PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES BY SENIOR MINISTER AND DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BG LEE HSIEN LOONG

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has become quite an affluent society where most people have some savings. Those with less savings put them into savings accounts in order to earn some interest. For those whose savings are substantial, they would instruct fund managers to invest for them. There are also some who invest them in local or foreign properties.

People are aware that they have to invest and manage their hard-earned savings, otherwise with volatile exchange rates and upward surge in the CPI, their savings may, in time, shrink in value. Hence, we all have to prudently manage our own savings which we have taken years to accumulate so that they will keep their value intact. To the Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lee, it is no exception. Therefore, as long as they use their money to invest in properties and not to speculate, there is nothing wrong with it.

When Cabinet Ministers and our policy-makers decide on a certain course of action, their decisions will affect the livelihood of the people and the Ministers themselves are not unaffected by such decisions unless they are living beyond this real world. It is impossible for them to stay immune from the effects of the decisions, for instance, endorsing wage increase for civil servants, increasing the amount of COEs and building more Executive Condominiums will affect everyone of us, including the Ministers themselves. Does it mean that because a Minister's decision would affect their interest, they must not make certain decisions or once they have made a decision, they have to escape from real life, ie, they must not buy cars or houses, and when other people have pay rise they must have a pay cut? I believe this is not realistic and unnecessary.

The correct thing to do is not to make use of their prior knowledge of certain policy decisions for speculation to enrich themselves. At the same time, when involved in certain policy decisions, they must put national interest above their own personal interest. As long as the Ministers adhere to the above code of conduct, they need not be apologetic in what they do in their day-to-day life. They can and they should do what everybody else is doing so long as it is in keeping with the law.

Viewed from this perspective, the property investments made by SM Lee and DPM Lee are entirely correct and proper because they have adhered to the above code of ethics.

In fact, the Government has announced many measures to cool down the property market and to bring down the unrealistically high prices. These include restrictions on the amount of bank loans for property transactions, treat short-term capital gains as taxable income for speculators, the release of more land for private property development and the release of statistics on supply and demand situations and the number of unsold units of properties, coupled with the Executive Condominiums which are to be built this year. These are concrete measures taken by the Government to curb rising prices. The fact that they themselves have invested in property does not prevent them from taking the above measures to bring down property prices.

On the contrary, they have not made use of their prior knowledge of such policies to sell off their properties to realise the profits. Even less, would they attempt to adopt certain policy measures to enrich themselves because of the investment interest? Some say that it is improper to ask for or be given discounts when one purchases property. These people are ignorant of the strategy and practice in the sale of property by the developers. Take, for example, the apartments at Dover Park View. When these units were first launched, there was a discount of 12%, which was later increased to 25%. One day, I had a chat with a friend, and I learnt that the developer was prepared to give 30% to the buyers. The developers normally fix a high listed price and, depending on the market situation, they will offer certain discounts to boost their sale. It was under the same circumstances that SM Lee and DPM Lee made their purchases because this is normal practice adopted by developers.

There is nothing improper about it. Moreover, the prices they paid are the average prices paid by all the buyers and, in fact, higher than the prices of those in the neighbourhood at that time. Apart from this, what is more important is that they did not do any favour to the developer after their purchase of those apartments, neither did the developer request for any favour. On the contrary, the developer was warned and criticised by SES for the delay in seeking shareholders' consent for selling properties to related persons at discounted prices although the SES did not find any impropriety in the transactions. Thus it was in keeping with the normal practice of property transactions to receive certain discounts.

Although they know that they have done nothing improper, to further prove that they are above board, SM and DPM Lee have decided to donate the discounts they received to charity. I admire their generosity. Many of my friends said that they did not have to do this. It is unfair to them. This reminds me of their past contributions to charity from the compensations they received from libel suits, royalties from his books and CD-ROM which amounted to more than a million dollars. From here, we can conclude that they will not trade off their character for monetary gain. I believe that they have come out clean and their reputation was unblemished from this episode. My confidence in them will not change and I will continue to support them.

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate.

