Shanmugam and Balakrishnan Could Have Benefited from Chiam See Tong’s Example

Reflection on how one opposition politician’s principles might have avoided the Ridout Road controversy.

SINGAPORE – Despite a lengthy six-hour Parliamentary session on July 3, in which Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan explained how they came to rent state-owned bungalows along Ridout Road, some are questioning whether the entire saga could have been avoided if the ministers had followed the example set by veteran opposition politician Chiam See Tong.

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean referenced the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which cleared the ministers of any criminal wrongdoing or conflict of interest, while Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong defended the ministers, insisting they had done nothing wrong. However, as the session progressed, opposition members raised concerns about the perception of a conflict of interest, even if no actual conflict was present. Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh stated that while there was no accusation of corruption, the optics of the rental agreements were problematic. Similarly, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) secretary-general Leong Mun Wai expressed faith in the ministers’ integrity but questioned the perception of a conflict of interest.

Minister Shanmugam responded by asserting that conflict of interest should not be based solely on perception. When asked by WP MP Jamus Lim whether there was any action that could be perceived as a conflict of interest, Shanmugam remarked that following such reasoning would lead to absurd conclusions, such as a Health Minister being seen as in conflict for receiving surgery at a hospital or a Home Affairs Minister being accused of a conflict for filing a police report.

While many Singaporeans accepted the ministers’ explanations and the CPIB’s findings, some have asked whether the controversy could have been avoided entirely. On June 28, veteran editor Bertha Henson criticized the ministers for not avoiding the rental properties in the first place, warning that it could lead to perceptions of a conflict of interest. She argued that such actions, while not necessarily wrong, would inevitably lead to public anger and unnecessary scrutiny.

This controversy might have been avoided if the ministers had looked to the example of Chiam See Tong, the veteran opposition figure who made significant personal sacrifices to uphold his principles. In 1996, Chiam famously gave up a terrace house valued at over a million dollars after realizing that purchasing it would deprive other teachers of the opportunity to own homes. Despite owning two other flats at the time, Chiam felt that his decision was the right one, reflecting his strong values of integrity and selflessness.

Chiam’s story became public during a debate over ministerial salaries when it was revealed that he had given up the house, even though it would have been a valuable asset. Chiam explained that he did so because he believed it was wrong to deprive others of the opportunity to own a home. In 1996, he stated that he probably lost “over a million dollars” by making that decision, but he stood firm in his belief that principles should take precedence over profit.

The contrast between Chiam’s principled decision and the Ridout Road controversy is striking. While the ministers may have acted within the law and been cleared of wrongdoing, their actions raised questions about their judgment in matters of public perception. Chiam’s example, where he prioritized values over material gain, could have served as a valuable lesson for the ministers in how to avoid the current storm of controversy.

In an era where high salaries and profits are often emphasized, Chiam’s example shows that true leadership is rooted in principles and the willingness to make sacrifices for the greater good. It serves as a reminder that integrity should guide the actions of those in public office, particularly when it comes to issues of public trust and perception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *