflicting roles, so I have done my best to keep my private interest and my public duties separate. As Prime Minister, I have recused myself from all Government's decisions relating to the house. Barely a month after my father's passing, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean was put in charge of this matter. I am not involved and do not interfere.”
“On the Government's side, I told Minister Lawrence Wong to take instructions from Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on this matter. I believe this was the correct and proper way for me to handle the Deed of Gift. Third, my siblings have made allegations about nepotism, concerning my wife and my son, Hongyi. And that I want 38 Oxley Road kept standing, in order to inherit my father's credibility and bolster my standing. Hongyi, my son, has publicly said he is not interested in politics. Nor have I pushed him to enter politics. My wife, Ho Ching, is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Temasek Holdings. As CEO, she reports to the Board, chaired by Mr Lim Boon Heng. As a company, Temasek Holdings answers to its shareholder, the Ministry of Finance, under Minister Heng Swee Keat. I have every confidence that both Mr Lim Boon Heng and Minister Heng Swee Keat understand the meaning of good corporate governance. It is the Temasek Board which appoints the CEO, and the appointment has to be confirmed by the President, who is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA). If Ho Ching ever behaves improperly, I have no doubt that the Temasek Board, the President and CPA know what their duty is. Regarding the house and how its continued existence enhances my aura as Prime Minister, if I needed such magic properties to bolster my standing after 13 years as your Prime Minister, I must be in a pretty sad state. And if Singaporeans believe that such magic works in Singapore, I think Singapore would be in an even sadder state. Now, Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to say some words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“But only the first half, which said that Mr Lee wanted the house knocked down, and not the second half of the clause which stated what Mr Lee wanted done if the house could not be knocked down. This partial selective disclosure would mislead the public on Mr Lee's intentions. Furthermore, my siblings had announced publicly that this was a gift. But, in fact, they had set conditions in the fine print: if at any time, if any of the terms of the Deed were breached, my siblings could immediately take back all the items for $1. Therefore, this was not a gift at all. They had misled the public. Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew had gifted many items to NHB during their lives, and they had never imposed any conditions on their gifts remotely like these. What Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang had imposed on NHB was wrong. Discovering all this, as Prime Minister, I had to act. Otherwise, people might later wrongly think that I was party to this. It is nonsensical to say that because I saw the Deed in my official capacity, I could not raise the matter with a family member. If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, maybe especially family, it is my duty to put a stop to it and set them right if I can. In the same way, if any Minister discovers, in the course of his official work, that a family member is dealing improperly with some Government agency or seeking to take advantage of the Government, truly the Minister must take this up with the family member and get him or her to stop. That is what the code of conduct is for. This is expected of anyone in a public position, especially me, as Prime Minister. I, therefore, wrote to my siblings through lawyers to object to what they had done.”
“Suppose instead that I had decided as Prime Minister to knock the down the house and had pushed that decision through without allowing the Government to consider the alternatives, weigh the considerations and go through due process, just because it was what my father wanted. That would have been a real abuse of power. That would have gone against the whole system of rules and values that Mr Lee Kuan Yew spent his whole life upholding and building up. The second issue my siblings accused me of is separate from the house itself. After my father passed away, my siblings gifted artefacts from 38 Oxley Road to the National Heritage Board (NHB). This was formalised in a Deed of Gift. My siblings have accused me of improperly obtaining this Deed which was between them and NHB. They say I obtained the Deed as Prime Minister, and gave it to my lawyers, and that was wrong. But I disagree. The Deed was signed by my sister and brother, who were acting for my father's estate. I was one of the beneficiaries of the estate. I was entitled to be consulted by my siblings before they did this, but I was not consulted. In June 2015, Minister Lawrence Wong updated me on a major SG50 exhibition on our founding fathers. He told me the exhibition included artefacts from Oxley Road and described the conditions attached to the gift. He subsequently gave me the Deed, which I had not seen it before. As Prime Minister, I had every right to see it. After reading the Deed, I became very concerned over what the NHB had agreed to. The terms were onerous and unreasonable to NHB. For example, whenever NHB displayed the items, it also had to display them with the first half of the demolition clause.”
“My only dealing with the Committee has been to respond to their requests in writing by formal correspondence, no different from my siblings' dealings with the Committee. This is the right and proper way to handle a conflict of interest. My siblings argue that even though I have recused myself, the Ministers are my subordinates and, therefore, the Ministerial Committee cannot be independent from me. In fact, they say this of Parliament itself. And this cannot be right because if the Ministers are subordinates and cannot be independent, the Ministerial Committee cannot be independent. Then the Cabinet minus me cannot be independent. The Government minus me cannot be independent. What is the process for dealing with the matter concerning the Prime Minister's personal matters? But the process which we have embarked on, me recusing myself on the Cabinet, minus me dealing with the matter, is the standard practice for a person facing a potential conflict of interest. He takes himself out from handling the matter. He does not participate in making any decisions about it. He lets somebody else deal with it. It could be his deputy, it could be some other senior colleague, it could be the rest of the Cabinet, as in this case. This is exactly what I have done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. I myself do not deal with the matter at all. I take no part in discussions or decisions concerning the house. Deputy Prime Minister Teo is in full charge. Ministers and officials report to and take directions from Deputy Prime Minister Teo on all 38 Oxley Road matters.”
“Further, I have pointed out some unusual circumstances surrounding how the last will was prepared, which are relevant because of the weight that my siblings put on the demolition clause in the last will. Despite this difference in views, I still see no need for argument. I have submitted my views to the Ministerial Committee. My siblings have submitted theirs. We have commented on each other's views. I will leave it in the good hands of the Committee. In any case, the Government has stated that the Committee will not make any decisions on the house and will not even recommend any decisions on the house to Cabinet. The Committee will only list options for the house, so that when a decision does become necessary one day, perhaps decades from now, the Cabinet of the day, most likely by then under a different Prime Minister, will have these options available to consider. There is, therefore, no reason at all for anybody to feel "pushed into a corner" by the Committee, as my brother has claimed to be. Regrettably, my siblings have now gone public and accused me of abusing my office. There are very few specifics in their charges. But because their father is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, their accusations gain some credibility and I have to take their charges seriously, which is why I am here addressing them in Parliament. What are their allegations? First, the alleged abuse of power. My siblings have given scant details of the charge, but my brother has cited as a "prime example" the setting up of the Ministerial Committee. I have already explained that I have recused myself. Deputy Prime Minister Teo is in charge of this matter. I had nothing to do with the decision to set up the Ministerial Committee. I do not give any instructions to the Ministerial Committee or its members.”
