Hansard, Tuesday, 4 July 2017

1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) given the Government's push for Singaporeans to re-skill and re-train, whether those who have already obtained a degree from a local university will be able to pursue a second degree in our local university, in a field of study that may be more relevant and in demand in view of disruption and skill obsolescence.

Mdm Speaker, today, an individual who wishes to pursue a second undergraduate degree programme at our Autonomous Universities (AUs) can do so. However, he will not receive tuition subsidies if he has already received Government subsidies or sponsorship for his first degree. This is because budget and resources are limited and we have to prioritise Government subsidies for those pursuing their first degree.

Notwithstanding, there are many non-degree upgrading opportunities that are subsidised and open to all Singaporeans. Hence, under the SkillsFuture movement, our Institutes of Higher Learning have taken on lifelong learning as part of their core mission and are actively expanding their lifelong learning offerings and pathways. In 2016, the AUs offered 29,500 MOE/SSG-supported training places. Singaporeans taking these courses enjoy heavy subsidies, up to 90%.

These courses are generally delivered in short modules, tightly coupled with industry needs. Some modules can also be stacked up to a full qualification − which can be at advance diploma or graduate certificate − over time.

Another initiative for mid-career Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians would be the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs). PCPs help working adults enter new occupations by providing them with intensive training and industry attachments in a wide range of areas of growth, such as healthcare logistics, and infocomm technology. Financial support in the form of course fee subsidies, salary support and training allowances is available under the PCPs.

2 Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether our Institutions of Higher Learning can offer more courses in modular form that are relevant to the future economy, such as subjects in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM), coding, robotics, cybersecurity and data analytics.

Madam, lifelong learning is part of the core mission of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Over the years, they have been increasing the number and range of short modular courses that are aligned to industry needs and in support of SkillsFuture. These are generally delivered in short modular format and adopted teaching methods that are suitable for working adults.

Between 2015 and 2016, the number of MOE/SSG supported courses offered by our Autonomous Universities and Polytechnics increased from about 2,200 to approximately 2,600. Many of these courses are in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, including information and communication technology. This translated to about 90,000 and 105,000 training places in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

We can expect this number to be ramped up significantly in the coming years. This will be one of the major changes in our education landscape in the near future.

It is said that "it is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change". So, it is good to hear that MOE and the IHLs are offering many modular courses. Many a time, one needs inter-disciplinary skills to achieve effective solutions for the customers. May I know if the cost and availability of such courses are made known so that consumers can access them?

Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I agree that we need to make sure that our courses are widely spread out in terms of the outreach as well as communication to the people. I want to assure the Member that we have been doing this, not only with the AUs and the Polytechnics, but we have also been doing this with all the training providers. We will continue this approach and process to make sure that we want to facilitate how we want to change the educational landscape in the future. We are at the beginning stage; I am confident we will be able to do that with the support of partners and all our education institutions.

The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui –

3 To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what further measures does the Ministry have in place to boost the security of our public buildings, particularly the schools, against the growing threat of terrorist attacks; (b) how can the risk of self-radicalisation be minimised among our students and school staff; and (c) whether there will be more resources committed to raise racial harmony in the community.

4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the detention of the first female Singaporean for radicalism (a) how can the Home Team enhance its efforts to work with communities in Singapore to reduce the likelihood of Singaporeans becoming radicalised; and (b) whether the Government-community partnership can be further strengthened to increase our readiness to stay united should an attack happen on our shores.

5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can give an assessment of the terrorism threat posed by radicalised foreigners in Singapore and what measures are being taken to counter the threat.

6 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe and Asia over the last few months, (a) whether the current SGSecure initiatives are sufficient; and (b) whether there are new initiatives to counter copycats of lone-wolf attacks.

Question No 3.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to take the terrorism-related questions from Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Ang Wei Neng together.

Yes, please.

Thank you, Madam. I also note that Mr Zaqy Mohamad had asked a related Parliamentary Question (PQ) scheduled for this range of Sittings.

Madam, the recent spate of terrorist attacks in the UK is yet another grim reminder of the serious threats of radicalisation and extremism. First, the threat to innocent lives. Let us be quite clear. Whether it is an attack by a radicalised Muslim individual, or an attack by an extremist Islamophobe − which happened in London a few weeks ago − all these are terror attacks which have no place in our society or any society. They must be firmly condemned.

As seen in the UK, terror attacks can take place anywhere, anytime. How do we completely guard against someone who decides to drive a car into a crowded public area? Or someone who goes on a stabbing rampage with a kitchen knife? These are very difficult security challenges, which we and our counterparts around the world take very seriously. Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about this.

MHA, together with several other agencies, is reviewing existing security measures in public spaces, in particular, against hostile vehicle attacks. Possible new measures include putting up bollards or security barriers.

In evaluating the various options, we will take into account several factors, including:

function, in short, how effective will the measures be in addressing the threat;

form, how the measures will fit into the surroundings and be part of the surroundings; and

impact on users, will the measures significantly restrict day-to-day usage of the space.

We could try and fortify the entire city. But this is not a sensible or practical approach. We will have to strike a balance between enhancing security which is very important, on the one hand, and the possibility of disrupting day-to-day activities through the imposition of curbs and restrictions, which will inconvenience users, on the other hand. These security measures will also come at a significant cost to taxpayers. The Government will need to make a practical assessment about the type and extent of measures we put in place to enhance security for Singaporeans.

These measures will complement the laws and stakeholder engagement processes that we already have or will be implementing in the coming months. We amended the Public Order Act in April this year. Organisers of events that attract large crowds, or are of higher risk, are required to put necessary security measures in place. We will introduce a new Infrastructure Protection Act later this year − to better protect critical infrastructure and large-scale developments.

We will continue to work with public and private sector stakeholders to enhance the security of buildings and public spaces. An updated version of the Guidelines for Enhancing Building Security in Singapore will be released later this year. Specific to schools, as Miss Cheng Li Hui had asked, MHA works closely with MOE. We keep MOE informed of the overall security threat climate and risks. Based on this, MOE works with us to review and calibrate the security measures for schools.

It is important to put in place laws and other security measures to prevent an attack. But this is not sufficient. I now want to focus on the second threat of radicalisation and extremism which is the threat to our social fabric. This is less apparent than any immediate loss of life, but can be greatly damaging to our nation as a whole. The Minister for Home Affairs has spoken at length on various occasions about this.

Today, I will speak on two specific groups which Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about: (a) students and school staff; and (b) foreigners.

Most of the Singaporeans who have been radicalised were younger than 30. Some were in their teens. They were mainly self-radicalised online. This is not surprising. Our youths consume a lot of information from the Internet and social media. Radical preachers and terrorist groups know this. They exploit these media to spread their radical ideologies and terrorist propaganda.

Our youth spend a significant proportion of their time in schools and educational institutions. Schools are, therefore, key platforms for us to counter these dangerous influences. We approach this from multiple aspects.

First, the school curriculum. Through Social Studies and Character & Citizenship Education lessons, MOE inculcates in our students values of living harmoniously in Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society. MHA has also worked with MOE to incorporate counter-terrorism messages into the Secondary school curriculum.

Second, the school environment. Our schools provide a supportive environment for our students to build strong, positive relationships with their peers and teachers from different races and religions. These social bonds are the strongest counter against any exclusivist or extremist mindset.

Teachers and counsellors also look out for students who display anti-social behaviour. We do our best to intervene and provide guidance early to prevent such behaviour from spiralling into more dangerous forms of extremism.

MHA conducts workshops for teachers and counsellors to sensitise them to the heightened threat environment, as well as increase their understanding of terrorist ideologies and tell-tale signs of radicalisation. They play an important role in identifying students or co-workers who may be radicalised.

Even as we put in all these measures, the responsibility of inoculating our young from radical, extremist influences cannot be left to schools alone. Family members, friends, colleagues, religious leaders and community leaders play an important role. I will come back to this later in my reply.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked for an update on the threat by radicalised foreigners in Singapore.

In 2015 and 2016, some 40 Bangladeshi nationals in Singapore were found to have been radicalised. They supported the use of violence to pursue their extremist ideology. We repatriated all of them to Bangladesh, except for six who are currently serving prison sentences in Singapore for terrorism financing offences.

Since 2015, we have also uncovered nine cases of radicalised foreign domestic workers (FDWs). We updated the House on seven cases in January this year. Since then, another two more have been detected. Similar to the earlier cases, both of them were ISIS supporters, radicalised through social media. One of them intended to travel to Syria with her foreign boyfriend to join ISIS. None of the nine had plans to carry out acts of violence in Singapore. But we cannot condone support for any radical ideologies in Singapore − whether by locals or foreigners. All nine of them have been repatriated to their home countries.

MHA has worked closely with MOM to address the threat of radicalised foreigner workers. After the arrest of the radicalised Bangladeshi nationals last year, we prepared an advisory for foreign workers. We advised them to be alert, watch out for signs of radicalisation among their co-workers and to report any possible radicalisation to the authorities.

We will do more, to sensitise our foreign workers to Singapore's multi-religious social values. This will take place throughout their time working in Singapore.

Upon arrival in Singapore, all foreign workers are required to visit the MOM Services Centre. The Education Gallery in the Centre will display messages that reinforce the dangers of radical ideologies, the need to be vigilant and to report any suspicious activities or radicalised workers.

FDWs will be required to go through a Settling-In Programme. They will be sensitised to the threat of radicalisation and made aware that any form of radicalisation will not be condoned in Singapore.

In their dormitories, foreign workers will be regularly engaged by agencies, such as MOM, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) and the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). They will be advised to call the RRG hotline should they require any advice − for themselves or with regard to someone they know.

MUIS is also looking to better manage the religious needs of Muslim foreign workers in Singapore. Foreigners are encouraged to seek religious advice only from ARS-accredited asatizah. They can attend religious classes at our mosques and will continue to be welcomed and included in activities in the mosques and the broader community. This will strengthen their understanding and appreciation of Singapore's multi-religious social values and norms.

Mdm Speaker, on the role of the community, we all know that SGSecure is our national movement to mobilise the community in our fight against terror. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if the current initiatives are sufficient. Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if more can be done.

Through SGSecure, public vigilance has increased. The Police have received many reports from members of the public on suspicious circumstances, from 999 calls and also via the SGSecure app. The public is paying closer attention to our surroundings and does not hesitate to make reports to the authorities.

The public's response to incidents, such as the closures of Hougang and Woodleigh MRT stations in April 2017, was also encouraging. The large majority of Singaporeans understood the potential security threats and accepted the inconvenience caused as a result. MHA will continue to work towards strengthening community vigilance.

However, SGSecure is not just about preventing a terrorist attack. More than that, it is about how we stand united as one Singapore, to help one another, after an attack. At the root of this is how we strengthen and safeguard our social fabric.

MHA will continue to work with agencies like MCCY and the People's Association to implement community programmes. For example, MCCY is establishing the SGSecure Community Network to strengthen partnerships with religious and community organisations, to build greater mutual trust and understanding.

The community plays a critical role in strengthening and safeguarding our social fabric.

First, the role of family members in safeguarding against radicalisation. We have made this point previously and repeatedly, but it is critical.

We talked about the risk of online radicalisation among our youths earlier in the reply. Family members and friends are in the best position to notice signs of radicalisation. If an individual is spending excessive amounts of time on the Internet looking at suspicious, potentially radical material; or talks in praise of terrorist groups or about going overseas to take part in armed violence − family members and friends should alert the authorities immediately.

This is a very difficult decision for any father, mother, brother or sister to make. However, this must be infinitely better than losing a son or daughter, brother or sister forever, to armed violence overseas or a suicide attack.

Second, the role of religious leaders and community leaders in encouraging community integration. Religious and community leaders must step forward to play an active role, through their speech and their deeds.

We were heartened to see that the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) had written a letter to MUIS, in support of our Muslim community − after the detention of Izzah, the radicalised female infant-care assistant, was announced. The letter was made public. NCCS recognised the contributions of the Muslim community to Singapore's progress and the strength of our multi-religious community. It made clear its position that the detention must not be used to stoke the flames of Islamophobia in Singapore.

Every religious and community leader has a role to play, within their own communities. We strongly encourage religious leaders to emphasise multi-racial and multi-religious values in their teachings and the importance of the various communities in Singapore interacting, understanding and integrating with one another. Religious leaders can also take the initiative to organise activities with other religious groups. It can be as simple as a visit to a nearby place of worship of another religion to understand them, or sharing a meal with groups from other faiths.

Third, the role of the individual in building stronger friendships with those of a different race or religion. We made this point when we talked about schools earlier. But it must go beyond the schools. We must make an active effort to make friends with our neighbours and co-workers, exchange greetings and celebrate our respective festivals together. We must safeguard and expand the common space where people from different races and religions can interact. These are the foundations of our social fabric which have brought us to where we are today and we must protect them at all cost.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. The Minister had said recently that there were two more individuals picked up for radicalisation. Can the Minister kindly share the profiles, if at all possible, of these two that were recently picked up?

My second question is, if it is a Singaporean who is being potentially radicalised, there is a family in Singapore and there is a family support network who could encourage him and even report him to get help. My question is: is that not a little bit more difficult where it is a foreigner where he does not have that sort of accountability, mechanism, in the form of a family? What is MHA's approach to ensure that his peer support mechanism does report him? What does MHA do to encourage those support mechanisms to report foreigners to the authorities?

Madam, of the two latest radicalised foreign domestic workers, one of them is 25 years old. She is the youngest among the nine radicalised foreign domestic workers that we have detected so far. She wanted to travel, as I said, to Syria with a foreign boyfriend to join ISIS. She had worked in Singapore for two years. The other foreign domestic worker is 28 years old, single and had worked in Singapore for close to five years. Both of them came from different parts of Indonesia. They were detected a few months ago and both were repatriated after investigations were complete. Both are not known to have influenced their friends or contacts in Singapore.

The Member has also asked a question about how support networks can be created for foreign workers who come to Singapore. During Ramadan, I visited a foreign dormitory, broke fast together with the management of the dormitory and the bosses of companies whose workers were housed in the dormitory. I had some time to talk to some of the workers. Some have been here for many, many years; some had just arrived. Those who had just arrived, I asked them, they said they had no friends yet but were actively trying to look out for people from their community back home. Some would find, perhaps, relatives, both close or distant, friends from the same city or village, but some are just meeting people for the first time from the place where they come from.

So, our foreign workers coming here to Singapore will try to build their networks. When you speak to some of the older foreign workers, those who have been here for a longer time, they say, "I look out for my younger brother. If he is a new person, I will share with him." They are very conversant in English and are very familiar with our surroundings.

I have spoken earlier in my response about the different things that agencies are doing to familiarise foreign workers before they even leave their home countries; when they arrive in Singapore, at different touchpoints in time, engaging RRG, MUIS and MOM to reach out to the foreign workers, talking to bosses of companies. But when we sensitise the broader foreign worker community in Singapore to Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious fabric, and about the importance of integration, many of them begin to be familiar with what to look out for. It is our hope that these will provide those informal social networks that the Member talked about. They are like family to each other in their own way.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. We note that the recent attacks in London involved terrorists driving a truck and ramming into pedestrians along a pedestrian crossing. Similar attacks could also happen in Orchard Road, which can be quite scary. While some say that it is healthy to see a crowd crossing a pedestrian crossing, it is also posing a threat.

So, would MHA consider taking the lead in a whole-of-Government approach to encourage building owners to build linkages on the second level, overhead, or underground, to reduce such threats, rather than having the existing building regulations to compel the building owners to only build linkages during major renovations?

The second question is: will MHA consider increasing the number and scale of exercises in the heartlands involving the residents, so that they can be better prepared for the aftermath of an attack, if any?

Madam, the Member's first question is about whether we should encourage building owners or require building owners to build linkages between buildings at the second or higher levels, to reduce the risk of pedestrians crossing at grade, therefore exposing the public to the risk of vehicular attacks. As I have said earlier, MHA is working with built environment agencies and relevant associations to look at what sensibly needs to be done to strengthen safety and security in Singapore.

Members would know that our security layers are multi-pronged, both outside Singapore and our borders and within Singapore − the law enforcement and security forces' responses and capabilities, but also individuals' responsibility – being alert, being aware what to do. And being stakeholders in the community, building owners are also playing a part.

When Members talk about risks at road crossings, I think if we put our mind to it, we can think of many, many other areas where we are soft targets. For example, if we cross an underground tunnel or overhead link, that, again, funnels crowds and gives rise to threats, maybe not vehicles, maybe knife threats. So, the question is, do we want to harden the whole country? Sometimes, we get suggestions that we should harden every area and screen at every possible place. We have to strike the right balance because, pushed to the extreme, without an attack even occurring, terrorists would have won, if life in Singapore and any other city freezes up because of all these measures. This will, of course, come with lots of concerns between communities about each other. So, it is not just the infrastructure causing inconvenience and frustration, but also the whole sense of fear, a climate of fear, with regard to terrorism.

I have addressed the Member's concern. We will look at all sensible measures that we need to put in place. But, again, we have to strike a balance. Let me give Members an example. Some people suggested we should do screening before crowds enter MRT stations or before they even enter an airport or a train station. And then, someone pointed out, if you do that, you need to harden the queue outside the security screening point. And then, how about outside that? I think we have to strike a balance and ensure that all layers, all stakeholders, take part.

The Member's second question is about exercises in the community. The Member may be aware that we have revamped the Emergency Preparedness (EP) Day. EP Day now, as revamped, focuses a lot on counter-terrorism, making sure our residents living in Singapore and the heartlands are aware of what the nature of the risk is, helping to guide them on how to look out for suspicious behaviour and radicalised individuals and what to do, encouraging them to subscribe to the SGSecure app.

