Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.33 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Before I begin, on behalf of the Government, I would like to thank the President for his considered and lucid statement, setting out the issues based on his experience.

Madam, the Constitutional Commission submitted its report to the Prime Minister on 17 August 2016. The Government studied the report and responded by presenting a White Paper to Parliament on 15 September 2016. The proposed constitutional amendments were introduced at the First Reading of the Bill on 10 October 2016. The amendments seek to do two things to enhance the President's important roles.

First, as a symbol and unifier of a diverse and multi-racial Singapore. Second, as a custodian of our nation's past Reserves and the integrity of our public services. Both are integral aspects of our multiracial national identity and the foundations of our success.

Let me begin with a brief history of our Presidency. When colonial Singapore attained self-government in 1959, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was the Head of State. He represented the British Crown in Singapore. Upon Independence in 1965, his constitutional title was changed to the "President". Encik Yusof bin Ishak was our last Yang di-Pertuan Negara and our first President.

Like the British Monarch, the President was the ceremonial Head of State. He had no executive role, and acted on the advice of Cabinet, save in respect of several historical constitutional functions, such as appointing the Prime Minister and dissolving Parliament. His "central and defining" role was to be a symbol of national unity and a personification of the state, representing all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion.

The Elected Presidency was first conceptualised in the 1980s, to guard against the risk of a profligate government squandering the nation's Reserves. We must understand this risk in the particular context of the Westminster system of government that we had inherited.

English constitutional commentator Walter Bagehot observed that the strength of this system is the "[near] complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers". This promotes efficient governance and allows the country to move quickly and effectively, with clear direction and purpose.

The Westminster system may be contrasted with systems of government that strictly separate their constituent branches. The price, however, of strict separation is inefficiency, and, sometimes, even paralysis or deadlock.

The United States (US), for example, experienced this very recently in 2013. Political fights over healthcare laws led to a budget impasse that resulted in a 16-day shutdown of the US government. During this time, about 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed and another 1.3 million were required to work without known payment dates.

Every system of government has its own strengths and weaknesses. The system we inherited permits swift and effective decision-making, but it also means that, if a government chooses to act irresponsibly, there are very few restraints on it, and things can go very wrong, and very quickly.

As then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew cautioned at his 1984 National Day Rally, "… all the Reserves are available. The larder is wide open, you can raid it".

Any government, including a temporary coalition, would have complete access to all levers of power and decision-making, with "untrammelled power" to abuse the Reserves and public services. Irresponsible governments may use Singaporeans' savings to buy short-term popularity or appoint friends to high places to exploit these for personal gains rather than for the public good. A single five-year "spending spree" could bankrupt us and dismantle everything that we have built.

We, therefore, carefully studied and debated various options to guard against the risk of this occurring in the future. Parliament decided that the most effective solution for Singapore was to establish an Elected Presidency with specific veto powers.

As before, the President would have no power to initiate action and no policy-making role. The right and responsibility to govern the country would remain with Parliament and the Cabinet. However, he would have additional non-executive custodial powers over two important areas: the spending of past Reserves and key appointments to the public services.

In order to effectively disagree with an elected Government in these areas, the President himself had to be elected with direct mandate from Singaporeans.

The symbolic role of the Presidency as a unifier and symbol of our nation would remain unchanged and undiminished.

At the time the Elected Presidency was proposed, and still today, many, including Opposition Parliamentarians, agreed with the need to protect our key assets. However, some argue that the best protection comes from within Parliament itself. We need to consider this matter carefully.

The Parliamentary framework itself may not provide sufficient protection for our Reserves. If a majority government decides to indulge in populist spending of the Reserves, there is really little or no incentive for any other Parliamentarian to resist it. Indeed, the call, from both sides of the House, will often be to do more.

Thus far, our Government has exercised financial prudence and great restraint in spending the Reserves. But this is not the norm elsewhere. We see cautionary tales of elections descending into auctions, with political parties competing with one another to promise greater largesse from the nation's coffers.

Take Greece, for example, where political parties engaged in a "disastrous competition" to offer patronage, cronyism, nepotism and welfare populism. Once the populist policies were set in place, it was difficult to turn back as it would be "political suicide" for any party to do so. The end result was economic and political bankruptcy and a younger generation that finds that its future has been mortgaged.

Australia is another example. They have tightly contested elections in rapid three-year electoral cycles. One party comes up with a programme, the other offers more, each trying to outbid the other. This has led successive governments to continue spending accumulated surpluses from a resource boom, which are, by now, gone.

The Elected Presidency plays an important custodial role in safeguarding our key assets, in a way a purely Parliamentary process cannot. It is a unique institution, separate from Parliament, that has the electoral mandate to veto the Government in the two key areas. It also deters political parties from making wild promises at pParliamentary elections. They know that even if they come to power, they cannot splurge our past Reserves on populist measures.

For the past 25 years, the Elected Presidency has helped to strengthen Singapore's governance, by keeping watch over our nation's savings and enabling their use appropriately in times of crisis.

We saw the system at work in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Faced with crippling circumstances, the Government sought the approval of the then-President, the late Mr SR Nathan, to use nearly $5 billion of past Reserves to save businesses and jobs, and to guarantee about $150 billion of bank deposits to keep confidence in Singapore. President Nathan meticulously examined the proposals, consulted the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) and ultimately gave his approval. When our economy recovered, the sum drawn down was returned by the Government to the past Reserves by 2011.

Mdm Speaker, over the past 25 years, refinements have been made to the Elected Presidency from the experience gained from operating the system. However, there remained certain fundamental aspects of the Office that had not been reviewed. The Government, therefore, appointed an independent Constitutional Commission earlier this year to review:

(a) the qualifying process for Presidential candidacy;

(b) the safeguarding of minority representation in the Presidency; and

(c) the framework governing the President's custodial powers.

The Commission was chaired by the Chief Justice and included eight other distinguished members from the public and private sectors. It conducted extensive consultations, including public hearings. It received more than 100 written submissions from many sectors of society and invited 20 contributors to make oral representations across four public hearings. Nineteen of the 20 contributors invited did so, while the Workers' Party indicated that it would make its points at this debate instead.

The public hearings were widely reported in the media and there were many discussions on the issues. The Commission studied all these representations, then published a detailed report of more than 150 pages, setting out its recommendations.

After considering the report, the Government presented a White Paper to this House explaining our position and the details of the proposed constitutional amendments which are the subject of this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I will now turn to the Bill and, with your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the first handout?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you. I will discuss the proposed amendments in the following order. First, the eligibility criteria and the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC). Second, multiracial representation in the Presidency. Third, the framework governing the Elected Presidency's custodial powers, including the role of the CPA; and fourth, the entrenchment framework.

First, eligibility and the PEC. When the system of Parliament appointing the President was replaced by direct elections in 1991, a prequalification approach was established to ensure that "voters are given qualified and suitable candidates to choose from". This was necessary because the Elected President had to be a person who "fulfil[s] exacting standards of competence, experience and rectitude". In his custodial role, he can prevent access to past Reserves and veto Budgets, transactions and key appointments. He cannot simply rubber-stamp the Government's proposal or pass off the CPA's recommendation as his own. He must make his own decision in the exercise of his discretion.

That means he must have knowledge, competence and discernment to assess whether proposals are in the national interest. He must have the courage, conviction and confidence to disagree, where necessary, with the CPA and the elected Government. If he does not perform his role well, he may allow hard-earned money – the hard-earned money of all Singaporeans – to be frittered away needlessly, or prevent the Government from acting in a time of need to avert a crisis.

Several contributors to the Constitutional Commission argued against the imposition of stringent eligibility criteria by comparing the Presidential eligibility criteria with the apparently less exacting eligibility criteria prescribed for the Prime Minister. However, as many of these contributors subsequently conceded, this is a false comparison.

A person only becomes a Prime Minister after passing through "many stringent tests of leadership". He must be elected as a Member of Parliament in the general elections. He will generally lead and be endorsed by the political party which wins a majority of Parliamentary seats. He must command the support of a majority of elected Members of Parliament. These Members of Parliament would have had the opportunity to scrutinise his abilities and values closely. These requirements mean that there is a multi-layered filtering process where a person's abilities are tested before he is likely to become Prime Minister.

The President comes into office by a different route. He is elected into office directly by the public. There needs to be eligibility criteria that set a baseline for the experience and qualities which a candidate ought to possess.

If eligibility criteria are necessary for the Presidency, then the question is whether the current criteria serve as effective thresholds for Presidential candidature. Some clearly require updating because they are out of date.

The economic environment we live in is very different from when the Elected Presidency was introduced in 1991. Our gross domestic product (GDP), Official Foreign Reserves and Central Provident Fund balances have grown by approximately six, seven and eight times, respectively.

Just consider the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates. In 1993, there were only 158 companies, or about 0.2% of Singapore-incorporated companies then, which met the $100 million paid-up capital requirement. Today, there is a much larger base of Singapore companies, and the smallest of the top 0.2% has a paid-up capital of approximately $431 million, and if you go back to the 158th largest Singapore-incorporated company today, it has a paid-up capital of approximately S$1.6 billion. There is, therefore, a need to update and refine the eligibility criteria. Clause 7 of the Bill amends Article 19 for this purpose. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the second handout?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Currently, a person can qualify for Presidential office by having held for three years a position in any of the four limbs of the existing Article 19(2)(g). The first three limbs, which have been referred to as the "automatic track", give automatic qualification to any candidate who satisfies their requirements.

Limb (i) admits holders of certain key public offices. Limb (ii) admits Chairmen or Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards. Limb (iii) admits Chairmen or CEOs of companies with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million. Limb (iv) has been called the "deliberative track". Qualification is not automatic, and an applicant has to satisfy the PEC that he has held a position that has given him experience and ability comparable to those under the first three limbs.

These four limbs still exist under the revised framework. However, a new presentation is adopted in the new Article 19(2)(g)(i). The current limbs (i) and (ii) are housed under the public sector service requirement found in the new Article 19(3). The current limb (iii) is housed under the private sector service requirement found in the new Article 19(4). As for the current limb (iv), each of the "public sector" and "private sector" routes will have its own "deliberative" track for qualification. Please refer to Handout 2.

The Bill retains the three-year qualifying tenure, but introduces, in Article 19(2)(g)(ii), a "look-back" or currency period that applies to all qualifying routes. Any period of service a candidate relies on must fall partly or wholly within the 20 years that immediately precede the date of the Writ of Election. This ensures that each candidate's experience and ability is reasonably current.

In light of this revised presentation, the existing Article 19(3) and (4), which relates to disabilities of the President, are deleted and re-enacted by clause 8 of the Bill as the new Article 19A.

I will now elaborate on the public and private sector service requirements.

The public sector service requirement may be satisfied in four alternative ways. The first way is by holding the key public offices set out in Article 19(3)(a). And this list remains identical to the existing limb (i). It is a "tightly drawn" list of senior officeholders who have handled "complex matters with a wide-reaching public dimension". There is no current need to modify the list because the demands of these offices are self-adjusting over the years. The scope and complexity of these officeholders' responsibilities will increase alongside the development of our country.

The second way to satisfy the public sector service requirement is by serving as the chief executive of a Fifth Schedule entity, as provided for by Article 19(3)(b). As compared to the existing limb (ii), Article 19(3)(b) narrows the qualifying offices to only the "chief executive" of the Fifth Schedule entity. "Chief executive" is defined in Article 19(10) as "the most senior executive who is principally responsible for the management and conduct of the entity's business and operations".

This change ensures that candidates who automatically qualify have sufficient experience in exercising authority, managing large organisations and taking responsibility for making critical and major decisions with wide-ranging and long-term consequences.

Article 19(3)(b) also expands the qualifying entities beyond the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards to also include Fifth Schedule Government companies, such as GIC Private Limited and Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited. These companies are key institutions that manage significant amounts of the national Reserves. Indeed, they are so important to the national interest that the appointment of their chief executives and their annual budgets are subject to Presidential oversight. To ensure that Fifth Schedule entities are of sufficient size, clauses 13(b) and 14(b) of the Bill update the qualifying threshold for adding entities to the Fifth Schedule, from $100 million to $500 million. Clause 34 of the Bill removes Ministry of National Development (MND) Holdings from the Fifth Schedule, as it is now defunct.

The third way to qualify under the public sector route is through Article 19(3)(c), which provides the public sector "deliberative" track. It applies to a person who has served for three or more years in an office in the public sector, for which the PEC must be satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the office and his performance in that office, he has experience and ability comparable to a person who has held a qualifying key public office or has been the chief executive of a Fifth Schedule entity. The PEC must also be satisfied that he has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the Presidential functions and duties.

Examples of persons who may persuade the PEC that they qualify under this track include, for instance, ambassadors of international stature with deep diplomatic experience who have played key roles in negotiations for complex international agreements requiring political and financial acumen and judgement. A person with extensive experience helming a major international organisation may also qualify.

The fourth way to qualify under the public sector route is through Article 19(3)(d), which allows for aggregation of two separate terms of qualifying public sector office for the purpose of satisfying the three-year requirement. Each of these terms must be at least one year in length. For example, a person who has served as a Chief Executive of a Fifth Schedule entity for two years and as a Permanent Secretary for one year will qualify, provided that each of those terms falls wholly or partly within the 20-year window.

The private sector requirement may be satisfied in three alternative ways. The first way is by serving as chief executive of a company that meets the criteria provided by Article 19(4)(a). As with Fifth Schedule entities, only holders of the most senior executive position will qualify.

Four other substantive criteria must be met.

First, Article 19(4)(a)(i) requires that the person's most recent period of service as the chief executive of that company, ignoring any period of service less than a year, must be at least three years.

Second, Article 19(4)(a)(ii) read with 19(7) sets a size requirement for the company. The company must have, on average, at least $500 million shareholders' equity during the person's most recent three-year period of service as chief executive.

As explained in the White Paper, the assessment metric is changed from paid-up capital to shareholders' equity, because shareholders' equity is a better indicator of a company's size and complexity. The updated quantitative threshold of $500 million reflects the vastly different economic climate today, compared to 25 years ago. While the increase in the quantitative threshold may sound large, significantly more companies fulfil the updated size requirement today than companies which fulfilled the existing criteria in 1993.

Third, Article 19(4)(a)(iii) requires that the company must have, on average, made profit after tax for the entire period during which the applicant served as the chief executive. This includes discontinuous periods of service, and also periods of service falling outside the 20-year look-back period.

Fourth, Article 19(4)(a)(iv) introduces a solvency requirement. This applies to candidates who have ceased serving as chief executive of the company before the date of the writ of election. The company must not have been subject to any insolvency event within three years of the applicant's last day of service as the chief executive, or until the date of the writ of election, whichever is earlier.

Under Article 19(5)(a), candidates may only rely on their most recent period of service in a given company, and the size requirement for that company must be met during that period. This prevents candidates from cherry-picking terms of office for qualification purposes.

Take, for instance, a candidate who was a company CEO for six years. For the first three years, the company had an average shareholders' equity of $500 million. But for the most recent three years, the average was below $500 million. The candidate cannot rely on the first three "successful" years of service to qualify for Presidential office, as that was not his most recent period of service as chief executive of the company.

Article 19(6) empowers the Legislature to specify how the PEC is to determine shareholders' equity and profits after tax, as well as what constitutes an insolvency event. The detailed definition of these concepts may change along with accounting standards and insolvency law.

Article 19(7), (8) and (9) introduces an updating mechanism to permit increases to the minimum required amount of shareholders' equity.

The amount can be increased if a committee, consisting of all PEC members: one, recommends an increase; and two, Parliament, by resolution, either agrees to the full increase or chooses to increase it by less than the recommended amount.

The committee must review the amount at least once every 12 years, but may do so more frequently if it chooses. Parliament cannot raise the threshold when the office of President is vacant, or in the last six months before the expiry of the incumbent President's term. The updating mechanism cannot be used to decrease the minimum amount. That can only be done via constitutional amendment.

The second way to qualify under the private sector route is through Article 19(4)(b), which provides for the private sector "deliberative" track. It applies to a person who has served for three or more years in an office in a private sector organisation. The PEC must be satisfied that the person has experience and ability comparable to a person who has served as a chief executive of a typical private company with $500 million in shareholders' equity. As with the public sector deliberative track, the PEC must also be satisfied that he has the experience and ability for Presidential office.

Examples of persons who may persuade the PEC that they qualify under this track include, for instance, chief executives of companies limited by guarantee; managing partners of large partnerships; and chief operating officers (COOs) or chief financial officers (CFOs) of exceptionally large or complex companies.

The third way to qualify under the private sector route is through the aggregation of terms under Article 19(4)(c). This operates similarly to aggregation of public sector terms, save that the private sector candidate may only rely on his most recent term in each company. He is not entitled to cherry-pick his terms, as explained earlier.

Clause 16 of the Bill introduces amendments relating to vacation of and removal from the Presidential office. The new Article 22L(1)(aa) provides that a President vacates his office if he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore.

The new Article 22L(3)(e) provides that the President can be removed if, in demonstrating his eligibility to the PEC, he intentionally or knowingly makes: (a) a materially false or misleading statement of fact; or (b) fails to state a material fact. Similar amendments will be made, in due course, to the grounds for rendering an election void under the Presidential Elections Act.

Clause 6 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts Article 18 to strengthen the PEC.

With the changes to the eligibility criteria, the PEC members will have additional responsibilities, such as (a) assessing if an applicant held the most senior executive position in a Fifth Schedule entity or private company; (b) assessing if a private company fulfilled the size, profitability and solvency requirements; (c) or determining whether the various eligibility criteria are fulfilled in situations involving aggregation of terms. They also have to sit on a committee to periodically review the minimum shareholders' equity threshold.

Article 18(2) augments the PEC with three additional members, so as to expand the PEC's expertise to deal with these additional responsibilities.

Currently, the PEC comprises three members: the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), who is the PEC Chairman; the Chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA); and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR), nominated by the PCMR Chairman.

Article 18(2) adds: (a) a past or current CPA member appointed by the CPA Chairman; (b) a person who must be qualified to be, or have been, a Judge of the Supreme Court, appointed by the Chief Justice; and (c) a person who has private sector expertise and experience that is relevant to the functions of the PEC, appointed by the Prime Minister.

The PEC will remain a standing institution. Article 18(3) stipulates that appointed PEC members will hold six-year terms and may be re-appointed.

Article 18(4) provides the grounds on which a PEC member's office may be vacated. Two of these bear elaboration. First, Article 18(4)(c) provides that PEC members who are appointed to the PEC by an appointing authority can have their membership revoked by their appointers. This mirrors the existing approach for the PCMR member who sits on the PEC.

However, Article 18(6) specifies that an appointment cannot be revoked from the time a writ for a Presidential election is issued to the time a person is declared to be elected as President. This avoids changes to the PEC composition during an election period, which could lead to confusion and also to possible claims of influencing the elections.

Second, Article 18(4)(e) stipulates that the CPA member who sits on the PEC will vacate his PEC office under certain conditions.

Article 18(5) and (7) provides for situations where a PEC member's office falls vacant or where a PEC member is unable to discharge his functions. Article 18(8), (9) and (10) deal with the PEC's internal procedures.

I turn next to the issue of multiracial representation in the Presidency.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has progressed well as a multi-racial society. A recent survey by CNA and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) shows that Singaporeans strongly believe in meritocracy and that a high proportion report living out multicultural ideals.

However, there is a need to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency, given its historical and principal role as the symbol of our multiracial nation. This unique role distinguishes the Presidency from all other public offices.

Prior to 1991, Parliament had appointed Presidents who collectively represented all the different racial groups.

As the President noted in his message earlier today, it was no coincidence that our first four appointed Presidents were Malay, Eurasian, Indian and Chinese respectively.

As then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew emphasised, this rotation was "important to remind Singaporeans that [our] country was multiracial", and the Elected Presidency had to continue to be "a symbol of a multiracial community, and an expression of our national identity".

We are not alone in recognising the importance of multiracial representation in the office of the Head of State. In Switzerland, Canada and New Zealand, the office is rotated among ethnic groups, or periodically held by racial minorities.

Since the Elected Presidency was introduced, much public attention has been focused on the "technocratic" aspects of the President's custodial function. The symbolic role of the Presidency has sometimes been overlooked.

But the symbolic role remains of vital importance. It is necessary to continue emphasising this role, particularly because once we have direct elections, it is difficult to ensure that the Presidents will continue to collectively represent the different racial groups. This is a real concern – that members of minority groups may not be elected to the Presidency for long periods of time. This will undermine the President's vital role as the symbol of our multiracial nation.

Views have been publicly expressed, including before the Constitutional Commission, that special arrangements to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency detract from meritocracy. The argument is that a President must be elected on the basis of merit, and that race should be irrelevant to this determination.

But multiracial representation can be achieved while ensuring that meritocracy is not compromised. As noted in both the Commission's Report and the White Paper, meritocracy-related concerns lose force if the eligibility criteria apply to candidates of all ethnic groups.

Furthermore, as the Commission put it, "the most meritorious candidate may not always be the most electable", because race "has an impact on at least a portion of the electorate". Indeed, the CNA-IPS survey I referred to earlier showed that a significant proportion of respondents were not willing to accept a President from a race other than their own. Therefore, a candidate's race may work against him in some situations and may have a decisive impact in moderately close elections.

In trying to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency, we must carefully balance a number of considerations: the need for multiracialism with our meritocratic ideals; helping, and not impeding, our progress towards our long-term goal of greater multiracialism; and having direct elections while ensuring that Presidents from minority groups are elected from time to time.

After considering many different models, the Constitutional Commission recommended a "five-term hiatus" model, which the Government has accepted.

It seeks to balance all the factors mentioned earlier. It involves minimal intervention and will come into play only if open elections fail to periodically return Presidents from different races.

We also agree that a hiatus of five terms strikes a good balance. If the hiatus is too long, the system may not meaningfully ensure that the Presidency is accessible to the various racial communities. Conversely, if it is too short, the system comes close to designating successive elections for different races, which might not be appropriate in a system of direct elections.

Clause 9 of the Bill inserts the new Article 19B to establish the "five-term hiatus" model.

Elections will generally be open to candidates from all races. However, if a particular racial group has not held the Presidency for the most recent five consecutive terms, Article 19B(1) reserves the next election for candidates from that group. The usual eligibility requirements continue to apply. If, during a reserved election, no eligible candidate from the relevant racial group comes forward, the election becomes an open election.

There may be situations where two or three racial groups have not held the Presidency for five or more consecutive terms. Article 19B(2)(b) and (c) deals with such situations. The general principle is that an election will first be reserved for the racial group which has had a longer hiatus from office. If no eligible candidates come forward, then the election becomes reserved for the racial group with the next longest hiatus, and so on. This continues until the election eventually becomes an open election.

Article 19B(6) defines the three racial groups that reserved elections can apply to:

(a) the Chinese community;

(b) the Malay community; and

(c) a composite group comprising the Indian community and other minority communities in Singapore.

If a person does not fall within any of the three stipulated groups, he can still contest in open elections like any other Singaporean who meets all the usual requirements.

The definitions for the Malay, Indian and other minority communities are identical to those adopted in the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) context.

It is useful to note that the "other minority communities" refers to groups that have some degree of history, permanence and established presence in Singapore, such as the Eurasian community. A similar definition will be introduced for the purposes of determining whether a Presidential candidate belongs to the Chinese community. These racial community definitions have two aspects – an applicant must consider himself a member of the relevant community, and must also be generally accepted by that community as a member.

In the GRC context, this approach has proven to be capable of handling situations involving persons of mixed heritage. The establishment of the committees and procedures to decide whether a person belongs to one of the three racial groups will be provided for by way of legislation subsequently.

I turn now to the framework of the President's custodial powers, which the CPA is an important part of. The CPA is an independent expert advisory body with varied and deep expertise. It helps to ensure that the President's decisions are well-informed and provides a stabilising effect so that the President's important custodial function does not depend solely on the judgement of a single person acting alone. As the President said in his message, the CPA helps to "moderate" the President's custodial powers.

The CPA also plays a role in resolving disagreements that may arise between the President and the Government, as I will explain later.

Overall, we want the framework to facilitate wise and prompt decisions, with suitable mechanisms to resolve impasses. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the third handout?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]

Mr Teo Chee Hean: The Bill improves the framework by making changes to the following areas: (a) first, the President's obligation to consult the CPA; (b) second, the Parliamentary overruling framework; (c) third, time limits for the exercise of President's veto; (d) fourth, disclosure of the President's and CPA's reasons; and (e) fifth, strengthening the CPA. Other consequential amendments will also be made.

First, the President's obligation to consult the CPA. The President is currently required to consult the CPA prior to exercising the discretionary powers listed in the existing Article 21(3). However, this requirement applies in relation to some, but not all, of his fiscal and appointment-related powers.

The obligation to consult the CPA should apply uniformly to all such matters. Clause 22 of the Bill introduces the new Article 37IA, which adopts this uniform approach. As a matter of legislative drafting, unlike the existing Article 21(3) which sets out a list of discretionary powers, Article 37IA(1) imposes a general duty on the President to consult the CPA before exercising any discretionary power conferred on him by the Constitution.

Article 37IA(2) introduces three categories of exceptions to the general duty, for which the President may, but need not, consult the CPA. First, the President's additional protective functions relating to restraining orders under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), detention orders under the Internal Security Act (ISA), as well as investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Second, the President's discretionary powers concerning the CPA under Part VA of the Constitution. Third, the traditional discretionary powers that pre-date the Elected Presidency.

Second, the Parliamentary overruling framework. When the President consults the CPA, the CPA will deliberate the matter and provide its recommendations. Where the President and the Government agree with each other, the CPA's views will not have any legal weight. However, where the President exercises his veto, a veto supported by the CPA should have greater finality than a veto exercised contrary to the CPA's recommendations.

Where the President's advisory council agrees with the Government instead of the President, the issue may warrant a "second look" by Parliament.

This approach currently applies already, only in two areas, namely: (a) Supply Bills; and (b) key appointments to the Public Service and Fifth Schedule entities.

In these areas: The President's veto is final if he acts with the CPA's support. However, where he exercises his veto contrary to the CPA's recommendation, a two-third Parliamentary majority may overrule his veto.

Whether, and when, to trigger an overruling is the Government's prerogative, but the President's veto stands unless it is successfully overruled.

The new Article 37IF(1), (2)(a) and (c), and (3) extends the overruling mechanism uniformly to all fiscal and appointment-related matters subject to a Presidential veto.

On a related note, I will later move an amendment to refine the overruling mechanism in relation to Fifth Schedule entities. Under the amended approach, a President's veto of a Fifth Schedule budget or transaction can be overruled only where the relevant entity has requested for an overruling resolution to be moved and the Government decides to trigger the overruling mechanism. The entity's board or management oversees its operations. They are responsible for the budgets and its transactions. They have the necessary information and context to assess whether to seek to overrule the veto. If the Fifth Schedule entity decides to accept the veto, that should be the end of the matter.

Article 37IF(4) stipulates two areas in which the Article 37IF overruling mechanism does not apply. First, it does not apply to the entrenchment framework, which has its own overruling mechanism. Second, it does not apply to Article 22H, which allows a President to withhold assent from the passing of ordinary legislation if he is of the opinion that the legislation circumvents or curtails his constitutional discretionary powers.

Third, time limits for the exercise of the President's veto. Where the President does not expressly exercise his veto, but instead chooses to remain silent, there could be ambiguity about whether the Government may proceed.

There are currently a few areas, such as Supply Bills, in which the President's failure to exercise his veto within a stipulated time limit will result in him being deemed to not have exercised his veto. Such a deeming mechanism ensures that the President's silence does not result in any ambiguity. It should thus generally be applied to Presidential vetoes.

Clause 11 of the Bill inserts the new Article 21A to introduce the deeming mechanism and stipulate time limits for the President's exercise of his veto powers.

Article 21A(2)(a) provides that a 30-day time limit applies for certain time-sensitive matters, namely: (i) Supply Bills, Supplementary Supply Bills and Final Supply Bills; (ii) the President's additional protective functions relating to ISA detentions, MRHA restraining orders and CPIB investigations; and (iii) amendments relating to entrenched provisions, when the entrenchment framework is brought into operation.

For all other matters, Article 21A(2)(b) imposes a six-week time limit.

Article 21A(3)(a) provides that where the Prime Minister certifies that a matter is urgent, the default time limit can be reduced to a minimum of 15 days.

Article 21A(3)(b) provides that the President and Cabinet may extend time limits by mutual agreement.

Article 21A(4) applies where a Bill is referred to a constitutional tribunal for determination.

The time from the reference to when the tribunal pronounces its opinion is not counted towards the President's time limit.

Corresponding time limits will be set for the CPA to provide recommendations to the President. This facilitates a good working understanding and also ensures that the President has sufficient time to study the CPA's recommendation.

The new Article 37IB requires the President to immediately refer to the CPA any fiscal or appointment-related matter over which the President may exercise a veto power. This is when the CPA's time starts running under the new Article 37IC(1).

If the President has a 30-day time limit, the CPA must make its recommendation within 15 days. If the President has a six-week time limit, the CPA must make its recommendation within three weeks.

Article 37IC(2) allows abridgment of time limits where a certificate of urgency has been issued. The President may extend the CPA's time limit under Article 37IC(3). In all cases, notwithstanding any extensions granted, the CPA must give its recommendation at least five days before the President's time limit for signifying his decision.

If the CPA fails to give its recommendation within the stipulated time limit, it is deemed by Article 37IC(4) to have recommended against the exercise of a Presidential veto.

Fourth, disclosure of President's and CPA's reasons. We agree with the Constitutional Commission that the framework for disclosure ought to be refined. However, as explained in the White Paper, we have adopted a different approach on some points. The revised framework, as set out by the new Articles 37ID, 37IE and 37IF, seeks to permit disclosure where necessary, while still protecting sensitive or confidential information. For simplicity, it may be thought of as a three-stage process. Members may want to refer to the handout.

The first stage applies in all situations where the President is required to refer his decision to the CPA. Under Article 37ID, the CPA's recommendation will be provided only to the President and will include the number of votes for and against the recommendation; and the grounds for the recommendation. The President must then decide whether to exercise his veto.

The second stage applies if the President exercises his veto. Under Article 37IE(2)(a) and (c), he must disclose his grounds and the CPA's recommendation to the Prime Minister. For vetoes relating to the Budget or proposed transaction of a Fifth Schedule entity, the President must additionally make these disclosures to the Chairman of the entity. This will allow the Government and the Fifth Schedule entity to learn of the reasons for the veto and, where overruling is possible, to make an informed decision on whether to initiate the overruling mechanism.

The third stage applies if the Government wishes to initiate the overruling mechanism. Under Article 37IF(2)(b), the Government must, before moving an overruling resolution, cause the President's grounds to be published in the Gazette and send the CPA's recommendation to the Speaker, for presentation to Parliament.

The three-stage approach applies generally to all Presidential vetoes that are subject to Parliamentary overruling.

A slightly different approach is taken for Supply Bills. A Presidential veto of a Supply Bill has considerable public signature, whether or not the Government seeks to overrule the President's veto. The Government either has to return with a fresh Supply Bill, or have its spending confined to the Budget approved for the previous year.

In such cases, Article 37IE(2)(b) provides that, should the President exercise his veto, he must additionally publish his grounds in the Gazette and send the CPA's recommendation to the Speaker for presentation to Parliament.

Fifth, the CPA will be strengthened in three ways. This is necessary because of the enlarged role it now plays.

First, clause 17 of the Bill amends Article 37B to introduce two additional CPA members, one appointed by the President and another appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The CPA will, therefore, have eight members in all: three appointed by the President in his own discretion; three appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister; and one each appointed on the advice of the Chief Justice and the PSC Chairman.

The President appoints one member to be the CPA Chairman.

The new Article 37IG introduces rules relating to the CPA's internal processes. The CPA has a quorum of five members, including the Chairman. The CPA's recommendation must be made by a majority of members present and voting. The CPA Chairman has a casting vote in the event of a tie.

Clause 23(c) of the Bill amends Article 37J(3) to give the CPA autonomy over its internal procedure, subject to any constitutional provisions.

CPA members act independently in advising the President and not at the behest of their appointing authorities. However, a careful balance has been built into the CPA's composition and processes as a safeguard. Let us assume that the President appoints one of his three appointees as the CPA Chairman. If the President's three appointees are unanimous on a particular recommendation, they will only need the agreement of one other CPA member in order for their recommendation to prevail by virtue of the Chairman's casting vote. Conversely, their recommendation may not prevail if they do not have a unanimous view or do not have the support of any other CPA member.

Second, Article 37B(2) staggers the terms of CPA members to ensure continuity and to enhance the CPA's independence. CPA membership is drawn into three divisions. Each division has one member appointed by the President in his discretion and one member appointed on the Prime Minister's advice. In addition, the first division has a member appointed on the Chief Justice's advice, and the second division has a member appointed on the PSC Chairman's advice. Each member's appointment expires every sixth year. The three divisions are staggered so that every two years, all seats in a division will expire together. If a seat is prematurely vacated, Article 37B(3) provides that the term of the replacement member is subject to the expiry date of the member he replaces, so as to preserve the staggering.

Clause 33 of the Bill inserts a new Article 165 to make transitional arrangements.

Third, clause 19 of the Bill inserts a new Article 37D(2) that requires appointing authorities to consider whether a potential appointee (a) is of integrity, good character and reputation; and (b) has expertise and experience relevant to the matters on which the CPA may have to advise the President on.

Clauses 10, 12, 13(a), 14(a), 15, 18, 20, 23(a) and (b), 24, 27, 28, 29 and 31 of the Bill make consequential amendments in light of the changes to the framework governing the Elected President's custodial powers.

I come lastly to entrenchment. The entrenchment framework introduces additional safeguards, over and above the existing requirement of a two-third Parliamentary majority for constitutional amendments, to further entrench certain specific constitutional provisions.

The concept of entrenchment surfaced in the 1988 and 1990 White Papers. When first mooted, entrenchment covered only the Elected Presidency and the core custodial powers of the office. The rationale was to protect the office and powers from easy removal or circumvention by an irresponsible government.

The 1990 Select Committee subsequently recommended extending the entrenchment framework to other provisions, including some that were unrelated to the Elected Presidency.

The entrenched provisions were protected by a national referendum requirement. If the President disagreed with a proposed amendment to an entrenched provision, the amendment – however minor or process-related – may be made only with the support of a two-third national referendum majority. In making his decision, the President was not required to consult the CPA. The entrenchment framework was not brought into operation because the Government felt that it needed more time and experience to refine and adjust the provisions governing the Elected Presidency, which is a unique institution.

Over the years, several revisions have had to be made to improve the working mechanisms for the new powers of the Presidency. Had the provisions been entrenched, it would have been very difficult to improve the system. As the Constitutional Commission observed, the entrenchment framework – if brought into force – renders it "virtually impossible" to amend any aspect of the entrenched provisions.

The fact that today – 25 years on – the Constitutional Commission has had to examine certain fundamental aspects of the Elected Presidency, culminating in this Bill, demonstrates the need for the institution to evolve over time.

As the system continues to evolve, we must revise the entrenchment framework to seek a better balance between rigidity and adaptability. A case study of the US presents a striking example of the need for such a balance.

Numerous US Presidents have emphasised the need for a constitution to be a living document. Yet, scholars have observed that it is "almost impossible" to amend the US Constitution. Amendments must receive a two-third vote in both Houses of Congress – the House of Representatives and the Senate – and be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. If just 13 states reject a constitutional amendment, the amendment fails. In other words, an amendment supported by more than 95% of Americans can still fail. Historically, of nearly 12,000 proposals introduced to amend the US Constitution, only 27 had been successful.

This may explain the greater role that the US courts play in "interpreting" the constitutional text so that it keeps up with the times.

This approach has been criticised for being anti-democratic. It results in constitutional law-making by unelected and politically unaccountable judges, and politicises the Judiciary. Nonetheless, the US example illustrates an important point: the Constitution must, in one way or another, continue to evolve over time.

In our context, this means that we must seek a suitable balance in entrenchment, between rigidity and flexibility. Finding this balance is, ultimately, a matter of judgement. In the White Paper, we approached this by considering three questions. First, which provisions should be entrenched? Second, should the referendum requirement be revised? Third, should the CPA's views be given legal weight in the entrenchment context?

On the first consideration, I mentioned earlier that most of the entrenched provisions relate to the Elected Presidency, but some are entirely unrelated to it. At the same time, provisions relating to other critically important institutions, like the Judiciary and this Parliament, are not specifically entrenched in the same way.

The Commission observed that since these other important institutions are not similarly entrenched, this may support the contention that entrenchment of the Elected Presidency should also be severely done away with.

We think that it remains critical to have an entrenchment framework for the Elected Presidency. The Elected Presidency serves as an additional check on a government in the two key areas. There is a risk that a government bent on raiding the Reserves or compromising the Public Services could remove the Elected Presidency to get rid of that check. This was the initial rationale for entrenchment: to protect the Elected Presidency and its core custodial powers against easy removal. By contrast, it would be much more difficult to remove well-established institutions, such as this Parliament or the Judiciary.

We will, therefore, streamline the entrenchment framework to cover only the provisions establishing the Elected Presidency and its core custodial powers. This approach will also make the framework conceptually more coherent, since it is founded on the unique need to protect the Elected Presidency and its powers from easy removal.

Other provisions which do not relate to these areas will remain protected in the same way as the rest of the Constitution, that is, through the need for a two-third majority in Parliament to amend these provisions. So, they are not unprotected, but continue to be protected by a two-third majority requirement in this Parliament.

The second consideration is whether the referendum requirement should be revised. Referendums serve a purpose on clear-cut strategic decisions, which are so important that it is best that the people decide them directly in a national vote.