“There is, in substance, no longer anything for my siblings and me to dispute over on the matter of the house. We all want our father's personal wish to be carried out, which is to knock the house down. I no longer have any interest in the house. My brother owns it. I do not take part in any Government decisions on the house. So, why is there still an argument? I really am not sure, but one possible factor may be a difference in views between me and my siblings. The difference is over this question: what did my father think about the house, apart from demolition? Was his view black and white, all or nothing − demolish the house no matter what? Or was he prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible? My siblings' view is that my father absolutely wanted to demolish the house, with no compromise. And they point to the first half of the demolition clause as evidence. That is the first section that Members have in the handout. And they say that if he considered any alternatives, such as the next section of the handout, that it was only because he was under duress. Because the Government had the power to prevent him or his heirs from knocking it down. My view is that while my father wanted the house to be demolished, he was prepared to consider alternatives should the Government decide otherwise. Indeed, he put it in writing and approved alternative architectural plans which were submitted to URA, as I explained earlier, and approved by URA. Next, we have to look at the full demolition clause, and not just the first half, and the full clause shows that my father did accept alternatives.”
“I first offered to transfer the house to my sister for a nominal sum of $1, on condition that if the property is sold later or acquired by the Government, all proceeds or compensation would go to charity. Unfortunately, that deal fell through. Subsequently, I made a fresh proposal to sell the house to my brother at fair market value. This time we reached agreement, this was December 2015. And we also agreed that my brother and I would each donate half the value of the house to charity. We both did so, and in addition I topped up another half myself. In other words, I myself gave away the full value of the house that I had inherited. And, together, my brother and I have donated one-and-a-half times the value of the house to charity. So, if you understand that properly, the house comes to me, I sell it to my brother for the market value, he gives me the value of the house, so many dollars, I give half of those dollars to charity, he gets the house. In addition, he gives the same amount, half the value of the house to charity. On top of that, I separately give half the value of the house to charity. So, I give one times the value, he gives away one-half times the value, the house is with him. That complicated arrangement substantially addressed a major concern of mine: that was, that our family be seen not to be benefiting financially from 38 Oxley Road, either through receiving compensation from the state for acquisition or resisting acquisition or preservation/conservation to profit by redeveloping and selling the property. I have given Members the background to 38 Oxley Road, our discussions when my father was alive and what happened after my father passed away. Where does the matter stand today?”
“" I stated that my father's position on 38 Oxley Road had been unwavering all these years, that he wanted the house knocked down, and that, as a son, I wanted to see my father's wishes carried out. I told Parliament that since my sister was going to continue living in 38 Oxley Road, there was no immediate issue of demolition and no need for the Government to make any decision now. As and when my sister was no longer living there, the government of the day would consider the matter. After the Parliament Sitting, I took two major steps. One, I recused myself from all Government decisions relating to 38 Oxley Road. I was conflicted, being my father's son, the inheritor of the house and also the Head of the Government, it was not proper for me to take part in any decisions on 38 Oxley Road. So, at the next Cabinet meeting, two days after the Parliament Sitting, I recused myself from all discussions and decisions relating to the house, and placed Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in charge. This was formally recorded in the Cabinet minutes. From that point on, I have been out of the loop whenever the Government handles matters concerning the house. I play no part in any of the discussions or decisions. Whenever Cabinet deliberates on the house, for example, when it set up a Ministerial Committee, I absent myself, and Deputy Prime Minister Teo chairs the meeting. My second major action, after my father died, was to divest myself of the house. Soon after the Parliament Sitting, I learned that my siblings were unhappy that I was getting the house. I was not sure why, but I thought the best way to resolve the matter was to transfer the house to them.”
“I pointed out that his position now was different from what the family had discussed and agreed upon. But it was not possible to knock down the house immediately, anyway, because my sister, Wei Ling then said she intended to continue to stay in the house. And in his will, my father had expressed his wish that Wei Ling be allowed to stay there for as long as she wished. So, I said we should honour that, and that I would say in Parliament the next day that the Government would not make any decision, until such time as my sister was no longer staying there. We also discussed what I should say in Parliament regarding my father's wishes. I wanted to read out Mr Lee's 27 December 2011 letter to the Cabinet, stating his view on what to do with the house if it is to be preserved. I also wanted to read out the demolition clause in his will, in full. My brother and his wife objected strenuously. But I decided that I had to do so, and I said so. So that my father's views would be on the record and Singaporeans could know accurately what his thinking had been. Later that evening, I discovered that my siblings had issued a statement which contained the full demolition clause. In Parliament the next day, I made a statement which I had cleared with my key Cabinet colleagues because I was speaking as Prime Minister. I read out both the letter to Cabinet and the whole demolition clause. I said "we should not rush into making decisions on this matter, especially so soon after Mr Lee has passed away. We should allow some time to pass, consider the ideas carefully, and make calm, considered decisions which will stand the test of time. We want to honour Mr Lee, but we must do so in the right way.”
“The demolition clause was in two main parts with a third minor part at the end. I will read it out in full: "I further declare that it is my wish and the wish of my late Wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 ("The house") be demolished immediately after my death, or if my daughter Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the house. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the house be carried out. If our children are unable to demolish the house as a result of any changes in the laws, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the house never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding that the rest of my will is private." This whole thing is one paragraph 7 but I have broken it up so you can see the different sections. The following day, I had to speak in Parliament on how we would honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The question of 38 Oxley Road was bound to come up. There were already suggestions from the public on what to do with the house, including turning it into a museum and memorial. I was personally in a difficult position because I was both Mr Lee's son and the Prime Minister. So, at the reading of the will, I discussed with my siblings what I could say about the house in Parliament. There was a difference of views. Hsien Yang for the first time objected to the renovation plans that my father had approved. He wanted the house to be knocked down immediately. This was a complete surprise to me.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 3 which is the demolition clause.”
