Teo Chee Hean
Singapore
“The second point first, Mr Speaker. Certainly, it could have been a factor. But to the Panel which reviewed the thing, it was not an acceptable excuse or reason. The agencies still have to be responsible for what they are doing, whatever season of the year it is.”
“On the balance in ACRA, I would not say it is a conflict, but you have to strike the right balance between the functions that ACRA is meant to provide, which is to have a registry which promotes corporate transparency, and you have to balance that against how you protect personal data.”
“That means, if you do find a bug or you do find a way in which you can penetrate a Government system, you let us know, and there is a bounty for it. And this is evergreen. But we also do, from time to time, have a hunting season. So, for certain of our systems, we invite white hatters to attack those systems.”
“Then, he asked when the political office holders got involved in the public communications on the Bizfile portal issue. They got involved, I think, almost as soon as it became apparent that there was public anxiety. Next question about paragraph 40 and the email to senior officers, yes, the July 2024 CM was emailed to officers.”
“In fact, we monitor the dark web for a variety of things, including this, and we have not seen any sale of NRIC numbers as such. On the question of collection and use of NRIC numbers, actually, in the communication with the Government agencies, I think it is important to know who you are communicating with.”
“So, you actually make your email address available to others. But for authentication purposes, it is quite different. You do not tell your password to others. That is something which you keep for yourself and your email service provider knows. So, there is a difference between an identifier and an authentication.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,689 lines we hold for Teo Chee Hean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 34.
“Real estate agents benefit from this, too, as they can also free up the time they spend on administrative work and focus on offering more value-added services for their clients and, of course, members of the public benefit when they are doing resale flat transactions, whether they are buyers or sellers. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will elaborate on our Digital Government efforts later. Ms Thanaletchimi and Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked what the Public Service will do to prepare our workforce for technological disruption. Last year, I spoke about training 10,000 public officers by 2020 in digital capabilities, such as data analytics and data science, for policy formulation, service delivery and corporate services. We are on track. More than 4,000 officers have attended training courses as at the end of 2017. To expand our reach, the Civil Service College will partner Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) so that every public officer can deepen their skills and have access to tools for this digital age. We also support our officers of all ages to transform, upskill and innovate, so that they are ready to take on new roles. This is also a question that Mr Patrick Tay asked. At the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), for example, more than 400 staff ambassadors, called LEverage Analytics, Design and Digitalisation (LEA:D) Advocates, support their peers through change and learning new skills. Several LEA:D Advocates are 55 years and older. They have stepped forward to share with others how they have picked up new digital skills to analyse large volumes of data and digital applications to automate data entry. Dr Teo Ho Pin rightly pointed out that, ultimately, building a tech-enabled workforce is not an end in itself.”
“And, as I have said before, there are also avenues for public officers to report to the PSC or also to the Head of the Civil Service and our enforcement agencies, including the Police and the CPIB, and Mr Leon Perera knows that these are very effective organisations. On annual reports, I completely agree with Mr Leon Perera. We should only print them when we need to. In fact, this is the policy that we adopt, and I take the suggestions to heart and we will see how we can reduce publication of physical copies further. Mr Lee Yi Shyan also cited the intensified competition among Asian economies and asked how we could adopt an innovation culture more widely. The Public Service will continue to help and partner Singaporeans and companies to seize new opportunities. As the various sectors of our economy are transforming for the future, the Public Service has also embarked on its own transformation to be more innovative, work smarter through technology and deliver better public services for our people. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak more on the transformation effort later but, here, I would like to highlight two areas. First, raising the digital capabilities of our Public agencies; and second, deepening the skills of our Public Service officers. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Lee Yi Shyan asked how the Public Service as a whole is upgrading and reinventing itself. All our agencies are working on enhancing their digital capabilities, which will allow them to deliver more integrated services for Singaporeans and businesses. An example is the new Housing and Development Board (HDB) Resale Portal. Buyers and sellers of HDB resale flats can now complete the process in half the time, or just eight weeks, since the start of this year.”
“Singapore needs to remain economically competitive and be a smart, green and liveable city with opportunities for Singaporeans of all ages. As Mr Sean Kian Peng and Mr Lee Yi Shyan pointed out, technological progress and increasing digitisation are effecting rapid changes globally. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will provide a progress update and outline new Smart Nation initiatives. We will help our people and our companies make adjustments for the future and continue to raise the capabilities of our public officers to deliver better public services. This is what a Caring, Competent and Trusted Public Service has to do, and what many Members, such as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Cedric Foo, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Dr Teo Ho Pin, have suggested. We will continue to strengthen our institutions to operate in a more integrated way. The recently passed Public Sector Governance Act strengthens our corporate governance and accountability. Mr Leon Perera asked about our internal framework for reporting wrongdoings, and this is an internal disclosure framework. It is working well. Officers know about it. About 320 cases were reported to the internal disclosure framework in 2017. The number has remained stable over the last three years. Of these, about nine in 10 were followed up by formal investigations, with 134 resulting in some form of disciplinary action. However, many of these cases did not involve the misuse of public funds and did not reflect serious gaps in the Public Service's systems of checks and controls. So, the system is there, it works well, public officers are aware of it.”
“We are progressing well on our economic transformation, with the Public Service working closely with industry, our unions and workers to deepen their skills and prepare for the future. The PMO-Strategy Group is working closely with our agencies and other central agencies, such as the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Division (PSD), to adopt a systems approach to planning and coordination. This includes areas, such as scenario planning, budget, manpower, population, land, security, climate change and new opportunities in the Digital and Future Economy. We have formed the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group last May to accelerate our Smart Nation efforts. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Lee Yi Shyan cited demographic challenges which stem from our low total fertility rate (TFR). Agencies have worked together to strengthen our support for marriage and parenthood in the key areas of housing, preschool and support in the workplace and the community. Minister Josephine Teo will give an update of our population priorities and strategies to ensure that we are well-prepared for the future later on during this COS for PMO. Climate change is also a whole-of-nation issue where all countries need to take action now to safeguard our collective future. Together with other countries, Singapore will do our part to reduce our emissions. To do so in a cost-effective manner, the carbon tax is a decisive move. Its merits were discussed extensively during the Budget Debate. The transition period and support will help our companies and consumers make the adjustments. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will provide more details in his speech on our implementation plans in the COS for Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).”
“Thank you. The Government has also decided to maintain the current National Bonus indicators and not make refinements to the wages for the National Bonus indicators. The economy is going through a period of transition and the Government has decided to watch the changing economic conditions and outlook further rather than making any refinements now. The Government has also decided to maintain NCMP allowances at the current level and consider any change where other adjustments need to be made. So, Mr Chairman, if I may summarise. The 2017 committee has reviewed and reaffirmed the key principles that form the underlying basis for determining political salaries. The committee is also of the view that the existing salary framework remains relevant and sound in ensuring a flow of capable leaders committed to the continued success of Singapore and Singaporeans. The committee has also recommended that salaries be adjusted by 9%, together with some refinements in the elements within the framework. The Government has decided not to make any changes now and to maintain the current salary framework and salary level. The Government will, of course, keep this House fully informed of any changes to the salary structure or level. I have taken Members through the substance of the views and recommendations from the committee. The Government is releasing the Review Committee's report. Now, Mr Chairman, let me thank the Members for their views and their continued support for the work of our public officers. Over the past few days, Members debated how to position Singapore on a firmer footing for our future generations.”
“The income-related indicators reflect whether jobs translate to better income for all Singaporeans, including average and lower-wage workers. However, the committee has also recommended a few adjustments. One, to adjust political salaries annually in line with annual benchmark movements. On this, the committee noted that the benchmark has increased by 9% since 2011 or a compounded growth rate of 1.5% per year over this period. But there has been no adjustment made to political salaries over the period. Two, to review the ranges for the National Bonus indicators to take into consideration changing economic conditions and national outlook and, three, to adjust the allowances for Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from 15% of the allowance for elected MPs to 20% to recognise that NCMP have full voting rights in Parliament, from April 2017. As I have stated earlier, the Prime Minister has written to the committee to thank the committee for its work and its well-considered recommendations. However, the Government has decided not to make any changes and to maintain the current salary structure and level. Let me explain why. The committee has affirmed that the current salary structure for political appointment holders, including the National Bonus framework, remains relevant and sound. Therefore, we should maintain the structure. While the MR4 benchmark has increased by 9% since 2011, or the compounded growth rate of 1.5% per year over this period, the Government knows that the 2017 MR4 benchmark is lower than the 2016 MR4 benchmark. Hence, the Government has decided to maintain salaries at the current level and watch the salary trends further. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute chart 1 of the salary benchmark since 2011.”
“The salaries should be linked to the individual performance of political appointment holders and the socioeconomic progress of Singapore Citizens. The 2017 committee affirmed that these principles remain relevant and should be retained. These principles form the cornerstone of a system that ensures competitive salaries while maintaining transparency and accountability. Second, the committee assessed that the current salary benchmark strikes a good balance between paying competitive salaries and displaying the ethos of political service and recommends continuing the use of this benchmark to determine the total annual salary of a Minister at a grade of MR4. The salary benchmark which is based on the medium income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore Citizens reflects the calibre of the people Singapore needs for good Government while the 40% discount from this signifies the ethos of political service. Third, the committee recommended retaining the current pay structure for political appointment holders. The committee assessed that the structure is simple and easy to understand. There are direct links to individual performance and national outcomes. All salary components are clearly spelt out with no hidden benefits and all salary components are within the benchmark. In particular, the committee reviewed the existing indicators in the National Bonus framework and recommended retaining them as they adequately covered the spectrum of the Government's efforts at the macro level. The National Bonus is linked to real gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate which tracks how well Singapore is growing economically as a country and unemployment rate of Singapore Citizens which tracks whether growth translates to jobs for Singaporeans.”
“The Government has decided that since the scheme remains valid and the economy is still in transition, we will not change anything now and will maintain the current salary structure and level. We will review the matter again after five years or when it becomes necessary. Mr Chairman, the 2017 committee comprises nine members headed by the 2011 committee chairman, Mr Gerard Ee. The other eight members were Dr Abdul Razak Omar, Mr Thomas Chua, Mrs Fang Ai Lian, Ms Eu Lin Goh, Mr Stephen Lee, Ms Mary Liu, Mr Ramasamy Dhinakaran and Mrs Mildred Tan. These independent members are experienced and well-established in a range of sectors: social and community service, business, trade union and professional services. Two of these eight members, Mrs Fang Ai Lian and Mr Stephen Lee, served on the 2011 committee while six were new. In 2017, the committee reviewed the salary framework and submitted its views and recommendations to the Prime Minister in December last year. Let me now take the House through the substance of the committee's views and recommendations. First, the committee reaffirmed that the current salary framework laid out in the 2012 White Paper is a simple and effective salary framework for political appointment holders and MPs and remains true to the three key principles which this House had arrived at through consensus in 2012. In fact, this consensus on the principles included Members of the Opposition party. These three principles were: (a) salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country; (b) the ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and, hence, there should be a discount in the pay formula; and (c) there should be a clean wage with no hidden perks.”
“Mr Chairman, before I begin on the work of the Public Service, let me address the points raised by Members Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Alex Yam on the salary framework for political officeholders. The current framework is based on the 2012 White Paper on salaries for capable and committed Government. Members may recall that the Prime Minister appointed an independent committee in May 2011 to review the basis and level of political salaries to help ensure an honest and competent Government. The committee's recommendations contained in the White Paper were thoroughly debated over three days in this House and endorsed in January 2012. The endorsed salary framework was implemented with effect from May 2011. I last updated this House on this subject during the 2015 Committee of Supply (COS). I had informed the House that the salary framework was working well and that the Government was maintaining the salary level established by the 2011 Review Committee. The 2011 committee had suggested reviewing the salary scheme after five years. In line with this, the Prime Minister formed a fresh committee last year to review whether the salary framework remains appropriate and valid against its intended goals and what adjustments may be useful, and whether there is a need to adjust the salaries should there be a change in overall salary levels based on the proposed framework. The committee's conclusion is that the scheme remains relevant and sound. But the committee recommended adjusting the salary levels to match the updated benchmark and also some finetuning on the National Bonus conditions. The Prime Minister has written to the committee to thank the committee for its work and the well-considered recommendations.”
“Its OneService app allows members of the public to provide feedback on all municipal issues without having to know which agency is in charge. This is made possible by a backend routing system that allows seamless case referral among agencies based on parameters, such as land, issue and asset ownership. MSO has also worked with partner agencies to establish First Responders in different domains. For example, MSO has brought the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Town Councils together to determine who should serve as the First Responder in different types of water-related issues, so that residents no longer have to face multiple site inspections from both PUB and their Town Council. Other First Responders include the Land Transport Authority for the maintenance of connectivity-related infrastructure like park connectors, footpaths and footbridges; the National Parks Board for public greenery maintenance; the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority for animal-related issues; and the National Environment Agency for public cleanliness. There are also escalation mechanisms to ensure complex cases or cases with unclear ownership are escalated to the appropriate authorities for prompt action. Collectively, these mechanisms strengthen agencies’ practice of NWD and FRP in the delivery of municipal services.”
