Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 20.
“Speaker, I will make this my last question to the Minister. So, does the Minister agree that before the due legal process is being followed, Members make statements about, potentially, there may be a criminal behaviour of certain individuals – is that acceptable?”
“Speaker, so my understanding of the processes, of our legal processes is that, when you name someone to have committed perjury or you say someone has absconded, and if the process that we have put in place through our legal system has not been strictly followed, and then you are saying those things in Parliament, is that not something that we should think about, as Members of this House? That is the spirit of what this Parliament should be, that I am trying to write in my post.”
“Speaker, so, can I confirm that what the Minister has said is that, there are specifically two problems with my post: one is "muddying the waters"; and two, is the statement I made about Senior Minister and himself about using this Parliament to say certain things. Are those the only two points which the Minister is taking issue with my post? Then, I want to explain the second point as well.”
“Speaker, Sir, I have given my explanation just now, that "muddying the waters" just means that — in my post, I also said, "let us concentrate on the differences between the Lee Hsien Yang and the KOM cases". That is what I mean. I am not casting aspersions on the Minister at all. That case will actually cloud the judgement of other people, so let us concentrate on the differences between the Lee Hsien Yang and the KOM case – that is the meaning of that. Is that not acceptable?”
“Speaker, I would only agree to delete my post if the Minister points out specifically again, what are the issues of my post? "Muddying the waters" is not something that is an issue. Please elaborate again, how does that word "muddy the waters" become an issue.”
“Speaker, I understand that 38 Oxley Road is a matter that is of public interest. That, I agree; and even if it was debated in Parliament before the time I came into Parliament, I have no issue with that. But when there are further developments to that, especially with regard to the personal behaviours of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, I do not think there is a need to raise those issues in Parliament again. That is what I am trying to drive at.”
“Speaker, I am not going to withdraw that.”
“Sorry, Speaker, can I ask the Minister to repeat his question?”
“"Muddy the waters", in my understanding of English is that, you cloud the real issues. That is why you are swimming in the muddy water, you cloud the real issues because you introduce new things into the discussion.”
“I did not say it is relevant. I am going to answer —”
“Okay, then now I will say. Do you agree to that, Minister? I did not say it is irrelevant. I did not say that you are confusing Parliament.”
“Yes, but the Minister already said that I am saying this because it is irrelevant, I am trying to imply it is irrelevant, I am trying to say that he is confusing the Parliament, which I did not say. Do you agree?”
“But, Speaker, I must say, this kind of questioning is not what a legislative chamber should be.”
“Speaker, now Minister is testing whether I am from a lousy school or not.”
“I did not say it is irrelevant. I did not say you are confusing Parliament. Minister, do not put words into my mouth.”
“Okay. So, because the issue here is about the fairness of the KOM case and the Lee Hsien Yang case. So, you do not need to bring in a new case. When you bring in a new case, in a way, you are clouding the thinking of people.”
“Minister, in that case, I am not going to answer any more of your question. This is not a Court —”
“Speaker, I do not accept that the Parti Liyani case is relevant for this debate because — Minister, let me finish.”
“Speaker, I did not say it is not relevant. I said it muddied the water.”
“Yes, we did not object to the disclosure of Karl Liew, because it was indeed in the public interest. The case of non-disclosure of the KOM executives has not taken place yet. So, our issue is about the non-disclosure of the KOM executives and the fair treatment between the KOM case and the Lee Hsien Yang case.”
“Yes, I think probably I was digesting the information at that time.”
“Speaker, I think for the sake of time, let me answer the question about Karl Liew.”
“Well, Speaker, sometimes, when we are debating an issue like this, it needs time to digest. Sometimes, it may take a bit of time to respond. But when the process just moves through so fast, there will be —”
“I am saying that the debate could have been longer.”
“Before I could raise my hand, it went to another question already.”
“I had the opportunity to talk two times. But I wanted a third time to talk. But before I could —”
“Well, Speaker, you have a very good memory. But okay, I will answer —”
“Speaker, I disagree with the Minister. I do not think the debate that we had on Monday had lasted long enough. I have some more questions.”
