Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat at Parliament on 4 July 2017
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR FINANCE MR HENG SWEE KEAT AT PARLIAMENT ON 4 JULY 2017 1. Like many fellow Singaporeans, I am deeply saddened that the differences in views between PM and Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, over how to honour their father’s wishes regarding 38 Oxley Road, has been made so public, with Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling accusing PM of abuse of power. 2. I served as Mr Lee’s Principal Private Secretary, or PPS, when he was Senior Minister, from mid-1997 to early 2000. During this period, I had the benefit of many interactions with Mr Lee. I also interacted with Mrs Lee, both in Singapore and on several overseas trips. I learnt that both of them, especially Mrs Lee, valued their privacy deeply. They would be deeply anguished, if they were alive, to see the siblings’ disagreement played out so publicly. 3. The issue before Parliament, as several MPs have pointed out, is not about the preservation or demolition of the house, but rather, the allegations, directed at PM and the government by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, of an abuse of power. PM and DPM Teo have addressed these allegations. Many MPs have also given their views on this. I hope Members of this House and fellow Singaporeans will reflect on these, and decide for themselves if any abuse has taken place. My own view is: No, there has been no abuse of power. We have heard no specific allegations of acts of abuse against the PM and the government, that demand a deeper inquiry. What has been levelled are general allegations and aspersions cast. The two days of this Parliament sitting bear this out. No Member, including from the WP, has articulated any specific allegation of abuse of power. 4. I will, therefore, not dwell on the issues that have already been discussed quite extensively. What would Mr Lee’s wishes be? 5. It has been only a little over two years since Mr Lee passed away. The memory of the outpouring of grief at the time is still fresh in the hearts and minds of fellow Singaporeans. We committed ourselves then to honour the ideals and principles of Mr Lee and our founding leaders. Today, we should revisit this question calmly –What would Mr Lee’s wish be? And how do we honour his wishes? 6. When I was PPS, Mr Lee was in the midst of writing his memoirs. He was almost 75 years old, and Mr Goh Chok Tong had been Prime Minister for 7 years. Despite his age, Mr Lee worked with an amazing intensity. Over and above his daily work, he would labour deep into the early hours of the morning, every day, on the memoirs. I asked myself: Why? 7. During that time, Mr Lee met with many local and foreign visitors. From time to time, the visitor would ask Mr Lee what he was most concerned about. Over and over again, I heard Mr Lee say that he feared that the younger generation of Singaporeans might not understand what got us here, and what we would need to do to continue to succeed. That was why he was labouring hard to distil the lessons of Singapore’s development and share these with young Singaporeans. 8. So, if you ask me, what were the defining wishes of Mr Lee’s life, I would say: Mr Lee’s greatest wish was for Singapore to remain successful beyond his lifetime. He dedicated his entire life to making a success of Singapore, against the odds. The best way to honour him, and to fulfil our duty to future generations of Singaporeans, is to continue to work for the survival and success of Singapore. 9. What would that take? Mr Lee said that there is no simple formula for running a country, but he tried to distill and pass on as many insights as he could. We can spend many hours debating the principles for Singapore’s success. I would like to highlight just three that are relevant to this debate – a sense of history, the rule of law, and honest and effective government. 10. First, a sense of history. Mr Lee said that there was no textbook for running a country, and his memoirs were not a how- to manual. At different times, we would face different conditions. But he was convinced that we all need a sense of history -- not just in knowing what happened in the past, but why it happened -- that would help to anchor and guide us for the future. 11. In 1980, at the 25th anniversary of the founding of the PAP, Mr Lee said: “To understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people. One must appreciate not merely what took place but more especially why it took place and in that particular way. That is true of individuals, as it is for nations.” 12. With that in mind, 38 Oxley Road holds special historical significance because of all the things that took place there in our early history. In his memoirs, Mr Lee had a chapter on ‘Widening the Oxley Road circle’, recounting how the founding fathers gathered in the basement dining room of Mr Lee’s house, the birth of the People’s Action Party in 1954, the difficult decisions they had to take whether to contest the elections in 1955 and 1959. Mr Lee also recounted how, during that tumultuous period, the Chinese school students “started turning up at Oxley Road looking for advice on a hundred and one problems they encountered whenever they came into conflict with or were obstructed by authority”. What happened in the basement dining room and at Oxley Road is relevant not just for the history of the PAP. I was surprised to hear Mr Png Eng Huat yesterday take such a narrow and partisan view of history. Those years marked a pivotal moment in our nation’s history – in fact, they were the start of a series of events that led to independence. It is therefore right and proper that we consider this history in any decision to demolish or preserve the house, or parts of it. 13. In July 2011, Mr Lee came to the Cabinet meeting to set out his views on 38 Oxley Road. Mr Lee stated his preference for the house to be demolished after his passing. Despite his seniority and his role as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, he did not once use his status to advance his case. He just stated his preference, and then listened intently to the views of Cabinet members. Except for PM who did not speak, Cabinet members were unanimous in persuading him that the house should not be demolished. All of us who spoke felt deeply that, as a young nation, we needed a deeper sense of history, and that the house was of historical significance. 14. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked earlier, if any cabinet member had put any pressure on Mr Lee. The answer is no. Mr Lee looked very thoughtful after the session. We did not hear from him until later, when he sent the note in December 2011 that PM presented yesterday. To me, that note, sent five months after the meeting, showed that he had been mulling over the issue during that period, and, importantly, he had taken other views on board. 15. Yesterday, Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke on the rule of law and what it meant to Mr Lee. She said, “I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his House.… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over the communitarian interest… I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the government cannot acquire its own property.” She has put it very well. Mr Lee knew more than almost anyone the laws relating to the acquisition and preservation of property, having exercised powers over his years in office. I was at that Cabinet meeting, and can attest that Mr Lee put his views to us, and then listened seriously to Cabinet members. I was struck at the time by how scrupulously he presented his case, without once invoking his seniority or contributions, and how he listened so intently to what we had to say. 16. Mr Lee’s willingness to take into account new evidence and alternative views on this issue reminded me of how he had changed his view on language education for the young. Bilingual education was Mr Lee’s lifelong challenge and he studied the matter deeply. When I was PPS, there were those who advocated that children acquire languages better if they were exposed to them earlier, in their preschool years. But, based on his own readings and experiences, he believed that the benefits of early exposure washed out as the child grows. 17. More than a decade later, when I was Education Minister, Mr Lee asked to see me. He told me that, after evaluating the evidence over the years, he was now convinced that there were benefits in giving young children early exposure to languages. In 2011, he decided to set up a fund, with his own money, and brought in several other donors. He asked that I guide MOE to use the fund to boost bilingualism across all levels, with special attention to the preschool years. With his approval, I named it the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism.