(This is an amended version of the original post on 20 March, Monday. Please refer to the Explanation Post below for further information)
(This is an amended version of the original post on 20 March, Monday. Please refer to the Explanation Post for further information)
Despite still being in mourning for my beloved mother, who passed away on Friday, I attended Parliament today to raise an important issue of governance: why Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (“LHY Case”) were publicly named as being under Police investigation.
Although Minister Shanmugam laid out conditions of when individuals under investigation would be named, I do not think many of us understand how the law is applied.
One condition is “when the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing.” Minister Shanmugam repeatedly characterised Mr and Mrs Lee as having “absconded” from Singapore, which is a criminal offence, even though the Minister confirmed that Mr and Mrs Lee had not been served written orders to report to the Police to assist with investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code. Under such circumstances, I do not think we can consider Mr and Mrs Lee to have “absconded”.
Another condition is “when the facts relating to the alleged offences, and the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences, are already publicly known and there is some public interest in disclosing that investigations are underway.” I think the general public would prefer not to hear about 38 Oxley Road from Parliament again.
Yet another condition is “when there is a lot of misinformation being circulated regarding an investigation and the police must make public accurate facts to dispel the falsehoods.” There was no indication that Mr and Mrs Lee were being investigated until it was revealed through parliament. Why can’t the relevant agency, in this case the police, make a public statement on this?
Singaporeans deserve better.
For Country For People.
Explanation Post
My Facebook post on Monday evening was intended to raise certain points that were weighing on my mind after I had deliberated on Minister Shanmugam’s response to my Parliamentary Question earlier that day.
As I confirmed in Parliament, it was not my intent to cast aspersions on the Ministers nor act in an unparliamentary manner. The points were raised solely in the public interest.
I have since considered the matter further following yesterday’s Parliamentary proceedings and have decided to withdraw those statements by deleting them from the Facebook post which I made on Monday evening. This should address the concerns raised.
I have not considered it appropriate to delete the entire post as the Minister has asked given that my post made numerous other points which I consider to be valid and to which no objection appears to have been made. It would, therefore be a disproportionate response to delete the entire post.
In parliament, I agreed with Minister Shanmugam that the names of the KOM executives need not be disclosed because they were not charged, and I was wrong to suggest they were all guilty.
Let me reiterate that it was never my intention to cast aspersions on the Ministers