Sir, when I received a notification to speak in Parliament, I said to myself that perhaps I should consider taking part. So I checked my diary but unfortunately, I found that I have to be at a court hearing for two days on 21st and 22nd May. So I immediately wrote a letter to the other party asking them whether they are prepared for an adjournment so as to enable me to participate in this debate. I got a prompt reply which said, "No. We are not prepared for an adjournment." I also know for a fact that, even if I had applied to the court, I would not be able to get an adjournment because there was a circular some time back by the Registrar that the court is not prepared to grant an adjournment even if we have to attend Parliament. That is why I did not reply to say that I would participate in the debate.

Perhaps it is appropriate for me, at this juncture, to ask Parliament to consider whether an adjournment can be granted by the court if an MP has to attend Parliament sitting. Because this does not happen very often. And secondly, since the new Chief Justice took office, the backlog has been cleared. Before that, when an adjournment was granted, you might have to wait one year later to get a hearing. But now you can get a hearing within a month or so. So I merely ask this House to consider this aspect as Parliament does not sit that often either. I seriously ask this House to consider and I can understand ---

An hon. Member: The court starts at what time?

Mr Ling How Doong: No. Either the plaintiff or defendant would never agree, simply because if you are the plaintiff and if the date for the hearing has been fixed for, say, three days, you must pay the court fees. The moment you adjourn it, you must pay the court fees. So you are penalised by this payment. As such, you would not want to apply for an adjournment. And very often, the court would say, "Why don't you get another person to take over from you?" As I said, a lot of litigants are very personal.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Point of order. Sir, we are here debating about PM's statement on the HPL purchases. I do not think we need a long explanation from Mr Ling as to why he cannot take part. If he cannot take part, he just cannot take part. If he cannot get leave from the court, he should find a way to explain it to the court. And if the court cannot grant an adjournment, then he should draft a statement and give it to his colleague, Mr Chiam or Mr Cheo, and say that this is the Chairman's statement and be done with it. There is no need to give us a long explanation as to why he cannot speak in this House.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, I think you have made your point. Would you like to carry on?

Mr Ling How Doong: Sir, I need to explain why I cannot categorically say that I want or do not want to speak because it will be subject to the court's hearing.

Mr Speaker: All right. Anyway, you have made your point. You are here in the House today and you can make your speech now.

Mr Ling How Doong: My position is this. To me, what the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister had done, I think they made a mistake by returning the rebates to the Government first and then suddenly donated it to a charitable organisation. The logic is very simple. If there is no impropriety, I would not even say the word "illegality", why is the necessity for them to return the money to the Government and later donate it to a charitable organisation? The simple reason is that, by doing this, it begs more questions than answers. The public perception is this: if you have done nothing wrong, whatever you have done is proper, why is there a need to return the money? There is a Chinese saying, (wen xin wu kui). The problem started because they decided to return the money which they did not have to, if it is proper.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: What is proper?

Mr Ling How Doong: Because the money you received is proper.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Proper in what?

Mr Ling How Doong: It was proper. That is why I said they should not have returned the money. The other point I would like to say is this. If you want to have a meaningful debate, the Prime Minister should not have issued a statement straightaway saying that there is no improperity. Because he has come to a conclusion, how could one debate? I would imagine that the proper way is to have a debate and after the debate, he can come out with a statement saying, "There you are, this is the conclusion." It is not that I jump the gun. Let the people decide and then come to the conclusion that it is highly proper.

The Senior Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): May I ask on a point of information? When did Mr Ling come to the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing, that it was right and proper, and that DPM and I should have kept the money? Can I ask him when was the point of time when he came to that conclusion?

Mr Ling How Doong: From the very outset, when I heard the news about the purchases of the properties and that both he and DPM intended to return the money, I thought, what is the necessity. At that time, I had already said that there was no necessity to return the money.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Have I understood you that from the moment DPM and I announced that we had bought these properties at the discounts as stated, you were convinced that it was right and proper? On what basis did you come to the conclusion?

Mr Ling How Doong: I am a practising lawyer and it is a common practice that discounts are given not only in the purchase of properties. In fact, discounts are given in many other transactions. Sometimes it is not necessarily reflective of the discount that they give to you. They can jack up the price and then say, "I give you a discount." In fact, it is not a discount at all.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Does the Member doubt our integrity and honesty in the transactions?

Mr Ling How Doong: No.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Thank you.