More than half a million phones have now got the SGSecure app and we are pushing it further. So, it is 550,000 and going up.

These revamped EP Days are one or two or three a month. So, we are actively pushing them out. But we are happy to work with stakeholders and with community partners who wish to join us in this joint fight against terrorism.

Minister, how is the Government responding to the on-going crisis in Marawi in the Philippines, something which has taken many in Southeast Asia by surprise? Has the Ministry's perception of the threat to Singapore from terrorism changed as a result of it?

In various responses and speeches made by my colleagues and I, we have talked about the threat of returning fighters from Syria and Iraq as they begin to lose ground there. So, that is one threat. But we also talked about the concern with regard to the south of the Philippines, with the ISIS' intention to set up a caliphate province. That being very close to Singapore and our region, certainly raises security concerns. So, MHA, together with other agencies, is actively looking at developments there and will make sure that the necessary security measures are in place.

Earlier, the Minister shared some of the profiles of those who have been radicalised. Has MHA studied some of these profiles and seen a trend − who are these in the groups that are more vulnerable to radicalisation − so that that could, at least, enable us to target some of these segments?

My question is: what are some of these segments that are more vulnerable and has MHA profiled them?

The second question is: I understand there are also sites that they probably go to because a lot of the threats the Minister mentioned were online. So, does MHA also actively track these sites and what are we doing to block them or reduce access to these sites?

The third question relates to my Parliamentary Question No 39 which the Minister alluded to earlier − whether in constituencies or on the ground where the constituencies require or find that these are potential threats and we need to set up bollards and so forth, will items like these be put into schemes like the CIPC, for example, to be funded so that it would give constituencies or heartlands the autonomy to also set up some of these bollards where required?

Let me take the Member's questions in turn. On the first question, on the profile, I have said earlier that those whom we have identified as radicalised tend to be younger people below the age of 30 who look to the Internet for a lot of news and information. Beyond that, operationally, I would not want to comment further on the questions the Member has raised, but MHA is actively keeping a look-out for radicalised individuals in Singapore, whether local or foreign.

In terms of sites, the Member asked whether we track or block sites. Again, it is an operational detail. But I would like to say that in terms of blocking of sites, we do so when it is practical. But it would not be as effective or practical as sensitising and inoculating people from the false information and ideologies that are being conveyed through social media, and there are active steps being taken by the Government, community groups and religious organisations to reach out to people, including young people, to better inoculate the community against such influences.

As for bollards and other security measures that could reduce certain kinds of risk patterns, these are things that I have said earlier that MHA is actively working with the built environment agencies to look at.

Madam, could I ask the Minister would the Police be working closer with car rental companies, specifically for commercial goods vehicles, for security screening of people renting these vehicles?

Yes, the answer is yes, we are working closely with the relevant associations. We are looking at various measures which we are not ready to announce at this point in time. But, at its base, we encourage heavy vehicle owners and car rental companies to be very mindful of the people that they rent their vehicles out to. And car rental companies already are required to keep a register which will, again, allow them to filter threats.

7 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development in view of the problems faced by some subcontractors in the construction of Changi Airport Terminal 4 in collecting payment for work done and in order to minimise recurrences of similar incidents in future Government projects, what measures are taken to ensure (i) the stringent evaluation of tenders and subsequent awards; and (ii) the fair treatment and protection of subcontractors.

Madam, the construction of Changi Airport Terminal 4 is undertaken by the Changi Airport Group (CAG), which is a corporatised entity, and thus not subject to Government procurement rules.

The rights and obligations of subcontractors, which are generally engaged directly by the main contractors, are governed by their respective contractual provisions. To protect subcontractors, the Government has put in place the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act (SOPA). The SOPA improves cash-flow in the construction industry by providing fast and low-cost adjudication to resolve payment disputes.

For Government construction projects, there are additionally stringent procurement systems in place for the evaluation and award of tenders. For example, all contractors are required to meet the strict qualifying criteria under BCA's Contractor Registration System before they can tender for Government construction projects. The requirements include financial capacity, track record and other performance-related criteria. This minimises the possibility of contractors bidding for projects beyond their capabilities.

8 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) (a) what is the average time taken between polling to awarding a contract and to starting work; and (b) which precincts are experiencing the longest delay in implementing HIP to date since the programme started and how long has been the delay.

Upon the selection of HIP projects, HDB will call Design and Build tenders to procure contractors and consultants for the projects. This process typically takes about eight months. Once the tenders have been awarded, the contractors and consultants will work with HDB and the HIP Working Committees, which comprise representatives from the Town Council, grassroots leaders and residents, to design and work out the HIP package. Residents are then consulted and engaged through straw polls before the formal HIP poll is conducted.

The average time taken between the award of an HIP contract to polling is about nine months. After polling, residents are given six weeks to select and opt for the HIP works. Contractors will then prepare the materials before they start the HIP works, usually around four months after polling.

In practice, the time taken for the HIP process differs from one HIP project to another and may not always fall within these general timeframes. For example, progress of projects is dependent on technical constraints on the ground and site-specific issues, such as any affected underground services. Projects where the design proposal is more complex, especially where it involves features, such as electrical upgrading works, can also take longer to complete.

Mdm Speaker, just a couple of questions for the Minister. I understand that it includes the upgrading of existing substations. Would the Ministry consider, for example, letting the other part of the HIP proceed, the part where it involves very common kind of spalling concrete repair, replacement of pipes and casements? Those are very common because I think a lot of residents are waiting for that. Whereas the electrical works, these are actually outside the house, so they are quite distinct.

I would also like to say that the residents of Blocks 309 to 328 in Hougang Avenue 5 have been waiting like 730 days since the announcement of the HIP.

Another question is: what is the purpose of the straw poll if HDB can proceed straight to the actual poll? Are the votes gathered during the straw poll counted towards the actual poll?

Madam, as I have said, the timeframes vary differently. I believe, in the Member's ward, there are two projects that are proceeding. The one he talked about first – Blocks 309 to 312, 314, 317 to 319 – these have taken a bit longer after award of tender to the dictated date for polling because the Working Committee, including representatives from the Town Council, had some issues regarding, I am told, the electrical substations (ESS), either the location or they wanted the existing ones to be upgraded. And, as a result, a number of agencies have to be involved because this was something that they had to look into seriously. I am told that that has been resolved and that the poll will come soon. So, these are issues that have to be undertaken because of the request of the Working Committee.

As for whether the rest of the work can proceed whilst these things are being ironed out, when it comes to ESSes and where they are located, sometimes the residents may have a view on it and they may be reflected either in the straw poll or feedback that you get or during the actual poll, they may actually reject what you are trying to do. ESSes are buildings that may perhaps hinder some people's activities or their view or their ventilation, and these things have to be part and parcel of the design in order for all residents to make an informed choice when they decide to cast their vote for or against HIP. So, that is the response.

The other question is about straw polls. A straw poll, as I have said earlier, gives the Working Committee and the HDB project team a sense of what the residents' concerns are. As part of the poll, it gives you the indication as well, the Working Committee. It also allows feedback to be gathered. But if you feel that you want to do away with the straw poll, please let the Working Committee reflect that to HDB.

A quick clarification. Does it mean that the votes gathered in straw polls are not counted? They have to do another poll, the actual poll?

Yes, the straw poll is indicative, and it is to allow feedback to be gathered early so that changes can be taken on board by the Working Committee and the project team before you finalise the package and put it before your residents. The results of the straw poll are not counted towards the actual poll.

9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the current number of vacant hawker stalls managed by NEA; (b) what are the latest average, lowest and highest successful tender prices for NEA hawker stalls in the last three years; and (c) whether NEA can consider allocating hawker stalls based on the prevailing rental rate in a particular hawker centre/market managed by NEA to families receiving financial assistance and retrenched persons who are prepared to run their own business.

As of 1 May 2017, there were over 6,000 cooked food stalls in the hawker centres owned by the Government. About 97% of them were occupied. This is the consistent average occupancy rate for the past five years.

The average successful tender bid for our cooked food stalls over the last three years is $1,370 per month. The lowest bid was $1 while the highest bid was $4,888. This excludes a recent exceptional case where there was a successful bid of $10,000 for a stall at the People's Park hawker centre, but the bidder terminated the tenancy even before he started operations.

At my Ministry's Committee of Supply debate last year, I shared with the Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh the background of our termination in 1990 of our previous policy of allocating available vacant hawker stalls to those in financial hardship. I explained at the time that the take-up rate had consistently been very low and, moreover, most of the applicants had rejected our offered stalls and preferred to wait for a vacancy in the more popular hawker centres.

There are, therefore, no grounds to reinstate this policy nor allocate hawker stalls at market rents to only those who are retrenched or require financial assistance. Like any other self-employed person, a hawker can sustain his business successfully if he is disciplined and has the required skills and not simply because he is in need of a job. Those who are genuinely interested in the hawker trade are welcome to bid for any of the vacant stalls which NEA puts out for tender every month. Those who are in need of financial and other types of assistance, including employment assistance, may wish to seek the assistance of MSF or Workforce Singapore respectively.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I hear you, but would the Ministry consider working with any specific organisation to provide training or even look at how to assist those who are retrenched or are receiving financial assistance who wish to become hawkers?

Indeed, we do have programmes that we have recently implemented to help those who are interested to join the hawker trade to do so, including, of course, those who may have been retrenched and are looking to join the hawker trade, perhaps as a second pathway.

On the recommendations of the Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee, we have launched a Hawker Fare series where aspiring hawkers can learn tips and culinary skills from veteran hawkers. We have started this series and it has been overwhelmingly subscribed.

We are also going to start a hawkerpreneur course with ITE College West where they will teach aspiring hawkers simple skills on how to run a hawker stall, pricing and so on, as well as even how to apply and bid for a hawker stall so that they will be able to bid at a realistic price, at a rent that their business can sustain.

In addition, at the end of the year, we are looking at introducing some incubator stalls at some of our hawker centres. For aspiring hawkers who qualify, there will be certain criteria that they will have to qualify and they can try out their skills and their acumen at these incubator stalls before they actually take the plunge and join the hawker trade.

I think that some of the other policies we have implemented in recent years, for instance, removing the reserve rent as well as controlling assignment and subletting, actually also help to lower the entry barrier for aspiring hawkers so that it will discourage the tendency to bid at very unrealistic prices.

10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what is the estimated amount of energy that we will be using in the next 10 years; (b) whether our energy efficiency will be adequate to meet our future needs; (c) what measures does the Ministry have to ensure or improve energy efficiency; and (d) whether there are plans to engage in new energy sources.

Mdm Speaker, over the next decade, our energy demand is expected to grow at a projected compounded annual growth rate of about 1.2% to 1.8%, to reach around 57,900 to 62,200 gigawatt hour (GWh) in 2027. The actual energy demand will vary depending on GDP and population growth rate.

Promoting more efficient use of energy is a key prong of our energy strategy. It will reduce our carbon footprint and enhance Singapore's energy security and economic competitiveness. The Government has thus adopted a mix of regulations, incentives and capability-building measures to encourage energy efficiency improvements in the industrial, building and household sectors.

The industrial sector accounted for 67% of total energy consumption in 2014. In 2015, the industry achieved a 0.6% energy efficiency improvement rate, an increase from 0.4% in 2014. However, there is room for us to improve our energy efficiency, so as to fulfil our pledge under the Paris Agreement. The Government will continue to work with the industry to achieve energy efficiency rates similar to the 1% to 2% per annum in leading developed countries.

To this end, the MEWR has recently enhanced the Energy Conservation Act to strengthen energy efficiency practices among companies and plans to implement Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for common industrial equipment. The Minister for Finance has also announced in this year's Budget Speech that the Government aims to implement a carbon tax from 2019. The price signal from the carbon tax will incentivise the adoption of more energy-efficient practices by the industry, as well as the rest of the economy.

Capability building efforts include the Energy Efficiency Fund administered by the NEA which provides support for companies to undertake design reviews, energy audits and equipment retrofits. The EDB supports energy efficiency initiatives in the manufacturing sector through various incentives, such as the Productivity Grant, Investment Allowance, as well as energy efficiency financing programmes. Small and medium-sized enterprises can tap on SPRING's Capability Development Grant to adopt energy-efficient solutions that can help improve their business capabilities. We also aim to build up a strong pool of energy efficiency expertise in Singapore, for instance, through the Singapore Certified Energy Manager programme.

In the building sector, the Government has been driving the shift towards more environmentally sustainable buildings. As of January this year, there are close to 3,000 Green Mark building projects in Singapore, which is approximately one-third of the total building stock. Our target is to have 80% of all buildings achieve BCA's Green Mark standards by 2030.

For households, the Government has sought to raise awareness of energy-efficienct products through the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS). In addition, inefficient household appliances are weeded out from the market through MEPS. As a result, the average energy efficiency of refrigerators has improved by about 26% since 2008. To encourage households to be more energy efficient, new features, such as peer comparison, have been introduced to residential consumers' utilities bill.

Mdm Speaker, besides improving the efficiency on the demand side, we will continue to explore new options in our energy supply to address our energy security, competitiveness and sustainability needs. Among alternative energy options, solar photovoltaic (PV) currently has the greatest potential for wider deployment in Singapore. In 2014, we announced a plan to raise the adoption of solar energy in our system to 350 megawatt peak (MWp) by 2020.

Looking beyond 2020, we plan to further raise the adoption of solar power in our system to one gigawatt peak (GWp). We will increase solar adoption by investing in research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in solar PV and related energy technologies; addressing market barriers to deployment; enhancing our regulatory framework; and by taking the lead through aggregation of demand from public agencies.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State for the answer. Just one quick supplementary question. With regard to what she has mentioned earlier about energy efficiency and energy adequacy and diversification, does that take into consideration the latest CFE strategies where the latest push towards Smart Nation and digitalisation and, of course, the increase in technology would actually increase demand for energy? Does that incorporate into our baseline in terms of energy needs over the next decade or more going forward, given the intensity of digitalisation on any usage of energy?

Under the CFE, productivity is a very important element and, by enabling our industry across sectors to achieve greater productivity, this also takes into account energy efficiency. So, we are all moving in the same broad general direction.

11 Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) if he can provide an update on pilot initiatives for logistics distribution within malls, federated locker systems and steps towards nationwide urban logistics connectivity.

To transform the logistics industry, the Government and industry are working together to raise productivity and job quality, as well as reduce traffic congestion in our urban logistics sector. This would free up valuable land and human resources that can be channelled to higher value activities.

We have been piloting new business models to improve our urban logistics. For example, at the business-to-business level, SPRINGSingapore and IMDA are facilitating more loading bay management and in-mall distribution operations that will reduce congestion at and around the loading bay at our shopping malls. SPRINGSingapore and IMDA have also started pilots at Tampines Mall, Bedok Mall, IMM and Westgate. So, instead of multiple truck drivers going to the same mall every morning at peak hour often around the same time as well with small deliveries per vehicle, a single in-mall operator now coordinates and spaces out such delivery schedules of the various trucks, for example, and also when they receive it and how they consolidate these goods on the mall tenants' behalf and then distributes the goods to the tenants at the tenants' convenience. So, there are actually benefits on both sides.

Through these pilots, the average parking time has been reduced from 24 minutes to seven minutes for in-mall distribution users. The delivery vehicles also spent less time queuing at the loading bays in order to enter these loading bays. With these improvements in turnaround time, residents benefit from less traffic congestion immediately outside the malls, while the truck drivers themselves are able to make more deliveries within the same day. It is estimated that almost 50% of the parcel volume going into Tampines and Bedok Malls are now handled through such in-mall distribution operating channels. We plan to roll out in-mall distribution channels to more malls progressively once we get these pilots started well and learn some lessons from there.

In the business-to-consumer space, in tandem with the rapid growth of e-commerce, the Government is rolling out a nationwide, federated parcel locker network to ease the last-mile delivery challenges for small parcels. We are doing this in phases, beginning with a trial at selected HDB estates and parts of our public transport network. With such inter-operable common infrastructure accessible by all merchants, delivery companies can avoid costly return visits to end-consumers when they are unable to deliver the parcels the first time round, especially when the recipient is not at home and, therefore, being able to complete more deliveries per day. Consumers will benefit from the convenience of being able to pick up their parcels, wherever and whenever they like. We will share more information about the trials and the scope for industry collaboration later this year and we look forward to the industry's active participation and innovation in this evolving area.

Lastly, JTC is also exploring the feasibility of implementing District Logistics Networks within our new industrial estates. For example, Jurong Innovation District (JID) may include a central distribution centre where goods are stored and handled and a dedicated road network for the delivery of the goods to the companies within the district. This will improve the efficiency of goods movement to companies located in JID, allow companies to free up storage space within their premises for other uses and relieve traffic congestion from otherwise very uncoordinated logistics flows within the area. The Government is also exploring the feasibility of inter-district logistics networks that would facilitate more efficient freight movement across the whole of Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Indeed, I agree that last-mile connectivity and inter-operability are very important and I would like to volunteer Jurong West as the pilot site for the Ministry to implement federated locker network system.

Mdm Speaker, as more retailers or malls participate in such a scheme, it will make it even better and more viable for Singapore, as an island, logistically, and we welcome more malls to participate in such events. Eventually, once we are able to roll this out, we will engage more mall operators to get them on board.

12 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether the Ministry collates data on online retail sales for local and foreign e-commerce; (b) if so, what is the sales volume transacted by Singapore-based residents with foreign companies via e-commerce over the past three years; (c) how has this overseas e-commerce impacted on local businesses; and (d) what is the Ministry doing to help local e-commerce businesses to improve their sales.

