Sitting Date: 22 Apr 2008GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITYMs Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his Statement. A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what, in his view, is the oversight role of the MHA vis-a-vis the ISD? Is it a hands-off approach leaving everything to the Director ISD? Or should the Ministry actually monitor some annual data from the Ministry? For example, we were told yesterday that there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second clarification, Sir, is with respect to the inquiries that are held after lapses in Government function. In this case, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and, as we know from the legislation, the Committee would report its findings to the Minister and it is a closed door affair. Sir, of course, when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse - whether it is actually a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. And, in the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, would it not have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the Minister whose department is being investigated? Third clarification is that the Minister Mentor made some remarks around March and April saying that the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the Prime Minister's view and the Cabinet's view that the Government should not be blamed for this incident?Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, what is MHA's oversight role over ISD? ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailor. That is the Prison Department's role. ISD's role is internal security, that means, identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them. One of its responsibilities is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act. This is done in the Whitley Road Detention Centre, under a Superintendent. MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what is going on? Are we able to react? There is no 100% guarantee that we would be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar mentioned in his speech about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, but the enemy only has to be lucky once. Our job is to make sure that we stay safe and that we do not just depend on luck, but on capability, dedication skill and focus on dealing with the threats, and that is what ISD has to do. Inquiry under the Prisons Act - would it have been better to have a presidential inquiry? Whatever level I put, I think the same question can be asked, why not raise it higher? In this case, one person has escaped, he is an important detainee no doubt, the Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the Minister, I think, is adequate. It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public, because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated. But, finally, the substance has to be reported and the Minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday. He spent two hours answering questions yesterday. The Member had ample opportunities to ask questions. If she had some more questions, we could have continued longer. So I think that we got it at the right level, and the Committee did a good job. And there has not been any suggestion from any Member in this House that the Committee was less than thorough or less than candid. Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from the Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it is a matter of complacency. Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible. What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assessed after investigating the facts - what went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising, because this was in his charge and he should have done something about it. I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to a logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government, you change the Prime Minister. I do not think that is how this Government works. That is not how other governments work. There are some countries when things go wrong down the line, Ministers routinely fall on the sword, or CEOs in the private sector. It is part of their culture. But then what happens is that, instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time, the problem pops up again, you change Ministers again or change the government again. I do not think that is the way we want to do things. We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who did what he should not have done or did not do what he should have done, if he was negligent, complacent, did not measure up, he has to move. But the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them. I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our Intelligence Services. It is not just hearsay or reporting of what the experts say. I have met them. I have talked to them. They briefed me, they explained to me their problems. I explained to them how we have dealt with our situation and they looked at me and said, "We envy you." Because of what we have been able to do, dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do, reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells. Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas and also to manage the families so that the families get looked after and do not get wrong ideas and, yet, stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community, and not be just doing the bidding of the Government. That does not happen by chance. That is the quiet work of ISD or MHA or the Government, and I think we should give them a lot of credit for that. So we say that this is a mishap, but there is a context. And you have to take disciplinary action but you have to be fair and just, and do it in perspective. That is the reason.Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, two clarifications. Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Certainly, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses and resulting in the escape of Mas Selamat. Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre. I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there is a lapse, they take it very seriously. In other countries, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore, things do not go wrong, and we make sure things work. When something messes up, we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously. That is a fact. And that is not a bad thing. But we must also understand that when we look at the problems which come up. Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister in Parliament, the day after this occurred, and I think that is adequate. I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Government.Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It is a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a Minister should take. I think we will remember that, when we debated the Ministers' salaries in this House, we were talking about pitching the Ministers' pay to the corporate world or the private sector. But in the private, corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, and it includes the CEO, whereas here, when something goes wrong, we are talking about honest mistakes. So, I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle on which the Government applied in looking at the salaries of the Ministers, pitching them to the corporate world vis-a-vis when it comes to accountability and responsibility. Would the Prime Minister clarify? Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I thought the Member would eventually come to this question. I have explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the Member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Mr Wong Kan Seng, and Mr Wong Kan Seng was a Minister, and a soldier under him let this happen. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective. A company turns turtle, the CEO leaves. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper. So I have to make a judgement who is responsible at what level, and I have discussed this with the DPM, and I agree with his judgement and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the Member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he found unsatisfactorily answered, he could have pursued the matter. If there are any questions which showed that the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we did not need so much fencing and therefore this happened, he should have raised it. Nothing happened. Today, the Member comes around and throws a general cloud and says, "You are well paid, you should resign." Let me ask the Member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So, I think that settles the point. INFECTIOUS DISEASES (AMENDMENT) BILLMs Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have two queries on the Bill. The first is in relation to section 17A. Sir, clause 12 inserts the new section 17A which allows the Minister for Health to declare either the whole of Singapore or a part of it as a restricted zone and he can do this if he considers that a serious outbreak has occurred or is imminent. As the outcome of this order is very drastic and will affect