Among other things, Jeyaretnam had questioned whether the ministers were “paying less than market value” rent for the expansive bungalows on Ridout Road, in the country’s upmarket Holland Village district. Following last week’s release of the CPIB findings, the former investment banker asserted that the investigation was a “sham of an independent review”.

Lee on Monday said he was fully satisfied with the CPIB’s findings.

“Minister Shanmugam and Minister Balakrishnan have done nothing wrong. They retain my full confidence,” the prime minister said in remarks at the tail-end of a nearly five-hour deliberation in parliament of the CPIB’s findings.

“This government has not, and will never, tolerate any compromise or departure from the stringent standards of honesty, integrity and incorruptibility that Singaporeans expect of us,” Lee said.

Singapore PM’s ‘urgent’ probe of ministers’ bungalow rental finds no wrongdoing

Alongside the CPIB probe, Lee had ordered his most trusted aide, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, to conduct a concurrent investigation.

Teo, like the CPIB, concluded that neither minister engaged in corrupt practices, abused his power or gained a benefit in the process of the leasing.

Lee said the episode was a demonstration of the long-dominant People’s Action Party’s (PAP) resolve to uphold the exacting standards of incorruptibility it had set itself since it came to power in 1959.

The CPIB, which reports directly to the prime minister, has a fearsome domestic reputation for its forensic investigative acumen, and Balakrishnan told lawmakers on Monday that his interview with the agency was “the most uncomfortable, invasive, intrusive [and] thorough process”.

Shanmugam said he welcomed Monday’s lengthy parliamentary deliberations.

Lawmakers from the PAP and the opposition questioned Teo – who conducted one of the two probes – and Edwin Tong, the second minister for law, who fielded technical and legal questions on the episode.

Balakrishnan and Shanmugam, as well as other PAP ministers who spoke on Monday, did not mention Jeyaretnam by name, but Shanmugam slammed “untruths” and “innuendos” circulating online over his rental of the bungalow at 26 Ridout Road.

The former top lawyer referred to claims that his son Ravindran Shanmugam, the Southeast Asia chief executive for the home renovation platform LivSpace, was involved in the improvement works done at the bungalow. Jeyaretnam had alluded to the rumour in a blog post on Sunday. The post appeared to be taken down late on Monday.

Singapore-headquartered LivSpace has said the claims were “completely false and baseless”. Shanmugam described the online comments about his son’s alleged involvement in the renovation works as “utterly false and defamatory”.

“I say to these people: if you want to come after me, come after me. I am perfectly capable of defending myself and they will find out that I will defend myself. Leave my family alone,” Shanmugam said in one of multiple exchanges with lawmakers on Monday.

A number of lawmakers also queried whether there had been a conflict of interest over the matter as Shanmugam, as law minister, was in theory in charge of the agency that had oversight of the two bungalows in question.

To this, Teo and Shanmugam underscored that the CPIB’s report had detailed how the latter had recused himself from decision-making over the matter.

Another issue that cropped up was Shanmugam’s instruction to the then-deputy secretary of the law ministry to provide him with a list of black and white bungalows that were available for rent.

This list can be obtained by all interested prospective tenants and is not considered privileged information. Shanmugam said the specific request was to ensure there was “total transparency” to the bureaucracy on his plans.

The minister, one of the country’s prominent litigators before he joined Prime Minister Lee’s cabinet in 2008, also fielded questions on whether his occupancy of a large bungalow obstructed his ability to “connect” with the everyday concerns of average Singaporeans.

Some political observers had suggested that while there was no evidence of wrongdoing, the saga would accentuate the perception that PAP ministers – among the world’s most well-paid politicians – were increasingly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary citizens.

Singapore’s ministers are paid an annual salary of upwards of S$1 million (US$739,000), and many, like Shanmugam and Balakrishnan – an eye surgeon and former hospital chief executive officer – were high earners well before their entry into politics.

His climb up the property ladder did not decrease his ability to empathise with Singaporeans’ concerns, he said.

Prime Minister Lee, asked by opposition lawmaker Leong Mun Wai if he would tighten the application of the country’s ministerial code of conduct following the saga, said this was not the case.

“What [Leong] really means is, should I or should I not allow ministers to rent Good Class Bungalows or black and whites? My answer is, I do not object to ministers renting black and whites [if] they live within their salary and they live within their means.”