“So, Members will see, the first page, is my father's authorisation letter to the architect to submit the development application. He signed it on 28 March 2012: "I hereby authorise you to act as my agent to submit on my behalf an application to the competent authority under the Planning Act 1998 for a written permission to develop lot 99909X TS20" − that means Town Sub-division 20 − "at 38 Oxley Road for proposed additions and alterations to existing two-storey detached dwelling house, River Valley Planning Area." And so on. "I hereby authorise you to pay on my behalf to the competent authority all processing fees or charges payable by me in connection with the application." The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) approved it a few weeks later on 17 April 2012. Members have that, too. I have just given Members the first page of the Grant of Written Permission. The rest is the fine print. But the first page puts the key points − name and address of developer: Lee Kuan Yew, 38 Oxley Road; date of application received and so on; particulars of decision: planning permission is granted under section 14(4) of the Planning Act for the application referred to, details are set out in Part 3, subject to conditions in Part 4, additional notes in Part 5. As far as I knew, that was how the family had settled the matter, rationally, amicably while Mr Lee was still alive which is what he had hoped to achieve and strived very hard to achieve. I heard nothing to the contrary until after my father died. My father passed away on 23 March 2015. On 12 April 2015, three weeks later, his last will was formally read to me and my two siblings. 38 Oxley Road was given to me. The demolition clause was in the will.”
“My father met the architect, went through the proposal, and approved the scheme to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house. Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 2, which contains the relevant correspondence?”
“She had been most distressed at the thought of people tramping through her personal spaces, after she and my father had passed away, to gawk at how they had lived. Even when not so familiar people came into the house for one reason or the other to meet her or my father, she would complain afterwards, "You could see them looking around, eyes opened, to try and find out how we live." She resented it. So, Ho Ching and I came up with a proposal to renovate the house to change the inside completely. Demolish the private living spaces to preserve the privacy of the family, keep the basement dining room, which was of historical significance, strengthen the structure which was decaying and create a new and separate living area, so the house could be lived in. My father accepted this proposal. In December 2011, he told the family that it was "best to redevelop 38 Oxley Road straightaway" after he died and do what we proposed. By redevelopment, he meant remove the private spaces and renovate the house but without knocking it down. At around the same time, on 27 December 2011, he wrote to Cabinet a third time. And you have the letter with you: "Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay." Ho Ching and I, therefore, proceeded along these lines. We kept the family fully informed of our considerations and our intentions. We emailed everyone, including my father, my sister, my brother and his wife. No one raised any objections to the plan.”
“We discussed who to inherit the property, whether it should be one of the children or several of the children, whether to demolish the house before or after my father died, whether to donate the proceeds to charity after the site was redeveloped and, if so, which children would share in the donation, and which charities to donate to. At one point, my brother suggested that my father gift the property to Singapore, subject to the condition that the house be demolished and a small public park be built in its place. I said that I thought this was worth considering, but I offered another option: to demolish the house and redevelop the site as my father wanted, but then to sell off the property and donate the proceeds to charity. I asked my father between the two which he preferred, and he replied the latter, in other words, demolish the house, redevelop and sell off, and donate the proceeds to charity. He even had some ideas which charities he wanted. He was a practical-minded man. In August 2011, about a month after the Cabinet meeting, my father decided to will 38 Oxley Road to me as part of my share of his estate, and he told the family so. Ho Ching and I knew my father's wishes and also my mother's feelings. We also knew how Cabinet and the public viewed the matter. We started discussing alternatives with my father to see how best we could fulfil his wishes in the event that the house could not be demolished. My father's concern was that the house should not become run-down and dilapidated and that it should not be an expensive burden to maintain. My late mother had a different concern: privacy. She felt strongly that her private living spaces should always remain private.”
“It has no foundations and it is in poor condition. It is difficult to maintain if people start tramping through the house. Whenever there is piling in Cluny Road for new homes, hairline cracks begin to appear on the walls. So, keeping the house is too hazardous and costly. I, therefore, repeat my wish to have the house demolished when I am no longer alive." This is the letter which I referred to when I addressed Parliament on 13 April 2015 and said he expressed his wish that the house be knocked down. But I misspoke. I said that it was December 2011. In fact, he wrote this on 20 July 2011. When I saw this letter the next morning, that means, 21 July 2011, I immediately invited Mr Lee to make his case in person to Cabinet. I thought that with his force of personality and conviction, meeting the Ministers would give him the best chance to convince Cabinet, as he had done so many times before. My father agreed to come. He met Cabinet that very afternoon. But the Ministers were unanimous in expressing their opposition to knocking the house down. I was the only one who did not express a view, because I was both a son and the Prime Minister and, therefore, conflicted. After the meeting, my father continued to ponder over how to deal with the house. In fact, even before the Cabinet meeting, he had been discussing with the family how to go about demolishing the house and redeveloping the site. We explored in the family all kinds of permutations − to demolish the house and redevelop the site, maximise value.”