the movement and livelihood of our people, should this be a decision left to the Minister alone? Is it not possible to have an urgent Parliament session to decide whether the order should be made in the first place? Section 17A(6) provides that the Minister should present the order to Parliament as soon as possible after it is made and Parliament will have a chance to annul the order, in which case the order will cease to have effect. Is it the intention for the Members to have a free vote to support or rescind the order, or will the Whip remain in place in which case the Minister's order will be endorsed as a rubber-stamping exercise? Sir, my second query relates to sexual activity by a person who has reasonable cause to believe he has been exposed to AIDS or HIV. The existing section 23 only requires those who know that they have AIDS or HIV to take certain steps to inform their partner and obtain consent before the sexual activity. Clause 18 of this Bill amends section 23 to include this category of persons who do not know but have reasons to believe that they have been exposed to a significant risk of contracting AIDS or HIV to take certain steps. During the Ministry's e-consultation with the public, I noted that there was feedback that the phrase "reason to believe that he has been exposed to a significant risk" was ambiguous. MOH's reply to the feedback was helpful in listing some examples of activities considered risky by the Ministry, for example, intercourse with sex workers, unprotected sex with multiple partners and sharing needles when misusing drugs. While the list can never be exhaustive, I would support putting into the Act some examples as illustrations which should be helpful to people trying to understand and comply with the law, rather than to make them read Hansard, the website and so on, to have a sense of the ambit of the section.Mr Khaw Boon Wan: ..Ms Sylvia Lim has asked whether Parliament, instead of the Minister, should make the decision to declare a public health emergency. Foreign legislations that we have studied do not require the legislature to be convened to decide on whether public health emergency should be declared. This is because of the urgency of the situation, as pointed out by Dr Lam. We have taken heed of this foreign legislation provision and also make it a ministerial executive decision subject to Parliamentary oversight, and we believe that this strikes a good balance between acting speedily to protect public health while ensuring public accountability....Ms Sylvia Lim has suggested that we hardwire these illustrations into the Act. But we think this is not necessary, firstly, because the examples will never be exhaustive; secondly, because our public health education programmes will clearly emphasise what activities put a person at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and the necessary precautions to be taken to reduce that risk. Let me clarify that the new provision does not ban such a person from sex. It merely requires him to take any one of the following three measures before he has sex with another person: (1) Inform his partner of the risk and then allow the partner to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the risk and have sex with him; (2) Undergo regular HIV testing to determine that he is not HIV-infected at the time of the sexual intercourse; or (3) Take reasonable precautions to protect the partner, eg, by using the condom. Any one of these procedures would then protect him legally. While we encourage such a person to take all three steps to protect his partner, he is legally protected if he takes any one of the three steps.. Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the Minister could clarify this point which he did not refer to. It is concerning section 17A, subsection 6, where he mentioned that after making the order, he would have to come to Parliament to convince Parliament that the order was necessary. My query during my speech was whether at that time MPs would be given a free vote on the matter or would the Whip be in place. Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sorry, I forgot this particular query on Whip. It is not for me to decide whether the Whip will be lifted. But all I know is our MPs, Whip or no Whip, will have the full interest of the public at heart, and I am sure they will vote according to what is needed to protect them. The key point of making such a declaration is not straightforward. It is not one of politics. It is about assessing information which almost certainly will be limited and incomplete, and to make a judgement call - do you declare or not to declare? Let us see the current outbreak of hand, foot and mouth disease where the number of cases has exceeded last year's. I have received many emails. Many have asked me to close down all primary schools and nurseries, to break the transmission. But how to do so? Because hand, foot and mouth disease has been around for years, and it will continue to be around for years. If each time there is a cluster, we were to close down nurseries, we will end up not having any nursery open at all throughout the year, because it is one of those infections that spread throughout the year. People will vary according to their risk appetite. So it is not easy to make a call. A couple of months ago, you may remember, Hong Kong declared a closure of all their schools because of the flu outbreak. After the event, it is easy to comment whether that decision was premature, necessary or correct. But while you are in the midst of the outbreak, having to judge what is likely to happen next and what you should do now is not an easy decision to take. That is why, in my speech, I emphasised that this is a heavy responsibility and a decision which we will take very carefully, after weighing the options. Because if I were 'trigger happy', I think Prof. Thio used the words - I am always happy but I am not 'trigger happy' - and I cry wolf every now and then, I lose credibility. And when the real wolf appears, nobody believes me; I may declare social distancing and people still go out to restaurants and elsewhere, and it defeats the whole purpose, because I have lost credibility. That, to me, is the single most important safeguard against any abuse of these very harsh measures and powers which we are asking the House to provide us.------------------------------------------------------------------ ST'If heads roll in the private sector, why not in government?'By Lynn LeeTO WHAT extent are practices in the corporate sector applicable in the public sector?Two MPs noted yesterday that since ministers' salaries are pegged to those of the top earners in the private sector, they should also be held accountable for lapses the same way corporate leaders are.People's Action Party MP Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) and Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) both noted that in the corporate world, heads roll when something goes wrong.'Here, we're talking about honest mistakes,' sniffed Mr Low.Both he and Mr Singh were responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech on government responsibility for the Mas Selamat incident.PM Lee said the Government took responsibility for the incident, and Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng had already spoken on behalf of the Government when he apologised for it.The Government had given a full account of its investigation, and was also plugging gaps in the system, PM Lee added.Dissatisfied, Mr Low said many people, including himself, could not 'reconcile' the different principles the Government seemed to be adopting when it came to ministerial pay on the one hand, and the issue of accountability and responsibility on the other.Replying, PM Lee said that while a minister was ultimately accountable for his ministry's work, it did not mean that every level in the chain of command up to him should be punished whenever a lapse occurred.'Even in the private sector, you have to see things in perspective,' he pointed out.While some chief executive officers (CEOs) did resign when a company turned turtle, sometimes, they also stayed on to fix the problem. And companies in which the CEOs were changed frequently do not prosper, he told Mr Low.PM Lee then asked the opposition MP if he thought Mr Wong should resign. Mr Low did not reply.Said PM Lee: 'No answer. So I think that settles the point.'Human resource consultants interviewed said that in the corporate world, the severity of the mistake will determine how a top honcho is dealt with.For instance, senior figures at some global banks were held accountable for their role in their banks' collapse in the wake of the global sub-prime mortgage crisis, and they resigned.Executive search firm Robert Walters' (Singapore) director, Ms Andrea Ross, said: 'People tend to want someone to blame. At that level, they will be responsible for what has cost the organisation millions of dollars.'She added that sometimes, CEOs might also be made the 'scapegoat' for wrongdoing in the organisation, even if they were not aware of them.'There is a certain level of responsibility as a leader and they need to