• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Good Minister Shan Explains To Oppies That There's No Police Double-Standards! Speaker Chuan Jin Orders Oppie Leong To Cool Down!

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
36,768
Points
113
20230320_cna_tqexchange.jpg


SINGAPORE — A parliamentary exchange on Monday (March 20) over the Government's decision to name Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern amid an ongoing probe became heated, as Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam addressed several questions from the opposition bench over double standards and due process.

At one point, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin called for Mr Leong Mun Wai, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) who was posing supplementary questions to the minister, to "lower the temperature".

On Monday, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that unless a case falls under certain exceptions, law enforcement agencies as a matter of general principle do not disclose names of people under investigation.

But in the case of Mr and Mrs Lee, the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Three Judges had said the duo had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings.

The couple had “also essentially absconded from jurisdiction”, said Mr Shanmugam on why Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean named Mr and Mrs Lee in a written reply to a parliamentary question in early March of an ongoing investigation into the couple.

As such, the Law and Home Affairs Minister said his reasons to name the couple were consistent with why the Government, in a parliamentary sitting in 2020, had named Karl Liew in a police investigation looking into possible perjury over Ms Parti Liyani case.

His responses prompted supplementary questions by NCMPs Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa from the Progress Singapore Party, as well as queries by Mr Leon Perera and Ms Sylvia Lim from the Workers’ Party.

Ms Poa asked Mr Shanmugam to elaborate on the lies that the courts had referred to, to which the minister responded that she should read the publicly available judgements and the relevant extracts in Senior Minister Teo's earlier responses.

"I don't think we want to waste Parliament's time by me going through that again," he said.

Ms Poa also cited rumours of how the probe into Mr and Mrs Lee was linked to an interview with Bloomberg that Mr Lee gave about contesting in the upcoming presidential elections.

In response, Mr Shanmugam said the Government could not have expected that Mr Lee was going to give such an interview. Mr Tan added that there are many rumours swirling about many other issues, which Members of Parliament do not necessarily bring into the House.

Here are excerpts of Mr Shanmugam’s exchanges with the opposition MPs:

ON DOUBLE STANDARDS
Mr Leong: Firstly, did the police specifically issue a written order for Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern to attend the investigation at a police station?

We have a situation here that for the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) case — actually it’s a more serious case.

(The executives) are actually guilty and we have the names in the foreign jurisdiction documents already actually, this is one point. Second point is that the KOM case is actually of deep public interest.

So why is there a double standard?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I took some care to explain the difference between the Keppel O&M case and the case of Mr Liew and the Lees.

Did the member listen to the explanation on the difference between the Keppel O&M case and the case of the Lees, and Mr Liew?

Perhaps, the member can go into a little bit of detail based on the explanation I've given on the differences and tell us which part of the explanation he disagrees with before he alleges double standards. Get to the facts. I have set out what the differences are. Tell me which part you don't understand, or you disagree with.

And on his first question, whether the police issued a written order. They were given an email, they promised that they would come and agreed to give an interview. They then left the jurisdiction and they have said both to the police and public that they will not cooperate with the police. They will not even come back into the jurisdiction. I think that's why I said they've essentially absconded from justice.

But for the record, I have made it very clear why the disclosure here is consistent with the disclosure in Karl Liew’s case.

And Sir, through you, I would also like to ask Mr Leong: If Mr Leong didn't see any problem when Mr Liew’s name was mentioned in similar circumstances, in fact, he took part in the debate and wanted a commission of inquiry, why this extraordinary concern suddenly about the Lees that he didn't show for Mr Liew? And perhaps he can explain why his approach shows double standards?

Mr Leong: Minister, there you go again, I asked you a question and you frame it in a different context.

Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Leong, you can address it through me. Lower the temperature, thank you.

Mr Leong: He addressed it in a different context and then asked me a question, but can you answer my question first, did you did the police issue a written order to Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern?

Mr Shanmugam: I’ve answered the question.

Ms Sylvia Lim: I have one supplementary question for the Minister to aid understanding of what you said earlier.

I think the question was posed to him by Mr Leong about whether the police have actually issued an order to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee (Suet Fern) to attend the interview.

And his answer was that they were emailed and they said that they will cooperate. So, do I read from that that actually, the police have not gotten to the stage when an order under the CPC — Criminal Procedure Code — was actually issued to them?

Mr Shanmugam: That is right. A specific order under the CPC was not issued.