The Government tracks Internet transactions made with locally-issued credit and debit cards. Over the past three years, the total value of such transactions with local entities was about $18.3 billion, representing around 74% of total Internet transactions. Internet transactions with foreign entities amounted to $6.4 billion.

About 3% of total retail receipts in Singapore come from e-commerce. While e-commerce presents competition to our local retailers, it also gives Singapore retailers the opportunity to expand their reach to the region and beyond. Under the Retail Industry Transformation Map (ITM) launched in September 2016, we aim to grow the e-commerce share of total retail receipts to 10% by 2020. This is in line with the retail ITM vision for a vibrant retail industry comprising a mix of highly productive omni-channel retailers and local brand owners with global footprints.

The Government will assist local retailers to build digital capabilities and enable access to e-marketplaces under the Retail ITM. As part of the SMEs Go Digital initiative launched at Budget 2017, SPRINGSingapore and IMDA have pre-qualified e-commerce solutions that can be readily adopted by SMEs. In collaboration with partners like Google, SPRINGSingapore also provides support to SMEs to strengthen their digital marketing. IE Singapore also helps companies leverage e-commerce to unlock growth opportunities in overseas markets. Besides support through the Market Readiness Assistance scheme and the Global Company Partnership scheme, IE Singapore connects companies to global, regional or niche e-marketplaces that are relevant to their internationalisation strategies.

Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) are also important multipliers to accelerate e-commerce adoption among SMEs. For example, the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA), with the support of SPRINGSingapore and Workforce Singapore, is developing an SME e-Commerce Accelerator Programme to help retailers build integrated strategic plans for omni-channel implementation.

Besides TACs, we have also seen greater participation from the private sector in supporting our SMEs. The 99% SME movement is a national initiative led by SingTel, DBS and Mediacorp. Initiated in 2015, the effort makes e-commerce accessible to more companies through the set-up of an e-marketplace and offering training opportunities.

The Government also helps members of the retail industry workforce adapt and upskill to keep up with developments in e-commerce. To support this, SPRINGSingapore has worked with SkillsFuture Singapore to develop a skills framework for the retail sector incorporating e-commerce and digital marketing, which will be launched later this year.

Mdm Speaker, thank you. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But one of the reasons why I am asking this question is in relation to a report by Visa several weeks ago highlighting that online transactions in Singapore have actually more than doubled in the past five years. And it accounts for about 25% of total spending on Visa cards in Singapore.

In relation to what the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now about public entities' data in relation to online spending, I would just like to enquire, first, whether that data is actually public and if there is a longer time series for analysts to access and to assess Singapore's private consumption, to assess also Singapore's Gross Domestic Product growth going forward. One of the reasons why I ask is, at the moment, I think it is not readily available in public whereas, if you see in the US and China, it is readily available. It could be because of various reasons, but I would like to hear the Senior Minister of State's response to that.

On top of that, how can e-commerce data be made more available to the public, going forward?

The data that I mentioned earlier is from MAS which tracks the Internet transactions being made with locally issued credit cards and debit cards. Having said that, I think that gives part of the picture because the entities being tracked who are parties to the transactions may not only be retailers. It could be, for instance, payment for bills and so forth. Having said that, we are also aware that there are various commercial studies being done by consultants on the state of e-commerce. So, I would like to refer the Member to the figure that I cited earlier, which is, that 3% of retail receipts in Singapore are from e-commerce.

If we want to make a comparison, in 2014, based on studies, we understand that e-commerce accounted for about 10%, 13% and 6.5% of total retail sales in China, the UK and the US respectively. So, this suggests that there is room for e-commerce to increase as a proportion of total retail activity in Singapore.

Mr Zaqy Mohamed, please keep your supplementary questions short.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The analysis that the Senior Minister of State gave is really about e-commerce retail sales in Singapore. But I think the crux of the question here would be: Singaporeans are spending more, but are they spending more internationally with international brand retailers compared to, say, local ones? Are we losing out in terms of GDP for our local retailers to e-commerce? That is the key question. And do we track that?

As I mentioned earlier, under our retail ITM, our intention is to help foster a very vibrant Singapore retail scene and we want to see strong local brand owners with global footprints. In terms of strengthening the competitiveness of Singapore-based retailers' Singapore brands, vis-Ã-vis their global competitors, that is certainly a very important thrust of our work under the retail ITM.

So, to this end, we have various programmes and strategies in place to help our retailers improve their capabilities. Part of this would involve omni-channel capability building. It also involves up-skilling the workforce so that our retailers will be able to draw on expertise who understand how to operate in an e-commerce environment.

But I think this also involves, generally speaking, profiling Singapore brands in a variety of retail sectors. This is, indeed, a very challenging area but it is certainly a challenge that we recognise and which we are preparing our retailers for.

Mr Leon Perera, keep it short, very brief, because your supplementary questions are longer than your original questions.

Just a question to the Senior Minister of State: will the Ministry consider tracking and publishing retail sales and e-commerce sales data regularly – as the Senior Minister of State has alluded to, it is being done in the US and China – in the future since this may be very important for stakeholders to understand?

Certainly. As I have mentioned, I believe that quite a number of such studies and figures are available being done by different organisations. These are all figures that we track because we do want to benchmark ourselves against the retail scene in different countries and to see where we stand. So, this is something we will constantly do.

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what processes are used to consult local SMEs and obtain their feedback prior to negotiating bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

Company feedback is integral to MTI's process of negotiating trade agreements. MTI works with IE Singapore and Trade Associations to engage businesses on their potential interest areas in our various trade negotiations.

These engagements involve organising roundtable sessions to gather feedback first hand from companies, including local SMEs, on their business interests and the issues they face. Where there are specific concerns or opportunities companies are keen on, MTI and our economic agencies have also undertaken one-to-one sessions to follow up on these issues. In addition, IE Singapore's FTA promotion and advisory team conducts market surveys that allow companies to provide detailed feedback on their business interests and specific areas of concern.

These efforts are complemented with FTA outreach efforts to help companies gain greater awareness and knowledge of how FTAs can be used to their benefit. Some 3,500 companies over the last five years, including SMEs from diverse sectors, have benefited from workshops and seminars aimed at equipping companies with a better understanding of Singapore's trade agreements.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Just a supplementary question on the roundtables that the Senior Minister of State alluded to. Are these roundtables organised specifically around particular multilateral or bilateral agreements that are being negotiated; or are they organised around a country theme like doing business in Korea so you have a roundtable of companies interested in doing business in Korea, for example; or are they organised on an industry theme? Or are they organised on all three?

These tend to be usually based on the specific FTA negotiations that are ongoing. So, it would typically be based on a country or group of countries that we are negotiating with. Companies with interests in these markets are very welcomed to join in and the launch of FTA negotiations is also featured in the media. So, we hope companies who know about this will take part actively if they have issues to raise.

At the same time, however, our various economic agencies, including IE Singapore, are also constantly in touch with companies. So, even on occasions or fora that are not dedicated to FTAs, they are also free to raise issues concerning FTAs.

14 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry check for traffic signs that are partially covered by vegetation, such as tree branches and shrubs, along roads and expressways; and (b) what are the measures in place to ensure that these signs are visible to motorists and that pruning takes place regularly.

Mdm Speaker, LTA stipulates that trees cannot be planted within 75 metres in front of advance directional signs on expressways, or 45 metres on all other roads. No-planting zones are also established around pedestrian crossings to ensure that motorists have a clear view of pedestrians. The size of these no-planting zones depends on the site conditions, such as the geometry of the road and the speed limit.

In addition, NParks conducts inspections at least once a month to make sure that greenery does not block the visibility of crossings and signs.

Mdm Speaker, a supplementary question. How does LTA, therefore, ensure that traffic signs are also visible and well-maintained?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Ang for the supplementary question. LTA inspects roads at regular intervals − weekly for expressways, every two weeks for major roads and every eight weeks for minor roads. During inspections, if LTA detects road defects, such as faded signs and signs blocked by trees or shrubs, LTA will rectify the defects and also alert NParks should there be any trees that obstruct the road signs.

15 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the findings of the meeting between LTA and dealers over the motorcycle COE price spikes; (b) whether any study has been done on the impact of the tiered Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for motorcycles on COE prices since its announcement; and (c) whether there are any measures to ensure motorcycle ownership remains affordable for the working class.

Mdm Speaker, LTA's engagement with motorcycle dealers was part of its efforts to better understand recent Category D price trends. The feedback was that the market is still in a state of flux and will take some time to stabilise following the recent Additional Registration Fee (ARF) changes.

These ARF changes will make higher end motorcycles more expensive. However, lower end motorcycles, which constitute more than 60% of the market, are unaffected and continue to attract an ARF of only 15% of the Open Market Value. Furthermore, we had stopped the contribution of COEs from Category D to the Open Category since May, which will result in a larger supply of motorcycle COEs.

Mdm Speaker, a supplementary question. Since it has introduced the tiered ARF, would the Ministry consider introducing a separate category for motorcycles, so as to address demand, especially to make motorcycle ownership for the lower end models more affordable?

I would like to thank Mr Png for the supplementary question. In fact, this has been raised in previous Parliamentary sittings. But let me reiterate that motorcycles currently are in a separate COE category so that motorcycle buyers need not compete with car buyers for COEs. I think this is quite well understood. However, splitting Category D further would result in a much smaller quota available in each sub-category and this may lead to more volatility in the quota as well as the prices.

16 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Prime Minister for the public sector corruption cases registered for investigation by CPIB in 2016 (a) what is the total amount of money involved; (b) what are the top three Ministries from which these cases originated; (c) out of the 92 cases brought forward from the previous years, how many are more than two years; and (d) what is the breakdown on the number of such cases alerted by internal staff and external sources respectively.

Madam, on behalf of the Prime Minister, Singapore adopts a culture of zero-tolerance towards corruption, no matter how big or small the amount. Corruption offences can occur at any level as long as there is greed and opportunity. CPIB takes a serious view of all complaints or information on suspected corruption. They will not hesitate to take action without fear or favour against any individuals or entities. According to CPIB's corruption statistics that were released recently, there were 118 cases registered for investigation in 2016, out of which, 15% was from the public sector. The percentage of public sector cases that CPIB registered for investigation remains consistent over the last three years, averaging about 14%.

However, I wish to highlight that not all cases that CPIB registered for investigation will result in prosecution. In the last three years, the number of persons prosecuted in Court by the CPIB has been on a decline. In 2016, there were 104 individuals who were prosecuted in Court by the CPIB, out of which, four were public sector employees. However, not all the four individuals were charged for corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

To answer Mr Png's question, the total bribe amount, or personal gains involving public servants prosecuted last year was $24,800. The CPIB takes, on average, less than a year to complete investigations. Nevertheless, this also depends on the complexity of the cases, many factors, such as the availability of witnesses or, if the case is transnational, also affect the duration of the investigations.

For 2016, there were 13 cases from the 92 uncompleted cases that were carried forward from 2015 that took more than two years. Even though the Singapore Public Service is known to be one of the cleanest in the world, the Government remains vigilant and constantly seek new ways to maintain the integrity of the Public Service. As with all corruption cases, they start and end with humans.

Ministries are required to put in place measures to ensure accountability and transparency. Such measures include rotation of officers, having more effective supervision, holding surprise checks and conducting regular internal audits to ensure processes are in order.

There is a reporting framework for officers to report wrongful practices of behaviour they have observed to their supervisors or the Permanent Secretary in their Ministry. This includes the mismanagement or misuse of Government funds or actions that call into question an officer's integrity, such as in conflict of interest situations. This helps the agency to be alerted to problems early and allow them to promptly take appropriate actions.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 ranks Singapore as the seventh least corrupt country in the world. Singapore has also maintained its first place in the 2016 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Annual Survey on corruption. This is only possible because of strong political will and leadership over the years as well as the trusted Singapore Brand that is built upon our clean and honest system of governance in the business environment.

Madam, there was one more part of the question that was not answered and I have one extra supplementary question. In the original question, I asked what is the breakdown of the number of cases alerted by internal and external sources respectively.

And my supplementary question is, out of the 18 cases involving public employees registered for investigations, four were prosecuted in Court. The rest were given warning or departmental actions. So, what are the grounds for recommending such action in lieu of prosecution for these cases from the Public Sector?

To answer the first question first. The answer is three and one to make the four. The second question as to which case will be prosecuted will depend on the nature of the case itself and also the strength of the evidence, the complexity and the severity of the case. Is that what the Member was asking? Because when a case is being prosecuted, once it has breached our rules and our guidelines, it will be prosecuted in Court. If let us say, there are no clear evidence for us to take the person to task, then if there are any other things that are tantamount to any wrongdoing but not enough for us to cross the threshold, then there may be other administration guidelines for us to take punishment action if someone is in the wrong.

Mr Png, please address your queries to the Chair.

Sorry, Madam. There were 18 cases registered for investigation for the Public Sector. Four were sent to Court but then the rest, they said that they administered warning and given departmental actions. So, I just want to know what are the grounds for recommending such action, in lieu of prosecution, since they are already registered for investigation.

First, let me clarify that registered for investigation does not prove that they are guilty. It just means that there might be a case for us to follow up and pursue. Out of the cases mentioned, four were eventually prosecuted in Court. Where there is not sufficient evidence of severity to prosecute them in Court, we will see whether there is any ground for us to take other actions. There is always a range of actions required for us. But for those cases that go to the Court, that is when there are very clear guidelines as to when you crossed the legal threshold.

17 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) how many of the official websites of Ministries and Statutory Boards meet the WCAG 2.0 or other international standards for website accessibility by persons with disabilities (PWDs); and (b) what steps will be taken to ensure that Government websites are accessible to PWDs to the fullest extent possible.

Question No 17, who is replying on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Apologies, Mdm Speaker, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary is not around. We will get him to provide the answer.

We will move on to Question No 18 then. Mr Louis Ng.

18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past three years what is the Assisted Reproductive Technology success rate for public and private centres respectively for couples (i) under 30 years old; (ii) between 30 years old and 35 years old; (iii) between 36 years old and 40 years old; and (iv) above 40 years old.

The success rates for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) decline with increasing age and, in fact, drops precipitously after the maternal age of 35. For public centres, success rates are 29.5% for women below 30, 27.1% for women from 30 to 35, 16.1% for women from 36 to 40, and 6.1% for women above 40. A similar trend is observed in the private centres, where the success rates stand at 26.7% for women below 30, 24.6% for women from 30 to 35, 17.3% for women from 36 to 40, and 6.7% for women above 40.

Our clinical data also shows that, overall, from 2013 to 2015, the average ART success rates are 21.3% at the public centres and 19% at the private centres.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I check with the Senior Minister of State if MOH is going to review the subsidies for ART treatments?

The ART co-funding was enhanced in 2013, along with the MediSave withdrawal for ACP that was also enhanced in 2013. We have been monitoring the average bill sizes and we will review if the average bill sizes rise such that it significantly affects affordability.

Sorry, Madam. Just one more question. Not just the subsidies, but also, is it possible to increase the number of cycles, at least for those between 36 and 40? I note the success rate does drop but I think the trend is that people are having children much later now.

I think when we review the age at which we capped the ART co-funding, really it is based on evidence. As shown from statistics, the success rates drop drastically after age 35; for women above 40, it is at about 6%. Therefore, we will continue to see what the success rates are before we consider whether we can extend. But at this point in time, there is no decision to extend this age limit.

19 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the measures put in place in the hospitals to identify and diagnose antenatal and postnatal depression; (b) whether all hospitals are required to screen women for antenatal and postnatal depression; (c) whether there are programmes to educate husbands and extended family members about the symptoms of antenatal and post natal depression; and (d) whether these efforts are part of the National Mental Health Blueprint.

Most pregnant women are managed by the obstetricians during their pregnancy. They play a major role in identifying antenatal and postnatal depression symptoms, both in the private and public sectors.

KKH and NUH covers 90% of the public sector deliveries. Since 2007, KKH and NUH have been funded under the National Mental Health Blueprint to provide screening and early intervention for postnatal depression. The NUH Women's Emotional Health Service (WEHS) and KKH's Postnatal Depression Intervention Programme (PDIP) provide depression screening at two to eight weeks postpartum, during outpatient postnatal reviews at the specialist clinics. Under the NUH WEHS, women are also screened antenatally at three time points − registration, trimester two and trimester three. Both programmes accept patients referred from other hospitals, including private hospitals. Since 2007, both programmes have screened around 80,050 women; and 818 women were subsequently referred to and seen by psychiatrists for further follow-up.

Women who are screened positive for depression would be managed by a multi-disciplinary team comprising a psychiatrist, case manager and a psychologist. The women and their family members will also be given useful contacts and information on managing their emotional health.

Both programmes also provide antenatal talks and classes open to women and their spouses, covering antenatal and postnatal depression and on keeping emotionally well during and after pregnancy. Through various media platforms, KKH also raises public awareness on postnatal depression.

SGH covers the remaining 10% of public sector deliveries. SGH has a psychiatry clinic located within the obstetric-gynaecology specialist outpatient clinic and obstetricians who pick up women with antenatal and postnatal depression symptoms can refer them to the psychiatry clinic.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. Can I just seek clarification? It appears as though the programmes, in respect of the detection of the antenatal and postnatal depression specifically at KKH and NUH, I am wondering whether there will be efforts to encourage these programmes or to develop these programmes in the other hospitals.

My second clarification − can more be done to educate family members about the symptoms of postnatal depression, perhaps by screening of videos at waiting areas, brochures for family members when they attend?