“The Public Service strives to adopt a customer-centric approach in dealing with feedback and requests from members of the public. The No Wrong Door (NWD) policy and the First Responder Protocol (FRP) were introduced as part of many efforts to ensure that feedback from the public are addressed quickly and effectively. Under NWD, the agency that receives feedback on an issue not under its purview should identify the agency responsible and ensure that the agency will take up the case, before putting that agency in touch with the person who provided the feedback. If the issue has no clear owner, the agency that receives the feedback will apply FRP and identify an agency with some domain expertise. This latter agency, also known as the First Responder, will promptly resolve the interagency request, while the back-end policy and operational issues are being sorted out. Public officers at the frontline are trained on these protocols. The Civil Service College conducts regular case simulation workshops for frontline teams to familiarise officers with the procedures and standards. Many large agencies include these requirements as part of their service training programmes and have also developed innovations to enhance seamlessness. For example, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board has an internal virtual assistant to help officers provide accurate answers to members' CPF queries and identify the right contacts to help them. Agencies are audited on a regular basis on their compliance with the procedures and service standards. The Municipal Services Office (MSO), established in 2014 to coordinate municipal issues that span across multiple agencies, is an example of how the Public Service has moved from "No Wrong Door" to "Just One Door".”
“The Civil Service recruits based on whether the applicant has the skills required for the job. Educational qualifications are useful as a proxy for skills when assessing applicants with no prior work experience. For mid-career and older applicants, relevant work experience and demonstrated skills are used to determine their suitability for the job, more so than their academic qualifications.”
“About 15% of Permanent Residents (PRs) have been PRs for 20 or more years. The majority of such PRs originate from Southeast Asian countries. Taking up citizenship is a serious commitment which is ultimately a personal decision. The vast majority of adult new citizens who have made this commitment to become citizens have lived here for some time, or have family ties to Singaporeans, such as spouses. PRs contribute to Singapore in many different ways and add to our strengths as a society and economy. The best way to encourage qualified PRs who have decided to make their future here to consider applying for citizenship is to continue to ensure that our Singapore Citizens are well looked after in a Singapore that continues to do well. To reflect the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and to acknowledge Singapore Citizens' commitment to Singapore, citizens receive more support and benefits than PRs in several areas, such as parenthood, housing, healthcare and education. In recent years, we have widened the differentiation in benefits accorded to Singapore Citizens and PRs. It is also important that we continue to be an inclusive society that is open and gracious. How welcoming and accepting we are of newcomers will also impact on their decision to sink roots here permanently.”
“The Civil Service encourages innovation in a number of different ways. For example, many "makeathon" sessions have been held across the Public Service. These bring together public officers from within and across agencies, as well as members of the public to brainstorm new ideas to transform the Public Service to improve policies and better serve citizens. Officers who display excellence in innovation are publicly recognised through Public Service awards, such as the Excellence through Continuous Enterprise and Learning (ExCEL) Awards.”
“The Civil Service continues to find it relevant to assess officers’ performance annually, as well as their readiness to take on larger responsibilities using the concept of "Currently Estimated Potential" (CEP) which is an estimation of the highest job level an officer can handle in the future. The Public Service Division (PSD) periodically reviews the appraisal system to ensure it remains relevant and effective. During last year's review, PSD took into account feedback from managers and officers across the Civil Service to update many aspects of the system. For example, we are giving greater autonomy to Ministries on the appraisal of junior officers5. We are training supervisors to better understand and implement the system. These help to foster greater ownership of the system. Our officers have also told us that they want more timely feedback on their performance and career development opportunities. Arising from this, we introduced the Individual Development Plan in 2014 to institutionalise regular career development conversations between officers and their supervisors. To complement formal appraisal, the Civil Service is experimenting with digital technology to enable officers to seek "on-the-go" informal feedback periodically or when a piece of work is completed. We have recently completed trialling a real-time feedback app for officers to more easily seek feedback from people whom they work with, be they subordinates, peers or supervisors. We look out for officers who exhibit innovative thinking. Officers who exercise imagination and creativity to generate innovative solutions will be appraised more favourably. However, a culture of innovation comes from our broader practices, beyond the appraisal system.”
“For work that is more permanent in nature, the Public Service Division advises public agencies to directly recruit individuals as public officers.”
“Individual public agencies may directly hire workers for short-term work or procure temporary manpower services from employment agencies under a demand aggregation contract. For direct hires, the public agency has an employer-employee relationship with the temporary public officer who is provided with the associated benefits. For temporary manpower services contracted from employment agencies through the demand aggregation contract, the public agency has a client-contractor relationship with the employment agency. The workers are hired by the employment agencies, which are required to provide for the workers' welfare according to prevailing laws, including the Employment Act, Central Provident Fund Act and other relevant laws. Similar to public agencies, the employment agencies are also guided by the Tripartite Advisory on the Employment of Term Contract Employees, which provides workers with continuous benefits if the break in work period is less than a month3. The Public Service Division has been reminding public agencies and contractors to adhere to the Tripartite Advisory and its intent. Given that the demand aggregation contract is designed to fulfil temporary needs, the service periods are generally of less than one year duration. However, the Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive Officer of an agency has flexibility to extend with the employment agency the services of the temporary worker beyond one year, for good reasons, such as when the short-term work needs to slightly exceed one year. The workers will continue to enjoy benefits from their employers throughout their engagement period as agreed in their employment contracts.”
“Singapore's resident old-age support ratio, which measures the number of residents aged between 20 and 64 to each resident aged 65 and above, is currently five is to one. As is the case in many countries with ageing populations, this ratio will likely decline over time. To sustain a healthy working population, we provide strong support to Singaporeans who have children and maintain a calibrated pace of immigration. We have also supplemented the local workforce with foreigners in Singapore on time-limited work passes. Our policies are regularly reviewed and adjusted. While the old-age support ratio uses the age threshold of 65, many seniors now stay active beyond the age of 65. In 2016, 43% of residents aged between 65 and 69 were in the labour force. They may also be contributing in other important ways, such as providing care to their family members. Each successive cohort of seniors will be healthier, more educated and live longer. We should enable them to contribute for as long as they are willing and able. Since 1 July this year, the re-employment age has been raised from 65 to 67. We have also extended the Additional Special Employment Credit to encourage continued employment of older workers and enhanced WorkPro grant support for employers to redesign jobs to be more age-friendly. These initiatives help older Singaporeans to contribute actively in the community and economy well into their silver years.”