However, referendums do have inherent limitations. They generally lead to binary outcomes, even though the issues that underlie the vote may be complex. Communicating these complexities to voters to make an informed decision is often not easy. Emotions and misinformation can have a big influence. For example, studies on the Brexit referendum show that a significant percentage of people who voted to "leave", subsequently regretted their vote.

More recently, in Colombia, the President signed a peace deal with the country's largest rebel group to end a 52-year-old war that cost the lives of 220,000 people and displaced another five million. For this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, the deal had to be ratified at a national referendum. Early polls suggested that it would be comfortably ratified, but a vocal anti-ratification campaign, led by a former Colombian President, engendered a shock result: 50.2% of voters voted against the deal.

Referendums should, therefore, be used in a circumspect way. Perhaps at this point, we should distribute the next handout.

Mdm Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 4.]

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Currently, the existing entrenchment framework applies the same referendum requirement bluntly to all entrenched provisions. The Bill replaces this framework with one that categorises the entrenched provisions into two tiers.

The first tier contains provisions fundamental to the existence of the Elected Presidency and the entrenchment framework itself. The electorate should have a direct say should the Government want to proceed with amendments to these provisions when the President, with the CPA's support, disagrees with the Government.

The second tier comprises provisions relating to more operational aspects of the Elected Presidency and its custodial powers. It may not be necessary to put such issues to a national referendum.

The required referendum threshold will also be revised from a two-third majority to a simple majority. The referendum threshold should be commensurate with the gravity of the decision in question. A two-third referendum majority requirement should thus be reserved only for provisions relating to the surrender of Singapore's sovereignty and relinquishment of our Police and Armed Forces, or amendments to those provisions, as currently already provided under our Constitution. These are the only circumstances under which a two-third referendum majority requirement applies other than those which were for the Elected Presidency.

The third consideration is whether the CPA's views should be given legal weight within the entrenchment framework. Under the existing framework, there is no legal difference whether the President acts with the CPA's support or against its advice.

The CPA's recommendations should be given weight so that it can serve as a counterbalance, as it already does in other areas relating to Presidential vetoes. This is so particularly since the entrenched provisions concerned areas where disagreements between the President and the Government might be sharp and intractable.

I turn now to the precise changes being made. Please refer to the handout.

I will first explain the changes being made to Article 17, which contains several key entrenched provisions. Clause 4 of the Bill amends Article 17 to set out the key functions and certain discretionary powers of the Elected President, and their relation to each other.

The principal Head of State function remains in Article 17(1). The new Article 17(2) is a statement of principle of the President's non-executive custodial function of safeguarding our Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service. The actual custodial powers arising from the functions mentioned in Article 17(2) are defined in the new Article 17(3). The new Article 17(4) provides that the President may exercise other powers and perform other functions according to the Constitution and any other written law.

The existing Article 17(3) and (4), which relate to the election of the President and the timing of polls, are deleted and re-enacted by clause 5 of the Bill as the new Article 17A.

I will now touch on the revised entrenchment framework itself.

Clause 3 of the Bill introduces the new Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, which establish the revised two-tiered framework.

Clauses 2, 30 and 35 of the Bill introduce consequential amendments and remove the existing entrenchment framework.

The new Article 5A applies to a Bill seeking to make textual amendments to Tier 1 provisions. Tier 1 provisions are listed in Article 5A(7). These include Article 17(1) and (2), which establish the President's function as the Head of State and the principle of his custodial function, as well as other provisions establishing the Presidential office.

The entire entrenchment framework, comprising Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, is also protected under Tier 1. This is with the exception of Article 5B(9), which sets out the Tier 2 provisions and, therefore, is protected under Tier 2.

A Bill to which Article 5A applies can only be introduced in Parliament under the routes set out in Article 5A(1) and (2). First, where the President concurs with the introduction of the Bill, or the President withholds concurrence contrary to the CPA's recommendation; or second, where the Bill is supported by a simple majority at a national referendum.

Of course, the Government can submit the Bill to a referendum at any time, regardless of whether the President's concurrence has been sought.

Under Article 5A(5), regardless of how the Bill is introduced, the Bill must still subsequently be passed by a two-third Parliamentary majority.

Article 5A(6) provides that a Bill introduced under the referendum route can be amended if the Speaker takes the view that the amendment is of a minor or purely drafting character, or that it does not affect the substance of the Bill.

The new Article 5B applies to a Bill seeking to make textual amendments to Tier 2 provisions. Tier 2 provisions are listed in Article 5B(9).

The new Article 17(3), which sets out the discretionary powers relating to the President's custodial role over our Reserves and key appointments, is protected in Tier 2. Only the specific discretion-conferring provisions of the Articles listed in Article 17(3), and not the entire Articles, are protected. The Explanatory Statement in the Bill gives a clear example. Article 142 falls within Article 17(3).

However, only Article 142(1A)(a) – the discretion-conferring provision – is entrenched in Tier 2. The other provisions, for instance, Article 142(1A)(b), are not similarly entrenched.

Tier 2 includes other provisions relating to the Presidency and the Election Judge. Article 5B(9) also falls within Tier 2, as explained earlier.

There are three routes for introducing a Bill to which Article 5B applies. That is in the handout. The first two routes mirror those available under Article 5A. These are set out in Article 5B(1), (2) and (5).

The third route is set out in Article 5B(7). A Bill to which Article 5B applies may be introduced in the ordinary way like other constitutional amendment Bills. However, it can subsequently be passed only by a three-quarter Parliamentary majority.

The new Article 5C applies to a constitutional amendment Bill that circumvents or curtails any discretionary power of the President that is conferred by a Tier 2 provision. Under Article 5C(1), the President may withhold assent to such a Bill.

The Article 5C mechanism is necessary because circumvention or curtailment of powers can occur without textual amendments being made to the power-conferring provision. Let me illustrate this with an example.

The Government's spending limit depends on the expected long-term real rates of return (ELTRROR) on the "relevant assets" pool. Under Article 142(1A)(a), the President's concurrence must be obtained for the ELTRROR proposed by the Finance Minister. In this way, the President has a say over the Government's spending limit.

Assume that a Bill purports to remove certain assets from the definition of "relevant assets". Article 5B does not catch this amendment because the power-conferring provision – Article 142(1A)(a) – is not textually amended. However, the President's custodial power over the ELTRROR and the Government's spending limit is diminished by such a change. This may, therefore, amount to a circumvention or curtailment that will be caught by Article 5C.

I should emphasise that this is only a hypothetical illustration. Whether there is any circumvention or curtailment is, ultimately, a question of law on the facts of every case.

Article 5C(4) stipulates the circumstances under which the President's withholding of assent may be overruled. Where he withholds assent with CPA's support, he may be overruled if the Bill is supported by a simple majority at a referendum, or a three-quarter Parliamentary majority affirms the Bill. Where he withholds assent contrary to the CPA's recommendation, a two-third Parliamentary majority may affirm the Bill.

Under Article 5C(2), on Cabinet's advice, a Bill may be referred to a constitutional tribunal for a decision on whether Article 5C applies to it. If the tribunal rules that Article 5C does not apply to the Bill, the President will be deemed to have assented to the Bill. But if the tribunal rules that Article 5C applies, then the President has basis to withhold assent. In this situation, the same Article 5C(4) overruling mechanism applies.

In all situations under Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, where the President has refused to concur or assent, the Government must make public the President's reasons and the CPA's recommendations before it can submit the Bill to a referendum or move a resolution to affirm a Bill. This is stipulated in Articles 5A(3) and (4), 5B(3), (4) and (8), and 5C(5) and (6).

The revised entrenchment framework seeks to achieve a more workable balance between preserving the adaptability of the entrenched provisions, and preventing easy removal or amendments to the Elected Presidency. We will consider bringing the framework into force after observing how the wide-ranging amendments in this Bill operate in practice.

Mdm Speaker, before concluding, I will just mention the amendments relating to Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs). The reasons for and the extent of these amendments have been explained by the Prime Minister in the debate on the President's Address at the Opening of Parliament earlier this year.

Clause 25 of the Bill, therefore, amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of NCMPs from nine to 12, and to give them the same voting rights as Members of Parliament. Other amendments consequential upon these changes are made as well.

Mdm Speaker, let me draw to a conclusion. Prior to the establishment of the Elected Presidency, the system for appointing the President by this House allowed Parliament to take into account a fine balance of considerations in appointing a President to office. It allowed for consideration of qualities, such as profound learning, good character, high reputation and strong moral fibre. The ethnicity of a candidate was also important, given our multiracial composition.

The outcome was that the Presidency was appointed from among the major racial groups, providing for them to be represented in the Presidency from time to time.

The inception of the Elected Presidency in 1991 did not change the President's foremost symbolic and unifying role. However, it overlaid onto the office an additional custodial role and transformed it into an elected office.

Today, it is no longer this House that balances all the considerations when appointing a President to perform the President's unifying and symbolic role. We, therefore, need another framework to achieve and maintain this fine balance. The proposed five-term hiatus mechanism helps, where necessary, to facilitate the periodic election of members of different racial groups to the Presidency. This ensures that even though Presidents are now directly elected, they will, over time, continue to collectively embody the multiracialism that symbolises us as a people and as a country.

We must also ensure that the eligibility criteria stay updated, to maintain a measure of assurance that Presidential candidates have the necessary experience and expertise for the custodial role.

These add to our continuing efforts to improve the Elected Presidency so that the President's custodial powers are exercised in a timely manner, and with sufficient weight given to the collective advice of the CPA. This will provide stability to our system and also help to avoid gridlock in situations where the President and the Government do not agree.

Mdm Speaker, in January this year, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to ensure that our country does not get "swept off course by a transient public mood, or an erratic government". The Government needs to be able to respond to the mood, but not go too far and "capsize the boat".

I identify with this analogy at a very personal level. I devoted many years of my life serving in our Navy. In that time, I experienced navigating through both calm waters and rough seas. We learnt never to underestimate the power of the seas. We could not control the environment around us, but we sailed with confidence in the knowledge that – even in the face of a challenging environment where the unexpected might occur – we had built into our vessels various systems to maintain their stability and integrity.

One of these is to provide sufficient ballast. In rough seas, this helps to prevent the ship from pitching and rolling uncontrollably and capsizing. Yet, if there is too much ballast, the vessel's speed, agility and responsiveness will suffer.

Our nation, like a ship, needs an optimal amount of ballast – enough to keep us stable, but not so much as to render us sluggish and unresponsive to change.

Our Presidency has always served as our flag – our maritime flag – a symbol of our identity at sea. We want to make sure that the Presidency remains a symbol Singaporeans from all communities will continue to identify with.

But since 1991, it has also become an important part of our ballast system, stabilising our ship by safeguarding the two key areas – our Reserves and key appointments.

The proposed amendments seek to enhance the ability of the Presidency to play both these important roles, to help keep our people united and our country stable. Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

6.08 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Speaker, the constitutional amendment Bill that we begin debating on today needs to be seen in the context of strengthening our system and our country. From a Third-World country that suffered from a weak economy and racial strife in the 1960s to the First-World nation that we are so proud to declare as our home wherever we go today, it is our incorruptibility, meritocracy and multiracialism that saw us through.

These values would be nothing but mere words if we only expounded them in forums or paper, but it was through Singaporeans' support, continuous social improvements and conscientious system and policy design that we could truly embrace them. Therefore, any amendment must be made in the spirit of further entrenching our values of incorruptibility, meritocracy and multiracialism within Singapore, so that we can continue to ensure continued peace and progress for our nation.

When studying the amendments set out in this Bill, there are two key components that stand out to me and which I would like to talk about in this debate.

Firstly, Elected Presidency is necessary. We had introduced in 1991 an Elected Presidency with reserve powers to safeguard our Reserves. However, there have been calls to revert the Presidential system to the appointed system from the current elected one.

Some are concerned about Singapore becoming inevitably fragmented as segments of the population take sides. Some were concerned that candidates will make unrealistic but populist promises that are not provided for in the Constitution and, therefore, cast ridicule on the system. Some Members of the Opposition have even argued for an abolishment of the Elected Presidency, reverting back to the former system of Appointed Presidency, as they say that an elected President, whom they assumed as the Ruling Party's nominee, may abet in squandering away our Reserves together with the Government! But I have different views. Allow me to share.

First and foremost, and the most important, the custodial role of the President is to safeguard our Reserves should the Government of the day go rogue and, hence, the metaphor of the President as holding a "second key". And because the Government of the day is formed by the Party that had won Singaporeans' mandate, it would be almost impossible for the President to challenge the Government if the President has no electoral mandate to back him.

Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, articulated this point very clearly in 1984. He said, and I quote, "[If] President were to block the spending of any Reserve which the government in office has not itself accumulated, the newly elected Prime Minister will be furious to be thwarted. Therefore, it may be better for the President to be elected by the electorate, instead of Parliament, so that he can have the moral authority to intervene, preferably with the agreement of a Presidential Committee for the protection of Reserves."

Second, the argument that an appointed President is better than an elected President in preventing a rogue Government from squandering away Singapore's Reserves is unconvincing. Assuming Party X won the mandate and forms the government, but it turns rogue and, since it is in power, decides to reward its political allies through high value contracts without tender and when the finances go south, decides to draw on the Reserves to fill the fiscal hole. And now, let us assume the President is an appointed one – appointed by moving a Motion in Parliament by the Prime Minister, who would be from Party X. Clearly, with Party X's members forming the majority of the House, the candidate favoured by Party X will become President. Such a President is in no position, and may have no intention, to block any unwarranted draw on the Reserves.

In contrast, with an Elected Presidency system, eligible candidates who have no political leaning and truly have a heart to serve Singapore can contest against the so-called establishment candidate. Singaporeans might regret electing Party X into government, but they sure can make the right decision through an Elected President.

Third, the Presidential Election is unlike a General Election. The roles of a President, what can or cannot be done, are clearly set out in the Constitution. There should not be a contest of different political directions and values, which can be divisive. The Presidential Election will instead focus on choosing the candidate best suited to assume the custodial role and in representing Singapore.

Finally, if the candidate does not understand what can or cannot be done as a President and makes wonderful election promises that cannot be fulfilled under the Constitution, then this candidate's wisdom and abilities are in question. With the enhanced eligibility criteria, I believe the qualifying candidates will not have such an issue.

Therefore, I am supportive of having an Elected President because he or she must have the moral authority to stand against a government that has gone rogue. He or she must be able to safeguard our Reserves, which are sacrosanct to Singapore's long-term survival as an economy and as a nation.

Second, multiracialism is key to Singapore. Prior to today's debate, I was part of a panel discussion organised by Zaobao in September. During the discussion, Cultural Medallion holder Mr Han Lao Da, also known as Mr Han Yong Yuan, shared an anecdote that particularly resonated with me.

All our Singapore dollar notes, if one notices, bear the portrait of our very first President Mr Yusof Ishak. Our currency is not only used within Singapore by Singaporeans or foreign visitors; some of it also gets circulated overseas, reaching the hands of many foreign friends. The message subtly conveyed through our currency's design is the emphasis on multiracialism in Singapore.

Seventy-five percent of Singapore's population is ethnic Chinese. It is easy to mistake us as a Chinese society and this is not a figment of our imagination. In the not-so-distant past, many people in the West had either not heard of Singapore or often mistook Singapore as part of China. Even today, after years of hard work in fostering multiracialism and positioning ourselves as a multiracial society, Singapore is still nicknamed as "坡县" amongst some groups of People's Republic of China (PRC) nationals, referring us to being a county, not even a province, of China. Whether it is a term of affection or not, it is clear that Singapore, in some quarters, is seen as a Chinese society and a distant county of a larger China.

China is an old friend of Singapore. We should, and we must, continue strengthening the Sino-Singapore relationship. But perceiving Singapore as a Chinese county undermines our independence and standing as a sovereign nation.

Drawing our lens closer, look at our neighbours and one can easily observe how Singapore's population makeup is unnatural in this part of the Southeast Asia region.

That the majority of our population is ethnic Chinese is a fact. But we must make sure that our Head of State – an important national symbol – reflects our multiracialism. The imperative of doing so goes beyond fulfilling our ideal of a multiracial society, even though this is absolutely desirable. There is a need for us to assert our independence and multiracial complexion because of the geopolitical realities we face. Non-Chinese Singaporeans are not a "by the way"; we are all an integral part of Singapore.

Therefore, what if we do not have a President of a particular race for a prolonged period of time? What if it is not because the candidate of a particular race is less capable or less experienced or has less stature, but because voters simply prefer someone they feel they identify with more?

Some argued that by having a reserved election, we will be sacrificing meritocracy for multiracialism. I disagree. Both are equally important and this amendment Bill helps to ensure this. I will set out my reasons as follows.

Firstly, the eligibility criteria, which really is the first filter, will ensure that all candidates have the required competency and experience, regardless of whether it is a normal Presidential Election or a reserved one. With the amendment to the candidates' eligibility, most would agree that it is a highly stringent set of criteria. Under the updated criteria, far less than 1% of the total number of registered companies in Singapore will have shareholder equity of $500 million. At this level, I believe their CEOs would have the competence, experience, credibility and stature needed to stand as the Head of State of Singapore.

Second, prejudices are real. The IPS Study on Race and Religion in Singapore by Dr Matthew Matthews released in 2014 revealed that racial prejudice continues to be present in modern Singapore. And 62.8% of respondents think there is about the same or more racial prejudice in Singapore today compared to five years ago. Non-Chinese are four times more likely to feel racially discriminated against regarding a job or job promotion, compared to Chinese. And even though 95% of respondents feel that Singapore is important to their sense of identity, still 88.7% also feel that race is integral to their sense of identity as well. And if we really walked the ground, one would know that within certain segments of our population, there is a racial preference for President and in a specific order.

My point is that having preferences is a human tendency and, even if we studiously tried to be race-blind, race preferences can still manifest unconsciously. The person having these preferences may not even be aware of it. Therefore, if a talented individual fails to be elected because of his or her race, it would truly be very sad.

Third, the President must personify our Singaporean character and values. Before the current elected Presidential system, the convention in the appointment system had been to appoint Presidents from different races. In this amendment that we are debating today, the reserved election ensures that a particular race, defined as "community" in the Bill, will not be neglected over an extended period of time. And this applies to all races, not just the so-called minority races. Meaning, even though the Chinese form the majority of our population, but if for some reason, there is no Chinese President for five terms, the sixth term will be reserved for the Chinese. Therefore, I do not see this as a discriminatory rule, since it applies to all races. Madam, allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In Singapore, the President is the Head of State and our "second key". The President represents all Singaporeans. Be it domestically or internationally, our President must have certain powers and dignity so as to personify our Singapore spirit.

At today's debate, I would like to talk about the importance of the attributes of the Presidential candidates and the importance of maintaining a multiracial society.

Firstly, the quality of the candidates must be high. Hence, it is necessary to raise the criteria. Times have changed. In the 1990s, there are less than 200 qualified companies in Singapore. Today, qualified companies based on the same criteria have increased to more than 2,000, more than 10 times as many. If we do not raise the criteria to reflect our current situation, how can we ensure that the candidates are truly capable and thus his words carry weight and will not be looked down upon?

Moreover, the candidates selected based on these more stringent criteria, whoever he or she may be, we can be assured that he or she has the capability and confidence to control the "second key" and that our Reserves will not be squandered away.

If we look at this issue from another angle, raising the qualifying criteria can avoid certain situations, say, there are several Presidential candidates and one of them does not possess the relevant experience and capability. However, he is a charismatic speaker and even promises things that he cannot possibly deliver. He managed to persuade the people and is eventually elected. After the election, we then realise that he actually does not have the relevant knowledge and cannot discharge the Presidential duties well. To make things worse, he does not possess sufficient knowledge and holds a different view from the Government, yet he insists on doing things in his own way. This will result in a gridlock. Such a situation will definitely lead to more problems than benefits. Hence, it is necessary to raise the qualifying criteria to make sure that every candidate is competent.

Secondly, to maintain a multiracial society should not only be limited to our attitudes and words and how we treat our compatriots. It must be seen to be so.

Earlier in my English speech, I talked about the sensitivity of our geographical politics. It is not difficult to see that this "little red dot" with a dominant Chinese majority is rather unnatural in this region and among our neighbours. On the other hand, some Chinese netizens refer to Singapore as "Singapore county" which seems to regard Singapore as part of China. Although some people think that this is an endearing term and shows that Singapore and China are old friends, it will inadvertently affect Singapore's international image and undermine its independence.

Multiracialism is the foundation of our country and it is the secret of our success. It cannot be taken for granted. Even though Chinese make up the majority of the population, every citizen is an integral part of the Singapore Family. Therefore, the President who represents us should exemplify the spirit of multiracialism. By having Presidents from different races from time to time will reflect our diversity and will surely benefit Singapore.

Some people are concerned that a hiatus-triggered reserve election will weaken meritocracy, an equally important founding principle. I believe that meritocracy and multiracialism are equally important and a reserved election does not mean that we have to compromise one or the other.

Firstly, to meet the more stringent qualifying criteria is the foremost criterion and the first filter. Be it normal Presidential election or reserved election, all the candidates must meet the same stringent qualifying criteria. There is no preferential treatment. They all have to prove that they have what it takes to be a President.

Secondly, when a member from any racial group has not occupied the President's Office after 30 years, namely, five continuous terms, the sixth Presidential Election will be reserved for a candidate from that racial group to ensure that all races are treated equally.

Basically, I hope that we will never have to have a reserve election. It is merely a preventive measure.

We all understand and agree that the Singapore President shoulders the responsibility to safeguard our Reserves. The President is our "second key". He or she symbolises our Singapore spirit.

As Chinese, our community accounts for three-quarters of the Singapore population. We are influential. If we sincerely believe in the value of multiracialism, we, as the majority race, should take our stand and act upon what we believe to support this Bill.

The reform of the Elected Presidency is carried out after much deliberation at the Government's end. The adjustment was made after public consultation and after the Constitutional Commission has studied this matter thoroughly. I believe that the reason behind all these efforts is because the Government hopes to enhance the mechanisms in Singapore and to lay a stronger foundation for Singapore's future.

We are all very proud of Singapore. Our "little red dot" has accomplished remarkable achievement in the international arena. Wherever we are, at any international occasion, we are able to hold our heads high. Singapore is our home. This is where our heart belongs. Here, in Singapore, neighbours come from various walks of life and have different backgrounds. We have many shared memories and experiences. We have also created countless miracles together. Hence, we must continue to work hard and forge ahead with the same nation-founding philosophy.

(In English): Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.

6.27 pm

The Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mdm Speaker, I agree with the key changes to the Elected Presidency.

I agree on the need to change the qualifying criteria so that the potential candidate has the experience to deal with how our sizeable financial resources should be managed.

I also agree that given the complexity of the issues facing our Government, that the strengthened CPA and the closer working relationship in the CPA and Elected Presidency will ensure the best decisions for the sake of our nation.

Finally, the need to ensure that every community has the chance to see one of its own becoming the Elected President underscores the very nature of our multiracial society. It very specifically endorses the view that this multiracial character of our society must also be represented in the highest office of the land.

Personally, I would like to see this multiracial character of our society be a lived reality in all aspects of our society. Achieving this is an ongoing effort but which we must never let up. For now, I shall focus on how we seek to achieve this in the Elected Presidency.

Madam, one of the stated aims of the new Elected Presidency changes is to ensure that every community has a chance to see one of its own becoming the Elected President. Yet, the real challenge is to ensure minority representation in an electorate where the Chinese community dominates.

Surveys and statistics have shown how, despite all our efforts at forging a common Singaporean identity, the current reality in Singapore is that the tribal tendency remains a factor. People still tend to drift towards their own kind. These findings have caused some discomfort to some Singaporeans. I myself did not find it pleasant reading it.

It is also my sincere wish that, one day, race will no longer matter. But for now, we cannot ignore the facts and trust that the better angels of our nature will surely prevail especially on a matter as critical as the Elected Presidency.

We had recognised such tribal tendencies in some of our policies, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in public housing. When that policy was implemented in 1989, there was some unease amongst Singaporeans, including the minorities. The policy seemed heavy-handed. Yet, over the distance of time, the policy has served the national interest well by preventing ghettos in our public housing and enabling integration to take place.

I myself struggled with this policy in my younger days. But I have to recognise that we need such policies to avoid the pitfalls of other societies that have ignored the human tendency to behave in tribal ways and insisted on seeing the world as they sincerely believe it to be. These societies have suffered for it. The integration of different communities into a cohesive and united Singapore society requires deliberate policy tweaks and constant work.

We are now introducing a similar policy tweak. While being presented euphemistically as a circuit breaker in successive elections of the Elected President, it is a tweak that guarantees a chance for a person from the minority to become the Elected President. In typical Singapore fashion, if this works, we will see, over a sufficiently long time, representation from the various communities as Elected Presidents, reflecting the racial breakdown of our society.

The support for this proposed policy tweak has not been unanimous. Some argue that Singaporeans are mature enough to know whom to elect in order to maintain a harmonious society. Then there are also some who feel that such a move goes against the strain of meritocracy as they believe in, and, in fact, is really another example of doing too much in helping the minorities in Singapore. Where do ordinary Singaporeans lie in this spectrum of views?

The recent study by CNA-IPS found that, given a choice, most Singaporeans prefer someone of the same race as President. More than 80% of respondents of Malays and Indians said that they would accept a Singaporean Chinese as President. However, less than 70% of Chinese respondents found a Singaporean Malay or Indian to be acceptable as President.

Furthermore, according to a Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) survey, when asked if they think we should have a minority as an Elected President, the vast majority, including the Chinese, agreed wholeheartedly. However, when presented with the circuit breaker option, the majority baulked. Why is this so? We can only guess. But these studies confirmed the concerns I had when this idea was first mooted.

I was concerned because it was putting the minority communities, including my community, in the spotlight again. To understand this is to put yourself in the shoes of the minority community, especially the Malays, and see it from our perspective over the 50-year trajectory of nation-building. We have frequently been in the spotlight for the last 50 years. After separation from Malaysia, there were difficult questions for all communities, and more so for the Malay community, in this new nation.

At the same time, we faced socio-economic challenges. We lagged behind in education. Higher divorce rates, higher crime rates and, more recently, Islam has been associated with the terrorism threat. The situation, of course, has been improving because of the hard work by the community and the Government's support, and we must continue to forge ahead. But it has not been all smooth sailing.

Against this backdrop, I was worried that this move, to ensure that there will be a Malay president, will be seen as the Government going out of its way to help a minority community that has lagged behind. I was worried that a Malay candidate may not be able to command the respect of all Singaporeans.

So, I will be the first to say that we must never compromise on the qualifying criteria. If we are to carry out the proposed tweak to ensure minority representation, we must do so because it is good for Singapore and Singaporeans, and not just for the minority communities, and, certainly, not for the Malay community. The candidate, minority or otherwise, must meet the same exacting requirements and, therefore, be seen to be good for all Singaporeans.

Let me also recognise that this desire to see a president from one of our own, especially for the Malays, is an emotive one. Among the older Malays, having lived under a Malay president, it is understandable that they yearn for one after a very long time. We have not had a Malay president for 46 years. Our first President, the late Mr Yusof Ishak died in office on 23 November 1970. An entire generation of Malays has grown up without ever having a Malay president. Furthermore, the younger generation has grown up with meritocracy as the basis of how our society is organised. And, hence, among younger Malays, there seem to be a bit of reluctance to have the circuit breaker. Yet, in closed door discussions, many would raise their hands in wanting to see a Malay president. But very few would say this publicly.

Some would argue that the race of the candidate should not matter; that the most important thing is whether that person can do the job and do it well. But to have a qualified Malay to do the job speaks to a long-held desire among the community to see one of us serving in the highest office in the land. It is about our place in this nation that we call home.

Malays, more so than other communities, look forward to seeing one of their own recognised for excellence and leadership. So, when Natasha Nabila topped the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) in 2007, and, in fact, broke the record for the highest PSLE scores till then, the community was overjoyed. In previous years, a Chinese student may have topped the PSLE and yet we did not see fireworks or celebrations in the Chinese community.

For me, it speaks to a personal experience. In 1968, we had our first Malay President's Scholar, Mr Mohd Ismail Ibrahim, my eldest brother. That same year, my brother's school mate from Raffles Institution, Mr Christopher Catherasoo, was also a winner of the President's Scholarship.

The celebration by both communities could not have been more stark. When we sent my brother off at the airport ‒ and this was Paya Lebar Airport ‒ my entire clan turned up and some had even camped overnight at our place. Christopher, on the other hand, was accompanied by only his immediate family. The airport was swamped by Malays! It was a moment of celebration.

The truth is that we do not have many Malays in key positions of power and leadership. Having one being a President is not just nice but timely. But this cannot, and must not, be the reason why we should have a Malay President. The Malay candidate must meet the same exacting standards as demanded of candidates from the other communities. My reason for raising these examples is for the other communities to better understand the psyche of the Malay community and the historical burden that we have carried when we have been perceived as an underachieving community.

I now come to my final point, which is about the quality of the candidates. There are two equally important roles of the Elected President – ceremonial and custodial. I fully support both roles, especially that of a unifying figure representing all Singaporeans. In this regard, it is the character of the candidate that I most worry about. After all, we have seen very successful businessmen who are also crooks. To have stayed honest is too low a bar.

How do we guarantee that that candidate will make decisions in the best interest of all Singaporeans? Indeed, what makes a good president for all Singaporeans? While we have debated much about the qualifying criteria, especially the candidates' experience in managing large organisations, equally important are the values and ethos of the candidates. Madam, allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I agree with the changes to the Elected Presidency.

I agree that we should change the qualifying criteria so that candidates have sufficient experience to manage the country's finances effectively.

I agree with the additional powers for the CPA considering that the issues faced by the Government are increasingly complex. Closer cooperation between the CPA and the Elected Presidency will ensure that the best decision can be made for the country.

Efforts to ensure that every ethnic community has a chance to see its community representative as an Elected Presidency, the highest role in the land, is a reality of our plural society. Personally, I would like to see Singapore's multi-racial character emphasised across the whole of society. These efforts must continue. For the moment, my focus is on how this can be achieved in the Elected Presidency system.

Mdm Speaker, as I have explained earlier, many efforts have been made to create a single Singaporean identity. But the reality is that every community has the tendency to choose its own people.

Some Singaporeans are uncomfortable with this fact, including myself. For example, when it was introduced in 1989, I was unsure of a number of Government policies, such as the EIP in public housing. However, it was successful in achieving the Government's objective of ensuring that our housing estates do not turn into ghettos where only minorities live. In fact, it gave an opportunity for people to integrate. Clearly, we need such policies so that we do not make the mistakes of countries that ignore the tendency of people to divide themselves into ethnic groups. The integration that we see today in Singapore is the result of such policies that are created intentionally. It will also require a continuous effort to ensure harmony among the different communities.

The changes proposed to the Elected Presidency will ensure the minority communities will have the chance to become an Elected President. In the long term, it will become a reflection of the plural society in Singapore.

The results of a study by CNA-IPS show that, if given the opportunity, a large majority of Singaporeans will tend to choose a candidate from their own community as President.

Meanwhile, an MCI study showed that, when asked whether Singapore needs a minority as an Elected President, the majority of respondents, including Chinese respondents, agreed. However, when asked about the review of the Elected Presidency system that will ensure minority representation, they did not agree. Why? These studies confirmed my concerns when this idea was first introduced.

I was concerned that, once again, the minorities are in the spotlight, especially the Malay community. Over the last 50 years, the Malay community has continually been in the spotlight. After Singapore separated from Malaysia, the question was raised about the position of all communities, especially the Malays, in a new Singapore. At the same time, we faced socio-economic challenges, including education, high divorce and crime rates and, recently, the threat of terrorism. This situation has changed as a result of concerted efforts by the people and with the support of the Government. The reality is that we have gone through difficult times, but we have to continue with our efforts.

With this background, I am concerned that the move to ensure Malay representation will be seen as a Government effort to help the minority group which has been left behind. I am concerned that the Malay candidate will not have the full support of other Singaporeans.

So, I firmly state that we should not change the strict criteria that was established. If the change is done to ensure a minority representation, it must be done because it is good for Singapore and all Singaporeans, and not just for the minority groups. The Elected Presidency candidate, whether it is from the minority group or not, must fulfil the qualifying criteria and he must be good for all Singaporeans.

I agree that the desire to see a President from our own community, especially among the Malays, is an emotive matter. For older members of the community who have seen a Malay President, their yearning for another Malay candidate once again after 46 years can be understood. However, for the younger generation of Malays, who have grown up in a system of meritocracy and have never had a Malay President, they seem rather reluctant to accept this review. But in closed meetings, many wish to see a Malay President. Nonetheless, not many may want to admit this fact openly.

More than other communities, the Malay community has a strong desire to see one of its own being recognised for their achievement or leadership. So, when Natasha Nabila became the top PSLE student, breaking the record for the highest aggregate score in Singapore in 2007, the whole Malay community also shared her joy. It is different when a Chinese student becomes the top PSLE student. We do not see the Chinese community going into such celebrations.

The same thing happened to my own family in 1968, when my eldest brother, Mohd Ismail Ibrahim, became the first Malay recipient of the President's Scholarship. In the same year, his classmate from Raffles Institution, Christopher Catherasoo, also won the President's Scholarship.

But the celebrations from the two communities were vastly different. When we sent my brother to Paya Lebar Airport, my whole clan went together. Some even spent the night in my house. But Christopher was only sent by his close family members. The whole airport was filled with Malays! It was a moment to be celebrated together as a community.

Ultimately, when we have a President, even if he is a Malay, the candidate must meet the established criteria. We want the candidate to be respected and to have the full support of all Singaporeans.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, we must look for good, honest, hardworking, selfless individuals who are prepared to do what is right for Singapore. To be a president is no mere job. It is a calling to serve all Singaporeans. It demands integrity, selflessness and the desire to always promote the common good. So, regardless of the candidate's race, they must all be held to the same high standards of character and values. We must never compromise on standards. We do not want, and we cannot accept, tokenism. We want a president to command the respect of all Singaporeans.

I, therefore, stand by the proposed enhancements to the Elected Presidency framework because, first and foremost, these enhancements serve to ensure that the best qualified person who reflects the values and ethos of our nation will be elected to the highest office of our land. [Applause.]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

6.45 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, once upon a time, 60 years ago, our Founding Generation of leaders led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew – they had a dream. A dream of a multi-racial nation. A dream full of audacity and hope. It was the era of post-World War II, of decolonisation. Communal forces in newborn nations. The American Civil Rights movement had not even run its course.

Today, looking around the world, in so many nations, that dream is still very far from reality. We see the lessons of Ferguson, Missouri – deep divides between races, a tinderbox set alight in the burning violence that followed. We see the lessons of the banlieues in France, where children can grow up isolated, seeing a ceiling above them almost from the time they are born, wondering if they will ever have a place in the broader society. We see the lessons from countries much closer to home. Because all too often, when societies are left to natural workings alone, human imperfection can lead a society to a less than perfect outcome.

Economists know this. This is why the laissez-faire approach is now moderated to recognise the human externalities within ourselves. Last year's Human Development Report by The World Bank spoke of behavioural science – the art of understanding human strength and weakness.

So, in an imperfect, often fallen world, how do we aspire to a better future? Do we start by blinding ourselves? Or do we start by strengthening our society by seeing better, understanding better, so that we may see beyond our differences?

In France, the 1958 Constitution, the French Constitution's Article One states that there shall be equality for all French citizens, no matter their "origin, race or religion". Yet, the New York Times reported in a 2009 study that of the 555 deputies elected to the National Assembly in metropolitan France, just three – three out of 555 – were from minority backgrounds.

To put this in perspective, depending on which study you look at, between 10% and 20% of the French people have foreign origins, represented that year by three out of more than 500 deputies in the French National Assembly.

In France and other societies, we have seen that a statement of aspiration is not enough. The natural workings of society are not enough. Good intentions are not enough. And today, many of these countries face deep, deep divides.

Even in the United Kingdom, in its higher education and academia, amidst the idealism of dreaming spires, there was imperfection. I spent some time there as a student, lived as a minority for a while, got involved with student politics. Not part of the official curriculum, but it was still an education.

At the Cambridge Union Society, if an Asian candidate went up against a White British candidate, it was clear that race would be part of the equation. You might not hear it at the hustings. It is not something that is ever put into writing. But word gets around, you hear of it.

That is the reality of human nature. We are all imperfect human beings. We must be humble enough to recognise that as human beings, we have human flaws. We must be vigilant to guard against the arrogance which whispers that human nature no longer matters.

And when we have imperfect human beings taking part in a closely contested election with racial differences, the outcome can be less than perfect. Candidates face the same finish line, but some will have had to walk further, longer and harder just to get to the starting line.

This is why we have GRCs today. They were controversial at the beginning but, today, we see their value as a safety check, to avoid a freak election result where every elected Member of Parliament is of the majority race.

Likewise, there is value in having reserved elections as a safety valve for the Elected Presidency, so that every generation has a chance to see a President elected from their own community.

But improving the process of the Elected Presidency is just one step. It is just one step. Because the arc of history does not bend just because of legislation. The arc of history does not bend just because of what we say or do in this House. It bends when all of us, Singaporeans from all walks of life, put our hands upon it, and move as one.

We all can play a part to strengthen our multiracialism, so that someday, these provisions of a reserved election will never need to be triggered, when we have become a more perfectly united people. It starts with all of us, in our daily lives. It starts with how we connect with fellow Singaporeans of different races, languages and religions and how we set an example for our children and grandchildren.

It matters, whether we recognise that in any democracy or social order, being with the majority will always carry a special responsibility. Even as we promote and take pride in the use of our mother tongues, it matters whether we communicate and transact in a shared language, such as English, in the presence of colleagues, teammates and friends of other races.

