To my surprise, the most pressing question raised in yesterday’s debate on Oxley Road (old family home of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s long-serving first prime minister who died in March 2015) had nothing to do with whether to demolish or preserve the house that Mr Yew lived in.

It wasn’t even the question of whether there was abuse of power by his elder son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as alleged by his other children Hsien Yang and Wei Ling.

Instead, it was the question of whether parliament was even the proper, or best, forum to address the issues surrounding 38, Oxley Road.

The controversy erupted when the two younger Lee siblings posted a series of notes on Facebook beginning June 14 that, among other things, accused PM Lee of misuse of power, voiced fears that organs of state could be used against them, and suggested that Ho Ching, the wife of PM Lee, had a pervasive influence in the civil service far beyond that of her appointment as chief of state investment agency Temasek Holdings. The siblings had fallen out over what to do with their late father’s house.

PM Lee later decided to convene a parliamentary hearing to have a “robust” debate on the issues. At the sitting yesterday, PM Lee, and members of a ministerial committee set up to consider options for the house, responded to some of those allegations.

But some MPs said parliament was not the right forum as the accusers did not have a chance to appear to present their case. Some Singaporeans have also said it was a waste of public resources to debate a family dispute.

A few MPs yesterday called for parliament to convene a special select committee to hear the issues. Among them were Nominated MPs Kok Heng Leun and Kuik Shiao-Yin and Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh.

Singh noted that such a committee would have powers to summon witnesses, and powers to fine or imprison witnesses for contempt of parliament if they lied. It can also call for documents and records. Hearings may be closed-door or public.

Such a select committee would address the allegations of abuse of power which have to be decisively addressed, said Singh. “Otherwise an odour will linger, one that will have severe and significant repercussions for Singapore’s reputation.”

But as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary countered, a select committee is still an organ of parliament, so those who call for a select committee hearing cannot in the same breath criticise parliament as being the wrong forum to address such allegations.

In any case, he said, having a parliamentary sitting this week, two weeks after the allegations surfaced, did not preclude other hearings taking place which may take longer to convene.

He also noted that select committee hearings would have to probe specific allegations. But in this case, “there are no specifics, there is no evidence, there is no substance to the allegations”.

I agree with Janil’s fundamental argument. If we believe in parliamentary democracy, and in the solemn duty of elected legislators’ roles as a check on the executive, then parliament is the right and proper forum to scrutinise allegations of corruption.

If the charges had been more specific, a commission of inquiry or a select committee might be the sensible option. But in this case, all we hear are broad, sweeping allegations about abuse of power. Bringing them up to the legislature to examine is the sensible recourse.

The antidote to this is more transparency. In this regard, I think PM Lee’s decisions to recuse himself from the committee set up to explore options for the house, and to subject himself and his actions to full parliamentary scrutiny, speak of his personal integrity.

Court as option

Apart from parliament, another forum for addressing allegations of abuse is the court.

Workers Party chief Low Thia Khiang told PM Lee to settle the case privately with his siblings or in court. He chided them for continuing with a “Facebook brawl” that was damaging to the country’s reputation.

In his ministerial statement, PM Lee had explained that he chose not to sue his own siblings for defamation as doing so would “further besmirch my parents’ names” and cause “more distraction and distress” to the public.

In Asian, family-loving Singapore, many Singaporeans understand the reluctance to sue family members in court.

And as Janil alluded to, a court case would drag out this sorry saga even longer. He also pointed out that parliament cannot compel a private individual to sue his brother.

At the same time, however, it is clear that the allegations against PM Lee centre not only on himself but involve his government and ministers. It is not only PM Lee’s reputation, but that of the government, that is being dragged through the mud. Hence, any decision to launch a lawsuit to protect its reputation might have to be done by the government.

This would cause the ruling party damage. It would take up precious time and resources at a time when the country has many pressing demands.

Ironically, however, letting his own siblings get off with alleging nepotism and abuse of power without taking the usual legal course of action merely lends an aura of credibility to the very things he is being accused of: that family members of powerful people like the prime minister get an easy pass.

PM Lee and his team are caught between a rock and a hard place.

The Straits Times

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2017