Mr Ling How Doong: I want to make it very clear. I say this not because the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are here. Yesterday, I told Dr Tan Cheng Bock that I would not be taking part in this debate. He asked me why. I said, "There is no impropriety." He can vouch for it. I told him so. I said, "In actual fact, there is absolutely no necessity to have this matter brought before Parliament."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: May I therefore conclude that when Dr Chee Soon Juan issued that statement demanding a public inquiry and investigation into the Ministers and so on, he was not speaking on behalf of the Member as the leader of the Party?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that there was no mention of the Senior Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister in the statement that was issued. The statement was issued because of the escalation of property prices. Prices were going up. And also, partly, we thought that if we had a commission of inquiry, we could settle once and for all the issue of the discounts given to Ministers and whether there was any impropriety.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Member has just said that he was absolutely convinced there was no impropriety. And yet Dr Chee Soon Juan suggested a commission of inquiry on a general fishing exploration.

Mr Ling How Doong: I think it is a question of the perception of members of the public. Let me put it this way. People were asking: were special favours granted? I met a lot of people during the meet-the-people sessions and in coffeeshops. They were asking: were there special favours given to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? The SDP statement was to clear up whatever perception members of the public may have. If we have a commission of inquiry, it could clearly state that the discount given is a normal practice. The fact that this is brought before Parliament ---

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Had there been a commission of inquiry, the Member would have testified to the commission that as a practising lawyer, he, Ling How Doong, knew that this is normal property developer's practice?

Mr Ling How Doong: Definitely.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You would have been a witness to that commission of inquiry?

Mr Ling How Doong: Definitely.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Thank you. I have nothing further to add.

Mr Ling How Doong: As I said, lest I repeat myself, whatever rebates given should not be returned and, secondly, we should not debate this in Parliament. To me, a statement by the Prime Minister to say,"I have carried out investigations and I am satisfied that there is no impropriety," would suffice. In actual fact, the return of the money and holding a debate here created more doubts in the minds of members of the public. That is all, Sir.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, since my name has been mentioned, I had better tell you exactly what we spoke. When I saw his name was not on the list, I asked him, "You are the leader of the SDP, at least in this House. You must make a stand. There is a debate going on. Why are you not talking?" And he said exactly what he said just now. I just want to put it on record.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I wish to ask Mr Ling to clarify his party's statement. I read in the Straits Times of 9th May that his party was reported to have urged the PAP to require all Ministers and MPs to declare their incomes, investments and assets publicly. On declaring assets, it said, "the practice of Ministers reporting such details to the Prime Minister was inadequate." Why is it inadequate? The Prime Minister has explained why and how Ministers have to declare at the beginning of every term and that he informs the President. So why did the SDP consider this not adequate?

It is also said in the statement that all voters have the right to know how wealthy the elected representatives were and their sources of income. The sources of income of Ministers are clear. Every year, they only receive a salary. There is nothing else that they receive. Is he or his party insinuating that there are other sources of income and therefore saying that the present method of declaring to the Prime Minister is not adequate?

Mr Ling How Doong: Before I reply to him, in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear just now that the Opposition parties are very quick to find fault with the ruling party. The fact that the statements issued by both the Workers' Party and SDP did not mention them is a clear indication that we are not criticising any one of you. That is the first point.

The second point is that our party's stand has all along been that Ministers should declare their assets. So it is merely a follow-up of our party's stand. In fact, DPM just now mentioned that he had purchased properties with the help of his parents. So we would also know the source of their income. For example, if you say, "I am buying a property for $5 million." People will calculate and ask how much is his income. How come from nowhere he has got $5 million? The fact that you explain, "Yes, I get it from my parents," that is it. What is wrong with that? Anything wrong? Would that not put you in a better position to explain, "The money is not what I have. I got help from my parents." Simple. 3.23 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I make my speech, I would like to clarify what Mr Chiam has said about what the Opposition should or should not do. I would like to point out that Mr Chiam is not a member of the Workers' Party. He does not represent the Workers' Party.

Yesterday morning, I read the newspaper reports on the HPL press conference. Because SM Lee and DPM Lee bought properties from them, the company stood to reap more benefits. My impression is that the HPL has made use of SM Lee and DPM Lee. I believe SM and DPM Lee would not want to be made use of by businessmen for advertisement purpose to make more profits.

Yesterday afternoon, in his speech, SM Lee told us how he received special treatment under various different circumstances. He went on to say that life was like that. His speech gave me the impression that as long as a person is famous, with reputation, with status, then he should be entitled to be given special treatment, and that receiving such special treatment is something that gives no cause for criticism.

Although I agree with the reasoning that whether a person would make use of his reputation and status to derive personal benefits will eventually depend on whether he is honest and upright, I am concerned that if that person is one who is holding high power and position, especially a Minister or a senior Government official, and has this kind of thinking, that is, with power and status, he should be entitled to enjoy special treatment, and treat it as a matter of course, then Singapore will be in trouble. I feel that this practice should not be encouraged. I am worried that if this concept that so long as one has reputation and status, he is entitled to enjoy special teatment is to spread and be ingrained into the minds of the people, thus becoming a trend, from the CEOs on top right down to the grassroots leaders below, then there will be drastic changes to our society.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my mind, there has never been a question regarding the financial integrity of the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, not when the news first broke out regarding their property purchases, not when reading subsequent statements. This view has in fact been reinforced by listening to the speeches made yesterday.

I am glad that there is this opportunity to clear the air. Clean government has not only been a distinguishing hallmark of the PAP Government, it has become a bedrock on which Singapore as a nation has been built. Clean government is an issue of political legitimacy and the moral authority to govern. We need to make every effort to preserve this fundamental tenet of our system of governance, and there must not be any doubt regarding the financial integrity of Cabinet members and of the civil service.

Why then the extent of unhappiness over this matter? I think that the unexpectedly intense negative public reaction is a result of three larger issues. I realise that there may be some digression from the issue at hand regarding financial integrity, but it may be useful for the House to examine some of these larger issues because they concern society at large.

The first could be the perception that there is the emergence of a privileged class in Singapore. The second, that the discount pertains to a matter which is very close to the Singaporean's heart, not food this time, but property. The third is that there are some who still hold fast to the notion that public service should involve, if not sacrifice, at least not what they would consider exceptional accumulation of wealth.

For many years, the principle of meritocracy has led to plenty of real-life examples that those with ability can make it, no matter whether one's parents are hawkers or taxi drivers, no matter what the colour of one's skin, the system recognised and rewarded talent. Education was freely available and was a great equaliser. If one grew up in an attap house, one could with dedication, effort and capability purchase landed property and a Mercedes-Benz, if not a Lexus to boot. That was the Singapore dream. Perhaps for some, that dream is now fading away. Property prices have risen so much more rapidly than average income growth that many have asked in despair whether they would ever be able to buy landed property. Now, one way to own such property is through inheritance or the generosity of one's parents.

With nearly 60% of the cohort receiving tertiary education, education is now seen as a basic necessity. Where before one has it made if one were a university graduate, it is no longer all that big a deal these days to be a university graduate.

What are the equalisers in Singapore society now? Will the rich get richer? Is there a privileged class emerging in Singapore, a trend accelerated because of the pulls towards more unequal income distribution world-wide? These are questions that some in Singapore are now asking. Hence, the fact that there are indeed a privileged few who are eligible for property discounts exacerbates the frustrations of those who feel that the good things in life are beyond their reach. Could this be an underlying reason for the hue and cry? Whether there is indeed an emerging elitism in Singapore society is an issue that should be addressed at length, I believe, but not in this debate. The income statistics do show that income distribution has improved and not deteriorated over time. Where then is the perception? I merely wish to point out that perhaps there could be a larger issue than just the issue of property discounts for Ministers.

Similarly, this House extensively debated a White Paper on Ministerial salaries. At that time, I stated that I agreed with the philosophy but had problems with the methodology. However, perhaps there are still some who do not agree with the philosophy of private sector benchmarking for Ministerial salaries. If this is the case, then it is important for the Government to convince this segment of the population.