It matters, whether our children spend time in shared, common spaces, building friendships from young, across all colours, tongues and faiths, because values are caught, not taught.

And the Government has a role and a responsibility to keep on building these shared common spaces, making sure that our common spaces will always remain open to, always remain accessible to Singaporeans of different backgrounds.

It matters, whether we learn about one another's languages and cultures. You do not have to be an expert, and it should not be about sitting for an exam or having a curriculum item prescribed by the Education Ministry. What matters is learning with an open heart, so we can communicate with, connect with, learn from one another. Because to see through the eyes of a fellow Singaporean is to see further, closer and better.

Mdm Speaker, in July, we hosted a Bulan Bahasa or Malay Language Month event at Clementi Community Centre in Jurong GRC. In September, many of us attended the national Bulan Bahasa Launch together with Malay friends and Minister Ng Chee Meng, Education Minister for Schools.

More recently, we had our Jurong GRC Bulan Bahasa celebration at the IMM Mall, attended by residents of all races. Listening to the performances, even though I only know a little bit of Bahasa Melayu – "sedikit-sedikit", a little bit by little bit – it was very meaningful, very educational.

At last year's Deepavali celebration in Clementi, young friends of all races enjoyed the cultural performances. And throughout the year, we attend different festivities and gatherings with our Indian community. Sometimes, there is even audience participation. Some of us have been invited to dance the Bhangra – or, in my case, trying very hard, and still trying to dance.

Mdm Speaker, in each of these journeys, we see, we learn, we grow closer together. And we must keep on trying to do better – whether it is the big gatherings, the small get-togethers or the friendships we build. So that the light of multiracialism will keep growing brighter – many lights, shining together. So that the song of the Singapore Story, our many tongues, will speak to a deeper harmony. So that under our sky, our little red dot can be a beacon to the world.

We must continue seeing, learning, growing closer together. Mdm Speaker, if I may say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In Singapore, we have many races, languages, religions. If we learn other languages, if we have friends from other races, we will be one united people and one nation. Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore in all the world is a unique little red dot. We are little, but within us is a great ideal – a Singapore united regardless of race, language or religion.

It is said that "everyone is responsible for the fate of the nation". Maintaining racial harmony is not just the responsibility of the Government or national leaders, it is everyone's responsibility, too. And this is not limited to our thoughts and attitudes. We must show it in our actions and deeds.

In Singapore, we promote the importance of mother tongue from young. I am sure we all agree that mother tongue helps us understand our own community's history, culture, thinking and traditions. Likewise, we should encourage our children to – through communication and interaction – learn about other communities' languages and cultures. This is because mutual understanding can overcome gaps and deepen understanding, thereby strengthening our nation's social cohesion.

Please allow me to conclude in English.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, there is imperfection within all of us, but also the opportunity to find our better selves. That is the paradox, it will always be the paradox, and the story of building a multiracial nation and a more perfect union amidst our diversity.

This never-ending mission was once the work of our Pioneers, our Pioneer Generation Singaporeans. That responsibility now falls on us, our generation of Singaporeans.

It is up to all of us, from every walk of life, to keep that dream burning bright. It is up to all of us to live the values of multiracialism, to live those values as best we can in what we do. It is up to all of us to try and build a better Singapore for our children and grandchildren, regardless of race, language or religion. I stand in support of the Bill. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.58 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Government's Bill to amend the Constitution.

In my speech, I will focus on the proposed Article 19B which provides for a reserved election for a community that has not held the office of the President for five or more consecutive terms. In effect, this provision, if passed, would ensure that the office of the President, from time to time, would be held by persons drawn from the minority communities. This is done without compromising the rigour of the eligibility criteria spelt out in the proposed Article 19.

To me, the proposed amendments have a direct impact on what it means to be Singaporean and how we signal to all communities in Singapore the importance of ensuring we always remain an inclusive society. Let me explain.

Before Independence, when Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia, it was the Malay/Muslim community, the indigenous people of Singapore, who were the majority community in the Federation. Independence was thrust onto Singapore as her leaders advocated for a Malaysian Malaysia which entailed equal treatment of all races in Malaysia. This was roundly rejected by the Federal Government of Malaysia.

After Independence, the Malay community in Singapore found themselves a minority in Singapore. They remained, knowing Singapore's declared commitment to meritocracy, equality and multiracial and multi-religious pluralism.

This was a brave move on the part of the Malay community. No one could have then foreseen how the different communities in Singapore would manage race relationships among them. Indeed, only a year before, there were race riots in Singapore, resulting in loss of lives. But the Malay community placed full trust and worked with the Government which, on its part, also ensured that the community's interests are always protected, in recognition of their commitment to the country.

This may be a good time to remind ourselves that this is why Article 152 of our Constitution was enacted. It is provided in our Constitution that the Government has a responsibility to constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore and, in particular, those of the Malay community as the indigenous people of Singapore.

Over the past five decades, significant progress has been made by all communities in Independent Singapore, including the Malay community, not just in terms of economic wealth but with respect to integration as one nation. Minister Yaacob Ibrahim outlined the journey of the Malay community in his speech. Having learnt Malay in Singapore, having had many Malay friends and being involved in community work for a good number of years, I have seen first-hand and am very proud to note the progress my Malay friends have made in the educational, skills development and socio-economic spheres.

It is this progress by all communities that addresses a potential existential issue about securing Singapore's future. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said as follows in his first National Day rally speech in 1966:

"It is important that we should understand what is it we are after in the long run, and if we are after a permanent and secure future for ourselves, then this must be done; to build a society which, as it progresses, improves, flourishes and gives an equally satisfying life to one and all. If groups are left behind …and if with these groups, the line of division coincides with the line of race, then we will not succeed in our long-term objective of a secure future".

These words, in my mind, continue to be the guiding principle of the People's Action Party and the successive governments it has formed.

We cannot assume that we have arrived as a nation, with all intercommunal issues having been resolved forever. The pressures around us, globally, evolve yearly. There continues to be issues each community faces and we must ensure we continue, as a country, to help each family and each individual that may struggle, be it financially or socially.

The recent events occurring this year alone suggest that societies are vulnerable along ethnic lines, and what we have achieved in terms of multiracial peace and harmony can be easily unwound. We have seen an increase in violent confrontations among people of different races and ethnic groups all over the world, even in our region. There is growing racial intolerance, rising religiosity and extremism. All these factors are pulling many societies apart. As a country, we are not immune to what is happening outside our borders. Deputy Prime Minister Teo, in his speech, gave an analogy about sailing in the high seas, with all its attendant perils.

Even in Singapore, we still see sensitive and potentially divisive issues being raised periodically; for example, issues, such as holding religious foot processions and wearing of tudung by Muslim women who are frontline Public Service officers.

Whilst, thus far, these issues have been dealt with constructively and responsibly and against the broader context of ensuring that our communities progress as a whole, we cannot take for granted that this will always be the case.

It is against this background that we should view the proposed Article 19B. This issue, as I see it, is much more than the narrow issue of whether a member from a minority community stands a fair chance to be elected by the Singapore electorate in an unrestricted election.

This amendment represents an important signal to all communities within Singapore that she must always remain an inclusive society. This is, in my view, as important an overture as the decision on the part of the Malay community in August 1965 to be fully subscribed to the meritocratic and multiracial ideals of an emerging Singapore.

This does not mean that the Singapore electorate is, therefore, being encouraged to vote on racial lines for the Elected President on the basis that there is a guarantee of a minority candidate being fielded from time to time. If that happens, that is a retrograde step. Rather, I see Article 19B as a signal and a safeguard. Singaporeans should continue to vote for the Presidency on the basis of who they feel is the best person for the job, regardless of race, language or religion. Should, however, there be a situation where 30 years have elapsed without a President drawn from the minority community, then, for the sake of ensuring we always remain an inclusive society, the inclusion provision will kick in. Mdm Speaker, I would like to continue in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my English speech, I felt that it was important to highlight the historical context about the decision of Malay Singaporeans after Independence to remain here has a minority that believes in the ideals of meritocracy and multiracial and multi-religious harmony.

This decision helped us to build a nation that is more inclusive. I have also viewed Article 19B as an important way to ensure that we remain as one country. With Article 19B, we ensure that we will have a member of the minority community becoming the President of Singapore, the highest office in the land, from time to time. With this, we will not lose our perspectives as we face and manage difficult and sensitive issues like the tudung. Article 19B will allow us to have the gotong-royong spirit in our Constitution.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, Article 19B really strikes at what it means to be a Singaporean. It weaves into our constitutional DNA that all Singaporeans now and generations to come, regardless of race, are part of and are important to the Singapore story founded on inclusiveness. I support the Bill.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [7 November 2016],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security].

Question again proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Prime Minister Lee.

1.30 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Since the Opening of Parliament in January, we have had a full programme. We have implemented Silver Support and MediShield Life; we have expanded SkillsFuture; we have been busy building our infrastructure, housing and transport.

These are all good policies, but all not possible without good politics. It is good politics that enables Singapore to have a Government that produces good policies, one that is responsible and does the right thing; serves the people; safeguards our stability and success; leads the country to greater heights.

That is why in January, I raised the subject of the Elected President and then appointed a Constitutional Commission to review the Elected Presidency scheme.

The Elected President sits at the apex of our political system and our country. He is the Head of State, representing Singaporeans of all races and religions, and he holds the second key over the Reserves and Public Service appointments.

The Elected Presidency scheme is working; there has been no pressure to change the system. But it is my Government's duty to review the scheme to make adjustments well ahead of time to enable it to continue to function well.

Because the Elected Presidency is a long-term stabiliser for our system, the consequences of any strengths or weaknesses in the design of the Elected Presidency scheme will only show up much later. Either they will build up gradually and cumulatively over the terms of successive Presidents, or they may manifest themselves suddenly but unpredictably in a crisis one day, when we most need the second key. Therefore, if we wait until the problems are urgent and obvious before we act, it will be much too late.

We have had a comprehensive national debate on this matter over the last 10 months. The Constitutional Commission received over 100 submissions from the public, held two months of public hearings, deliberated and published their report two months ago. I spoke about the matter at the National Day Rally and I followed up in a Mediacorp interview. In September, the Government published a White Paper setting out the changes that we would make. And my colleagues have held many dialogues with groups of different backgrounds and ethnicities. And yesterday, we began debating the Bill in this House.

It has been an important and necessary debate because changes to the Constitution, as major as this one, determine the direction for the country. I am glad that many Singaporeans have taken an interest, brought their minds to bear on the matter, and have given their views.

The details are necessarily voluminous and complex. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spent 90 minutes explaining the Bill. Today, let me focus on two fundamental points: the Elected President as an important stabiliser in our system and the need for the Presidency to be multi-racial.

First of all, why is the Elected President an important stabiliser in our system? Let me start with a bit of history.

Singapore did not begin with a fully conceived Constitution. When we separated from Malaysia and became independent, all we had was the State Constitution for Singapore within the Federation of Malaysia. It was fit-for-purpose for Singapore as a constituent state in a federation but not a complete Constitution for an independent country.

To get that, we took a practical approach. We grafted pieces from the Federal Constitution of Malaysia onto our State Constitution and so it became the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore in December 1965. It was patchwork; it was inelegant, but it provided us a working basis to start from.

It was such a messy document that in 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked the British to help draft us a more elegant, comprehensive and enduring Constitution. The idea was to have something like the United States (US) Constitution, amended only 27 times in 200 years, with a beautiful, timeless form of words that everyone knows and venerates, and that will guide the country for many years to come.

The British law experts who have drafted many constitutions for different Commonwealth countries, came back with a shiny, new Constitution. From the legal point of view, they did a first-rate job. But in the end, Mr Lee Kuan Yew decided not to use it because the drafters did not understand our circumstances and our history, and did not have direct experience of Singapore – what worked and what would not work.

So, we stuck to our patchwork Constitution which took into account the idiosyncrasies of our history and our circumstances. It was a document that our people understood and were used to, and which worked. And as time passed, we amended it repeatedly and adapted it to our needs.

Mr Lee famously described it as being like stretching and occasionally re-soling and easing into worn-out old shoes, instead of buying a brand new pair – beautiful, shining but which would not fit as well.

And that has been our Constitutional path over the last 50 years. Our Constitution is a living document. It has evolved as our needs changed and it has served us well. The journey of our Constitution reflected how our political system evolved.

As a newly independent country, with the State Constitution as a basis, we started off with a unicameral legislature. It is a big word to mean a single House of Parliament. At that time, the People's Action Party (PAP) occupied every seat in Parliament and had the full support of the people. The Opposition was virtually non-existent. Mr Lee and his team could have done anything they wanted if they had wished.

But we were fortunate that our founding leaders were capable, responsible and trustworthy stewards. They used the freedom of action which they had to steer Singapore safely through many dangers. And they had operated the system in the long-term interest of Singapore. As Mr Lee once said, if he had wanted to, he could have changed this into a one-party state but he did not because he preserved the democratic system in order that you would have a government which is lean, subject to competition and which will serve the long-term interests of the country.

But even then, Mr Lee and his team were conscious that the system was not inherently robust and that they needed to build up state institutions like the Civil Service and the Courts. We would always need good people in politics, but we also required sound institutions.

By the early 1980s, the time was right for us to consider what more we needed to do because, by the early 1980s, after two decades of nation-building, we had accumulated a nest egg of Reserves. Mr Lee worried that, one day, we might have a freak election result, and the money would be squandered by a profligate government.

Our Public Service had also established a reputation for impartiality, integrity and quality. And if the service ever got corrupted, especially the key appointments, it would be impossible ever to clean it up again. In fact, in the 1959 General Election (GE), when the PAP first came into office, Mr Lee and his colleagues thought very carefully before deciding to fight to win because they knew they were in a weak position vis-a-vis the Communists in the PAP, and if they fought to win after they got them into the Government, they would have a big fight with the Communists in the PAP.

But nevertheless, they decided to go for it and to win. And their consideration was that if they did not win and another team came in and corrupted the Civil Service, that would be the end. And if the PAP came in a term later, it would be unable to put things right again. That is how important maintaining the integrity of the Public Service was to our founding generational leaders.

So, after 20 years with the Reserves to worry about, with the Civil Service and the high quality, Mr Lee proposed the idea in 1984 of an Elected President. And the idea was debated, refined and eventually legislated in 1990.

For the past quarter of a century since we have implemented the scheme, the Elected Presidency has worked well and become a valuable part of our political system. It is unique. Other political systems may have stabilising institutions like an Upper House or a Constitutional court, or an Executive President, separate from Parliament. But no other country has anything quite like Singapore's Elected President. It is a unique system, very difficult to get right, because the balance is a delicate one – a symbolic Head of State, but elected through a national ballot. With a popular mandate, but not a mandate to govern. He can use his mandate to say no in certain specified areas but not to push for policies or to initiate action.

The Presidential Election itself presents some difficulties. In a fiercely contested campaign, emotions and sentiments can build up, and issues that have nothing to do with the role of the President can become hot. Candidates may then make claims, promises and declarations which go beyond the President's powers and competence under the Constitution.

We saw that happen in the 2011 Presidential Election. One candidate championed a $60 billion economic plan, supposedly to create jobs and enterprise. Another candidate made proposals, such as better recognition for National Servicemen, for more help for the poor and unemployed.

But these are the Government's responsibility, for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to decide. The person who is standing for election as the guardian of the Reserves is offering as his platform to open the doors and make free. It is not for the President to promise these things in a campaign or push for them after being elected. But in 2011, some candidates' attitude was: never mind, just say it, get elected first, worry about the Constitution later on.

But for all these difficulties, I am convinced that the Elected President has been a plus for our system. Having this stabiliser is critical and has already made a difference. Even though it is not easy to get right, we should persevere to improve the system. We can find ways to mitigate the difficulties, and will do so, because the alternatives to the Elected President will create other, probably worse, difficulties.

What are the alternatives? There have been different suggestions, including by the Constitutional Commission, which raised the issue in their report, though it was not within their terms of reference, because they felt strongly that this was important and should be brought to the Government's attention.

Let me discuss three of the ideas. The first suggestion is to have a non-elected President, but with the same custodial powers as the Elected President, namely, Reserves and personnel, key appointments.

I do not think this is wise. To veto the Government is a major decision; you must have a democratic mandate to make that call. When the elected Government asks an unelected President to approve something and the unelected President says yes, there is no problem. But when an unelected President has to say no to an elected Government, he will find it very hard to stand his ground, and the public will find it very hard to accept. The Government will argue, with justification: "Who are you to say no? We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will. Please approve what we propose." The President's "no" will not stick.

The second suggestion is to revert to a ceremonial President chosen by Parliament, not elected in a national election, but vest the second key in the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), give the power to the CPA.

However, the same argument for electing a President with custodial powers would apply to a CPA with custodial powers. An unelected CPA, a council of non-political wise men, working as an advisory panel to the Elected President who makes the final decision and has a democratic mandate. That works well. The President has a mandate; the President makes the final decision. The advisory panel gives him wise, informed, impartial advice, non-elected but with experience brought to bear. We can do that. But once the CPA itself becomes the decision maker, if the CPA members are unelected, the same problem that an unelected President has saying "no", the CPA will have saying "no". So, what is the solution?

The solution then is we elect the CPA. In effect, the CPA becomes an Upper House. Then, instead of having one national election to choose a President, we would have elections for six, eight or 10 Presidential Advisers. Instead of having one presidential race risking being politicised, we would have six, eight or 10 CPA races at similar risk. The problem will be amplified, not reduced.

The third alternative is to return to the status quo ante. Go back to a non-elected President, purely ceremonial, like before 1990. Do away with the President's custodial powers and do away with the CPA. Let Parliament be supreme, with unrestricted power to do as it pleases. No safeguard, no stabiliser, no fault tolerance. But that would be very unwise.

I believe that over the last 25 years, even though the Elected President has never had to veto any spending proposal by the Government, by the very existence of his powers, he has influenced Singapore politics for the better. The prospect of the veto alone has lessened the temptation for political parties to promise the world to voters in GEs. Everyone knows that a government which says, "Just spend the money" ‒ $60 billion, $80 billion, $100 billion ‒ on free university education, free healthcare, cheap homes, has first to persuade the President to unlock the Reserves. And that is an important reason why Opposition parties have been quite cautious in their spending proposals even during GEs. Without this second key, I am quite sure some Opposition parties would have gone to town many elections ago. And the PAP Government would have come under pressure to match their generosity and might well have found it difficult to hold the line.

You heard about the Australian experience yesterday. It holds many lessons for us. During the commodities boom, the Australian government started to accumulate budget surpluses. They wanted to save these surpluses for their future. So, they established the sovereign wealth fund, called the "Future Fund", to cover Australia's future pension liabilities. But the political dynamics of the electoral contest resulted in elections becoming auctions. So, what happened? Seven consecutive years of personal income tax cuts; increased subsidies and benefits for pensioners. Somebody subsequently did a report which concluded that during the boom, out of every AUD19 that the government received in additional revenue, it saved AUD1 and it spent AUD18. So, in total, they gave back AUD180 billion either to taxpayers through tax cuts or by spending it. AUD180 billion.

When the commodities boom ended, as all such booms do, Australia went into deficit. The Future Fund is empty, the government has had to make very painful spending cuts and still the budget will be in deficit for years to come. Singapore is not in such a position. And for that, some credit must go to the system of the Elected President with veto powers over the Reserves.

Some agree that we should have safeguards on the Reserves, but argue that the powers should be vested in Parliament, instead of a separate institution. That may help but, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo pointed out yesterday, in Parliament, the pressure is to do more rather than to spend less. I cannot recall the last occasion in this House where any political party or Member of Parliament has pressed the Government to spend less or to raise more taxes. In fact, on the contrary, when spending proposals come up and we pressed the Members of Parliament (MPs), "How are they to be paid for?" The answer is, "You don't have to worry. This is a good investment." And that is why we need the second key to be held by another elected institution, separate from Parliament, and that is the Elected President.

Furthermore, making everything depend on one institution, namely, the Parliament, creates what the engineers would call "a single point of failure". Everything hinges on the outcome of a single GE, on the Government elected into Parliament in that one vote every five years. If the election takes place when the country happens to be worked up over some issue, then the Government that is elected may take action that the country will later regret.

That is why countries with an Upper House and a Lower House often hold their Upper and Lower House elections separately ‒ staggered timings and different constituencies, not exactly the same, so that when you decide the future of the country at the ballot box, you are never risking everything in one throw of the electoral dice. What the Chinese call, "孤注一掷" (gu zhu yi zhi), that is, put all your chips there and risk it.

That is why we decided that, in Singapore, the second key would be held by the Elected President, a different and independent institution, elected in a separate Presidential Election with a different term of office from the Government.

We are trying to design our political system to have the right balance between a decisive Executive and having adequate stabilisers. At one extreme, without stabilisers, the system will be unstable. If anything goes wrong, the consequences can be very serious. At the other extreme, if the stabilisers are too strong, we risk gridlock; difficult to get anything done. We started very close to the first extreme ‒ a unicameral, single Parliament, untrammelled. Then, we made a careful shift. We introduced this safeguard, the Elected President, to protect Reserves and appointments, and address specific vulnerabilities which we have in Singapore.

Seen against the range of democratic systems that exists in different countries, this is not a fundamental shift from our system of parliamentary democracy. But it is an important one, because every political system needs stabilisers.

Let me illustrate with two quite extreme examples ‒ Britain and the US. The country which comes closest to a Parliament which has no constraint is the United Kingdom (UK). There is no written Constitution. Theoretically, the House of Commons, by simple majority, can make any decision ‒ decide to do away with the monarchy, abolish the House of Lords, even do away with elections altogether. Still, even in Britain, the courts have become a check on the government. The courts have taken an expanded view of their traditional role interpreting and administering the law, but doing it in such a way now that they make judgments and orders that are, in effect, executive decisions.

For example, 40 years ago, during the Northern Ireland conflict, the UK government enacted tough measures against IRA terrorists. They restricted civil liberties, tightened court procedures and implemented internment, which is detention without trial. By and large, these measures were met with robust judicial acceptance and approval. But in more recent times, that has changed. After 9/11, when jihadist terrorism prompted the government to push for similar measures, the judicial response has been more critical and challenging. When the UK government tries to deport convicted foreign terrorists, the cases are endlessly litigated, and the judges made their interpretation of the facts and what the Ministers are entitled to do, and the government finds itself impotent to act. That is one extreme.

The other extreme is the US, which lays great store on checks and balances. The US has elevated the separation of powers almost into a sacred doctrine. Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court ‒ three centres of power, constantly checking and balancing one another. Congress itself is divided between the House and Senate, separately elected, often with different parties controlling each one. The tension is always there, and sometimes results in gridlock. Some people would say, usually, results in gridlock. But the US accepts that, because their overriding priority and philosophy are to prevent an overbearing government. Because of their historical experience of the British, they wanted to make sure that their government would never impose the same tyranny on their people.

Right now, the US is about to go to the polls in a few hours' time to elect a new President. The world is watching with bated breath, exceptionally concerned what the outcome will be. Because, this time, the two candidates represent radically different world views, and in the case of one candidate, a very unconventional approach to the issues and the challenges that the country faces. The outcome will matter a lot to the US and to the world. But one factor which people take some comfort in is the strong checks and balances in the US political system. They make it not so easy to make things happen, but they make it very difficult for things to go disastrously wrong. So, whoever wins, hopefully it will not be so easy for things to go completely out of kilter.

When I was in Washington in August just before National Day, I was asked this question at the press conference with President Obama. I made this point, speaking slightly out of turn, and President Obama commented wryly: "The wisdom of your founding fathers". But there was wisdom there.

James Madison, one of the founding fathers, wrote in the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays which set out the philosophy and the arguments and the options as the US debated how to craft the Constitution of the United States. And he wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

And he goes on to say, "A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." In other words, elections are very important to choose the government your people need and deserve but you cannot rely just on that simple bare idea. You need other ideas to make a complete and a stable system. And that is wisdom.

I do not think the system like the US can work for Singapore. But we, too, need some "auxiliary precautions", some stabiliser, besides the "primary control", which is the fact that Parliament is elected by the people. And for us, that stabiliser is the Elected President.

Therefore, we should keep the Elected President and finetune its stabiliser role. So, we are raising the eligibility criteria. We are strengthening the CPA. We are revising the entrenchment framework. That is one major part of this Bill.

Let me now speak specifically about the racial provisions. Amongst all the changes in this complicated Bill, the one which we thought hardest about, and where the most is at stake, is the question of ensuring multiracial representation in the Elected Presidency.

To raise the qualifying criteria is relatively straightforward, because it is an objective bar. To strengthen the CPA is a matter of finetuning. The provisions on veto and entrenchment are, essentially, a legal drafting problem, setting the right balance between flexibility and rigidity in the Constitution, but it can be done. It may take several tries. This is our third try but it can be done.

But whether to ensure that people from different races can and do, indeed, become President is the most difficult question, because it goes right to the core of our fundamental belief in a multiracial society.

As the Head of State, the President is the symbol of our nation. He represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the office must be multiracial. At the same time, whichever ethnic group the President belongs to, he has to be multiracial in his approach. He has to reach out to all races, connect with every Singaporean. And fortunately, all our Presidents so far have done that.

If the President, who is a symbol of a multiracial nation, always comes from the same race, not only will he cease to be a credible symbol of our nation, the very multiracial character of our nation will come under question. Every citizen – Chinese, Malay, Indian, or some other race – should know that someone of his community can become President and, in fact, from time to time, does become President.

This is not a theoretical matter. For us, race is a very "live" consideration, with real-world implications. We have made enormous progress in our racial harmony certainly, but we are not completely there.

As a small, open multiracial country, our ethnic groups are always subject to different external pulls and influences. Our racial harmony can be affected by developments in other countries and this applies to all our ethnic groups.

Take the rise of China, with which we have substantial relations. I spoke about this in the National Day Rally, and Ms Tin Pei Ling, I was happy to hear, spoke about it yesterday, too. China's rise is a tremendous plus for Singapore, and for the world. Our companies do a lot of business in China, and many Chinese companies participate in our economy. We work on G-to-G projects – Suzhou, Tianjin, and now Chongqing, on the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative.

We have to-ing and fro-ing intensively – tourism, culture, education. Every Chinese New Year, without Chinese artisans, you will not have all the "灯笼" and the Riverside Hongbao. Every community event, there is some engagement, some flow, some connection with some part of China which can add some extra colour and vividness to our Singapore Chinese culture.

We want to grow this cooperation with China and take full advantage of our familiarity with the culture and the language. So, we talk about not just bilingualism but biculturalism and we make a big effort to develop those links.

And yet, there is a risk because of our population composition; because of our cultural familiarity, people may misunderstand us to be a Chinese country and forget that, in fact, Singapore is an independent sovereign country, cooperating with other countries on the basis of our own national interests and positions. It can lead to misunderstandings; it can lead to unrealistic expectations; it can lead to us being carried away even domestically and forgetting this fundamental fact about Singapore – that we are independent, sovereign, multiracial, in Southeast Asia. And that is what we must always remember: we are not a Chinese country. We are a multiracial, multi-religious Southeast Asian country with an ethnic Chinese majority but not a Chinese country.

We have to show this. We have to show this domestically, to our own population, the Chinese population as well as the non-Chinese population. And we have to show this externally, to other countries, too. So, that is one important way in which the external world influences our domestic racial cohesion and considerations.

Secondly, among our closest neighbours, race and religion are hot issues. If we look at Indonesia, Basuki Tjahaya Purnama – you may know him by another name, Ahok, running for re-election as Governor of Jakarta. Ahok is a Chinese and a Christian. His opponents cited a Quranic verse to tell Muslims not to vote for Ahok. They called him a "kafir", an infidel; strong word. Ahok responded in a Youtube video, accused them of lying and misinterpreting the Quran. Then, they attacked Ahok for blasphemy. And Ahok was forced to apologise. But his opponents staged a huge demonstration in Jakarta last Friday. The protestors yelled, "We want a Muslim Governor!" and "Burn Ahok!" There was violence and rioting. And today, I read in the newspapers that Ahok went to the police yesterday and the police interviewed him for nine hours. They are investigating whether he committed blasphemy.

In Malaysia, politics is based on race and religion. It is the antithesis of the way politics is conducted in Singapore. Political Islam is a dominant feature. Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) has tabled a hudud Bill in Parliament. The Barisan Nasional Government has allowed it to be put on the Order Paper. Non-Muslim parties are deeply upset about this, but they know that in such matters, they do not decide. The divide between the races is very deep.

In Singapore, we worry about race and religion ourselves, too. What will happen to our society if we have a terrorist attack? What more if the attack is by a Singaporean, self-radicalised after visiting extremist websites? Will we stand together or will we split along racial and religious lines? A terrorist attack is frightening but if it comes from outside, I think it is not so hard to understand; we pull together. If it should come from within, are we sure that we can heal back together so easily, unless we work very hard at it before the fact?

So, these events, external events and influences will affect our social cohesion. We are building a radically different society in Singapore than other countries in the region; than China, because that is overwhelmingly one ethic group, the Hans; than our neighbours, who are working on a different basis than we are. We are seeking to be multiracial, equal, harmonious; gradually enlarging our shared Singaporean identity, while celebrating our different cultures and faiths; allowing minority communities ample space to live their own ways of life, never forcing everybody to conform to a single norm set by the majority.

We have to work consciously and systematically at this. It will not happen by itself, nor will we get there if we blithely assume that we have already arrived and do not talk about it, do not do anything about it, that we are okay. That is not the way to be okay.

The President is the most important unifying symbol of the nation. Singaporeans look up to the President as the personification of all that Singapore stands for and all that we stand for in Singapore. So, it is a fundamental necessity that the Presidency be multiracial.

If we have a nominated President, we can do this informally. Parliament can choose Presidents of all races over a period of time, as it did. And the office will, de-facto, be multiracial, without explicit, formal constitutional arrangements.

But if the President is elected in a national election, then if we do not make deliberate arrangements to ensure a multiracial outcome, the Presidency could well, over time, become a single-race office, because minorities do find it harder to win in a national election.

This is not an easy subject to speak about openly. Many of us want to be race-blind. We feel ourselves to be race-blind. We feel that we ourselves are race-blind and we are understandably uneasy about any suggestion that perhaps we are not so.

I am heartened that that is our ideal and our aspiration but, at the same time, I have to be realistic about where we are today. And you have seen the surveys; they show that a significant minority of Singaporeans at least consider race as a factor when they vote and will not vote for somebody of a different race to be President. Not everybody but not a small minority either. And that puts minority candidates at a disadvantage in an election.

Mr Murali Pillai spoke about this yesterday and he knows this, from personal experience. And I knew this when I sent Mr Murali Pillai to Bukit Batok to fight a by-election in a Single Member Constituency, knowing that it is not so easy for a non-Chinese to do that. But I did it because he knew the ground; I knew him, and I judged that this was a risk that I was prepared to take. He fought hard. He won, but he can tell you, and I can tell you, that he had to fight harder than if I had sent a similar Chinese candidate familiar with the ground to go and fight and win. It is a reality of Singapore society and Singapore politics.

And it is not just Singapore. It is so in every country, including the US. In 1992, when Bill Clinton first stood for election as President, he ran against George HW Bush, the senior George Bush. The blacks voted for Bill Clinton. Toni Morrison, who is a black female Nobel laureate for Literature, described Bill Clinton rapturously as "the first black President".

Years later, 2008, Hillary Clinton, his wife, ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in the primaries. Bill Clinton repeated this phrase; described himself as "the first black president", to shore up Hillary. He thought it would help. Instead, he caused an uproar in the African-American community. The blacks voted overwhelmingly against Hillary, for Obama.

Then, Obama became President. It was a real breakthrough for African-Americans. People said, "Marvellous! Race no longer matters in US politics." But they were too optimistic. After eight years of a black President, in the election, you have two white candidates: Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. What is the election about?

At one level, it is about globalisation, jobs, insecurity. But at another level, race is front and centre. Trump supporters are overwhelmingly white, lower- and middle-income voters. They feel threatened by the demographic changes happening in America. Theirs is a white protest vote.

The blacks are again overwhelmingly voting for Hillary Clinton this time, but with somewhat less enthusiasm than when they voted for President Obama. And the Latinos also, ethnically as a group, are voting against Mr Trump and turning out in big numbers because they see that perhaps Mr Trump may win if they do not vote.

So, the moral of the story is that race and religion are very deep-seated realities in every country. We must take them very seriously. So, even though there is no pressure, even the minority communities have not pressed for it in Singapore, we should make arrangements now to ensure that the Presidency will be multiracial.

We have decided to do this through what the Constitutional Commission has called the hiatus-triggered model, which means that Presidential Elections are generally open to candidates of all races. But if we have not had a President from a particular community for five consecutive terms, then the next term will be reserved for candidates from that community. If one of them is elected, you will have a President from that community.

So, it is five terms; if without, then one is reserved. This means that over six election terms, we should expect to see at least one Chinese President, one Malay President, one President who is either an Indian or another minority, provided qualified candidates appear. Which means that, out of six terms, there will be at least two non-Chinese Presidents, which means one in three Presidents will be non-Chinese, which is a bigger proportion than the proportion of non-Chinese in the population.

Some people have objected that this arrangement goes against the principle of meritocracy. I understand their concerns. But I would like you to consider two points. First, a candidate in a reserved election must still meet the same qualifying criteria. He must be competent for the job of wielding the custodial powers and he must be as qualified as any other candidate who stands and wins in a non-reserved election.

Second, the symbolic role of the President is just as important as his custodial role. As a symbol of the nation, the race of the candidate is relevant. So, while individually, a good candidate of any race will be satisfactory, collectively, over a period of time, we need that mix of Presidents of different races, and the election mechanism must be designed to produce such a mix over time. That is what the hiatus-triggered model delivers.

When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.

We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency.

We also have to define the ethnic group of each of the Elected Presidents we have had so far. There is no practical doubt, but as a legal matter, we have to define it because you cannot convene the Committee retrospectively to certify them. So, the Act will deem:

(a) Dr Wee Kim Wee as Chinese,

(b) Mr Ong Teng Cheong as Chinese,

(c) Mr S R Nathan, who served two terms, as Indian,

(d) and Dr Tony Tan as Chinese.

Therefore, by the operation of the hiatus-triggered model, the next election, due next year, will be a reserved election for Malay candidates. That means if a Malay candidate steps up to run, or more than one Malay candidate steps up to run, who is qualified, Singapore will have a Malay President again. As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak. I look forward to this. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker, these are practical arrangements we must make, in order to make our multiracial system work. We recognise where we are and we will work to strengthen our multiracial society. Our ideal is to be race-blind. We "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion", and we must continue striving towards this goal. As we get closer to this ideal and minority candidates are regularly elected President in open elections, we will need the hiatus-triggered reserved elections less and less.

We have spent a lot of energy and time on the changes to the Elected President this year. I personally have paid a lot of attention to this. I feel strongly that it is my responsibility and something that I need to do now.

Let me explain to Members why. I have been involved with the Elected Presidency almost from the start. As a young Minister, I helped Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team to develop Mr Lee Kuan Yew's concept into a complete scheme, and I helped Prof Jayakumar to draft the White Papers in 1988 and 1990. Since the Elected Presidency began, I have been operating the mechanism that we designed and discovering its glitches. I helped to refine and amend the scheme as we went along. After becoming Prime Minister, I have worked closely with two Elected Presidents, Mr SR Nathan and Dr Tony Tan, including asking President Nathan for permission to draw on the Reserves during the Global Financial Crisis.

So, I think I can say that I know the system – what the design intent was, when we first formulated the scheme, how it has worked in practice, how conditions have changed, how our ideas have evolved and how we should finetune and improve the scheme to make it work for our long-term future.

These changes are my responsibility. I am doing it now because it would be irresponsible of me to kick this can down the road and leave the problem to my successors. They have not had this long experience with the system and they will find it much harder to deal with.

I am sure the result will not be perfect. I fully expect that, one day, my successors will find it necessary to make further improvements and adjustments to the Elected Presidency scheme. But I believe the changes in this Bill will make the Elected Presidency work better for Singapore, now and in the future.

But please understand, whatever we do, it is not cast-iron and foolproof – things can still go wrong in Singapore with Singapore politics. A government may be elected with good intentions, only to find its policies turn out badly. A President may be elected on a basis different from his Constitutional role. Relations between the President and the government may become strained, or even break down. Most fundamentally, Singaporeans may become split along fault lines – race, religion, income or class – and then no political system will produce a stable government for the country. All these are possible, despite all the safeguards we are putting in place. And yet we know that without the Elected President, we have more cause to worry that things can go disastrously wrong.

Strengthening the Elected Presidency will reduce the chances of this happening but, ultimately, our safety, and our future, lie in the hands of Singaporeans. We must rely on Singaporeans to remain united, so that our politics can be constructive and cohesive. To get people to come forward to serve the nation in many different ways. To elect good people into Parliament and Government, and to serve as President. And then we can work together with those entrusted with authority and responsibility to deliver the results that we know Singapore can achieve. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

2.25 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I have one clarification for the Prime Minister. During his speech, there was a portion where he spoke about possible alternative stabilisers to the Elected Presidency. He discussed the possibility of an unelected president having custodial powers, and an unelected council. And then I think the last option that he discussed was the possibility of a council being elected. May I ask him to clarify again what is his concern about such a proposal? If I heard him correctly, there will be too many elections or what is the concern?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, this is a serious question. It is something which we considered carefully and the issue is this. Our system is focused on Parliament. We have tweaked the system to stabilise the Parliament but without changing the fundamental nature of this system. If we wanted to change the fundamental nature of the system, we would say "Let's have an Upper House". I have 10 or 20 senators, vote for the senators, have a separate set of elections. So, I have GEs, Parliament general elections, Upper House. And then I have Parliament making legislation and Upper House vetting, approving legislation, having some powers.

