Ministerial statement: K Shanmugam on Leong Mun Wai’s Facebook post about the case of Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern
In Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 22), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam delivered a ministerial statement on a Facebook post put up by NCMP Leong Mun Wai two days earlier. He said this was due to some of Mr Leong’s statements being serious misrepresentations and his actions being wrong and contrary to the requirements of Parliamentary procedure. Mr Shanmugam noted that on Mar 20, he had answered Parliamentary questions on why Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Mrs Lee Suet Fern were named while under investigation. He said his answer was detailed and afterwards, when Mr Leong was asked which parts of the answer he disagreed with, he did not respond. Yet in a Facebook post that night, Mr Leong said Mr Shanmugam’s characterisation of the couple as having essentially absconded was inaccurate and that by disclosing the investigation into the Lees, Mr Shanmugam and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean risked turning Parliament into “a platform to colour public opinion on criminal proceedings”. Mr Shanmugam said these statements were a mixture of misrepresentation and inaccuracy and had to be dealt with. He asked Mr Leong if he agreed with the main points - that the Court of Three Judges and Disciplinary Tribunal had said that the Lees lied under oath; if they did lie under oath, that was possible criminal conduct; and if there was possible criminal conduct, they should be properly investigated. Mr Shanmugam pointed out that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had described himself as a “fugitive”. On parallels drawn with the Keppel Offshore & Marine corruption case, he said that Mr Leong, in Parliament on Monday, had said the individuals involved were “actually guilty”. Mr Shanmugam said Mr Leong must substantiate this statement or withdraw it. The minister also said Mr Leong had “ascribed an improper motive” to him by saying his reference to the Parti Liyani case was “an attempt to muddy the waters” - inferring that it was irrelevant and used to confuse Parliament. In a series of heated exchanges, Mr Leong gave his responses to Mr Shanmugam’s points. He also said that on Mar 20 he had been “digesting” what was said, which was why he had not spoken up when called upon. Mr Shanmugam said Parliament was a place for discussion, not for “playing hide and seek”. He added that this was not the first time Mr Leong had breached the rules of Parliamentary procedure. Citing three previous examples, he said it had “become a pattern”. He asked that Mr Leong delete the Facebook post, accept that he had misrepresented the position and that he should apologise. Mr Leong said he would only delete the post if the minister specified again why he should do so.
In Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 22), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam delivered a ministerial statement on a Facebook post put up by NCMP Leong Mun Wai two days earlier. He said this was due to some of Mr Leong’s statements being serious misrepresentations and his actions being wrong and contrary to the requirements of Parliamentary procedure. Mr Shanmugam noted that on Mar 20, he had answered Parliamentary questions on why Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife Mrs Lee Suet Fern were named while under investigation. He said his answer was detailed and afterwards, when Mr Leong was asked which parts of the answer he disagreed with, he did not respond. Yet in a Facebook post that night, Mr Leong said Mr Shanmugam’s characterisation of the couple as having essentially absconded was inaccurate and that by disclosing the investigation into the Lees, Mr Shanmugam and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean risked turning Parliament into “a platform to colour public opinion on criminal proceedings”. Mr Shanmugam said these statements were a mixture of misrepresentation and inaccuracy and had to be dealt with. He asked Mr Leong if he agreed with the main points - that the Court of Three Judges and Disciplinary Tribunal had said that the Lees lied under oath; if they did lie under oath, that was possible criminal conduct; and if there was possible criminal conduct, they should be properly investigated. Mr Shanmugam pointed out that Mr Lee Hsien Yang had described himself as a “fugitive”. On parallels drawn with the Keppel Offshore & Marine corruption case, he said that Mr Leong, in Parliament on Monday, had said the individuals involved were “actually guilty”. Mr Shanmugam said Mr Leong must substantiate this statement or withdraw it. The minister also said Mr Leong had “ascribed an improper motive” to him by saying his reference to the Parti Liyani case was “an attempt to muddy the waters” - inferring that it was irrelevant and used to confuse Parliament. In a series of heated exchanges, Mr Leong gave his responses to Mr Shanmugam’s points. He also said that on Mar 20 he had been “digesting” what was said, which was why he had not spoken up when called upon. Mr Shanmugam said Parliament was a place for discussion, not for “playing hide and seek”. He added that this was not the first time Mr Leong had breached the rules of Parliamentary procedure. Citing three previous examples, he said it had “become a pattern”. He asked that Mr Leong delete the Facebook post, accept that he had misrepresented the position and that he should apologise. Mr Leong said he would only delete the post if the minister specified again why he should do so.
Popular Shows