The police normally would not issue such an order, they will first contact and speak with and send a written document and if a party says that they will cooperate, the police would assume in good faith that that's how they will proceed.

ON PREJUDICING FAIR TRIAL
Mr Perera: When the Government decides that it is in the public interest to make a disclosure about an ongoing investigation, what are the safeguards put in place to make sure that that disclosure into public domain does not prejudice in some way, the conduct of due process and subsequent trials and so on that may happen later on?

Mr Shanmugam: I thank Mr Perera for the question. That's in fact a key point. One could say that that is the key point in making a decision on going public. And that is why you need to look carefully at the facts.

So, if you look at the facts relating to Mr Liew and the Lees, what has happened?

In the High Court has said that in the case of Mr Liew, perhaps in less clear language, in the case of the Lees, very direct language which I've taken you through, that you know, at least Mr Liew as well as the two Lees were not telling the truth.

The investigation relates back to that very point on which the courts have taken a view as to whether they lied or didn’t lie. That is why I said the prejudice is very marginal, if any.

And as for the other aspect of prejudice — that people will think less well of them. The fact that we repeat in this House what the courts have already said about them is not going to increase the cloud (surrounding the Lees), as it were.

So, these are factors (of) prejudice that we should take into account. Both the legal prejudice of fair trial as well as public perception prejudice, you should consider it even before your release. You don't try and recover ground after that, and shore up, as it were. You make these calculations before, what's the extent of prejudice, and you release the information. But always bearing in mind, sometimes public interest may require disclosure, even if it means some degree of prejudice. So that's an assessment. And it’s an assessment we have to make.

In this case, in the case of the Lees, I have explained why I think the prejudice is pretty much non-existent because we are simply repeating what has been said and saying that the police are investigating that matter, which everyone will expect us to do anyway. Because I've said in this House, we will investigate these matters. So, what's the prejudice?

But there may be other cases potentially where that prejudice could be a little more, so we have to assess public interest and that is why we have Parliament.

And they will obviously be entitled to their full rights to give their version of events and they will be entitled to defend their position in court.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/shanmugam-spars-opposition-lee-hsien-yang-2133146
 
WHY speaker Tan Chuan Jin is interfering in the debate and siding with Shanmugam ? He is disgraceful to the appointment of speaker.:x3:
 
Just admit it lah, Singapore's judicial system is totally a shameful Kangaroo Court.
 
Mr Leong: Firstly, did the police specifically issue a written order for Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern to attend the investigation at a police station?

We have a situation here that for the Keppel Offshore and Marine (O&M) case — actually it’s a more serious case.

(The executives) are actually guilty and we have the names in the foreign jurisdiction documents already actually, this is one point. Second point is that the KOM case is actually of deep public interest.

So why is there a double standard?

Actually, his school actually good or actually lousy, actually I also don't know. :rolleyes:
 
WHY the persecution never ends ? Because the Presidentail Election is coming and has to be held in September 2023. The MIW are very very worried that IF Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) stand as a presidential candidate,LHY has more than 50% of winning the Presidental Election.
 
Everyone eventually will die ,let his last breath thinking all his life lying,lol
 
The lees should settle their family feuds behind closed doors and not try to gain symoathy by going public. Its only a god damn house. By right, due to its colonial design, it should be classified as a heritage and preserved.
 
Hse , but a Red Herring...

akin to say when hk Li ka shing passed on .

u see Victor and Richard fighting over elder's Li mansion :D
 
Last edited:
The lees should settle their family feuds behind closed doors and not try to gain symoathy by going public. Its only a god damn house. By right, due to its colonial design, it should be classified as a heritage and preserved.
settle behind closed doors ...or by going public.. plenty of difference lah, dun tell me u dun know ??? :geek:
 
LOL, a partisan turd as the Speaker, nothing less from a Parleement. :biggrin:
 
Wherez ze separation of powers? how come parleement always got court case debates?That’z not wat i learnt in ps101 :o-o:
 
Applaud the PAP for making sure that their candidate for the next President will sure win. That's how benevolent autocracy (aka PAP democracy) should work. The world shoud embrace PAP democracy.
 
Leong Mun Wai FB ,



Despite still being in mourning for my beloved mother, who passed away on Friday, I attended Parliament today to raise an important issue of governance: why Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (“LHY Case”) were publicly named as being under Police investigation while the names of the executives investigated in the Keppel Offshore & Marine ("KOM") bribery case were not disclosed.

