..

pic.twitter.com/hCRavtwNu7

— simonthong aka kitty poo (@KittyPo80176717) March 23, 2023

..

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0M8o8dzXJwCwVFkMgZ9qBvSre9GEy5AXxHDtDfnviZn56WEu67dCztEJshDHBQswkl&id=100057778912169&mibextid=Nif5oz

𝐌𝐑 𝐋𝐄𝐄 𝐇𝐒𝐈𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐀𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃?

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 while the names of the executives investigated in the Keppel Offshore & Marine (“KOM”) bribery case were not disclosed.

We would not have taken issue with the disclosure of names in the LHY Case if the names of the individuals involved in the KOM case were disclosed. Bringing up the Parti Liyani case is just another attempt to muddy the waters. So let us concentrate on the difference between the LHY and KOM cases.

Although Minister Shanmugam laid out conditions of when individuals under investigation would be named, I do not think many of us can see the differences between the KOM case and the LHY case, such that the KOM executives would be exempted from being named during investigations.

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”. Doesn’t such rhetoric also impute improper motives and a presumption of guilt on Mr and Mrs Lee? On the other hand, are there any of the KOM individuals who have not returned to Singapore?

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 view the KOM case as equally, if not even more significant public interest as compared to 38 Oxley Road. Further, the individuals were already named publicly in Brazilian court filings and Bloomberg news reports – will it make a difference to name them?

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 the recent revelation by SM Teo in response to a written PQ which makes no mention of any criminal investigation. If there is a need to release accurate facts on a specific case, why not make a public statement instead of releasing information via an unrelated Parliamentary Question?

I am of the opinion that Parliament is the wrong forum for influencing public opinion on what is fundamentally a family dispute. Parliament is the forum to debate policies of public interest. What SM Teo and Minister Shanmugam have done is run the risk of turning Parliament into a platform to colour public opinion on criminal proceedings. Absconding is a criminal offence and it should be for the courts to decide whether Mr and Mrs Lee have done so. It is not for the Minister to pre-judge on that score.

We need more clarity to ensure that a double standard is not being practiced.

Singaporeans deserve better.

For Country For People.

..

..