Order under the Criminal Procedure Code for Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern to attend Police interviews was not issued

SINGAPORE: The Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, confirmed in Parliament today (20 Mar) that an order under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was not issued to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern to attend Police interviews.

In responding to questions by NCMP Leong Mun Wai and Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim, the Minister said that a specific order under the CPC was not issued because the Police normally would not issue such an order. He added that they would first contact and speak with them and send some documents. And in the case of the Lees, the Police communicated to them via email.

Mr Shanmugam said that if the parties say that they would cooperate, the Police would assume that it was in good faith, and that is how they would proceed.

“And that was what was done and the next thing the Police heard was, another email from the couple saying that they will not cooperate. But by then, they had already… essentially absconded from the jurisdiction.”

In answering to Parliament, Mr Shanmugam said that law enforcement agencies usually do not reveal the names of individuals under investigation, except in certain cases such as when they have absconded, left the country while under investigation, or when the facts surrounding the alleged offences and individuals linked to them are already publicly known.

He was responding to a parliamentary question asking why Mr and Mrs Lee were named in investigations while six former Keppel executives were not.

Mr Shanmugam stated that the investigations into the Lees met some of these criteria, which set it apart from the recent Keppel Offshore and Marine case. Mr Shanmugam outlined five examples of when such individuals would be named and explained that the circumstances relating to Mr and Mrs Lee straddle the first two examples.

The minister also said that a parliamentary question was raised related to public statements about the case involving the couple, which required discussing the accuracy of those public statements. The information needed to be disclosed so that the Parliament can have a full and complete picture of it. On the other hand, Mr Shanmugam said the case of Keppel O&M does not fall within the different examples he set out, and therefore the general policy of not disclosing the names of individuals under investigation applies.