Sparks fly as Shanmugam, Leong Mun Wai clash over how Lee Hsien Yang and wife were described as having absconded

SINGAPORE – For more than an hour on Wednesday (March 22), Parliament witnessed a testy debate over a Facebook post by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai on Monday that called into question the Government’s characterisation of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern as having “absconded”.

The post led to a ministerial statement by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Wednesday, who repeatedly quizzed Mr Leong from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) about his understanding of the Government disclosure that the Lees were being investigated by the police for lying under oath.

At several points in the exchange, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin and Leader of the House Indranee Rajah had to step in to urge for parliamentary decorum to be retained.

Among other things, Mr Leong’s post, which was made after a parliamentary debate on the topic had taken place earlier in the day, stated that Mr Shanmugam had been trying to “muddy the waters” by bringing in the Parti Liyani case, and called for the focus of the debate to be on why the individuals in the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) case were not named.

At the end of the debate, Mr Leong withdrew a statement he had made in Parliament on Monday, describing the unnamed ex-Keppel O&M executives as “actually guilty”, and apologised to Mr Tan about how he had responded to one of his questions.

The following are excerpts from the more heated parts of the hour-long exchange between Mr Shanmugam and Mr Leong.

ON WHETHER IT IS ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE LEES ‘ABSCONDED’

Mr Shanmugam: Mr Lee Hsien Yang said in a Facebook post on March 7 that he has “been made a fugitive by his own country”. I have asked for his post to be flashed on the screen. And on March 12 he posted on Instagram that he is a fugitive. And he has said in an interview with a foreign news outlet released on March 8 that he is “unlikely to return to Singapore, at least for the foreseeable future”. He himself admits that he is a fugitive. 

To assist Mr Leong in better understanding the dictionary meaning of “fugitive”, I'll flash it on the screen and I'll just read two. From Merriam-Webster: “A fugitive is a person who flees or tries to escape, such as a person involved in a criminal case, who tries to elude law enforcement, especially by fleeing the jurisdiction.” 

Macmillan’s definition: Someone who has done something illegal and is trying to avoid being caught by the police. 

This is how Mr Lee describes it himself. He says that he has run away to avoid the police. The member knows Mr Lee Hsien Yang well, he has said on social media that Mr Lee is a valuable member of his party. They have posted many photos together. They have shared each other's posts. For all we know they might be in regular contact with each other. So I would like to ask Mr Leong, is Mr Leong saying in these chambers that Mr Lee Hsien Yang will come back and cooperate with the authorities?

Mr Leong: Yes, Mr Lee Hsien Yang is a member of the PSP. But the real issue here we are discussing is about fairness and equality before the law, it is not about whether he's a member of the PSP or not.

It is about whether every citizen is given fair treatment, equal treatment. Whatever Mr Lee said 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 you don't have the right to say that he's absconded.

Mr Shanmugam: I take it that the member does not wish to say whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang will come back and cooperate with the authorities. 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've seen the dictionary definitions. So let's not engage in false rhetoric.

ON THE PHRASE 'MUDDY THE WATERS'

Mr Leong: The issue here is about the fairness of the Keppel O&M case and the Lee Hsien Yang case. So you don’t need to bring in a new case (regarding Parti Liyani). When you bring in a new case, in a way, you are clouding the thinking of people. I didn’t say it is irrelevant, I didn’t say you’re confusing Parliament. Minister, don’t put words into my mouth.

Mr Shanmugam: So, may I ask, what is the meaning of “muddy the waters”?

Mr Leong: Speaker, now minister is testing whether I am from a lousy school.

Mr Tan: No, I think Mr Leong, the reason is this. There are reasons why we have debates in Parliament – so we can debate the issues here, clarify, et cetera. But when we carry on the debate in a one dimensional way outside… because certain statements are made, I think the request (here) is to, let’s clarify, to make sure that we tease out what exactly is…

Mr Leong: Mr Speaker, I must say these kinds of questioning (are) not what a legislative chamber should be.

Mr Tan: When allegations are made in Parliament, certain statements are made, I think it's free for members to question and query. So, the question is, you made a statement on Facebook posts about muddied waters, minister is asking what exactly do you mean. There's no allegation about which school you come from. I’m sure you’re from a very good school.

ON TAKING THE DEBATE OUTSIDE OF PARLIAMENT 

Mr Shanmugam: You have your viewpoints, you think that someone is not telling the truth, you think that someone is being dishonest, you think someone is trying to “muddy the waters” — do that in Parliament. Let's have a debate. But you don't go out after keeping quiet here and try and mislead the public… In my view, he has breached Section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. And so I ask that he delete his post, accept that he has misrepresented the position and he should apologise.

Mr Leong: I would only agree to delete my post if the minister points out specifically again, what are the issues with my post? How does that phrase “muddy the water” become an issue?

Mr Shanmugam: I explained why the Parti Liyani case was relevant… If the member thought that that was not relevant, I'm happy for a debate. I'm not saying everyone has got to agree with what I say. Hardly.

Disagree, explain, debate, so that the public can have a better understanding if you think it is not relevant. But don't be a coward, keep quiet here then go out and say "oh, it's an attempt to muddy the waters". That's casting aspersions on me, that I'm doing this to confuse (people). That's not acceptable.

‘SPEAKER, IF THE MINISTER DIDN’T ASK ME, I SUGGEST YOU DO NOT ASK’

Mr Leong: I want to make one clarification. In my (Facebook) post, I did not mention that the six (Keppel O&M) individuals are guilty, but it is from my parliamentary statement, okay. So there are two different things.

Mr Tan: So which is which, would you say that the six of them are guilty or not?

Mr Shanmugam: I think the member pays attention sometimes, and he doesn't pay attention sometimes.

Mr Tan: If I may, Mr Leong, did you withdraw your allegation on the six members? Just to be clear, I wasn't sure whether I heard…

Mr Leong: Speaker, if the minister didn't ask me, I suggest you do not ask.

Mr Shanmugam: Wow.

Ms Indranee: 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 will therefore ask Mr Leong to be mindful of that.

Mr Tan: Can I just remind you, as illustrated, I have been more than tolerant, more than accommodative, of you on various occasions when you speak up. Let me remind you, that at the very least, let’s retain the decorum of this debate whether you're addressing myself or other members. You can sit down.

Mr Leong: Speaker, I actually want to extend an apology to you…  I apologise to you for what I said just now regarding (that) “Minister didn't ask the question, please don't ask the question”. I sincerely apologise for that.