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

Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam and Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had an interminable and gruelling exchange carried on from Monday, March 20.

It concerned allegations that Leong made in a Facebook post following the Parliamentary sitting on Monday.

While Shanmugam prepared a Ministerial statement, he paused at several times to seek clarifications from Leong.

This is what went down on March 22.

The debate ended with Leong not confirming if Lee Hsien Yang will return to assist the police, Leong withdrawing an allegation over a bribery case linked to Keppel Offshore & Marine (KOM), and Leong apologising to the Speaker.

This was how the heated exchange between Shanmugam and Leong went.

Do you agree that Lee Hsien Yang & Lee Suet Fern were found to have lied on oath?

In the first exchange, Shanmugam asked if Leong agreed that the Court of Three Judges and the Disciplinary Tribunal have said that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern have lied on oath.

After a back-and-forth with Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin, Leong said it is "subject to legal interpretation".

Shanmugam's next question was, "would the Member accept that if they did lie on oath -- if they did lie on oath -- that that is possible criminal conduct?"

Leong refused to answer at first, and said, "I'm 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."

Shanmugam had another question, "If there was possible criminal conduct, would Member accept that that should be properly investigated?"

After another brief exchange with the Speaker, Leong said, "Correct. If there is a criminal offence, of course it has to be investigated."

Lee Hsien Yang has said he is a fugitive

Shanmugam then asked if Leong is saying that Lee Hsien Yang will return to Singapore and cooperate with the authorities.

Leong said:

"Yes, Mr Lee Hsien Yang is a member of the Progress Singapore Party. But the real issue here we are discussing is about fairness and equality before the law. It's not about whether he's a member of the Progress Singapore Party or not. And whether every citizen is given fair treatment, equal treatment.

Whatever Mr Lee says 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 it is, you don't have the right to say that he absconded."

Shanmugam said:

"That is not the question I asked. I take it that Member does not wish to say whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang will come back and cooperate with the authorities. And Sir, there is nothing flawed with the process. Police have explained the process.

And I repeat, both in this House and I'm prepared to repeat it outside, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has absconded. On the facts. That's my position. That's consistent with what Mr Lee Hsien Yang himself has said, that he is a fugitive. And you have seen the dictionary definitions. So let's not engage in false rhetoric."

Those investigated in Keppel OM case were not found guilty in court

Shanmugam continued with his Ministerial Statement, and referred to Leong's citing of the Keppel OM case, where he said the people investigated by the CPIB were "actually guilty."

Shanmugam said that Leong is making assertions against a number of persons that they have been found guilty of criminal offences when they in fact have not been found guilty.

He asked Leong to either substantiate or withdraw his statement, and added, "One cannot, under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, make these sorts of statements about people and if he does not withdraw, then Sir, we will consider what else needs to be done."

Leong said he based what he said on information obtained from overseas jurisdiction, that CPIB decided not to prosecute, and asked if the stern warning letter received by the Keppel OM employees equates to sufficient evidence to show that they are guilty.

Shanmugam said he asked a simple question, whether Leong is saying that all employees investigates have been found guilty in a court of law, and if not, whether Leong was prepared to withdraw the statement.

Leong said he was under the impression they have been found guilty, based on the "big case" overseas and the "big fine" paid by Keppel OM fine.

Shanmugam said, "Can I suggest that Member works a little bit, finds out what he is talking about before coming here and making serious allegations. If I were to tell him that his statement is false, it is untrue to say they have all been found guilty elsewhere, certainly not in Singapore, is he prepared to withdraw his statement?"

Leong said, "Speaker, if the Minister says that they have not been found guilty overseas, then I'm prepared to withdraw my statement."

Shanmugam said that to the best of his knowledge, one person pleaded guilty in the U.S., and no one else has been found guilty.

He said of Leong's statement:

"It is a very serious statement to come here, make allegations without doing your homework and then propagate this sort of stuff all over the place. Really un-Parliamentary and not acceptable. And then to say, 'well, I've read, it seems to be big.'

