APARTMENTS IN NASSIM JADE AND SCOTTS 28 (Report of purchases by Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister)

Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister whether he will make available to the House the report of the Minister for Finance on the purchases by the Senior Minister and by the Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong of apartments in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister.

The NCMP has asked the Prime Minister to make available to the House my report to the Prime Minister on the purchases by the Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong of properties in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that there is no single report as such. On 21st March 1996, the Prime Minister instructed me to investigate market talk suggesting that improprieties may have been involved in the purchases and that HPL may have violated SES rules in the transactions. I instructed Mr Koh Beng Seng of MAS to conduct the investigations. He reported to me his conclusion that no improprieties were involved in the purchases and that HPL had not contravened SES rules, and I informed the Prime Minister accordingly.

Furthermore, this House had an extensive debate on the circumstances surrounding the Senior Minister and DPM Lee's purchases of the HPL properties over three days on 21st, 22nd and 23rd May 1996. At these sittings, both the Prime Minister and I gave statements to the House on the investigations carried out and our conclusions. Senior Minister and DPM Lee also made statements explaining their purchases.

May I suggest that the NCMP carefully reads his Hansard.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): The Minister says there was no single report. Are we to understand that there were a series of reports made to the Prime Minister or are we to understand that the purchases were simply discussed at informal meetings between him and the Prime Minister?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the reports were made to me by Mr Koh Beng Seng and there were several reports. The Prime Minister was informed accordingly. No evidence was found of any improprieties and that was quite evident from the debates which had taken place. May I suggest to the NCMP that he no longer waste this House's time in raising this issue which is for his political agenda.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for his suggestion but I think he should leave it to the Party and to me to make our own judgment.

I have read the statement of the Prime Minister at this debate. May I ask - I do not know whether the Minister for Finance can answer this - why was the suggestion of the Senior Minister for a Commission of Inquiry not followed up?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: There was no evidence whatsoever from Mr Koh Beng Seng's report to justify any such action. It would be a waste of time. Are you suggesting that Mr Koh is incompetent in his investigations?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I tell the Minister that he should not be asking me questions. I am here to ask the questions. Would the Minister agree that Parliament is not a forum for an inquiry and that if the public had to be satisfied, a Commission of Inquiry would have been the proper forum?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: If Parliament is not the proper forum, I do not know what is, especially in the circumstances where there is no prima facie evidence of any improprieties.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I think the Minister for Finance has made a very stinging statement about the Opposition. It does not mean that whenever the Opposition asks awkward questions, it is done for a political reason. We are here to ask questions and the Minister should thank the Opposition Members for asking awkward questions so that all these issues can be cleared up.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, what is your supplementary question on this subject?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I think it is unfair of the Minister to make that statement.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: May I respond to Mr Chiam? I was not in any way referring to him or his Party. I was referring specifically to one individual.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And to the Workers' Party. May I ask the Minister whether he will agree that greater transparency which the Government proclaims is the desired object or necessary for good government would have been achieved by a full Commission of Inquiry with the public hearing the whole evidence that is laid before the Commission and deciding for themselves?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I fully agree on the need for transparency but three days of debate in Parliament should be more than adequate.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister agree that satisfaction by the Prime Minister, albeit by the Prime Minister, is not the same as satisfaction of the public?

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: It has nothing to do with the satisfaction of the Prime Minister. I say it again that there is no prima facie evidence of anything that has gone wrong. So why are you pursuing the subject, especially when your Party Member has had the opportunity during the debate to raise these same questions?

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, can you proceed with your next question?

Mr Jeyaretnam: As you please, Sir. Question No. 5.