We decided, when we went into this, and I think rightly, that Singapore is too small and does not really have the range of people and talent to form two Houses like that. When you are looking for the check which we need over Reserves, over people, what you are looking for is not a politicised decision of a jostle but a judgement of somebody who has got the experience and the wisdom to say, "Yes, what the Government is asking is wise, we do that", or "No". Informed by advisors who have experience, who can tell him "Mr President, the Budget which has been put up, projects next year a 10% growth in revenues, I don't believe that" or "Mr President, this is a very serious economic crisis. We better spend the money and do as the Government proposes".

We are looking for this check to be instituted in a person who is well-advised. And we want the person who is elected to make the decision, and the advisors to give him inputs but the elected person decides. That is the model we have gone for, and it has worked well.

If we go the other way and we have the CPA elected, what happened in 2011 when electing one President, can easily happen when you elect half a dozen or a dozen CPA members. Each time, each one of them, and you will be contesting for CPA members and arguing, "On what basis will you put yourself up for election as CPA members?" Party lines? That is unsatisfactory. Lines like "I want to spend money"? That is even worse.

What am I looking for in the CPA members? Expertise, experience, judgement. They may not be the person who will be the President but they are people who can advise the President. They may not be people who can easily make a campaign speech and win elections and rouse the crowd, but they are people you will go to for advice when you need to make a difficult decision. That is how the CPA has worked. We think it is good. I have discussed this with the President, he has discussed it with the CPA, and they have found this arrangement to be a prudent and a judicious one. I think we should keep it like that.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just a brief point of clarification to the Prime Minister. The hon Prime Minister alluded to the fact that the UK Parliament could, in theory, if it so decides, abolish elections altogether. So, my question to the Prime Minister would be, what within our system would prevent a future government – I do not think the current Government would do that and previous Governments clearly did not – but what in our system will prevent a future government from either abolishing or radically curtailing a GE at some point in the future? What would be the stabiliser for that?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, the difference is we have a written Constitution, the British do not. So, in Singapore we have to amend the Constitution to do that. In the UK, if there is no Constitution to amend, you can just pass a resolution of Parliament, an Act, and it is done. That is the difference.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, please deliver your speech.

2.31 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this Bill is evidence of how a nightmare may come back to haunt us.

The Elected Presidency was created in the 1990s with the intention of safeguarding our past Reserves from being squandered by a "rogue government". However, the experience with the Elected Presidency has seen the PAP Government coming back to the House to amend the Constitution again and again, as unintended consequences arose.

One public episode of tension between the Elected President and the Government surfaced when President Ong Teng Cheong, a former PAP Deputy Prime Minister, held a press conference to highlight his lack of access to information about the assets he was supposed to safeguard. The Presidential Elections in 2011 were also a nightmare for the PAP leadership, with four candidates contesting the elections. I understand that some leaders were kept awake at night at the prospect of one of the other three candidates being elected.

Today's Bill presents complicated amendments to try to undo problems created by the Government itself. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spent 90 minutes meticulously taking the House through the changes brought about by this Bill, together with seven pages of meaty handouts, the kind of content ripe for a major law exam.

Before I go further, there are three fundamental truths that underpin this debate, which the Workers' Party (WP) would like to acknowledge at the outset.

First, that the President's principal role is as Head of State, a unifying figure and symbol of the nation, domestically and to the world.

Second, that the President should not be another centre of power. In fact, this was a concern that the WP had articulated since the 1980s when the Elected Presidency was first mooted. In January this year, the Prime Minister reiterated that the President was not another centre of power.

Third, that the country's past Reserves should be preserved and strongly safeguarded by an entity that is elected by the people. The issue is who should be the gatekeeper.

Madam, I shall touch on the President as the Head of State which, we say, should be his principal and only role.

The WP notes that our past system of having appointed Presidents has produced Presidents who are generally held in very high esteem and are greatly respected by the people. Beginning with the appointment of President Yusof Ishak to President Wee Kim Wee, the fact that the President did not campaign and go through elections, in fact, elevated the office to being above politics. His focus on being Head of State was of universal appeal, and, in no way, diminished his stature, compared with our elected Presidents.

Today, the WP and many Singaporeans still believe the President should be an appointed office and above politics. To revert to such a system of appointed Presidents is not regressive; in fact, it would naturally take care of any concerns that minority communities would not be represented in the office, as this would automatically be resolved by a system of rotational appointments.

Madam, we disagree that the Presidency should be an elected office and should be tasked to safeguard the past reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. We thus oppose this Bill.

Our past reasons for objecting to the Elected Presidency have been recorded over the years. Under the scheme designed by the PAP Government, the strict and specific eligibility criteria would likely see the election of a pro-PAP President. In the event of a change of government, the President was likely to be the legacy of the previous administration, who could prevent the new government from being effective, for political reasons. This prospect was not just WP's thinking but the honest misgivings of some senior PAP MPs as well. For instance, during the Parliamentary debate on the 1988 White Paper on the Elected President, Mr Ong Pang Boon, a former Minister, noted as follows, and I quote:

"...the intention of the proposal as contained in the White Paper has gone even much further than originally mooted, which was to protect the country's financial Reserves from being raided by a profligate government elected to office. The reserved powers of the elected President now extend beyond financial reserves to cover all assets of the government and key Public Service appointments."

"The proposal, as contained in the White Paper, whichever way one looks at it, would ensure the election of a Presidential candidate from the PAP. Should by some freak election results, which the Government claimed to be possible, an Opposition government were elected to office, it would be logical for the PAP President to work to undermine and bring down the Opposition Prime Minister and his government, even if the Opposition wants to act responsibly."

Madam, fast forward to today. Today, we have an even clearer picture as to why the President should not be asked to take on the dual role of being Head of State and also safeguarding the Reserves and Public Service at the same time. Such a dual role has an inherent tension that politicises the office of the President.

This fact was recognised by the Constitutional Commission to Review Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency. After considering the matter in detail and receiving submissions and evidence, the Commission felt compelled to point out the inherent problem with the dual role, even though it was going beyond its Terms of Reference to do so. The Commission noted that being a Head of State was a unifying role while being a custodian was a confrontational role; in addition, requiring the President to go through an election necessarily made him a partisan figure. The Commission also noted that the two roles required "different chemistry". The Commission went on to ask the Government to consider unbundling the two roles, so that the President could concentrate on his role as Head of State, while the custodial role be given to another body of persons. We respectfully agree with the Commission's observations.

Next, I move on to how the Reserves and other matters may be safeguarded. The WP agrees that the country's Reserves built up during the previous terms of government should be safeguarded. As the past Reserves belong to the people of Singapore, we believe the safeguard should rest with Parliament, as the elected representatives of the people.

To this end, we have studied the Constitutional Commission's recommendation that safeguarding of the past Reserves could be vested in a separate body, to be appointed, who have powers of delay. In other words, when the Government wants to spend past Reserves, it would need to send its proposal to this appointed body for review. If the body had reservations about the proposal, it would then send the proposal back to Parliament, which could then pass it with a supermajority vote.

Madam, the WP has always acknowledged that the past Reserves are worthy of strong safeguards. We also see the merits of the Constitutional Commission's rationale that MPs would benefit from the collective wisdom of a separate body with some expertise.

Having considered the Commission's report, the WP believes it is apt to consider creating a second Chamber in the Legislature, which could be called the Senate. Its primary role would be to safeguard the country's past Reserves. Besides past Reserves, we recognise that there is also some public sentiment that it is prudent that a body outside the Government should review the other decisions that the President is currently overseeing, such as approving key Civil Service appointments. We acknowledge that these are important matters, including decisions on whether a corruption investigation should proceed if the Prime Minister objects to it.

Madam, we do agree that there are benefits in having another body review such decisions. To ease the transition from the Elected Presidency system, we propose that all the discretionary powers currently vested in the Elected President be vested in the newly-created Senate. After the Senate has worked for some time, the Senate's scope could be reviewed.

Under this proposal, the Senate would be elected by the people in a national election, rather than appointed as suggested by the Commission. The election will be of individuals who do not represent any political party. We could start with a Senate of, say, eight individuals.

Madam, we see the election of the Senate members as critical, to make the membership process open and not susceptible to political interference. This will also give the Senate the necessary mandate for the important decisions it makes. Candidates for the Senate should possess relevant experience and expertise for the functions expected of the Senate. My colleagues will set this out in more detail.

Madam, as far as spending the past Reserves and key Civil Service appointments are concerned, the Senate would only have delay powers to refer any proposal back to Parliament for consideration. At that stage, Parliament should consider the reservations of the Senate, and, if thought fit, could still pass the proposal but with a supermajority of, say, three-quarters of MPs. Such a mechanism would see the safeguards on Reserves remaining with Parliament.

Next, Madam, I move on to some concerns about the Bill. Madam, the provisions of this Bill show that the Government knows that it is unwise to let one man have too much power. However, the Government seems to be locked into a position that there must be an Elected President, and is devising more ways to check him. However, the Government's chosen method of strengthening the CPA and enlarging its role is fraught with difficulties. The increased clout of the CPA will make it yet another power centre, which is not tenable as it is an unelected body.

One clear example is clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 deals with the entrenchment framework, which was summarised in Handout 4 distributed yesterday. Parliament had previously considered and passed the existing Article 5(2A) and Article 5A, but these had not been brought into operation. Those provisions had envisaged that any Bill to amend the Constitution that affected the President's role or powers could not be presented to Parliament unless the President agreed to it, or it had been put to a national referendum and two-thirds of voters agreed to it.

Clause 3 of the Bill will now introduce a re-revised entrenchment framework. The proposed Articles 5A and 5B will enable a Bill affecting the President's role or powers to be presented even if he does not agree and the proposal is not put to a referendum, so long as the CPA agrees to it.

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo confirmed yesterday, the new framework will give "legal weight" to the opinion of the CPA regarding entrenchment provisions. This had not been the case before this Bill. This provision will thus strengthen the position of the CPA vis-a-vis the President. How do we justify letting the CPA be the gateway to amendments to our fundamental law, the Constitution, when the CPA is itself unelected?

Madam, while we have stated our views, we do not believe that Parliament should arrogate to itself the right to decide such fundamental matters concerning the political system and state power or, as the Prime Minister put it just now, provisions which "determine the direction of the country".

It is proper to consult the people directly in a national referendum. We call on the Government to allow the people to make a decision on the nature of the Presidency and how the country's assets should be safeguarded.

Madam, we have the liberty of drafting the question that we believe can be considered to be put to a referendum. Madam, may I have your permission to distribute the question to Members?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A document was distributed hon hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker, the annex that is being distributed to Members seeks to ask Singaporeans to choose between two models in a national referendum. Option A, as advanced by the PAP Government, is where the President is elected and plays dual roles. Option B, which is the model that the WP prefers, is an appointed President without the custodial role which is now vested in an elected Senate.

Madam, let me conclude. Many Singaporeans, including our residents, have asked why the Government is rushing such an important matter through Parliament. They noted that Prime Minister Lee had said that there was no urgency, while the Law Minister has gone on record that the changes were not targeted at disbarring any individual from running. If that is the case, surely, there is still time for any change to be carefully considered for implementation in the following Presidential Election in 2023, rather than the one next year.

Madam, there have been public discussion and scepticism about the proposed changes. Indeed, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged previously that it would not be easy to convince Singaporeans about the need for these changes. There is an illustration. I came across a post on the Facebook page of Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a former Presidential candidate. The post from a member of the public read as follows, and I quote, "What kind of legacy are we leaving to the next generation when we define our Head of State by his wealth and race, rather than by his character, social contributions and public spiritedness?"

Madam, this is, indeed, an important question for all of us to answer. The matter before the House is a grave one and a hasty decision could well prove unwise.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

2.47 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill that has large implications on the future of governance in Singapore. I would like to keep my comments to three key areas of this amendment Bill.

Firstly, on the role of the President. As Head of State, the President is really a representative of the people. A representative of Singapore and Singaporeans on the global stage and a symbol of the shared values of Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. I also know that, to many Singaporeans, many of our past Presidents also meant much more. They were unifying figures that were above policies and politics, endearing characters that some were labelled the "People's President". And like many Singaporeans, I, too, hope that our ideals in what we want in our President will not be lost, as we strengthen the qualifying criteria and governance of custodial powers.

During the last Presidential Elections, it was clear that many Singaporeans, including some of the candidates themselves, as the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech, did not have an accurate view of the role of the President and what powers came along with it. As a result, the debates surrounding the election and the election itself took on an unnecessary political slant.

But this episode gave us the opportunity to ask a question. Do Singaporeans know what the President represents? Clearly, over the last two days, we had heard that the role of the President is different from the Government's, otherwise the President would be no different from other executive political office holders like the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. I agree with President Tony Tan that the Elected President "cannot be a second centre of power". As a small state, decisions have to be made with mutual trust and respect between the offices for the long-term benefit of Singapore.

Thus, it is important that if these changes are applied by the next Presidential Elections, more education must be provided for voters to better understand the Constitutional amendments and the role of the President. It must also be ensured that candidates are also better kept aware of their role and powers that they are standing for so that voters are not misguided.

That brings me to my second point, Mdm Speaker, the criteria for eligibility to be a President.

The constant emphasis on the custodial role of the President seems to be the financial acumen and executive experience of the candidate. I agree that times have changed and while the role of the second key to the Reserves is important, but an overemphasis on this in this Bill, manifesting in the tighter criteria of having led a $500-million company to justify the complexity of the role, immediately narrows the consideration of what qualities a President ought to have. Many I spoke to are concerned whether this criterion will discount other candidates who have other strengths to offer and what it takes to represent Singaporeans and Singapore.

There is another change that is made in tandem, with regard to the CPA which covers the enhanced safeguards of the CPA, the composition of the CPA and clarity on the veto powers of Parliament should the CPA and President disagree.

It is clear in this amendment Bill that adequate safeguards are in place for the custodial decision-making by the President, guided by "wise men" of the CPA. So, does the criterion have to be so rigid on financial acumen since he can always fall back on the CPA for sound expert advice, and that Parliament will also have veto powers of a two-third majority under specific circumstances?

Given the strengthened council that the President can seek wisdom from and the role of Parliament in intervening in a gridlock, could we have then retained the qualification criteria of $100 million in an executive responsibility, instead of $500 million?

The other criterion under Article 19(4)(a) that the company run by the candidate chief executive officer (CEO) must be profitable over the three-year period does not reflect market reality. Some sectors face challenging times due to the global environment. If you are a CEO in an oil and gas firm, it will be hard to manage three years of profitability today.

The reality is that even Government Budgets are not always in surplus positions when we have to take strategic measures for economic downturns. Also, some CEOs are also in place to turn around companies, but it does not mean that their performance was poor. But I assume that in such cases, they may still qualify under the private sector deliberative track in Article 19(4)(b).

However, as the deliberative track may be a catch-all for anyone who does not make a clear-cut case from the private sector track, it may also be good to explain whether the deliberations will be made transparent and reasons for acceptance or rejection of the candidate be made public.

Madam, we have had Presidents in the past who endeared themselves to the hearts of many Singaporeans. Many Presidents in the past, such as Mr Yusof Ishak, Dr Benjamin Sheares, Mr Wee Kim Wee, among others, were seen as Presidents of the people, above politics and represented Singapore well internationally.

The Presidential candidate is not applying for a job to be a Chairman of a listed company, where his financial and corporate track record should be the key criteria for evaluation. He is applying to be the President of Singapore, a role that demands a track record of service to society, of demonstrated ability and willingness to have contributed to society and Singaporeans, in a leading role, in addition to his role as custodian of Singapore's Reserves.

Therefore, I would argue that perhaps, we could have done the incremental increase for the financial criteria, rather than by a single step. Complement that criterion with some softer and relevant criteria like maybe the candidate should have played a key role in an organisation that has contributed back to society, say, a charity, community organisation or non-profit organisation.

My point is that it is not reflective nor healthy for governance in the long run, if the key criterion to evaluate a President's ability is his corporate track record. In Singapore, where we are encouraging multiple peaks of excellence and promoting diversity and inclusiveness, the gauge to measure the President must be broader and not narrower.

This brings me to my next point about enshrining race representation in the presidency. I support this change as I see it as a safeguard to reflect Singapore's racial diversity. Many I have spoken to have taken to it positively that the Government is committed to reflecting diversity in the presidential office.

So, we must embark on it carefully, having considered all the implications and pitfalls. At no time must the credibility of the seat of the President be seen to be undermined or under-valued by Singaporeans as this will not only erode the goodwill that previous Presidents have built up, it will also not be fair to the minority-elect President if there is even a doubt that he is there based on his ethnicity. While this is not a case, the Government must ensure that any such perceptions on the ground must be reversed through education and awareness.

I am heartened that the Prime Minister has just announced that the next election would be a reserved Presidential Election and I think many in the Malay community would also be heartened to have potentially a first Malay Elected President for Singapore. It must have been a heavily considered decision by the Government. I think the Prime Minister is expending political capital to get the citizens behind this, to also protect our multiracial and multi-religious diversity and principles.

I am in favour of this Bill, Madam, in general, as it is done in the spirit of keeping the office of President relevant to today's context. However, while we are at it, it also truly reflects on the demands and aspirations of today's society and have the office of the President of Singapore reflect those ideals. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposed changes to the Elected Presidency that was first mooted by the Prime Minister earlier this year, is an important political process for our nation.

When I touched on this issue in Parliament at that time, I said that the move to have a provision for minorities is welcomed by the Malay community. I welcome the proposal by the Constitutional Commission that proposed a reserved election for the candidate of a certain race if, for over five terms, no candidate from that race has been elected as President. The Government has also accepted the proposal in its White Paper.

The Malay community's maturity stands out in this issue. Although they welcome the change, which promises the certainty of a Malay President, their main concern is that this should not be seen as an act of tokenism. Some are worried that the selection will not be based on merit. This concern is understandable because meritocracy is an important value in the lives and success of Singaporeans.

So, I feel that the emphasis by the Commission regarding the level of eligibility is a guarantee that no matter which candidate is elected, he or she must fulfil the criteria that have been set. Therefore, when we have a Malay Elected President, this will certainly be a moment of pride for the Malay community because he or she is a President who is qualified and capable and have met the conditions for eligibility that have been determined.

The one and only Malay President in Singapore's history, the late Encik Yusof Ishak, was a President for all the people. It has become a source of great pride to the Malay/Muslim community.

If the community is proud to have President Yusof Ishak who performed his duty exceptionally, representing all races outstandingly, surely there will be a Malay of a high calibre and is able to fulfil the eligibility criteria. The late Encik Yusof Ishak left us a priceless legacy, including as a leader who became a symbol of unity and harmony for a multiracial and multi-religious society.

The proposed amendments to the Elected Presidency with regard to the minority provision, must be seen in a wider context and goes beyond life as a plural society in Singapore. The issue of racial cohesion cannot be taken lightly, and it is also not something that comes automatically. Efforts will still be needed to preserve this situation. Therefore, the review of the Elected Presidency is timely.

The Prime Minister's clear position about the need to have a provision for minorities, including Malays, in the Elected President system is much appreciated. It is certainly heartening to the Malay community who have not seen a Malay President since the late Encik Yusof Ishak held the highest office in the land.

Nonetheless, more importantly, it is a measure that will further strengthen the principle of a multiracial country, that is the crucial principle of upholding Singapore as a nation for all races, even though the Chinese is in the majority.

The Prime Minister's decision to propose this change is a courageous decision, especially in terms of the political risk in convincing the majority community that it needs to be done in order to preserve this principle of multiracialism. I, therefore, call upon the Malay community to accept this as an important trust and fully support the intent and this principle.

I thank the Prime Minister for his long-term vision for Singapore. I am certain that this development will be welcomed by the Malay community.

(In English): Madam, the changes to the veto and entrenchment framework will further strengthen the governance of the country, providing clarity on the process for Parliamentary override to avoid Government gridlocks and not to create an alternative power centre. These changes ensure a safeguard for Singaporeans to be assured that an irresponsible or profligate government does not raid our Reserves.

This process keeps the intent and integrity of any standing government on the use of Singaporeans' hard-earned Reserves under scrutiny. This is where the WP's position against the Elected Presidency is certainly outdated. The Elected Presidency framework is being evolved with enhanced safeguards to prevent gridlocks and, certainly, the Elected President does not have the powers to block the Government from functioning. Ultimately, the Elected President still has to seek re-election and has to justify his actions to the people.

So, why is the WP afraid of the Elected Presidency and why its designs on the Reserves to block this? On the elected Senate, how different is it from the CPA, apart from the election? The Prime Minister has mentioned earlier in his speech that the CPA has certain constraints. Therefore, if you want to elect a CPA, it is no different from electing your eight-man Senate. I think the Prime Minister has already explained in his clarifications. We have also seen how Senators out there have also caused gridlocks in the US.

So, we have to trust the judgement of a standing Elected President to do the right thing for Singapore, for our people, for our nation and for our nation's future. And this is why our trust and faith in the Elected President's judgement lies in his moral authority. This moral authority, as the Prime Minister has mentioned earlier, can only be earned by being elected by the people, and not appointed, as the Head of State. I rise in support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

3.00 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, just a short while ago, the hon Member for Aljunied Ms Sylvia Lim suggested in this House that we conduct a referendum in place of what is on the table today.

There are three points in response I would like to make. The first is that this would create a political contest that would be polarising, divisive, time-consuming and energy-sapping, repeatedly for eight members of the proposed Senate. Would this not be far more political and politicising than the current model that is on the table?

Second, it may be in the WP's interest to continually politicise issues and continually have a platform to allow themselves to politicise issues that affect Singaporeans and Singapore in general. But that is not the mandate of this House. That is not the purpose of having the second key and the custodian to the Reserves and the guardian of the Public Service infrastructure in Singapore.

Third, in any case, the issue of whether or not we should have an Elected President was in fact settled 25 years ago. It was settled 25 years ago when two White Papers were put to this House in 1988 and again in 1991 and, eventually, passed in this House. And it was one of the platforms on which the 1988 GEs were run and Singaporeans voted on it.

So, the only issue today that remains is whether the criteria should be updated in the manner in which this Bill has proposed, and whether or not there should be additional safeguards in connection with minor racial representation.

And I would add, Mdm Speaker, that just not long ago, two months ago, in paying tribute to our ex-President SR Nathan, Ms Sylvia Lim had said that, in fact, President SR Nathan made great efforts to reach out, including to her. Mr Pritam Singh told us a story about how President SR Nathan was always there to look out for everyone and encouraged him without raising doubt or concern about serving Singapore in a different colour, different course or different capacity.

So, Mdm Speaker, it is very easy for issues in this debate to be clouded and coloured by emotive propositions. For example, the office of the Elected President has been accused of being a PAP legacy, capable of only being drawn from an elitist group of senior civil servants. Never mind that these senior civil servants operate in a Westminster form of government who are loyal to the government of the day but should be, and are, impartial to political affiliation.

Or that all these amendments are apparently being proposed to debar some inconvenient candidates who might turn out to be uncooperative Elected Presidents. And it is said that the reason why the eligibility criteria have been revised upwards is precisely to make it more elitist. There is also the question of the minority racial representation. When one talks about racial representation, it can become quite emotive. But that would be the wrong approach to take when we look at this Bill.

The present amendments which this House has been asked to consider are not about establishing a PAP legacy. It is not about entrenching its powers and it is certainly not about stopping one or more individuals from coming forward if they are qualified.

In truth, the fundamental basis behind the concept of the Elected President is quite the contrary and the details in this Bill are quite the contrary. The Elected Presidency, with its custodial veto powers, in fact, limits the Government's ability to do as it wishes with the country's key assets and resources, namely, our financial Reserves and our Public Service infrastructure.

This is quite possibly one of few, if any, governments in the world proposing an elected counter-balance to check its own power to ensure that it is the system and not any individual or any government of the day that remains strong. And in seeking to achieve that, the qualifying criteria have to be set to ensure that any candidate has to possess the right attributes and experience to see through these functions.

So, far from being elitist, in fact, we should make no apology for wanting the bar to be set higher to ensure that everyone aspiring to that position will be well-qualified. And really, why should we accept any less when the issues at stake are our Reserves, which represent our future and our children's future?

Ms Sylvia Lim has also suggested that this has been rushed through, the process has been taken very quickly. It has been close to 10 to 11 months since the Prime Minister first raised this question in this House at the start of Parliament in January. The Commission was set up. A hundred and seven submissions were invited and received, including from the WP. There were several months of public hearings, very publicly reported in the papers. Subsequently, Ministers, Cabinet Ministers – we heard from the Prime Minister earlier – went out to conduct ground sensing, explain the Bill and do surveys.

The WP had the opportunity to present their submissions and make themselves heard by the Commission. They were invited to do so but they declined. Why? They had every opportunity of having their views considered and taken into account by the Commission, put into the Commission report tabled in the White Paper, and for this House to consider. They chose not to do so. Instead, they turned up with a proposed referendum which seeks, in my view, to enhance the unnecessary politicising of matters and issues in Singapore.

In relation to Ms Sylvia Lim's contention on the CPA, the suggestion was because there is now a CPA that has been enhanced, and the enhancement of the CPA was one of the suggestions I had myself mooted in January when I spoke about the Elected President when Parliament opened. I am heartened to note that the Commission has taken on board at least that suggestion, not necessarily by me, but perhaps from other sources as well. But it strengthens the CPA and it gives a greater resource to the Elected President.

The Elected President has three nominees onto the CPA, plus the ability to nominate the Chairman who has a casting vote. So, in any given issue that is put before the CPA, the President just needs to persuade one other Member of the CPA, together with a casting vote, before the CPA would go along with the President's decision. That is not the mechanism that overrides the President's powers or that curtails the President's powers. In fact, the Commission specifically considered this point and took the position that, in fact, if that happens, if the Chairman had to use his casting vote, then the Parliamentary override should be a higher supermajority of three-quarters, and that was not accepted.

So, Mdm Speaker, we come back now to what I think are the key issues of this Bill, which is, having put the office of the Elected President in place for the past 25 years, we are now looking at enhancements to the powers and roles of the CPA. When Emeritus Senior Minister Goh explained in 1998 to this House the background to the White Paper at that time, he said the financial Reserves and integrity of our Public Service would be the two key assets that we cannot afford to be eroded. The amendments that are being proposed today about enhancing and fortifying the key functions which the Elected President currently performs remain, in my view, as crucial today as when the Elected President was first introduced 25 years ago.

So, if we accept that fiscal Reserves and public infrastructure are worth safeguarding, then really, inevitably, the question has to be what qualifications should the Elected President have in order to best discharge that responsibility? In that context, having a qualifying criterion that is at least 25 years old based on being a CEO of a company that has a paid-up capital of at least $100 million, that criterion really needs to be updated.

If we look at the numbers proffered by the Commission, in 1993, only 0.2% of Singapore incorporated companies met the $100 million paid-up capital requirement. Today, however, the smallest of the top 0.2%, the same percentage of Singapore incorporated companies, we have a paid-up capital of approximately $431 million or more than four times what the threshold was. So, those numbers alone tell us why, how urgent it is to update those criteria.

The suggestion that the updating of the criteria is to foreshadow or foreclose some candidates, I think is also not tenable. If we look at the percentage of companies which would meet the shareholder equity criterion today, that is roughly similar to the number in 1993 – 0.23%. Further, because the absolute numbers have grown larger, 0.23% today will represent, in absolute terms, a bigger number of persons who would qualify. So, the fear that this criterion is being revised to close off an uncooperative Elected President really is unfounded.

Mdm Speaker, I want to move on to this question of the hiatus-triggered mechanism. And I am heartened to have heard the Prime Minister outline the reasons and the rationale behind that, and I would just like to add my views on this. I think it is important that the Elected President plays that symbolic role. It is as important as the custodial role and function that he performs.

The Bill proposes that this balance be achieved by having a reserved election for a community that has not held the office for five or more consecutive terms. And this stems from the Commission's recommendation. The rationale behind it was that multiracialism and racial harmony are crucial in Singapore, and I quote, "An important element of multiracialism, in particular, racial minorities, are never represented in the office of the President."

But to be honest, when the Prime Minister first raised it in January, I was a little sceptical and somewhat reserved about this proposal. And the reason for that was because, in Singapore, we have always had a system that is strongly based on the bedrock of meritocracy. It is not about which race you come from. It is not about the creed that you subscribe to but whether or not you are up to the job. And that has always been our ethos and belief.

We have had many other policies in Singapore that revolve around racial mix. One example is the Ethnic Integration Policy, first devised, I think, in 1989 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to promote racial integration and harmony in our HDB estates. That policy was formulated as there were concerns that ethnic or racial enclaves were forming around Singapore.

The policy was thus meant to facilitate Singaporeans mixing freely with one another, with other races, in our HDB estates. And as a result, we have a variety of people from different races living in the same estate. We have hawker centres catering to persons of different races. So, we have a wide array of different food types. Children grow up and play with friends from different cultures in the void decks. Neighbours invite one another for meals on festive occasions – Chinese for Deepavali, the Indians for Hari Raya and so on. When we look back at it, I believe that such cohesion would not have been possible without this Ethnic Integration Policy, a policy that was active, deliberate and very consciously initiated and practised.

The concern, however, was that when you institutionalise minority representation in the office of the President, then you are choosing based on race and not on merit. I think we have heard the Prime Minister respond to that by saying that merit actually comes first. So, you might have a reserved election but the candidate who stands and steps forward must first pass the eligibility criteria.

Mdm Speaker, the mechanism that has been proposed and which the Bill proposes for adoption in the Constitution can, in fact, be a very valuable means of helping us to achieve multiracialism and racial harmony. But I see it as a means and not as an end. Looking back at our past, it is clear that where we are here today, 51 years from 1965, has been achieved by design and not by chance. The racial integration and cohesion which we enjoy including in our HDB estates, are precisely evidence of that.

The results of the CNA-Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey which Deputy Prime Minister Teo outlined yesterday, I think amply bear that out. And one other number jumped out at me which I would like to share with this House. There was the feedback unt Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) survey and it raised this question: whether there should be a reserved election for minority candidates if a minority member had not been elected President for five terms and so on. And the respondents were grouped by race. And the numbers, I think, tell us a story.

Amongst the Chinese respondents, 28% said they would support such a move. But amongst the Malay and Indian respondents, at least 40% said they would support the move. So, there is a differential. Why? Because those two races are in the minority.

And so, we may say that our ideal is to live in a racially colour-blind harmonious society, but all of that takes effort. The racial harmony that we enjoy today, in a world where racial fault lines are at their most divisive, is really the product of the carefully conceived and consistently applied policy of deliberate integration.

It is the product of various policies which have become almost second nature to us today, for example, reciting the words every day at the school pledge "regardless of race, language or religion". They mean something.

We see our signs, our Mass Rapid Transit announcements in four different languages, and they are taken for granted. The Prime Minister mentioned at the conference in October last year that we made a lot of progress for the last 50 years, but all of these stemmed from "an act of will, which we have sustained over many decades, but it is still work-in-progress". And that is where I think our hiatus-triggered mechanism fits in. It is part of this work-in-progress towards a truly race-blind and multiracial society. And I think Singaporeans are supportive of such policies.

Madam, some comparison has been raised between the system that the Commission has proposed and that of what is done in France, Canada and Switzerland as well. All I would say, Mdm Speaker, is that different countries have different motivations, and this just shows us how each country, each set of different ideals has to forge its own path and decide what is best and what suits its local environment. I take a leaf out of what the Prime Minister said earlier about how the British drafted us a very good Constitution, but if it does not work for us, it does not work for us.

So, the situation we find ourselves in is really sui generis, unique. As the Constitutional Commission noted, "The office of the Elected President is unique. It is not an institution derived from one which exists in any other jurisdiction. Rather, it is an entirely indigenous creation, designed to address the particular imperatives and vulnerabilities in our system of governance against the backdrop of our own historical context."

Consistent with our own unique history and that of the Elected President, the Bill now proposes a unique hiatus-triggered mechanism, which I think, after much consideration, does fit into our own historical, social and racial context.

I would also add that the beauty of this mechanism is that it would entirely recede into insignificance and into the background if candidates from the minority groups are regularly elected into office. And that means that we can keep up with our work-in-progress. And when the day comes when we have truly arrived at the objective of a race-blind state, then the mechanism which will help in the background will eventually fade into oblivion. Madam, with that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

3.18 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sorry, Madam, may I have some clarifications from the Member?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Madam. I would like some clarifications from Mr Tong. He mentioned earlier that the issue of whether to have an Elected President or not had been settled in the 1998 GEs. But does he not agree that more than 20 years have passed since then and, importantly, the Constitutional Commission had actually gone out of its way to note that having seen the office in operation, there now seem to be a tension in these dual roles, and that there may be a need to look at it in the future. So, is Mr Tong proposing that we ignore these findings from the Constitutional Commission?

The second question is: he seemed to suggest that asking for a referendum is a waste of time. Does he not agree that the Constitution itself provides for referendums to be called in certain situations? And in fact, the Bill itself, as far as entrenchment framework is concerned, also has a provision for a referendum to be sought? So, is he saying that these provisions are just there for show and the Government has no intention of calling wasteful referendums?

The third clarification is: he mentioned that the CPA would not really be a problem for the Elected President because the Elected President nominates a certain number of members to the CPA, and all the Elected President would need to do is to persuade the CPA members he nominated to agree with him. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that the CPA members will do the bidding of their nominator? I mean, is that the point he is making?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I will address the last point first. I think Ms Lim may have misheard. There is no suggestion that any member of the CPA will do the bidding, as she puts it, of the President. Instead, I am responding to her suggestion that because there is an enhanced and strengthened CPA that therefore, the Elected President's powers and roles are effectively neutered. That is not the case.

On her question of the 1988 elections and the question of whether or not this Elected President has been settled. The point I am making, simply, is that: in this debate, in this Bill, the question of whether the Elected President should or should not be there is not the issue. The issue today is whether or not the enhancements to the powers, the revision to the criteria, as well as the hiatus-triggered mechanism should be implemented and put into the Constitution. That is the question.

To that extent, that is why I said that it is not on the table as to whether or not you should now, today, have a referendum to decide on whether or not to continue with the office of the Elected President through your referendum. It may well come about another day. I am not ruling it out, but that is not for today.

On the Member's point on the referendum, the last point, the point I made was simply that if we had a referendum each time to elect all of her eight, 10 or 12 Senate members, then we would effectively spend our time electioneering, as well as spending our time politicising and over-politicising issues. I think we need to get on with the issue of governance and bringing Singapore forward.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Ms Lim. Please keep it short.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Madam. Just one point. I do not think Mr Tong has understood us correctly when it comes to the election of the Senate. I am not sure why he is saying that every time we have an election for the Senate, we have to go for a referendum. There was no suggestion of that.

All we are suggesting is: it should be considered that whether to change the system from the Elected President to an elected Senate, that would call for one referendum. We would, of course, have Senate elections periodically, but that is not the same as having referendums.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Member had suggested a referendum, which I have responded to, and she has also suggested that for each member of the Senate, they will have a separate election. And that is why I said that we will be over electioneering.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, that is not correct. I never suggested, or we never suggested, that there will be a separate election for each member of the Senate. My colleagues will elaborate later on the mechanism of the elections and I would just like to say that Mr Tong is wrong on this point.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: It says, "The Senate shall be established and elected by people." That is what it says here, in the Member's own document. You have proposed a Senate of eight persons. Unless I heard you wrongly. Unless you are suggesting that they will all be elected as a slate, which has its own different views. Otherwise, I think we can see from the Member's own document what Option B says.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I think my colleagues will elaborate.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

3.23 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, Member Edwin Tong has raised several issues with the WP's proposal. My colleagues will elaborate on some of them. I will talk a little bit on the referendum.

The Member took issue with the WP calling for a referendum on the change of the political model we have. Yes, I understand that the Elected President system has been instituted long ago. In fact, on the issue of the change of the political model from a purely Parliamentary democracy inherited from the UK to the one that we have now, the Elected President, the issue has been set out by the WP at the very beginning when the Elected President's idea was mooted and debated publicly in the 1980s.

This is the second time the WP has called for a referendum on the change of political model. We called for a referendum in the 1980s. And there was a debate, a TV debate, on this. The PAP said that the 1988 election will be the one to decide whether the electorate will support the Elected President, and that was it.

Madam, I believe that a referendum is overdue for a change of the political model that we have. The change in the political system that we have now, the Elected President, is drastic to me. It will change our political system in a fundamental way that will have deep implications in the future because it will change from one that believes in Parliamentary democracy, where the people is sovereign and, thereby, Parliament is sovereign, being elected and representative of the people, to one where Parliament's powers will be curtailed, and it can cause gridlock if you are not careful. So, we should not take it lightly.

Moreover, as what Ms Sylvia Lim has said, when certain provisions in the Elected Presidency are entrenched, if you want to change it, it will require a two-third majority in a referendum. So, I think it is logical that since you want to have a change in the Constitution that requires, if there is a further amendment to that provision, a two-third majority in the referendum, we should have a referendum to make sure that Singaporeans agree today.

Mr Edwin Tong said that a referendum will politicise the debates and the system. But what were we talking about? We are talking about changing the political system. So, is it not political? A referendum is one way to determine in a democratic way whether Singaporeans will endorse and support such a new model. And I think it will settle the matter once and for all whether the Opposition will oppose it and whether our view on the system is supported by the people. Madam, I will turn now to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President is our Head of State. He represents Singapore and is the symbol of our nation and our people. The WP believes that the prestigious identity and status of the President will not be compromised simply because the Presidency is established through appointment by Parliament.

