Govt has nothing to hide, says PM in debunking abuse of power charges

SINGAPORE — The Government has nothing to hide in its dealings over 38 Oxley Road, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday when debunking allegations made by his siblings in a running public dispute that has stretched for more than two weeks.

In a Ministerial Statement that lasted for nearly an hour, Mr Lee told a rapt House that he had tried to keep his private interests and duties as Prime Minister separate, taking Members of Parliament (MPs) through a timeline of events that led up to the dispute spilling out in public, before addressing the “entirely baseless” allegations that he had abused his power and harboured political ambitions for his son.

Inviting MPs to raise all the questions they had so all doubts would be cleared and to “show you that you have every reason to maintain your trust in me and my Government”, PM Lee said the legacy of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, which he was defending, was much more than the century-old house at 38 Oxley Road. It was, he said, “Singapore and the values we uphold”: A cohesive, multi-racial, meritocratic and fair and just society where everyone is equal before the law.

Over more than six hours, a total of 21 MPs — 11 from the ruling People’s Action Party, five from the Workers’ Party (WP), as well as five Nominated MPs — rose to weigh in on the closely watched debate yesterday. Apart from PM Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who delivered their respective ministerial statements, other political office-holders who spoke on the first day of the debate were National Development Minister Lawrence Wong, Senior Ministers of State Ms Indranee Rajah and Dr Janil Puthucheary.

WP MPs Low Thia Khiang and Pritam Singh called on PM Lee to take the matter to court, while several other MPs mooted the idea of convening an inquiry to look into the allegations, as they expressed scepticism that the parliamentary debate would put a stop to the dispute. Other MPs also raised questions that they said were on their constituents’ minds, such as the role of the Ministerial Committee set up to look into options for 38 Oxley Road, and whether “organs of state” were abused to target the Lee siblings, as they have alleged.

In his statement, which was delivered at the start of the debate, PM Lee said he would certainly sue for defamation in “any other imaginable circumstance”. However, if he took his siblings to court, it would “further besmirch” their parents’ names, and drag out the process for years, creating further “distraction and distress” to Singaporeans.

PM Lee said he made the Ministerial Statement to account to MPs and Singaporeans, “and to deal with the issue expeditiously” so that the public “can understand what it is all about and we can put the matter to rest, I hope, once and for all”.

He had earlier said he was lifting the party whip. While no vote would be taken in Parliament, he reiterated that he made the move to emphasise what he would expect from the debate. “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 strengthen confidence in our institutions and our system of government, and refocus our energies on the challenges we face as a nation,” he said.

The dispute erupted in the early hours of June 14 when PM Lee’s siblings — Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling — put up a six-page statement on their Facebook accounts, stating among other things that they felt “threatened” in trying to honour the wish of their late father to demolish their home. PM Lee has denied these allegations. Over the past weeks, the public spat has since escalated, with several government leaders entering the fray.

Apologising again for the state of affairs, PM Lee reiterated yesterday that he was aware that many Singaporeans are upset and tired of the matter.

Addressing allegations of abuse of power, he pointed out that he has recused himself and left Mr Teo fully in charge of the Ministerial Committee. It “would have been a real abuse of power” if he had decided, as PM, to demolish the house without allowing the Government to go through the due process. He also had “every right” as PM to view the Deed of Gift issued by his siblings for the donation of several items from the house.

The deed came with “onerous and unreasonable” terms, including a “partial, selective disclosure” of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes for 38 Oxley Road, which would mislead the public. “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,” PM Lee said. “If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, especially family, it is my duty to put a stop to it and set them right if I can.”

Waving off talks of how the existence of 38 Oxley Road enhances his aura as PM, he said: “If I needed such magic properties to bolster my standing after 13 years as your Prime Minister, I must be in a pretty sad state. And if Singaporeans believed that such magic works in Singapore, I think Singapore will be in an even sadder state.”

On accusations of nepotism, PM Lee noted that his son, Mr Li Hongyi, had publicly said he was not interested in politics. He also has no doubt that the Temasek Board, the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers will know what they have to do should his wife, Temasek Holdings CEO Ho Ching, behave improperly.

In his Ministerial Statement, Mr Teo, who chairs the Cabinet committee looking into options for the house, said among other things that the committee is merely trying to get the best understanding of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking on the house, and refuted the “misconception” that the Government wanted to make a decision on the property now.

Ms Indranee pointed out that both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mr Teo agree that “the extreme ends of the range” of options are off the table. “So if the Ministerial Committee is studying the intermediate options within the range, what is wrong with that? Nothing has been decided. How can studying these options be an abuse?” she said. The debate continues today.