This is PM Lee Hsien Loong's Ministerial Statement on "Alleged Abuse of Power on 38 Oxley Road" at the Parliamentary Sitting on 3 July 2017.
Mdm Speaker, I am making this statement
today because my siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, have
made serious allegations of abuse of power against me and my Government.
The allegations seem to concern primarily three matters. One, the
setting up of the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. Two, the Deed
of Gift for some artefacts from the house that were to be displayed in
an exhibition by the National Heritage Board (NHB). And three,
accusations of nepotism over my wife and son, and accusations that I
want my father’s house kept standing to bolster my power.
These allegations are entirely baseless. But they have already
damaged Singapore’s reputation. Unrebutted, they can affect
Singaporeans’ confidence in the Government. I therefore have no choice
but to address them promptly and publicly. I also have to do so in
Parliament. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is the person who
commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament.
As the PM, I have a duty to explain myself to MPs, and to rebut in
Parliament the allegations against me and my Government.
I know many Singaporeans are upset by this issue. They are tired of
the subject, and wish it would end. I too am upset that things have
reached this state. As your Prime Minister, I deeply regret that this
has happened and apologise to Singaporeans for this. As a son, I am
pained at the anguish that this strife would have caused my parents to
feel if they were still alive.
I intend to clear the air today, to explain the matter fully and to
answer all questions on the matter. I am not here to make a case against
my siblings. Parliament is not the place for that. But what is private,
I will try to resolve privately. But what is public, I have to explain
and render account.
I stand by what I will say in this Chamber. I shall be separately
issuing whatever I say in this debate as a statement by me outside the
House which will not be covered by Parliamentary privilege.
To respond to these allegations of abuse of power, I will have to go
into some background about 38 Oxley Road and the family discussions on
the house so that Members can make sense of the allegations.
My account will inevitably be from my perspective. So I will try my best to be objective and factual.
I will cover the discussions on 38 Oxley Road when Mr Lee Kuan Yew
was alive, what happened after Mr Lee passed away, and then, where the
matter stands today.
38 Oxley Road
Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute
Handout 1 to Members.
My father’s wish, held for many years, is well-known to all
Singaporeans. He wanted the house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished.
After my mother died in 2010, my father wrote to Cabinet to put his
position on the record. This is the first note you have in the bundle,
which is dated, 27 October 2010. It is a letter from Mr Lee to Cabinet.
And it reads,
“38 Oxley Road. I have discussed this with
my family many a time. They agreed with me that 38 Oxley Road should
not be kept as a kind of relic for people to tramp through. Take photos
of it or whatever else they want, but demolish it after I am gone.
“I have seen too many places which are
kept frozen in time. My most vivid memory is that of Nehru’s final home,
that of the British Commander of the Indian Ocean fleet in New Delhi.”
(Actually it was another British General’s home, but you get the point.)
“It was once a grand building. Kept as a
monument with people tramping in and out, it became shabby. It is not
worth the restoration, unless they restore it just for people to look
at.
“38 Oxley Road has no merit as architecture. So please respect my wish to have it demolished when I am no longer around.”
Cabinet noted his letter. A few months later, in January 2011, my
father published a book, “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going”. In the
book, the question of preserving his house came up. He said “I’ve told
the Cabinet, when I’m dead, demolish it”. He explained again that he did
not want the house to become a shambles. The cost of preservation would
be high because the house was built over a hundred years ago and had no
foundation. If the house was demolished and planning rules could
change, the value of the land, as well as the surrounding plots, would
go up.
However, after “Hard Truths” was published, there was a strong public
pushback. Many Singaporeans did not agree with Mr Lee. They wanted the
house to be preserved. This was after all the house of Singapore’s
founding Prime Minister, where important political decisions were made
that shaped the future of Singapore. We are a young nation, and what the
house represents is of particular significance to our history and
nationhood. So in March 2011, my father asked some newspaper editors for
their views. All the editors replied that they would like it to be
kept, given its historical importance and heritage value.
Mohd Guntor Sadali, then editor of Berita Harian, wrote to my father:
“I was personally shocked and sad, when I first read about you saying that you wanted the house demolished after you are gone.
“the historical value of the house is
priceless…if we demolish it, our next generations will regret it. We
should avoid making this mistake.”