Unfortunately, this is a thread running through all of Mr Leong's statements. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't check. He just says all sorts of things. And that is not the way debates ought to go. I'm glad Mr Leong has withdrawn that statement."

Leong did not object to the mention of Parti Liyani / Karl Liew case on Monday

Shanmugam referred to Leong's Facebook post, where he said that bringing up the Parti Liyani case was an "attempt to muddy the waters because the case is irrelevant". He added that Leong had ascribed an improper motive to him.

Shanmugam said that he had no problem with Members challenging him in a debate, and that the tougher the debate the better, as the public can get a better sense of where the facts are.

"So we welcome debate. We want debate. But when a statement is made in Parliament and the Member doesn't respond, and then goes out, particularly when I said 'is there anything that you disagree with or you don't understand', and he keeps quiet? He keeps quiet and then goes out and says this."

Shanmugam added he previously explained why the Parti Liyani case is relevant, but Leong was present and did not object. He asked Leong why did he say that the Parti Liyani case was not relevant.

Leong said that in his opinion, during debate, "it is not necessary that all the time, we have enough time and opportunities to refute every point."

Shanmugam said that he expressly invited Members' response, and Leong was given adequate time. Leong disagreed with Shanmugam, and said the debate on Monday was not long enough.

Leong had opportunity to respond then

Speaker Tan then said, "If I recall, questions were asked. You did not respond, you had every opportunity. If you had raised your hand to respond, the time would have been given to you to do that."

Tan asked if that was a correct description, and Leong said "it was not totally true". Leong said he had the opportunity to speak twice, but he wanted to speak a third time, but before he could "raise his hand", it had moved on to another question.

Shanmugam said he did not recall Leong raising his hand and said the video of the proceedings could be checked, and Tan asked if Leong was alleging that he wasn't given enough time to respond. In response, Leong said the debate "could have been longer."

Tan repeated his question, and said he needed to clarify for himself if Leong was alleging that he wasn't given the space to respond. Leong then said that sometimes in a debate, "it needs time to digest" and may take a bit of time to respond.

After more back-and-forth, Leong conceded that he was probably "digesting" the information at the time.

What did Leong mean by "Muddy the waters"?

Shanmugam then asked Leong again, why he said in his Facebook post that the Parti Liyani case was not relevant.

Leong said he did not object to the disclosure of Karl Liew's identity, and said his issue is about the "fair treatment" between the Keppel OM and Lee Hsien Yang cases. However, Shanmugam said he was asking something "quite different", specifically a clarification about Leong's own Facebook post, why he said the Parti Liyani case was not relevant.

Leong said he did not say the case was not relevant, instead, he used the phrase "muddy the waters". Shanmugam said when that phrase is used, it means the case is not relevant and was used to confuse Parliament. He asked again if Leong accepted that the Parti Liyani case is relevant.

Leong said that the Parti Liyani case is not relevant for this debate. When invited to elaborate, he said:

"Because the...issue here is about the fairness of the KOM case and the (Lee Hsien Yang) case. So you don't need to bring in a new case. When you bring in a new case, in a way, you're clouding the thinking of people. I didn't say it's irrelevant. I didn't say you're confusing Parliament. Minister, don't put words into my mouth."

Shanmugam then asked, "So may I ask, what is the meaning of 'muddy the waters'?"

Leong said, "Speaker, now Minister is testing whether I'm from the lousy school or not."

If allegations are made, Members should be free to question them

Speaker Tan interjected and said Parliament is for debating and to seek clarifications, but when the debate is carried out in a "one-dimensional way" outside Parliament, when certain statements are made, clarifications have to be sought.

When Leong said this is not what a legislative chamber should be, Tan said if allegations are made in Parliament and certain statements are made, Members should be free to question and query. Tan said Leong had mentioned "muddy the waters" in his post and Shanmugam was asking what he meant by it.

After some more back-and-forth, Leong eventually explained that in his understanding, "muddy the waters" means to cloud the real issue, because new things are introduced to the discussion.