However, the WP has, since the beginning of the 1980s, strenuously opposed the Elected Presidency. We do not oppose having a President for Singapore per se, but we are concerned about the far-reaching profound adverse influence on our nation resulting from the ulterior motive behind this whole mechanism. Very obviously, the stringent conditions required of the candidates are to ensure that whoever eventually is elected to be the President will be a pro-PAP person. In the event of the PAP losing a GE, this pro-PAP President can then obstruct the effective ruling of the non-PAP government.

Why did the PAP start to implement this Elected Presidency only after they lost the 1981 Anson By-election and the Potong Pasir Constituency at the 1984 GEs?

Since Independence, each and every President appointed by the PAP through Parliament had commanded the respect of the people. Moreover, since the implementation of the Elected Presidency in 1991, the PAP has never raised any issue concerning this system. Why is it that they are now suddenly taking issue with this system and going through all the trouble to set up a Constitutional Commission to review the matter, and make substantial amendments to the Constitution?

The 2011 Presidential Election caused uneasiness to the PAP. This was the first time since the inception of the Elected Presidency that four candidates contested for the position and they were not the preferred candidates of the PAP. Furthermore, the candidate who was eventually elected to be the President, won by a majority of not more than 1% of the votes. Despite all the manoeuvring, the PAP nearly stumbled at their own wishful thinking. That is why they are hurriedly conducting this exercise and trying to push through this amendment Bill to stop the frightening situation from happening again at the next Presidential Election.

The political system inherited by Singapore from the British is one of Parliamentary democracy, with the people electing the MPs, and the political party that wins the most seats in Parliament will form the government. All the Ministers are elected by the people. This gives the Cabinet the legitimacy of having won the mandate directly from the people. Under such a system, whether it is the Queen or the President, the Head of State has no administrative power.

Those days when the President was appointed, there was no need to worry about the Presidency being perpetually dominated by a certain race. That is why if you want to guarantee that the appointment of the President would reflect the needs of a multiracial society, the most straightforward method is to return to the appointment system.

Is this amendment to the Elected Presidency really meant to protect the interest of the minorities? If this is indeed the case, then why did the PAP not raise this issue in the course of the past two decades? It was only when the PAP nearly became a victim of the Presidential Election matrix designed by themselves in 2011, a situation which should never have happened, that the PAP quickly moved this amendment Bill.

This round of Constitutional amendments to vary the Elected President system has made the people uneasy. The ulterior motive behind this exercise is to ensure that even when the PAP has lost the majority in Parliament, they could still make use of the Elected President to contain the operation of the new government.

First, the amendment Bill raises the qualifying criteria of the Presidential Election candidates, thereby reducing the number of eligible candidates. Eventually, whether the voters would have anyone to choose from is unknown.

The present Elected Presidency is already trending towards senior public officers. Among them, many are senior leaders of the PAP, such as former Ministers or Speaker of Parliament. This round of amendments further raises the already stringent qualifying criteria. It further curtails the possibility of a candidate from outside the system to contest the election.

In such a situation, eventually, it is highly probable that the election would go uncontested, year after year, or all the candidates will be pro-PAP personnel. In the event that the PAP losses a GE, the Elected President can then act on behalf of the old regime to contain the new government, making the new government a lame duck which is unable to make use of the past Reserves when needed, and even could not appoint important officials.

When a non-PAP government elected by the people could not effectively operate and collapse, due to containment by the system designed by the PAP when it was in power, Singapore will be like the other democratic regimes which failed to make a political transition and resulted in social unrest, using violence and illegitimate means to settle the political conflicts. We could see for ourselves the political process experienced by some of our neighbouring countries. This is also the worry of the WP. We feel that the PAP is only concerned with its own interest and leaving Singapore to face great risks in the future.

In fact, this kind of political measures with the aim to paralyse a government has worried even some of their own PAP members. Former Minister Ong Pang Boon said during a Parliamentary debate on 12 August 1988, "No matter how you look it, the recommendation in the White Paper on Elected Presidency, is aimed at making sure a PAP candidate would be elected, so that in the event another party wins the next GE, he could unseat the new Prime Minister and his government, even when the new government is a responsible government."

Furthermore, for fear that the Elected President would not follow its instructions after being elected, the PAP has also enhanced the power of the CPA through this amendment Bill. The President is obliged to consult the CPA on all financial matters and appointments of key public servants. Should the President and the majority of Presidential advisors hold the same views, Parliament will have no right to overthrow the joint decision of the President and the CPA.

Members of the CPA are appointed and not elected by the people. Yet, not only has the President to consult them, even the Parliament formed by the Members elected by the people has no right to overthrow the joint decision by them and the President. As such, a President with no administrative power and a CPA which is not elected by the people, can stop the government from making use of the past Reserves and making key appointments of civil servants at the critical moments. Their power is greater than the Elected President and the Parliament elected by the people. This is certainly not in compliance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy. It is designed with an attempt to obstruct the normal functions of a new government which is legitimately elected and formed.

The WP agrees with having a set of mechanism to protect the Reserves from being abused. However, we want to remind the PAP that the Reserves do not belong to any term of government. It belongs to all the people of Singapore.

We do not agree with dedicating the important responsibility of protecting the Reserves and appointing key civil servants to one single person, namely, the President, and allowing a few members of the CPA to make the decision. Ultimately, the responsibility of protecting the Reserves from being abused should be vested in the Parliament elected by the people.

As such, the WP suggests setting up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency, to exercise the powers of the President and the CPA. Senators shall be elected at a nationwide GE. Candidates for election to be Senators must possess certain qualifications, to be accredited by an Election Eligibility Committee.

Should the Senate not agree with the recommendations by the government to draw on the Reserves or to make certain key appointments, the proposals concerned shall be rejected. Under such circumstances, the veto by the Senate can only be overruled by the government with a three-quarter majority in Parliament.

On the appointment of the President, the Constitutional Commission recommended relieving the President of the political function of protecting the Reserves. The main role of the President is in uniting the nation. It should go beyond politics. Making the President protect the Reserves amounts to wanting him to be confrontational towards the government at certain times. This is in conflict with the function of the President. The WP concurs with this recommendation by the Constitutional Commission.

Such an important amendment to the Constitution concerns the operation of the future political system of our nation, with far-reaching impacts. The WP holds the view that in dealing with such a major reform to our political system and the separation of powers of the various government institutions, it should be decided by a public referendum of the people. A referendum enables the people to collectively decide on how to adjust our political system to deal with our future challenges. The referendum shall vote on two proposals: one, the solution as tabled by the PAP in the White Paper, and two, the solution by the WP which specifically includes the following points.

One, the President is the Head of State, to be appointed by Parliament on a majority vote, to represent Singapore.

Two, in appointing the President, Parliament should take into consideration the multiracial situation in Singapore.

Three, set up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency and to exercise the veto power of the President and the CPA, including protecting the Reserves and upholding the integrity of the civil servants to be appointed by the government.

Four, Parliament can override the veto by the Senate, by way of a three-quarter majority of the total number of Members voting in favour thereof.

Mdm Speaker, basically, the WP agrees with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own statement that "a nation shall not have two rulers". All the more, the Elected President shall not be another power centre. We agree with protecting the Reserves, but the Reserves protection mechanism must comply with the fundamental principles ofParliamentary democracy. At the same time, the situation whereby the elected government is unable to operate due to grossly excessive containment should be avoided.

As such, the WP strongly advocates that it can only be passed through voting by all the people.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

3.40 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, when the Elected Presidency was set up in 1991, the key discussions at the time were about the need for elections and the role of an Elected President. Racial representation was not a key point of contention. And yet it was implicit in our discussions over time, in particular in 1999, when two elements of the Presidency became clear.

First, that the President was not an alternative centre of power and his role was likely to remain largely ceremonial for most of the time. Second, that the President was a symbol of unity and of our nationhood. In this, the need for the President to come from the different races of our country becomes obvious.

The key reason for our debate today is that rules made in the past need to evolve to suit present circumstances. For a country whose anthem is in our national language, it cannot escape notice that there has been no Malay President for close to 50 years. A Malay President is not tokenism. It is an important part of our national life. The Malay culture, heritage and language deserve a larger place in our public spaces, especially given the large social changes brought about by the forces of globalisation.

Majulah Singapura is about the progress of Singapore. But progress is meaningless without a clear idea of the purpose and promise of our country. Purpose: semangat yang baru. One of our key purposes in this small island is to strive to achieve great things together: "Marilah kita bersatu; Dengan semangat yang baru".

Our new spirit – semangat yang baru – is to create a new nation regardless of race, language or religion. Yet, to say "regardless" is not to say "disregard" – therein lies the way towards irrational liberalism. To have complete freedom is mere jungle survival. In Singapore, our model of multiracialism is not a pretense of colour-blindness, but an "eyes open" model where rules are made to balance whatever inequalities bestowed by nature, circumstance or human bias.

In general, I know that Singaporeans will support a President from any race, but the proposed changes to the Elected Presidency scheme to reserve an election for a minority group comes across as compromising on meritocracy.

This is an easy argument to make – if we want fair political competition, we must open the playing field to all. This is a marketplace heuristic and, many times, it carries well into the political arena.

In the marketplace, it is the duty of those who create rules for the market, to make these as fair as possible. This is what we strive to do in our politics as well. As what the Prime Minister says, we need good politics.

For example, this is why in the GEs in Singapore, we cap the amount of money that any party is allowed on campaigning to blunt the competitive edge that richer parties may have. We use rules to make the competition as fair as we can, knowing that the goal is to pick the best candidate, not the one that has the most monetary resources.

This idea of "best", therefore, needs to be regarded in relationship to the job at hand, and the rules must allow us the best chance to get the "best" man in.

Let me state the purpose of an Elected President without frippery. The purpose of electing a president in Singapore is to make sure that someone safeguards our Reserves from a populist government. He and his Council of advisors will provide the rational, clear-headed analysis that will veto any attempt to raid our Reserves. They are our shield and the Bill we are debating today gives this shield strength.

What then is the role of popular elections within this statement of purpose? In a way, the rules of Presidential Elections are analogous to those Singapore has adopted for all our political processes. We know that the processes of voting and popular election are subject to human biases and we need, therefore, to ensure that the best man or best woman has a chance of being in office despite these biases.

Singaporeans have a pragmatic job scope for our President. We are more concerned that the Presidential candidates have the necessary experience and acumen to safeguard the nation's Reserves than his race. Saying this, however, does not mean we step down and say, "Okay, this is a free-for-all popular contest. If race does not matter, then surely it does not matter that, yet again, a Chinese is elected president".

Here, it is important to understand what being race-blind means. It means that no one should be prevented from high office because of his race, no one should be discriminated from any office or job because he is a Malay, Indian, Eurasian or Chinese. It does not mean that we, therefore, treat all races the same in all aspects of life.

The Americans took many years before they elected a Catholic President. Many more, before they elected an African-American. And they are an older democracy than we are. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, even in 2008, the vote for Obama was markedly along racial lines.

It would be naive to think that after just 50 years of nationhood, we are race-blind when it comes to politics. It is thus that I support these amendments and, in particular, the hiatus-triggered principle because equality of races is not a given. It is because we hold true to that ideal that we must make rules, knowing that we are not playing at some Platonic form of a game, but in the very real world.

This hiatus-triggered principle is an example of Singapore's semangat yang baru, a legislative innovation that shows how seriously Singapore takes equality among races.

Today, this need to ensure that all races have a part in national life has been corrupted by accusations that the revisions in the law are part of a political chess game. So, to gainsay these critics, I ask that the changes come into effect in phases: perhaps, the revised eligibility criteria before the next Presidential Election and the reserved election provision to be only after the next Presidential Election.

Do we need an Elected President? There are those who take advantage of this debate to re-open old lines of argument. They say that we do not need an Elected President because the President is an alternative centre of power and blocking the Government could create gridlock in our policy-making.

Some political party had in the past said that the Elected President undermines Parliamentary democracy, because the office is similarly popularly elected and the veto power effectively gives one person the power to stop an elected government from its work. These objections are based on a wilful ignorance of the clarifications of the role of the Elected President I have laid out above. A close reading of the Bill should put these to rest.

Mr Low Thia Khiang says that the WP objects to the Elected Presidency because it "could potentially cripple a non-PAP government in its first term". On the face of it, they said that the "crippling" is caused by the President blocking replacements to some of the key appointment holders. But given that the purpose of the Elected President is to block the squandering of our Reserves, we need to relook the WP and other parties' objection to today's Bill.

Let me ask: who can object to a President who wants to prevent a populist rundown of Reserves? Who would do that except for people who may have plans to run this down?

This may seem to be a hypothetical parlour game, but I assure you, for shareholders of any company whose reserves in their company or for residents whose reserves in their Town Councils have been run down, this is not. Fiduciary responsibility may seem to be a boring game, something that we expect and take for granted. But I assure you, for the people of a country with nothing but its Reserves, it is deadly serious.

Singapore's Reserves have been built up over 50 years. In that time, we have had reason to call upon its use only once. We ought to be fearful of any party that thinks it will face the risk of running it down in its first term, and, moreover, that it will be calling for its use in such contestable situations that the President and his Council will feel obliged to block it.

Mdm Speaker, the Government has accepted the Commission's proposal to revise the amount to $500 million in shareholders' equity, from $100 million in paid-up capital, as it is probably a better measurement indicator of the financial complexity of the organisation led by the private sector candidate. Given today's inflation and financial landscape versus 25 years ago, the previous requirement is no longer adequate to ensure that candidates have the fiscal savvy to hold the second key to the Reserves. In fact, throwing in the political complexity of today's world would mean that the eligibility criteria need to be updated significantly.

Using the $500 million benchmark, I believe about 700 companies are still eligible to nominate their most senior executives to be the country's next Elected President. Hence, the potential candidates that can come from this pool is still sizeable.

Promise: berjaya Singapura. Second, I feel that Singapore has now come of age, with a large pool of Singaporeans with deep links and affinity to this country. Hence, I believe that we should consider only Presidential candidates who are born in Singapore, in contrast to those who have taken up citizenship along the way.

In addition, we look up to a President as a symbol of unity to the nation. Currently, the required qualifications as stated in our Constitution are: being a citizen of Singapore, and not below the age of 45. I feel the candidate's age can be set higher, at not below the age of 50. I think the new 50 is the old 45.

A potential Presidential candidate now applies to PEC for a certificate of eligibility. In turn, the PEC is tasked to ensure that a candidate fulfils the necessary qualifications of integrity, good character and reputation set out in the Constitution, before the certificate of eligibility is issued. The task on them is crucial, to mitigate the dangers of candidates who over-promise and over-commit beyond legislative provisions if they are elected, and having a process to deal with this.

If the candidate is found, for whatever reason, intentional or not, to have delivered inaccurate information attesting to his qualifications, can the PEC consider a process to rescind the certificate of eligibility and disqualify that candidate? This is not of course something that we expect, only something we must guard against.

To add on, it will also be prudent of the PEC to consider a process that allows Singapore Citizens to register their objections to the Committee on that candidate's nomination.

On the Prime Minister's announcement on tweaks to the NCMP scheme, I have some reservations on the voting rights. Given their nominated status, I feel that NCMPs do not have the mandate of the people. Hence, I am of the view that there is no basis to grant them full voting rights as elected MPs.

However, since I fought hard for my seat in a GE, I could, of course, be thought to be biased. I, therefore, would not object to this but instead urge a closer review of the consequences of full voting rights and the danger of allowing NCMPs who may represent special interest to vote on matters of national interests. Of course, in many cases, the two may not conflict, but one can imagine that in those few that they do, difficulties may arise.

We have always had a unique take to racial harmony that cannot be found in other nations. We believe that it takes careful, deliberate and calibrated interventions plus policies on our part to make racial harmony a reality in Singapore and leaving nothing to chance or fate.

I have spoken about the legislative innovations in GEs to keep faith with both the legitimacy that derives from a popular process, while ensuring fairness in this process. In the same way, I consider today's debate on the Elected President as part of our singular and Singaporean way of dealing with race relations.

In this and in so much more, we are guided by the phrase which our children pledge themselves to every school day – may our hopes and dreams bring Singapore every success. "Cita-cita kita yang mulia;berjaya Singapura!"

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

3.55 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, just a quick clarification for Mr Seah Kian Peng. I think the Member has confused the Nominated Member (NMP) with the NCMP. We are not nominated and we do not represent special interest. So, may I know which special interest we could possibly represent?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mdm Speaker, I am not saying that all NCMPs represent special interest. I am just highlighting the potential danger of that and, in those aspects, to just pay attention to that area.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): A quick clarification, Madam. Perhaps Mr Seah could give an example, just so we can understand what the concerns he has.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: I do not have any particular issue but I am just stating that there could be different interest groups that may make their cases known to a particular NCMP for them to take up his case. And, in effect, that Member then basically is just putting forth an agenda on that basis.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Just to clarify that point with Mr Seah. Would not the same apply to an elected MP?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Well, first of all, we represent the majority. In highlighting any concerns, I think it is important, first, to state upfront who we represent and, if there are any conflicts of interest, that should be declared upfront.

Mdm Speaker : Mr Christopher de Souza.

3.57 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, Singapore is a young country. It is rightfully expected that Parliament continues to work hard to get the foundations of our democracy right, the foundations of a functioning democracy right.

While it is good for us to look around the world for best practices, it is also extremely important that, ultimately, we do what is good for Singapore. Our democracy needs to be a functioning democracy, so as to work effectively and efficiently in Singapore's environment.

Let me start with the Elected Presidency. As we are debating the highest office of the land, it is important to have strict criteria to ensure that candidates have the ability to carry the heavy responsibility, not just domestically, but out there in the world. In this regard, it is right that the Constitutional Commission was set up to think long and hard and independently on how to construct the qualification criteria.

Yes, it is important that we have criteria to help ensure presidential candidates are able to discharge responsibilities with dignity and distinction. But, Madam, it is also especially important that the deliberative track defined under paragraph (c) of clause 3 and (b) of clause 4 of Article 19 as amended by clause 7(b) of the Bill allows for a deep collection of candidates.

In 15, 20 years' time, it would not be too difficult to envision a situation in which Singapore may not need to use its past Reserves but, nonetheless, is facing a crisis of another sort, which may require a Head of State to augment the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs' efforts to make Singapore relevant to the world.

It is not easy to walk the tight rope between US-China relations today. It may get even tougher in years to come. In fact, it may even get tougher tomorrow.

The role of the Head of State to help navigate the tensions to stay relevant to both sides and to show to other nations that neutral Singapore is in their interest may, in fact, be more important a role than the custodian of the second key, or at least of equal importance.

So, we need to accommodate for flexibility in the deliberative track. In my view, the deliberative track should be broad enough to include the first four Presidents who, in my opinion, contributed immensely to Singapore before they were appointed. Encik Yusof Ishak, a Malay; Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares, a Eurasian; Mr Devan Nair, an Indian; and Mr Wee Kim Wee, a Chinese. What were their attributes?

Encik Yusof Ishak deeply believed in and was deeply committed to multiracialism. Dr Benjamin Sheares, an exceptional medical professional, inspired many Singaporeans, including people from the Eurasian community, to excel and to show that minority groups do have a role and future in our country, Singapore. Mr Devan Nair devoted his life to the unions. Mr Wee Kim Wee was a man, who through sheer hard work, became successful in journalism, contributed much in the diplomatic corps. Yet, where would these men fit in the current criteria? They neither ran $500 million companies or equivalents then, nor did they occupy an office that would immediately qualify them even to stand for elections. So, I request the Government to explain how the deliberative tracks under clause 7(b) of the Bill will be flexible enough to include men like Mr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Devan Nair, Dr Benjamin Sheares and Encik Yusof Ishak.

When it comes to understanding what would be comparable contributions for the deliberative track, the National Day Awards provides guidance in its rich tapestry of precedents, presenting criteria of what the State recognises as significant contributions. As one example, and just as one example, the description of the Distinguished Service Order, the Darjah Utama Bakti Cemerlang, states, "The Order may be awarded to any person who has performed within Singapore any act or series of acts constituting distinguished conduct."

What I am asking for is that the deliberative track through clause 7(b) recognises distinguished conduct for and on behalf of the state. This reasoning finds support in the deliberations of the Commission itself, who formed the view that it was not prudent to fetter the PEC's discretion by setting out an exhaustive list of factors that the PEC should consider, save one pertaining to performance, but that the PEC should take a holistic view of the applicant's experience and expertise, and assess whether he is likely to be qualified to hold the office of President.

What I am proposing is comparability in contributing to the lives of people or contributions to the lives of people. Yes, at this point in time of Singapore's history, we need to ensure that Presidential candidates have the competency to make decisions on the second key. But we cannot be overly focused on the second key. Needing to tap into our Reserves is only one aspect of the difficulties that Singapore may face. It is just as important for Singapore's future and survival that our Head of State reflects the ability, dexterity, diligence and resilience of Singaporeans to the rest of the world.

Today, let us not overly restrain ourselves to a qualification criterion that is not wide enough to draw a man or woman whom the body of Singaporeans or the Government believes is needed in years to come. It is for this reason that I ask for flexibility in the deliberative track.

I turn now to the second or alternative criterion, that is, the private sector criterion. Clause 7(b) of the Bill amends Article 19 such that the candidate has to be the most senior executive of a company with $500 million shareholders' equity and who is principally responsible for the running of the company.

We have heard the economic justifications for the change from $100 million paid-up capital to $500 million shareholders' equity in the form of several arguments. One, how the number of companies with $100 million paid-up capital has increased between then and now. Two, how shareholders' equity shows whether a company is a going concern rather than a historic figure which may be all lost. And three, how the candidate has to be hands-on, actually involved in the running of the company, rather than just the big picture.

Purely, economically and statistically, this may make sense. But I would like to go further than that. I would like to ask what is required of a President of Singapore. Does a senior executive of a company with $500 million shareholders' equity lead to the automatic conclusion that that person is cut out for the Presidency? Let me put my point into perspective.

Is it tough to run a $500 million company? Yes. Does one need to have financial proficiency and leadership ability? Yes, especially to hold the company together. These are useful attributes for the office of the President, but it cannot be all about commerce. And here, I agree with my learned colleague Mr Zaqy Mohamed. There must be an important additional requirement that that Singaporean must be people-centred, community-centred and nation-centred.

Essentially, in addition to running a $500 million company, a qualifying candidate should also have a record of public service. This could come in the form of holding a leadership position in a public charity or a similar community-centred institution. This is because being a custodian of the second key is just one among many other significant roles and duties the President holds which have, at their heart, people, their hopes and aspirations. Being community-centred is, therefore, a key characteristic and should be accorded that priority in any qualification criterion. Therefore, I ask whether this would be included in the deliberative track under the private sector path.

In conclusion, Madam, just 57 days ago in this House, we paid tribute to a giant of a man, the late Mr SR Nathan. His attributes and, indeed his whole life bring into clear focus the importance and the reality of what we are debating today – the responsibilities, pressures, expectations of the office of the President. Indeed, the lives of Encik Yusof Ishak, Dr Benjamin Sheares, Mr Wee Kim Wee and Mr SR Nathan paint a rich tapestry of selfless service to Singapore and Singaporeans. I hope the qualification criteria are flexible enough in its current form to collect men or women of similar robust calibre. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

4.10 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the changes proposed by the Government to the provisions that deal with the Elected Presidency in the Constitution by way of this Bill are uniquely significant. A key significance lies in the fact that a Constitutional Commission was formed to review the Elected Presidency, only the second time such a Constitutional Commission was formed in the history of post-independent Singapore.

However, the deepest significance of the Commission's findings, I would argue, Mdm Speaker, lies in chapter 7 of their report which rests firmly outside the Commission's terms of reference, something that the Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission also did earlier to include points outside their terms of reference.

After reading 107 written submissions and receiving oral representations from selected contributors, the Menon Constitutional Commission was compelled to ask a critical question, which, in the opinion of the WP, all Singaporeans ought to ponder over seriously, and that is, should the Presidency remain an elected office?

Having had many months to immerse itself in the genesis of the Presidency, its historical role and the function and operation of the Elected Presidency, the Commission found it a critical enough responsibility and duty to pen its thoughts about the Singapore without an Elected President and for the Government to consider undertaking a more fundamental change to the office.

With this background to the Commission's work in mind, my speech will cover four main points. Firstly, as guiding principles, the WP agrees that the President should not become an alternative centre of power, of political power and an elected entity should safeguard the nation's Reserves.

In January this year, when the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Constitutional Commission to study changes to the Elected Presidency, Prime Minister Lee said that the President cannot be an alternative centre of power. In September, when the Law Minister rebutted the Constitutional Commission's alternative proposal to replace the Elected Presidency with an appointed Council of Experts, he said that the President himself must be elected to have the popular mandate to veto an elected Government.

The WP agrees with the Government on these two fundamental principles. First, the President should not become an alternative centre of power with the potential to undermine the sovereign authority of Parliament. Second, our national Reserves need to be safeguarded and the bodies safeguarding the Reserves would need to be elected to say "no" to the government of the day and to force a debate in Parliament.

This has been the WP position when the Elected Presidency was first introduced in 1991. We believe that an Elected President should not fetter the supreme power of Parliament as the people's representatives. The Presidency should be a dignified ceremonial office and a President from any race should focus on performing his or her role in fostering national unity and representing Singapore to the world. We also believe that the past Reserves should be safeguarded. But this custodial function should lie with the elected representatives of the legislature.

Secondly, the WP believes that reviewing the Elected Presidency by strengthening the CPA to check the Elected President complicates the Elected Presidency further. To this end, we disagree with the Government that the solution to the current problem is to tighten the qualifying criteria of the Elected Presidency and to strengthen the CPA).

In tightening the qualifying criteria for the Elected Presidency, the Government seeks to lessen the potential for the Elected President to become an alternative centre of power by severely reducing the number of qualifying candidates and restricting the pool to a super elite group of executives in the private and public sectors. This is based on the mistaken premise that a candidate from such a pool is immune to politicisation and will not become an activist President.

The Government has refused to recognise that the problem is inherent to the Elected Presidency by virtue of a popular mandate. Unlike the typical MP, the Elected President is elected by the whole nation to represent the country without political affiliation. The competitive election process between individuals against one another compels candidates to offer platforms to attract votes. The outcome of such a popular election tempts candidates to use the percentage of votes garnered as an indication of popular endorsement and the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers.

The Government had recognised that, even with existing discretionary powers, we run the risk in the Elected Presidency of placing too much power in one person to properly check a popularly elected Parliament.

The CPA was set up to moderate this risk by endowing the Elected President with a team of advisors so that his or her decisions would always have the benefit of a group of experts and/or experienced persons.

Again, in order to further moderate the risk of the Elected Presidency having too much power to clip the Government's wings, the Government is turning to the unelected CPA. By expanding the CPA from six to eight members and obliging the President to consult the Council on all monetary matters related to the reserves and all key Public Service appointments, the Government is not merely strengthening the CPA's advisory capacity, but is changing the very nature of the CPA beyond its advisory function.

In attempting to create another check, namely, the strengthened CPA on the original check, namely, the Elected Presidency, the Government's approach will, in effect, create a third key for safeguarding the Reserves. When the President disagrees with the Government, the strengthened CPA will be empowered to settle the decision on the side of either party. This makes the CPA another alternative centre of power. This approach risks politicising the office of the Presidency further, by placing the Elected President in a situation where he will be caught in a three-way face-off in making crucial custodial decisions. This approach also risks producing complicated three-way situations that could end in gridlock and the erosion of the legitimacy of the elected Government. An unelected CPA should not have the power to create such outcomes.

The Government's proposal to reserve an election for an ethnic community, if the past five Elected Presidents did not come from that ethnic community, does not solve the problem. Over a long period, our Presidents should come from the main ethnic communities to symbolise and express the multiracial fabric of our nation. However, to tie this important symbolic role with the electoral process risks politicisation of the role. As the ethnicity of the candidates will be pushed into the glare of competitive elections in the case of reserved elections, this will inadvertently lead to the politicisation of multiracialism and may even introduce communal interests into the contest.

Thirdly, the WP proposes to revert to the ceremonial Presidency and to establish an Elected Senate to fulfil the custodial role as the solution.

We studied and deliberated the Constitutional Commission's report and agreed that the most elegant solution to the problem is the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to set up a group of experts to exercise the Elected President's custodial role. However, as the body performing a check on Parliament should have a popular mandate, we believe this group of experts ought to be popularly elected.

With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to distribute a two-page handout which presents two flowcharts. The first is titled Checks and Balances under Option A, which fleshes out the key details of how the Elected Presidency system with a strengthened CPA, as conceived by the Government ,would operate. The second, titled Checks and Balances under Option B, presents a streamlined system of checks and balances with an elected Senate, as put forth by the WP.

Mdm Speaker: Please proceed. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members. Please Annex 2).]

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We propose that a Senate be established within our Legislature as an Upper House to exercise the custodial functions that are now exercised by the Elected President. Eight Senators shall be elected from a list in periodic elections where non-partisan candidates will have to fit the qualifying criteria. A Senate Elections Committee will select the most suitable 16 candidates to stand for the Senate election. Properly mandated by popular elections, the Senate will take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency.

A Senate veto will return relevant Bills to Parliament for debate, which Parliament can veto with a 75% or three-quarters majority. As part of the legislative arm of the State and not the Executive arm, and mandated to fulfil a limited custodial role, Senators would be under no illusion of having any executive or policy-making powers. It is the WP's belief that such a two-chamber legislative system will minimise gridlock and enhance constructive politics.

With the establishment of the Senate, the Presidency shall revert to an office appointed by Parliament with no custodial role to perform. By focusing on unifying Singaporeans and representing Singapore to the world, the dignity of the office will be preserved and protected from the risk of politicisation inherent in electoral competition and in checking Parliament and being checked by an appointed CPA. Parliament shall consider the multiracial character of society and factor in multiracial representation when making the appointment. This way, the symbolic role of representing our coveted multiracialism will also be preserved and protected from politicisation.

Fourthly, the WP is of the view that the proposed constitutional amendments are major changes that should not be made with indecent haste and should be put to a referendum.

The amendments to the Constitution that the Government has proposed are far-reaching and wide-ranging and deserve much more airtime where the changes can be subjected to proper and thorough public debate. Any changes made with indecent haste will expose the Government to suspicions and accusations that it is seeking to shape the terms and outcome of the election when the country is on the verge of the next Presidential Election.

In the amendments proposed by way of the new Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, the Government has affirmed the utility, desirability and legitimacy of a national referendum in introducing controversial changes to presidential candidate eligibility. Given that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the proposed fundamental changes to the Presidency are controversial and potentially unpalatable to many members of the public, we believe that a national referendum on these proposed amendments should be held after an appropriate period of public debate.

The public should be presented with a simple choice between the Government's proposed amendments and the WP's proposal as outlined in this paper. The two options represent the main ideas mooted by the Constitutional Commission, with minor modifications. As such, we believe the referendum questions should be marked in a non-partisan manner as simply Option A and Option B, as explained by Ms Sylvia Lim earlier. A simple majority should suffice to decide the referendum.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, should this Bill be passed in its current form, the Elected Presidency will soon host a triple-weak situation. A weak institution that is structurally flawed in hosting different and contradictory objectives, weak public knowledge about the powers of the Elected President and, finally, an Elected President whose electoral mandate will be weakened as a result of the strengthening of the unelected CPA.

This House needs to focus its energies on the path that the Commission has laid for the future of the Elected Presidency. Instead of rushing this Bill through Parliament in time for the next Presidential Elections, the WP calls for the Government to delay any changes to the Elected Presidency. The Government should do this not because it has been suggested by the WP or the Constitutional Commission in varying forms but to protect the institution of the Presidency and to create a more accountable and robust system than the one we host today for the next 50 years.

4.24 pm

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Mahdev Mohan. One minute, please. Dr Tan, do you have a clarification? Yes, please.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his exposition. I just have three small clarifications which I am curious about. The Member for Aljunied mentioned that there would be a Senate with eight members, elected periodically. Would he be able to let us know how often in their proposal would they want to re-elect the Senators?

Secondly, the Members also mentioned that a list would be outlined of 16 candidates of which eight will be elected. Would the Member be able to clarify whether they would be elected through a straightforward highest vote count or whether through, say, a single transferable vote system?

And thirdly, would the Member be able to clarify how, under his model, they would handle a situation where there is a deadlock in the Senate, where four of the proposed Senate members vote one way and four vote the other? I was wondering if the Member could help us understand this a bit better.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first few occasions in this House where the person asking the question actually sits next to the Member who just made the speech. Let me try and help the Member and answer his questions.

In the first case, as to how often we see Senate elections, we see them every six years. So, the Senate is elected every six years.

The second question about the list, who would be selected to comprise the Senate, it would be on the basis of a simple percentage of votes won. The top eight become Senators.

The final question was about deadlock. In the case of a deadlock, Parliament, ultimately, still has to ratify whatever decisions are made at the Senate. If there is a deadlock, then Parliament would have to come and make a decision as to whether to approve the Government's proposal or not. Those are the answers.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Just one more clarification for the Member. He mentioned the re-election process that would take place every six years. Would this be for all members en bloc or would it be a staggered process whereby the tenures are spaced out and overlapping? I was wondering if he could provide a bit more information, please.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, subsequent speakers would be pursuing this topic in greater detail. So, I do not really want to speak about that. But if the question is not answered by the WP Members who would speak after me, then I would be happy to take that question in the course of the debate.

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Madam, the Members have been speaking about the elected Senate of professionals and experts. What would be the criteria to be nominated for election?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Senior Minister of State for that question. We see the Senate Elections Committee really taking on the form and substance of the current PEC So, the same individuals will determine which individuals can stand for Senate elections and, for the same reason, those six individuals, we believe, would be able to put their minds to assessing who ought to qualify to be on the Senate. So, it is like the PEC.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Madam, I did not quite understand the Member's last point. Is he suggesting that out of a possible pool of applicants, that there would be a set of shortlisting criteria to derive 16 individuals that the Senate Elections Committee would then forward for the general public to select from? So, what would the Senate Elections Committee use as criteria to suggest who could and could not stand as a Senator?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, the way we see it, the Senate Elections Committee will operate very similarly to how the PEC currently operates. It will have to determine Senators for the purposes for which it had been constituted. It has to oversee financial matters. It has to oversee appointment of public officials and, of course, other appointments. It would be very important that individuals who can perform that role or perform some checking role in that regard and have the qualifications for that role, would be selected for that purpose.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Madam, I am still confused. The Senate Elections Committee is not itself elected; the members would be appointed, I presume by Parliament. So, how do they then prevent – in other words, actually, the key point is that if you have a pool of 24 or 36 candidates, how does the Senate Electoral Committee and what mandate does it have to prevent somebody standing as a Senator, and restricting that list to 16 people for the public to decide? Would they be given strict criteria by the House to decide upon, such as age, financials? What is the nature of that decision? What is the mandate for that decision? That is what I am asking.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Like I mentioned, it really follows the mandate that is given to the PEC. But the main point is that they will have to narrow down the slate of applicants to the number 16. The Minister of State asked about the mandate, what mandate do they have. It is the same mandate as the PEC has today. The members are appointed.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, maybe I did not explain my points to the Member. The PEC today does not prevent people to a given number. It is to look at those applicants and to see who are suitable for going forward. So, they do not have a mandate to say, "You stop at one, two, three, four." It is merely to assess the suitability of candidates going forward and it is for the people to decide which of the suitable candidates are elected.

But if I understand the Member's proposal, a key point of the role of the Senate Electoral Committee would be to prevent more than 16 people standing forward. So, the 17th and downstream would have been prevented from being exposed to public vote. So, my question then is, on what grounds does the Senate Electoral Committee decide that the 16th person is good enough and the 17th person is not good enough for the public to make up their mind?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I think it is a fair question. The issue is, at the point, before the process becomes unwieldy, the Senate Elections Committee has to draw a line. And it will have to determine for the 16 individuals that it has decided upon who are the best qualified for that job and, after that, when it goes to the polls, the citizens of Singapore will whittle that list further down to eight, basically. That is how it works.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I am clarifying. What I want to clarify is that the WP has put forward an alternative to the system of Elected President. Of course, by no means it is perfect. It is the same as what the Prime Minister said, it is not perfect. The idea is for us to look at the fundamental difference, look at which is the better system we should have and, of course, there are details. You have had the Elected President system for 25 years, you have problems, you come for amendments.

Similarly, we expect our system of Senate, if accepted, will have similar problems. So, let us have debate on the fundamental idea, the pros and cons of having a Senate and the Elected President. Do not be bogged down by details. If you are going into the details, it would thereby end up debating the details rather than the main substantive proposal.

So, let us focus on what is fundamental and whether the idea sounds logical and whether it is a fairer system. Details, yes, we can work them out and I think we can finetune them in time to come.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): I share my colleague's concern about the politicisation of the office of the President and I would seek a clarification on what measures the Members would propose to ensure that the election of the Senate will not be politicised and that we will not have eight persons in the Senate who may make a decision on a politicised basis.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I do appreciate that when you go through the process of an election, there is some degree of politicisation. The same applies for the Elected President. The question is, do we want to preserve the symbolic and unifying role of the President, and by doing that have an elected Senate which we will, of course, have to persuade the public, "Look, these are my credentials, I am a Singaporean and I seek to play my role as part of a legislative member".

So, while there will be some degree of politicisation, and I do concede that, I think it is a better situation than having the Presidency itself be politicised.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to ask the WP this: currently, for the CPA, there is a certain diversity in the background. We have senior civil servants, we have retired, very well-regarded judges. So, this diversity of background helps.