“As at 31 December 2016, 56% of (about 84,000) civil servants are female. Among officers in leadership positions (defined as officers in super-scale grades), 45% are female. Females made up 56% of the officers who joined the Civil Service over the past five years (2012-2016).”
“OneInbox was in operation from December 2013 to June 2017. It offered free digital mailbox services for citizens to receive Government correspondences electronically. The total development and maintenance cost of OneInbox was approximately $7 million. OneInbox was discontinued due to the low take-up rate. This was despite several publicity campaigns to increase awareness and adoption among citizens. As at end of March 2017, OneInbox had a total of 51,807 subscribers and delivered 296,418 digital letters. These subscribers made up less than 2% of SingPass users. OneInbox had a low take-up rate because it did not offer significant value to the subscribers. Firstly, OneInbox was designed as a single-function digital mailbox service, which did not encourage sign-ups. Secondly, agencies already have well developed digital channels to serve the public, hence reducing the need for an overall Government channel. Thirdly, the traffic volume of digital letters was not high, whereby a typical individual receives less than 10 letters from the Government annually. In being innovative in exploiting technology, we would not always succeed in all that we do. We have to take risks. As part of our digital Government drive, we will continue to review and adjust our strategies and make it easier for citizens to use Government services.”
“Civil servants can take up to two days of parent-care leave a year. In the past three years, 39% (2014), 40% (2015) and 42% (2016) of civil servants took parent-care leave. Parent-care leave is not legislated. Based on a Ministry of Manpower survey in 2016, only 19% of employers offer parent-care leave.”
“All Singapore Residents (Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents) who are 15 years old and above are eligible to sign up for SingPass. Out of 3.5 million Singapore Residents who are eligible for SingPass, 3.2 million have signed up for SingPass. Two million of these account holders are inactive, that is, have not used their SingPass for the last three years. Of the three million active account holders, 2.6 million have enabled 2-Factor Authentication (2FA), and most of them (2.5 million) have used 2FA in the past one year. As the breakdown at Table 1 below shows, adoption of SingPass and 2FA are lower among the young and the elderly groups. One contributing reason is that both these groups have fewer transactions with the Government. Residents who have yet to sign up for a SingPass account can do so at the 46 SingPass counters island-wide, located at community centres and Central Provident Fund (CPF) service centres.”
“The Government is strongly committed to supporting Singaporeans in their aspirations to get married and have children. We empathise with parents who face challenges in looking after children who require more care, and will look into ways to better support them. Mr Louis Ng has suggested allowing parents to tap on their own paid sick leave entitlement to care for their sick children. Paid sick leave allows an employee to access medical care and recuperate, while protecting his employment status and income during the period of illness. If sick leave is used to also care for children, parents might be caught in difficult situations when they themselves fall ill and have insufficient sick leave to recuperate. In addition, from the employers' perspective, allowing one leave type to be used for another purpose amounts to increasing overall leave utilisation for selected employees. Therefore, apart from the impact on manpower and operational costs for employers, we should be mindful of the possible impact of such a proposal on the employability of employees with caregiving responsibilities. Although the number of parents with pre-term and multiple births or babies with congenital illnesses remains small, we will seriously consider how we can better support such parents with greater caregiving needs, in addition to existing parental leave provisions which have also been progressively enhanced. I made the same point in my reply to Mr Louis Ng's Adjournment Motion last month on extending parental leave for parents with pre-term babies and multiple births.”
“Mdm Speaker, as I have explained, I am really quite puzzled actually what is the difference between the position of Dr Lee Wei Ling, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and what we have been doing. We agree that Dr Lee does not need to move out now, so no decision is needed. We agree on so many things. What some of the perimeters are, we agree that rule of law needs to apply. So, I am actually not quite sure why there is a need for such a furore. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh alluded to certain things, but that is not for me to know. But I hope that we are able to proceed and let the due process that needs to be taken get on with its work. There is work to be done. And I hope that we are able to proceed calmly, objectively in a considered way to do so without all these heightened emotions being involved in this. And at the appropriate time, when we are ready, we will make a decision. Then, we can consider the matter and decide on the matter. And if it is useful, without heightening public emotions again, to air some of these, I would consider whether it is appropriate to do so.”
“Mdm Speaker, I will try to do this without having to go through a 30-minute speech again. But as I have explained, the relevance is there. Certainly, this was not all the Committee was doing. I think Minister Lawrence Wong has explained what else the Committee was doing, what work the agencies have been doing for the Committee, and we have been considering various things. So, this was not all that the Committee was concerned about. We were concerned about the options, we are concerned about the history and so on. We are not replacing the work of the Probate Court. I have said that already. Mr Chen is a lawyer. But we seek to understand what Mr Lee's wishes were, what was Mr Lee's thinking. And we make no judgement, we are not in a position to make judgement and we will not make any judgement on the validity of Mr Lee's will. I said so yesterday several times, I said so again today. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.”
“In fact, we asked each party whether they would be alright with letting the other party have a look at the other party's views. And I think that was a very open and transparent process. And if we had gone about our work and said, look, you know, Party A said this and Party B said that, and I cannot tell you what Party A said, and I cannot tell you what Party B said, there might also have been reason to be upset. But we were quite open and transparent. And we were very, very clear with the siblings, all three of them, that it is not the place of the Committee to determine the validity of the will. I said that clearly several times yesterday, and I said that again today, too. I hope that, with my saying it one more time, Mr Chen would understand it.”
“Mdm Speaker, I know that Mr Chen is a Singaporean. We all are. I am glad that he has stated his position very clearly on this subject. I took quite a long time to explain the public interest aspects in why we have an interest in wanting to know what Mr Lee's thinking was. We could have taken quite the opposite view, which is to say, we disregard Mr Lee's view totally, and then, we just decide without taking his view into consideration. We could have done that. I think the Government does that also from time to time, regardless of what personal interests and wishes are. But we felt that, in this case, there was merit in taking Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes and understandings and thinking on the matter. We had communication from him and we had discussions with him, too. And we take that into account. We had a letter which he sent to Cabinet. That was his last will. But we also wanted to understand what might have been some of his wishes and thinking around some of the possible options that we were considering. And, hence, we asked the children of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If we wanted to understand his views and we decided not to ask his children, I think that would have been very strange, indeed, and the children would have had a reason to be upset with us − why are you not asking us, why are you ignoring us? We asked all the children. And I have explained why and how the issue or subject of the will, how it was interpreted, came up. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling placed a great deal of reliance on it. They were focused on one part of the will but not the other and offered various reasons for it. And that is how the subject came up, the will itself. So, we offered each party an opportunity to make clarifications if they wished to.”