My third clarification – will there be also efforts to educate the general public about antenatal and postnatal depression? I think we have all heard about the recent case where the young mother with a two-month-old daughter took her own life and the State Coroner, Marvin Bee, highlighted that this was a tragic case but it provided us an opportunity to actually look into the effects of postpartum depression, especially with working mothers. So, I was wondering if there are any further effort in this respect.

With regard to the first question, MOH, in 2010 developed a clinical practice guideline on depression, which is available to all practitioners, both in the private and public hospitals. It includes a section on maternal depression. Clinicians and doctors are encouraged and advised to ask the women specific questions to detect if they perhaps may have antenatal or postnatal depression and then to refer them for appropriate help, say, with a psychiatrist or intervention appropriately.

Besides that, the obstetrician who manages the women during the period of pregnancy are expected to identify symptoms of antenatal or postnatal depression and then to refer them for appropriate intervention, treatment or follow up. And they can also actually refer them to the programmes in KKH and NUH.

In addition to that, HPB, for instance, recently worked with KKH to have a module in the Health Hub Track called Healthy Pregnancy Plan. It also talks about symptoms of antenatal and postnatal depression, signs to look out for, provides information and resources and help that can be provided. Hospitals like KKH also publicise or raise awareness of maternal depression through forums, talks, videos. From the delivery of the baby, HPB has got the Healthy Start for Your Baby Guide which they provide to every mother, both in the private and public hospitals which provide maternal services. It also includes sections on the mother's overall health and well-being and how to look out for postnatal blues, how to mitigate this before it develops into postnatal depression.

Of course, antenatal sessions conducted by the hospitals also include sessions on ante and postnatal depression and these classes can be attended by both the women as well as the spouses. And there are materials available, say, at the waiting areas of hospitals on maternal depression, too.

But I agree with the Member. We need to see how we can continue to strengthen our efforts to engage and reach out to, not just the pregnant women, their spouses and family members but also the public in general, including, of course, employers. In fact, HPB has got a management training workshop for employers to help the HR personnel, for instance, to identify symptoms of depression.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order Nos 22(3) and (4), Written Answers to Question Nos 20-22, 24-25, 27, 29-38 and 40-41 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 17, 23, 26 and 28 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament and Question No 39 has been withdrawn.]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [3 July 2017], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the two Ministerial Statements made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on 38 Oxley Road be considered by Parliament." − [Prime Minister] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

12.30 pm

Mdm Speaker, the allegations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling on 14 June 2017 are serious. I had initially hoped that the dispute is just a family dispute which many other families would have. Unfortunately, the allegations made by the two younger siblings of the Prime Minister go beyond a dispute whether to demolish 38 Oxley Road. The two of them allege that the Prime Minister had misused his position and influence over the Government. They further allege that the system has no checks or balance to prevent abuse of Government and fear the use of Organs of State against the two of them and Suet Fern.

Mdm Speaker, I struggle to understand the thrust of their allegations. Are they saying that our Deputy Prime Minister, the Ministers and other officebearers are subservient to the Prime Minister's wishes and cannot think for themselves? That the senior civil servants would set aside their personal beliefs and convictions just to obey the Prime Minister blindly without question?

The allegations of abuse are short on details and not substantiated. After reading several of the media releases of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, I surmised that the crux of the siblings' unhappiness is that the Prime Minister failed to comply with the desire of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish 38 Oxley Road. They are unhappy that a Ministerial Committee was set up to consider the options regarding 38 Oxley Road.

However, because these allegations of abuse came from no less a person than the Prime Minister's own siblings and they attack the integrity of the leader of the Government, it behoves the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers involved to set out the basis for their decisions so that they can be scrutinised by members of the public.

Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Teo had issued Ministerial Statements on these allegations and the rationale for the setting up of the Cabinet committees yesterday. Prime Minister Lee also stated that he had recused himself from deliberations about Oxley Road.

Is Parliament the proper place to discuss these issues? I have no doubt because the allegations go towards the question of whether there was abuse of power and this affects the integrity of the Government and the system. If the Prime Minister does not defend the allegations in Parliament, where does he do so? On social media?

The Prime Minister has also invited all Members of Parliament to speak freely and ask queries so that he can clear any doubts which we, Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people may have. And we have seen PAP Members of Parliament, Opposition Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament rise to ask many questions yesterday.

For the Members of Parliament who had called on Prime Minister Lee to sue, I felt a sense of dismay. How many of us present in Parliament today would truly want to sue our own siblings or even relatives in Court for defamation? Whatever unhappiness that we may have with our own siblings, our own brother or sister, would we really, really want to take them to Court? Is not blood thicker than water? Would you not think of how your parents would feel if they see their own children squabbling so publicly or, worse, sue each other in Court? Many of us, each time we read in the newspaper about a child suing their parents or a sibling suing another sibling, we shake our heads in dismay.

The Prime Minister said yesterday right at the start of his speech that he was not in Parliament to make a case against his siblings. Parliament is not the place for that. But what is private, he will try to resolve privately. For that statement, he has my utmost respect.

There are certain queries which the public has and I hope that the Prime Minister's answers will clear the air. Many of the queries have already been answered in the Ministerial Statements yesterday. I just have a few more queries.

Were there any decisions made by Ministers within the Committee because the Prime Minister had explicitly directed them? How much influence did the Prime Minister have in the decision whether to demolish or not to demolish 38 Oxley Road? Did the Committee consult the Prime Minister before any decision was made even though he had recused himself from any decision on the property? How can members of the public be assured that Cabinet members involved in the decision would make rational decisions and not worry that they would lose their jobs if they were to make a wrong decision about Oxley Road? Were they in awe of the Prime Minister and would defer to his wishes even though those wishes were not expressed? I think these questions are best answered by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, as any reply by the Prime Minister may be seen to be self-serving.

Next, I wish to ask the Prime Minister about his Ministerial Statement that he offered to sell the Oxley Road property to Dr Lee Wei Ling for $1 but later sold it to Mr Lee Hsien Yang for the full market value? In addition, the Prime Minister asked him to donate half of the value of the property to charity. Why did the Prime Minister do so? Could Mr Lee Hsien Yang be frustrated with the fact that after buying the property at full market value, he now finds out that the Government is unwilling to allow the demolition of the property or is not ready to allow any re-development of the property? Was Mr Lee Hsien Yang aware that the Government is still deliberating about what to do with Oxley Road when the Prime Minister offered to sell the property to him at full value?

I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to share as much information as possible so that the citizens of Singapore can continue to have confidence in the political system and the rule of governance within the Singapore Government.

Next, I refer to the statement by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling regarding the desire by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to demolish 38 Oxley Road.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling were insistent that 38 Oxley Road is to be demolished as stated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the seventh will dated 17 December 2013. The allegation about the Prime Minister's abuse of power seems to centre on their unhappiness that a Ministerial Committee was set up to consider the options about the future of 38 Oxley Road.

Had this property been any apartment or condominium, I would have agreed that this is a private matter. But, unfortunately, the property concerned is 38 Oxley Road. Many Singaporeans recognise that 38 Oxley Road holds special historical significance to Singapore and the late Minister Mentor Lee would have recognised this fact as well.

Last year, I filed an Adjournment Motion and appealed to the Government to consider the preservation of the Dakota Crescent rental flats. At that time, I lamented at "the demolition and loss of other prominent buildings like the National Library, the National Theatre, the Van Kleef Aquarium and Queensway Cinema". I argued that our children and the future generations should not be left to read about Singapore's heritage, culture and history only through history textbooks, photographs or some sanitised heritage trails."

Because 38 Oxley Road holds greater historical significance and heritage value to Singaporeans, I agree that we ought to consider all options for this property because, once demolished, part of our history would be gone forever, permanently.

Thus, whilst many of us understand the reason why Minister Mentor Lee wanted to demolish 38 Oxley Road, I would be greatly disappointed if the Prime Minister had ordered the Government to demolish the Oxley Road property without going through due process of considering the heritage and historical value of the property. If the Prime Minister had done so, this means that Minister Mentor Lee's wishes are above the law. How then will the Government account to Singaporeans whose properties were previously conserved against their wishes?

If 38 Oxley Road had been demolished without due process to consider the value of conserving the property, many Singaporeans would then have accused the Prime Minister of having a different law for Mr Lee Kuan Yew as compared to other Singaporeans. This would truly be an abuse of his position as Prime Minister. Hence, I cannot understand why Mr Lee Hsien Yang would claim that the Prime Minister had abused his position. Prime Minister Lee had a duty to all Singaporeans to consider the heritage value of 38 Oxley Road.

Even as the experts review the options for 38 Oxley Road, I urge the Government to ascertain what were the exact wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew regarding 38 Oxley Road, a property of historical significance.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling had claimed in their media release that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew removed the Prime Minister as executor and had specifically inserted into his will his wish for 38 Oxley Road to be demolished.

In response, the Prime Minister issued a statutory declaration on 15 June 2017 questioning the circumstances behind the making of the seventh will.

I have two concerns after I read the statutory declaration. First, why did the Prime Minister not challenge the will if he had doubts about the circumstances behind the making of the will? Why did he allow the Grant of Probate to be extracted without challenge?

Second – and here, I wear my hat as a practising lawyer – rule 46 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules prohibits a lawyer from acting for a testator who intends to make a significant gift to any member of the family of that lawyer. In fact, the lawyer shall advise the client to seek independent advice in respect of the gift. The Singapore Court of Appeal had also stated that a solicitor, before preparing a will, should discuss the matter with the testator on the legal issues. This is a basic fundamental principle that most lawyers would be aware of.

The rationale for the rule is really to avoid any potential conflict of interest, to avoid any allegation that there was undue pressure on the testator by the witness and to ensure that the testator has been independently advised.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his Facebook post, had said that Ms Kwa Kim Li from Lee & Lee had drafted the will. Ms Kwa promptly denied that. Why did Mr Lee Hsien Yang say this? Surely, he knows who drafted the will? Subsequently, he said in a Facebook posting that his wife, Ms Lee Suet Fern, had put the will into language. Why such a choice of words? Is this a roundabout way of saying that the will was drafted by his wife? She then asked her firm's lawyers to witness Minister Mentor Lee's execution of the will.

My concern is whether Minister Mentor Lee, at age 89 or 90 at that time, was independently advised about the contents of the will. This is of legal significance because it may mean that the demolition clause in the will may not be valid and it will affect the way the Government assesses the intent of Minister Mentor Lee about the demolition clause.

If there had been any misconduct in relation to the drafting of the will, then it is no longer a private matter. I hope the matter will be treated with proper seriousness by the authorities. No one should be above the law, regardless of whether the person is the Prime Minister himself, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children or anyone related to the family.

The challenge by Mr Lee Hsien Yang is that Prime Minister Lee is abusing his authority to ask Cabinet to preserve 38 Oxley Road against the wishes of Minister Mentor Lee. This means that the Government has an obligation to better understand what Minister Mentor Lee's wishes were. If Minister Mentor Lee had in March 2012 authorised his architects to submit the development application for 38 Oxley Road, then the demolition clause in the will seems to contradict Minister Mentor's position.

The Government should look further into the circumstances behind the making of the last will and, in particular, whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew was independently advised when he signed the last will. It raises both serious legal and moral questions.

Mdm Speaker, it has been a sad month for Singapore. For many Singaporeans, the quarrel is not just about the Oxley Road property. There are ways of resolving this dispute without the need to make such public accusations. Just because Prime Minister Lee does not agree with the siblings' proposal to demolish the house does not in any way mean that there is abuse of power. Even if Prime Minister Lee does agree with his father's desire to demolish the property, I would say that Prime Minister Lee still owes a duty to Singaporeans to consider the preservation of the property.

What grieves me and many of my residents is that these allegations have brought dishonour to the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew helped shaped our ideas, our values and, with his team of leaders, made Singapore successful. I truly hope that there can be some resolution to this matter through private mediation instead of having more public accusations hurled against the Prime Minister.

The continuation of these baseless accusations distract the Government from its actual duty of providing leadership for the country. But sadly, from this morning's response, it seems that this is unlikely. The legacy of Minister Mentor Lee seems likely to be damaged by the continued accusations and I would say Singaporeans just have to move on.

Mdm Speaker, many questions have already been raised by Members in this House and some of these have already been answered. I would, therefore, keep my speech very brief and just ask two questions.

It was reported that the Public Service Division (PSD) sent out a survey to public officers on the dispute over 38 Oxley Road. While PSD said this was because the allegations made went beyond private matters, some questions remain as to whether this sort of poll was appropriate.

This is particularly so as it is not clear whether there are any actionable steps which can be taken with the survey results. Could the Minister clarify as to: (a) what were the results of the poll? (b) what will the data in the poll be used for? (c) whether there is any concrete action that will be taken to follow up on the results of the poll.

My next question. The statements and postings made by both sides of this dispute have exposed a deep rift within the Lee family. Whether people care to admit it or not, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Lee family name are inextricably linked with Singapore. For many Singaporeans, conflict of this nature within the Lee family extends beyond being just a private family dispute, especially when so many public allegations and counter allegations have been made and continue to be made, particularly on the way we govern ourselves. And then, there are the other related issues as to the way we behave towards each other and the example we set for the next generation.

There is a sense of disquiet because, for those of us who consider Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the foremost founding father of modern Singapore and the legacy that he has left us, we feel personally affected. We feel that Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not wish to see his family in this current state. But more importantly, I think Mr Lee Kuan Yew would not wish to see his family affairs demolish the standing and the reputation of Singapore that he had spent his lifetime building.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks there is any hope of reconciliation within his family. I do not think anyone would dispute that this is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew would want for his family and for Singapore. And I think this is also what most Singaporeans hope would happen because there are no real winners in this sad episode.

Mdm Speaker, let me first say that, from a financial governance standpoint, I am satisfied that there were no financial implications or any misuse of public funds in this episode.

For the Prime Minister, there was no personal financial gain from the transaction and he now also has no financial interest in 38 Oxley Road.

Quite the reverse, a substantial sum of money, the equivalent of about one and a half times the property value of 38 Oxley Road actually went into charity and for a very good cause. I am sure those beneficiaries will be very grateful for the substantial donations.

Madam, I want to speak on two areas. Firstly, what is left to be said about the alleged abuse of power on 38 Oxley Road; and, two, more importantly, where do we go from here? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Prime Minister's Statement on 19 June, he urged Members of Parliament to raise all questions without reservation with him and the relevant Ministers on the serious allegations raised by his siblings, in order to clear any doubts.

Indeed, abuse of power is a very serious allegation. It violates the core governing principles and values which Singapore has been upholding all along. These accusations will affect public confidence and trust in the Government and the system of governance.

I have, indeed, responded to the Prime Minister's appeal and had wanted to raise some tough questions with the Prime Minister and the Ministers.

However, after seven hours of debate yesterday, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's detailed Statements with attached documents, several Ministers and more than 20 Members' speeches, what should be asked has been asked and we have heard reasonable answers to almost all of them. So, I cannot find any other allegation that warrants further questioning.

In fact, if the Prime Minister did not follow normal procedures and gave instructions to the Cabinet and relevant agencies to demolish the house in order to fulfil his late father's wishes, that would actually be a case of abuse of power.

I cannot see anything improper with setting up the Ministerial Committee led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo to look at the various options for the house and the Prime Minister recusing himself from it. I do not see any evidence of abuse of power. In fact, this is the normal workings of the Government.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and Minister Lawrence Wong addressed the issue of the Deed of Gift, explaining under what circumstance the Prime Minster got hold of the Deed. Looking at the entire process of NHB's dealings with the Estate Executors on the exhibition of items from the house, we have discovered some other areas that are not quite right. For example, one of the beneficiaries, that is, the Prime Minister, was totally unaware of the Deed of Gift and the Deed of Gift contains certain unusual clauses. More seriously, the role that Ms Lim Suet Fern played in the process gave rise to suspicion of conflict of interest.

I am not going to repeat the questions that other hon Members have raised. I hope the Prime Minister and the Ministers can give a comprehensive and complete reply.

But I have one additional point of doubt which I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is, what transpired in the meeting between the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Cabinet on 14 July 2011.

In Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's 14 June post, they claimed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, after coming back from the meeting with the Cabinet, was anguished and despondent. He felt that he should not have listened to the Prime Minister to meet with the Cabinet.

So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Cabinet exerted pressure on Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time to give up his idea of demolishing the house, or whether they told or misled Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the Government would preserve the house, regardless of his views. We must be clear about this.

Next, I would like to reflect my residents' views on this dispute and their expectations.

As this is a matter of a family dispute going public, many Singaporeans have felt upset and sad. Because Singaporeans never expected that this could happen to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our beloved founding Prime Minister who Singaporeans are grateful to. Singaporeans are also concerned because this incident happened to our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The Prime Minister is not only the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he is also the top leader of our Government. This incident would definitely cause some degree of damage to our reputation.

The Prime Minister had stated before that he had always wanted to settle his disagreement with his siblings within the family. But, now, since the dispute has been made public, the Government has no choice but to respond in order to restore the confidence of the people in the Government. And the Prime Minister has also apologised to the people.

Every family has its own difficulties and, within the family, it is common that different members have different views on certain issues. Singaporeans do not wish to be part of this family dispute. Looking at the exchanges on Facebook, people feel upset and helpless.

A resident told me that he had stopped reading or following the postings and allegations on social media. Many people cannot bear to see this kind of dispute happening to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the family of Prime Minister Lee. They do not wish to choose sides in this family dispute. They feel that they have somehow been dragged into this dispute inadvertently.

I think many Singaporeans hope that this dispute will come to an end quickly and be resolved within the family so that the Government and society can focus its energy on more serious issues and challenges that are facing us.