In the WP's proposal, when it is just an election, how then do you get the kind of diversity, such as you have the people with business experience or civil servants who know how the Government runs, judges who know how to interpret the law? I think that is very important.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, Mdm Speaker, I do not see why those same individuals would be prevented from standing for senatorial elections. They can stand for the Senate.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Yes, they can stand, but how it works is that, currently, because they are appointed, the diversity helps in giving a different perspective and a more rounded decision-making. But if they stand for election, some of these people, they may not be able to, for example, give a very rousing speech. So, they may not end up being elected. So, that is my point to the WP.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I think that really would be the remit of the Senate Elections Committee and the individuals that it identifies. It will have to put its mind to identifying individuals who it believes would be able to perform the role expected of Senators.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Koh Poh Koon.

The Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Madam, just a point of clarification for the Member. I believe the Member said just now that if there is a gridlock in the Senate, the decision will be passed back down to Parliament. In that case, why would Parliament float the matter up to the Senate in the first place? Can the Member maybe clarify the mechanics of how this decision actually works?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, it would have to go to the Senate by virtue of the fact that that would be the process. So, if the government of the day wants to draw down on the Reserves, then, by its very nature, it would go to the Senate. But it does not mean that there will always be a four-four decision, down the middle. But if that also is seen to be problematic in the evolution of the Senate, then there is always the option of introducing an odd member to resolve that problem. But that is an easy answer. The real issue is, we want to allow the Senate to perform its role and there is always the prospect of having a chairman in the Senate to perform a casting vote.

Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

4.38 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Madam, I will be addressing three points today: one, the framework of the Elected President; second, the eligibility of the Elected President; and third, I will be speaking shortly on what the Constitutional Commission has proposed as innovative ideas.

Mr Ramaswamy in 1967, Madam, said "The President or Head of State is merely a symbolical figure and is expected to do…more than just the normal dreary ceremonial chores. This may be so in terms of constitutional abstractions, but in the eyes of the ordinary people who do not understand political abstractions, the Head of State is something more than a legal abstraction. He is the state personified". I think the Prime Minister also said that today.

As we go more into ideas of the Senate, as we have just been speaking about, other ideas or abstractions in Mr Ramaswamy's words, we may lose a little bit of the sight of what the people of Singapore is looking out for and that is, quite simply, something that they can digest and read and understand very quickly. What are we proposing, what does this stand for, how does it change the current status quo?

Constitutional amendments were made through an amendment in 1991, as we know, based on two White Papers, one Select Committee Report and extensive Parliamentary debates. Subsequent amendments have also been made. Not only is the Elected President real to the people now as Singapore's chief public representative, as someone that they can cast their vote at the ballot box for, but he can also become our non-partisan custodian, as he is. He is endowed with discretionary powers over a range of fiscal matters and has the power to veto any proposed appointment or removal of key office holders in the Public Service.

In the wake of the last Presidential Elections in 2011, two well-known Singaporeans had this to say: journalist Mr Janadas Devan, as he then was, and businessman Mr Ho Kwon Ping said that, "If the end is to have an apolitical Presidency, then the means to enjoy having this…must be apolitical". They felt that one candidate in the 2011 Presidential Elections saw "what the framers of the constitutional provisions establishing the elected presidency perhaps did not…they saw that you cannot hold an election for an apolitical office and not expect politics to intrude upon it". Mr Devan and Mr Ho recommended elections by an electoral college instead of an election by citizens.

Theirs is a very valid one, as my colleague and fellow NMP Chia Yong Yong just said, we must be wary of politics getting too involved over what is currently an apolitical situation. If we have an Elected Presidency, as we now have, by votes, we must wonder whether we want to revert to something else. What Mr Ho and Mr Devan said was based on the Indian presidency. The Indian president is elected by an electoral college, so appointed within Parliament. He plays an important role in India's financial administration. He is the fiscal head of India. Without his recommendation no Money Bill can be introduced in the Indian parliament. The president has, under his oversight, the Contingency Fund of India, out of which provision can be made for advances to meet unforeseen expenditures.

I have examined Chief Justice Menon's Constitutional Commission report issued this year. It is the second time in 50 years for the Constitutional Commission to issue a report after considering both submissions as well as hearing evidence from various people. I have also seen the latest White Paper in this regard which responds to the report and forms the basis of this amendment Bill.

It is clear to me, Madam, that the President should remain an elected office and his CPA should be appointed. Singaporeans have been accustomed to this since 1991. We should not go back in time to extinguish their right to vote for a Head of State who is empowered, in specific circumstances, to veto the Government, if it is necessary to do so.

What can the President veto? If we look at it closely, the list is extensive. The Government's proposals of past Reserves are something he can veto. The appointment and removal of key officeholders in the Public Service and in the Statutory Boards and Government companies which are listed in the Fifth Schedule. He can veto changes to investment powers of the Central Provident Fund Board. He can veto Restraining Orders under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. He can veto continued detention under the Internal Security Act, and he can veto, finally, refusal of investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. These are wide-ranging protective powers, Madam.

The Bill paves the way for entrenchment provisions to operate, albeit in two tiers, where the possibility of the President's veto being Parliamentary overrule where the CPA recommends assent. New Articles 5A, 5B and 5C seem to fulfil, in part, statements made by this Government in the past that it would consider entrenching provisions, and entrenching provisions that the President's custodial powers should be entrenched in part. I am happy to see that there has been a response to these Parliamentary Questions over the years and there are some entrenching provisions that are now envisioned.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo said yesterday in the Second Reading speech that the amendments would, among other things, "help to avoid gridlock in situations where the President and the Government do not agree".

President Tony Tan's message to this House before that Second Reading speech was powerful, Madam. He said, among other things, "We cannot hamstring the Elected President. We cannot guard against the worst-case scenario of a populist or power-hungry President. We must rely upon the wisdom of our electorate to elect a President who is able to work with the Government of the day for the proper and effective governance of Singapore". This must be correct.

I think in all changes that we are making, we must be wary not to hamstring the Elected President. We often hear judges, Madam, refer to the wisdom of Parliament. Similarly, we hear Parliamentarians refer to the wisdom of judges and key officeholders in the Public Service. But we rarely hear of the wisdom of the people. For our current sitting President to refer to the wisdom of the people, it is the true mark of his timbre as a President.

The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon's Constitutional Commission Report noted that approximately one third of all the constitutional amendment Acts passed between 1991 and 2007 concerned the Elected Presidency, and that half of those amendments were directed at the President's fiscal powers. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if the new Articles 5A, 5B, and 5C – in response perhaps to such critiques about whether they are going to be aimed directly at the fiscal powers of the President – are designed to preserve instead or introduce transparency by causing to be published in the Gazette the President's grounds for non-concurrence or conveying the CPA's grounds for concurrence through the Speaker of this House.

Looking at eligibility, Madam, speaking in jest about his role as President, former President, the late Mr SR Nathan once likened his role to that of a "performing bear". He said, "You are put in a cage and once a day, the door is opened, and they say come out and perform. Then you are called back in."

A consummate diplomat, President Nathan was nothing if not modest. The President's custodial role to safeguard Singapore's financial Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service could not be more important. Indeed, it is only now that we know that in the very month that this House last spoke about entrenchment of the President's powers in 2008, President Nathan had in that same month, October 2008, willingly exercised his discretion. He had approved a $150 billion guarantee on all bank deposits to be backed by our Reserves. That is an awesome responsibility for one person with his CPA of six people at that time, to shoulder.

It says much again about the man and the office that he occupied. By the same token, it does raise questions, Madam. Although I agree with the Government that an electoral mandate gives the President the moral authority to act as a second key, with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as the first, I ask this: is it the Government's position that to deal with the CPA, the President, too, must be their professional equal? This is no mean feat, Madam, when considering the existing members of the CPA.

Could the Minister provide an example as well of a situation where the Chief Executive of a company with a $100 million paid up-capital may be ill-equipped to make a decision on the CPA's advice, compared to a Chief Executive of a company with $500 million as shareholders' equity?

Under the new Article 19, will the PEC be required or encouraged to provide reasons for its decisions on whether the discretionary limb, that is, "whether a person has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the Office"? What would it be? This would assuage current concerns that the PEC's decisions are not transparent, Madam, and would accord with the transparency that is now expected of the President and his CPA in the event of a dispute between them on certain matters.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister as well for clarifying yesterday that renowned Singaporean diplomats and members of international organisations with a long record of service for Singapore would be found likely eligible under this discretionary track or deliberative track. Would recipients, Madam, of the nation's highest Orders and decorations, such as the Order of Temasek or the Order of Sang Nila Utama, who may not automatically qualify, also be considered or deemed to qualify under the deliberative track?

Moving forward to the final point, Madam, that is, on the Council of Experts or the idea of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Chief Justice Menon's Constitutional Commission is clear and I am happy to see that many of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government. But it conceptualises also certain innovations which Parliament or the Government has not included in this Bill, and one such innovation is having a Council of Experts as a second Chamber of Parliament.

Madam, this is quite different from what is being proposed by the WP. The WP has eloquently put up an idea of having an Elected Council as an Upper House. What the Constitutional Commission actually suggested was having an appointed Council within Parliament as an Upper House.

A Council of Experts as a second Chamber of Parliament with the ability to delay measures, force a debate upon them and require the Government to override any objections only with a supermajority, was what they said. Unlike the Elected President, the Council, as an appointed body of experts, would never have the power to absolutely block the Government or veto Government initiatives but through a combination of raising the issue, forcing a debate on the Council's objections and requiring a supermajority, a suitable balance could perhaps be struck between the need to safeguard our critical assets on the one hand and, on the other hand, to enable the Government to act expeditiously. The Commission noted that the second Chamber or the Upper House, so to speak, with mainly appointed as opposed to elected members, is not uncommon. Examples include those both in India and Malaysia.

Yet, it appears from the White Paper that the Government does not feel that this mechanism is appropriate. Properly construed, however, Madam, this mechanism that has been suggested by the Commission is an addition, not an alternative, to the Elected President. It is complementary. On page 143 of the Commission's report, the idea behind the Council of Experts is clearly explained.

Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: as a matter of principle, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider this appointed Council, in his words, a "ballast", or as the Prime Minister said earlier, a "stabiliser" which could help Singapore weather financial storms and insulate it from rough seas? The Prime Minister has explained that the Government has decided against pursuing an Elected Upper Chamber; what about a small appointed one within Parliament?

If this idea is not to the liking of the Government, does perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister believe in the possibility of a Parliamentary Commissioner in due course?

This has been raised, Madam, several times before. It was raised, first, by Mr David Marshall before Independence and, after Independence, it was raised on the heels of the 1966 Constitutional Commission Report, at that time presided by Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin. It has also been raised and answered by several Law Ministers. It was raised by our current Law Minister when he was a backbencher in this Government.

When it was raised in 1966 to the Wee Chong Jin Commission, the response by the Law Minister at that time Mr EW Barker was this. He said, "The creation of the Ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner on the lines of the recommendations of this Commission should be deferred until the results of the experiment in New Zealand and elsewhere." The reason for this was, at that time, it was only in the UK that had preferred to have a Parliamentary Commissioner. Fifty years later, the Parliamentary Commissioner in New Zealand has been hailed a success, Madam. I would argue that we should, if nothing else, study the feasibility of including this within our system in due course. In 1990, I do note that we had Member of Parliament Davinder Singh compellingly making the case to have such an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner.

I would add at this point that we have many ideas to add some form of transparency and accountability in this House. Perhaps this is not because transparency and accountability are lacking but it is because we are living in the new normal and, in this new normal, questions are asked at every turn. And perhaps one way to keep these questions at bay is to suggest that we have mechanisms that all of us are proud to have within this House.

Finally, Madam, I would like to ask about the role of NMPs and whether this would be enhanced in due course. I ask this because I realised that NCMPs have been increased, and I do not ask this in terms of quantity, Madam, I must say it is in terms of the day-to-day of the NMPs' job. In 1999, in reply to Mr Srinivas Rai's question on whether the Government will consider setting up an Upper House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was Minister for Home Affairs at that time, said, "In our unicameral Parliament, which has worked well, there are already nine nominated non-elected Members in this House. There is no need to set up an Upper House comprising non-elected Members to oversee the work of elected representatives."

In my limited time in Parliament, Madam, "overseeing" has not been my experience. I would not see that as the role of the NMP. The NMP has a complementary role and it is to be involved in the debates and to get things moving along. But if the Government would see the NMPs having an oversight role in the absence of an Upper House or a Council, I would ask the Minister to provide certain guidelines, and what could be our policy-related interactions and advocacy with the Government and with the Opposition, because our accountability must be, first and foremost, to this House and to its best traditions. Madam, if I may just say a few words in Tamil and conclude.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Respected Parliamentarians, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim's speech yesterday was a heartfelt one. As a person from another minority group, I would like to now say that I fully support it. It is important for minorities to be ensured of a representative in the highest office of the country. The reason? There have been instances of Chinese and Indians becoming President. Should Malays alone be the exception? Yesterday, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim mentioned that only minorities can understand their own dilemmas. Indians know that sentiment well. Our path is a unique one.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.00 pm until 5.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.20 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

5.21 pm

The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, recently, I met a resident who is living in an HDB flat with her daughter. She asked if I could help her apply for a smaller new flat, as she wanted to sell her current flat to help pay off her daughter's debts. She said her daughter was planning to migrate to another country, so she does not need such a big flat.

I was a bit worried for her because this HDB flat represented her lifelong savings. How is she going to survive for the rest of her life after selling the flat and paying off her daughter's debts? She was very confident that her daughter would send money back to her and support her. I hope that the daughter would really do that, but I am still worried for her, because we have heard about stories where children squander away their parents' savings.

Emotionally, parents will always sacrifice unconditionally for their children, and, in fact, many children do feel grateful to their parents for bringing them up and sincerely want to take care of their parents. But from a pragmatic point of view, what that mother is doing may not be the best way to manage her finances, as there are considerable risks.

The situation is similar to that of companies. Some companies go bankrupt because of mismanagement by the new generation of leaders, which resulted in losses and huge debts, and all the hard work done by the older generation gone to waste. This is why the Chinese have a saying that "the wealth of a family will not go beyond three generations".

However, I do not believe that this is the natural course of things. It is just a reminder to all the successors that they should cherish what their predecessors have achieved. In fact, many businesses have lasted generations after generations, including those from the west.

In Singapore, we also have companies that have stood the test of time, and many are established brand names, for example, Singapore Airlines, OCBC, UOB, Tiger Balm, Sembcorp, Keppel Corp and so on.

These companies have survived many ups and downs because their management and leaders have a strong sense of responsibility to properly manage the business they inherited.

This is a continuation of good management practices. Even though the "steward" of a company is not managing his own money, he is still committed to his responsibilities. Therefore, the new qualifying criteria for the Elected President does not mean that he has to be wealthy. The new criteria mean that the Elected President must be a good "steward" who is capable and responsible.

However, we cannot rely solely on an individual's sense of responsibility. That is why we have the Elected Presidency, and we have institutionalised this spirit of self-discipline to ensure that our wealth can last beyond three generations.

The President holds the "second key" to our Reserves. With the "second key", Singaporeans will not blindly believe in the empty promises of a populist. Political parties will not issue blank cheques casually because people will question, "With so much welfare, where is the money coming from?"

If the Elected President is to stand up against the elected government, then the "second key" that he holds will have to be as powerful as the "first key" held by the ruling party. This is why the President must be elected by the people.

Only then can there be an effective system of checks and balances. We can call this "self-control", some people describe this cheekily as "ownself check ownself". There is nothing wrong with this concept because frankly, self-discipline is a virtue that our society needs right now.

However, only a wise and responsible Government will exercise 'self-discipline', while a power-hungry party will not do so.

In Mr Low Thia Khiang's speech, he described this amendment Bill as a political manoeuvre by the ruling party, that this is a reaction to the results of the 2011 GEs and Presidential Election. I am afraid this is not a fair comment, and it appears we are not speaking on the same wave length. In fact, what the Government is doing is precisely the opposite; our intention is to strengthen the democratic institution.

Let us think about this. Politics change with the times. If people really desire a change in government, who can stop the transition of political power? The President is directly elected by the people and has their mandate and definitely has his own independent views and way of doing things. Who can manipulate him? We all know that former President Ong Teng Cheong was a former Deputy Prime Minister in the PAP Government, and he had his own views. Likewise, for former President SR Nathan and the current President Tony Tan. All of them are men with independent minds and were good stewards of the people.

Mr Low Thia Khiang believes that the bar was raised to ensure that only candidates endorsed by the ruling party can run for President. I think this is an exaggeration. I see nothing wrong in adjusting the qualifying criteria of Presidential candidates over time and according to the economic development of our country. In fact, figures show that the number of people who meet the new criteria to run for President now is even more than that in the 1990s. In future, there will definitely be presidential candidates who meet the new criteria, but with views different from that of the ruling party.

The Government can only strengthen the democratic political system when there is political stability. No matter which political party becomes the ruling party in future, this system will be better able to self-regulate and curb powers, to provide further assurance for the future of our country and people.

The WP also suggested that instead of relying on the Elected President, we should set up an Upper House or senate like the West, to ensure there is a system of checks and balances. This appears to be the core suggestion of the WP in this debate. However, our current worry is not the lack of scrutiny of the constant, but a safeguard against the unexpected. For years, the Senate in Western countries has acted as a check and balance against hundreds of thousands of Bills. This may have worked for them but, to us, it may result in a Parliamentary deadlock. Our concern is that an elected government may misuse the Reserves, or appoint aides or friends to key positions in the government. To prevent such a situation, we need an Elected President who is assisted by a CPA, not a cumbersome senate. On the contrary, if we do away with the Elected Presidency; and replace it with Senate elections and a referendum, there will definitely be a further polarisation of Singapore politics. Would the Senate not become another centre of power? Is this beneficial to our country? Is this relevant to the needs of our country today?

Next, I would like to talk about meritocracy in the selection of candidates. The issue that people are concerned about is not whether there are outstanding candidates from various racial groups. Instead, they are concerned that if a minority candidate wins a particular term of the Elected Presidency that is reserved for minorities, will people focus only on the fact that he or she is from the minority and overlook the fact that he or she is, indeed, a capable individual?

Traditionally, the President is the Head of State and represents all Singaporeans. With the Elected Presidency, the President has been given the added role of protecting our Reserves. Both roles are equally important. Yet, they require the President to possess different capabilities and qualities.

We all agree that meritocracy should not be measured with one single yardstick. The selection criteria should be flexible, inclusive and relevant. The qualities required of the best talent should depend on his responsibilities and his role.

If we want to build a large bridge, what we need is an engineer, not a renowned economist; if we want to prepare a delicious dish, we need a good chef, not a scientist; if we are sick, we need a good doctor, not a good carpenter.

By the same logic, if we want our Reserves to be well-protected, the Elected President will need to have relevant experience in managing a large organisation. I believe most people understand this logic.

However, does it necessarily mean that an individual with experience managing a large organisation will be able to perform the traditional role of the President, namely, as a head of state and a representative of all Singaporeans?

The answer, of course, is not necessarily so. As a representative of our country and its people, he should care about the welfare of Singaporeans, be able to communicate with people from all walks of life, as well as represent Singapore in diplomatic relations. I believe there are talented individuals who possess both qualities from various races.

However, besides personal capabilities, you will notice that all our past Presidents are talented individuals from various races in Singapore. The Elected President must come from various races. Only then can he represent our multi-racial Singapore. Only then are we staying true to the spirit of meritocracy.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore's achievement depends on the contribution of Singaporeans from all walks of life, races and religions. Multiracialism, multiculturalism and meritocracy are the cornerstones of our nation. These beliefs ensure our solidarity and justice.

I believe the Chinese majority in Singapore understand that. This is why they have always prioritised the big picture of preserving social harmony and are willing to make important compromises where necessary during the process of nation-building so as to safeguard our multiculturalism. The acceptance of English as the common language of all Singaporeans is a good example.

There is never a good time for implementing necessary changes. It is precisely because of this steadfast belief that we are prepared to further strengthen and enhance our current Elected Presidency system after it has been in operation for some years.

(In English): At the beginning of this debate, Ms Sylvia Lim said that this is a nightmare that came back to haunt us. Indeed, it is never a perfect system and it has to be improved over time. And this is really what building an institution is about. You never get it right the first time. You have to keep on improving.

And as the WP proposed a Senate, likewise, the details will be hazy and it will be an idea that you have to keep on improving. That is really the nature of what building an institution is about. And I think there is nothing wrong with the Government coming back to amend the Constitution from time to time to improve this institution.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, it is an old pair of shoes. You do not throw it away at the first blister. Wear it a bit more. Season it a bit more. It will be more comfortable. Rather than throw it away and buy a more complicated pair of shoes giving you all kinds of problems. But I also cannot help but notice, even the WP's view on the matter has also evolved over time.

The WP's August 2015 manifesto stated, "The power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered". In other words, it is possible for Parliament to raid the past Reserves. That is in the manifesto. In March 2016, the WP presented its ideas and proposal on the Constitutional Commission. You accepted that there should be checks, but checks from a Parliament having an enhanced majority.

Later on, there was an article in The Straits Times titled "Time for two Houses of Parliament". I think this was someone's idea. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, reacted on a Facebook post on 30 November by saying, "keep things simple and deepen existing institutions". In other words, just have the current one layer of Parliament. And now, the proposal is: elect an Upper House and then have a referendum to decide on that. Change one Elected Presidency into elections for eight Senators.

The ideas have, indeed, evolved. I would think that if the WP believes strongly that there should be a referendum for this, you can have it, which is, in the GEs. Put the idea to the next GEs and make it into your party's manifesto.

I want to end my speech with reference to something that Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan mentioned. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned something that I thought was quite wise: "We discussed all these details, complicated stuff, but in the end, what does the people want? What do people understand? And what can they digest?"

I would say that what the Government propose today for this debate boils down to two things. One, many years have passed. The eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency should be raised, together with time and economic growth. Second, let us put in place a mechanism to ensure that minorities can be President, in line with our principles of a multi-racial Singapore. I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

5.38 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, on the issue that Minister Ong Ye Kung said where ideas of the WP have evolved, I would leave it to other Members to clarify. I will clarify the matter on what the Minister said about the Senate in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate system will result in a political gridlock. I would like to clarify that the power of the Senate we are proposing is not much different from the CPA. It is not like in the western countries where the Senate is responsible for reviewing Bills passed in the lower house. The Senate we are proposing is basically the same as our current CPA. Theoretically, it should not create any gridlocks. Should there be gridlocks, then the Elected Presidency can equally create gridlocks.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] If the two concepts are the same, then do not throw away the old pair of shoes so quickly. I think the old pair of shoes would be more comfortable and we can keep on improving it.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, clarification on what the Minister said earlier about how the WP position has evolved. Actually, if we look at our positions from the 1980s to date, the fundamentals are still the same, as in:

one, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and we believe that it should be abolished – that position has not changed; and

two, we have always agreed that there should be additional safeguards on our past Reserves, and that safeguard should vest in Parliament. That also has not changed.

But we have noticed the Government appointing the Constitutional Commission to look into this matter, and we do have great respect for the work that was done by the Constitutional Commission to take into account how society has evolved over the years and the expectations of the people as well.

So, in that regard, the proposal that we have today about having an elected Senate, Members will recall that we said that there should be a second chamber in the legislature. And in any case, if the matter is not agreed to by the Senate, it will come back to Parliament to be passed by a supermajority.

So, in that sense, the fundamentals are the same, it is just that we have taken into account the Commission's work and we believe that it is prudent and wise to refine our position in keeping with public expectations that there should be some oversight over some of these matters, but the fundamentals have not changed.

We do not agree with the Elected Presidency. We do believe that the safeguards should vest in Parliament; these fundamentals are still there.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I do concede that some of the fundamentals have not changed, but it was also a fundamental belief of the WP that Parliament should be unfettered. And now to have a Senate, it may constitute a fundamental change.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): I seek a clarification on what Ms Sylvia Lim said. I think in the manifesto last year, the WP said, "Power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered".

In March this year, to the Constitutional Commission, the WP said, "Parliamentary safeguards requiring its supermajority vote in Parliament before past Reserves can be used by the Government."

Today, it is an elected Senate which will overrule Parliament. Is that not a change? Can Ms Lim please clarify?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, as I said earlier in response to Minister Ong, the fundamentals are still the same. We do not believe in the Elected Presidency. We believe that Parliament should have the final say over the safeguarding of the past Reserves. And since the Minister quoted from our submission to the Commission, I can read to Members what we said.

We said that, "We agree that large Reserves built up in the past should be safeguarded, but we believe the Elected President is not the right mechanism for this. For all the years prior to the introduction of the Elected President, there has not been a need for additional safeguards. We are, however, open to additional Parliamentary safeguards over the Reserves, such as requiring a supermajority in Parliament, before past Reserves can be used by the Government." The framework is still similar.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: It is a simple question. Please answer it if you can – a clarification, really. Is it not different from what you said in March? Supermajority in Parliament to use Reserves, as opposed to having an elected Senate with 16 people contesting and eight people being elected. It looks to me different. If you say it is the same, so be it.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A point of clarification with Minister Ong.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate does not differ very much from the Elected Presidency. In fact, they are quite different. Under the Elected Presidency, decisions are made by one person, plus eight other unelected CPA members. We feel that such important decisions should not be left to just one Elected President and eight appointed advisers who are not elected by the people. However, the Senate is elected by the people. We are willing to leave our destiny to the collective wisdom of these senators who are elected by the people.

He also quoted what Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said about old shoes, that if shoes are old and worn, it would be more comfortable. Just have them mended, do not throw them away. However, I would like to remind everyone that if you continue to wear broken shoes, you risk slip and fall. The soles could get slippery and it is better not to continue wearing them for too long.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we have said all of these before, this CPA is not elected and does not have executive powers. As I have explained just now, what we are worried about is "What if". If something happens, we will need a wise Elected President to prevent an irresponsible Parliament or government from squandering our Reserves.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I agree that we should play on the safe side, just in case something happens. But can the Senate not play the same role?

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Senate, as I have already said, will entail another GE. In addition, we need to conduct a referendum to ask the people whether they need to have such a system. Is this what our country really needs? Is this what our people need? Will this become another centre of power? There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.46 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Madam, I rise to oppose this Bill. In my speech today, I will be touching on the contradictions of the President being a Head of State and unifier of the country versus the President in his custodial role. I will also be touching on the topic of NCMP.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

There are two unique and important roles which our Elected President currently plays under the present system. One, the President is a Head of State as well as a symbol of the unity of the country. Two, the President has a custodial role in safeguarding our financial Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service. The WP believes that the office of the Elected President should be abolished and the Presidency be reverted to its former ceremonial position.

Though we understand that many Singaporeans desire that this right of election should not be taken away from them, it does not remove the fact that it is difficult for an Elected President to concentrate on being a Head of State and be a unifying force for Singapore and Singaporeans while having a separate custodial role in respect of our country's Reserves.

The Constitutional Commission of 2016 led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon reflected on seven principles that have informed the evolution of the Elected Presidency. It accepted that, I quote, "There is an undeniable tension" between some of the principles reviewed". I quote, "especially those pertaining to the President's historical role and the custodial role that was subsequently grafted on." Please allow me to quote certain paragraphs of the Constitutional Commission here on the seven principles as I feel that they are important and have been aptly described.

"First, the President's historical role as a symbol of the country's unity is premised on the President being non-partisan. However, in discharging the custodial role, the President faces the prospect of having to confront the Government of the day – a task which might appear to be at odds with a non-partisan unifying role. Further, the prospect of having to stand up to the Government necessitates an electoral mandate, in order to endow the President with the requisite legitimacy to do so. This requires that candidates to undergo an intensely political and potentially divisive election process. It may fairly be asked whether a person who emerges victorious after a sharply contested election can convincingly lay claim to being the nation's symbol of unity. Finally, in terms of the President's eligibility criteria, the maximisation of his symbolic and unifying role suggests a premium on inclusivity, in particular, with respect to matters, such as minority representation, as well as the ability to relate to and connect with the general populace. In contrast, however, the custodial role entails a significant degree of exclusivity, particularly in relation to the requirement that the candidate possesses demonstrable experience in high office, in matters of policy and/or financial and technical expertise."

The Commission heard submissions and proposals from many Singaporeans. After deliberation, the Commission found it difficult to overcome, I quote "the strains rooted in the unavoidable tension between the President's historical and custodial roles" and recommended that the Government may wish to consider unbundling the custodial role from the symbolic role of the President and have the custodial role be performed by an appointed body of experts operating like a second chamber of Parliament but with no veto or blocking power.

The WP studied the Constitutional Commission's report and we agree with the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to have a separate body to exercise the custodial role. The main difference is that we think that this body must be elected by the people directly, not merely appointed by any persons.

The custodial role of the President requires that he be prepared to confront the Government if necessary. He can only do so if he has gone through a national election, competed in the hustings to be elected above other candidates and received the elected mandate of the people. The Constitutional Commission said that the election will likely be politicised and divisive. To contest in such an election to be the Head of State will require one to be partisan in some ways, even if it should not be along party lines like for Parliamentary elections. Being partisan may not sit comfortably with the notion of a unifier of the entire country which the President is supposed to be, even if an election may not be divisive.

The strict eligibility criteria which are said to be necessary for the President's custodial role are not similar to the traits that may make a candidate a good Head of State and unifier of the country. The strict eligibility criteria ensure that only a very exclusive group of people are eligible. They will be made even stricter under the proposed amendments being debated and become even more exclusive and narrow such that only a very small group of people with a very exclusive profile may qualify.

In contrast, as a unifier, the President must have, in the words of the Commission, "a premium on inclusivity". I feel that this must surely include the ability to relate to Singaporeans from all walks of life, races, ages and classes.

By combining the roles and having the strict eligibility criteria, we have restricted the eligible persons to a very exclusive group: some past political officeholders or senior public servants or chairman or CEO of a company with a minimum average value in shareholders' equity of at least $500 million.

In my view, we have unnecessarily limited ourselves here. Good political leaders of the world have come from very diverse backgrounds. There must be people from different walks of life who can be a good Singaporean Head of State and unifier of our people, without being a CEO of a company with a large shareholders' equity or who have not been in politics previously. Surely, it is very possible that we can have someone who come from a charity or voluntary welfare organisation background, or someone who is an educationist, doctor or even a journalist, but who may not have the financial management experience required under this system. President Sheares was a doctor. President Wee Kim Wee was a journalist. Under our present rules, they would never have qualified.

Yes, admittedly, our Elected President system with its two distinct roles, is unique. But are we not selling ourselves short in the process when we force the two elements to co-exist? The Commission clearly thinks that it is better to split these roles. This was the second time since Independence that the Government has convened a Commission. Is this not a very good time to consider this recommendation from the Commission?

Next, on the proposed minority requirements in the amendment Bill, I am concerned that these requirements can be construed as patronising and unmeritocratic. They may encourage unhealthy stereotyping of racial perceptions. I also fear that by having the statutory assurance of a reservation for a certain minority after five terms, people may unintentionally and unwittingly be encouraged to vote along racial lines.

What we should be doing is always to encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate. I fear that any minority requirement will not encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate but may achieve the opposite result. I believe that this provision is unnecessary as Singaporeans will rise to the occasion to choose their Head of State based on the person's character and achievements, regardless of race, language and religion.

The Government, in its White Paper on the Review on Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency, rejected the Commission's proposal to unbundle the President's symbolic and custodial roles and assigning the custodial role to an appointed body of experts. The Government said that the second key should be held by an elected body with direct mandate from Singaporeans. The Government also said that the body of experts, as proposed by the Commission, would not be able to veto as it lacks the democratic mandate and this would impair the efficacy and rigour of the second key.

The WP's response is that we can still have such a body as proposed by the Commission but that, as this body is supposed to perform a check on Parliament, it should have the popular mandate of the people and be directly elected.

The WP is, therefore, proposing that the Senate be established as the Upper House of the Legislature. The Senate shall, essentially, take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency. Sir, this will allow the custodian role to be taken away from the President and free the President to perform the role of Head of State and be the symbol of unity for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Sir, the Government accepts in its White Paper that there is an inherent tension between an electoral process and a President who discharges a unifying, symbolic function but believes that it can be mitigated, even if not entirely eliminated. The Government did not elaborate in its White Paper on how it intends to do so. May the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify how the Government intends to do this?

The Commission touched on their concerns on how Presidential Elections can be divisive and recommended that the election rules be improved upon, including the understanding of candidates on the roles of the Elected President. The Commission also touched on the need for greater public education to have a better understanding of the role of the President.

The Government's response is that the risk of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with to some extent through the rules governing election campaigns.

I expect that the Government would probably have rightly considered such changes before it tabled the present amendment Bill. Will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what would be the proposed changes to the rules for future Presidential Elections? It is important that we should also know this now as we should consider critically all the proposed changes, both in this Bill as well as other changes that the Government intends to introduce.

I now move to the topic on NCMP. The Constitution of Singapore was amended in 2010 to provide for a minimum of nine Opposition MPs via the NCMP scheme. If there are fewer than nine Opposition Members elected in a GE, the NCMPs would be selected in priority among the best losers from the Opposition, depending on the percentage of votes obtained, until there were nine Opposition Members.

This Bill now seeks to increase from a maximum of nine to 12 NCMPs. The WP's position on NCMPs was enunciated at the Debate on the President's Address at the beginning of the 13th Parliament in January this year and our position has not changed. The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected Members with the full mandate of the people.

The introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and the consistent gerrymandering at every GE with the redrawing of electoral boundaries compelled the WP to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats. We believe that if GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary.

Our WP Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. Essentially, an NCMP is not the elected Member of any constituency.

As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party without any elected Member will be placed at a distinct disadvantage. We have seen from recent elections that a political party which is not able to show a track record of having run a Town Council gives room for scaremongering to make voters less certain about whether to vote for its candidates.

The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected Members from alternative parties and, if Singaporeans buy their story, it will only help to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than NCMPs alone to check the Government. It is the fear of losing elected seats that will enable Singaporeans to check the PAP Government and to compel the ruling party to take the people seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill is seeking to increase the number of NCMPs from a maximum of nine to 12.

The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected MPs with the full mandate of the people.

The PAP Government amended the Constitution and the rules governing Parliamentary elections. It introduced the GRCs system, making it more difficult for Opposition party members to be elected into Parliament. It has been redrawing the electoral boundaries at every GE. The WP is compelled to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats.

If GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary. We believe that under a fair and healthy democratic system, and if the system is running well, there will surely be Opposition party members being elected into Parliament to represent the voters. Thus, Parliamentary debates can then represent diverse views, and more balanced decisions can be made.

Our Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party with only NCMPs and no elected MP will be placed at a distinct disadvantage.

Therefore, if we only have NCMPs in Parliament but not elected Opposition MPs, the Opposition will never have the opportunity to accumulate the relevant experiences in running a Town Council. This will be unhealthy for the future of Singapore politics.

The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected MPs from alternative parties. This is to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than just NCMPs to check the Government. We need a good political system whereby a check-and-balance mechanism on the Government can be implemented through a fair and competitive election process.

When the voters vote for Opposition candidates and the Opposition candidates successfully become fully elected MPs, they will then be able to enter Parliament with the full mandate of the voters and can then be said to truly represent the constituencies which voted them into Parliament. An NCMP does not represent any constituency. The point is that it is the fear of losing elected seats in GEs that compels the PAP to take the pleas of the people seriously.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment with regard to NCMPs.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in English. I have a very general question for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding this Bill. There are many changes that have been introduced under this Bill. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House which of the proposed changes are now being tabled because of something that has gone wrong in the past and thereby necessitating the changes required under this Bill? If there are any such instances, will the Deputy Prime Minister elaborate on the circumstances which took place?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I oppose the proposed amendment to the provisions in the Constitution for NCMPs. I also oppose the other amendments in this Bill relating to the Elected President scheme and the CPA.

The WP calls for a referendum on the Elected Presidency. Let the people decide whether the Presidency should remain an elected office in the manner under the present law or as proposed by the WP ‒ the Senate proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

6.03 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I heard the Member say that he supports the proposal for a Senate. As I understood earlier from Mr Pritam Singh, there will be 16 candidates − the criteria would be like, I suppose, a Senate election committee which will act like the PEC and operate like the PEC. So, does that mean that the criteria would be the same as for the current Elected Presidents?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister for the clarification. The criteria would be similar to the present criteria.

Mr K Shanmugam: Similar? Is there a difference? Can you tell me what are the differences?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at the framework, the details, we probably will have to finetune them.

Mr K Shanmugam: Can I take it that the details have not been worked out?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: We have talked about the details, and, yes, not fully worked out.

Mr K Shanmugam: Can you tell us, to the extent that you have worked out, what has been explained in this Parliament today?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, we have explained.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, what you have talked about is what you have explained so far?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: There will be Members of Parliament who will be speaking on some of the details later.

Mr K Shanmugam: I have had Mr Pritam Singh explain and Mr Dennis Tan explain. I have asked a simple question − fundamental to all of this is the criteria. So, I have you on record, Mr Low, as saying that you have thought of some, and some other criteria and details will have to be worked out further.

Second, I have you on record as saying that whatever you have worked out, has been set out. I would like to ask Mr Dennis Tan, if there is any other detail on the selection criteria, please let us know. I would also like a clarification. You said that it is similar − the criteria for the Senators would be similar to the criteria for the Presidents. Can you tell me to what extent will they be different?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan, would you like to respond to that?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: The details are similar. We are going to, we have – the details will be similar to the current PEC. The criteria in the Bill.