“Mdm Speaker, the purpose of my explaining how we function was to explain why this perception is wrong, that we are quite capable of operating independently. As I have explained, this is no different from the board of a major company − the Member must have represented boards or been on some of the boards. And this is the way we deal with conflicts of interest. So, there should be no reason why Mr Leon Perera is unable to understand this, unless he does not want to. That is a different matter. But I have explained how we do this. It is quite common. We are quite capable of acting independently on an issue such as this. Whether we set up another committee, we could end up having a debate on whether this committee actually is independent or not, who are the members, how is it constituted and so on. And then, eventually, Cabinet still has to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendation or not. So, we still come back to the same issue. So, the important thing here is to know that we have processes in place, that we have honest upright people who can carry through these processes − honestly, independently and promptly.”
“Mr Lee and our Pioneer leaders put in firm foundations − robust processes, institutions and a system of governance which we have continued to strengthen. Members of this House, Ministers, Prime Minister, our public officers, all Singaporeans − we were all brought up to do our utmost to respect and uphold the values, institutions and processes that are built upon the foundations laid by our founding generation. Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed on, Singaporeans came together. Our hearts wept, we grieved together. The moment united all of us, reminded us of who we are and what we stand for. It uplifted us, giving us renewed spirit to face the future together. I hope that as we ponder the options for 38 Oxley Road, and how best to remember the struggles of our Independence years and the values that Mr Lee and our Pioneers passed down to us. This should also be an occasion to unite us. There is no reason why this should divide us. Mr Lee, in his wisdom, left us enough room to decide and placed his trust in us to do so. Mdm Speaker, the house that Mr Lee and our Pioneers left us is a strong one. It is built on firm foundations. I am confident that all of us, all Members of this House, all Singaporeans, our public officers will build upon the firm foundations of our house, Singapore, and make it even stronger. This is the legacy that Mr Lee and his Pioneer Generation left us. This is what they would expect us to do. We can rise above this, we have the confidence and ability to do so. Let us unite together and fulfil that promise. Majulah Singapura! [Applause.] 2.52 pm”
“I would like to assure this House, and all the siblings, that on the matters that I have the responsibility to deal with, in particular, with regard to 38 Oxley Road, I will continue to deal with them objectively and fairly, all the time working for the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, Hsien Loong, Wei Ling and Hsien Yang, are the sons and daughter of Mr Lee. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng, that all of us, too, in our own way, are also "sons and daughters" of Mr Lee. Mr Lee and his generation of leaders fought hard for all of us and gave us the Singapore we have today. He, and our Pioneers brought us all up. Built this house which we call Singapore. We have learnt the lessons that he taught us and which he demonstrated through his own example. No one is above the law, or bigger than our collective interest, as Ms Chia Yong Yong has passionately pointed out. Mr Lee himself understood that he, too, had to abide by the processes and system that he helped build; and that the Government has a duty to consider the public interest and not just those of private individuals. He and his generation built the institutions which uphold these principles. But most of all, he taught us, all of us, to uphold these principles. Mdm Speaker, we, all of us, also are "sons and daughters" brought up by Mr Lee. We have not been written into Mr Lee's will. But what he has left to all of us, is more precious, more valuable. He left us Our Singapore, Our big house, which he worked together with us to build. And which we are all proud to call our home. This episode is a painful one for all of us. But I am confident that this big house we call Singapore will remain strong and robust.”
“I do not understand what underlying deep-rooted reasons there may be for this. But for Hsien Yang, I hope that these strong emotions that I see now in his heart will dampen over time and that he would find peace and solace within himself. He has more to contribute to Singapore if he chooses to do so. I wish Hsien Yang and his family well, as I always have. I have known Wei Ling also for many years, though not as well. She must have been going through a difficult time over the past few years, living with her parents and looking after them while they were unwell. And losing both of them, while stoically facing her own health challenges. For Wei Ling, the Government has said that we will not do anything to affect her right to continue living at 38 Oxley Road. I wish her happiness, time to do the things which she enjoys with her friends, now that she has the time and, above all, good health and a long life. Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed away, it was an emotional period for all Singaporeans. And how much more so it must have been for the immediate members of the family. When emotions are raw, misunderstandings can arise and feelings can be hurt. When I met Hsien Yang and Hsien Loong in the weeks after Mr Lee's passing, and Wei Ling a little later, my words to them were "let time pass". I hope that with the passage of time and the cooling of emotions that the siblings can resolve their private disagreements within the family. Singaporeans, too, can give the Prime Minister and his siblings space to work through their disagreements. And I hope that is possible. Mdm Speaker, the Government, however, still has to carry out its responsibilities objectively, fairly and calmly.”
“They have no basis and undermine confidence in our system of governance and unfairly tar our public officers who are trying their best to do their duty. Mdm Speaker, I hope that with the conclusion of this debate, we can put the allegations of abuse of power to rest. But where do we go from here, as a nation and as a people? Like many Singaporeans, I am sure that Members of this House have been deeply saddened, shocked and confused by the events of these past three weeks. I am certain that Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew would not have wanted this to have happened. I have known Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang for over 40 years. We served together as colleagues and comrades in the Singapore Armed Forces. I have held both of them in high regard for their intellect, objectivity, commitment and dedication to Singapore. The Hsien Loong I see now today is the same Hsien Loong I have known all these years − an upright earnest person who stands by his principles and does what is right for Singapore. As Ms Sun Xueling, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, others have mentioned, and many Singaporeans know, Hsien Loong has done much for Singapore and he has much more to contribute serving Singapore and Singaporeans as our Prime Minister. I hope that he will contribute his knowledge and experience to Singapore for a long time to come. Hsien Yang, too, has contributed much. He was my colleague, we worked together. He has contributed much in the Singapore Armed Forces and in the private and public sectors. We have met a number of times since his father passed away. We spoke to each other with consideration and respect as we always have. It is with deep sadness that the Hsien Yang I see now is not the Hsien Yang that I knew. I see hurt and strong emotions consuming him.”
