Shanmugam spars with opposition MPs over claim of 'double standards' in naming Lee Hsien Yang, Lee Suet Fern in probe

SINGAPORE — A parliamentary exchange became heated on Monday (March 20) over the Government's decision to name Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Lee Suet Fern in the midst of an ongoing probe, as Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam addressed several questions from the opposition bench over double standards and due process.

At one point, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin called for Mr Leong Mun Wai, a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) who was posing supplementary questions to the minister, to "lower the temperature".

On Monday, Mr Shanmugam said that unless a case falls under certain exceptions, law enforcement agencies as a matter of general principle do not disclose names of people under investigation.

However, in the case of Mr and Mrs Lee, a disciplinary tribunal and the Court of Three Judges said before that the duo had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings.

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.

The couple had “also essentially absconded from jurisdiction”, Mr Shanmugam said on why Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean named them in a written reply to a parliamentary question in early March of an ongoing investigation into the couple.

As such, Mr Shanmugam said that his reasons to name the couple were consistent with why the Government, in a parliamentary sitting in 2020, had named Karl Liew in a police investigation looking into possible perjury over the Parti Liyani theft case.

Mr Shanmugam's responses prompted supplementary questions by NCMPs Leong and Hazel Poa from the Progress Singapore Party, as well as queries by Mr Leon Perera and Ms Sylvia Lim from the Workers’ Party.

Ms Poa asked Mr Shanmugam to elaborate on the lies to which the courts had referred, and the minister responded that she should read the publicly available judgements and the relevant extracts in Senior Minister Teo's earlier responses.

"I don't think we want to waste Parliament's time by me going through that again," he said.

Ms Poa also mentioned the rumours of how the probe into Mr and Mrs Lee was linked to an interview with news agency Bloomberg that Mr Lee gave about contesting in the upcoming presidential elections.

In response, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government could not have expected that Mr Lee was going to give such an interview.

Mr Tan, the Speaker of Parliament, said that there are many rumours swirling about many other issues, which Members of Parliament do not necessarily take into the House.

The following are excerpts of Mr Shanmugam’s exchanges with the opposition MPs.

ON DOUBLE STANDARDS

MR LEONG: Firstly, did the police specifically issue a written order for Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern to attend the investigation at a police station?

We have a situation here that for the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) case — it’s a more serious case.

(The executives) are guilty and we have the names in the foreign jurisdiction documents already, this is one point.

Second point is that the Keppel O&M case is of deep public interest. 

So why is there a double standard?

MR SHANMUGAM: Sir, I took some care to explain the difference between the Keppel O&M case and the case of Mr Liew and the Lees. 

Did the member listen to the explanation on the difference between the Keppel O&M case and the case of the Lees, and Mr Liew? 

Perhaps, the member can go into a little bit of detail based on the explanation I've given on the differences and tell us which part of the explanation he disagrees with before he alleges double standards.

Get to the facts. I have set out what the differences are. Tell me which part you don't understand or you disagree with. 

And on his first question — whether the police issued a written order.

They were given an email, they promised that they would come and agreed to give an interview.

They then left the jurisdiction and they have said both to the police and public that they will not cooperate with the police. They will not even come back into the jurisdiction. I think that's why I said they've essentially absconded from justice. 

But for the record, I have made it very clear why the disclosure here is consistent with the disclosure in Karl Liew’s case. 

And (Speaker of Parliament), through you, I would also like to ask Mr Leong: If Mr Leong didn't see any problem when Mr Liew’s name was mentioned in similar circumstances, in fact, he took part in the debate and wanted a commission of inquiry, why this extraordinary concern suddenly about the Lees that he didn't show for Mr Liew?

And perhaps he can explain why his approach shows double standards?

MR LEONG: Minister, there you go again, I asked you a question and you frame it in a different context.

MR TAN, SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT: Mr Leong, you can address it through me. Lower the temperature, thank you.

MR LEONG: He addressed it in a different context and then asked me a question, but can you answer my question first, did you, did the police issue a written order to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern?

MR SHANMUGAM: I’ve answered the question.

MS LIM: I have one supplementary question for the minister to aid understanding of what you said earlier.

I think the question was posed to him by Mr Leong about whether the police have actually issued an order to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee (Suet Fern) to attend the interview.

And his answer was that they were emailed and they said that they will cooperate.

So, do I read from that that actually, the police have not gotten to the stage when an order under the CPC — Criminal Procedure Code — was actually issued to them?

MR SHANMUGAM: That is right. A specific order under the CPC was not issued.

The police normally would not issue such an order. They will first contact and speak with and send a written document and if a party says that (he or she) will cooperate, the police would assume in good faith that that's how they will proceed. 

ON PREJUDICING FAIR TRIAL

MR PERERA: When the Government decides that it is in the public interest to make a disclosure about an ongoing investigation, what are the safeguards put in place to make sure that that disclosure into public domain does not prejudice in some way the conduct of due process and subsequent trials and so on that may happen later on? 

MR SHANMUGAM: I thank Mr Perera for the question. That's in fact a key point. One could say that that is the key point in making a decision on going public. And that is why you need to look carefully at the facts. 

So, if you look at the facts relating to Mr Liew and the Lees, what has happened? 

The High Court has said that in the case of Mr Liew, perhaps in less clear language, in the case of the Lees, very direct language which I've taken you through, (so) that you know at least (that) Mr Liew as well as the two Lees were not telling the truth. 

The investigation relates back to that very point on which the courts have taken a view as to whether they lied or didn’t lie. That is why I said the prejudice is very marginal, if any.

And as for the other aspect of prejudice — that people will think less well of them. The fact that we repeat in this House what the courts have already said about them is not going to increase the cloud (surrounding the Lees), as it were. 

So, these are factors (of) prejudice that we should take into account. Both the legal prejudice of fair trial as well as public perception prejudice, you should consider it even before your release.

You don't try and recover ground after that, and shore up, as it were. You make these calculations before — what's the extent of prejudice, and (then) you release the information.

But always bearing in mind, sometimes public interest may require disclosure, even if it means some degree of prejudice.

So that's an assessment. And it’s an assessment we have to make. 

In this case, in the case of the Lees, I have explained why I think the prejudice is pretty much non-existent because we are simply repeating what has been said and saying that the police are investigating that matter, which everyone will expect us to do anyway. Because I've said in this House, we will investigate these matters. So, what's the prejudice? 

But there may be other cases potentially where that prejudice could be a little more, so we have to assess public interest and that is why we have Parliament.

And they (those under investigation) will obviously be entitled to their full rights to give their version of events and they will be entitled to defend their position in court.