ensure an environment in which controls are in place,' she said.Mr Patrick Chan, assistant director of GSI Executive Search, noted that much depends on whether a mistake damages a company's bottom line or shareholders' interest.Also, if he is found to have questionable ethics, by taking kickbacks for instance, he will be asked to go.PM Lee made a similar point in his speech, saying that if a minister was found to be lacking in integrity, he 'has to go, even if the actual incident is minor'.Said Mr Chan: 'I don't think a CEO would be automatically asked to leave in a case where the slip-up stained the company's reputation.'But he'd have to look into the problem and show that he can remedy the situation.'PM: Let's keep things in perspectivePM Lee responds to MPs' questions on procedure, accountability and complacencyMHA's roleSYLVIA LIM: A few clarifications for the PM. First, could the PM clarify what in his view is the oversight role of the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) vis-a-vis the ISD (Internal Security Department)? Is it a hands-off approach, leaving everything to the director of ISD, or should the ministry monitor some annual data from the department? For example, we were told yesterday there were no regular audits done at the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Should MHA have a system in place to pick up such systemic problems? Second, the inquiry was held under the Prisons Act and as we know from the legislation, the committee would report its findings to the minister and it is a closed-door affair. Of course when the incident first happened, we do not know the cause of the lapse, whether it is a policy matter or whether it is simply an operational matter. In the interest of having a rigorous regime of inquiry, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have a presidential inquiry where the President would be the gatekeeper of the information rather than the minister whose department is being investigated? Third, Minister Mentor (Lee Kuan Yew) made some remarks around March and April saying the Government is not to be blamed for this incident and that it is the people's complacency that has led to this. Is this also the PM's view and the Cabinet's view, that the Government should not be blamed for this incident? PM: What's MHA's oversight role over ISD?ISD is an organisation which is subordinate to MHA, reports to MHA and is accountable to MHA for its performance. ISD's role is not primarily to be a jailer. That's Changi Prison's, the Prison Department's role.ISD's role is internal security. That means identifying threats, pre-empting them, neutralising them.It also is to hold the detainees when people are detained under the Internal Security Act, as (was) done in the WRDC (Whitley Road Detention Centre) under a superintendent.MHA monitors ISD by tracking whether Singapore stays safe. Do threats get caught in time? Do we know what's going on? Are we able to react?There's no 100 per cent guarantee that we will be there all the time. As Prof Jayakumar (DPM and Coordinating Minister for National Security) mentioned about 10 days ago, we have to be lucky every time, the enemy only has to be lucky once.Our job is to make sure we stay safe and that we don't just depend on luck but on capability, dedication, skill and focus on dealing with the threats and that's what ISD has to do.Inquiry under the Prisons Act: Whatever level I put, the same question can be asked: why not raise it higher?In this case, one person has escaped, he's an important detainee no doubt. The Prisons Act, a Committee of Inquiry commissioned by the minister, I think is adequate.It has to be conducted in private, in camera, not in public because of the contents of the hearings, of what is being investigated.But finally, the substance has to be reported and the minister is here to explain what happened and to answer questions. He spent one hour explaining yesterday, he spent two hours answering questions yesterday.The member had ample opportunity to ask questions and if she had more questions we could have continued longer.So we've got it at the right level and the committee did a good job. There has not been any suggestion from any member in this House that the committee was less than thorough or less than candid.Thirdly, I do not remember the specific quote from the Minister Mentor that the Government is not to blame, that it's a matter of complacency. (Editor's Note: Earlier this month, MM Lee was asked in an interview if there was complacency on the part of the government/security agencies. He said: 'The complacency