Mr Lim Jim Koon, then editor of Lianhe Zaobao, suggested that the
house be conserved and turned into a museum, like the Sun Yat Sen
Memorial Hall. These were not the answers my father hoped to get. My
father then wanted to leave the decision to his children. But we told
him that only he could decide. He then said his decision was to knock it
down. I told him that in that case he should tell the editors, and put
it on the record. And so he did.
After the General Election in May 2011, Mr Lee retired from Cabinet.
He then decided to put his views on the record again. And that is the
second bundle in the letter you have, 20 July 2011, he wrote to Cabinet
to reiterate that he wanted the house knocked down. I read, it says,
“I have previously written to Cabinet that
the house should be demolished. It has no foundations and it is in poor
condition. It is difficult to maintain when people start trampling
through the house. Whenever there is piling at Kiliney Road, hairline
cracks begin to appear in the walls. So keeping the house is too
hazardous and costly. I therefore repeat my wish to have the house
demolished when I’m no longer alive.
This is a letter that I referred to when I addressed the Parliament
on the 13 April 2015. I said he expressed his wish that the house be
torn down. But I misquote, I said December 2011. In fact he wrote this
20 July 2011.
When I saw this letter the next morning, that means 21 July 2011, I
immediately invited Mr Lee to make his case in person to Cabinet. I
thought that with his force of personality and conviction, meeting the
Ministers would give him the best chance to convince Cabinet, as he had
done so many times before. My father agreed to come. He met Cabinet that
very afternoon. But the Ministers were unanimous in expressing their
opposition to knocking the house down. I was the only one who did not
express a view, because I was both the son and the PM and therefore
conflicted.
After the meeting, my father continued to ponder over how to deal
with the house. In fact, even before the Cabinet meeting, He had been
discussing with the family how to go about demolishing the house and
redeveloping the site. We explored in the family all kinds of
permutations to demolish the house and redevelop the site – maximise
value. We discussed who to inherit the property, whether it should be
one or several of the children; whether to demolish the house before or
after my father died; whether to donate the proceeds to charity after
the site was redeveloped, and if so which children would share in the
donation, and which charities to donate to.
At one point, my brother suggested that my father gift the property
to Singapore, subject to the condition that the house be demolished and a
small public park be built in its place. I said that I thought this was
worth considering, but I offered another option: to demolish the house
and redevelop the site as my father wanted, but then to sell off the
property and donate the proceeds to charity
I asked my father between the two which he preferred, and he replied
the latter, i.e. demolish the house, redevelop and sell off, and donate
the proceeds to charity. He even had some ideas which charities he
wanted. He was a practical-minded man
In August 2011, about a month after the Cabinet meeting, my father
decided to will 38 Oxley Road to me as part of my share of the estate,
and he told the family so.
Ho Ching and I knew my father’s wishes and also my mother’s feelings.
We also knew how Cabinet and the public viewed the matter. We started
discussing alternatives with my father, to see how best we could fulfil
his wishes, in the event that the house could not be demolished. My
father’s concern was that the house should not become run-down and
dilapidated, and that it should not be an expensive burden to maintain
My late mother had a different concern: privacy. She felt strongly
that her private living spaces should always remain private. She had
been most distressed at the thought of people tramping through her
personal spaces after she and my father passed away, to gawk at how they
had lived. Even when not so familiar people came into the house for one
reason or another to meet her or my father. She would complain
afterwards “you could see them looking around, eyes opened, to try and
find out how we lived”. She resented it.
So Ho Ching and I came up with a proposal to renovate the house to
change the inside completely: Demolish the private living spaces to
preserve the privacy of the family; keep the basement dining room, which
was of historical significance; strengthen the structure which was
decaying, and create a new and separate living area, so that the house
could be lived in.
My father accepted this proposal. In December 2011, he told the
family that it was “best to redevelop 38 Oxley Road straightaway”, after
he died, and do what we proposed. By redevelopment, he means remove the
private spaces, renovate the house without knocking it down. At around
the same time, on 27 December 2011, he wrote to Cabinet a third time and
you have the letter with you.
“Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be
demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38
Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations
reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out
for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.”
Ho Ching and I therefore proceeded along these lines. We kept the
family fully informed of our considerations and our intentions. We
emailed everyone, including my father, my sister, my brother and his
wife. No one raised any objections to the plan
My father met the architect, went through the proposal, and approved
the scheme to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house. Madam
Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute
Handout 2,
which contains the relevant correspondence. My father signed the
authorisation to submit the development application to URA on 28 March
2012, which URA approved on 17 April 2012.