“Speaker, I did not say Minister is not saying the truth —”
“Speaker. First of all, I want to clarify, in my opinion, that even in our debate in this House, it is not necessary that all the time we have enough time and opportunities to refute every point. How long have we lasted —”
“Speaker, if the Minister said that they have not been found guilty overseas, then I am prepared to withdraw my statement.”
“This is based on the case; the case has been such a big case overseas and in Singapore. And the Keppel Corp has paid such a big fine overseas.”
“I have the impression that they are found guilty in the overseas court of law.”
“Speaker, may I ask the Minister? I actually was the first to raise the issue that whether the Senior Minister and Minister should make such statements in this Parliament. And now, he is turning it around and says that I have made certain statement. But I will answer his question first and I hope he answers the question I will ask, fully, later. When I say these individuals are guilty, because this is based on the information that we have obtained about what happened overseas, in the overseas jurisdiction. What the Singapore Court's decision is, we know that the CPIB decided not to prosecute them. But at the same time, we also want to know not to prosecute, does it also mean that in the stern warning letter, there is really —when a stern warning letter is issued, does it mean that there is actually sufficient evidence to show that they are guilty, but there are some reasons that the CPIB decide not to prosecute them?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. Yes, Mr Lee Hsien Yang is a member of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP). But the real issue here that we are discussing is about fairness and equality before the law. It is not about whether he is a member of the PSP or not. And whether every citizen is given fair and equal treatment. Whatever Mr Lee said in his post, when we name a person to have absconded, we must follow our criminal procedure properly. So, if you have not issued him a written order, then your process has a problem. And you do not have the right to say that he has absconded.”
“Correct. If there is a criminal offence, of course, it has to be investigated.”
“Speaker, it is an "if" again. But for this question —”
“No, what I said just now, Speaker, is that you do not put in new "ifs" or "whats" in this Parliament. If you have "ifs" and "whats", let the Court decide. That is what we are trying to drive at.”
“No. Speaker, can I say that I am not going to answer the Minister like answering in Court. This is a legislative chamber. This is not a legal chamber. I have my way of answering.”
“Speaker, Sir, that is why this whole issue is not about "if". It is about if you want to raise a new —”
“No, I know it has been said, but I think within the legal interpretation —”
“I think it is subject to legal interpretation.”
“Yes, but Speaker, I hope you also understand that in this House —”
“Speaker, that was fast. Allow me enough time to ventilate, because sometimes, I have to put the thing into context, since I have been specially called back to face the Minister. With regard to his question, I have read the Judgment and the opinion of the DT and C3J. But I have also been told that the new allegations raised by the Senior Minister and Minister are actually new allegations, like perjury. Has it been established during the C3J? I do not know, I am not legally trained. For example, you know, perjury. And then, on Monday, the Minister talked about absconding. So, we asked has a written order been issued? He confirmed only through an email. Maybe he will give us more information afterwards.”
“Yes, he addressed it in a different context and then asked me a question. But can he answer my question first? Did the Police issue a written order to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lee Suet Fern?”
“Minister, there you go again. I asked you a question and you framed it in a different context —”
“Okay. The issue here is really about fairness before the law whether we have the rule of law in Singapore or not. The Minister has shared that some of the exceptions involve the offender having absconded. May I ask the first question then – did the Police specifically issue a written order for Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lim Suet Fern to attend to the investigation at the Police station? Secondly, he mentioned the difference between the KOM case and this case. But is the KOM case not also a matter of very wide public interest? A lot of people are very interested in the names of the six individuals. I do not understand the legal process very well but under the stern warning letter, is there a paragraph that says that these six individuals of KOM are guilty but the prosecutor decided or the CPIB decided not to pursue the case because of some other reasons. So, we have a situation here that for a KOM case – actually it is a more serious case – they are actually guilty and we have the names in the foreign jurisdiction documents already – this is one point. Second point is that the KOM case is actually of deep public interest. So, why is there a double standard?”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for the explanation. I have three supplementary questions to ask.”
“Yes, I understand. Your office has decided that, right? So, okay —”
“I have actually posed a question to the Senior Minister.”