Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

On Mar. 20, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam spoke at length about why the names of Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, were disclosed while they were being investigated for giving false evidence during judicial proceedings.

He was responding to questions posed by Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and Leon Perera of the Workers' Party.

Leong also drew a comparison by asking why the names of the six former management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) were not publicly disclosed while they were being investigated.

Following Shanmugam's reply to his questions, several follow-up questions were asked by Leong and his fellow Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa, as well as Perera and fellow WP member Sylvia Lim.

Here is a blow-by-blow account of their supplementary questions, and how Shanmugam responded:

Leong: The investigation at KOM is also a matter of public interest, so is there an issue of double standards?

Leong asked if the police had specifically issued a written order to the Lees for them to attend the investigation at the police station.

He also noted that there was a high level of public interest regarding the investigation of the six officers at KOM as well.

Shanmugam had earlier said in his speech that the discussions surrounding No 38 Oxley Road are of significant public interest. Leong then asked, "Why is there a double standard?"

In response, Shanmugam said he had already taken "some care" in his speech to explain the difference between the KOM case, that of the Lees, and that of Karl Liew in the case of Parti Liyani, in which a domestic worker was acquitted of stealing from her employer.

The minister asked:

"Did the Member listen to the explanation on the difference between the KOM case and the case of the Lee and Mr Liew? Perhaps the Member can go into a little bit of detail, based on the explanation I've given on the differences, and tell us which part of the explanation he disagrees (with) before he alleges double standards."

In his earlier speech, Shanmugam said that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had been found by the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges to be dishonest, with the information already in the public.

Moreover, both have "essentially absconded from jurisdiction".

Hence, Shanmugam explained that the facts are disclosed so that Parliament "can have a full and complete picture, when a question had been asked which related to their conduct".

On Leong's first question about whether the Lees received a written order, Shanmugam replied:

"The police issued a written order. They were given an email, they promised that they will come and agreed (to) give an interview. They then left (Singapore's) jurisdiction and they have said, both to the police and in public, that they will not cooperate with the police. They will not even come back into the jurisdiction. I think, that is why I said they are essentially absconders from justice."

Shanmugam then said:

"For the record, I have made it very clear why the disclosure here (of the Lees) is consistent with the disclosure in the Karl Liew's case and...I would also like to ask Mr Leong. If Mr Leong didn't see any problem when Mr Liew's name was mentioned in similar circumstances — in fact, he took part in the debate and wanted a Commission of Inquiry — why this extraordinary concern suddenly about the Lees that he didn't show for Mr Liew? And perhaps he can explain why his approach shows double standards."

This prompted Leong to reply, "Minister, there you go again. I ask you a question — "

At this point, the Speaker of Parliament, Tan Chuan Jin, cut in to to say, "(Mr Leong) you can address it (the question) through me, and lower the temperature, thank you."

Leong said that Shanmugam "addressed it in a different context" and then "asked me a question". He repeated his first question about whether a written order was issued to the Lees.

Shanmugam replied, "Sir, I answered the question."

Leon Perera: What are the safeguards to ensure public disclosure does not prejudice legal processes?

Meanwhile, Perera asked about the safeguards put in place to ensure that public disclosure of names does not prejudice the conduct of due process or trials.

Shanmugam thanked Perera for the question and said:

"That is in fact a key point. In fact, one could say that that is the key point in making a decision on going public and that is why you need to look carefully at the facts.

So if you look at the facts relating to Mr Liew and the Lees, what has happened? The High Court has said that in the case of Mr Liew, perhaps in less clear language, in the case of the Lees, very direct language, which I've taken you through, that...at least Mr Liew as well as the two Lees were not telling the truth."

The minister then elaborated on the factors of prejudice in both cases:

"The investigation relates back to that very point on which the courts have taken a view as to whether they lied or didn't lie. That is why I said the prejudice is very marginal, if any. And as for the other aspect of prejudice that people will think less well of them; the fact that we repeat in this House, what the courts have already said about them, is not going to increase the cloud as it were.