“However, after "Hard Truths" was published, there was a strong public pushback. Many Singaporeans did not agree with Mr Lee. They wanted the house to be preserved. This was, after all, the house of Singapore's founding Prime Minister, where important political decisions were made that shaped the future of Singapore. We are a young nation and what the house represents is of particular significance to our history and nationhood. So, in March 2011, my father asked some newspaper editors for their views. All the editors replied that they would like it to be kept, given its historical importance and heritage value. Guntor Sadali, then editor of Berita Harian, wrote to my father: "I was personally shocked and sad, when I first read about you saying that you wanted the house demolished after you are gone. The historical value of the house is priceless…if we demolish it, our next generations will regret it. We should avoid making this mistake." Mr Lim Jim Koon, then editor of Lianhe Zaobao, suggested that the house be conserved and turned into a museum, like the Sun Yat Sen Memorial Hall. These were not the answers my father hoped to get. My father then wanted to leave the decision to his children. But we told him that only he could decide. He then said his decision was to knock it down. I told him that in that case he should tell the editors and put it on record. And so, he did. After the General Election in May 2011, Mr Lee retired from the Cabinet. He then decided to put his views on record again. And that is the second letter in the bundle you have, 20 July 2011. He wrote to Cabinet to reiterate that he wanted the house knocked down. I will read it. It says: "I have previously written to Cabinet that the house should be demolished.”
“My father's wish, held for many years, is well-known to all Singaporeans. He wanted the house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished. After my mother died in 2010, my father wrote to Cabinet to put his position on the record. This the first note you have in the bundle which is dated 27 October 2010. It is a letter from Mr Lee to the Cabinet and it reads: "I have discussed this with my family many a time. They agreed with me that 38 Oxley Road should not be kept as a kind of relic for people to tramp through. Take photos of it or whatever else they want, but demolish it after I am gone. I have seen too many places which are kept frozen in time. My most vivid memory is that of Nehru's final home, that of the British Naval Commander of the Indian Ocean Fleet in New Delhi." Actually, it was another British General's home but you get the point. "It was once a grand building. Kept as a monument with people tramping in and out, it became shabby. It is not worth the restoration, unless they restore it just for people to look at. 38 Oxley Road has no merit as architecture. So, please respect my wish to have it demolished when I am no longer around." Cabinet noted his letter. A few months later, in January 2011, my father published the book, "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going". In the book, the question of preserving his house came up. He said, "I have told the Cabinet, when I am dead, demolish it". He explained again that he did not want the house to become a shambles. The cost of preservation would be high because the house was built over a hundred years ago and had no foundation. If the house was demolished and planning rules could change, the value of the land, as well as the surrounding plots, would go up.”
“I stand by what I will say in this Chamber. I shall be separately issuing whatever I say in this debate as a statement by me outside the House which will not be covered by Parliamentary privilege. To respond to these allegations of abuse of power, I will have to go into some background about 38 Oxley Road and the family discussions on the house so that Members can make sense of the allegations. But my account will inevitably be from my perspective. So, I will try my best to be objective and factual. I will cover the discussions on 38 Oxley Road when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was alive, what happened after Mr Lee passed away, and then, where the matter stands today. Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute Handout 1 to Members?”
“Mdm Speaker, I am making this Statement today because my siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have made serious allegations of abuse of power against me and my Government. The allegations seem to concern, primarily, three matters. One, the setting up of the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road; two, the Deed of Gift for some artefacts from the house that were to be displayed in an exhibition by the National Heritage Board; and three, accusations of nepotism over my wife and son, and accusations that I want my father's house kept standing to bolster my power. These allegations are entirely baseless but they have already damaged Singapore's reputation. Unrebutted, they can affect Singaporeans' confidence in the Government. I, therefore, have no choice but to address them promptly and publicly. I also have to do so in Parliament. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is a person who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs). As their PM, I have a duty to explain myself to MPs and to rebut in Parliament the allegations against me and my Government. I know many Singaporeans are upset by this issue. They are tired of the subject and wish it would end. I, too, am upset that things have reached this state. As your Prime Minister, I deeply regret that this has happened and apologise to Singaporeans for this. As a son, I am pained at the anguish this strife would have caused my parents to feel if they were still alive. I intend to clear the air today to explain the matter fully and to answer all questions on the matter. I am not here to make a case against my siblings. Parliament is not the place for that. What is private, I will try to resolve privately. But what is public, I have to explain and render account.”
“The Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of the disruptions to StarHub’s residential broadband services on 22 and 24 October 2016. Joint investigations by IMDA and the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) are nearing completion, and findings will be released soon. Cybersecurity is increasingly important, given Singapore's reliance on digital technologies and the interconnectedness of digital systems. Collective effort from the Government, industry and the public is needed to build a resilient and trusted cyber environment. As the regulatory authority for the telecommunications sector, IMDA places stringent standards and requirements on our Internet service providers to ensure that their networks are resilient against cyber disruptions. Companies, too, must ensure that they have robust and resilient systems and measures to quickly detect and respond to any disruptions, to minimise the inconvenience to their customers. Users of Internet-connected devices should also adopt good cyber hygiene practices to secure their devices. While there is no fool-proof solution, we must all work together to strengthen our cyber resilience.”
“Mdm Speaker, the difference is we have a written Constitution, the British do not. So, in Singapore we have to amend the Constitution to do that. In the UK, if there is no Constitution to amend, you can just pass a resolution of Parliament, an Act, and it is done. That is the difference.”
“If we go the other way and we have the CPA elected, what happened in 2011 when electing one President, can easily happen when you elect half a dozen or a dozen CPA members. Each time, each one of them, and you will be contesting for CPA members and arguing, "On what basis will you put yourself up for election as CPA members?" Party lines? That is unsatisfactory. Lines like "I want to spend money"? That is even worse. What am I looking for in the CPA members? Expertise, experience, judgement. They may not be the person who will be the President but they are people who can advise the President. They may not be people who can easily make a campaign speech and win elections and rouse the crowd, but they are people you will go to for advice when you need to make a difficult decision. That is how the CPA has worked. We think it is good. I have discussed this with the President, he has discussed it with the CPA, and they have found this arrangement to be a prudent and a judicious one. I think we should keep it like that.”