I am sure Singaporeans would like to know what is next after today's debate in Parliament. Can we get out of this cycle of allegations? How can we deal with the impact of this dispute thereafter?

From the point of national identity and historical legacy, 38 Oxley Road is definitely important to Singaporeans. However, this is not a problem that we need to address immediately. What is more, Dr Lee Wei Ling has expressed the wish to continue living there. So, I hope the Government will not have its attention divided by this dispute, because there are more pressing issues, such as the economy, security, employment and an ageing population.

The political situation in the world is changing rapidly and has brought about much uncertainty for Singapore. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Lee will be going to Hamburg to attend the G20 meeting. Although Singapore is not a member of the G20, Singapore has been invited by the host country every year. This time, the Prime Minister will be meeting President Trump for the first time. We hope that the Prime Minister will make good progress in his discussions with various Heads of State during this trip and continue to widen the economic development space for Singapore.

Coming back to today's topic, of course, as Singaporeans, we should be concerned about allegations of abuse of power. Parliament should get to the bottom of it. However, we must also have confidence in the system which we have built up over the last 50 years. Although our system is not perfect, many countries envy us and want to learn from us.

Although we are a small island without any natural resources, we have been able to continuously adapt to the external environment, grow, create economic miracles and raise the standard of living for Singaporeans. This is not something that can be achieved by a Government that has abused its power.

At this time, we need a strong, capable and decisive Government in order to meet the various short- and long-term challenges. The trust and confidence of the people in Government leaders are absolutely important and are key to our success.

We cannot turn back the clock to go back to before 14 June. The accusations have brought invisible harm but there is no use crying over spilt milk. What we should do now is to rebuild confidence and trust in our system.

As Prime Minister and the eldest son of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister is in a dilemma between the country and the family on how to deal with 38 Oxley Road. Mencius said that "people come first, the country second and the king, last." From this incident we can see that the Prime Minister, in all his decisions and dealings, has put the country and the system before himself and his family. This may well be the root cause of the dispute between him and his siblings.

We look forward to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister's replies.

Mdm Speaker, like many fellow Singaporeans, I am deeply saddened that the differences in views between the Prime Minister and Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, over how to honour their father's wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road has been made so public, with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling accusing the Prime Minister of abuse of power.

I served as Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Principal Private Secretary, or PPS, when he was Senior Minister, from mid-1997 to early 2000. During that period, I had the benefit of many interactions with Mr Lee. I also interacted with Mrs Lee, both in Singapore and on several overseas trips. I learnt that both of them, especially Mrs Lee, valued their privacy deeply. They would be deeply anguished if they were alive to see the siblings' disagreement played out so publicly.

The issue before Parliament, as several Members had pointed out, is not about the preservation or demolition of the house, but rather, the allegations directed at the Prime Minister and the Government by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling of an abuse of power.

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo have addressed these allegations. Many Members have also given their views on this. I hope Members of this House and other Singaporeans will reflect on these and decide for themselves if any abuse has taken place. My own view is: no, there has been no abuse of power. We have heard no specific allegations of acts of abuse against the Prime Minister and the Government that demand a deeper inquiry. What has been levelled are general allegations and aspersions cast. The two days of this Parliament sitting bear this out. No Member, including from the Workers' Party, has articulated any specific allegation of abuse of power.

I would, therefore, not dwell on the issues that have already been discussed quite extensively.

It has been only a little over two years since Mr Lee passed away. The memory of the outpouring of grief at that time is still fresh in the hearts and minds of fellow Singaporeans. We committed ourselves then to honour the ideals and principles of Mr Lee and our founding leaders. Today, we should revisit this question calmly − what would Mr Lee's wish be? And how do we honour his wishes?

When I was PPS, Mr Lee was in the midst of writing his memoirs. He was almost 75 years old, and Mr Goh Chok Tong had been Prime Minister for seven years. Despite his age, Mr Lee worked with an amazing intensity. Over and above his daily work, he would labour deep into the early hours of the morning, every day, on the memoirs. I asked myself: why?

During that time, Mr Lee met with many local and foreign visitors. From time to time, the visitors would ask Mr Lee what he was most concerned about. Over and over again, I heard Mr Lee say that he feared that the younger generation of Singaporeans might not understand what got us here and what we would need to do to continue to succeed. That was why he was labouring hard to distil the lessons of Singapore's development and share these with young Singaporeans.

So, if you ask me what were the defining wishes of Mr Lee's life, I would say, Mr Lee's greatest wish was for Singapore to remain successful beyond his lifetime. He dedicated his entire life to making a success of Singapore, against the odds. The best way to honour him and to fulfil our duty to future generations of Singaporeans is to continue to work for the survival and success of Singapore.

What would that take? Mr Lee said that there is no simple formula for running a country, but he tried to distil and pass on as many insights as he could. We can spend many hours debating the principles for Singapore's success. I would like to highlight just three that are relevant to this debate − a sense of history, the rule of law, an honest and effective government.

First, a sense of history. Mr Lee said that there was no textbook for running a country and that his memoirs were not a "how to" manual. At different times, we would face different conditions. But he was convinced that we all need a sense of history − not just in knowing what happened in the past, but why it happened − that would help to anchor and guide us for the future.

In 1980, at the 25th anniversary of the founding of the PAP, Mr Lee said: "To understand the present and anticipate the future, we must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people. One must appreciate not merely what took place but especially why it took place and in that particular way. That is true of individuals, as it is for nations."

With that in mind, 38 Oxley Road holds special historical significance because of all the things that took place there in our early history. In his memoirs, Mr Lee had a chapter on "Widening the Oxley Road circle", recounting how the founding fathers gathered in the basement dining room of Mr Lee's house, the birth of the People's Action Party in 1954, the difficult decisions they had to take whether to contest the elections in 1955 and 1959. Mr Lee also recounted how, during that tumultuous period, the Chinese school students "started turning up at Oxley Road looking for advice on a hundred and one problems they encountered whenever they came into conflict with or were obstructed by authority".

What happened in the basement dining room and at Oxley Road is relevant not just for the history of the PAP. I was surprised to hear Mr Png Eng Huat yesterday take such a narrow and partisan view of history. Those years marked a pivotal moment in our nation's history − in fact, they were the start of a series of events that led to Independence. It is, therefore, right and proper that we consider this history in any decision to demolish or preserve the house, or parts of it.

In July 2011, Mr Lee came to the Cabinet meeting to set out his views on 38 Oxley Road. Mr Lee stated his preference for the house to be demolished after his passing. Despite his seniority and his role as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, he did not once use his status to advance his case. He just stated his preference and then listened intently to the views of Cabinet Ministers. Except for the Prime Minister who did not speak, Cabinet members were unanimous in persuading him that the house should not be demolished. All of us who spoke felt deeply that, as a young nation, we needed a deeper sense of history and that the house was of historical significance.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked earlier if any Cabinet member had put any pressure on Mr Lee. The answer is no. Mr Lee looked very thoughtful after the session. We did not hear from him until later, when he sent the note in December 2011 that the Prime Minister presented yesterday. To me, that note, sent five months after the meeting, showed that he had been mulling over the issue during that period, and, importantly, he had taken other views on board.

Yesterday, Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke on the rule of law and what it meant to Mr Lee. She said, "I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his house… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over communitarian interest… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the Government cannot acquire his own property." She has put it very well. Mr Lee knew more than almost anyone the laws relating to the acquisition and preservation of property, having exercised powers over his years in office. I was at that Cabinet meeting and can attest that Mr Lee put his views to us, and then listened seriously to Cabinet members. I was struck at that time by how scrupulously he presented his case, without once invoking his seniority or contributions and how he listened so intently to what we had to say.

Mr Lee's willingness to take into account new evidence and alternative views on the issue reminded me of how he had changed his view on language education for the young. Bilingual education was Mr Lee's lifelong challenge and he studied the matter deeply. When I was PPS, there were those who advocated that children acquire languages better if they were exposed to them earlier, in their pre-school years. But, based on his own readings and experiences, he believed that the benefits of early exposure washed out as the child grows.

More than a decade later, when I was Education Minister, Mr Lee asked to see me. He told me that, after evaluating the evidence over the years, he was now convinced that there were benefits in giving young children early exposure to languages. In 2011, he decided to set up a fund, with his own money, and brought in several other donors. He asked that I guide MOE to use the fund to boost bilingualism across all levels, with special attention to the pre-school years. With his approval, I named it the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism.

I share this experience to show Mr Lee's willingness to change his views if he was presented with robust arguments. His note to Cabinet on 38 Oxley Road, five months after he saw us, was an important change. Cabinet had stated our case to Mr Lee and we did not expect to hear back from him. Each time he had written on this issue to Cabinet had all been of his own volition, not at Cabinet's request.

So, when he wrote to us in December 2011, it showed me two things: one, that he had taken five months to mull over very carefully; and, two, he felt that it was proper and important to inform Government of his thinking, now that he was prepared to consider the possibility that the Government of the day might decide not to demolish the house.

Until the Prime Minister shared it yesterday, I did not know that Mr Lee then went on to apply for URA approval to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house. This shows that Mr Lee had a plan and he put it into action.

That letter of December 2011, in which he said the whole building should be refurbished "if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved", was the last communication Cabinet received from Mr Lee on this subject. I do not want to venture into how Mr Lee's views might have changed further if he were alive today. But we must remember that Mr Lee's lifelong and unwavering dedication was to making a success of Singapore. His efforts in his later years were about the success of Singapore beyond his lifetime.

I talked about Mr Lee's belief that we need a sense of history to keep Singapore successful.

The second principle for Singapore's success, which I would like to highlight and is relevant in this debate, is the rule of law. From what I have shared about that Cabinet meeting where Mr Lee came to give his views, and about his letter to Cabinet five months later, you would see that he observed a strict separation between his and Mrs Lee's private wish and the duty of Government. He had a strong personality and formidable track record, but not once, not once, did he insist that only his view should prevail − exactly like Ms Chia Yong Yong had said. I found that deeply admirable, for someone who was the founding Prime Minister of Singapore and who had been the Prime Minister for over 31 years.

In this regard, Members have heard the speeches of both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo on how the Prime Minister recused himself from deliberations relating to the house and kept a strict separation between his private duty as a son, and his duty as the Head of Government. As several Members have pointed out, the irony is that if the Prime Minister were to do what Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling wanted, to impose his private wishes as a son and have the house demolished, we would not have this disagreement made public, but he would have abused his power.

A sense of history. Rule of law. The third insight which I would like to share that Mr Lee had for Singapore's success was to keep Government honest and effective.

In the preface to his memoirs, Mr Lee wrote, "I wrote this book for a younger generation of Singaporeans who took stability, growth and prosperity for granted. I wanted them to know how difficult it was for a small country of 640 square kilometres with no natural resources to survive in the midst of larger, newly independent nations all pursuing nationalistic policies… we cannot forget that public order, personal security, economic and social progress and prosperity are not the natural order of things, that they depend on ceaseless effort and attention from an honest and effective government that the people must elect."

An honest and effective government is a simple and powerful idea, but one that is achieved only by years of dedicated effort. Mr Lee devoted enormous amounts of effort to build up the Public Service, in persuading suitable men and women to stand as Members of Parliament and to testing some out as officeholders. He always put an emphasis on having a deep sense of values and service.

Mr Lee believed profoundly in doing the right things, the necessary things. In this vein, both his sons took up SAF scholarships and both returned to serve in different ways. The young Lee Hsien Loong was a Senior Wrangler at Cambridge University − the top Mathematics student in his year. Trinity College offered him a fellowship. He could have devoted his life to Mathematics and probably have great success. But he wrote to his tutor: "It is absolutely necessary that I remain in Singapore, whatever I do… because Singapore is where I belong and where I want to be." In fact, the young Lee Hsien Loong never told his parents about this; he simply came home and got to work in the SAF. Mr Lee Kuan Yew only learnt about it later. There is this deep sense of service for a young man in his early 20s.

Many Members have cautioned that we must keep the Government's focus on the major issues confronting Singapore and not be distracted. I fully agree. As we have learnt in this debate, the family disagreement has been playing out over the last two years. Instead of allowing this episode to distract him or the Government, the Prime Minister has continued to focus, not just on the issues of the day, but on further laying the ground to address the medium and longer term challenges to Singapore. These relate to our security, foreign relations, jobs and the economy, healthcare and infrastructure, among others. Various Cabinet meetings and other forums have been deliberating on these various issues. I hope these two days of debate can help clear the air, rebuild trust and confidence, so that everyone can focus fully on the challenges that we face.

Mr and Mrs Lee's three children have each made their contribution to Singapore, in different ways. The Prime Minister has been in public service all his life and is still in public service. Mr Lee Hsien Yang served in the SAF and later Singtel. Dr Lee Wei Ling has been a passionate paediatric neurologist and built up the National Neuroscience Institute well when she was heading it. I appreciate Dr Lee's care and concern for me when I was hospitalised last year. She remains Senior Advisor at the NNI and made the effort to visit and advise me on my medical condition.

All of us − the children of Mr and Mrs Lee, as well as fellow Singaporeans − share one goal, which is to honour the legacy of Mr and Mrs Lee. In his Facebook post made this past Saturday evening, Mr Lee Hsien Yang wrote, "I simply hope to ensure our father's wishes are honoured when the day comes." I believe I speak for all Members in this House and many Singaporeans, when I say, we all hope to do the same, to honour Mr Lee's wishes, and furthermore to honour his legacy and the ideals and principles of our founding leaders. Madam, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] By the time I served Mr Lee Kuan Yew as his Principal Private Secretary, Mr Lee was the Senior Minister. Yet, he continued to devote all his time to thinking about the future of Singapore. His every thought and action was focused on securing Singapore's well-being and success.

If Mr Lee Kuan Yew were still alive, I believe he would want Singapore to remain successful. That is why we cannot allow this dispute to sidetrack us from the bigger task of honouring Mr Lee's wish for a successful Singapore.

There cannot be a home without a nation. Mr Lee Kuan Yew devoted his entire life to build a greater house than 38 Oxley Road − and that is Singapore. This house − we cannot allow to be demolished. Let us continue to honour Mr Lee's spirit of unwavering dedication, strengthen the foundation of this house and build a better Singapore together.

(In English): Madam, I have said earlier, we all wish to honour Mr Lee's wishes and legacy. To do so, it is important to understand what he stood for, what he devoted his life to. Mr Lee has devoted his entire life to achieving the survival and success of Singapore. Let us not have this difference sidetrack us from the bigger task of honouring Minister Mentor Lee's wish for a successful Singapore. Let us get back to the business of serving our people.

In the years to come, when Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer living at 38 Oxley Road, a future government may agree to demolish the house, as our founding Prime Minister wished.

But there is another house that Mr Lee Kuan Yew built lovingly, a greater house than 38 Oxley Road − and that is Singapore. This house − we cannot allow to be demolished.

Mdm Speaker, can I have your permission to deliver my speech in Malay, please?

Yes, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Please allow me to begin my speech with a poem:

Money lost can be regained

Wealth cannot be taken to the grave

Don't look back in regret

When family ties are lost forever

During the Parliamentary debates yesterday and today, many questions were posed and explanations given, but I agree that there is still no clear evidence that supports allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister or the Government.

In fact, many felt that we should pay attention to more important issues that affect Singapore, such as the economy, employment and the terrorism threat. However, if the serious allegations made by Prime Minister Lee's siblings are not debated and addressed, it will have an impact on Singapore's reputation of having a government that is honest, corruption-free and transparent.

I agree with Dr Janil Puthucheary's view that this sitting is the best platform to give all Members of Parliament an opportunity to ask about matters that Singaporeans would like to know regarding the abuse of power.

Here, I would like to ask whether Mr Lee Hsien Yang's accusations that this Parliament session is held to cloud the truth or hide wrongdoings can be deemed as contempt of Parliament. I hope that he realises that this debate would not have taken place if he had not made baseless allegations about the abuse of power by the Prime Minister and the Government.

During the Lee family's dispute over the past weeks, there was some discomfort when several Ministers made statements on this issue. Perhaps, can some clarifications be given as to why there is a need for these Ministers to weigh in on this matter?

Some have also suggested setting up a Select Committee to look into the allegations levelled by the Prime Minister's siblings. I hope that the Prime Minister can state his position on such a Select Committee in order to dismiss any negative perceptions that the Government wants to suppress the truth.

Regarding the will, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he made a statutory declaration on the circumstances that led to the last will. Why did he not raise this matter before the Probate was issued?

I would also like to seek clarification on why there was a need to form a Ministerial Committee, since we already have a Founders' Memorial Committee. Why was the Founders' Memorial Committee not asked to give suggestions on the possible options for the house at 38 Oxley Road? Since its members comprise individuals that can be considered as independent, perhaps this would have been a better approach and the Government could have prevented any negative perceptions.

Also, yesterday, after hearing the statement by the Minister for National Development, Mr Lawrence Wong, about the Deed of Gift, I would like to ask a few questions. Firstly, why did NHB accept the unusual terms that were stipulated? Were the NHB officers involved unable to exercise good judgement? Secondly, or perhaps, did they accept the terms because it was stipulated by a Lee family member and they were given special consideration?

If the NHB officers were instructed to accept the terms, despite their unusual nature, by the Minister-in-charge, this would certainly be considered as an abuse of power.

Furthermore, I would like to ask, from a national governance perspective, what are the checks and balances that exist in Government to ensure that conflicts of interest and abuse of power are avoided and do not take root in our governance structure? How do our Organs of State ensure that Ministers and other officeholders do not abuse their power? Do we have a whistle-blowing policy that can take action if there is a case of possible abuse of power by them?

