SMS Indranee Rajah's Statement on 38 Oxley Road

mr. Deputy Speaker many MPs have asked what this dispute is about that's a very good question on what to do with the house in the future the committee is studying a range of options what is so wrong about that the PM Shield has said that he personally would not support options at either end of the range at the one end preserving the house for visitors to enter and see which would be totally against the wishes of mr. and mrs. Li on the other hand demolishing the house and putting the property on the market for new private residences initially mr. Li Xian Yang said he had not thought beyond demolition that is true then he couldn't have ruled out redevelopment then he later said that before the MC was formed he had offered a memorial garden so it appears that he had thought beyond demolition earlier he did not make it clear if a garden is still his position now after I pointed out the four possible options for the property including the fact that demolition clears the way to appeal for redevelopment mr. Li Xian yang now says that he has no inclination to develop the house for profit inclination is a word that leaves a lot of room for change of mind why is he being so careful if he changes his mind then the land is potentially worth a lot why doesn't he just rule it out categorically but let's take his statement at face value and see what else mr. Li Xian yang said on Saturday he said that words worth preservation of the house would be trampling on mr. Lee Kuan Yew's values and it would be an affront to these same values to develop a luxury lky condominium well isn't that exactly the same thing that the MgO headset leaving aside the bit bar value in other words no total preservation and no development if that is the case and if he's saying exactly the same thing as DP MTO where is the dispute both agree that the extreme ends of the range are out so of 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 under will the concern or the concern of miss Alicia and young and dr. league with the Ministerial Committee and the allegations appear to have been triggered by questions on the will why are they so concerned we know from the facts is closed that issues have been raised with regard to the will and who drafted it if it was drafted by mrs. nice wet fern then an issue arises because she is the wife of mr. Li Xian Yang and his share of the estate was increased under the last will and hour law the lawyer drafting the will is required to be independent as our Court of Appeal has said the preparation of a will involves serious professional responsibilities which solicitors must uncompromising ly observe and discharge so if a lawyer has an interest in the will the lawyer must make sure that the person making the will gets independent advice some have said but mr. Lee was a very good lawyer he was Cambridge educated are you saying he did not know what he was signing no one is saying that at all that is not the issue the issue is whether he received independent advice as the law uncompromising lis requires and we do know that mr. Lee had consistently in this lifetime taken independent advice for his lawsuits and for his first six bills so the issue of whether he was independently advised is a serious issue however it is not for the Ministerial Committee or cabinet to decide on this issue nor is the Ministerial Committee or cabinet attempting to do so DPM geo has already explained that the Ministerial Committee looked at the will as part of trying to understand mr. Lee's thinking on the matter the terms of the will insofar as they relate to the house would be relevant to that the siblings provided different views on the drafting of the will each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other side's views as it's only fair you cannot hear one side without hearing the other but the committee is not conducting an investigation and the pnto made it clear that it is not for the committee to decide whose claims are valid it is simply trying to understand as best it can what will mr. Lee's wishes so really there is no basis for the allegations that have been leveled against the Ministerial Committee mr. penguin quartz read out a catalogue of allegations from the internet I would like to know is he associating himself with these allegations or simply regurgitating them if he's adopting them then please put forward some specific evidence mr. pom also referred to allegations that improper influence have been asserted over civil servants this is a very serious allegation not only against missile Qing but also that against the permanent secretaries and senior civil servants as well there are clear rules within the civil service to guide the conduct of public offices mr. Khan referred to the cataloguing of mr. Lee's items MC I had explained this last week the involvement of MCI photographers is in line with MC i's policy of supporting former prime ministers and presidents after they leave office after mr. Lee's passing MCI photographers were deployed to take photos of various personal and official items belonging to mr. Lee at 38 Roxy Road this was done for the purposes of national archival and documentation similar photography recordings were done during mr. Lee's lifetime of a study at home and of the basement dining room if there are any specific instances of alleged impropriety beyond that these should be identified rather than making general up unsubstantiated allegations the government takes this very seriously their stringent rules in place and serious consequences for those who have been found to have contravened the rules I move now to conflict of interest allegations of questions about alleged conflict on the part of the Attorney General were asked the laws the rules on conflict are very clear these rules on conflict will be observed the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Harry Kumar will not be involved where there is any conflict they have abided by the rules of conflict and there is no basis to suggest that either the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has not observed these rules an example of how the rules work would be when lawyers move from the AGC to the bench and vice versa so take for example former da G tan Chong Tai was from the AGC here accuses himself from any AGC related matters now that he has returned to the bench likewise the chief justice in relation to any matters he handled when he was at the AGC similar rules apply in private practice as well if a lawyer moves to a new firm he observes the rules on conflict he doesn't involve himself in his new firm on matters which his Oh firm had acted this has been debated before in relation to