“So, there is no disagreement on this. This is also the position of the Government. In his statement on 1 July, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said that he also recognised that "no man stands above the law". So, there is no disagreement on this either. As I have explained, the Government has a duty to go through the due process for when a decision needs to be taken, at some future time. Mdm Speaker, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have also concluded, it appears to me that there is really no good reason to disagree and create such a public furore. Let us continue doing the work that is needed, calmly and objectively, to study the possible options for the time when a decision has to be made. As I have said yesterday, I will consult my colleagues to see if it is useful to put out a range of possibilities, to let the public ponder on the matter, without having to arrive at any decision. But I need to weigh this against arousing emotions again, when what we can really benefit from now is time for calm reflection, especially when no decision is needed now. In summary, the Prime Minister and Ministers have cleared the air and showed that we have acted properly. I have described the robust processes we have for Political Appointment Holders, civil servants and Government Members of Parliament to address potential conflicts of interest. We help officers understand and live the Code of Conduct, and we deal with errant officers firmly. This shows that the Government is open and transparent, and accountable for what it does. This session in Parliament demonstrates that, too. This also shows that we have institutions to make sure that we can continue to have good and honest Government in Singapore. I hope that these unfounded allegations will stop.”
“I have provided Members with letters and dates to establish these facts. So, I will leave it to Members, going through the facts and the chronology, whether there is any basis at all to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's claims and allegations about the Committee. Mdm Speaker, I think we should put this matter to rest. It is not for me to delve into the motivations behind Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's allegations of abuse of power over the Committee. But they should not allege abuse of power simply because they were unhappy or felt uncomfortable about being asked to volunteer their views and clarifications on Mr Lee's wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road. Mdm Speaker, the allegations made by them have no basis. The opposite is true. Prime Minister Lee did the correct thing to recuse himself. And Cabinet and the Government carried out its roles and responsibilities properly. So, where are we now? I informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang that I would personally not support the options at either end of the range. Those were my personal views. At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see the private spaces. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market to develop new private residences, such as luxury apartments. Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his statement on 1 July 2017, stated the same thing. The Committee has also been studying various intermediate options and I personally think that there are merits in these intermediate options. These studies are on-going. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has, in his public statements, indicated that he is open to some of these options. Mr Lee Hsien Yang also acknowledges that no decision is required now because Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the property.”
“We should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. But before I come to this, let me answer some of the questions that Mr Lim Biow Chuan had. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the Prime Minister had any influence on the Cabinet or Ministerial Committee's decisions. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not. But Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as a private person, was invited to convey his views to the Ministerial Committee in the same way that his other siblings were. He did so formally and in writing. This is proper and correct; the lines are clear. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked whether we are able to make decisions independently and several Members of Parliament have asked this question as well. Mdm Speaker, when I took command of the Navy in 1991 at the age of 36, I made a decision that I must be prepared to step down at any time if ever I have to do something which is against my principles. I continue to be guided by that. So, as I have said, Madam, we should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. Essentially, all the siblings knew about the Committee and what its terms of reference are. They knew that neither the Committee nor the Government was going to make a decision on the house, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is residing in the house and no decision is needed now. They knew that the Committee was examining a range of options and had no pre-conceived ideas on the outcome. They also knew that the Committee was not a place where decisions on the legality of the will can be made and this is a matter between the beneficiaries. In fact, they had been making representations to the Committee and sending their representations to Cabinet members at large.”
“As Ms Chia Yong Yong had said yesterday, it is only appropriate to give due consideration to Mr Lee's wishes. While at the same time, as the Minister for National Development has just explained, NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house while MND and URA have been studying options for the property, as well as the planning and zoning implications. The assessment of buildings of significance is an inter-agency effort, where various Government agencies will do the baseline research. The establishment of a Ministerial Committee merely seeks to improve coordination and oversight on the matter. This also does not preclude the conduct of consultations with heritage professionals and the public at an appropriate stage. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Jessica Tan asked why the Ministerial Committee did not reveal its composition earlier. Mdm Speaker, we have informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling that "how the Committee functions is within the Cabinet's prerogative to decide". We could decide to bring in other members as and when needed – the Minister for Transport, for example, when we want to look at traffic issues, or the Minister for Home Affairs when we look at security considerations. Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang decided to send their representations to the Committee to all the Cabinet Ministers. Since the Committee reports to the Cabinet less the Prime Minister, there is no issue with this, and they have been doing so. What was material and relevant had been communicated to them. In any case, should the Cabinet need to make a decision related to this matter, all Cabinet members less the Prime Minister would be involved and collective Cabinet responsibility applies. This is really not an issue.”
“Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Leon Perera and some others today as well, have spoken on the Ministerial Committee. Mdm Speaker, in my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I have clarified various issues related to the Ministerial Committee. I explained that the Ministerial Committee was formed to examine (a) historical and heritage significance of the property; (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property; and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood, and the options to move forward. These are all matters which the Government has to take responsibility for, and must plan for. These are not private matters. I have also explained why we are starting the process now, to have drawer plans ready, for reference by the Government of the day, when a decision needs to, eventually, be taken. There is nothing unusual or mysterious about it. This is just the normal process of Government doing its work, properly, calmly and objectively. Usually, people will find this quite boring, so there is nothing to get excited about when we formed yet another committee. Several Members, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera have asked why we set up a Ministerial Committee and not rely on the usual Government agency process to study the options on the house? I want to clarify that the Ministerial Committee is not replacing the agencies in their work. Instead, it provides coordination and oversight on the matter of 38 Oxley Road.”
“It was a private matter at that time. If NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through the Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement. When Minister Lawrence Wong informed me of the conditions set out in the Deed, I was not comfortable with them. And I will explain why. NHB, a public institution, was being drawn into a private disagreement and the exhibition, a major exhibition, was being used to put out only a part of Mr Lee's wishes on the house. Members will recall that Mr Lee had said in his will that the whole paragraph could be made public so that his wishes on the matter could be made known. Mdm Speaker, there was really no need to make the display of this paragraph a condition for the donation at all. But to make the display of only one part of the paragraph and not all of it, was drawing NHB, a public agency, and this public exhibition it was organising, into presenting a particular point of view, which was incomplete. NHB had already signed the Deed of Gift and I agreed with Minister Lawrence Wong that in the circumstances, we should proceed with it, rather than have a public controversy. The point I am making is that, contrary to this being an abuse of power, these were efforts to keep NHB, a public agency, and to keep a major public exhibition neutral − to keep them neutral in a matter which was then a private disagreement. It is ironical that these efforts to keep our public agencies neutral is now being distorted into allegations of abuse of power for private interests.”
