SINGAPORE, July 4 — Singaporeans should not judge politicians on the basis of where they live, or how successful they were in the private sector, but rather by how they serve Singapore, said Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam.
“I think that will be a wrong principle, and it’s contrary to everything that made Singapore successful in the first generation,” he said.
“A person’s ability to serve should not depend on where he lives, or how poor or rich he is... I don’t believe the homes I lived in have affected my ability to serve and empathise,” he added, as he recounted how he grew up in a rented public housing flat in Jalan Bukit Ho Swee before being able to afford a condominium and then landed homes after becoming a lawyer.
Mr Shanmugam was responding to a question by Member of Parliament (MP) for Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency Murali Pillai yesterday (July 3) about whether ministers living in large private properties can connect with and relate to the people, echoing questions that have surfaced online in recent weeks.
Mr Murali also asked if such acts engender a picture of inequality in Singapore in his supplementary question.
He and other MPs were asking supplementary questions following four ministerial statements by Mr Shanmugam, Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong and Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
Some questions raised during the debate stretching almost six hours included how the rental of 26 and 31 Ridout Road by Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) might be perceived, and on the code of conduct ministers are expected to adhere to.
The issue arose after opposition Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam published a series of articles that called into question SLA’s processes when leasing out the black-and-white bungalows, and asking whether the two ministers had received preferential treatment over their tenancies. Several MPs also filed similar questions for Monday’s sitting.
A Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) report, which was released last Wednesday, cleared both ministers of any wrongdoing and found no evidence of corruption.
In his response to Mr Murali yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said that the issue of inequality is “seared into” him given the circumstances in which he grew up.
“When you have gone through the experiences I have, you will never forget them, regardless of how successful you become,” he said.
He told the House that he grew up in a three-room flat in Ghim Moh, and later lived in a house at Oei Tiong Ham Park and a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Queen Astrid Park.
He said that the distance between his Ghim Moh flat and Queen Astrid Park is only about 1km, but the psychological and financial distance between Ghim Moh and Queen Astrid Park or Oei Tiong Ham is “oceans-wide”.
“I think a lot about inequality and the gap, not least because I have straddled the gap, and have lived at both extremes — rental and GCB,” he said.
“My empathy did not increasingly decrease as my houses got larger, or as I made more money,” he added.
“Does (your empathy and ability to serve) get more affected when you move from a GCB that you own, to a black and white (bungalow) that you rent? Is that the way we are going to judge politicians?
“We shouldn’t start judging people on the basis of where they live, or how successful they were in the private sector, and then say ‘you’re too successful, you cannot come in to serve’.”
He said that this will be contrary to what made Singapore successful in its early years.
He recounted how for Singapore’s first generation of leaders, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had brought in people to serve as ministers and MPs regardless of their background.
“It didn’t matter if they were rich or poor,” he said, citing examples such as trade unionists Mahmud Awang and Ho See Beng as well as highly successful businessmen and professionals, like Mr Lim Kim San and Mr E W Barker.
Mr Lim, for one, was chairman of the Housing and Development Board (HDB), before serving as minister in various ministries such as Finance, Defence and National Development. He lived in a large bungalow along Dalvey Road, noted Mr Shanmugam.
“Staying there, and his wealth, didn’t prevent him from feeling for the plight of Singaporeans who had no homes to live in, and doing his utmost to solve their problems by building HDB homes for them.”
Recalling when he was asked to stand for elections — and eventually become an MP in 1988 — Mr Shanmugam said he had done so to make Singapore a better place.
“From the beginning of my journey as an MP, I found it demanding, but I also found it inspiring,” said Mr Shanmugam, who is an MP for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency and a senior counsel in private practice before he became a political office holder.
“Demanding, because my legal career required my full attention. But it was inspiring because I was doing what I could, to forge a community in Chong Pang.”
When he was asked by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2008 to become a minister, Mr Shanmugam said he took a “significant” pay cut, but did so to do good for the community and country — something he described as a “privilege”.
“I asked myself, on my last day on Earth — and this is a question I ask frequently — when I reflect back on my life, what would I have wanted to have done with my life?
“Spend all my time at work, making more money? Or, also spend some time doing some good for the community and others, and perhaps some good for the country?”
During Monday’s debate, Mr Leong Mun Wai, a Non-Constituency MP from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), also asked Mr Teo if the two Cabinet ministers should have considered the possibility of negative public perception of them renting black-and-white bungalows.
This was especially so given comments from some members of the public that ministers were paid “millions of dollars” in salaries and continued to rent “prestigious bungalows” despite owning their own private bungalows.
“And having the Government fork out over a million dollars to reinstate the bungalows before they move in.
“Don’t you think that scenario conjures up a very bad picture?” asked Mr Leong.
To this, Mr Teo said that there was no actual or potential conflict of interest in the case of both ministers and it should be sufficient to dispel the notion of perceived conflict of interest in any fair-minded person.
In this case, the public officers showed “a very high degree of integrity”, said Mr Teo.
Mr Teo said that SLA maintains that every potential tenant, or tenant, has to be treated equally and this is a testament to the quality of public officers.
“So I think we have to give credit to our public officers that they know how to behave, and they know what to do.
“So that is a very important aspect of the integrity of the public service,” he said.
Mr Teo also said he wanted to dispel the notion that the bungalows were “relatively cheap” — a notion that he said Mr Leong’s question “inadvertently perpetuates”.
Mr Teo said the bungalows are rented out at market rates and that SLA has to invest money to ensure that the properties are in good condition. — TODAY