In conclusion, I hope that Singapore society and the Government do not over-react. There is indeed at this time an overlay of political sensitivity, no doubt because of the upcoming general election. The Government is concerned that political hay not be made out of this issue. Although there would be attempts to do so, I certainly hope that we as Singaporeans can address this issue coolly and calmly. They can also over-react by introducing even stricter measures to ensure clean Government in Singapore. I believe that there are already sufficient safeguards. As far as I am concerned, the Singapore Government is clean enough.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the focus of this debate in Parliament is whether any wrongdoing has been committed by the Senior Minister or Deputy Prime Minister Lee in this matter of purchase of properties. The fact that this House is debating an issue involving none other than SM and DPM Lee shows the courage and fearlessness of the PAP and the Government to open itself to scrutiny. SM and DPM have also shown that they have nothing to hide as it was they who had asked for this debate. Mr Chiam has said that the Opposition did not ask for this debate. Many have mentioned to me that there is actually no need for such a debate. Mr Ling How Doong also agrees on this. Others have even said that this is a waste of parliamentary time and taxpayers' money. However, debate we must, to show our commitment to a transparent Government. This is not over-reaction. The facts placed before the House yesterday clearly shows that legally there has been no wrongdoing. It is good to know that in the minds of both Mr Chiam and Mr Ling that this is also confirmed.

The whole affair is clouded by many other issues. These include (a) a buoyant property market; (b) HPL and the SES involvement; (c) the fact that this is an election year, "Election Year Fever"; and (d) the standing of the Senior Minister.

These issues affect the reactions and the perceptions of the public to these property transactions.

Buoyant property market

Sir, if the property market this year has not been as buoyant, I believe that this issue may not even have arisen. Why do I say this? When I discussed this with my grassroots leaders, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a non-issue. The first point that was made was that "discounts" are an everyday fact of life. The proprietor of a cake shop in my constituency and the Vice-Chairman of the Shopkeepers' Association said that he regularly gives discounts to his friends and regular customers. Another member of the Bedok Centre Merchants' Association, an optometrist, was equally amused when I asked for his opinion. He dismissed it as "ridiculous", as discounts are a part of daily transactions. Have we all not at some time or other, accepted or even bargained for discounts?

After our CCC meeting, when we went for supper, another very astute observation was made by another member. He said: "Dr Beng, the people who are making a big fuss are those who are the rich, who can afford to buy those properties, not people like us. This is a case of envy among those who did not get a chance to buy those units in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. We have no problem at all with the purchases by SM and DPM." Discounts are an everyday fact of life. In the property market, discounts are used to gauge public response to a project. The more the demand, the less the discount. It is used to benchmark the sale price. Earlier speakers have spoken on this, and I will not labour on this point.

Sir, the reaction of the public is very much related to the interest of the person involved. If the property market had gone down since the purchase of these properties, the issue may never have arisen. Conversely, another equally vicious set of rumours may have arisen. SM and DPM have lost a lot of money. Can they be trusted to be custodians of our reserves? The point of course is that there are envious people who feel that they have been deprived. The profits could have been realised by them personally if they had the chance to buy the properties. Now that the Government and REDAS have announced new guidelines, this equity factor has been addressed, but there is also unhappiness in others. The Government can never hope to please all. Here we see the politics of envy come into play in a very real way. My other colleagues in the House have alluded to this. It now becomes not only a matter of the transaction, but who were the people who bought. In this case, it happened to be two people in very high office in Government.

HPL and SES

The SES is an institution taken very seriously by Singaporeans and especially by the business community. The 22nd April SES statement accused HPL for its "tardiness" in delaying the disclosure of its sales of two units at Nassim Jade to Dr Lee Suan Yew and Mrs Mary Fu, and in obtaining shareholders' approval for the sale. As Dr Lee is the brother of SM and the uncle of DPM Lee, this of course set all the tongues wagging. This statement became the basis on which many Singaporeans drew the conclusion that there was something wrong in the whole affair. It was only on 15th May that the SES made a statement that was carried in the media on 16th May saying, "The Exchange has become aware that this statement may have created the wrong impression that the Exchange was also concerned about HPL's delay in disclosing the sale of the two units at Nassim Jade to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and BG Lee Hsien Loong." Now we learn from this 15th May statement that there was in fact no need at all to have implicated either SM or DPM as "Mr Lee is not a connected person because he is financially independent of Dr Lee Suan Yew in respect of the purchase" and that "BG Lee was not a connected person under clause 1010 of the Listing Manual." The Straits Times report of the 16th May, front page and in bold, ended with these two paragraphs:

`The Exchange is satisfied that HPL has not tried to conceal Mr Lee's purchase of its property units.'

`The Exchange had no concerns over HPL's sales to Mr Lee and BG Lee.'