“They are watching us to see how we address these allegations of abuse of power and they will see that we are prepared to do so openly in this House, facing the issues directly to clear the air on these issues. The Prime Minister, myself, the Ministers are held to account by all of you. Every Member must speak freely in this House and we expect them to do so. But when a person casts aspersions on the whole of Parliament and its proceedings, and on every one of us, from outside this House − that is a different matter and there are some rules governing this. Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the appointment of the Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General. There were also questions asked about the role of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law with respect to 38 Oxley Road. Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah has comprehensively addressed these issues yesterday and there is no need for me to add anything. We have strict rules on avoiding conflict of interest and they are scrupulously maintained. Second, the allegations on the abuse of power. Minister Lawrence Wong has addressed issues related to the Deed of Gift between the executors and the NHB for the purpose of a major exhibition on our founding leaders in September 2015. Let me add my perspectives. To recap, the Deed of Gift had several unusual conditions. One of these was the condition requiring the display of one part, but not the whole paragraph, related to Mr Lee's wishes for the house, as stated in his will. The other was the $1 buy-back clause for the items donated. These were matters related to a private disagreement at that time regarding the will and how Mr Lee had expressed his wishes regarding the house.”
“Public officers are expected to be above board and impartial in their dealings, including with members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees. Our senior public officers frequently receive ideas and suggestions from members of the public, including those who may be friends or family members. Most of them are well-motivated. I have received many suggestions on what I should do about football in Singapore. I am confident that our senior public officers will go through the due process to evaluate which of these ideas and suggestions are good and useful ones and to put aside those which are unsuitable, regardless of whom these may have come from. Mr Charles Chong asked about the poll on our public officers. As part of regular stakeholder engagement, the Public Service Division (PSD) periodically seeks the sentiments of public officers on issues that matter to them. The PSD conducted the poll because the allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang go beyond private matters and extend to the integrity of the Government and public institutions. Mdm Speaker, our officers continue to have confidence in the integrity of our institutions. Most officers felt that there is some impact on credibility of the Singapore Government among Singaporeans, but that Singapore's reputation will be able to recover. The Public Service will take this opportunity to reinforce in our officers the importance of understanding and living the Public Service Code of Conduct. Singapore ranks highly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for corruption. Others are watching and evaluating us as we conduct this debate.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We have had two days of debate on this matter. Members from both sides of the House and our Nominated Members of Parliament have asked probing questions, as they should. I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for their views and questions; more than 30 Members have spoken. So, what have we covered in these past two days? The debate is, first and foremost, focused on the integrity of Government − whether we have clean and honest Government, and how we address issues of conflict of interest; second, whether there is any basis for the allegations of abuse of power that have been hurled at the Government; and third, where do we go from here? First, our rules for avoiding conflict of interest. In my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I explained how we maintain separation between private interest and public interest for political appointment holders, as well as public officers. There is the Code of Conduct for political appointment holders, Rules of Prudence for Members of Parliament from the People's Action Party, and the Public Service Code of Conduct. Let me reiterate. Every political appointment holder and public officer is expected, at all times, to act according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty and integrity in the exercise of his public duties. As Members of this House know, we treat allegations of misconduct very seriously. As I said yesterday, there are various avenues for members of the public and public officers themselves, to report suspected misconduct. If there is specific evidence on the abuse of power by any political appointment holder, public officer, or his or her family members, I can assure you that they will be held to account and the necessary actions taken, if shown to be true.”
“The number of residents and non-residents in Singapore in the past three years, based on consolidated figures as at end June each year, are in Table 1 below. Data on the number of residents and non-residents tracked on a daily basis are not available.”
“This is just the normal process of the Government doing its work in a calm, objective and proper way. In the coming days, we will fully debate the specific allegations that have been made against the Government and examine whether there is any substance behind them. Even as we do so, I hope that Members will leave enough room for the private issues to be worked through within the family. But we must not shy away from dealing decisively with the public issues which go to the heart of our system of clean and honest Government, and we must do so for the good of Singapore. I urge Members to ask me and my Cabinet colleagues probing questions on any aspect of these allegations which Members feel is relevant. Clear any doubts that you may have. We must keep our public institutions neutral and not have allegations hurled at our public officers without basis. At the end of this session, Singaporeans should have their confidence in the honesty of our Government and our public officers strengthened. We make decisions and act in the public interest of Singaporeans. We do not bend to the private demands of individuals, no matter who they are, or what family connections they can claim. This is the foundation upon which Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team built our Singapore for all of us. Mr Lee would have expected no less from us. This is the Singapore that we want to continue living in. And this is the Singapore that Prime Minister Lee, our Cabinet colleagues and I, and all our public officers in our agencies will fight to uphold and take forward. We have many real challenges, and much to do. Let us all focus together on these and work together to continue to serve Singaporeans and bring Singapore forward. That is what Mr Lee would have wanted us to do, more than anything else.”
“Even if the Government were to take a position today, it would not bind a future government at the time when that future government has to make a decision and implement it. We cannot take a prospective decision and say, "30 years from now, the future government will do this." Because the future government has the powers under the law to decide for itself. Mdm Speaker, the studies on the options for the house are continuing. While there is no urgency to complete these studies within a specified timeframe − these are drawer plans which would be reviewed periodically − I will consult my colleagues to see if it is useful to put out a range of possibilities, to let the public ponder on the matter without having to arrive at any decision. Emotions on this issue are still very strong, not just within the family, but also among some Singaporeans. Emotions have sadly been heightened again by this public disagreement. A period of calm would be useful for reflection. With the passage of time, I hope that we will be able to arrive at a wise decision on this matter in an informed and considered way that takes into account the significant public interest to preserve the heritage of our young nation, while respecting Mr Lee's personal wishes for the house. Mdm Speaker, I have explained to this House the robust processes that the Government has for dealing with and avoiding conflicts of interest. I explained that the Ministerial Committee was formed to examine (a) the historical and heritage significance of the property, (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property, and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood, and the options to move forward. These are all matters which the Government has to take responsibility for and has to plan for.”
“Indeed, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has also acknowledged this, and on 1 July 2017, has said that he has no "inclination" to do so. The Committee has been studying various intermediate options, such as demolishing the house but keeping the basement dining room with an appropriate heritage centre attached. The dining room was where many important historical meetings were held to discuss how a self-governing Singapore would take shape. I personally think there are merits in these intermediate options which could provide a good solution. But these studies are ongoing. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has in his public statements also indicated that he is open to some of these options. Mr Lee Hsien Yang also acknowledges that no decision is needed now as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the property. This is also the position of the Government. In his statement on 1 July, he also said that he recognises that "no man stands above the law". As I have explained, the Government has a duty to go through due process for when a decision needs to be taken, at some future time. And so, we both acknowledge that. So, there should really be no reason to disagree with what the Committee is doing. We told him what we were doing. He knows we exist. We are studying the possible options for the time when a decision has to be made. Third, what are our next steps? Mr Lee Hsien Yang now owns the property. As provided for in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's will, Dr Lee Wei Ling can stay in it for as long as she wishes. And we have said we will not do anything to affect Dr Lee's right to continue living there. There is no decision required of this Government so long as Dr Lee stays there and the house is properly maintained, as provided for under the Building Control Act and the Planning Act.”
