Skip to main content

New! You can personalise your feed. Try it now

Advertisement

Advertisement

Individuals under probe not identified unless they abscond or out of public interest: Shanmugam on why Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern were named

SINGAPORE — Law enforcement agencies generally do not disclose names of people under investigation, except in some cases, such as when the individuals absconded or leave the country while under probe, or if the facts surrounding the alleged offences and the individuals linked to them are already publicly known.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
  • Law enforcement agencies do not disclose names of people under investigation except for certain situations, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said
  • These exceptions include when individuals abscond while under probe, or if the facts surrounding the alleged offences and the individuals linked to them are already publicly known
  • He was responding to parliamentary questions from opposition party members on why investigations on Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife were made public
  • Progress Singapore Party member Leong Mun Wai also asked why the executives involved in the Keppel Offshore & Marine bribery case were not named

SINGAPORE — Law enforcement agencies generally do not disclose names of people under investigation, except in some cases, such as when the individuals absconded or leave the country while under probe, or if the facts surrounding the alleged offences and the individuals linked to them are already publicly known.

The investigations into Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern met some of these criteria, which set it apart from the recent Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) case, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said on Monday (March 20).

Mr Shanmugam was responding to parliamentary questions filed by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai and Member of Parliament (MP) Leon Perera from Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

Mr Leong from the Progress Singapore Party asked why Mr and Mrs Lee were named while executives of the Keppel O&M bribery case were not, while Mr Perera from the Workers' Party queried about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies divulge the names of individuals who are associated with an ongoing investigation.

In his reply, Mr Shanmugam laid out five examples of when such individuals would be named:

  • When the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing
  • When the facts relating to the alleged offences and the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences are already publicly known and there is some public interest in disclosing that investigations are underway
  • When a person already convicted of several offences tries to flee Singapore
  • When a person makes a public statement regarding his case, prompting response from the authorities
  • When there is a lot of misinformation being circulated regarding an investigation and the police have to make public the accurate facts to dispel the falsehoods

The circumstances relating to Mr and Mrs Lee straddle the first two examples, Mr Shanmugam said.

An example he cited was the case of Karl Liew, whom the High Court said had given dishonest evidence while under oath during the Parti Liyani theft case in 2020, which then led to a police investigation on him over possible perjury.

During a ministerial statement on the case in November that year, Mr Shanmugam informed Parliament about the probe before its outcome was made public.

He added that the reasons for disclosing the investigations on Mr and Mrs Lee were broadly similar to why it was disclosed that Karl Liew was being investigated for the perjury, with the added fact that the former two have also absconded.

"A disciplinary tribunal and the Court of Three Judges had said that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern were lying. They had been found to be dishonest, and more. All of that is public. They have also essentially absconded from jurisdiction. We take this seriously," Mr Shanmugam added.

Mr Lee and his wife are being investigated by the police for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings over Singapore’s former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will. Mr Lee is Lee Kuan Yew's son and brother of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Mr Shanmugam noted that a parliamentary question was raised earlier this month related to public statements made about the case involving the couple, which required discussing the accuracy of those public statements in the context of the judgements of the disciplinary tribunal and the Court of Three Judges, and the honesty of the couple.

As a result of the question, which was filed by Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim in the previous parliamentary sitting, Mr Shanmugam said that the information needed to be disclosed so that Parliament can have a full and complete picture about it.

In response to TODAY's queries on how an investigation is usually conducted, the police said on Monday that they will first contact the persons to be interviewed through various ways such as in person, telephone, letter or email.

"The police will usually not issue a written order requesting attendance under Section 21(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the first instance.

"However, if the person(s) is assessed likely to be uncooperative, or if there is some other reason, then an order under Section 21(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code may be issued."

Lawyers previously told TODAY that under Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, a police officer is empowered to issue a written order to a person within the limits of Singapore “who appears to be acquainted with any of the facts and circumstances of the case, to attend before him”.

The person must also attend the investigation interview by the police officer as required under the written order. 

If the person fails to attend as required, the police officer may report the matter to a magistrate, who may then issue a warrant ordering the person to attend the investigation.

It is an arrestable offence if a person who is issued a warrant does not attend the investigation interview.

The police said on Monday that they had met Mr and Mrs Lee on June 7 last year to ask them to attend an interview over potential offences of giving false evidence.

"The police also gave a letter to the couple. The letter contained information about the investigation and included a request for them to attend an interview," the police added.

The couple was "cooperative" and agreed to be interviewed on July 13 last year, only to inform the police via email on the day itself that they would not attend the interview.

The police said that since the couple had appeared cooperative when first engaged by officers and had agreed to be interviewed, they did not issue an order under the Criminal Procedure Code.

"This is consistent with how police deal with cases of a similar nature."

On the Keppel O&M case, Mr Shanmugam said that it did not fall within the different examples he set out.

"Members may not know this but — it was Keppel O&M that had made the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) report. The CPIB had conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers that it possessed. It turned all the stones it could — and assessed the evidence together with the Attorney-General's Chambers." 

CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers concluded that they could not sustain any charges in court, in spite of its reputation for "being able to ferret out the truth", Mr Shanmugam added.

In such circumstances, the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals who have been under investigation therefore applies.

He also said that if any parliamentarian feels that this general policy should be changed, and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who are being investigated, regardless of the circumstances — even if they are not abscondees from jurisdiction and even if no charges are likely to be brought in the end — then the House can debate that.

"I would be very surprised if anyone says that."

Related topics

Lee Hsien Yang 38 Oxley Road K Shanmugam

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.