“Mdm Speaker, this is a serious question. It is something which we considered carefully and the issue is this. Our system is focused on Parliament. We have tweaked the system to stabilise the Parliament but without changing the fundamental nature of this system. If we wanted to change the fundamental nature of the system, we would say "Let's have an Upper Page: 42 House". I have 10 or 20 senators, vote for the senators, have a separate set of elections. So, I have GEs, Parliament general elections, Upper House. And then I have Parliament making legislation and Upper House vetting, approving legislation, having some powers. We decided, when we went into this, and I think rightly, that Singapore is too small and does not really have the range of people and talent to form two Houses like that. When you are looking for the check which we need over Reserves, over people, what you are looking for is not a politicised decision of a jostle but a judgement of somebody who has got the experience and the wisdom to say, "Yes, what the Government is asking is wise, we do that", or "No". Informed by advisors who have experience, who can tell him "Mr President, the Budget which has been put up, projects next year a 10% growth in revenues, I don't believe that" or "Mr President, this is a very serious economic crisis. We better spend the money and do as the Government proposes". We are looking for this check to be instituted in a person who is well-advised. And we want the person who is elected to make the decision, and the advisors to give him inputs but the elected person decides. That is the model we have gone for, and it has worked well.”
“And yet we know that without the Elected President, we have more cause to worry that things can go disastrously wrong. Strengthening the Elected Presidency will reduce the chances of this happening but, ultimately, our safety, and our future, lie in the hands of Singaporeans. We must rely on Singaporeans to remain united, so that our politics can be constructive and cohesive. To get people to come forward to serve the nation in many different ways. To elect good people into Parliament and Government, and to serve as President. And then we can work together with those entrusted with authority and responsibility to deliver the results that we know Singapore can achieve. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. [Applause.]”
“Page: 41 After becoming Prime Minister, I have worked closely with two Elected Presidents, Mr SR Nathan and Dr Tony Tan, including asking President Nathan for permission to draw on the Reserves during the Global Financial Crisis. So, I think I can say that I know the system – what the design intent was, when we first formulated the scheme, how it has worked in practice, how conditions have changed, how our ideas have evolved and how we should finetune and improve the scheme to make it work for our long-term future. These changes are my responsibility. I am doing it now because it would be irresponsible of me to kick this can down the road and leave the problem to my successors. They have not had this long experience with the system and they will find it much harder to deal with. I am sure the result will not be perfect. I fully expect that, one day, my successors will find it necessary to make further improvements and adjustments to the Elected Presidency scheme. But I believe the changes in this Bill will make the Elected Presidency work better for Singapore, now and in the future. But please understand, whatever we do, it is not cast-iron and foolproof – things can still go wrong in Singapore with Singapore politics. A government may be elected with good intentions, only to find its policies turn out badly. A President may be elected on a basis different from his Constitutional role. Relations between the President and the government may become strained, or even break down. Most fundamentally, Singaporeans may become split along fault lines – race, religion, income or class – and then no political system will produce a stable government for the country. All these are possible, despite all the safeguards we are putting in place.”
“That means if a Malay candidate steps up to run, or more than one Malay candidate steps up to run, who is qualified, Singapore will have a Malay President again. As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak. I look forward to this. [Applause.] Mdm Speaker, these are practical arrangements we must make, in order to make our multiracial system work. We recognise where we are and we will work to strengthen our multiracial society. Our ideal is to be race-blind. We "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion", and we must continue striving towards this goal. As we get closer to this ideal and minority candidates are regularly elected President in open elections, we will need the hiatus-triggered reserved elections less and less. We have spent a lot of energy and time on the changes to the Elected President this year. I personally have paid a lot of attention to this. I feel strongly that it is my responsibility and something that I need to do now. Let me explain to Members why. I have been involved with the Elected Presidency almost from the start. As a young Minister, I helped Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team to develop Mr Lee Kuan Yew's concept into a complete scheme, and I helped Prof Jayakumar to draft the White Papers in 1988 and 1990. Since the Elected Presidency began, I have been operating the mechanism that we designed and discovering its glitches. I helped to refine and amend the scheme as we went along.”
“First, a candidate in a reserved election must still meet the same qualifying criteria. He must be competent for the job of wielding the custodial powers and he must be as qualified as any other candidate who stands and Page: 40 wins in a non-reserved election. Second, the symbolic role of the President is just as important as his custodial role. As a symbol of the nation, the race of the candidate is relevant. So, while individually, a good candidate of any race will be satisfactory, collectively, over a period of time, we need that mix of Presidents of different races, and the election mechanism must be designed to produce such a mix over time. That is what the hiatus-triggered model delivers. When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year. We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency. We also have to define the ethnic group of each of the Elected Presidents we have had so far. There is no practical doubt, but as a legal matter, we have to define it because you cannot convene the Committee retrospectively to certify them. So, the Act will deem: (a) Dr Wee Kim Wee as Chinese, (b) Mr Ong Teng Cheong as Chinese, (c) Mr S R Nathan, who served two terms, as Indian, (d) and Dr Tony Tan as Chinese. Therefore, by the operation of the hiatus-triggered model, the next election, due next year, will be a reserved election for Malay candidates.”
“The blacks are again overwhelmingly voting for Hillary Clinton this time, but with somewhat less enthusiasm than when they voted for President Obama. And the Latinos also, ethnically as a group, are voting against Mr Trump and turning out in big numbers because they see that perhaps Mr Trump may win if they do not vote. So, the moral of the story is that race and religion are very deep-seated realities in every country. We must take them very seriously. So, even though there is no pressure, even the minority communities have not pressed for it in Singapore, we should make arrangements now to ensure that the Presidency will be multiracial. We have decided to do this through what the Constitutional Commission has called the hiatus-triggered model, which means that Presidential Elections are generally open to candidates of all races. But if we have not had a President from a particular community for five consecutive terms, then the next term will be reserved for candidates from that community. If one of them is elected, you will have a President from that community. So, it is five terms; if without, then one is reserved. This means that over six election terms, we should expect to see at least one Chinese President, one Malay President, one President who is either an Indian or another minority, provided qualified candidates appear. Which means that, out of six terms, there will be at least two non-Chinese Presidents, which means one in three Presidents will be non-Chinese, which is a bigger proportion than the proportion of non-Chinese in the population. Some people have objected that this arrangement goes against the principle of meritocracy. I understand their concerns. But I would like you to consider two points.”