So these are factors in the prejudice that you should take into account. Both the legal prejudice of fair trial as well as public perception prejudice. You should consider even before you release, you don't try and recover ground after that, and shore up as it were. You make these calculations before. What's the extent of prejudice? And you release the information, but always bearing in mind; sometimes public interest may require disclosure, even if it means some degree of prejudice."

He added:

"So that's an assessment...in the case of the Lees, I have explained why I think the prejudice is pretty much non-existent because we are simply repeating what has been said and saying that the police are investigating that matter, which everyone would expect us to do anyway. Because I've said in this House, we will investigate these matters. So what's the prejudice?"

Shanmugam added:

"But there may be other cases, potentially, where the prejudice could be a little bit more so we have to assess public interest, and that is why we have Parliament and if somebody takes a different view on prejudice, we will have to answer the questions...And they will obviously be entitled their full rights, to give their version of events, and they will be entitled to defend their position in court."

Sylvia Lim: Was an order under the Criminal Procedure Code issued to the Lees?

Lim asked for further clarification on whether the police had or had not issued an order under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern.

Shanmugam replied:

"That is right. So (a) specific order under the CPC was not issued. The police normally would not issue such an order. They would first contact and speak with and send a written document. And if a party says that they will cooperate, the police would assume in good faith that that's how they will proceed.

And that is what was done, and the next thing the police heard was another email from the couple saying that they will not cooperate, but by then they were, already, as I said, essentially absconded from jurisdiction."

Hazel Poa: Will the minister address the chatter on the timing of how the information was released?

Hazel Poa then asked if Shanmugam could share "exactly what lies" were told by Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern.

She further asked:

"Secondly, there is much chatter that the investigation and the timing of the release of this information were linked to the interview with Bloomberg where Mr Lee Hsien Yang actually said that he might consider running for president. So will the minister like to clarify on the situation?"

Poa was referring to a March 3 interview by the U.S.-based media outlet with Lee Hsien Yang, in which he mulled the idea of running for President of Singapore.

On the first question, Shanmugam invited Poa to read the Disciplinary Tribunal and The Court of Three Judges' judgements. He also pointed out that Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had already extracted the relevant portions and had them included as an annex in his written reply.

On the second question, he asked Poa to clarify if her question was based on a rumour:

"Can I invite the Member to make clear is the member suggesting that there is a connection between the Bloomberg interview and the disclosure in Parliament? Because we do not repeat rumours from outside. Is the Member suggesting that? I would like to know that before I answer."

Poa said:

"No, I'm not suggesting that. But I am aware that there are such speculations going on, and it's quite prevalent. So I'm merely asking if the minister would like to take this opportunity to clarify."

Shanmugam said:

"If that is not being suggested, then I would ask, sir, through you that the Member withdraw that part of her question, and I'll answer the rest of the question."

Speaker Tan Chuan Jin added:

"For the questions, Ms Hazel Poa. There are many rumours swirling around many other issues. We don't necessarily bring them in."

After Poa said she would withdraw the question, Shanmugam stood up and said, "You don't have to withdraw the question. I'll answer the question."

He continued:

"I'm trying to now recall. But my recollection is that the Bloomberg interview came after the answer given by Senior Minister Teo and therefore, even the prescience of this government could not have foretold that Mr Lee Hsien Yang was going to give such an interview...that's my recollection of the sequence of events."

Shanmugam was correct, the Bloomberg interview was published on March 3, after Teo's written reply (on March 2).

He continued:

"If a question is asked in Parliament, we answer. That debate for us is, I have explained the reasons why the answer was given. No one took issue when I disclosed that Mr Liew was being investigated.

I assume that everyone accepted the principle, and I've explained how that principle applies here. If anyone challenges us on that, I am prepared to debate, but the principle is the same. Thank you."

Related story:

Top screenshots via MCI/YouTube