Mr K Shanmugam: Criteria for the candidates will be similar to those for the Elected Presidents. To what extent? "Similar" means?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Similar to the CPA.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Tan, let me explain my question. The SEC − let us call it the Senate Elections Committee, the SEC – has got to shortlist 16 candidates. We are now focusing on the criteria for those candidates. My understanding is that, based on Mr Singh's answers and your earlier answers, the criteria for those individuals will be similar to those who qualify for the Elected Presidency. But "similar" is not exact. So, I am asking – in what way will there be differences?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, do you intend to respond on behalf of Mr Dennis Tan or do you intend to seek a clarification? Because if it is a response, I think Mr Dennis Tan should respond to it because this question was posed to him.

Mr K Shanmugam: This question is being posed to Mr Dennis Tan on his speech.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: It will be similar to the criteria for the current CPA.

Mr K Shanmugam: What criteria does the current CPA have? And to what extent would it be similar to the current CPA?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I make some clarification?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan, would you like to answer that first before the others clarify or you have finished with your answers?

Mr Leon Perera: May I clarify with the Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You can seek your clarification now.

Mr Leon Perera: Okay. Yes, I would like to make a clarification with regard to that particular question on eligibility criteria. I intend to touch on that in my speech which is scheduled either later today or tomorrow. But, in essence, I think what was meant earlier by saying it is "similar" is that the eligibility criteria would revolve around similar qualities – that is, the ability ‒ because essentially, it is the custodial role that we are proposing be transferred from an Elected President to an Elected Senate. So, the kinds of qualities that would be needed to fulfil that role would be inherently similar in nature, meaning to say, exposure to managing finances, exposure to exercising managerial discretion over human resource, decision-making, and so on and so forth. I think similar, but not exactly the same.

How that works is that in our proposal, the Senate Elections Committee would operate in a similar manner to the PEC but with different mechanics. It would consider applicants who would like to run for the office of Senator. It would review those applications with those eligibility criteria in mind, that is, financial management capability, human resources and so on, criteria that one needs to play a custodial role and it would rank the 16 most suitable and most eligible candidates to go on to the ballot and, from that, the senatorial election would then elect eight candidates from a ballot of 16. I was intending to clarify that later on.

Mr K Shanmugam: Will they, the candidates, need to, for example, have run companies of the size as set out currently in the requirements?

Mr Leon Perera: It would be part of the criteria to be considered, and that would be an advantage in the selection process. So, the more relevant experience that you have, the more eligible you will be.

Mr K Shanmugam: But there must be some basic criteria. And can I take it that the basic criteria must be similar to the current Elected President's qualification criteria?

Mr Leon Perera: The basic qualities would be similar because what we are talking about is the custodial role being transferred.

Mr K Shanmugam: I am not taking about the qualities. I am talking about the criteria − criteria lead to qualities. Can you answer that point? Today, you know that there is a set of objective criteria. Would you require the same criteria for the Senators? So that they can exercise, and we presume to have similar qualities?

Mr Leon Perera: The criteria would be similar but what would not be similar ─

Mr K Shanmugam: I have heard this word "similar" several times. To what extent will they be different?

Mr Leon Perera: They would be different in the sense that we would not have a hard and fast threshold of cut-off to say that regardless of the applicants who apply for this role ─

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, but that is similar to the deliberative track today that we have, because that is also not a hard and fast rule. So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for the Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?

Mr Leon Perera: Essentially, yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you.

Mr Leon Perera: Essentially, yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation. So, it is transferring the custodial role from an Elected President to a Senate.

Mr K Shanmugam: That clarification is very useful. So, we will have 16 people who are qualified to be Elected Presidents, who will have to contest.

Second point, if I may seek a clarification. Today, as you know, the PEC does not limit the number of people who can take part in a Presidential Election. Under your proposal, the SEC will choose the top 16, and this is not justiciable, Mr Singh told us. So, it is entirely in their discretion to choose 16 people who will submit their names. Will that be right?

Mr Leon Perera: In this regard, the mechanics of the selection criteria will be similar to the PEC currently. They would exercise their discretion. There would be some requirement that whether ─

Mr K Shanmugam: There is a difference because the PEC, as I said, does not limit. It simply satisfies itself that you qualify the criteria. If 30 people qualify, 30 can stand. But the Members are proposing to limit. I just want to understand: they can make their decision, they choose 16 people, and that is not justiciable?

Mr Leon Perera: In respect of that, they choose 16 people and they limit it to 16 people, whereas the proposal of the Government could, in theory, as the Minister rightly pointed out, be far more than 16, it could be 100 if 100 people meet those criteria, yes, that is correct.

Mr K Shanmugam: And what happens if less than eight people qualify or stand?

Mr Leon Perera: I think the current Presidential Election system that you have proposed would also face a similar objection. What if nobody comes forward to run for the Elected Presidency under your system? We are confident that there will be sufficient candidates to come forward for this system. I think that the conundrum that the Minister posed would be equally faced by many and, in fact, possibly by all types of electoral systems.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shanmugam, I think Mr Leon Perera did indicate that he will provide further clarification when it is his time to speak. So, Mr Leon Perera, please collect your thoughts.

Mr K Shanmugam: I assume the answers will not change overnight. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any more clarifications before we move on? No. Ms Kuik.

6.14 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to debate about today's Bill without reflecting upon the political upheavals that democracies older than our own are experiencing right now.

Both the US and the UK are going through an unprecedented public display of disunity at the government as well as the ground level. In Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, far-right parties are gaining in political traction with the electorate with uncomfortable ease, and racist and xenophobic political agendas have become normalised.

It is not just about the state of the political candidates but the state of the electorate that is causing great anxiety around the world. Few leaders at the top expected that there would come a day when so many voters on the ground would become so disillusioned with the prospects of political reform that they were willing to overturn political norms, values and behaviours that everyone once assumed were foundational for their democracy.

So, there has been much soul-searching in those democracies about what could have caused such profoundly wide divides to open up between leaders and their people and what could have been fixed earlier to prevent this situation.

It is in such extraordinary times when the world's attention becomes focused on the rigour and resilience of each country's political institutions. Will the system fall apart or will the centre hold?

In each of these democracies now, a generation of young people are holding their breath to see whether their system's fail-safes – the precious checks and balances a generation before them had designed during peaceful times – will kick in and do its work to protect the future of all that they hold dear.

We are one of the world's youngest democracies. Barely over half a century old, we still have much to learn and we are presently still living in our season of peace.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe this is now our time to fix things. And perhaps each one of us here in this House was somehow made for such a time as this.

Given the backdrop of current global events, I am reminded that there is no better time than now for our own politicians to meet across partisan divides to look – to really look – at the state of our own union, to build our own system's circuit breakers, to fight for the checks and balances we most believe in. And to do all that not for short-term political gain but for long-term national preservation.

Do you know what stands out to me most about the role of the Elected President? It is that he is given the responsibility to stand as a non-partisan symbol of national unity.

The Government's White Paper explains that "This crucial role as a unifying symbol of the nation is unique to the President's office. No other public office is intended to be a personification of the State and a symbol of the nation's unity in the way that the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction in principle between the Presidency and other public offices…He embodies the nation itself."

When I read those words, I hear them as a voter. I take them absolutely to heart. Because that is the kind of President I want. And that is the kind of President we will need. Because in times to come, we will appreciate having a Unifier-in-Chief, especially in a world where internal hostilities and growing divisions are becoming more the norm than not.

But the question here is: if unifying the country is such a significant and distinctive responsibility of the President, then are the Constitutional amendments built to favour candidates with that sort of particular strength and inclination – or not?

Presently, the discussion of this particular unifying role of the President is centred purely on multiracial representation. And I have no quarrel with the Government's decision to go for a reserved election option to ensure that the Presidency is accessible to all the major races in Singapore. I accept the Government's argument that as long as there is a real possibility that 10%-20% of the voting population may still be swung by factors of race, we have to be realistic and put in the least intrusive short-term mechanism possible to guarantee some level of multi-racial representation. Meanwhile, I also accept that we all must share in the long-term responsibility of helping one another reach that ultimate destination where such an artificial safeguard would no longer be needed. We can go beyond community self-help groups and work towards a multiracial story of lifting one another's communities together.

But I share the perspective of many young Singaporeans, that a President's ability to unify a country is not really about his race. Young people will tell you frankly that they could not care less about the colour of the President's skin as much as they care about the complexion of his politics. Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland "yes man"-sounding candidate from their own race any day.

Some political scientists have argued that the political dysfunctions we are witnessing right now in America have less to do with race and more to do with class divides, partisan politics and a divisive electoral process. And the reminder I will take from the US presidential election is that racism is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed simply by minority representation in the highest office of the land. Representation is important and useful but even two terms of having a powerful, competent, charismatic African-American as President of the US could not do enough to defuse the racial tensions that continue to divide their country. Some analysts even feel that Obama's presidency inadvertently provoked more open expressions of racism than ever before.

So, fixing representation issues in the highest office of the land must be always accompanied by fixing representation issues in the lower offices of the land as well. It matters that we address how many women get a seat at the table in corporate boardrooms as much as Cabinet positions. It matters that we address how many minorities ascend the ranks in our armed forces. It matters that we address how many children from less-privileged families and less prestigious schools actually emerge victorious in leadership positions all across the sectors. And it matters because, as a globalised city-state, we will always struggle with high income inequality. So, I do worry more about the effects of polarised elitism than racism on our democracy, especially because the former enflames and exacerbates the latter.

Again, there is a lesson to be learnt from the US. Rising inequality is most extreme in America. In 1979, the top 1% in the US earned 9% of its income; today they earn almost 25%. In 2010, more than 90% of the country's income gains went to the top 1%.

As the elite and less-elite become further and further removed from each other's lived realities, it becomes difficult to build the mutual understanding and wide-reaching consensus needed for effective democracy to happen. Pollsters discovered that out of the many demographic fault lines exposed by the current US elections, few divisions went deeper than that of educational attainment. Those with the most schooling clearly back one candidate. And those with the least number of years of education clearly back the other.

When elite group-think settles in at the leadership level and an empathy gap grows between an elite political class and an economically and politically frustrated middle to working class electorate, a dangerous vulnerability in the democratic system is created. It is a vulnerability that can be hijacked at the right time by an opportunistic populist politician unafraid of riding upon a racist or xenophobic agenda.

And what we see happening elsewhere can all too easily happen right here.

To be a unifying symbol, the future President of Singapore cannot just wear the right skin tone. He or she must have the political courage and moral gumption to navigate the divides of class and partisan politics. It is those divides that intersect with and exacerbate racial issues. In times to come, it is across those divides where we will most need a bold non-partisan voice of national unity to step out to be that bridge. He or she is de facto Diplomat-in-Chief not just to the world but within our homeland as well. He or she must be the centre of calm that can hold a space for not just the different races, but the elites and non-elites, powerful and powerless and establishment and anti-establishment as well.

As an NMP, I cannot vote on Constitutional amendments. But I will still bring three requests today to the table.

My first request concerns the eligibility criteria. I am still hesitant to support the new stricter set of eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency. I fully understand the need to always update the criteria for the times. And it is not that I think the new criteria are wholly unreasonable. It is just that I am unsure whether having such criteria now will help us sieve in more good candidates or sieve out more promising ones. I am unsure whether stricter private sector criteria will end up slanting our Presidency towards more public sector candidates, especially in the case of minority candidates. And I am unsure whether if we keep setting the bar higher and higher for who gets to run for President, one of the unplanned outcomes would be a further widening of an empathy gap between an ever more elite leadership and an ever less elite electorate. How drastic is the difference between CEOs who lead $500 million organisations and CEOs who lead $100 million or $300 million organisations in terms of their intellectual competency, financial proficiency, moral courage and diplomatic sensitivity? Given how small our country is, are we running the risk of arbitrarily cutting off potentially great presidential candidates?

I hear the Government's reasoning that "quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country's economic situation does not itself remain static." And I agree. But qualitative thresholds are not fixed in perpetuity either. A country's emotional, socio-political and cultural situation does not remain static either and is equally demanding of nuanced understanding.

So, why do we not have more holistic eligibility criteria that also specifically demand a candidate display a minimal level of sophisticated understanding about the state of our nation? Should we not require candidates hoping to become the symbol of national unity to possess at least a bullet point or two on their resume in some actual ground experience in bringing communities together across socio-political divisions?

I know my request might sound strange but, if unifying is such a significant and unique responsibility of the President, then would it not be worthwhile attempting to word out some criteria more explicitly along those lines?

I would hope that in designing our criteria for a future President, we do not word it such that we only get applications from brilliant technocrats with the right degrees, right organisations and the right positions. All that is impressive, and it is good and necessary, but a person can have all that, carry out the custodial duties of guarding the national Reserves with immense technical expertise and still fall short in that other equally demanding, equally important duty of embodying and unifying a nation. The latter duty demands no less rigour than the former.

I request that we consider relooking the strictness of criteria, especially if we start to see either a recurring pattern of uncontested elections due to lack of eligible private sector candidates or a recurring pattern of elections dominated only by public sector candidates. Because I believe those patterns will reveal the onset of a dysfunction in our democracy. A string of uncontested elections or even elections with homogeneous establishment candidates harms our democracy as it only feeds into a dangerous narrative of a "rigged system" that entrenches either cynicism or apathy among the electorate. And already, we are seeing that scenario play out in the current US elections where opportunistic candidates readily ride on that narrative and exploit the sentiment to gain popularity. Especially in the case of uncontested elections, the lack of a victory won by actual votes will forever cast a shade of doubt on the authority of even the most worthy and capable of candidates.

My second request is on staying open to alternative solutions to depoliticise the Presidential Elections.

The 2011 Presidential Elections was surprisingly divisive and there is no reason to assume that future Presidential Elections will not take on a similar tone. We cannot hold an election for a politically neutral office and be surprised when politics intrudes because the medium is the message. Elections are quintessentially political and tend to attract politicised candidates who want to play the game. Only the rarest of qualified candidates from the private sector, without prior political party affiliation or political experience, will be willing to subject themselves to politicking.

I know the Government is unconvinced that reverting to a Parliament-nominated Presidency is the solution. And I agree because it would be a conflict of interest for Parliament to be tasked to choose the very person whose chief role would be to act as a check on it. Personally, I believe further down the road, it is worth reconsidering what Mr Janadas Devan and Mr Ho Kwon Ping suggested in 2011 about establishing an electoral college instead. The college should be large enough to proportionately represent major stakeholders and interest groups in Singapore. They suggest that the electors could be selected according to processes set by each stakeholder group and the college would finally nominate a few candidates from among those who offer to stand for President. With electoral college as the first sieve and either the Supreme Court or Public Service Commission holding the right of final approval, the system would get a qualified Presidential candidate drawn from a greater diversity of stakeholders.

However, the present reality is that the idea of getting to elect an independent President has already sunk in with the electorate as their democratic right. So, to take that right away now would not go down well either. I do think the next best thing to do, for now, would be to establish clearer rules of engagement for the upcoming 2017 Presidential Elections. I agree with the Commission that shortlisted candidates must be held to a higher standard of understanding about the Constitutional role of the President and to be held publicly accountable for any outrageous claims or policy promises made on the campaign trail that fall well beyond the scope of what a President can do. And I also agree with the Commission's observations that public rallies add to the divisiveness of the electoral process and believe broadcasted presidential debates might be a less politicised way for the people to get to know the quality of their candidate.

Another way to depoliticise the Presidency is to provide other democratic institutions that can take on the more interventionist role that some voters want to shoe-horn into the President's role even though it conflicts with his need to symbolise national unity. So, can the Government consider setting up the institution of an ombudsman to take that up? President Tony Tan himself suggested it on his own campaign trail – an ombudsman who can act as a respectable yet independent representative for the people, who is empowered to investigate the public's complaints against the Government as well as any public allegations about the Government will strengthen the public's trust in our democracy and add a useful layer to our system's checks and balances.

I also believe that the politicisation and misunderstandings we saw in 2011 are a reflection of how much more we could invest into the general political education of our people, especially the next generation of voters. Can we start taking seriously the need to teach basic political concepts as part of civic education for our youths? Introducing young people to the value of a Constitution, the meaning of a vote and the balance of power among the executive, judiciary and legislative branches will go a long way in helping us build up the rigour of our future electorate.

My third and final request is with regards to the role of the people sector. In the last few years, the Government has been pushing for tri-sector, whole-of-society collaboration as the best way to solve wicked problems in a volatile, ambiguous world. Thus, the absence of any reference to the people sector in this Bill really stood out to me.

Going by the eligibility criteria, only experience and expertise in the public or private sector prepare an individual to be a President of Singapore. Even though there is a deliberative track, it would be really difficult and almost impossible to find a leader from our local landscape of voluntary welfare groups, non-profit charities, philanthropic foundations and carts or cultural groups who can say their organisations are of equivalent size and complexity as a $500 million company or a Government agency. Yet, exceptional leaders exist in the people sector with on-ground wisdom and deep experience in community-building.

Beyond the world of corporations and Government agencies, there is another realm of expertise whose day-in and day-out work is all about bringing broken people and broken communities together again. They have listened into the country's most silent sufferings and they have seen where our most profound heartbreaks lie. They have walked beside the faultlines that cut through our nation's communities. And they have stood in the gap together with this country's walking wounded to help them get past anger and bitterness to unite with others again. Without these everyday warriors working on the frontlines of the people sector, you can bet there would be more national disunity than less.

This is not about simplistically asking for people sector leaders to be given an easier shot at running for the Presidency. I accept that the President's custodial role of safeguarding our national Reserves demands a level of financial sophistication and organisational expertise that is likely to be beyond the scope of most people-sector leaders.

But what of that other equally significant ceremonial role of unifying the nation? Would not the people sector's unique strengths and insights be profoundly useful in serving that role?

The people sector may currently be small and not as steeped in power, organisational sophistication and financial resources. But neither should it be seen as a lesser brother to the public and private sectors. It is a vital part of the equation in the total defence of our country and the guardianship of our national unity and it deserves equal respect.

I would hope that the President, in the carriage of his responsibilities as National Unifier-in-Chief would have access to the street-level wisdom and ground-informed insights of the chief unifiers on the ground. I would hope that the people in charge of selecting potential Presidential candidates have that access, too.

Can I request that in the composition of the PEC as well as the CPA, we make a space somehow for leaders from the people sector? Because our sharpest people sector leaders could well be the ground experts you need who can first spot the canaries in our sociocultural coal mines. We should hear out their intuitions.

Ultimately, I am encouraged that this Government is not afraid of refining the Constitution from time to time for the sake of future-proofing our country. Franklin Roosevelt once said that a Constitution should be revered "not because it is old, but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come."

A Constitution must be protected enough to ensure stability from government to government but it must also have enough breathing room to be a living, vital thing, evolving enough such that it remains relevant to the needs of every new generation.

I urge our politicians across both parties to be unafraid to go deeper and wider with those changes so that they can take all of us further into the future. Because we are all in this together, for our children and our children's children.

And please, do not despair that our youths do not seem interested in Constitutional issues. Just because they do not express interest now does not mean they do not feel a stake in it later. It is just that most of them only feel it and show it when election season hits.

Our young voters want the same things as our older voters. Good jobs. A decent shot at happiness. Fair treatment regardless of race, language or religion. And they all know their access to those things has plenty to do with the state of our politics.

But at the heart of it, the average young person here – as everywhere in the world – wants to just be able to say this one thing, "You know what? I live in a country where the people in charge actually give a damn about me and my future."

Let us make whatever changes we need to help them say that. Let us please work together to bring down walls, protect the state of our union and find a way for Singapore to be a small but strong and powerful light of unity even in the darkness of a divided world. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

6.33 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the WP rejects this amendment Bill that is being presented and debated on. We would like to state that we stand by our original position we had since the office of the Elected Presidency was instituted, that is, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and call for the Presidency to be returned to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency.

Sir, I would like to touch on the differences of opinion found in the report of the Constitutional Commission and the Government's White Paper regarding the issue of "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", and the WP's stand on this matter. I would also like to touch on whether it is necessary to have a reserved Presidential Election so that minorities have the chance to become the President.

Sir, one thing that caught my attention, which is located in the report of the Constitutional Commission, was the suggestion that the Government consider reverting the Presidency to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency. This is an interesting issue because this issue was not contained in the Terms of Reference that the Government gave to the Constitutional Commission to conduct the review. However, the Commission stated that this issue was raised because when they were performing their review, the Commission had the opportunity to focus on and make considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of the Elected Presidency scheme and the matters that are related to the weaknesses of this scheme and how these can be overcome by an alternative system.

I would like to share the main points that were touched on and discussed by the Constitutional Commission when it gave its suggestions to the Government to reconsider the Elected Presidency scheme. The Commission stated that after 25 years since the scheme was first introduced, and with changing situations and over time, it was observed that there was some tension between the two main roles of the Elected Presidency, that is, the historical role or the unifying role, and the custodial role.

The Commission had given at least three clarifications about their observations on this issue of tension. First, the Commission found that the historical role requires a President who is neutral, who is non-partisan, and has a role as the unifier of the nation. On the other hand, the custodial role requires a President who will confront and query the Government, if the situation requires it. This is a responsibility that is rather unsuitable for an office that is supposed to be a symbol of a unifier of the nation.

Secondly, the Commission then stated that there is some irony in the Elected Presidency scheme. This is because the Presidential Election process itself, which will surely have political and divisive elements, contradicts with the role as a unifier of the nation. In other words, these political and divisive elements should not be present in the process of electing a President who will become a unifier of the nation.

Thirdly, the Commission stated that the role of the Elected President is to serve as a check on the Government. But the irony is, this aspect can become an incentive for a candidate to campaign on an anti-government platform. Such a President, who is political in nature, will surely be likely to come head-to-head frequently with the Government. When this situation occurs, it will surely have a negative effect on the role of the President as the unifier of the nation.

Sir, the Government has rejected the proposals put forward by the Constitutional Commission as stated in the Government's White Paper. The Government has presented these arguments. First, the Government accepted that there are tensions between the election process and the role of the Elected President as the unifier of the nation. However, the Government believed that this tension can be mitigated, although not totally removed.

With regard to this argument, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. First, on what basis does the Government believe that this tension can be mitigated and, second, what will the Government do to mitigate this tension?

The Government's second argument is that, although tension can potentially happen between the historical and custodial roles as identified by the Commission, the Government said that all the Elected Presidents so far have performed both roles successfully.

Sir, the answers given by the Government on this matter are not that convincing. Just because something bad did not happen previously, it does not mean that it will not happen in the future. At the same time, all the previous Elected Presidents are individuals who have a direct or indirect relationship with the ruling party before they became President.

However, Sir, imagine the situation during campaigning at the Presidential Elections, whereby some candidates use messages that are political in nature in order to attract votes, as mentioned by the Constitutional Commission. For example, if elected as President, they say that they will become the check and balance against the Government. Such messages are incongruous with the custodial role of the President, which is only concerned with the nation's Reserves and other duties.

The Prime Minister himself has touched on this issue in his speech during the debate on the President's Address at the Opening of the 13th Parliament. I quote his speech in English.

(In English): "By design, the President has no executive, policy-making role and this remains the prerogative of the elected Government commanding the majority in Parliament. But in the last Presidential Election, many people did not understand this. I suspect even now, quite a number of people still do not understand this. Regrettably, during the last Presidential Election, those who did not understand it included some candidates. They campaigned for President as if they were going to form an alternate government".

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I end with this quote. If such an undesirable situation happens, where a politically-inclined Presidential candidate exploits the agenda to "check" on the Government as an incentive to campaign on an anti-government platform, surely, if such a candidate were to be elected, this candidate would highly likely go head-to-head frequently with the government. When this happens, it will certainly hinder the role of the President as the unifier of the nation. I believe when the Commission thought about this matter, it also took into account the situation that happened during the 2011 Presidential Election.

Sir, I will now touch on the custodial role. Although the Commission suggested that this Elected Presidency scheme be unbundled in an effort to stabilise and strengthen the role of a unifier of the nation, the Commission, however, agreed that the custodial role must be retained. But the President should not be playing this role. The Commission suggested that this custodial role be given to an appointed body comprising a panel of experts. The Commission conceptualised this appointed body as a body of experts that will be the second chamber of Parliament, that is, given a process-delaying role, by forcing something to be debated again and requiring the Government to override any objections only with a supermajority.

Sir, in answering the proposals of the Commission for the custodial role to be given to an appointed body, the Government used the following arguments.

First, the Government believes that the second key must be held by an institution that has obtained the direct mandate from Singaporeans through an election process. This is so that this institution has the moral authority and the mandate to use its veto power against the Government.

Second, the appointed body that is suggested by the Commission can only force something to be debated again and cannot use the veto power to block the Government's initiatives because it does not have the mandate to do so.

Sir, when we look back at the differences of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the matter "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", it is clear that both parties – the Commission and the Government – agree that there is tension when a President performs both the historical and custodial roles.

If we studied the arguments put forth by the Constitutional Commission, it is, firstly, forward-looking, and secondly, it is also preventive in nature, in order to prevent something undesirable from happening. On the other hand, the Government's argument is based on the experience over the past four terms of the Presidency. It is also based on the reason that something can be done when the tension occurs. Nonetheless, the Government did not say how this can be mitigated or overcome.

Sir, the Government constantly adheres to the principle of caution and takes a careful and preventive approach when creating national policies in order to prevent or mitigate the risk of something undesirable from happening. Based on this, I say that the argument used by the Government to reject the proposal of the Commission in this matter is incongruous with the principle and the attitude of the Government that I just mentioned.

One other thing about the difference of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the issue of "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", I would urge everyone to make an honest assessment. The Constitutional Commission, that was set up by the Prime Minister himself and comprising individuals who do not have any political interests, is of the view that the Presidency should revert to an appointed office, with the concern that this can avoid something undesirable from happening in the future, that is, society being divided and political conflict occurs between the President and the Government. On the other hand, the one who wants to retain this Elected Presidency scheme is the ruling political party. So, think about that.

Sir, now I would like to state the WP position on the matter "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office". In this matter, we are inclined towards the view put forward by the Constitutional Commission, that is, firstly, the Presidency reverts to the office of an appointed President, and secondly, the custodial role is given to a body. However, there is some difference between our proposals and the Commission's proposal about the custodial role. We suggest that this role be given to a chamber or Senate comprising eight individuals who are elected via a national election process. This is because we believe that individuals holding this responsibility should get a mandate from the people so that they are equipped with the moral authority to perform their duty.

Another thing that I would touch on is about the suggestion to have a reserved Presidential Election for minorities so that they have the chance to become President.Sir, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the Government's plan to have a reserved election only for Malay candidates.

Firstly, why now? After 25 years, since the introduction of the Elected Presidency? Would it not be the best time to give an opportunity to the Malay community to become President during the first Presidential Election in 1992, because after the late Encik Yusof Ishak became first President, the three Presidents after him were from races other than the Malay community? This is based on the message by President Tony Tan that was delivered by Mdm Speaker yesterday, whereby President Tony Tan said that it is not a coincidence and it was arranged this way, that the first four Presidents are from different races. This statement further reinforces the fact that the first Elected President in 1992 should have been reserved for the Malay community if that was the actual intent. But why was it not done?

Second, in answering media queries recently, the Prime Minister said that there are enough Malay candidates to contest for the Elected Presidency. I would like to ask how many Malays who are qualified to contest and, out of this, how many are from the public sector and how many are from the private sector.

Sir, the WP's stand is that when the office of the President reverts to an appointed office, the concern about minorities not having the chance to assume the office of the President can be overcome, by having a system of rotation.

Sir, before I end my speech, I would like to touch on the statement by the Constitutional Commission, which drew my attention towards the issue of perception and minorities. As a multiracial and multi-religious nation that holds fast to the principle of meritocracy, every race, especially minorities, should feel that they are given an equal and fair chance and do not perceive otherwise in every aspect of life in Singapore.

Sir, I have highlighted the issue of equality many times in this Chamber. I have quoted the feelings and perceptions of the Malays, that were expressed in the report, about the issue of equality and I requested for solutions to this issue through the formation of a committee. However, my suggestions have remained just a suggestion.

Sir, the issue of having a halal kitchen in the Republic of Singapore Navy's ships during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates this year has received much attention. I have received many personal messages of thanks and support for highlighting this issue. I was also approached by many individuals when I was out in public, and they gave their views and thanked me. On the issue of having a reserved Presidential Election for Malays, although generally the Malay community accepted it with an open heart, however, at the same time, we hear many comments, that display suspicion and dissatisfaction, among the Malay community. Sir, on the whole, what I said earlier showed that there is still a lingering suspicion about the issue of equality that is buried deep in the hearts of Malay/Muslims in Singapore.

Once again, I would like to request for a committee or, better still, a commission, to be formed to delve into or study ways to alleviate these feelings of angst and unhappiness among the Malay community that are still being heard in relation to this issue of equality, even though our nation has been independent for 51 years.

Sir, finally, the crux of my speech is that the concern about the tensions that can emerge from the friction between the historical and custodial roles can be resolved by reverting the Presidency to an appointed office. If we look back, such concerns did not emerge at all throughout the period when the Presidency was an appointed office.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.51 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the hon Member for Aljunied, in respect of the speech that he made, the part of the speech where he referred to elected Senators, dealing with the custodial function, how would that concept alleviate the concern of the WP in the report to the Constitutional Commission that an Elected President in the term of the previous government would stymie the efforts of the government in the next term, perhaps, in relation to usage of the past Reserves, noting that the elected Senators would have the similar criteria as the Elected President as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I would like to go back to the basic where we mentioned that we prefer to have an appointed Presidency, together with eight elected Senators. Sir, I believe that this question has been asked over and over again, asking for clarification. What I can say is that we believe the basic, the fundamental, is that these eight elected individuals will do a better job than one Elected President.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal Manap mentioned in his speech just now that among the issues raised in the report by the Commission was the issue of conflict between the President's symbolic and custodial roles and that was why they gave certain recommendations to have an unbundling or separation of duties.

But in the report, they also mentioned how to try to balance these duties that seem to conflict. And in addition, what they recommended is an appointed body. It is not similar to the suggestion by WP, that is, a Senate.

So, can the Member please clarify what is his view about this – because he kept referring to the report by the Constitutional Commission but the suggestions that he proposed are not at all similar to what the Commission suggested?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, as stated by my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, we respect the views of the Constitutional Commission. However, we also have our own views and this view is different from that of the Commission. I have stated earlier in my speech that this view is inclined towards the view of the Constitutional Commission. I did not say that we agree with them totally. Hence, we have our own views whereby we said that the elected Senators are a better option than a body that is not elected, in order to retain its moral authority and also to receive the mandate from the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Yes, you have stated that you do not agree. But does this not show that what was stated by the report of the Commission is just a basis and there are many alternatives or ways for us to resolve this issue, which includes the suggestion given by the Government?

Now, you are moving towards another suggestion, which is to create another body, which will also be elected by the people, because as you said, if we give the custodial role to someone, that person has to get a mandate from the people. That person has to be elected in an election in order to get the full mandate before they can do their job.

So, this is an issue. Why do we have to create a separate body and, by virtue of having this other body, will also bring about other problems? So, I would like a clarification.

And in addition, you mentioned earlier, during an election, in relation to the President's role, there were some suggestions raised, that is, how certain issues can come out and how it can be politicised. But you did not say that the suggestion provided in the Commission's report was to have changes in the rules. So, you are simply cherry-picking what you like, but you did not explain fully how, on the whole, it will be better than the proposals by the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, my apologies, the reply to that question will be a bit long, but I will try to go back to the main points.

Yes, the report by the Constitutional Commission contains many proposals. Just like the Government. They also did not choose certain proposals. Although they have studied it, they decided to choose some proposals.

It is the same with me. I think I showed that the WP's view is inclined towards certain things stated by the Constitutional Commission. Hence, I used what was there to explain why we agree and why we disagree with certain proposals.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, what is your basis and your stand? The issue that you presented was that you felt that it was important to speak about the concerns of the Malay community on this issue. And later, when you spoke about the issue, you now say that you do not agree to have a reserved election for the Malay community. How can this Senate improve and take care of the concerns of the Malay community compared to the proposals by the Government?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, by having a Senate, yes, it has nothing to do with the matter of taking care of Malay issues.

As I stated earlier, we do not discount the importance of taking care of Malay issues or giving the Presidency to the Malays. We did say that the issue of minorities not having a chance to become a President can be resolved by having a rotational system for the appointed Presidency. So, what I said was that the Malay issues or the concerns of the Malay community can also be taken care by the appointed President.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I just have a question of clarification for the hon Member so that I can understand. The Member, therefore, does not agree that there should be a reserved election for the Malay community or any other minority, is that correct?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I did not mention that in my speech. What I mentioned is that instead of allowing the minority to hold the office of Presidency, it can be addressed by reverting to the appointed President scheme.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just need one clarification from the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap. He alluded to the halal kitchen, implying that there are no Malay National Servicemen serving in the Navy ships.

I am just wondering if he is aware that there are actually Malay National Servicemen serving in our Navy ships and provisions are made where possible to provide them with their dietary requirements.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, the issue was brought up at the Committee of Supply debate. I mentioned this issue today on the basis that the Malay community are still unhappy and are still having some concerns about the issue of loyalty.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mr Zainal Sapari: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think when the community raised the issue of the halal kitchen, they will have the impression that there are no Malays serving in the Navy ships. I think as a responsible Malay community leader, we should tell them that there is actually progress being made to have Malays serve in the Navy ships and we should not allude to the fact or even imply that because of the absence of a halal kitchen in the Navy ship, there are no Malay officers or Malay crewmen serving on the Navy ships. That is my point, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, as I mentioned just now, it is not part of my speech. But I would like to address the point where I did mention during the Committee of Supply debate that there is no doubt there is progress being made in the Singapore Armed Forces on the whole in getting Malays to assume those sensitive posts. I mentioned this quite a number of times in this Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Okay, I am glad to see that there is agreement on that point. Mr Yee Chia Hsing, please.

7.01 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill relates to the proposed changes to our Constitution, which include, amongst other things, having a mechanism to ensure multi-racial representation for the Office of the Elected Presidency.

Allow me to share two everyday examples where, without active intervention, minority representation would not be achieved due to our demographic of having more than 70% Chinese population.

Every now and then, there would be articles on what should be Singapore's National Dish. Based on Internet searches, Hainanese chicken rice is the unanimous first choice, followed by chilli crab in second place, and laksa in third place.

Every time I come across one of these National Dish articles posted by local food bloggers, I cringe a little. Hainanese chicken rice and chilli crab are typically non-halal dishes. I wonder how our Muslim friends and residents would feel after reading these articles.

Imagine then, as a nation, we would have to vote for one dish as the National Dish. I am afraid that it is likely to be either Hainanese chicken rice or chilli crab. Nasi lemak or roti prata would not have a chance. How then would our minority citizens feel?

I am glad that we do not have to vote for one National Dish as it would be impossible for one dish to reflect the rich diversity of our multiracial, multicultural society.

Closer to home, at my constituency in Nanyang, many of the grassroots volunteers and residents like to sing, and I realised that many of them choose to sing Chinese or Hokkien songs when we have karaoke at grassroots events.

At a recent dinner, after listening to several Chinese and Hokkien songs, I was also asked to sing on stage. So, I chose an English oldie "Always on my mind". I reminded the audience that we should be mindful that we have non-Chinese volunteers and residents amongst us, so we should also sing some non-Chinese songs. Similar to the recommendation for Elected Presidency, I am toying with the idea that after every five Chinese or Hokkien songs, the next singer must sing English, Malay or Tamil songs.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is human nature that we generally feel more comfortable with people who have more in common with us. In a recent television documentary "Regardless of Race" hosted by Member Janil Puthucheary, there was one scene where Janil visited Townsville Primary School and asked some school children what race is their best friend. It is telling that, for most of the children, their best friend is someone of the same race, thus showing that even from a young age, it is natural for someone to feel more affinity with another person of the same race.

One of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to provide for a Presidential Election to be reserved for a community if no person belonging to that community has held the Office of President for five presidential terms.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, our President is a symbol of our national identity, representing all Singaporeans, and multiracialism is an important aspect of Singapore's social fabric and remains fundamental to our unity and survival. I agree with the introduction of the hiatus-triggered mechanism to ensure minority representation in our highest office. However, is a gap of five presidential terms, which is about 30 years, considered too long? I hope the Government would monitor public sentiments in this respect and to make the appropriate adjustments in future, if necessary.

Once again, thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me the chance to share my thoughts on this, and I reaffirm my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.

7.06 pm

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, the Office of the Presidency in these days of increasing diversity amongst our people can have an even bigger unifying role to play.

A few years ago, I said in this House, "How do we find as much common ground as possible? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans, in spite of their political differences. Make these institutions inclusive and focus on our common objectives. The office of the Presidency, for example", I said.

Indeed, President Tony Tan, in his swearing-in ceremony, said, "I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. Whatever your political views, I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you".

Do the proposed amendments before us strengthen the Presidency in this important unifying role? Does an enforced reservation of Presidential Elections to particular groups of Singaporeans defined along racial lines best help the Elected President play a unifying role?

We believe that Singaporeans, when called upon, will rise to the occasion to choose their Head of State based on the person's character and achievements, regardless of race, language or religion.

Does a tightened, narrower set of eligibility criteria help the Elected President unify a broader group of Singaporeans? Tightened eligibility criteria have been advanced as a proxy for the suitability and competency of the candidate for President. We are told that more stringent criteria are necessary for a President to perform his or her custodial functions in our bigger and more expansive times.

But these tightened eligibility criteria have their own costs. They reduce the number of men and women who could be President at a time when we understand that good men and women for the job are so hard to find. We focus on the benefits of selecting our President from a smaller pool of eligible candidates with the requisite "merit" – the merit that we feel we are able to define – but there are also costs to our society of thereby excluding, by our definition, other candidates with qualities that may be harder to approximate. Other qualities of a good President, which are no less important than this financial savvy that the eligibility criteria try to fathom.

