正如事先所预见的，国会有关欧思路（Oxley Road ）38号住宅事件的辩论的结束是：李显龙利用这个场合为洗清自己所犯下的错误和宣布“有关事件结案。”
Parliamentary hearing raises more questions
about LHL’s ability to lead country
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has released a statement on the Parliamentary debate that was held on 3 and 4 July over the Ministerial Statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, questioned PM Lee’s ability to lead the country for refusing to go to court or call for a formal inquiry over the allegations against him.
The party states that by declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel, PM Lee is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power. And that he fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued, reflecting on the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.
It further remarked that the PM’s unilateral claim of victory in the Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law. Stating that it is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability。
The debate was brought about by PM Lee himself after apologising to the country on 19 June over the allegations by his two siblings, Dr Lee Weiling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang for abusing his authority as the Prime Minister of Singapore for his personal agenda. He had asked Members of Parliament to question him on the matter and had the party whip removed, however, by the end of the parliament session, PM Lee declared in his closing statement that the matter has come to a close despite having many of the questions raised by People’s Action Party MPs, Workers’ Party MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament unanswered.
Below is the party’s statement in full
The Parliamentary debate on 38 Oxley Road ended exactly as expected: PM Lee Hsien Loong used the occasion to absolve himself of wrongdoing and announced ‘case closed’.
In reality, however, important questions remain unanswered. This is because when issues are addressed only by one side, no one is the wiser as to the truth.
Declaring himself clear of all the allegations without subjecting himself to questioning in court or in an independent panel is unworthy of a leader who has been accused of abusing his power.
In the 2015 general elections, Mr Lee Hsien Loong channeled his late father by echoing that “whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”.
That he has resisted widespread calls for him to convene a Commission of Inquiry where he and his siblings can be questioned at length in order to get to the bottom of the matter shows just how little iron the current PM possesses.
Mr Lee said in yesterday’s Parliamentary session: “Why do we need a Select Committee or COI, and drag this out for months?…Select Committees to investigate every unsubstantiated allegation, every wild rumour?””
The allegations made by Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang are hardly “unsubstantiated” and “wild rumour[s]”. To cite but one, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has accused PM Lee of making a specific falsehood in his speech on Monday, 3 July.
This, and other issues raised in the last two weeks or so, are serious charges that merit a thorough hearing and, if necessary, investigations.
As it is, Mr Lee fails his own test that anyone who impugns the integrity of the government will be sued. His predecessor, Mr Goh Chok Tong, made the same claim in 1999: “…if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet…if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?”
That the PAP leader now demurs from such a move reflects abjectly the state of governance in Singapore where policies and legal actions are not applied uniformly and consistently to all citizens.
The PM’s unilateral claim of victory in yesterday’s Parliamentary session, pronouncing that there is no evidence of abuse of power on his part is a show of utter contempt for the rule of law. It is a clear breakdown in the practice of accountability.
Ironically, instead of clearing things up, the Parliamentary hearing and the PM’s refusal to go to court or call for a formal inquiry has further questioned his ability to lead the country.
This is troubling especially in times of such uncertainty and grave challenges for our nation.