“But I did it because he knew the ground; I knew him, and I judged that this was a risk that I was prepared to take. He Page: 39 fought hard. He won, but he can tell you, and I can tell you, that he had to fight harder than if I had sent a similar Chinese candidate familiar with the ground to go and fight and win. It is a reality of Singapore society and Singapore politics. And it is not just Singapore. It is so in every country, including the US. In 1992, when Bill Clinton first stood for election as President, he ran against George HW Bush, the senior George Bush. The blacks voted for Bill Clinton. Toni Morrison, who is a black female Nobel laureate for Literature, described Bill Clinton rapturously as "the first black President". Years later, 2008, Hillary Clinton, his wife, ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in the primaries. Bill Clinton repeated this phrase; described himself as "the first black president", to shore up Hillary. He thought it would help. Instead, he caused an uproar in the African-American community. The blacks voted overwhelmingly against Hillary, for Obama. Then, Obama became President. It was a real breakthrough for African-Americans. People said, "Marvellous! Race no longer matters in US politics." But they were too optimistic. After eight years of a black President, in the election, you have two white candidates: Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. What is the election about? At one level, it is about globalisation, jobs, insecurity. But at another level, race is front and centre. Trump supporters are overwhelmingly white, lower- and middle-income voters. They feel threatened by the demographic changes happening in America. Theirs is a white protest vote.”
“The President is the most important unifying symbol of the nation. Singaporeans look up to the President as the personification of all that Singapore stands for and all that we stand for in Singapore. So, it is a fundamental necessity that the Presidency be multiracial. If we have a nominated President, we can do this informally. Parliament can choose Presidents of all races over a period of time, as it did. And the office will, de-facto, be multiracial, without explicit, formal constitutional arrangements. But if the President is elected in a national election, then if we do not make deliberate arrangements to ensure a multiracial outcome, the Presidency could well, over time, become a single-race office, because minorities do find it harder to win in a national election. This is not an easy subject to speak about openly. Many of us want to be race-blind. We feel ourselves to be race-blind. We feel that we ourselves are race-blind and we are understandably uneasy about any suggestion that perhaps we are not so. I am heartened that that is our ideal and our aspiration but, at the same time, I have to be realistic about where we are today. And you have seen the surveys; they show that a significant minority of Singaporeans at least consider race as a factor when they vote and will not vote for somebody of a different race to be President. Not everybody but not a small minority either. And that puts minority candidates at a disadvantage in an election. Mr Murali Pillai spoke about this yesterday and he knows this, from personal experience. And I knew this when I sent Mr Murali Pillai to Bukit Batok to fight a by-election in a Single Member Constituency, knowing that it is not so easy for a non-Chinese to do that.”
“Political Islam is a dominant feature. Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) has tabled a hudud Bill in Parliament. The Barisan Nasional Government has allowed it to be put on the Order Paper. Non-Muslim parties are deeply upset about this, but they know that in such matters, they do not decide. The divide between the races is very deep. In Singapore, we worry about race and religion ourselves, too. What will happen to our society if we have a terrorist attack? What more if the attack is by a Singaporean, self-radicalised after visiting extremist websites? Will we stand together or will we split along racial and religious lines? A terrorist attack is frightening but if it comes from outside, I think it is not so hard to understand; we pull together. If it should come from within, are we sure that we can heal back together so easily, unless we work very hard at it before the fact? So, these events, external events and influences will affect our social cohesion. We are building a radically different society in Singapore than other countries in the region; than China, because that is overwhelmingly one ethic group, the Hans; than our neighbours, who are working on a different basis than we are. We are seeking to be multiracial, equal, harmonious; gradually enlarging our shared Singaporean identity, while celebrating our different cultures and faiths; allowing minority communities ample space to live their own ways of life, never forcing everybody to conform to a single norm set by the majority. We have to work consciously and systematically at this. It will not happen by itself, nor will we get there if we blithely assume that we have already arrived and do not talk about it, do not do anything about it, that we are okay. That is not the way to be okay.”
“It can lead to misunderstandings; it can lead to unrealistic expectations; it can lead to us being carried away even domestically and forgetting this fundamental fact about Singapore – that we are independent, sovereign, multiracial, in Southeast Asia. And that is what we must always remember: we are not a Chinese country. We are a multiracial, multi-religious Southeast Asian country with an ethnic Chinese majority but not a Chinese country. We have to show this. We have to show this domestically, to our own population, the Chinese population as well as the non-Chinese population. And we have to show this externally, to other countries, too. So, that is one important way in which the external world influences our domestic racial cohesion and considerations. Secondly, among our closest neighbours, race and religion are hot issues. If we look at Indonesia, Basuki Tjahaya Purnama – you may know him by another name, Ahok, running for re-election as Governor of Jakarta. Ahok is a Chinese and a Christian. His opponents cited a Quranic verse to tell Muslims not to vote for Ahok. They called him a "kafir", an infidel; strong word. Ahok responded in a Youtube video, accused them of lying and misinterpreting the Quran. Then, they attacked Ahok for blasphemy. And Ahok was forced to apologise. But his opponents staged a huge demonstration in Jakarta last Friday. The protestors yelled, "We want a Muslim Governor!" and "Burn Ahok!" There was violence and rioting. And today, I read in the newspapers that Ahok went to the police yesterday and the police interviewed him for nine hours. They are investigating whether he committed blasphemy. Page: 38 In Malaysia, politics is based on race and religion. It is the antithesis of the way politics is conducted in Singapore.”