was that of his custodians who believed they had the measure of him and that he would not get the better of them.').Anything which happens on the Government's watch, the Government is responsible.What the Government does about this and what the Cabinet and the Prime Minister do about this depends on what happened and what we assess, after investigating the facts, went wrong and who was handling it, who was responsible, who was directly responsible, who was supervising but this was in his charge and he should have done something about it.I have explained my philosophy. The buck has to stop somewhere. If you take this to the logical conclusion, it should go all the way up to the Prime Minister and every time something happens in the Government you change prime ministers.I don't think that is how this Government works, that's not how other governments work.There are some countries where when things go wrong, down the line ministers routinely fall on the sword or CEOs in the private sector. It's part of the culture.But then what happens is that instead of getting the problem solved, the ceremonial change of guard is seen as the solution of the problem. So the fundamentals do not get altered, after some time problem pops up again, you change ministers again or change government again.I don't think that is the way we want to do things.We want to get to the root of the matter to solve it properly. The person who should, who did what he shouldn't have done or didn't do what he should have done, well, if he was negligent, complacent, didn't measure up, he has to move, but the people who run the system and who have done a good job, I think we need to depend on them and we need to back them.I said just now that the Europeans and the Americans have a high opinion of our intelligence services. It's not just hearsay or reporting or what the experts say.I've met them. I've talked to them, they've briefed me. They've explained to me their problems, I've explained to them how we have dealt with our situation. And they said to me, 'We envy you.'Because of what we have been able to do dealing with the threat, because of what we have been able to do reaching out to the community and keeping the community on our side while excising the cancer cells.Because we have been able to get the religious leaders also on our side and to step forward and volunteer their services in the RRG, the Religious Rehabilitation Group, to try and set the detainees right who have wrong ideas, and also to manage their families so that their families get looked after and their families don't get wrong ideas, and yet stand tall in the community and be seen to be standing up for the community and not just doing the bidding of the Government.That doesn't happen by chance. That's the quiet work of ISD, of MHA, of the Government and we should give them a lot of credit for that.So when we say this is a mishap, there's a context and you have to take disciplinary action. But you have to be fair and just and do it in perspective.Prompt apologyLOW THIA KHIANG: Was this the result of what MM has said that Singaporeans are being complacent and expecting too much from the Government? Secondly, I would like to ask the PM whether he sees fit for his Government to apologise to Singaporeans over the lapses (that resulted) in the escape of Mas Selamat? PM: I think this is not an exercise in spreading adjectives around. The complacency was in the Whitley Road Detention Centre.I think it is true that Singaporeans have very high expectations of the Government and, therefore, whenever there's a lapse they take it very seriously.In other countries, things go wrong, well, things regularly go wrong. In Singapore things do not go wrong and we make sure things work. When something messes up we take it seriously, the public takes it seriously.That is a fact. It's not a bad thing, but we must also understand that when we look at the problems which come up.Apologising? That was the first thing which Mr Wong Kan Seng did as Deputy Prime Minister the day after this occurred, in Parliament, and I think that is adequate.I would say that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks he speaks on behalf of the Government.Corporate normsLOW THIA KHIANG: Does the PM agree that this is not a question of a witch-hunt as to who should be directly responsible? It's a question of accountability of the Government and at what level and what responsibility a minister should take. And I think we will remember that when we debate the ministers' salaries in this House, we're talking about pitching the ministers' pay to