SINGAPORE - Ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan have done nothing wrong and retain his full confidence, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, following probes by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean that uncovered no criminal wrongdoing or improper conduct.

There is nothing wrong with ministers renting black-and-white bungalows from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) as both had, provided it is properly done and all procedures are followed, he added.

Addressing Parliament on the Ridout Road issue on Monday, PM Lee said ministers in Singapore are paid a clean wage – “realistic, competitive, but clean wage”.

“They don’t get perks, there’s no official house to live in. You get a salary. It’s for you to judge what you need it for, for your lives. Save it, give it away, spend it, put it in a house, travel, whatever,” he said.

“Therefore, where ministers decide to live, whether they want to rent, whether they want to buy, these are personal choices.”

The debate came after weeks of public speculation on the circumstances by which both Law and Home Affairs Minister Mr Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Dr Balakrishnan came to rent the bungalows at 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively. MPs had submitted over 20 questions ahead of this week’s sitting.

When he heard that both ministers had rented the colonial bungalows, PM Lee said his assessment, without going into it in depth, was that he did not believe there was wrongdoing.

“I had every confidence that my ministers and the SLA officials who dealt with them would have done the right things and handled the rentals properly,” he said.

However, the issue continued to attract public interest and both ministers asked him to conduct an investigation independent of their ministries.

PM Lee then decided that, “notwithstanding my confidence in them and in the system”, it would be best to task the CPIB to conduct a formal investigation and to establish definitively if there was any corruption or wrongdoing.

“The CPIB is independent. It has built up a strong reputation as an anti-corruption outfit... Everybody in Singapore knows what it means when CPIB invites you to lim kopi (drink coffee),” he said.

Apart from the legal question of whether there was criminal conduct, PM Lee said he wanted a broader review, including on SLA’s processes, whether there was preferential treatment enjoyed by the ministers, and whether any privileged information was disclosed to them.

“As PM, my duty is not just to be satisfied that legally there was no wrongdoing, but whether – quite apart from the law – there was any other kind of misconduct or impropriety.”

He then tasked SM Teo to conduct this review to complement CPIB’s investigation.

PM Lee noted that SM Teo is his most senior minister in terms of years in Cabinet and experience.

“I appointed him to show that I had every intention to maintain the Government’s and the PAP’s (People’s Action Party) longstanding high and stringent standards of integrity and propriety,” he said.

He noted some MPs had suggested on Monday that SM Teo was not sufficiently independent to conduct the investigation.

PM Lee said he viewed it differently. For corruption and wrongdoing, an independent process is in place, such as a CPIB investigation and referral to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

“But ethics and standards of propriety – those are the Prime Minister’s responsibility. I have to set the standards of what’s ethical, what’s proper,” he said.

“I cannot outsource them, for example, to appoint an ethics adviser to tell me what is proper or not proper. I have to know what is proper or not. Otherwise I shouldn’t be here.”

Addressing Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s remarks on the subject, PM Lee said: “The Leader of the Opposition paid CPIB and paid the Government a compliment just now when he said, nobody is suggesting corruption on the part of the ministers.”

Mr Singh had said earlier in the sitting: “I don’t believe anybody is making an allegation that the minister is corrupt, somebody is corrupt in the system... Singaporeans are not making that point. I think it’s quite clear.”

PM Lee noted that Monday’s parliamentary discussion was not meant to just resolve the issue of the Ridout Road rentals.

He said: “It is also a demonstration of how the PAP (People’s Action Party) is determined to uphold the standards which it has set itself from the beginning, in 1959.

“This Government has not, and will never, tolerate any compromise or departure from the stringent standards of honesty, integrity and incorruptibility that Singaporeans expect of us.”

This is the foundation not just for the people’s trust in the PAP government, but for the integrity and good functioning of Singapore’s political system, said PM Lee.

“This is my commitment and the PAP government’s unwavering commitment to Singaporeans.”

Recapping the debate

Speaking at the end of a close to six-hour exchange, SM Teo noted that a broader point underlying the discussion was the issue of equity and fairness.

Uplifting all Singapore citizens is a shared aspiration of MPs from both sides of the House, he said, adding that the PAP government is dedicated to building an inclusive and progressive society.

SM Teo also spoke on the importance of a clean government and upholding integrity among those in public service – whether elected, or public officers.

He noted that PM Lee had acted firmly on the Ridout Road matter by directing CPIB to investigate, even though reports from the Ministry of Law and SLA did not indicate a high likelihood of wrongdoing.

He added: “I am glad today that in this House, we have agreed to focus on the facts and the truth, not just on wild allegations, rumours or perceptions.

“This is important so that we can build a system with a strong foundation, which will help to bring in good people to continue to serve in government, to take Singapore further forward.”

SM Teo also said he was glad that no one was alleging corruption.

Earlier on Monday, SM Teo had said that to prevent conflict of interest, public servants who have access to government property leasing or valuation matters will have to make a declaration, before they can rent such properties managed by their agencies.

The Prime Minister will also review the declarations required for property transactions for ministers and PAP MPs.

Both Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan then addressed MPs’ questions on their rental of the two properties.

Mr Shanmugam said he spent more than $500,000 refurbishing 26 Ridout Road, and is not making money from its rental.

Between the rent he was paying to live in the bungalow and the money he was receiving from renting out his family home – a good class bungalow – he was at net deficit, after accounting for property and income tax.

Dr Balakrishnan said he and his wife had rented the bungalow so their children and grandchildren could be under one roof.

He added that the property was in an “advanced state of disrepair” when his family took over the tenancy. Extensive repairs were necessary to make the house liveable.

Addressing questions related to SLA, Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong said SLA had acted properly in leasing out the properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road, and there was “every reasonable, commercial basis” for the transactions.

Mr Tong said the terms of both leases were standard and did not deviate from usual processes. He noted that SLA’s valuation department did not know the prospective tenant for 26 Ridout Road was Mr Shanmugam.

Separately, in response to a question on whether ministers living in private properties like black-and-whites are able to relate to the people, Mr Shanmugam said that grappling with inequality is “not just an academic exercise” as he grew up in rental housing.

“Mr Lee Kuan Yew set up a system that allowed a poor Indian kid to become a successful lawyer to do well,” he said.

“You don’t deal with inequality by preventing poor kids from doing well... You tackle inequality by providing for social mobility by helping people to move up.”

Mr Shanmugam also answered questions from MPs, including from Mr Singh, on whether his decision to ask the then deputy secretary at the Law Ministry for a list of available properties was appropriate.

The minister said this was done so that the ministry knew what he was doing, and for total transparency.

“I think it was important for me to have told my ministry, so this is not on a private errand or something,” he said.