There is no single template that applies to all extramarital affairs. But there can be at least three situations: The first situation – where the individuals involved will be talked to, and if they stop, the matter ends there. No further action need be taken.
Second situation – where immediate action has to be taken. For example, when one party has supervisory power over the other party. And we have in the past taken immediate action, in a few cases.
Third situation – where the relationship raises some questions of propriety, beyond it being an extramarital affair per se. The parties will be talked to, but the matter cannot end there. Even if the affair stops, some action has to follow. But what that action is and when it is taken, depends on the nature of the facts and the boundaries that have been transgressed.
The present situation falls into this third category. It is wrong. Mr Tan and Ms Cheng had to stop their affair. I told them to stop.
In deciding what more should be done, consider this: Would we object to having a Speaker being married to an MP? I think the answer is no – that would be perfectly alright. There is no direct reporting line between the Speaker and an MP. Thus, an open, legitimate relationship between the Speaker and an MP is not in itself objectionable.
Hence, this situation of the Speaker having an affair with an MP does not fall into the category where immediate action has to be taken. However, the Speaker has some official capacity vis-a-vis MPs. An extramarital affair between him and an MP is therefore problematic.
It puts other MPs and staff in an awkward position, and it is just not proper. After I spoke to Mr Tan in November 2020, he told me that the relationship would end. I took it to be so. I therefore felt there was some leeway to take some time, to decide what further steps to take.
In this context, the possible actions that could have followed were: On the basis that the extramarital affair had stopped, I would have asked Mr Tan to step down as Speaker sometime before the end of the term, but in a way which would reduce the public embarrassment to him and his family.
As to whether one or both should also resign as MPs – I had not decided at that time, but quite likely both would have had to leave at some point. By giving the matter some time, I had hoped to give them a softer exit, and save them and their families the pain and embarrassment that they are suffering now.
I placed much weight on protecting their families – perhaps too much.
Regrettably, in the end, Mr Tan and Ms Cheng did not stop the affair, and both had to go. On reflection, as I said, I should have forced the issue earlier, certainly before mid-term.
Let me add a personal plea at this point: While there is no doubt the two persons behaved improperly, there are also innocent family members involved. Likewise for the case involving a former member across the aisle, in the Workers’ Party. All their families are suffering.
I hope that MPs and the public can empathise and have compassion for the families, and give them the privacy and space they need to heal.
CONCLUSION
Mr Speaker, Sir – there has been a great deal of public interest over the recent series of incidents – CPIB arresting and investigating a minister, MPs resigning, and before that the allegations about the Ridout rentals.
The way we have handled these incidents shows how seriously the PAP takes our responsibility of governing Singapore, and being accountable to parliament and to Singaporeans.
Let me assure Members: When such issues come up, we will deal with them properly and transparently – as we have done. With the Ridout rentals, when allegations of preferential treatment surfaced, the two ministers involved were thoroughly investigated, including by CPIB, and eventually fully exonerated. The investigation reports were tabled in parliament, and we had a long session answering MPs’ questions in this House.
When CPIB discovered, on its own, that it had reason to arrest and interview a minister, it opened a formal investigation. Nobody tipped them off. There had been no public scandal. CPIB came across something that needed investigating, and proceeded to do their job.
When the Speaker of Parliament and a government MP fell short of the standards of propriety and personal conduct expected of them, they were asked to resign. We took some time to sort it out, probably longer than we should have. But we did what we needed to do, and put the situation right.
The two CPIB investigations, and the response to the personal misconduct case, show two aspects of how this PAP government works.
One, when there is suspicion or allegation of wrongdoing in the discharge of official duties, especially possible corruption, there is zero tolerance.
Two, when people slip in their personal lives, the PAP will look at the facts of each case carefully, and deal with the matter as humanely and sensitively as possible, according to the principles that the party has established.
Systems are composed of human beings. In any system, however comprehensive the safeguards, sometimes something will still go wrong. The PAP government does our utmost to minimise that possibility.
We work hard to identify the right people to bring into politics, and appoint into responsible positions. We vet them carefully, test and stretch them, before entrusting them with heavier responsibilities. Often they measure up, but sometimes they fall short. Occasionally they transgress norms of conduct, or commit wrongdoing.
Singapore has seen corruption cases involving political office holders in the past: Mr Tan Kia Gan in 1966, he was then former Minister for National Development, Mr Wee Toon Boon in 1975, he was then a Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment, Mr Teh Cheang Wan in 1986, he was Minister for National Development and earlier in 1979, Mr Phey Yew Kok, then president of NTUC and also an MP.
All these cases were handled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then Prime Minister – thoroughly, transparently, and applying the full force of the law. That is still how the PAP government deals with such cases. It has not changed under my charge; and it won’t change under my successor either.
Now Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words in Mandarin.
(Speech in Mandarin)
Mr Speaker, Sir
Let me assure Singaporeans that we will protect the integrity of our system of government. For the good of our country, we will carry through what needs to be done in accordance with the law, even if it may be politically embarrassing and painful to the party.
I will not flinch or hesitate to do my duty, to keep our system robust and clean. This is how the PAP government can continue to deserve the trust that Singaporeans have placed upon us.
I have spoken often about how precious trust is and how crucial it is for our democracy to work well. The founding generation built up Singapore and entrusted it to our generation in good shape. It is incumbent on us to protect and uphold this system, to keep it incorruptible and clean, and maintain high standards of propriety.
With the investigation into Minister Iswaran, and the resignations of the Speaker and an MP, the PAP has taken a hit, but we will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so that trust is maintained, and the Singapore system continues to work well.
This is my approach, and I am confident it will be my successor’s approach too. This is how we will keep Singapore safe, strong and prosperous for many years to come.
Afternote
Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to make two quick factual corrections to what I said just now?
First, Mr Tan Kia Gan by 1966 was a former minister, no longer Minister because he had lost in the previous 1963 general elections.
Secondly, Mr Wee Toon Boon was Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and not in MINDEF.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
.jpg?itok=75Yxgs_V)