corporate world.But in corporate world, when something goes wrong, heads roll, including the CEO. Whereas here when something goes wrong, we're talking about honest mistakes.So I think a lot of people, including myself, cannot reconcile the principle the Government applied (when) looking at salary of the minister (and) pegging (it) to corporate world, (with) accountability and responsibility. Would the PM clarify?PM: I thought the member would eventually come (to) this question. I've explained where lines have to be drawn. Even the member has not suggested that I should resign because I appointed Wong Kan Seng and Wong Kan Seng was the minister and the soldier under him let this happen.A line has to be drawn somewhere. We have to see this in perspective. Even in the private sector you have to see things in perspective. Company turns turtle, CEOs leave. Problems happen in the company, CEOs have to stay to sort them out. Companies which change CEOs every two months or every two years do not prosper.So I have to make a judgment who is responsible at what level, and I've discussed this with the DPM and I agree with his judgment and I have confidence in him. The DPM was here, the member yesterday had full opportunity to question him. If there are any questions which he finds unsatisfactory in the answer, he could have pursued the matter.If any questions showed the DPM was not up to this, that he was to blame, he gave the wrong instructions, he told people not to grille up the window, he suggested that we didn't need so much fencing, therefore this happened, he (Low) should have raised it.Nothing happened.Today, the member comes and throws a general cloud and say, you're well paid, you should resign.Let me ask the member whether he thinks the DPM ought to resign because of this. No answer. So I think that settles the point.李总理针对问责原则与议员答问摘录（2008-04-23）●非选区议员林瑞莲：我首先感谢总理发表声明。这里有几个问题希望总理澄清。首先，总理是否能解释他如何看待内政部相对于内安局的疏忽角色？是它采取不干涉的方式，把所有的事情都交由内安局局长处理，还是内政部应该确实监督一些部门，例如我们昨天获知惠德里路拘留所并没定期进行保安措施审查。内政部是否应该制定某种机制，以发现制度上的问题？ 　　第二个问题是有关政府功能出现纰漏后所进行的调查。在这起案件中，调查是按照监狱法来进行，我们从法令中得知调查委员会将向内政部长提呈调查报告，而且这是属于秘密调查性质。当然，当事件刚发生时，我们并不知道纰漏的原因是否是政策问题或只是操作上的问题，因此为确保做到调查严密，成立一个由总统委任的调查庭是否是更慎重的做法？ 　　第三，内阁资政李光耀三四月间曾发表看法，指这起事件的过失不在于政府而是因人员疏忽而引起。这个政府不应受责的看法，是否也是总理和内阁的观点？答：首先，内政部对内安局扮演什么管理角色？内安局是内政部下属机构，直接向内政部报告，其表现也需向内政部交代。内安局主要角色并非关禁罪犯，那是樟宜监狱和监狱部门的角色。它的角色在于内部安全，即确认威胁、阻截威胁并消弭威胁。它也负责拘留在内部安全法下被拘留者，这个责任是通过惠德里路拘留所所长管理的拘留中心来履行。内政部监督内安局的标准包括新加坡是否维持安全、威胁是否及时揭发、我们是否知道究竟是发生什么事、我们是否能作出反应。我们无法100％担保时时刻刻都维持这个水平，就如副总理贾古玛教授十天前发表演讲时所言，我们须次次都有好运，而敌人只须有一次好运。我们的工作是确保国家安全，且不单靠运气，而是有真实能力、献身精神、技巧及集中精力对付威胁。这就是内安局的工作。　　成立总统调查庭是否更恰当？我想无论是哪个层级，我们都会面对“为何不进一步提高”的问题。就这起事件而言，一个人逃跑了，而且他无疑是个重要的拘留者，但是由部长援引监狱法成立调查委员会，我想这够恰当了。基于调查内容的性质，这必须私下进行，不得公开，但是部长最终必须报告调查结果。他昨天在议事厅里花了一小时阐述事发经过，两小时回答议员们的问题。大家有足够的机会提问，如果还有问题，询问时间可以延长。所以，就层级来说，这是令人满意的，调查委员会的表现也很好。议员当中也没有人认为委员会的调查不够彻底或不够公正。　　第三，我并不记得李资政所发表的关于政府不应受责，而是自满心态问题的确切字句。任何在政府治理下发生的事情，政府都要负起责任。政府、内阁乃至总理要如何负责，将取决于发生了什么事情；在调查后评估出错的地方；是谁在处理问题；谁有直接责任；谁负责监督，他有没有作出应对反应。我已阐明我的理念。责任的追究必须止于某个界线。每当政府出现问题就必须更换总理吗？我不认为我国政府是如此行事的，而这也不是其他政府的运作方式。　　确实，在有些国家，每当事情出错，部长们就会按例引咎辞职，在私人企业界，下台的就是公司总裁，这是它们的文化使然。然而，接下来的情况是问题不仅没有得到解决，从形式上更换负责人还被视为解决问题的方案。因此，问题的基本因素没有改变，过了一段时间，问题再度浮现，又要再更换部长或更换政府。我不认为这应该是新加坡处理事情的方式。我们要追根究底，以好好地解决问题。那个做了不应该做的事，或者没做他应该做的事的人，如果我们发现是他疏忽、自满、作出错误判断，就必须离开。但是，如果是真正做事，确保制度运行并有良好工作表现的人，我们需要依赖他们，并给他们支持。　　我刚才说了，欧美国家对我国的情报单位有很高的评价。这并非道听途说，或是专家的说法，而是我亲身同他们会晤交流时听到的。他们向我叙述所碰到的问题，我则向他们解释我国处理问题的方式，他们看着我，对我说：“我们很羡慕你”。因为我们至今在应付威胁时还能维持同社群的接触，争取他们与政府站在同一战线，也因为我们可以说服宗教领袖支持政府，主动站出来为宗教改造小组（Religious Rehabilitation Group）出一份力，设法纠正拘留者的思想偏差，并协助支援他们的家属，以免家属误解改造目的，同时宗教领袖又能在社群中昂然而立，并被视为在维护社群的利益，而非对政府唯命是从。　　这些并非偶然，而是内安局、内政部和政府不动声色，暗地里做事的成果。我觉得人们应该给予他们肯定。因此，当我们说这是一起不幸事件时，它的背后还有一个背景，即使要做出纪律处分，也要保持公平，并从正确的角度着手。●后港区议员刘程强：我有两点要澄清。这是不是李资政所说的新加坡人陷入自满心态，又对政府的要求太高而造成的结果？还有，马士沙拉末因出纰漏而逃跑，我想问总理是否觉得政府应当向新加坡人道歉？ 答：我想这不是个散播形容词的运动。自满的是惠德里路拘留所。我想国人对政府有很高的期待是正确的，因此他们会认真看待任何的疏漏。在其他国家，事情经常出错。在新加坡，我们确保一切能运作，事情不会出错。当事情搞砸时，我们会认真看待，民众也是如此。我想这是事实。这也不是件坏事，但我们在看问题时，也必须明白这一点。 　　道歉？事情发生隔天，黄根成在国会上第一件做的事，就是以副总理身份致歉，我想这已足够。当副总理说话时，他也是在代表政府发言。●刘程强：总理是否同意这不是对犯错者不分青红皂白，只顾处罚的问题？这是关乎政府的问责（accountability）及部长应该负什么责任的问题。大家应当记得当我们在国会辩论部长薪金时，讨论了要让部长薪金与私人企业界挂钩。可是在私人企业界，当出现差错时，有些人包括总裁在内，都会“人头落地”。但是在这里，当出现差错时，我们却说这是“无心之过”。所以，我想很多人，包括我在内，都无法理解在责任及问责方面，政府是如何应用将部长薪金与私人企业界挂钩的原则。总理能否解释清楚？答：我猜想议员终究会问这个问题。我已解释必须划定界限。连议员也没有提议我应该辞职，因为是我委任了黄根成，而黄根成作为部长，他的下属让这种事情发生。划定界限是有必要的。我们必须正确看待事物，即使在私人企业界，人们也得正确看待事物。公司出了问题，总裁必须留下来解决问题。那些每隔两个月或两年就更换总裁的公司，不会兴旺。　　因此，我必须判断谁在哪个层级须负责，我和副总理讨论过，我也同意他的判断并对他有信心。议员们昨天有机会向副总理发问，要是有令他们不满意的答案，他大可追问下去。要是有问题显示副总理无法胜任，那么议员应该提出来。结果什么都没发生。今天，刘程强再提部长领取高薪一事，使用了含糊语言说“你获得高薪，你应该辞职”。那我问刘程强是否觉得副总理应该为这件事辞职？（停顿几秒）没有回答。我想这点就告一段落（已经说明一切）。