Shanmugam said, "You cloud the waters, you introduce new things, so that people can't see the facts, that it's irrelevant and you're introducing it. That is what you're saying. Can I ask the question for the last time."

Leong said, "Speaker, I am not going to answer that."

Shanmugam said:

"Sir, this is a serious allegation. Will the Member withdraw his allegation that Parti Liyani was referred to in order to muddy the waters. And will the Member accept it was quite wrong to have suggested motives on a false basis because I've explained why it is relevant.

You can disagree here. But if you don't disagree, you keep quiet, you go out there. Then I'm entitled to ask this. And so it's not my intention to leave the matters be here if the member will not withdraw his allegation."

Leong said he is not going to "withdraw that."

Suitability of Oxley Road discussion in Parliament

Shanmugam then referred to Leong's assertion in his Facebook post that the Oxley Road case was a "family dispute" and therefore not appropriate to be discussed in Parliament.

However, Shanmugam pointed out that the issues were first made public by Lee Hsien Yang himself in 2017, and subsequent debates took place in Parliament. He said that he explained in his statement on Monday why the matter had to be answered in response to a Parliamentary question.

He asked Leong to clarify which part of the explanation he disagreed with.

Leong said he had no issues with the previous debates, but "when there are further developments to that, especially with regards to the personal behaviour of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, I don't think there is a need to raise those issues in Parliament again, that's what I'm trying to drive at."

Shanmugam said that was a "false basis" because a question was raised in Parliament, and answers were provided. He added:

"But when someone is in the house doesn't raise a point, says that well, he was digesting it. And then goes out and puts a Facebook post with both improper statements and untrue statements. Then he is abusing Parliamentary privilege. He is in breach of Parliamentary rules and that is why we have to pull it up and ask a number of questions."

Parliament should not be brought into disrepute

Shanmugam said Parliament should not be brought into disrepute with this kind of conduct, and that this is not the first time that Leong has breached the rules of Parliamentary procedure.

After some elaboration, Shanmugam asked that Leong delete his post, misrepresented the position and apologised.

Leong said he would only agree to do so if Shanmugam explained again the specific issues with his post. "Muddying the waters is not something that is an issue. Please elaborate again how does that word 'Muddying the water' becomes an issue."

Shanmugam went over it again, to which Leong replied that by using the phrase in his post, he meant to call on readers to "concentrate on the differences" between the Keppel OM  and the Lee Hsien Yang cases, and that he was not casting aspersions on Shanmugam at all.

Shanmugam then said he took it that Leong did not withdraw his statement, and "we will then proceed to consider what the next steps ought to be." If at any time Leong changes his mind before a decision is reached, he can "let us know."

Clarifications

Leong then asked if Shanmugam only had two issues with his Facebook post, to which Shanmugam replied that he highlighted two points for illustration.

Leong said "his understanding" of the legal process is when someone is said to have committed "perjury" or has absconded, and if the legal system has "not been strictly followed", and this is said in Parliament, "isn't that something we should think about?"

Shanmugam responded that by speaking about anyone having lied on oath, as the courts have said, or them absconding, "we do not therefore prejudge their guilt." They will have to come back, they will be charged if the police deems so, and the courts will decide. He pointed out that when Karl Liew was said to be under investigation for having lied on oath, "we are not prejudging his guilt."

Likewise, Shanmugam said, when Lee Hsien Yang has described himself as a "fugitive", it is entirely in order when he is said to have absconded. He made the point that statements in Parliament are not evidence, but meant to further discussions and are descriptions of the process.

"That's what absconding means, run away without cooperating with the police," Shanmugam said. "It can also mean that they have committed an offence of absconding."

If Lee Hsien Yang is charged with absconding from jurisdiction, he can then explain what he meant, Shanmugam said.

Is that acceptable?

Leong asked if it was "acceptable" for Members to make statements about potential criminal behaviour of certain individuals.

Shanmugam replied that it happens on a number of occasions, but Leong didn't think there was anything wrong when it was made about Karl Liew. He added that making such statements does not mean that they have been found guilty.