As far as I knew, that was how the family had settled the matter –
rationally, amicably while Mr Lee was still alive, which was what he had
hoped to achieve and strived very hard to achieve. I heard nothing to
the contrary until after my father died
After Mr Lee’s passing
My father passed away on 23 March 2015. On 12 April 2015, three weeks
later, his last will was formally read to me and my two siblings. 38
Oxley Road was given to me. The Demolition Clause was in the will.
Mdm Speaker, may I now ask the Clerk to distribute
Handout 3 which
is the Demolition Clause to Members. The Demolition Clause was in two
main parts with a third minor part at the end. I read it out in full:
“I further declare that it is my wish and
the wish of my late Wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley
Road, Singapore 238629 (“The House”) be demolished immediately after my
death, or if my daughter Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in
the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I
would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the
demolition of the House be carried out. If our children are unable to
demolish the House as a result of any changes in the laws, rules or
regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened
to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on
this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of
wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding
that the rest of my Will is private.”
The following day, I had to speak in Parliament on how we would
honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The question of 38 Oxley Road was bound to come
up. There were already suggestions from the public on what to do with
the house, including turning it into a museum and a memorial. I was
personally in a difficult position, because I was both Mr Lee’s son and
the Prime Minister
So at the reading of the will, I discussed with my siblings what I
could say about the house in Parliament. There was a difference of
views. Hsien Yang for the first time objected to the renovation plans
that my father had approved. He wanted the house to be knocked down
immediately, which was a complete surprise to me. I pointed out that his
position now was different from what the family had discussed and
agreed upon. But it was not possible to knock down the House
immediately, anyway, because my sister, Wei Ling, then said she intended
to continue to stay in the house and in his will, my father had
expressed his wish that Wei Ling be allowed to stay there for as long as
she wished.
So I said we should honour that, and that I would say in Parliament
the next day that the Government would not make any decision, until such
time as my sister was no longer staying there. We also discussed what I
should say regarding my father’s wishes - what is should say in
parliament regarding my father’s wishes. I wanted to read out Mr Lee’s
27 December 2011 letter to Cabinet, stating his view on what to do with
the house if it is to be preserved. I also wanted to read out the
Demolition Clause in his will, in full. My brother and his wife objected
strenuously. But I decided that I had to do so, and I said so, so that
my father’s views would be on record and Singaporeans could know
accurately what his thinking had been. Later that evening, I discovered
that my siblings had issued a statement which contained the full
Demolition Clause.
In Parliament the next day, I made a statement which I had cleared
with my key Cabinet colleagues because I was speaking as Prime Minister.
I read out both the letter to Cabinet and the whole Demolition Clause. I
said that “we should not rush into making decisions on this matter,
especially so soon after Mr Lee has passed away. We should allow some
time to pass, consider the ideas carefully, and make calm, considered
decisions which will stand the test of time. We want to honour Mr Lee,
but we must do so in the right way.” I stated that my father’s position
on 38 Oxley Road had been unwavering all these years, that he wanted the
house knocked down, and that as a son I wanted to see my father’s
wishes carried out. I told Parliament that since my sister was going to
continue living in 38 Oxley Road, there was no immediate issue of
demolition and no need for Government to make any decision now. As and
when my sister was no longer living there, the Government of the day
would consider the matter.
After the Parliament Sitting, I took two major steps. One, I recused
myself from all Government decisions relating to 38 Oxley Road. I was
conflicted, being my father’s son and the inheritor of the house, and
also the Head of the Government. It was not proper for me to take part
in any decisions on 38 Oxley Road. So at the next Cabinet meeting, two
days after the Parliament Sitting, I recused myself from all discussions
and decisions relating to the house, and placed DPM Teo Chee Hean in
charge and this was formally recorded in the cabinet minutes. From that
point on, I have been out of the loop whenever the Government handles
matters concerning the house. I play no part in any of the discussions
or decisions. Whenever the Cabinet deliberates on the house, for example
when it set up a Ministerial Committee, I absent myself, and DPM Teo
chairs the meeting
My second major action after my father died was to divest myself of
the house. Soon after the Parliament Sitting, I learned that my siblings
were unhappy that I was getting the house. I was not sure why, but I
thought the best way to resolve the matter was to transfer the house to
them. I first offered to transfer the house to my sister for a nominal
sum of $1, on condition that if the property is sold later, or acquired
by the Government, all proceeds or compensation would go to charity.
Unfortunately, that deal fell through. Subsequently, I made a fresh
proposal to sell the house to my brother at fair market value. This time
we reached agreement, this was in December 2015 and we also agreed that
my brother and I would each donate half the value of the house to
charity. We both did so, and in addition I topped up another half
myself, in other words, I myself gave away the full value of the house
that I had inherited and Together, my brother and I have donated one and
a half times the value of the house to charity. So if you understand
that properly. The house comes to me, I sell it to my brother for market
value. He gives me the value of the house. I gave half of that to
charity. He gets the house. In addition, he gives half the amount to
charity. On top of that I separately gave half value of the house to
charity. So I gave one times the value of the house, he gave away one
half times the value. The house is with him. That complicated
arrangement, that substantially addressed a major concern of mine: that
was that our family be seen not to be benefitting financially from 38
Oxley Road either through receiving compensation from the State for
acquisition or resisting acquisition or preservation or conservation to
profit by re-developing and selling the property.
On house, no longer any substance to dispute
I have given you the background to 38 Oxley Road, our discussions
when my father was alive what happened after my father passed away.
Where does the matter stand today? There is, in substance, no longer
anything for my siblings and me to dispute over on the matter of the
house. We all want our father’s personal wish to be carried out, which
is to knock the house down. I no longer have any interest in the house.
My brother owns it. I do not take part in in any Government decisions on
the house. So why is there still an argument?
I really am not sure, but one possible factor may be a difference in
views between me and my siblings and the difference is over this
question: what did my father think about the house, apart from
demolition? Was his view black and white, all or nothing – demolish the
house no matter what? Or was he prepared to consider alternatives should
demolition not be possible? My siblings’ view is that my father
absolutely wanted to demolish the house, with no compromise. And they
point to the first half of the Demolition Clause as evidence. That’s the
first section you have in the handout and they say that if he
considered any alternatives, such as the next section of the handout
that was only because he was under duress because the Government had the
power to prevent him or his heirs from knocking it down. My view is
that while my father wanted the house to be demolished, he was prepared
to consider alternatives should the Government decide otherwise. Indeed,
he put it in writing, and approved alternative architectural plans
which were submitted to URA, as I explained earlier and approved by the
URA. Next, we have to look at the full Demolition Clause, and not just
the first half, and the full clause shows that my father did accept
alternatives. Further, I have pointed out some unusual circumstances
surrounding how the last will was prepared, which are relevant because
of the weight that my siblings put on the Demolition Clause in the last
will. Despite this difference in views, I still see no need for
argument. I have submitted my views to the Ministerial Committee. My
siblings have submitted theirs. We have commented on each other’s views.
I will leave it in the good hands of the Committee. In any case, the
Government has stated that the Committee will not make any decisions on
the house, and will not even recommend any decisions on the house to
Cabinet. The Committee will only list options for the house, so that
when a decision does become necessary one day, perhaps decades from now,
the Cabinet of the day, most likely by then under a different Prime
Minister, will have these options available to consider. There is
therefore no reason at all for anybody to feel “pushed into a corner” by
the committee, as my brother has claimed to be.
Allegations against Integrity of System
Regrettably, my siblings have now gone public, and accused me of
abusing my office. There are few specifics in their charges. But because
of their father is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, their accusations gain some
credibility, and I have to take their charges seriously. Which is why I
am here addressing them in Parliament. What are their allegations?
Ministerial Committee
First, the alleged abuse of power. My siblings have given scant
details of the charge, but my brother has cited as a “prime example” the
setting up of the Ministerial Committee. I have already explained that I
have recused myself. DPM Teo is in charge of this matter. I had nothing
to do with the decision to set up the Ministerial Committee. I do not
give any instructions to the Ministerial Committee or its members. My
only dealing with the Committee has been to respond to their requests in
writing by formal correspondence, no different from my siblings’
dealings with the Committee. This is the right and proper way to handle a
conflict of interest. My siblings argue that even though I have recused
myself, the Ministers are my subordinates and therefore, the
Ministerial Committee cannot be independent from me. In fact, they say
this of Parliament itself. This cannot be right. It is standard way,
standard practice for the person facing a potential conflict of interest
to recuse himself from the matter in this way, i.e. take himself out
from handling the matter or making any decisions about it, and let
somebody else deal with it, e.g. his deputy, or some other senior
colleague.