We would not have taken issue with the disclosure of names in the LHY Case if the names of the individuals involved in the KOM case were disclosed. Bringing up the Parti Liyani case is just another attempt to muddy the waters. So let us concentrate on the difference between the LHY and KOM cases.

Although Minister Shanmugam laid out conditions of when individuals under investigation would be named, I do not think many of us can see the differences between the KOM case and the LHY case, such that the KOM executives would be exempted from being named during investigations.

One condition is “when the offender has absconded or left the jurisdiction while investigations are ongoing.” Minister Shanmugam repeatedly characterised Mr and Mrs Lee as having “absconded” from Singapore, which is a criminal offence, even though the Minister confirmed that Mr and Mrs Lee had not been served written orders to report to the Police to assist with investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code. Under such circumstances, I do not think we can consider Mr and Mrs Lee to have “absconded”. Doesn’t such rhetoric also impute improper motives and a presumption of guilt on Mr and Mrs Lee? On the other hand, are there any of the KOM individuals who have not returned to Singapore?

Another condition is “when the facts relating to the alleged offences, and the individuals who may have committed the alleged offences, are already publicly known and there is some public interest in disclosing that investigations are underway.” I think the general public would view the KOM case as equally, if not even more significant public interest as compared to 38 Oxley Road. Further, the individuals were already named publicly in Brazilian court filings and Bloomberg news reports – will it make a difference to name them?

Yet another condition is “when there is a lot of misinformation being circulated regarding an investigation and the police must make public accurate facts to dispel the falsehoods.” There was no indication that Mr and Mrs Lee were being investigated, until the recent revelation by SM Teo in response to a written PQ which makes no mention of any criminal investigation. If there is a need to release accurate facts on a specific case, why not make a public statement instead of releasing information via an unrelated Parliamentary Question?

I am of the opinion that Parliament is the wrong forum for influencing public opinion on what is fundamentally a family dispute. Parliament is the forum to debate policies of public interest. What SM Teo and Minister Shanmugam have done is run the risk of turning Parliament into a platform to colour public opinion on criminal proceedings. Absconding is a criminal offence and it should be for the courts to decide whether Mr and Mrs Lee have done so. It is not for the Minister to pre-judge on that score.

We need more clarity to ensure that a double standard is not being practiced.

Singaporeans deserve better.

For Country For People.
 
Last edited:
IMG_20230321_003956.jpg




Leong Mun Wai FB ,

Despite still being in mourning for my beloved mother, who passed away on Friday, I attended Parliament today to raise an important issue of governance: why Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (“LHY Case”) were publicly named as being under Police investigation while the names of the executives investigated in the Keppel Offshore & Marine ("KOM") bribery case were not disclosed.
 
Lanjiao la, Ask LML to shuderfugup! Where got double Standards? Its meritocracy, smartest woman marry smartest man so husband is leader of country and wife is head of investment, both sleep on same bed(probably) ,no conflict of interest, best person get the job.

Evil siblings who cannot see this wisdom must be eliminated else will undermine our meritocracy!
 
Lanjiao la, Ask LML to shuderfugup! Where got double Standards? Its meritocracy, smartest woman marry smartest man so husband is leader of country and wife is head of investment, both sleep on same bed(probably) ,no conflict of interest, best person get the job.

Evil siblings who cannot see this wisdom must be eliminated else will undermine our meritocracy!
Best yourlanjiao lah. the fattest lie the devil has even shoved into your face is that meritocracy helps you get forward in life. Just look at your own life. The biggest achievement you have ever attained in your career was probably given to you through somebody's goodwill. Nothing of your own merit. Try and disprove it. If merit alone has raised a cuck to become the speaker of parliament, let alone the PM, then you know it has failed a million times over.
 
Last edited:
Best yourlanjiao lah. the fattest lie the devil has even shoved into your face is that meritocracy helps you get forward in life. Just look at your own life. The biggest achievement you have ever attained in your career was probably given to you through somebody's goodwill. Nothing of your own merit. Try and disprove it. If merit alone has raised a cuck to become the speaker of parliament, then you know it has failed a million times over.

Lanjiao la, the best guy here is boss sam leong, if you so good , why you don't start a sex forum and spend time relaxing on beach in Australia , suka suka jjww here and there. U so good , u got a street named after you in Geylang or not? Meritocracy works thats why we got Sam Leong as boss not you!
 
Back
Top