As my fellow Members have stated, we should pay attention to issues that affect the livelihood, shelter and security of Singaporeans.

I think that many are hoping that this dispute can be resolved amicably and the Lee family can begin efforts to reconcile amongst themselves.

I began with a poem and, so, please allow me to end with a poem:

Parents lived in harmony

Making sacrifices day after day

Siblings should never part company

But to love each other like a dead knot.

Good afternoon, Mdm Speaker, and good afternoon to all present in the House.

Mdm Speaker, in the last couple of weeks, Singaporeans and the international community seem to have established a common fixation in the media. While most of the time, whenever Singapore is mentioned internationally, more often than not, it would have been accolades and achievements rather than negativities. Unfortunately, this time around, we seem to have attracted international and media attention for the wrong reasons. That is my opinion. The subject matter is none other than the family feud of the late Lee Kuan Yew's family with regard to the property at 38 Oxley Road and the allegation of the abuse of power of our Prime Minister and his colleagues.

To Mr Prime Minister, I would like to express my regrets on the current situation in which he and his siblings are embroiled in. I am certain no one would like to be in this situation. For that, he has my sympathy. I wish and hope, through time, that he and his siblings will be able to make amends, re-establish and re-build the family bond, which will be the wish of every parent, even when they have passed on.

First, I would like to touch on the 38 Oxley Road issue. Mdm Speaker, the issue of the property at 38 Oxley Road somehow intrigued me. To demolish or not, it has now become a point of contention between the siblings of our Prime Minister. I have always had the understanding that the late Lee Kuan Yew had always wanted the house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished, after his and his daughter's passing. I have always had the understanding that he wished not that the house be turned into a monument and expressed this openly while he was still alive.

Several counter arguments were raised and various ideas were mooted so as to commemorate and make a remembrance of his great contribution to Singapore's success and what Singapore has become today. Again and again, these suggestions had been rejected by him. A statement that I could not phrase exactly and that has the message which caught my attention was: "If you wish to remember me and my contribution, just look around you." And I thought this statement encapsulates the spirit and essence of his wish. The late Lee Kuan Yew's contribution is everywhere around us, not only clean roads, not only green plants and trees, not only modern buildings and first-class economy, but it is more than that.

The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's contribution to our nation is immense. He left behind a system and system of governance which are envied by many nations, big and small. Singapore's achievement from third-world to first-world status is phenomenal. He transformed the little red dot into a developed nation with first-class airport, first-class airline, first-class maritime port, high employment and GDP per capita, high literacy rate and many more; a nation based on meritocracy and a champion of corruption-free principles. He was the architect of these attributes.

Thirty-eight Oxley Road is too small to remember this great man. I wish that every Singaporean and future ones know what he has done and achieved. What better way than to instil knowledge into our young and future generations through education in schools. Let us invite into our school education curriculum on what the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew wants us to be, based on his principles and beliefs. Education should be used as the platform for us to remember and commemorate his contribution. From meritocracy to good governance in our institutions, especially Public Service, these are some of the principles and attributes which I believe the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew would want Singapore and Singaporeans to keep and maintain in future. And I sincerely believe this will be more effective and sustainable.

Let us leave the decision on the fate of 38 Oxley Road to the family of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Like many of us, including myself, we always wish such decision be made private and I hope we can give just that and our respect.

If needed, we may want to consider a replica of 38 Oxley Road on another location, or even a small park as a commemoration.

Next, I would like to touch on the issue of abuse of power.

Mdm Speaker, the siblings of our Prime Minister highlighted the issue of "abuse of power". I regard this issue as a serious allegation which we cannot ignore. Any allegations on our Prime Minister shall not be downplayed, neither should it be dismissed and it must be substantiated with evidence of such. While this is not evidently clear, I believe it warrants attention based on the following reasons.

The accusers, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are the siblings of the Prime Minister and the children of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our most respected leader in our nation's history. They are not nobody. They hold respected positions in their own field. They have lived with the system of governance throughout their lives in Singapore, which made them very much aware of the pits and falls of the system.

They must have also understood their late father's views on the principles of the system of governance which has been the hallmark of Singapore's excellence and world-class reputation. They would have also known and able to detect and discern if any abuse of power is exercised by anyone or by any authority. They would have also understood the seriousness of their allegation which propelled them to bring it into the open, and, lastly, they must also have been aware of the consequence if the allegation made is baseless.

While there is neither clear nor conclusive evidence provided hitherto by the accusers, I would like to suggest that we treat it seriously and launch further investigations into this matter. We should allow the accusers to present their case and provide evidence to an Independent Committee or Commission of Inquiry so as to ensure open and fair treatment. It will be our duty as parliamentarians and lawmakers to ensure that such serious matters are properly dealt with. I believe every Singaporean has the right to know and hear the full extent of this important matter.

I am of the opinion that failure to address this allegation and to handle it with utmost transparency and impartiality may lead to a retardation of trust in our Public Service. Henceforth, I urge the House and the relevant authority to take a similar stand in ensuring that the image and excellent reputation of our Public Service institution are safeguarded.

Mdm Speaker, I have confidence and look forward to the resolution of the matters that I have highlighted.

Mdm Speaker, this sad public squabble between the Lee siblings is blown out of proportion. But it has embroiled all of us. It has tarnished the reputation of Singapore and distracted the Government from far more important work.

Because the allegations against the Prime Minister have been made by members of the Lee family, they are given weight. The public is confused and concerned, even as Singaporeans continue to trust the Prime Minister and the Government. There is thus an urgency to explain, restore trust and get back on track. It is our duty and responsibility to do this, to account to our voters.

My main concern is neither the fate of 38 Oxley Road nor the family feud. They are far removed from the daily concerns of Singaporeans. It is the wilful attack on the integrity of our leaders and the insidious erosion of public faith in our institutions that I want to address. The nub of the issue for us in Parliament is integrity and trust − in the Prime Minister and our system of government. Absent these, Singapore will descend to a Third World country.

Incorruptibility of our Government is what distinguishes Singapore. The Prime Minister is central in upholding that incorruptibility. He holds the key levers of state power, entrusted by the people. When trust in the Prime Minister disappears, his moral authority and political capital shrivel. Therefore, the constant self-policing, restraint and care of the Prime Minister in wielding the immense power at his disposal are paramount. There is no hiding from public scrutiny. One's entire character is laid bare and there is only total dedication to the job. This is the standard we want to uphold.

My view remains that when a Minister thinks that an allegation made against him is without basis, he has to sue. The Prime Minister has explained in his speech why he would prefer not to sue. I can well understand his dilemma. Being the eldest in the family, he must harbour hopes of reconciliation, however remote it seems now, even at a cost to his own political standing. Indeed, I have urged him as well as Lee Hsien Yang to sort out their differences, misunderstanding and reconcile. It is surely not worth the feud being passed on to the next generation.

Given the immediacy of the issue, I commend the Prime Minister for his courage in opening himself and his Ministers to scrutiny in Parliament.

Is the Ministerial Committee shrouded with secrecy? Are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and the Ministers Prime Minister's puppets? You have listened to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's explanation yesterday. I brought him into politics after he distinguished himself in the Singapore Navy. He stood with me in the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC. He went on to serve key appointments with distinction. Today, he is Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. To suggest that he would do Prime Minister's bidding blindly is to insult the Civil Service and Singapore Armed Forces, never mind the PAP and Deputy Prime Minister.

Many of the other Ministers served under Lee Kuan Yew, too. And they have stood up to him. Lee Kuan Yew told them that he wanted to have his house demolished after his death. They said no. They are not yes-men.

I have come to the conclusion that neither money nor the house is the real issue. The dispute over 38 Oxley Road is only a fig leaf for the deep cracks within the family, cracks which perhaps started decades ago. What then is the agenda of the Prime Minister's accusers?

Are they whistleblowing in a noble effort to save Singapore, or waging a personal vendetta without any care for the damage done to Singapore? I have kept my ears open. From what Lee Hsien Yang and his wife are freely telling many people, it is clear that their goal is to bring Lee Hsien Loong down as Prime Minister, regardless of the huge collateral damage suffered by the Government and Singaporeans.

It is now no more a cynical parlour game. If the Lee siblings choose to squander the good name and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and tear their relationship apart, it is tragic but a private family affair. But if in the process of their self-destruction, they destroy Singapore too, that is a public affair.

Unsubstantiated accusations have been dished out on Facebook and the media, ad nauseam. Singaporeans are getting sick and tired of all this. We cannot, and will not, allow ourselves to be manipulated as pawns.

There must be a clear conclusion at the end of this debate. Either we clear Prime Minister over the allegation of his abuse of power or we censure him.

I have heard the Prime Minister's and Deputy Prime Minister's Statements. I have also been following closely the lengthy postings that Lee Hsien Yang has shared online. I have heard the views and questions of Members, and paid close attention to those from the Workers' Party and the Nominated Members. I reaffirm my full confidence in the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known and worked closely with him for more than 30 years. I brought him into politics in 1984 and, I should add, it was not at Lee Kuan Yew's behest. He was my Deputy Prime Minister for 14 years. He has been Prime Minister for some 13 years.

In this episode, in fact, he has revealed his political sensitivity and integrity. He gave the proceeds from the sale of 38 Oxley Road away so that no one could accuse him that he would benefit, should the Government acquire the land. He had put country before self and family interest.

I still keep a close eye on Government matters. This is an occupational hazard for former Prime Ministers. On this case, the Prime Minister's and Deputy Prime Minister's accounts accord with my knowledge of how the Government and Ministers operate. I am also fully satisfied that Deputy Prime Minister Teo acted independently as Chairman of the Ministerial Committee. I met him in June 2016 to understand his thinking of a possible range of options for 38 Oxley Road. The Prime Minister had recused himself a year earlier. I was trying to mediate between the Prime Minister and Lee Hsien Yang. I conveyed Deputy Prime Minister's thinking to Hsien Yang on 23 June last year. I told Hsien Yang that the dispute over the demolition of the house was actually between him and the Government. It was not with Hsien Loong, as the Prime Minister has no say over the fate of the house. I emphasised this point to him − it was between him and the Government.

I agree with Low Thia Khiang that we should end this sad saga and move on. But how, he asked? I will tell him how.

I have stated clearly my position on the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government. As Prime Minister, I investigated Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong in 1996 over their purchase of apartment units in Nassim Jade. My judgement and integrity were at stake then, as today, when I state my conclusion on the Prime Minister's character and integrity.

After so much has been said by both sides and the Government, it is clear that the allegations are baseless. There is enough distortion out there. I invite Low Thia Kiang and his Workers' Party Members of Parliament, as well as the Nominated Members of Parliament to also state their position clearly on the Prime Minister's and the Government's integrity.

Low Thia Khiang said in his speech, and I quote, that "Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling should not make vague allegations in the public domain against the Prime Minister based on scattered evidence centred on family displeasure. Making allegations that appear to be calculated to undermine the Prime Minister's authority does not make for constructive politics." Well said. Follow up with a clear statement of your own that you have come to the conclusion that the allegations are baseless and calculated.

His colleague Png Eng Huat read out quotes from Wei Ling's and Hsien Yang's 14 June Facebook statement. Anyone can simply read. That is akin to spreading rumour. As an hon Member of Parliament, he should state his position on what he has read. That is what we are elected as Members of Parliament for − to have a clear view on issues. In 1996, at the end of the debate on Nassim Jade, Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong stated their positions unambiguously.

Lastly, if reason fails, I appeal to the emotions and sensibility of the Lees to stop trying to drag each other down and move on. Stop your family quarrel, sort out any misunderstandings and reconcile, and if that is not immediately possible, at least stop making things worse. Keep the quarrel private and seek mediation or arbitration to resolve your differences. No one doubts your deep filial piety. Hsien Loong is here, I hope Wei Ling, Hsien Yang, outside, would hear me, your parents were proud of you. This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode:

"The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame... upon yourself and family". [Applause.]

Miss Cheng Li Hui. Mr Low, you want to have a word? Yes.

Mr Goh Chok Tong asked us to clarify our position. Do you want that or not?

Are you seeking a clarification, Mr Low?

Yes.

Yes, please proceed.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party has not gone through the due process to decide whether or not, or to conclude whether the allegation made by the Lee siblings is baseless. We will keep our mind open. We are prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister but we do not know. I speak for myself because we have not gone through that process. For me, personally, I will not be convinced until the entire allegation is given a convincing or conclusive airing. That means, we should know what else do they have.

I want to clarify on the Emeritus Senior Minister's speech. He cited the example of the HPL case. I was in this House. Yes, I was convinced. Why was I convinced? And why is this case now different from the HPL case?

Firstly, Madam, in the HPL case, it was a market rumour. I was unaware of any allegation of corruption or wrongdoing.

Secondly, the person at the centre of issue, Mr Ong Beng Seng, issued a public statement to explain the matter to clear the air before the Parliament sitting.

Thirdly, the subject persons, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, both father and son, were not Prime Ministers, not the head of the Government at that time. It was the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who called for investigation based on the market rumour and then came to Parliament for the public explanation and the debate.

But for this Parliament session, it is the Prime Minister, the head of the Government and the Secretary-General of the PAP, who is accused of wrongdoing. In this episode, there is no investigation done, it is "own self defend own self" in Parliament with the PAP Members of Parliament. I wonder how do you convince me, my Party and Singaporeans under the circumstances that this Parliamentary session is conclusive and we all should be convinced, though I said I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Prime Minister.

Madam, I understand the Prime Minister's difficulty in suing his own siblings and that he was worried that he would further damage his parents' names. But I hope he would clarify some doubts I have on this, nagging question on why he did not sue. First, does he not agree that his family is not any ordinary Singapore family and the person at the centre of the issue is the Prime Minister of Singapore, not any other person?

Mr Low, I have given a lot of laxity but clarifications are not a speech, please.

Madam, I am seeking a clarification based on Emeritus Senior Minister's speech.

Can you please specify the clarification you wish to seek?

I am not making a speech. I am seeking clarification arising out of Emeritus Senior Minister's speech because he wanted me to state my position, citing the HPL case and saying why they should not go to the Court. So, I believe I am clarifying.

Yes, Mr Low, please proceed.

Madam, secondly, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is not worrying that the PAP, as the ruling Party, would be seen as having double standards. Has he forgotten that the former Prime Minister ─ Mr Goh Chok Tong who is now Emeritus Senior Minister ─ sued the Workers' Party candidate Tang Liang Hong during the General Elections in 1997 for just making a police report? But now this allegation is much more serious than that. And, more importantly, we are talking about upholding the legacy of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that the nation, the laws are above family and above individual. By using family as justification, does not this show that blood is thicker than water? Own sibling cannot sue. After all, we are all brothers and sisters, but political opponents and critics, sue until your pants drop. I cannot square, Mdm Speaker, with all these arguments. Sorry.

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh.

I will be very brief. The response by Low Thia Khiang is not unexpected. I expected that. This is what we call political sophistry. And as for Tang Liang Hong, he is not my brother.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

I just want to seek a clarification. This session was called by the Prime Minister for us to question the allegations and seek clarification. So, when I bring up the allegations, I expect some clarification. But then, the thing is, it seems that I am not supposed to bring it up because these are issues that are not substantiated. But these allegations are made by the siblings. So, even when I mentioned that there is a document with Mdm Ho Ching's name listed there as a contact person of Prime Minister's Office, it is an allegation with a documented proof. I am not getting any answers but I am accused of throwing wild allegations at nothing.

Mdm Speaker, I have some doubts to clarify. I have some difficulty understanding because, first of all, Mr Png Eng Huat is right. This session is called by the Prime Minister and he said, "I will give a Ministerial Statement, please question me rigorously." But then we heard a veiled threat yesterday from Indranee Rajah that you are making allegations when you are asking some questions. Today, I heard someone saying, "You may risk contempt of Parliament" because talking about whitewash and cover-up. So, Mdm Speaker, I really do not understand how do these serve the purpose of the Parliamentary session.

What is your clarification, Mr Low, with regard to Emeritus Senior Minister? No clarification. Well, we will proceed to Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Mdm Speaker, what happened over the last two weeks has shaken, confused and divided us.

It was not so long ago that we celebrated SG50, a landmark year for our young nation. That year, we also witnessed the passing of our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

To say that Mr Lee Kuan Yew played an important role in building Singapore is an understatement. Together with his outstanding team, including Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye and Mrs Rajaratnam, he laid the foundation for modern Singapore. He gave us values that would make Singapore strong and robust ─ values like taking a long-term view and putting national interest before self-interest, like honesty and integrity, and, most importantly, upholding the rule of law. He encouraged us to know our past, our humble beginnings and how we got here. He led by example, living simply and frugally at 38 Oxley Road.

Therefore, the future of 38 Oxley Road, the home of our founding Prime Minister, and the centre of the current dispute between our Prime Minister and his siblings, is not a private matter but one which is of major public interest.

Mdm Speaker, the home I am residing in was the first house bought for my grandmother in 1972 after they moved out from the kampong. I chose to stay at this house as it holds precious memories and also reminds me of my grandmother's values and struggles in life. It holds meaning for me. But only for me.

Thirty-eight Oxley Road is not just the house of our founding Prime Minister but also the place where our Pioneer leaders planned the founding of the PAP, Singapore's Independence, fought key general elections and so on. Part of the Singapore story was written there. It is a part of Singapore's history. It has meaning for all Singaporeans – past, present and future.