This is exactly what I have done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. I
myself do not deal with the matter at all. I take no part in discussions
or decisions concerning the house.
DPM Teo is in full charge. Ministers and officials report to and take
directions from DPM Teo on all 38 Oxley Road matters. Suppose instead
that I had decided as PM to knock the house down, and had pushed that
decision through without allowing the Government to consider the
alternatives, weigh the considerations, and go through due process, just
because it was what my father wanted. That would have been a real abuse
of power.
That would have gone against the whole system of rules and values
that Mr Lee Kuan Yew spent his whole life upholding and building up.
Deed of Gift
The second issue my siblings accuse me of is separate from the house itself.
After my father passed away, my siblings gifted artefacts from 38 Oxley Road to the NHB. This was formalised in a Deed of Gift.
My siblings have accused me of improperly obtaining this Deed between
them and NHB. They say I obtained the Deed as PM, and gave it to my
lawyers, and that was wrong. But I disagree.
The Deed was signed by my sister and brother, who were acting for my
father’s estate. I was one of the beneficiaries of the estate. I was
entitled to be consulted by my siblings before they did this, but I was
not consulted.
In June 2015, Minister Lawrence Wong updated me on a major SG50
exhibition on our founding leaders. He told me the exhibition included
artefacts from Oxley Road, and described the conditions attached to the
gift.He subsequently gave me the Deed, which I had not seen it before.
As Prime Minister, I had every right to see it.
After reading the Deed, I became very concerned over what NHB had
agreed to. The terms were onerous and unreasonable to NHB. E.g. whenever
NHB displayed the items, it also had to display them together with the
first half of the Demolition Clause. But only the first half, which said
that Mr Lee wanted the house knocked down, and not the second half of
the Clause, which stated what Mr Lee wanted done if the house could not
be knocked down. This partial, selective disclosure would mislead the
public on Mr Lee’s intentions. Furthermore, my siblings had announced
publicly that it was a gift. But in fact they had set conditions in the
fine print: if at any time the terms of the Deed were breached, they
could immediately take back all the items for $1. Therefore, this was
not a gift at all. They had misled the public. Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew
had gifted many items to NHB during their lives, and they had never
imposed any conditions on their gifts remotely like these. What Lee Wei
Ling and Lee Hsien Yang had imposed on NHB was wrong.
Discovering all this, as Prime Minister, I had to act. Otherwise
people might later wrongly think that I was party to this. It is
nonsensical to say that because I saw the Deed in my official capacity
as PM, I could not raise the matter with a family member. If I come
across anyone doing something wrong, even family, especially family, it
is my duty to set them right. In the same way, if any Minister
discovers, in the course of his official work, that a family member is
dealing improperly with some government agency, or seeking to take
advantage of the Government, surely the Minister must take this up with
the family member, and get him or her to stop. That is what the Code of
Conduct is for. This is expected of anyone in a public position,
especially me, the Prime Minister. I therefore wrote to my siblings
through lawyers to object to what they had done. On the Government’s
side, I told Lawrence Wong to take instructions from DPM Teo Chee Hean
on this matter.
I believe this was the correct and proper way for me to handle the Deed of Gift.
Nepotism
Third, my siblings have made allegations about nepotism, concerning
my wife and my son, Hongyi. And that I want 38 Oxley Road kept standing,
in order to inherit my father’s credibility and bolster my standing.
Hongyi, my son, has publicly said he is not interested in politics. Nor
have I pushed him to enter politics. My wife, Ho Ching, is CEO of
Temasek Holdings. As CEO, she reports to the Board, chaired by Mr Lim
Boon Heng. As a company, Temasek Holdings answers to its shareholder,
the Ministry of Finance, under Minister Heng Swee Keat. I have every
confidence that both Lim Boon Heng and Heng Swee Keat understand the
meaning of good corporate governance. It is the Temasek Board which
appoints the CEO, and the appointment has to be confirmed by the
President, who is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisors. If Ho
Ching ever behaves improperly, I have no doubt that the Temasek Board,
the President and CPA know what their duty is. Regarding the house, and
how its continued existence enhances my aura as PM, if I needed such
magic properties to bolster my authority even after being your PM for 13
years, I must be in a pretty sad state. And if Signaproeans believed
such magicwork in Singapore, Singapore must be in an even sadder state.
Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to say some words in Mandarin.
今天，我是以沉痛的心情来到国会发表这篇声明，解释我的立场，向国会议员和新加坡人民交代。
过去几个星期，我与弟弟妹妹之间的家庭纠纷，展露在公众面前，让许许多多新加坡人感到非常不安。大家都觉得，家庭失和已经很不幸，更不幸的是，李光耀先生一辈子辛辛苦苦建立起来的精神资产，可能一夜之间就被毁了，而这种精神资产是无价的。大家因此希望我们大事化小，尽快结束这场无谓的争吵。
大家的这种感受，我完全理解。其实，我何尝不想大事化小，让纠纷平息下来。然而，我的弟妹的联合声明，谈论的不仅是家事；他们还刻意中伤我的人格，败坏政府的声誉，影响了人民对政府的信任。我不得不作出回应，驳斥这些毫无根据的指责。
我在英语的演讲中，详细地解释了这场纠纷的来龙去脉。我还说明，在父亲过世后的这些年，身为李家的长子，我尊敬，也愿意遵从父亲的遗愿。我也竭尽所能化解跟弟妹之间的分歧。身为总理，我必须照顾到国家的利益，让政府公正地处理李光耀先生故居的后续。在这双重身份之间，我处于两难，但我尽力做到公私分明。
身为政府领导人，我在处理这件事的时候，让自己完全置身事外，把家事和公事分得清楚。父亲过世不到一个月，我就让张志贤副总理全权处理这个问题；我完全不过问，也不参与。每当内阁讨论故居的事项，包括成立部长委员会，我都刻意回避，不出席也不参加他们的讨论
作为家中的长子，我有责任维护父母和家庭的名誉。我的父亲在遗嘱中把欧思礼路的房屋留给我。后来我发现，
这让弟妹很不满。为了安抚他们，我向他们提议，由我将房子转让给妹妹，代价是象征性的一块钱。很可惜，他们没接受这个建议。过后，我把房子转卖给弟弟，并且将我卖屋所得全部捐给慈善，我不想从这个房子获得任何金钱上的利益。
我原本以为，我放弃了房子的权益，置身事外，能够让我的弟妹感到满意。我万万没想到，他们会不顾家庭的声誉，将家庭纠纷公诸于世，并且对我做人身攻击，对政府作毫无根据的指责。作为哥哥，我真的不知道自己还该做些什么，还能做些什么。
但是作为总理，我知道，我不能够为了息事宁人，而对他们的指责置之不理，因为这些指责损害了人民对政府的信任，也影响新加坡的国际形象。因此，我必须在国会澄清事实，说明真相，表达我和我的团队捍卫清廉政治和依法办事的决心。国会是议论国事的庄严场所，议员可以自由地在这里向政府问责、作出批判。李光耀先生也曾经面对同样的局面。多年前，我们父子两人，曾经因为购买私人房产而招惹一些非议，使政府的信誉受到质疑。当时，吴作栋先生是总理。他的政府要求我和我父亲到国会向人民清楚交代，接受议员的一切质询。那一场国会辩论，化解了人民对政府的疑虑，使到政府能够继续获得人民的信任。
今天，我要坦坦荡荡地接受议员的质询、问责，这当然包括反对党议员。我一定要把事情说清楚，以消除任何的疑惑。我们的家事，关系到情绪的问题，很难得到圆满的解决，
不过我还是希望，有朝一日，我和弟妹能够和解。但国事为先，我必须维持人民对政府的信任，向人民保证，这还是一个清廉有效，大公无私的政府，因为这是新加坡赖以生存的最宝贵的资产。
对于这场家庭纠纷所引起的困扰、混淆和不安，我再次向大家道歉。我希望这次的国会辩论，将有助于平息这场不幸的风波。我和我的领导团队，会继续全力以赴，为大家服务。
Mdm Speaker, let me now continue in English.
Bringing to Parliament
I have brought this matter to Parliament because Singaporeans are
entitled to a full answer from me and my Government. Parliament may not
be a court of law, but it is the highest body in the land. It is also
where my Government and I are accountable to MPs and to the people of
Singapore.