“We have made enormous progress in our racial harmony certainly, but we are not completely there. As a small, open multiracial country, our ethnic groups are always subject to different external pulls and influences. Our racial harmony can be affected by developments in other countries and this applies to all our ethnic groups. Take the rise of China, with which we have substantial relations. I spoke about this in the National Day Rally, and Ms Tin Pei Ling, I was happy to hear, spoke about it yesterday, too. China's rise is a tremendous plus for Singapore, and for the world. Our companies do a lot of business in China, and many Chinese companies participate in our economy. We work on G-to-G projects – Suzhou, Tianjin, and now Chongqing, on the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative. We have to-ing and fro-ing intensively – tourism, culture, education. Every Chinese New Year, without Chinese artisans, you will not have all the "灯笼" and the Riverside Hongbao. Every community event, there is some engagement, some flow, some connection with some part of China which can add some extra colour and vividness to our Singapore Chinese culture. We want to grow this cooperation with China and take full advantage of our familiarity with the culture and the language. So, we talk about not just bilingualism but biculturalism and we make a big effort to develop those links. And yet, there is a risk because of our population composition; because of our cultural familiarity, people may misunderstand us to be a Chinese country and forget that, in fact, Singapore is an independent sovereign country, cooperating with other countries on the basis of our own national interests and positions.”
“Amongst all the changes in this complicated Bill, the one which we thought hardest about, and where the most is at stake, is the question of ensuring multiracial representation in the Elected Presidency. To raise the qualifying criteria is relatively straightforward, because it is an objective bar. To strengthen the CPA is a matter of finetuning. The provisions on veto and entrenchment are, essentially, a legal drafting problem, setting the right balance between flexibility and rigidity in the Constitution, but it can be done. It may take several tries. This is our third try but it can be done. But whether to ensure that people from different races can and do, indeed, become President is the most difficult question, because it goes right to the core of our fundamental belief in a multiracial society. As the Head of State, the President is the symbol of our nation. He represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the office must be multiracial. At the same time, whichever ethnic group the President belongs to, he has to be multiracial in his approach. He has to reach out to all races, connect with every Singaporean. And fortunately, all our Presidents so far have done that. If the President, who is a symbol of a multiracial nation, always comes from the same race, not only will he cease to be a credible symbol of our nation, the very multiracial character of our nation will come under question. Every citizen – Chinese, Malay, Indian, or some other race – should know that someone of his community can become President and, in fact, from time to time, does become Page: 37 President. This is not a theoretical matter. For us, race is a very "live" consideration, with real-world implications.”
“So, whoever wins, hopefully it will not be so easy for things to go completely out of kilter. When I was in Washington in August just before National Day, I was asked this question at the press conference with President Obama. I made this point, speaking slightly out of turn, and President Obama commented wryly: "The wisdom of your founding fathers". But there was wisdom there. James Madison, one of the founding fathers, wrote in the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays which set out the philosophy and the arguments and the options as the US debated how to craft the Constitution of the United States. And he wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." And he goes on to say, "A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." In other words, elections are very important to choose the government your people need and deserve but you cannot rely just on that simple bare idea. You need other ideas to make a complete and a stable system. And that is wisdom. I do not think the system like the US can work for Singapore. But we, too, need some "auxiliary precautions", some stabiliser, besides the "primary control", which is the fact that Parliament is elected by the people. And for us, that stabiliser is the Elected President. Therefore, we should keep the Elected President and finetune its stabiliser role. So, we are raising the eligibility criteria. We are strengthening the CPA. We are revising the entrenchment framework. That is one major part of this Bill. Let me now speak specifically about the racial provisions.”
“When the UK government tries to deport convicted foreign terrorists, the cases are endlessly litigated, and the judges made their interpretation of the facts and what the Ministers are entitled to do, and the government finds itself impotent to act. That is one extreme. The other extreme is the US, which lays great store on checks and balances. The US has elevated the separation of powers almost into a sacred doctrine. Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court ‒ three centres of power, constantly checking and balancing one another. Congress itself is divided between the House and Senate, separately elected, often with different parties controlling each one. The tension is always there, and sometimes results in gridlock. Some people would say, usually, results in gridlock. But the US accepts that, because their overriding priority and philosophy are to prevent an overbearing government. Because of their historical experience of the British, they wanted to make sure that their government would never impose the same tyranny on their people. Right now, the US is about to go to the polls in a few hours' time to elect a new President. The world is watching with bated breath, exceptionally concerned what the outcome will be. Because, this time, the two candidates represent radically different world views, and in the case of one candidate, a very unconventional approach to the issues and the challenges that the country faces. The outcome will matter a lot to the US and to the world. But one factor which people take some Page: 36 comfort in is the strong checks and balances in the US political system. They make it not so easy to make things happen, but they make it very difficult for things to go disastrously wrong.”
“We introduced this safeguard, the Elected President, to protect Reserves and appointments, and address specific vulnerabilities which we have in Singapore. Seen against the range of democratic systems that exists in different countries, this is not a fundamental shift from our system of parliamentary democracy. But it is an important one, because every political system needs stabilisers. Let me illustrate with two quite extreme examples ‒ Britain and the US. The country which comes closest to a Parliament which has no constraint is the United Kingdom (UK). There is no written Constitution. Theoretically, the House of Commons, by simple majority, can make any decision ‒ decide to do away with the monarchy, abolish the House of Lords, even do away with elections altogether. Still, even in Britain, the courts have become a check on the government. The courts have taken an expanded view of their traditional role interpreting and administering the law, but doing it in such a way now that they make judgments and orders that are, in effect, executive decisions. For example, 40 years ago, during the Northern Ireland conflict, the UK government enacted tough measures against IRA terrorists. They restricted civil liberties, tightened court procedures and implemented internment, which is detention without trial. By and large, these measures were met with robust judicial acceptance and approval. But in more recent times, that has changed. After 9/11, when jihadist terrorism prompted the government to push for similar measures, the judicial response has been more critical and challenging.”