the appointment of the Attorney General in the Attorney General mr. Lucien 1 we've already referred to his credentials previously he was a senior partner the largest law firm in Singapore who's widely he is widely acknowledged as a top legal mind consistently recognized as one of Singapore's best and his appointment was welcomed by the bar the Law Society has called him a formidable and creative legal mind with proven management skills a practical track record and a skill set uniquely equipped to deal with the evolution of the changing legal environment in Singapore as a lawyer of almost 40 years standing mr. Wang would have had thousands of clients there is no reason why this should be an excuse for us to pass him over and choose a less qualified candidate similarly mr. Hari Kumar is amongst one of the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today if you look at the people from within the service who have been appointed to key positions the da G and the SG as well these are young some of them in their 40s and we hope that in the future from among their ranks someone can become attorney-general mr. Wong's appointment as attorney-general was decided after a thorough and rigorous process the Prime Minister consulted the Chief Justice and the chairman of the Public Service Commission and the incumbent Attorney General on the appointment the CPA unanimously advised that the president concur with the appointment the Council of presidential advisers that is you men must be advised that the person concur with the appointment and the president acting in his discretion also supported it it is also not unusual for the Attorney General to be known to the minister's or the Prime Minister you will recall that our first law minister was very successful in being one of will record that the law Minister mr. le Baca was very successful and one of our founding fathers was an old friend of mr. Lee Kuan Yew and a partner in Lee and Lee this did not prevent him from being a good law minister with respect to past judicial appointments these have included lawyers who acted for mr. Lee Kuan Yew such as mr. Joseph Greenberg or who worked in Lee and Lee for example just a slightly child and mr. Andrew Lang was currently on the bench all were or are well respected members of the bench former chief justice Yong Chun Hal was an old friend of mr. Lee's from Cambridge he is credited with modernizing the Singapore judiciary during his time on the bench in these roles all of them observed the appropriate conflict rules ultimately the most important considerations are the quality character and integrity of the individuals involved and that is the hallmark of our system and indeed in many first world countries the AG is even a sitting member of parliament or a politician in the UK the Attorney General is a cabinet minister likewise similarly in Australia our system is based on a slightly different model but as we said before it goes too far to suggest that AGC offices must not have previously had any links with any ministers or political party on the questions about alleged conflict regarding Minister Shanmugam I mr. Latta Kyung's comment of him being mr. Lee's friend well being a friend of mr. Lee Kuan Yew does not disqualify him from doing cabinet work and this includes being in the Ministerial Committee to give views the committee's role has already been explained mr. Lowe alluded to dr. Lee wailings comment that Minister Sharma Graham was a changed person well she has said many things about many people including the Prime Minister members of cabinet and others Singaporeans will look at the facts and reach their own conclusions on the issue of whether Minister Sharma Graham is somehow in a position of conflict he has explained his position publicly on 17th June in 2011 some members of the Lee family had approached him for his about various options for the house he shared some thoughts and suggestions were sent however he also made clear to them that legally the government had the full power to Cosette or acquire based on historical significance and that many Singaporeans including ministers in cabinet were likely to take the view that the house should be preserved he told them that this was also his strong personal view at that time mr. Shanmugam was already a cabinet minister he was not consulted as a lawyer and did not advise them as clients mmm a minister mentor had spoken with other cabinet ministers about the house as well it will be absurd to suggest that they can all no longer participate in government work because they had spoken to him or some family member about the house this is really a red herring intended to divert attention away from the real issues and so we come back to the key point what is this dispute really about the MC or the Ministerial Committee is not making any decisions it's putting up a range of options for cabinet to look at nothing needs to be decided now indeed nothing can be decided now as dr. Lee is still living in the house that might take 20 to 30 years therefore the house cannot be the reason for the dispute the trigger for all the allegations by mr. lee shin-young and dr. Lee appeared to be something else whatever it is that is no reason to drag Singapore and Singaporeans through dispute through this dispute that is contrary to mr. Lee Kuan Yew's values mr. Yan Pereira gave the analogy of a company and its shareholders and he asked why the whistleblowers are not being interrogated by the CPI B that is the wrong analogy if something is really wrong then the correct thing for the whistleblowers to do is to go to CPI B and file a report that is the way it should be done if you think that there's something wrong with anyone else thinks there's something wrong you can file and lodge a formal report the CP IV cannot be expected to look into unsubstantiated allegations and on the Ministerial Committee mr. Lyon Ferrara may wish to look again at the PM's speech today where he explained the role and the terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee so what we have at the end of the day at the end of today we've had one full day of debate mr. Li Xian Yang and dr. Li Wei Ling had made plenty of allegations but we have not seen any substance and no evidence and in Parliament no one has said that there is any evidence of abuse I'm sure that the MPs have all looked carefully through the allegations in fact mr. Lowe himself had said that the siblings had presented no evidence and to me that is most significant because it shows our people that these allegations are just that allegations thank you

Channel: govsg

Views: 13,205

Keywords:

Id: V7tlIpDMF-s

Length: 16min 55sec (1015 seconds)

Published: Mon Jul 03 2017