“For instance, if Dr Lee chooses to move out of the house in the near future, the decision on what to do about the house might have to be taken at that point. On the options for the house, the Committee does not take a binary, "either or" approach. The Committee has no preconceived notion that the house must be kept as it is, or that it must be totally demolished. Instead, the Committee's approach is to study and prepare a range of options for the property and the neighbourhood so that a future government can make an informed and considered decision when it becomes necessary, always taking into account Mr Lee's views. A range of intermediate options is possible. I met Mr Lee Hsien Yang earlier five times in 2015, between 14 April and July 2015, and once more, the sixth time, in April 2016, on a range of issues. The meetings were before the Ministerial Committee was formed. In our meeting on 27 April 2015, we talked about various possibilities for the property. I informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang that I would personally not support the options at either end of the range. At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see the private spaces, would be totally against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market to develop new private residences, such as luxury apartments. And this remains my view. The latter, redevelopment into private apartments, would not only result in the loss of a historically significant property, but also allow this very history to be exploited for private profit, for example, by marketing the residences as "living at the former house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew". I am certain many Singaporeans will have not approved of this.”
“It is ironic that following the proper process is now being labelled, by some, as an abuse of power. Perhaps it is because they feel that their demand for a particular outcome should simply be carried out. But simply doing this would be an abuse of power. Going through due process is the proper way of doing things. Anyone who has run a major listed company would or should know how companies deal with conflicts of interest, even where it involves the Chairman or CEO. Take, for example, a property company that is going to bid for an en bloc redevelopment. If the Chairman or CEO happens to own apartment units in this development, they would have to recuse themselves. Others in the company would then have to be empowered to decide on the bid. We now come to the third aspect of the Terms of Reference of the Committee − the due process to develop possible plans and options for the property. No decision is required now on what to do with the property. The Government had stated on several occasions that it will not do anything to affect Dr Lee Wei Ling's right to continue living at 38 Oxley Road. As I said earlier, this was made clear to the siblings in writing that neither the Committee nor the Cabinet will make any decision on the House, and that the Committee is only listing and studying the various options, as drawer plans. Even though no decision is needed now, it is prudent to commence that due process which is needed to consider the various options before making any decision on the house, as with all properties of significant public interest. This will take some time and the Government has to study the options in advance of any eventualities.”
“But the siblings' views had relevance to the Committee's work because it helps the Committee take Mr Lee's wishes into account, along with the public interest aspects, when drawing up a range of options for the property. We hope that the differences of views on private matters can be resolved within the family. But, ultimately, the government of the day and its Ministers cannot avoid taking responsibility for making the required decisions on matters involving the public interest. And this is why Singapore has laws that give the Government powers, specifically the Preservation of Monuments Act and the Planning Act in this case. As Members have asked, this does not preclude consultations or the involvement of some memorial committee at an appropriate time. In fact, I think this will be useful. Members of the public have already written in, offering suggestions. At the appropriate time, I will see how best to seek wider public views on this. But I suppose I also have to weigh this against those who might jump to the conclusion that doing so means that the Government is imminently going to decide or to do something with the property when there is no need to decide now. Mdm Speaker, I wish to point out an irony in this matter. If Prime Minister Lee had not recused himself and had simply, as the Prime Minister, ordered the Government agencies to demolish the house without due process, that would have been an abuse of authority and power. It would have bypassed the objective due process that Mr Lee himself would have stood for. Instead, Prime Minister Lee did the proper thing, recused himself and let the Cabinet, without him, chaired by me, decide on how to proceed with the matter.”
“I know because several people spoke to me about having been approached and offered these allegations and views, and they expressed their concerns. This was shortly after Mr Lee's passing, well before the formation of any committee. In April 2016, before the Committee was formed, Dr Lee Wei Ling had made a public posting making such allegations. I do not recall that Mr Lee Hsien Yang dissociated himself from these postings either. Saying that the Committee has somehow now "pushed" Mr Lee Hsien Yang to take these allegations public, therefore, does not conform to the facts and chronology. Mdm Speaker, I am not in a position to opine why Mr Lee Hsien Yang now makes such a claim and his motivation for doing so. Both parties made representations to the Committee that might have been uncomfortable to the other. Each party's views were circulated, with their permission, to the other party. Both parties were offered opportunities to respond if they wished to. This is being open and transparent with all the parties. Being given the opportunity to voluntarily clarify issues even though they may be uncomfortable can hardly be considered an abuse of power. The Committee is not the reason for these differences. The Committee is merely trying to get the best understanding of Mr Lee's thinking on the property. As there are differences of views, it may be useful to have a contemporaneous record of what these are, so that they can be referred to, if needed, when a decision is needed to be taken eventually. I should also point out that the Committee carried out its work through direct correspondence in writing with the siblings, and out of the public eye. The Committee did not think that it was useful for these differences to be aired in public.”
“Mdm Speaker, so what is the Committee's interest? Our interest is confined to obtaining as full a picture as possible of Mr Lee's thinking on the house. Now we have to decide: if we want to take Mr Lee's views into consideration, then we must understand what they were; if we decide that we are not going to take Mr Lee's views into consideration at all, then we do not need to ask. But if we want to know and get as full a picture as possible as to what Mr Lee's were, then it is incumbent for the Committee to try to determine these as best as we can. I should emphasise again that it is not for the Committee to decide whose claims are valid, in particular, over the validity of the will. We had explained this, as I have said, on 25 April 2017 in writing to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. What we do try is to understand, as best we can, Mr Lee's wishes and thinking. We had also explained that all the representations and views offered were voluntary. Mr Lee Hsien Loong provided his representations in the form of three statutory declarations, but there was no need for any party to respond if they did not wish to provide views or clarifications, and no need for them to put their views down as statutory declarations either. But we did tell all of them that any views provided would be useful and the Committee will consider all the views offered. Mdm Speaker, we should be clear that the difference of views had origins that arose before the formation of the Committee in June 2016. Indeed, soon after Mr Lee's passing, the allegations of "dynastic ambitions" and "abuse of power" were already being made, to many people, in smaller circles.”