I respectfully suggest to the Government that 38 Oxley Road be preserved to remind us of our Founding Father and what he stood for. I know there are some who favour demolishing the house, to honour and respect Mr Lee's last wish in his will.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is chairing the Ministerial Committee, since demolition of the house is irreversible, since there are different views about how we should proceed, since no action will be taken while the house is being occupied by Dr Lee Wei Ling and since there are so many raw emotions involved, would the Ministerial Committee take into account current sentiments, engage the public widely and take their time to study all possible options before putting up a recommendation paper for a future government to consider?

Let us take time to decide. Let time heal the wounds.

Mdm Speaker, my residents and I are also deeply concerned about the allegations of abuse of power by our Prime Minister and his team. Successive generations of leaders have worked so hard to establish our reputation as a country which upholds the rule of law. Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself set the example. I am one of those who were inspired by him to be a grassroots volunteer and later to join politics. I do not fully agree with all Government policies but I believe this is a good Government led by honest leaders and I want to help win as much support as I can. So, the allegations of abuse of power are damaging people's trust and have to be answered fully.

Like other Members, I want to ask the Prime Minister why did he offer to transfer the house to his sister for $1 and why did he sell it to his brother at full value? Did he deceive his father? And if the late Mr Lee believed that the house was gazetted, what is going to happen next? Is there any chance for reconciliation? I really hope that this sitting can clear Singaporeans' doubt and restore confidence and they can move on to more pressing national issues. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The subject of 38 Oxley Road is causing discord in our society. Many elderly residents told me that they hoped we could fulfil the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wish and demolish the house.

However, we all know that the biggest wish of Mr Lee was Singapore's prosperity. Thirty-eight Oxley Road has witnessed many historical moments of Singapore. The house has accompanied Mr Lee and the Singapore society through that turbulent era.

Hence, 38 Oxley Road may well represent a spirit which should be passed down to the future generations. It represents the unwavering spirit and perseverance of the Singapore society.

I hope we can think it through and do not rush to demolish the house. Instead, we should first discuss this matter calmly and reach a conclusion afterwards. After all, once the house is demolished, it can never be reversed.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in March 2015, when news broke of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's passing, the nation reacted. Many of us cried. I was manning the Tampines tribute site. I saw tens of thousands of people queuing to pay their last respects. They left cards and notes.

Allow me to read one of the notes I came across from a young Singaporean:

"Dear Sir, thank you so much for dedicating your life to building this nation. Without you, there wouldn't be a generation of youths like us, and our aspirations to continue bringing our nation to greater progress. As youths, we will do you proud and not let you down. Thank you, Sir, you've been an inspiration and will continue doing so. Rest in peace."

Madam, like this young man, many others ended their notes promising that they will carry on his legacy; they will build a stronger nation, one that he will be proud of.

That is why we need 38 Oxley Road to remind future generations of what he and his team have gone through, and to inspire them to write the next chapter of our Singapore Story.

I believe if Mr Lee Kuan Yew were to leave a will for Singapore, his wish would be for our Singapore Story to continue, strong and vibrant, for many generations to come.

Madam, many points have been raised. I have two questions for the Ministerial Committee.

I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if the Government would seek the views of residents in the Oxley Road area as part of its deliberations and when this could take place.

I seek this clarification as I have met and spoken to my residents who live in the Oxley Road area. Many of them have lived there for decades. Given that Deputy Prime Minister Teo has said in his Ministerial Statement that the Committee is only coming up with "drawer plans", how would such plans affect the residents there going forward, whilst and during the period that Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to reside in the house?

In that same vein, could the Ministerial Committee disclose and provide updates publicly on the options considered and its implications? The residents of Oxley Road would be directly impacted and thus this concern is raised.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications to seek from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

First, we know it takes two parties, at least in this case, to bring a conflict to closure. Post this Parliamentary debate, if the Prime Minister's siblings refuse to back down and continue to publicly air their allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister, what would the Prime Minister and the Government's next step be?

Second, from time to time, committees are formed. Public opinions these days are aplenty and any position taken will always have opinions for and against it. As we continue to uphold the rule of law, how do we ensure that we do not act merely upon public pressure and herd mentality? Rather, decisions are based on what is the issue at hand and whether it is in the interest of Singapore as a top priority.

Third, this debate goes beyond the defence of the Organs of the State. Members in this House and Singaporeans have asked for a quick resolution to this matter. But we all know that the expectations of reasonable resolution differ from one person to another. How then do we move forward as a country if we cannot see beyond these differences?

And lastly, yesterday, Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned that there are 72 buildings gazetted for preservation and 7,000 others conserved to date. How does National Heritage Board (NHB) actively look out for potential architectures that are likely to be preserved, particularly those privately owned, and inform the private owners duly with ample time before a decision is made? If this situation had happened to an ordinary citizen instead of a high-profile family, do they have any recourse?

Mdm Speaker, let me take this opportunity to clarify some of the points that Members have raised to my speech yesterday about the Deed of Gift, the negotiations between NHB and the executors, the role played by Mrs Lee Suet Fern in the process, as well as the due process for conservation and preservation which Miss Cheryl Chan also asked just now.

First, on the Deed of Gift. NHB did not approach Mrs Lee Suet Fern for advice. She had reached out to NHB to assist in the negotiations. At that time, NHB thought that, as a board member, she could be useful as an intermediary to reach a satisfactory outcome with the executors. And, indeed, she helped to raise some of NHB's concerns with them.

Later, as NHB had to engage in more extensive discussions with the executors to resolve the legal issues, the Chairman of NHB approached her on 12 June to recuse herself on matters concerning the Deed, which she did.

Throughout this process of negotiations, some of the terms were changed over the course of negotiations. But as I said yesterday, the executors held firm to several key conditions. The $1 buyback provision was, as the lawyer of the executors said, to quote, "non-negotiable". The display of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes in the exhibition, this was something that NHB originally wanted to limit only to the replica of the house that was exhibited. But the executors required this to be displayed prominently in other areas of the exhibition as well.

So, given the executors' position, NHB really had just two choices − either sign the Deed on the stipulated terms or do without the artefacts completely. We see of this now with the benefit of hindsight, but it is important to recognise that, at that time, no one realised that there were these sharp differences of views between the beneficiaries. The assumption was that the executors spoke for all the beneficiaries and these were the firmed conditions set for the donation of the artefacts. In fact, this was my assumption, too, when NHB initially updated me about their discussion with the executors. I only realised that the situation was very different when I spoke with the Prime Minister.

Under the circumstances, NHB, in fact, considered this matter very carefully. It was not a rash decision. NHB deliberated over this and they decided eventually to sign the Deed because of several considerations.

First, the artefacts had heritage significance. Second, several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. And third, all things considered, NHB felt that it would be in the public interest to exhibit these artefacts in this major SG50 exhibition.

Next, Members, with your indulgence, let me just touch briefly on the due process which several Members also spoke about.

As I have explained, all sites that agencies – be it URA or NHB – have identified with some architectural or heritage merits, go through a rigorous due process. And there are two parts to this due process.

The first part is the research work which is done internally within the Government and there are various agencies involved in this. The key ones, obviously, are NHB and URA but, depending on the situation, other agencies may be involved like LTA and SLA. The work is done at the staff level but there had been instances where Ministers come together to discuss these proposals which often require inter-agency inputs.

After this research work, we may not need to do anything with the property at all unless there is a trigger to take the next step. This trigger can be by the property owner who submits a development application or it can be by the Government to advance the conservation or preservation proposal. When that happens, then we move on to the next step, which is to engage the various stakeholders, including experts, relevant advisory panels and boards, as well as the property owner. And then, after considering all the factors, a decision is made by the Government through the various Ministries.

Several Members suggested having more participatory processes to engage and involve the public. We certainly do not preclude this. But we should not end up with a decision to conserve or preserve a building solely based on a public referendum. Just looking at the case of Oxley Road as an example, after the publication of "Hard Truths", it appeared that the majority of Singaporeans wanted the house preserved. After Mr Lee Kuan Yew's passing, the surveys would indicate that the majority wanted the house to be demolished. Nothing has changed with the house. The heritage factors are still the same but the opinions have shifted.

So, public mood on these matters can shift, depending on circumstances and emotions. I am not saying that we should not consult but architectural and heritage merits are careful and rigorous assessments that ought to be done by professionals and subject matter experts.

For Oxley Road, this research work is ongoing amongst the various agencies and, the work, as we have discussed, is being overseen by the Ministerial Committee which will ensure that the due diligence work done is comprehensive and rigorous. And that is what we are trying to do − to be ready with all the options, to have drawer plans fully prepared, so that the government of the day is able to make a decision, as and when the time comes.

Mdm Speaker, can I make a clarification on the Minister's speech yesterday?

Yes, please proceed.

Minister, I would like to clear the air on some of the details. There was a time lapse between 8 June 2015 when you updated the Prime Minister on the exhibition and the Deed, and 12 June 2015 where you shared the Deed with the Prime Minister. Why was there a time lapse? Did the Prime Minister ask you for the Deed on 12 June 2015? Or did you initiate the sharing? If you have initiated the sharing on 12 June 2015, in what context and for what purposes? Because you have already updated the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015.

Mdm Speaker, the Member is right that when I first updated the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015, I have already shared with him the plans for the exhibition, the artefacts and, substantively, the conditions in the Deed.

As I related yesterday in my account, NHB and I discussed the matter. Recognising that there were differences in views amongst the beneficiaries, we approached the executors to see if we could put off the exhibition in August. But when this could not be done – the executors insisted on this exhibition proceeding – we also had to think through what was a possible way to resolve the issues. We had approached the executors to also ask them whether they had the authority to engage in the Deed and if there was consent from all the beneficiaries.

The questions were not fully answered at that stage. But before the questions could be answered, as I related yesterday, they had put out a press statement saying that these were the items that they had donated and this became public information. NHB then also had to put out a statement that same night to say that there were questions that were still outstanding, that we were seeking resolution from the executors.

So, being mindful that all these had been playing out after my last update to the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015 I had to give him a further update, naturally at that time. He did not ask me, but I had to give him a further update on the matter, telling him what had happened since 8 June 2015, and giving him the full facts of the information, including the specifics of the Deed of Gift.

I thank the Minister. Just one more last clarification. What is the Ministry's position on the use of the copy of the Deed for personal purposes, no matter how justified, that NHB has given to an officer in his official capacity? I think, more specifically, what is the Minister's response when he came to know after 12 June 2015 that the Prime Minister had used the copy of the Deed of Gift in his personal legal communication with his siblings?

Mdm Speaker, I have already explained that the Deed of Gift does not have a confidentiality clause. I said that yesterday and I have explained that in the circumstances where there are differences of views amongst beneficiaries – and indeed, where something like this may be contested – NHB would want to share the information with the individuals concerned to make sure that there are non-contesting claims about the artefacts. So, while the Deed of Gift was given to the Prime Minister in his official capacity, if he had asked for it in his private capacity, NHB would have shared the information with him, too.

Mdm Speaker, a clarification for Minister. The Minister mentioned that NHB viewed Mrs Lee Suet Fun as a mediator, possibly to assist in the negotiations. Her relationship with the executors would have been a conflict red flag. Why was it not flagged out earlier that there could be a potential conflict of interest in involving her? Were there processes which were inadequate? Or was it a case of human lapses? And how do we prevent, moving forward, instances of civil servants being influenced by persons to allow their involvement?

Mdm Speaker, as I had explained just now, NHB, at the start of this process, thought that Mrs Lee Suet Fun, being a board member, could play a useful role as an intermediary in the discussions with the executors. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, some of these roles ought to have been better clarified and NHB has, indeed, strengthened its own processes internally to make sure that conflict rules are observed within the Board.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask Minister Lawrence Wong on what he shared earlier that, very often, after studies are done on certain properties about the need for preservation, action is often not needed until there is a trigger. Is it possible for him to share with us how often action was triggered in past cases?

Mdm Speaker, there is a range of different circumstances. Like I have said, the trigger can be due to a property owner submitting a development application, and, therefore, the Government has to make a decision, either to accept the application or to say, "Look, hold on, because there are these conservation and preservation considerations".

Alternatively, the Government itself may decide that we want to go ahead and, therefore, we proceed. There is a range of different circumstances. So, it is hard to generalise. What URA does is to try to give information to the public. In its Master Plan, URA would typically highlight some of the potential areas. Which we have identified ahead of time for conservation. So, that is made public in the URA Master Plan.

Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister's speeches."

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

Hon Members indicated assent.

[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister's speeches." − [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We have had two days of debate on this matter. Members from both sides of the House and our Nominated Members of Parliament have asked probing questions, as they should. I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for their views and questions; more than 30 Members have spoken.

So, what have we covered in these past two days? The debate is, first and foremost, focused on the integrity of Government − whether we have clean and honest Government, and how we address issues of conflict of interest; second, whether there is any basis for the allegations of abuse of power that have been hurled at the Government; and third, where do we go from here?

First, our rules for avoiding conflict of interest. In my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I explained how we maintain separation between private interest and public interest for political appointment holders, as well as public officers. There is the Code of Conduct for political appointment holders, Rules of Prudence for Members of Parliament from the People's Action Party, and the Public Service Code of Conduct.

Let me reiterate. Every political appointment holder and public officer is expected, at all times, to act according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty and integrity in the exercise of his public duties.

As Members of this House know, we treat allegations of misconduct very seriously. As I said yesterday, there are various avenues for members of the public and public officers themselves, to report suspected misconduct. If there is specific evidence on the abuse of power by any political appointment holder, public officer, or his or her family members, I can assure you that they will be held to account and the necessary actions taken, if shown to be true.

Public officers are expected to be above board and impartial in their dealings, including with members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees. Our senior public officers frequently receive ideas and suggestions from members of the public, including those who may be friends or family members. Most of them are well-motivated. I have received many suggestions on what I should do about football in Singapore.

I am confident that our senior public officers will go through the due process to evaluate which of these ideas and suggestions are good and useful ones and to put aside those which are unsuitable, regardless of whom these may have come from.

Mr Charles Chong asked about the poll on our public officers. As part of regular stakeholder engagement, the Public Service Division (PSD) periodically seeks the sentiments of public officers on issues that matter to them. The PSD conducted the poll because the allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang go beyond private matters and extend to the integrity of the Government and public institutions.

Mdm Speaker, our officers continue to have confidence in the integrity of our institutions. Most officers felt that there is some impact on credibility of the Singapore Government among Singaporeans, but that Singapore's reputation will be able to recover. The Public Service will take this opportunity to reinforce in our officers the importance of understanding and living the Public Service Code of Conduct.

Singapore ranks highly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for corruption. Others are watching and evaluating us as we conduct this debate. They are watching us to see how we address these allegations of abuse of power and they will see that we are prepared to do so openly in this House, facing the issues directly to clear the air on these issues. The Prime Minister, myself, the Ministers are held to account by all of you. Every Member must speak freely in this House and we expect them to do so. But when a person casts aspersions on the whole of Parliament and its proceedings, and on every one of us, from outside this House − that is a different matter and there are some rules governing this.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the appointment of the Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General. There were also questions asked about the role of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law with respect to 38 Oxley Road. Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah has comprehensively addressed these issues yesterday and there is no need for me to add anything. We have strict rules on avoiding conflict of interest and they are scrupulously maintained.

Second, the allegations on the abuse of power. Minister Lawrence Wong has addressed issues related to the Deed of Gift between the executors and the NHB for the purpose of a major exhibition on our founding leaders in September 2015. Let me add my perspectives.

To recap, the Deed of Gift had several unusual conditions. One of these was the condition requiring the display of one part, but not the whole paragraph, related to Mr Lee's wishes for the house, as stated in his will. The other was the $1 buy-back clause for the items donated. These were matters related to a private disagreement at that time regarding the will and how Mr Lee had expressed his wishes regarding the house. It was a private matter at that time.

If NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through the Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement. When Minister Lawrence Wong informed me of the conditions set out in the Deed, I was not comfortable with them. And I will explain why. NHB, a public institution, was being drawn into a private disagreement and the exhibition, a major exhibition, was being used to put out only a part of Mr Lee's wishes on the house. Members will recall that Mr Lee had said in his will that the whole paragraph could be made public so that his wishes on the matter could be made known.

Mdm Speaker, there was really no need to make the display of this paragraph a condition for the donation at all. But to make the display of only one part of the paragraph and not all of it, was drawing NHB, a public agency, and this public exhibition it was organising, into presenting a particular point of view, which was incomplete.

NHB had already signed the Deed of Gift and I agreed with Minister Lawrence Wong that in the circumstances, we should proceed with it, rather than have a public controversy.

The point I am making is that, contrary to this being an abuse of power, these were efforts to keep NHB, a public agency, and to keep a major public exhibition neutral − to keep them neutral in a matter which was then a private disagreement.

It is ironical that these efforts to keep our public agencies neutral is now being distorted into allegations of abuse of power for private interests.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Leon Perera and some others today as well, have spoken on the Ministerial Committee.

Mdm Speaker, in my Ministerial Statement yesterday, I have clarified various issues related to the Ministerial Committee. I explained that the Ministerial Committee was formed to examine (a) historical and heritage significance of the property; (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property; and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood, and the options to move forward.

These are all matters which the Government has to take responsibility for, and must plan for. These are not private matters. I have also explained why we are starting the process now, to have drawer plans ready, for reference by the Government of the day, when a decision needs to, eventually, be taken.

There is nothing unusual or mysterious about it. This is just the normal process of Government doing its work, properly, calmly and objectively. Usually, people will find this quite boring, so there is nothing to get excited about when we formed yet another committee.