Leong said he would not have an issue with the disclosure of names in the Lee Hsien Yang case if the names in the Keppel OM case were also revealed. Shanmugam said that he had explained in "considerable detail" the differences between the cases.

Leong then clarified that he did not say in his Facebook post that the Keppel OM employees were guilty, but instead had said it during his remarks in Parliament.

Speaker Tan asked if Leong wished to withdraw his allegation about the six Keppel OM employees, "just to be clear." Leong then replied, "If Minister didn't ask me, I suggest you don't ask me."

After an audible "Wow" (unclear who said it), Leader of the House Indranee Rajah rose to speak and said:

"Mr Speaker, as Leader of the House, I would just like to remind Members to conduct themselves in a Parliamentary manner and the tone in which we address one another is important. I would therefore ask Mr Leong to be mindful of that."

I don't fully understand the difference between Keppel OM and Lees cases: Leong Mun Wai

After some comments by Shanmugam, Leong said that it is "very difficult" for the public to understand, because "I don't understand fully what the Minister had tried to explain about the difference between the two cases."

Leong said that in his view, the Keppel OM case is just as significant in terms of public interest, if not even more, than the Lee Hsien Yang case.

As for prejudice, Leong said that Shanmugam went to "great lengths" to show there is no prejudice in Lee Hsien Yang's case, but he felt that this would also apply to the Keppel OM case.

"You may technically explain some of the legal details here and there, but the public perception is something that we have to deal with in this House," Leong said, and added that he disagreed with Shanmugam about the differences between the Keppel OM case and that of the Lees.

Shanmugam said again that the Keppel OM case had concluded and an assessment had been made that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be established in court.

"The harm associated with naming someone when charges would not be pursued, must be weighed," Shanmugam said.

He asked rhetorically if in the future, if a case cannot be made out, should the authorities reveal all the names of those under investigation if some of the names have been released.

"This is not a case of politicising these matters. If you apply it here, then you must be prepared that in (the) future whenever some names have been leaked in the media or elsewhere, or whenever the names have been mentioned in some contexts, not as defendants, the court doesn't express an opinion, their names are mentioned by some witnesses, and Mr Leong, is he arguing for a principle, and I would like to hear from him, that in all such cases, as long as their name is mentioned by someone and is public, then when we investigate, even when we conclude that there is no case, we ought to release the names?"

Leong said he was not going to answer that question.

What's the principle?

Shanmugam said he is prepared to consider and ask police to reconsider if Leong says the principle (of releasing names) should be applied to all future cases.

Leong said that is not the principle he is asking, but repeated that the people in the Keppel OM case have been "widely publicised."

Shanmugam said Leong was repeating himself. Leong said he agreed with Shanmugam not to release names if a case is fully closed, but said this should also be applied to cases where individuals have not been subject to court proceedings.

Shanmugam said Leong agreed that (Keppel OM aside) names should not be released. But in the case of the Lees, the release of their names was similar to the Parti Liyani case and the various other examples he provided.

"I would invite the Member to go and read carefully what I've said. There are situations when you release, and I explained fully why it was released. And no Member had an issue with that other than Mr Leong," Shanmugam said.

Leong apologises to Speaker

During the exchanges, Speaker had asked Leong to clarify if he was going to withdraw his allegations against the six KOM executives.

This promoted a curt reply from Leong, who said "If minister (Shanmugam) didn't ask me, I suggest you don't ask me".

Before the conclusion of the exchange, Tan told Leong,

"Can I just remind you, as illustrated, I have been more than tolerant, more than accommodative of you in the various occasions for you to speak up? Can I remind you that in the very least, let's retain the decorum of this...whether you're addressing myself or other Members."

Leong then said he wanted to extend an apology, and apologised for his remark that "If the Minister didn't ask the question, please don't ask the question. I sincerely apologise."

@mothershipsg MP Leong Mun Wai apologised to the Speaker for his remarks #sgnews #tiktoksg ♬ original sound - Mothership.sg

Related articles:

Top image from MCI YouTube.