Yes, the Stock Exchange realised some three weeks too late that its 2nd April statement may have "created the wrong impression". The perception of "wrongdoing" had already been sown. There is a very important lesson to be learnt from this. Regulatory bodies have to be very careful in their presentation of a case, as public perception of technical issues, and this was indeed a very technical issue, can be very different. Yes, they must do their job. It is right for them to do so. But they have to be sensitive in presentation.

Election Year Fever

Sir, any potential candidate is easy target for his foes, either personal or political, at this point of time when we all know that the general election must be held before April 1997. The unhappiness regarding higher property prices and the HPL/SES issue has given ammunition to those who are not fans of SM, DPM or the PAP.

SM has unrelentlessly pursued his vision of a prosperous, corruption free Singapore, with leaders who are capable, unselfish and willing to do work for the common good. He has single-mindedly pursued this vision, without compromise. He applies this very high standard also to himself. Yesterday, he said, "I am liked by some, disliked intensely by others." I would go further to say that for a person like SM, one either admires him or hates his guts. We, many of us in the PAP, admire him. Many of us would go into battle and die for him or with him. So, conversely, for those who hate him, this is the best time to attack him and discredit the PAP and Singapore.

Yesterday, to see SM having to explain his actions pained me, and I am sure, many of you. Just imagine. If he was your father, recovering from a heart problem, and having to explain his actions in Parliament, what would you say to him? I would say, "Enough is enough! You should quit! If after all that you have done for the country, they could believe that you are on the take for some $400,000, then you should quit. What about the millions of dollars that you have donated to charity from the libel suits, the CD-ROM, your lecture honorariums, etc? What about the billions of dollars that you have been managing under GIC?"

I can fully empathise with Mrs Lee Kuan Yew when she asked SM, "Why did you have to care so much for Singapore when the people are so ungrateful?" Remember, it was after the second angioplasty when he had to defend his own integrity and his family's integrity. Now, nine weeks after his stent was inserted, he is back here on the floor in Parliament to explain to all of us. A loving wife must despise these proceedings. He puts his life at risk in doing this. She subsidised him. She subsidised the whole family. She gave them the emotional support. And this is our payment back to him. I think this is very unfair.

But will SM quit? We all know the answer. Before he started the speech he said that he would give us a robust presentation, and indeed he did, and not only a presentation, but also a very good lesson to any of us. He has said before that he would rise from his grave if he saw things going wrong. His spirit and love for Singapore will spur him on, maybe sometimes to his own detriment. Like the other founding fathers of Singapore, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Othman Wok, amongst others from that era, they are not quitters. They are "officers", in the words of SM, who believe in the code of conduct and integrity. From them, we have inherited modern day Singapore. Yesterday, SM said that he was astonished when the PM told him about the public reactions to the property purchases. This is because of the expectations of SM.

Our problem when it comes to SM is that because he has done so much, that we often take it for granted the things he has done.

He wins a law suit, he will donate to charity. A foregone conclusion, a non-event. However, if a business organisation gives $10,000 to a charity, it is a big social event, and there may be an MP or a Minister in attendance to receive an over-sized cheque. Little is it known that over the last five years (1992-1996), since stepping down as Prime Minister, SM has donated a sizable sum from the honoraria that he has received from attending overseas conferences, meetings of international advisory boards, and participating in forums. Again, as the person involved is SM, we take it for granted. However, we forget that effort is required to prepare for these events. We forget that at his age, even at our age, it is tiring to travel and that participation in these international events can be exhausting. What magnitude of sacrifice does this add up to?

Sir, in 1992, from six events, he donated $216,372.30. In 1993, 12 events, $294,776.03. In 1994, five events, $95,804.26. In 1995, seven events, $94,568.82. In 1996, four events, $74,013.38. Altogether, 34 events that he had to prepare and work for, and he gave away to charity. How much? 100% -- $775,534.79, three-quarter million dollars. All honorariums earned by him over the last five years were given to the public! Any reason to suspect that he intended to "pocket" the $400,000 from property speculation? Add on to this, donations from "damages" from libel suits -- $1.37 million. And here, again, we forget that he could have lost the case, he would have to pay out from his pocket, as neither the PAP nor the Government would pay for these personal libel suits. However, when he is awarded damages which rightfully belong to him, he donates it to charity and it is, again, because it is from SM -- expected, non-event.