Several Members, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera have asked why we set up a Ministerial Committee and not rely on the usual Government agency process to study the options on the house? I want to clarify that the Ministerial Committee is not replacing the agencies in their work. Instead, it provides coordination and oversight on the matter of 38 Oxley Road. As Ms Chia Yong Yong had said yesterday, it is only appropriate to give due consideration to Mr Lee's wishes. While at the same time, as the Minister for National Development has just explained, NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house while MND and URA have been studying options for the property, as well as the planning and zoning implications.

The assessment of buildings of significance is an inter-agency effort, where various Government agencies will do the baseline research. The establishment of a Ministerial Committee merely seeks to improve coordination and oversight on the matter. This also does not preclude the conduct of consultations with heritage professionals and the public at an appropriate stage.

Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Jessica Tan asked why the Ministerial Committee did not reveal its composition earlier. Mdm Speaker, we have informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling that "how the Committee functions is within the Cabinet's prerogative to decide". We could decide to bring in other members as and when needed – the Minister for Transport, for example, when we want to look at traffic issues, or the Minister for Home Affairs when we look at security considerations.

Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang decided to send their representations to the Committee to all the Cabinet Ministers. Since the Committee reports to the Cabinet less the Prime Minister, there is no issue with this, and they have been doing so. What was material and relevant had been communicated to them. In any case, should the Cabinet need to make a decision related to this matter, all Cabinet members less the Prime Minister would be involved and collective Cabinet responsibility applies. This is really not an issue.

We should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. But before I come to this, let me answer some of the questions that Mr Lim Biow Chuan had. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the Prime Minister had any influence on the Cabinet or Ministerial Committee's decisions. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not. But Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as a private person, was invited to convey his views to the Ministerial Committee in the same way that his other siblings were. He did so formally and in writing. This is proper and correct; the lines are clear.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked whether we are able to make decisions independently and several Members of Parliament have asked this question as well. Mdm Speaker, when I took command of the Navy in 1991 at the age of 36, I made a decision that I must be prepared to step down at any time if ever I have to do something which is against my principles. I continue to be guided by that.

So, as I have said, Madam, we should put to rest the allegations about the Committee by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang. Essentially, all the siblings knew about the Committee and what its terms of reference are. They knew that neither the Committee nor the Government was going to make a decision on the house, as Dr Lee Wei Ling is residing in the house and no decision is needed now. They knew that the Committee was examining a range of options and had no pre-conceived ideas on the outcome. They also knew that the Committee was not a place where decisions on the legality of the will can be made and this is a matter between the beneficiaries. In fact, they had been making representations to the Committee and sending their representations to Cabinet members at large.

I have provided Members with letters and dates to establish these facts. So, I will leave it to Members, going through the facts and the chronology, whether there is any basis at all to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang's claims and allegations about the Committee. Mdm Speaker, I think we should put this matter to rest.

It is not for me to delve into the motivations behind Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's allegations of abuse of power over the Committee. But they should not allege abuse of power simply because they were unhappy or felt uncomfortable about being asked to volunteer their views and clarifications on Mr Lee's wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road.

Mdm Speaker, the allegations made by them have no basis. The opposite is true. Prime Minister Lee did the correct thing to recuse himself. And Cabinet and the Government carried out its roles and responsibilities properly.

So, where are we now? I informed Mr Lee Hsien Yang that I would personally not support the options at either end of the range. Those were my personal views. At one end, preserving the house as it is for visitors to enter and see the private spaces. And at the other end, demolishing the house and putting the property on the market to develop new private residences, such as luxury apartments. Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his statement on 1 July 2017, stated the same thing.

The Committee has also been studying various intermediate options and I personally think that there are merits in these intermediate options. These studies are on-going. Mr Lee Hsien Yang has, in his public statements, indicated that he is open to some of these options.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang also acknowledges that no decision is required now because Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to live in the property. So, there is no disagreement on this. This is also the position of the Government.

In his statement on 1 July, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said that he also recognised that "no man stands above the law". So, there is no disagreement on this either. As I have explained, the Government has a duty to go through the due process for when a decision needs to be taken, at some future time.

Mdm Speaker, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have also concluded, it appears to me that there is really no good reason to disagree and create such a public furore. Let us continue doing the work that is needed, calmly and objectively, to study the possible options for the time when a decision has to be made.

As I have said yesterday, I will consult my colleagues to see if it is useful to put out a range of possibilities, to let the public ponder on the matter, without having to arrive at any decision. But I need to weigh this against arousing emotions again, when what we can really benefit from now is time for calm reflection, especially when no decision is needed now.

In summary, the Prime Minister and Ministers have cleared the air and showed that we have acted properly. I have described the robust processes we have for Political Appointment Holders, civil servants and Government Members of Parliament to address potential conflicts of interest. We help officers understand and live the Code of Conduct, and we deal with errant officers firmly.

This shows that the Government is open and transparent, and accountable for what it does. This session in Parliament demonstrates that, too. This also shows that we have institutions to make sure that we can continue to have good and honest Government in Singapore. I hope that these unfounded allegations will stop. They have no basis and undermine confidence in our system of governance and unfairly tar our public officers who are trying their best to do their duty.

Mdm Speaker, I hope that with the conclusion of this debate, we can put the allegations of abuse of power to rest. But where do we go from here, as a nation and as a people?

Like many Singaporeans, I am sure that Members of this House have been deeply saddened, shocked and confused by the events of these past three weeks. I am certain that Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew would not have wanted this to have happened.

I have known Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang for over 40 years. We served together as colleagues and comrades in the Singapore Armed Forces. I have held both of them in high regard for their intellect, objectivity, commitment and dedication to Singapore.

The Hsien Loong I see now today is the same Hsien Loong I have known all these years − an upright earnest person who stands by his principles and does what is right for Singapore. As Ms Sun Xueling, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, others have mentioned, and many Singaporeans know, Hsien Loong has done much for Singapore and he has much more to contribute serving Singapore and Singaporeans as our Prime Minister. I hope that he will contribute his knowledge and experience to Singapore for a long time to come.

Hsien Yang, too, has contributed much. He was my colleague, we worked together. He has contributed much in the Singapore Armed Forces and in the private and public sectors. We have met a number of times since his father passed away. We spoke to each other with consideration and respect as we always have.

It is with deep sadness that the Hsien Yang I see now is not the Hsien Yang that I knew. I see hurt and strong emotions consuming him. I do not understand what underlying deep-rooted reasons there may be for this. But for Hsien Yang, I hope that these strong emotions that I see now in his heart will dampen over time and that he would find peace and solace within himself. He has more to contribute to Singapore if he chooses to do so. I wish Hsien Yang and his family well, as I always have.

I have known Wei Ling also for many years, though not as well. She must have been going through a difficult time over the past few years, living with her parents and looking after them while they were unwell. And losing both of them, while stoically facing her own health challenges.

For Wei Ling, the Government has said that we will not do anything to affect her right to continue living at 38 Oxley Road. I wish her happiness, time to do the things which she enjoys with her friends, now that she has the time and, above all, good health and a long life.

Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed away, it was an emotional period for all Singaporeans. And how much more so it must have been for the immediate members of the family. When emotions are raw, misunderstandings can arise and feelings can be hurt. When I met Hsien Yang and Hsien Loong in the weeks after Mr Lee's passing, and Wei Ling a little later, my words to them were "let time pass".

I hope that with the passage of time and the cooling of emotions that the siblings can resolve their private disagreements within the family. Singaporeans, too, can give the Prime Minister and his siblings space to work through their disagreements. And I hope that is possible.

Mdm Speaker, the Government, however, still has to carry out its responsibilities objectively, fairly and calmly. I would like to assure this House, and all the siblings, that on the matters that I have the responsibility to deal with, in particular, with regard to 38 Oxley Road, I will continue to deal with them objectively and fairly, all the time working for the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, Hsien Loong, Wei Ling and Hsien Yang, are the sons and daughter of Mr Lee. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng, that all of us, too, in our own way, are also "sons and daughters" of Mr Lee. Mr Lee and his generation of leaders fought hard for all of us and gave us the Singapore we have today.

He, and our Pioneers brought us all up. Built this house which we call Singapore. We have learnt the lessons that he taught us and which he demonstrated through his own example. No one is above the law, or bigger than our collective interest, as Ms Chia Yong Yong has passionately pointed out.

Mr Lee himself understood that he, too, had to abide by the processes and system that he helped build; and that the Government has a duty to consider the public interest and not just those of private individuals. He and his generation built the institutions which uphold these principles. But most of all, he taught us, all of us, to uphold these principles.

Mdm Speaker, we, all of us, also are "sons and daughters" brought up by Mr Lee. We have not been written into Mr Lee's will. But what he has left to all of us, is more precious, more valuable. He left us Our Singapore, Our big house, which he worked together with us to build. And which we are all proud to call our home. This episode is a painful one for all of us.

But I am confident that this big house we call Singapore will remain strong and robust. Mr Lee and our Pioneer leaders put in firm foundations − robust processes, institutions and a system of governance which we have continued to strengthen. Members of this House, Ministers, Prime Minister, our public officers, all Singaporeans − we were all brought up to do our utmost to respect and uphold the values, institutions and processes that are built upon the foundations laid by our founding generation.

Mdm Speaker, when Mr Lee passed on, Singaporeans came together. Our hearts wept, we grieved together. The moment united all of us, reminded us of who we are and what we stand for. It uplifted us, giving us renewed spirit to face the future together.

I hope that as we ponder the options for 38 Oxley Road, and how best to remember the struggles of our Independence years and the values that Mr Lee and our Pioneers passed down to us. This should also be an occasion to unite us. There is no reason why this should divide us. Mr Lee, in his wisdom, left us enough room to decide and placed his trust in us to do so.

Mdm Speaker, the house that Mr Lee and our Pioneers left us is a strong one. It is built on firm foundations. I am confident that all of us, all Members of this House, all Singaporeans, our public officers will build upon the firm foundations of our house, Singapore, and make it even stronger.

This is the legacy that Mr Lee and his Pioneer Generation left us. This is what they would expect us to do. We can rise above this, we have the confidence and ability to do so. Let us unite together and fulfil that promise. Majulah Singapura! [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Members for this debate.

Two weeks ago, when I decided to bring this matter to Parliament, I explained my purpose: (a) to air fully all the accusations against me and my government; (b) to allow Members of Parliament to raise difficult and inconvenient questions, whether you are a PAP Member of Parliament, an Opposition Member of Parliament, or a Nominated Member of Parliament; (c) to enable me and my Cabinet to render account to Parliament and clear the air.

In my Ministerial Statement, I have fully addressed the allegations of abuse of power. In his Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained the Ministerial Committee and how we uphold the integrity of the Government.

I brought the matter to Parliament because I am answerable to Members and to Singaporeans. I have opened myself up to questioning by Members. It is the Members' responsibility to ask me any questions they want and get to the bottom of the issue.

So, I was surprised that some Members asked me why I had brought this to Parliament and questioned if we should discuss this in Parliament. I agree that we should not fight private disputes in Parliament, nor have we done so. But grave accusations of abuse of power have been made against me as Prime Minister and against my government. Doubts have been cast on our Government and the leadership. How can my Ministers and I not discuss them in Parliament? Imagine the scandal if Members filed Parliamentary Questions on these accusations and the Government replied that Parliament is not the place to discuss the matter. So, whatever else I or the Government may or may not do to deal with this matter, we have to come to Parliament to render account. It is our duty.

Therefore, I am glad that in the last two days, we have had a good debate. Members, PAP and non-PAP Members have raised questions and my Ministers have answered them and given a proper account.

What has been the outcome? Over the past two days, the allegations about me abusing power, which prompted the sitting, have been answered. No Members have produced or alleged any additional facts or charges, or substantiated any of the allegations.

Mr Low Thia Khiang talks about "scattered evidence centred on family displeasure". But he has not accused the Government of anything nor has he given any concrete evidence or cited any. Mr Png Eng Huat read out the litany of allegations by my siblings but he did not endorse them and that is significant. Because it shows that the Government and I have acted properly and with due process and that there is no basis to the allegations of abuse of power made by my siblings, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

My Ministers have, in the course of the debate, dealt with most of the questions and points raised by Members. I would like to deal with just a few questions. Firstly, the Attorney-General's Chamber. Secondly, whether I deceived my father. Thirdly, whether I considered or I am considering the legal options. And, finally, where do we go next.

So, Attorney-General Chambers. Ms Sylvia Lim and several of her Workers' Party colleagues have raised questions about the propriety of appointing Mr Lucien Wong as Attorney-General (AG) and Mr Hri Kumar as Deputy Attorney-General (DAG). Because Lucien Wong was previously my lawyer and because Hri Kumar was a PAP Member of Parliament.

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah gave a clear reply yesterday. It is perfectly normal for lawyers to have existing clients and connections and to encounter potential conflicts of interest when they change jobs. In fact, lawyers with no clients and connections probably have no job. But the way to deal with this is also quite standard − for the lawyers to recuse themselves when matters come up which they had previously dealt with in a previous capacity. The rules are quite clear. All professional lawyers know how to handle such matters and every time a lawyer moves from practice unto the Bench to become a judge, the judge has to do the same. Because he has old cases and cases may appear before the Courts and he cannot participate in the cases when they turn up before the Courts.

So, there is no problem of conflict at all for Lucien Wong or Hri Kumar to become AG and DAG. If matters come up which they had previously handled as private lawyers, they just recuse themselves and let others deal with it. And so it is with the dispute with my siblings on the house. Lucien Wong was my lawyer but now that he is the AG, I have lost a good lawyer. He is not advising me any more on this matter. And in the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the Government cannot use Lucien Wong either to advise it on this matter because he is conflicted, he used to represent me. So, in this matter, another officer in AGC takes charge. Lucien Wong is out of it.

When Lucien Wong's name came up as a candidate to succeed Mr V K Rajah as AG, I endorsed him with confidence. He is known as one of Singapore's top lawyers and has a high international reputation, especially in corporate and banking law. I was even more confident because I had direct personal experience working with him on this case, my personal case. I had also consulted him informally on Government matters before, when we were working on the Points of Agreement dispute with Malaysia. And I knew that he was a very good lawyer.

Everyone involved in the appointment was fully aware that this was the basis on which I was recommending him. I told them, I told the Cabinet, Lucien is my lawyer, he is a very good lawyer. But the Opposition will make an issue of this. I do not consider this an impediment because there is no difficulty of conflict of interest. I recommend him.

The AG's appointment has to be confirmed, approved by the President. I briefed the President before the matter formally went to him and I told him the same thing. He consulted the CPA. The CPA recommended that he approved the appointment. He did.

And, indeed, after the President approved Lucien Wong's appointment and it was announced, the Law Society welcomed it. Likewise, my direct knowledge of Hri Kumar, as a Member of Parliament and a lawyer, gave me confidence that he would make a good Deputy Attorney General. I know he has a good legal mind and he has a good heart as a Member of Parliament for people.

It is critical for Singapore to have a strong AGC and for AGC to have a strong top leadership because the AG is a very important and demanding job, as Workers' Party Members of Parliament have themselves pointed out. It is very difficult to find people of the right calibre and range of experience. You can take my word for it. I have been involved doing this, looking for suitable people to be Attorneys-General for quite a long time and I have had to do it several times. It is important that we get the best that are there to become the Attorney-General. The role is becoming more complex and we need the most capable people to defend our interests.

You just look at Pedra Branca. You would have thought the matter was settled nine and a half years ago. No. Four days ago, on 30 June, Malaysia filed an application over the ICJ judgment on Pedra Branca. We are confident of our case. We think the Malaysian case has no merit but, unless we have a top-notch team, we may mishandle the case with very serious consequences. Do you want to take a chance?

We have also outstanding officers within the AGC coming up the ranks and we have promoted them within AGC, we have elevated some of them to the Bench. For example, there is the Deputy Attorney-General Mr Lionel Yee, there are two Solicitors-General Mr Kwek Mean Luck and Ms Mavis Chionh, all promoted to their positions recently. And other career Legal Service officers have been elevated to the Bench to become Judicial Commissioners as a first step, like Pang Khang Chau, Aedit Abdullah, Hoo Sheau Peng and Audrey Lim. So, we look for talent and we groom and develop talent within but, at the same time, we seek to reinforce the AGC with lawyers from the private sector because they will both reinforce the team and add to the talent pool, and also, AGC can benefit from their experience with private sector work.

We have a good team in AGC today. They hold their own with the very best to fight for Singapore's interests abroad. They pursue cases in Court and handle very complicated cases professionally, competently, where necessary, aggressively. And the appointments of Lucien Wong and Hri Kumar will contribute to building this team and make AGC an even stronger institution.

Let me turn to a few of the points which have to do with Oxley Road, starting with what Miss Cheng Li Hui asked just now, whether I deceived my father and made him believe that the house was gazetted. I think when the allegation is that you have deceived Mr Lee Kuan Yew and it is directed at the Prime Minister, that can never be a private allegation. It has enormous ramifications for my standing and reputation, and the matter has to be answered.

The simple answer is that I did not deceive my father. I explained to Members yesterday how my father's primary wish on the house has always been clear − he always wanted it knocked down. Where my siblings and I differ is on whether my father was prepared to consider alternatives should demolition not be possible. After meeting Cabinet on 21 July 2011, Mr Lee asked me for my view of what the Government would do with the house after he died. I gave him my honest assessment. I told him, you have met the Cabinet; you have heard the Ministers' views. If I chaired the Cabinet meeting, given that these are the views of the Ministers and the public, I think it would be very hard for me to override them and knock the house down. I would have to agree that the house has to be gazetted, to be kept. And if I am not the Prime Minister or if I do not chair the meeting, all the more likely that the house would be gazetted. He understood.