“This is a good investment." And that is why we need the second key to be held by another elected institution, separate from Parliament, and that is the Elected President. Furthermore, making everything depend on one institution, namely, the Parliament, creates what the engineers would call "a single point of failure". Everything hinges on the outcome of a single GE, on the Government elected into Parliament in that one vote every five years. If the election takes place when the country happens to be worked up over some issue, then the Government that is elected may take action that the country will later regret. That is why countries with an Upper House and a Lower House often hold their Upper and Lower House elections separately ‒ staggered timings and different constituencies, not exactly the same, so that when you decide the future of the country at the ballot box, you are never risking everything in one throw of the electoral dice. What the Chinese call, "孤注一掷" (gu zhu yi zhi), that Page: 35 is, put all your chips there and risk it. That is why we decided that, in Singapore, the second key would be held by the Elected President, a different and independent institution, elected in a separate Presidential Election with a different term of office from the Government. We are trying to design our political system to have the right balance between a decisive Executive and having adequate stabilisers. At one extreme, without stabilisers, the system will be unstable. If anything goes wrong, the consequences can be very serious. At the other extreme, if the stabilisers are too strong, we risk gridlock; difficult to get anything done. We started very close to the first extreme ‒ a unicameral, single Parliament, untrammelled. Then, we made a careful shift.”
“During the commodities boom, the Australian government started to accumulate budget surpluses. They wanted to save these surpluses for their future. So, they established the sovereign wealth fund, called the "Future Fund", to cover Australia's future pension liabilities. But the political dynamics of the electoral contest resulted in elections becoming auctions. So, what happened? Seven consecutive years of personal income tax cuts; increased subsidies and benefits for pensioners. Somebody subsequently did a report which concluded that during the boom, out of every AUD19 that the government received in additional revenue, it saved AUD1 and it spent AUD18. So, in total, they gave back AUD180 billion either to taxpayers through tax cuts or by spending it. AUD180 billion. When the commodities boom ended, as all such booms do, Australia went into deficit. The Future Fund is empty, the government has had to make very painful spending cuts and still the budget will be in deficit for years to come. Singapore is not in such a position. And for that, some credit must go to the system of the Elected President with veto powers over the Reserves. Some agree that we should have safeguards on the Reserves, but argue that the powers should be vested in Parliament, instead of a separate institution. That may help but, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo pointed out yesterday, in Parliament, the pressure is to do more rather than to spend less. I cannot recall the last occasion in this House where any political party or Member of Parliament has pressed the Government to spend less or to raise more taxes. In fact, on the contrary, when spending proposals come up and we pressed the Members of Parliament (MPs), "How are they to be paid for?" The answer is, "You don't have to worry.”
“In effect, the CPA becomes an Upper House. Then, instead of having one national election to choose a President, we would have elections for six, eight or 10 Presidential Advisers. Instead of having one presidential race risking being politicised, we would have six, eight or 10 CPA races at similar risk. The problem will be amplified, not reduced. Page: 34 The third alternative is to return to the status quo ante. Go back to a non-elected President, purely ceremonial, like before 1990. Do away with the President's custodial powers and do away with the CPA. Let Parliament be supreme, with unrestricted power to do as it pleases. No safeguard, no stabiliser, no fault tolerance. But that would be very unwise. I believe that over the last 25 years, even though the Elected President has never had to veto any spending proposal by the Government, by the very existence of his powers, he has influenced Singapore politics for the better. The prospect of the veto alone has lessened the temptation for political parties to promise the world to voters in GEs. Everyone knows that a government which says, "Just spend the money" ‒ $60 billion, $80 billion, $100 billion ‒ on free university education, free healthcare, cheap homes, has first to persuade the President to unlock the Reserves. And that is an important reason why Opposition parties have been quite cautious in their spending proposals even during GEs. Without this second key, I am quite sure some Opposition parties would have gone to town many elections ago. And the PAP Government would have come under pressure to match their generosity and might well have found it difficult to hold the line. You heard about the Australian experience yesterday. It holds many lessons for us.”
“The first suggestion is to have a non-elected President, but with the same custodial powers as the Elected President, namely, Reserves and personnel, key appointments. I do not think this is wise. To veto the Government is a major decision; you must have a democratic mandate to make that call. When the elected Government asks an unelected President to approve something and the unelected President says yes, there is no problem. But when an unelected President has to say no to an elected Government, he will find it very hard to stand his ground, and the public will find it very hard to accept. The Government will argue, with justification: "Who are you to say no? We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will. Please approve what we propose." The President's "no" will not stick. The second suggestion is to revert to a ceremonial President chosen by Parliament, not elected in a national election, but vest the second key in the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), give the power to the CPA. However, the same argument for electing a President with custodial powers would apply to a CPA with custodial powers. An unelected CPA, a council of non-political wise men, working as an advisory panel to the Elected President who makes the final decision and has a democratic mandate. That works well. The President has a mandate; the President makes the final decision. The advisory panel gives him wise, informed, impartial advice, non-elected but with experience brought to bear. We can do that. But once the CPA itself becomes the decision maker, if the CPA members are unelected, the same problem that an unelected President has saying "no", the CPA will have saying "no". So, what is the solution? The solution then is we elect the CPA.”
“In a fiercely contested campaign, emotions and sentiments can build up, and issues that have nothing to do with the role of the President can become hot. Candidates may then make claims, promises and declarations which go beyond the President's powers and competence under the Constitution. We saw that happen in the 2011 Presidential Election. One candidate championed a $60 billion economic plan, supposedly to create jobs and enterprise. Another candidate made proposals, such Page: 33 as better recognition for National Servicemen, for more help for the poor and unemployed. But these are the Government's responsibility, for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to decide. The person who is standing for election as the guardian of the Reserves is offering as his platform to open the doors and make free. It is not for the President to promise these things in a campaign or push for them after being elected. But in 2011, some candidates' attitude was: never mind, just say it, get elected first, worry about the Constitution later on. But for all these difficulties, I am convinced that the Elected President has been a plus for our system. Having this stabiliser is critical and has already made a difference. Even though it is not easy to get right, we should persevere to improve the system. We can find ways to mitigate the difficulties, and will do so, because the alternatives to the Elected President will create other, probably worse, difficulties. What are the alternatives? There have been different suggestions, including by the Constitutional Commission, which raised the issue in their report, though it was not within their terms of reference, because they felt strongly that this was important and should be brought to the Government's attention. Let me discuss three of the ideas.”