Donations from royalties from Lianhe Zaobao for Book of Speeches, Pictorial Biography, CD-ROMs -- $483,938.72. Of this, $310,610 has been disbursed and the remaining awaiting disbursement.

In all, SM's secretary, who gave these figures to me, estimated that he has given more than $2 million to charity! Does this tally up with the profile of a man who would take advantage of his position to amass some $400,000 from "wheeling and dealing" in property? Let us be more objective! Let others not laugh at the intelligence of Singaporeans! It is because of this very high expectation of the conduct of SM that the slightest "ink smudge" (caused in my view by the SES' first statement as I mentioned earlier), that it is now exaggerated as an "international oil-spill" by those envious of the "spotless" career of SM. We do him, and we do Singapore, a great injustice if we allow any of this unjust talk to continue.

BG Lee -- many of us, approximately, I think, 24 of us, started together with him in the Class of `84. All of us started from zero base. He, however, had to start on the negative. He had just gone through a period of personal tragedy, and he was starting most of all in the shadow of his father: the fact that he was the Prime Minister's son. As the saying goes, you can choose your friends but not your relatives. An easy task? The full weight of his responsibility came to the fore when we learnt of his lymphoma and that it was in a very advanced stage. He went through a period of intense setback, and it must have been a time of soul searching for him and the whole family. What DPM faced is the same for all of us in this generation. The difference, of course, is that he happens to be DPM and son of SM!

We all work to provide for ourselves and our family. As a responsible father, he needs to plan, especially carefully for his family, and he has to live in the shadow of his lymphoma even though he is now in remission. How much he cares for his family is shown by the fact that in his statement he mentioned that his children, aged 7 to 15, all read the newspapers. What does this tell us? This tells us that this episode must have affected him, his wife and his children. He has also mentioned in his speech that his son is in the School for Visually Handicapped, and SM told us further that his son has more than just visual handicaps. Are these not real concerns for a responsible head of household? Is his investment, and here, not speculation, in property seen in this context morally wrong? PM has shown that legally there is nothing wrong and nobody in this House has disagreed on this.

Mr Chiam is wrong. SM and DPM Lee have not only the legal, but they have the moral right to lead us after all that they have done in this House, after the way in which they have to bare themselves and their whole families to all of us - something which they never need to have done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, politics is the most uncertain of careers. Those in full-time appointments, or part-time, that is, Backbenchers, still have to plan for their "other" life, that is, a life out of politics. It may not be prudent for me to say this, but the fact is that all of us still need to take care of the family, take care of our livelihood and plan for a life independent of politics. It is sheer hypocrisy if we do not admit this, that these are important issues also in the life of all of us who are politicians. We are also mere mortals!. While we are in politics, we have a dual responsibility, and are expected to responsibly manage our public life without taking advantage of our public appointment for pecuniary or selfish gains. Here the line between "black" and "white" is a thick line, many, many shades of grey, and it is here that we become most vulnerable. As the saying goes, if we are afraid of criticism, then, say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing. Once we go into the public political arena, criticisms there will be, and we will expect to be. However, criticisms are very different from what we hear today -- accusations against the Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lee. It is my hope that out of this debate will come better guidelines that will encourage other able and capable Singaporeans to serve in public life The saddest outcome is one that onlookers will say, "If this can happen to SM with his track record, and DPM Lee with all his capabilities, sacrifice and tragedy, then I want no part of politics." Then the able will shun politics.

Yesterday, Mr Chiam spoke of commitment. We all agree with him. There must be commitment. But I believe what is implied in his message was that PAP MPs or Ministers lack this commitment because of the matter of money. I hope that he will seriously take the advice of SM and think again on what this would mean for Singapore and the future.

Sir, we need to have in place guideposts, and institutionalise certain procedures to protect our leaders and all those in public office: politicians, civil servants, and maybe even those holding key positions in public listed companies. They need to be protected from frivolous complaints arising out of envy, jealousy, and sometimes even for malicious reasons. It is only when these persons in position of public responsibility can discharge their duties without "looking around and seeing ghosts" to discredit them that they can discharge their duties of state with conviction. We should give these issues careful thought. Of course, at the end of the day, no matter what is put in place, the personal integrity of the person is what counts.

Sir, to me, today, the issue is clear: SM and DPM Lee did not do anything wrong, legally or morally. The purchase of the properties was in accordance with current market practice, and there is no question of unfair advantage.