Many people have asked me why I am not taking legal action, to
challenge the will, or sue for defamation, or take some other legal
action to put a stop to this and clear my name. These are valid
questions. I took advice and considered my options very carefully. I
believe I have a strong case. In normal circumstances, in fact, in any
other imaginable circumstance than this, I would sued immediately
because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one,
however baseless it may be and it is in fact an attack not just on me,
but on the integrity of the whole Government. But, suing my own brother
and sister in court would further besmirch our parents’ names. At the
end of the day, we are brother and sister, and we are all our parents’
children. It would also drag out the process for years, and cause more
distraction and distress to Singaporeans. Therefore, fighting this out
in court cannot be my preferred choice.
Every family will understand that family disputes do happen, but they
are not something to flaunt in public. That is why I have done my best
to deal with this out of the public eye. For example, I kept my
submissions to the Ministerial Committee private. My purpose was not to
pursue a fight with my siblings, but to assist the Committee in its
work. Unfortunately, my siblings made public allegations against me and
then I had no choice but to defend myself, and release the statements
and facts about the matter. I stand by the statements I have published
but I really do not want to go further if I can help it.
Today I am making this statement in Parliament to account to Members
and to Singaporeans and to deal with the issue expeditiously so that
Singaporeans can understand what it is all about and we can put the
matter to rest, I hope, once and for all.
DPM Teo will be making a Ministerial Statement after me. He will
explain his and the Government’s actions and decisions in this matter.
Other relevant Ministers will speak too. I invite Members to raise all
questions, suspicions or doubts directly in this Chamber, with me and my
team.
I have seen the questions filed by the Workers’ Party MPs. It is
striking that the questions are general and concern broad principles and
rules. They contain no specific allegations or facts about any
wrongdoing or impropriety. But if I am mistaken and the WP has come
across such allegations or facts, please raise them today. My Ministers
and I will deal with all their questions and give comprehensive answers
because we have nothing to hide.
I have told the PAP MPs that I am lifting the Party Whip. Strictly
speaking, there is no Whip to lift, since no vote will be taken. But I
said this to emphasise what I expect from this debate – a robust
questioning and a full airing and accounting of the public issues and
allegations. All MPs, whether you are PAP MPs, opposition MPs, or NMPs,
should query me and my Ministers vigorously and without restraint. That
is the way to dispel all the doubts, innuendo and tittle tattle that has
been planted and circulated.
That is the way to strengthen confidence in our institutions and our
system of government, and refocus our energies on the challenges that we
face as a nation
Legacy which I am defending
The legacy of Mr Lee is much more than an old house. Mr Lee’s legacy is Singapore and the values that we uphold.
We have built something special in Singapore. A cohesive,
multi-racial, meritocratic society. A fair and just society, where the
same rules apply to everybody. Whether you are a Minister, or an
ordinary citizen. Whether you are the Prime Minister, or the children of
the founding Prime Minister. You are not above the law.
My colleagues and I are in politics and in government, to fight to
uphold this legacy to keep Singapore successful. We have sworn to serve
Singapore faithfully. When private interests and public duties clash, we
make sure that our private interests do not sway our public decisions.
When allegations of impropriety and corruption are made, we take them
seriously and investigate them fully. Ministers are bound by a Code of
Conduct which is tabled in Parliament. And after every General Election,
I issue Rules of Prudence to every PAP MP, so that they know how to
conduct themselves to protect their own reputation and to safeguard the
integrity of the PAP Government and Singapore system.
In Singapore, everyone is equal before the law. Mr Lee understood
this most of all. When the dust has settled on this unhappy episode,
people must know that the Government in Singapore operates
transparently, impartially, and properly. That in Singapore, even Mr
Lee’s house and Mr Lee’s wishes are subject to the rule of law. That the
Government he built is able to withstand intense and sustained attacks
on its reputation and integrity, and emerge not just untainted but in
fact strengthened.
This is the “house” that Mr Lee built, not 38 Oxley Road.
When Mr Lee was asked what were the most important things to him in
life, he said “my family and my country”. It pains me that this episode
has put both under a cloud, and done damage to Singapore. I hope one day
I will be able to resolve the unhappiness within the family. But today
I stand here before you to answer your questions, clear any doubts, and
show you that you have every reason to maintain your trust in me and my
Government. My colleagues and I will continue to serve you and work
with you, as we have always done, to the best of our ability.