In this House, just these two days, we have heard that the President should also be of good character, honest, selfless, willing to serve, independent, "able to think for himself", and should have integrity, judgement and courage.

Sir, these are human qualities, not angelic ones. With the proposed tightened eligibility criteria, how many of our former Presidents – Yusof Ishak, Benjamin Sheares, Devan Nair, Wee Kim Wee – would have been found ineligible to serve, even if they were ready and eager to do so, and in the eyes of vast numbers of Singaporeans, be qualified to do so? How many other Singaporeans?

Why are we seeking to restrict further the number of men and women who could be President? Has any of our Elected Presidents – Ong Teng Cheong, SR Nathan and Tony Tan – behaved so untowardly that we feel corrective action is needed to limit the number of eligible candidates from, say, qualifying companies with paid-in capital of at least $100 million, to those with shareholders' equity of at least $500 million?

We are told that the Elected Presidency system is working well and by these proposed amendments what we hope to do is anticipate problems before they appear. If that is the case, without an existing identifiable and specific thing to fix, then it behoves us to be even more humble about the possibility of unintended consequences of keeping out credible presidential candidates by what is proposed here today.

Even just looking at the custodial functions of the President, why are we seeking to restrict further the number of men and women who could be President by eliminating the non-executive chairmen of eligible companies from consideration, where both the chairmen and the chief executive officers used to qualify under the current rules? If we were to look at the constitutional functions to be performed by the President, including the custodial functions currently required, can we not say that they are in many ways more like those of a non-executive chairman than an executive officer?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

7.12 pm

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill but I must say I am rather confused by some of the statements that have been made by Members of the Opposition. And the answers that they have given for some of the clarifications that have been sought have not actually provided any degree of clarity.

Firstly, I would like to address the issue of the NCMP, which Mr Dennis Tan brought up. The NCMP does have a mandate. There were people who voted for the NCMP. The NCMP can serve in a Town Council, they are not required to, unlike an elected MP, but all kinds of people can serve in a Town Council and can be appointed by MPs, including NCMPs from the same party. The opportunity is there.

And in service, that is how we define ourselves for all the people that we serve. We do not serve just the voters who elected us. We serve our constituents. And the same is true for the Elected President. Yes, the process of an election can be divisive, it can be contestable, it should be contestable. But, afterwards, we choose to come together.

This is a principle that is not unique to Singapore. It actually happens in many, many systems around the world and people expect that after the election there is a reconciliation. And part of the reconciliation is a recognition from the people that the person occupying that office serves everybody, and a recognition from the person elected that his or her duty is to serve everybody, regardless of the electoral choices in the first instance.

Elections are difficult. They are potentially divisive. The details are vital to get right. But I am glad that the WP, the Opposition, has repeatedly enumerated their support for the electoral process. Again and again, we hear about the elections for a Senate, the senators. This is an issue, perhaps, of labelling. They say they do not support the Presidency but yet they are taking the custodial powers of the President and devolving it to eight senators. Realistically, these are now eight Presidents. These are the same custodial powers that were vested in the President that have now been divided across eight Senators.

So, they are taking one Elected President and are now saying that we need to have eight elected Senators. Or I am going to call them eight elected Presidential Senators; we can make up the names.

This is confusing. They fundamentally believe that the custodial powers should go with an electoral process. We believe that is so. And yet they believe that having those custodial powers divided over eight people is somehow better than having it in one person. The only reason they had given is this "wisdom of a crowd", I believe it was the phrase that was used, or "the collective wisdom", that somehow, automatically, collective wisdom is better.

This is not a small change. It is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It is a major overhaul of our entire Presidential system and, possibly, our political system. And yet they are accusing the PAP Government of rushing this through when, in fact, this has been debated and discussed in public and in this House repeatedly from our side of the House. But they did not put this proposal forward, they did not submit this proposal to the Constitutional Commission, they did not submit it for public scrutiny or public debate. At the last minute, when the vote is tomorrow on this Bill before us, we hear of this extraordinarily radical proposal to take apart our President, make it symbolic and elect another eight people who are effectively the custodial Presidents.

The issue of being humble if you are making a radical change, I take Mr Chen Show Mao's point absolutely. We should be humble and not suggest something so completely radical when the proposal before the House is an amendment to strengthen and adjust the existing system. The Bill before the House is not about whether we should have an electoral process. The Bill before the House is not whether we should completely upend the system. The Bill before the House is how do we strengthen the existing Elected Presidency.

The lack of clarity extends to this issue of inclusion versus exclusion. They seem not to actually fundamentally understand what it is that the Presidential Electoral Commission does. And, repeatedly, the issue of the financial criteria, the number of people who are available, the types of businesses that are available, are brought up. The assumption is that if you do not meet those criteria, you are excluded from being a candidate for President.

That is not the case. This is an inclusive process. If you meet those criteria, the Commission is required to then pass you through. There is still a deliberative track where candidates who do not automatically qualify can put themselves forward and a case has to be made for why those candidates should be allowed to stand.

In contrast, what they proposed as a Senatorial Electoral Commission is an exclusive criterion because there is a hard stop at the 16th man or woman who will stand. What separates out at 17th person from that 16th person? That is an absolute exclusion criterion. If you are the 17th person, whether you ran a $100 million company, whether you are someone in the people sector, whether you ran a $1 billion company, for whatever reason, under their proposal, the Senatorial Electoral Commission can exclude you.

We have had some back and forth about whether the criteria are similar to the existing Presidential candidate criteria, but if the pool of candidates that come forth every year change, if you had to select 16 out of 24, versus 16 out of 100, then those criteria are going to change year on year. Where is the transparency there? It is going to be arbitrary for a non-elected body to then decide who will be elected in. It is not the public. Under the existing system, the Presidential Electoral Commission can put anybody who meets the criteria forward and it is the public then who has ultimate scrutiny over the process. Whether there is one, two, three or 100, it is the public then who decides about the integrity of this person who stands. It is the public then who makes the decision about what are the values that are expressed and how did this individual demonstrate those values in the conduct of their duties, whether it was a $100 million company, whether it was a $500 million company, whether they are a community volunteer or whether they were in the Public Service. It is for the public to make those decisions!

If you have an exclusionary criterion where a non-elected body keeps people out, that is the complete opposite of democracy. It is an autocracy. That is what the proposal put before the House today is about. We are being asked to consider the difference in their Option B versus our Option A, the difference between a strengthening of our democracy and the assignment of an autocracy to an appointed body, where an appointed body can keep people out. How will this strengthen the multiracial fabric of our nation?

I have a direct question for Mr Faisal Manap who is not here. A direct question: does he or does he not support the reserved election for a Malay candidate? It is a straightforward question. If he cannot answer a yes or no, how do you expect a referendum to be constructed around this? Yes or no, do you support the proposal that there will be a reserved election for a Malay candidate after many decades? It is a very simple question.

Or does he prefer for that electoral mandate and for that custodial power that our next Malay President could have, to be removed, and so our next Malay President will be, by his direction, a symbol only with no custodial power? What is going to be better for the Malay community? What is going to be better for all of us, regardless of our race and the colour of our skin? For that President, that Malay President, to have only symbolic powers, or to have a combination of symbolic and custodial powers, and to have stood in an election, even if it is an election against another Malay. It is still an electoral mandate that will be handed to the winning candidate by the people, and not by the WP, or whoever has been appointed by Parliament. It will not be an autocracy. It will be a strengthening of our democracy.

These are serious issues, serious proposals and, frankly speaking, serious problems in some of the proposals that have been put up by Option B by the WP.

There are a number of inconsistencies. Do you support more electoral processes or do you support less electoral processes? Do you want the Malay President to have custodial powers or only have a symbolic election? Do you want the power to rest in the people ultimately or do you want an appointed body?

The misunderstandings about what the CPA does have been brought up again and again. The implication that the CPA can step forward and block Parliament, when it is for Parliament to put matters up to the President in the first place. Parliament becomes the initiator of the process, and the President does not. And the CPA, as proposed, only advises the President. And the decision-making – whether it is four, whether it is one extra casting vote, is only about the bar that is then set for Parliament, and ultimately Parliament then has to make the legislative decision.

These are falsehoods or misunderstandings or implications, but they are not true. The proposals need to be studied properly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have alluded to and highlighted a number of inconsistencies and problems with the positions and statements of the Opposition. What could possibly be the cause, the driving force that led them in this direction? It could be suggested that there is a lack of understanding, incompetence. I do not believe so. I absolutely do not believe so. They have a bench with lawyers, economists, academics, people who have served in our uniformed services, people who have served in academic institutions, people who have served running organisations and run Town Councils. It could be malice but I do not believe so. These are not malicious people. People do not step forward and give of their time to serve in politics with the intention to be malicious. It is a hard, difficult choice to make in your life and you do it for good reasons. Why then?

Frankly speaking, it is merely the product of the adversarial nature of the Westminster system that we have inherited and that we have here today. It is the product of electoral politics. It is the natural outcome of contestable politics. They are doing what they need to do to attack, take issue with the Government and, if possible, take down our proposals. This is precisely why there is a need for a process that stands outside and above this House. They have demonstrated in their approach, in their ability to try to obfuscate, to add confusion, to misdirect and imply malice on our part. They have demonstrated exactly why we need a process and an office that stands apart and stands above.

For the Opposition to do otherwise – to not oppose, to not attack, to not question – frankly speaking, would be difficult. It would be especially difficult from an electoral viewpoint because any difficult Parliamentary issue can potentially risk votes. It takes great courage, confidence and determination to support a Motion or a Bill that goes against the expressed views of your core party supporters.

It takes courage and vision to put the interests of the nation first. It takes courage to identify and go against any facet of human nature. And it is difficult to change your mind once you have stated your position, especially if you have stated your position publicly. Once you have had a firm stance and you have engaged in battle – whether in word, in print – how to change it?

But this House, this Chamber and its predecessor have repeatedly seen examples of such courage, confidence, determination and vision. We have had a clear demonstration in recent times, of how a government and a political party can change its views, change its position, change its policies in response to the needs and aspirations of the country and our people.

In the short time since I was elected in 2011, I have seen several examples – Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life, compulsory education for special needs kids, maternity leave, changes to provisions for single mothers, many others – each one of those welcomed with applause in the House, welcomed with cheers outside. Because there is a recognition that our policies and positions need to adapt to best serve our country and our people. Just as our own views can change, our own personal views can change. As was alluded to, perhaps Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's views have changed, perhaps the WP's views have changed.

Just as my own view, on the mechanism for the minority representation on the Elected Presidency has changed since the proposal was first published. The need for any kind of safeguard in our electoral and political processes, it reminds us of the less-than-perfect human nature that we have to deal with.

As the Prime Minister mentioned in his quote of James Madison about angels, the need for safeguards reminds us how imperfect we are. We wish that it was not so. We wish that it was a much nicer world where we would not need such a mechanism. But we have to deal with the reality around us, we have to decide if we are going to hold a position as a marker of an ideal for the future, or deal with the reality here and now – deal with what our people face and the issues that we have to help them with.

So, on the issue of the five-term hiatus and the reserved election, I have changed my own mind since I first heard about it and I fully support the Bill for all the various reasons that have been described by the Members of this House.

So, with an understanding of why the Opposition does what it does – you may or may not agree with me – an understanding of the opportunities that there are in this House to make lives and things better for Singapore and Singaporeans, and I believe you do agree with me, which is why you serve here.

Embracing the possibility for change that I have just described, I want to propose a radical idea – I have a proposition – a proposition for the Opposition: I propose that the Opposition support the Bill. Change your mind, lose and leave behind your intransigence on this matter that has lasted more than 20 to 25 years.

Tomorrow, we will need to vote. This is a Constitutional amendment. We will need to vote and the process is called a division. It does not have to be divisive. What if in this one instance, we could have a demonstration of unity? You may ask: how could you possibly vote? How could you possibly vote to support this Bill? You may also ask why you should possibly vote.

Well, let me tell you why you should possibly vote "yes" to support this Bill, why you should stand with the "ayes". This is a Bill that strengthens our democracy, this is a Bill that strengthens our processes. It stands in the same vein as those processes that established a separate Civil Service that works for all Singaporeans without fear or favour. It stands in the same vein as our Armed Forces that swear loyalty to the Constitution and the President, and will do what is necessary for our country regardless of politics. It stands in the same vein that we have an Auditor-General and an Attorney-General that does what it has to do to uphold the law, to uphold the best principles of our Constitution and integrity and not to serve a political agenda. It does all these and more.

It strengthens the role of NCMPs and gives voice to people who perhaps have not had a voice before. It strengthens the diversity in this House. It allows our first Malay Elected President after many decades. And it guarantees that we will have an Elected President with representation across all the races. It does all these and more.

And in its mechanism for that multiracial Elected Presidency, it has a natural sunset where, over time, that mechanism may no longer be needed.

And, so, you have built in into this Constitutional amendment. I believe one of the first times we can identify when we might truly arrive in the future as that ideal multiracial state. Not when we have an open contested election of various races. That would just be the start. We need to have a few of those. We need to have a minority candidate that loses and loses gracefully, not because of his or her colour of the skin but because he or she was not the best person for the job.

And, finally, we will need in this House, standing at one of these podiums, someone from one of the political parties to stand up and propose a Constitutional amendment to remove the five-term hiatus and the reserved election mechanism. And then we will know that there is political confidence that we can do so because there are no votes at risk, and we will have arrived at that ideal state as a multiracial nation.

For all these reasons, you should support the Bill. But how could you support the Bill, given the position you have taken?

First of all, you need to understand and you need to convince people within your party and your core supporters that the Bill before you is not about whether we should have an Elected Presidency or not. You can continue to hold that line and support this Bill. The matter before us that we are debating is, given that we are going to have an Elected Presidency, what kind of Elected Presidency should we have?

This is the reality of political progress and political compromise. There is no point having an extreme absolutist view and refuse to engage on what is the reality in front of you. Having an absolutist, an extremist view is never going to be productive in politics. We need progress, we need some compromise.

The matter of whether the President should be elected, we have talked about why and how. That has already been settled. So, by voting in support of this Bill, you can still hang on to your party's principled position and accept the reality of today. And the reality is that Singaporeans want to vote for the President. Your constituents, the vast majority of all our constituents, whether they voted for the WP or any other Opposition candidate, they voted in the Presidential Election. They may have supported different candidates, but they expressed a democratic voice. They support the idea of an Elected Presidency and they will not accept having that democratic voice removed.

Could you not consider adapting to that world view after 25 years? Could you not demonstrate the ability to change, just as you expect other people to change? I have suggested why the Opposition could vote for the Bill with a clear conscience. I hope they will. We have heard several times now how symbols matter, and I think this could be one the most important reasons why I believe they should. Symbolism is important not just in terms of words, flags and badges or a person, although all those are important. But perhaps, more importantly, in the symbolism of our actions.

One of the most memorable images for me in this in this debate was the image evoked by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim of his whole clan turning up at Paya Lebar Airport to send off his brother. And you can imagine the joy, the celebration, the fun that they had coming together as a family. And family, being very loosely defined, the whole clan turned up. We instantly, instinctively understand his description. We smile. We wish all of our families could behave in that way all the time. We know what it means and why it is important.

But why? Why is this important? The plane is not going to fly any faster. The journey is not going to be any safer because the whole town full of people turn up. Your well wishes can be written on a card, your goodbyes can be spoken on the phone. Loving words can be said at home, you do not have to go all the way to the airport. But no, it is the action of accompanying that person, that action of going together as a family, of coming together as a family, and standing there and waving through the glass. We understand this matters, and it demonstrates something, in a symbolism far more powerful than any words or expressed wish might demonstrate. They stand together as one even though some of them may be very distant relatives. The action says, "We are one, and together we are here for you."

Today, here, and tomorrow, we have a Bill to strengthen our Presidency and our nation. The President is meant to be an office that rises above politics, that acts as a symbol of national unity, that takes a long-term view, and that protects our national interest over and above anything else. This debate will become part of our historical record. Imagine how the record might demonstrate that, in this House, we might have had a real engagement of ideas where people are open to what is being said and not just who is saying it. A real discussion of policies and proposals, where sometimes we are persuaded by the debate, that this is not just merely the transmission of a prepared speech, that we are listening to one another and engaging in a contest of ideas. And a contest of ideas requires people to be open to persuasion.

Demonstrate in your actions tomorrow by voting for the Bill to strengthen our system and our country. Vote and demonstrate the spirit behind the words, "Mari kita bersatu, dengan semangat yang baru." Show that sense of unity, show that sense of purpose in support of a strengthening democracy here in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

7.36 pm

Mr Leon Perera: I would like to thank the hon Member Dr Puthucheary for what was genuinely a very eloquent and very interesting speech. I would like to engage with some of his ideas.

Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy GE, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed.

We have suggested returning to an appointed President that can rise above politics and to take the custodial power currently vested in the Elected President and to place it into an elected Senate. That would be the advantage of having a President like President Yusof Ishak who is seen as above politics.

So, my first clarification to the Minister is what would be his strategy for ensuring that the Elected President, if we continue to elect presidents, is seen to be above politics? That is the first clarification.

The second one is that Dr Puthucheary pointed out that we are rushing to a new conclusion about the elected Senate. I would like to clarify that we were actually not arguing that Parliament should vote for an elected Senate during this debate. We are arguing that the country should go through a referendum on this issue. Why does he disagree that the country should go through a referendum on this issue? Mr Edwin Tong said that it is because it is time-consuming, it is resource-intensive, it is energy-sapping. Does he agree with that point of view? That is my second question.

My third question is a very simple one. The Member made a rather extraordinary statement that a President appointed by Parliament is an autocrat and that amounts to an autocracy. Does he believe President Yusof Ishak was an autocrat?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: If I may begin with your last one, I did not imply that our President would be an autocrat. I suggested that the use of an appointed body in the process of the Senatorial Electoral Commission, a non-elected body, to then prevent people arbitrarily from standing for election on a moving target year-on-year ‒ because you have a different pool of candidates ‒ amounted to an autocracy, that you would not then expose the 17th and downstream candidates to the scrutiny of a vote and for the public to make their choice. So, that was your last question.

The first question was about politicisation and the second was the misuse of?

Mr Leon Perera: Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes. And your second question is about the previous President as well?

Mr Leon Perera: The second question is why you oppose having a referendum.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes. On the issue of a unifying figure, the Member is absolutely right that it is not easy to be a national unifying figure. But were not all our past Presidents national unifying figures, including those that had gone through an election? The issue of a unifying figure is not automatic to the process. It is something that you have to discharge in your duties. And that judgement as to whether someone can fulfil the role, is that not something that the public of Singapore are in a position to make a judgement about?

Secondly, if you have a concern about one election being politicised, how is your Senatorial election any less politicised? And in actual fact, because you have to put up a slate of 16 candidates, surely that opens up a can of worms in terms of the opportunity for politicisation amongst those 16 candidates. Any one of the elected candidates, by definition, is going to have lesser of the vote share than any Elected Presidency who ‒ well, depending on how many Elected Presidents are under our current system ‒ but you will have one-eighth, right? Because your vote is divided across eight people. So, the issue now is, in your Option B, whether you see the Senatorial process as equivalent to what we have currently as the Elected Presidential process, and I am putting it to you that those eight people are equivalent to our single President now, for two major reasons.

The custodial powers that are currently vested in our President will be vested in them. Secondly, the criteria for becoming a Senator are as stringent ‒ but I would argue, even more stringent because of the exclusionary process that you have proposed.

Under the system currently we are proposing, there is no maximum limit on the number of people who can stand. But under your system, it is not that you have come down to 0.2%; you have come down to 16 individuals across the whole of Singapore. You cannot have a 17th person standing. So, the proposal you have would be more politicised than our current system. More politicised than our proposal. It will have an increasing dilution of the vote share and it would be increasingly exclusionary because fewer people would potentially be able to stand for elections.

So, I fail to see how you articulated that it is a better proposal than what we have currently or what we are proposing on the grounds of the concerns that you yourself have raised. That is my position. I hope I have explained everything.

On the issue of a referendum, history and the world around us have demonstrated that referendums need to be crystallised into simple issues. Pressing, urgent, simple issues. Is this pressing? Well, it does not need to happen today, it does not need to happen tomorrow. You could not justify that you have a referendum tomorrow, next week or next month. But the reality is that this is a complex issue. In this House, amongst us, we are debating the intricacies of how that Senatorial Electoral process would occur. How do you convey that on the ballot box? How do you convey exactly how you operationalise one complex system versus another complex system? Fundamentally, this is exactly what happened in Brexit where two very complex proposals were reduced to a referendum. And, as has been admitted repeatedly, many people who voted had no idea what they were voting for.

There is another proxy for a referendum. It is called the GE. That had been done before where the PAP Government put up its manifesto proposals for the Elected Presidency as part of the electoral process. If you wanted a referendum by proxy, it would be very simple for the WP to then stand in the next GE and articulate every single point of how they would operationalise a non-Elected Presidency and set up a Senatorial body as part of their electoral manifesto. And that would be a referendum if the WP became the government and the PAP Government did not.

But I return the question to you. If you feel that a referendum is important and people have exercised their choice, then do you not respect the choice that people made in the previous time when they did so, where they chose the PAP Government that stood on a platform of Elected Presidency? That was the choice of the people.

So, I return to the idea. The idea of an Elected Presidency has been settled. What we need to do is to debate and take it forward. Taking it forward is: how do we operationalise the Elected Presidency?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Firstly, on the point of a GE as a substitute for a referendum, I would point out to the hon Member that this issue has never been straightforwardly put as a referendum. There is no simple equation between a GE and a referendum on the issue of the Elected Presidency. There are many other factors that come into consideration in a GE. Voting a particular party in a GE does not equate with consenting to the Elected Presidency. That has never been put to the electorate, that specific issue on whether the Presidency should be appointed or elected.

The hon Member said that we are not pressed on this issue. If we are not pressed on this issue, why are we passing this Bill now? You talked about GEs. This proposal of making these changes to the Elected Presidency was not put to the Singapore electorate in GE2015. They cannot be said to have consented in GE2015 to these proposals.

Because you are suggesting that a GE kind of equates to a referendum but the people did not know about these proposals in GE2015. And you said that it is not pressing, why not wait? If it is not pressing, why not go through a process that has a referendum at the end of it? That will be my first point.

The second point, the more important point, I think, is that I do not believe you have fundamentally addressed the issue of the risk to the Presidency of a polarising direct election. I think many figures in the Government have talked about the risk in the context of the Elected Presidency in 2011, which did become in some ways a proxy GE. It became politicised. Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation.

You mentioned that the previous Elected Presidents were able to unify the country but that does not necessarily prove the case. That may have been the case in the past, perhaps. It may not continue to be the case in the future as Presidential Elections get more and more polarised.

So, our solution is actually so elegant and has such a powerful advantage of preserving the President as a symbol of unity, the unity of the country above politics. It is so advantageous in that sense that none less than the Constitutional Commission actually proposed it in its report. I do not think you have fully addressed that merit of our proposal. In the same vein that you invited us to vote for the Bill, I urge you to consider voting against this Bill just on that ground alone. It is a hugely important point.

The third point I will make is that you mentioned the potential for politicisation of the Senate election. I think this is a red herring. The custodial power, what we are proposing, is moved to a Senate; that is true. So, the risk of politicisation of that Senatorial Election is there, just as the risk of politicisation of the Presidential Election is there. But the benefit is that the Presidency in our proposal, which is appointed, no more suffers from the risk of politicisation. It can become more of a unifying figure.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that the possibility of politicisation of the Senatorial race is not a red herring. Actually, that is the key. There is absolutely no reason not to politicise this. You have every reason to politicise this. If you believe that the Presidential race can be politicised, and now you have the opportunity to insert eight candidates into part of your political system, why is this any different? So, I think to brush aside the concern of possible politicisation of the Senatorial race and yet say it is still valid for the Presidential race, you are not making a logical argument there. If it is possible for the Presidency race to be politicised, it is just as possible, if not more so, for that politicisation to apply to the Senatorial race.

The WP did not put this proposal on their 2015 GE manifesto either. I am not suggesting that it was in 2015 where this was part of the public consciousness. This was settled long before I came on the scene, but the issue before us is not about whether we have the Elected Presidency. It is not of that nature. We have had one referendum: should we merge with Malaysia?

A referendum should be reserved for fundamental issues of sovereignty, of the kind of the nation that we want to be. This is a Bill before the House to strengthen our political, democratic and constitutional processes. It is complex.

You heard the Deputy Prime Minister's speech yesterday. How many Articles and issues and all the various clauses? You hear the confusion in this House today. How is this going to be reduced to a "yes", "no" referendum? So, the issue of whether referendum exists or do not exist, they exist as part of the system. There is an extraordinarily high bar set for the types of things that you put forward as a referendum to the public. That bar should be high. But it exists and the option is there.

Below that bar, we are elected into this role to serve the public and not return to them the responsibility for making laws for this country, for strengthening our democracy and for strengthening our processes. That is the responsibility that we have been elected into this role for. And so, therefore, a GE becomes a proxy for the voice of Singaporeans.

They have appointed us as lawmakers. Now, we do not take that absolute approach and, in between a proposal or a discussion, we have an extended period of public scrutiny and public session, which is exactly what we have done – nearly a year of public hearings, a Constitutional Commission, debate in print, debate in person, engagements. We have not rushed this.

And I contrast that again with your proposal which you have come here to the House. The details have not been worked out. Fundamental details of whether this will actually in any way address your concerns have not been worked out. What you are asking to do is to immediately go out and put it to a referendum. How can that be seen as responsible politics?

You have not submitted this to the Constitutional Commission where you would have had independent legal experts and all the various minds that applied themselves to this series of problems that you have highlighted to examine your proposals. You have not had your proposals out there in the public for debate by a variety of commentators, from the lay public to renowned experts and academicians.

All of which has happened. We have had an extensive public debate and then we have capped that off with a debate in the House. This is meant to be the final lap of an extensive consultative process, an extensive engagement process and, at the eleventh hour, you throw this in here and you expect that it is done seriously and taken seriously by the Members of this House and the public, which would be fine if you had done the homework.

Frankly speaking, if you understood how the CPA works currently and what the actual proposals that have been in print under the White Paper for a good long period of time and then debated those and what you think those changes are, we can take that forward. But you have not done so. You kept silent; you kept quiet; you kept your cards in reserve. You play politics with this issue which I do not blame you for. You are politicians; we are politicians. But that is not how we take an issue like this forward. I hope I have answered your questions.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I think the Member talks about the Constitutional Commission. Why did we not present this view to the Constitutional Commission? Why are we presenting it now? Precisely because we read the Constitutional Commission report and we took that seriously and we allowed that to change our mind and evolve our thinking. We took that report seriously. We did not defend our past position and dig in our heels for the sake of defending. We did not defend for the sake of defending, for the sake of losing face. No, we allowed the Constitutional Commission report. We took that seriously and that led to an evolution of our position.

The Member talks of a rush to a referendum. The kind of scrutiny of the WP's proposal by experts, laypeople, by the general public. That is precisely what will take place in the run-up to a referendum campaign and during a referendum campaign. As I said, again, we are not asking the House to vote on our proposal now. We want a more thorough and more inclusive process, leading up to an actual referendum on this particular issue which has never happened. Elected versus appointed President. It has never happened.

Two last points. The point being made about the issue having been settled. This is your argument – that we should accept the Elected Presidency as a fait accompli, as a reality of Singapore's political landscape. It is a done deal. That is not an argument. That is closing down an argument. That is not an argument. That is my third point.

And the last point, and really the most important one, I have to come back to these false equations between the politicisation of a Senatorial election and the politicisation of a Presidential Election. You are saying our Senate proposal is just as bad because the senatorial election could be politicised, just like the Presidential Election. But you have not addressed the elephant in the room, which is that our proposal saves the Presidency from politicisation. It allows the Presidency to rise above politics and be a unifying force, that one symbol that is non-political, unlike Dr Janil Puthucheary, unlike myself, that one symbol that is not political. That is a huge merit of this proposal. It is so huge that the Constitutional Commission argued for the same thing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil, very briefly. I think both sides are keeping their positions very tightly.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rise above my human nature. The issue of saving the Presidency is a false argument because the Presidency that you are proposing is a fundamentally different Presidency from what we have today and what we are proposing in the future. It retains only its symbolic nature. So, you are saving the Presidency by removing the opportunity for an electoral mandate because he or she will no longer have a custodial role. So, substantively, where the electoral process is concerned, it is mapped to the custodial role. Substantively, this role now is played by the Senators. So, the possibility for the Senatorial role to be politicised, given that is where the electoral process will now sit, stands. That has not changed.

The issue of the consultative process and rushing to referendum. To have a referendum, you would need to debate in the House a Motion and a whole bunch of Government processes. To go forward, you have to have that agreement, it is not just something that you put out.

But if I could take the process a little bit further, if I could address the issue of why we did not ask the Constitutional Commission, again it is a false argument. The problem was set before the Constitutional Commission as laid out by the Prime Minister in his original speech and in his direction to the Commission. It is the Government that constituted the Constitutional Commission and said, "How do we address these series of issues?" It is not that we have bypassed them or ignored them. They took in information from a wide variety of sources, a wide variety of people, a wide variety of ideas. They synthesised down a series of possible recommendations.

They are not the final arbiter on which of those recommendations should go forward. This House is the final arbiter of which of those recommendations should go forward and it is the Government's duty to take those recommendations and put them together in a Motion that should stand before the House. We have followed that process through over the course of this year. There is no abrogation of responsibility, there is no short-cut, nothing has been hidden. And, in contrast, that is what I am saying the WP has been doing.

I think we have batted the points back and forth. I am not sure we will come to a complete meeting of minds but I hope my position is clear. If I can understand your position, you are supporting very much a symbolic Presidency with a devolution of all the custodial powers and, hence, the electoral process to a Senate, the eligibility criteria of which would be an approximate to the eligibility criteria of our current President and there will be an exclusionary process at 16, where you feel that somehow this is better than our current system. I, fundamentally, disagree and that is the separation between us.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Dr Janil. I think the Hansard will show that both Members have stated their positions very clearly and forcefully. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, please. It is your turn to speak.

7.58 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government calls the constant reworking of the Elected Presidency as part of the evolution of the institution. But let us call a spade a spade. The institution is being re-engineered because the Government experienced a discomforting close shave with the Elected Presidency almost becoming a second centre of power in the country.

The WP does not desire a second centre of power either. We believe in the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. The ruling party should just admit that it has gotten the Elected Presidency experiment wrong. It is time to cut losses and restore the Presidency to focus on its critical symbolic function of unifying the country as the Head of State. At this rate of re-engineering, we are creating a political Gordian Knot for future generations.

This latest round of re-engineering will deepen the existing problems with the Elected Presidency, tying more knots around the Gordian Knot. One of these secondary knots is the CPA. The proposed changes see the strengthening of the CPA. The CPA will be expanded to eight members and the Elected President is now obliged to consult the CPA on all monetary matters related to the Reserves and all key Public Service appointments.

The Prime Minister, borrowing from his predecessor, likened the Elected President and the CPA to a goalkeeper with his team of defenders. But this is a bad analogy. With the expanded powers, and the system of strong and weak vetoes by the Elected President depending on how the CPA votes, the CPA has become the key decision-maker. If there is a disagreement between the elected party in Government and the Elected President, the CPA decides which side will win the argument. In effect, the CPA is the referee. But even this analogy is wrong.

Let us put it another way. It has been said that what have been instituted here is a two-key system to protect the Reserves. But with this expanding role of the CPA, our system is becoming a two-of-three-keys system. In order to open the locked box of Reserves, the Government would need either the Elected President's agreement, or failing which, the CPA's agreement. The CPA has effectively become a third key.

On face value, a two-of-three-keys system may not seem like a bad thing. After all, is this not a common practice for signature requirements for corporate account withdrawals? However, we object to the CPA holding such powers for four reasons. And these four reasons are also contradictions of principles that the Government espouses.

First, the Government believes that the people should elect the President, so that he would have the moral authority to veto the Government. In principle, this puts the President on par with the Government, as both are popularly elected, thus giving the President the political mandate to check the Government. But members of the CPA are not elected. Given that the CPA is effectively a third key with powers to uphold the Presidential veto or to check the President by paving the way for Parliamentary override, what is the basis of the mandate? What is the basis of their moral authority to check the President? An unelected CPA should not hold so much power to be a check on the elected powers and be unaccountable to the people under a democratic constitution.

Second, one could argue that the authority of the CPA members lies in them being experts with deep experience in the managing of large corporate or Public Service entities. But the same applies to candidates for the Elected Presidency, which is why the candidates have to meet stringent, determinable criteria to be eligible to stand for election. However, similar qualifications are not applied to the appointment of CPA members, save for general precepts such as those requiring a member to be of "integrity, good character and reputation", as mentioned in the White Paper.

So, while the eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency will be tightened significantly so as to narrow the field of candidates down to a select super elite few in society, nothing is being done to ensure that the CPA members will have the right expertise and experience to exercise their powerful vote to swing crucial decisions of state. The question remains, if the Elected President, having passed the stringent eligibility criteria, so vetoes the Government on the basis of his expert opinion, then on what basis should the CPA concur with the veto to check the Government or disagree with the veto to allow Parliament to negate it?

Third, as the expanded CPA's opinions now carry more weight, including dissenting views that will be disclosed to the Prime Minister and Parliament, one would reasonably expect the Council to become deliberative and also more deliberate in its adjudication of opposing views. In this sense, the CPA ceases to be a collection of advisers. It will become more properly a debating chamber, like this House, where the opinions matter for the progress of the state and are recorded for posterity. The expanded CPA with more powers will start to look and act very much like an Upper Chamber of Parliament in its function as the third key as well as in its deliberative and disclosure procedures.

Fourth, the Government rejects the Constitutional Commission's recommendation for a more calibrated approach for Parliament to override the veto, taking into consideration the extent of the CPA's support of the veto, stating it wants to avoid politicising the CPA. But the CPA is already political in nature. What exactly does the Government mean by "politicisation"?

The Government claims that the Commission's finely calibrated approach would emphasise how individual members have voted and undermine the CPA's ability to make collective judgements. The Government cites the example of the Cabinet, in which the deliberation and debate of opposing views give way to the collective responsibility for the final decisions.

This analogy is telling. On the one hand, it is wrong, since a Council of Advisors must be able to provide majority and minority opinions to the President to properly advise him. They cannot simply provide a summary of total votes and the majority opinion. Since the President, and for that matter, surely the Prime Minister and Parliament too, would like to know why some CPA members voted differently. Thus, the Government is right to accept the recommendation for the disclosure of the grounds for the CPA's advice, including dissenting views.

On the other hand, the analogy is correct in that the CPA, like the Cabinet, appears to have become another potential centre of power, a third key, with the weight of its collective judgement strengthened with the addition of two more members and scope expanded to all monetary matters concerning the Reserves and all key appointments. The CPA is already politicised, knowing that its decision would swing the veto, knowing that the collective judgement of six and now eight wise men in CPA would carry much weight in the court of public opinion, knowing that any dissenting views disclosed and published would affect political debate, calculating that any check on the President's veto would require a two-third majority to override.

I do not see how the CPA's work can avoid politics altogether. The work is inherently political. This is not to mention that the right of appointments to the CPA are split amongst the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, with the appointees inevitably bringing the representation of the interests and views of the branch of Government that appointed them into their CPA work.

So, let us call a spade a spade. The CPA is a misnomer. It is neither a council, presidential, nor advisory. It is an unelected third key that risks being populated by unqualified members making political decisions affecting the state and country. So, why not just cut the pretense and the Gordian Knot as well?

Ironically, this attempt by the Government to strengthen the CPA to check on the President provides the answer to all our problems. Since the CPA has become a third key making political decisions, why not make it accountable to the people and give the CPA its proper political mandate by holding list elections for the CPA members – become a Senate? Eligibility conditions similar to those set for the Elected Presidency could be set and we should trust the people to select the most qualified people for the offices.

Then, use this to cut the Gordian Knot. Return the Presidency to being the dignified ceremonial Head of State again, to be indirectly elected by Parliament. The elected CPA, let us call it the Senate, will then hold the second key in a direct relationship to Parliament in a truly two-key system of deliberation, veto and override that is transparent and accountable. The President will focus on the critical symbolic function of unifying the nation, "everyone is part of my parish", as the late President SR Nathan famously said, and representing the nation to the world, as the late President Nathan did terribly well. It is important to note that, even as an Elected President, the late President Nathan performed this dual symbolic role to its maximum effect because he was not burdened by the contest of political election and its aftermath in public memory, especially since people read too much into voting percentages these days.

The President should never have to consider the need to butt head against the elected Government and Parliament, or an unelected council of political appointees, which would create ripples of political division that will undermine constructive politics. The President should never have to choose between unity and division. Free the President to focus on national unity and to represent the nation in our entirety. In the mistake that is the strengthened CPA, we have stumbled on the opportunity. Turn it into the elected Senate. Cut the Gordian Knot, please.

Resumption of Debate on Question [7 November 2016], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security].

Question again proposed.

1.30 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I will focus my speech on the proposal that has been put forward for an elected Senate. I would make two points.

This proposal is fundamentally flawed – flawed in substance and flawed in terms of the process. In substance, the Workers' Party (WP) had many objections to the proposal on the proposed amendments. Their proposal for an elected Senate does not deal with any of the objections they have raised for the Elected Presidency. In fact, their proposals make it worse. Second, the process is so flawed that it is unworkable.

Let me deal with the substance.

The first point that the WP raises is the point on elitism. It is a major objection to the Elected Presidency with the qualifying criteria. Yesterday, Mr Chen Show Mao made this point. I think Assoc Prof Daniel Goh referred to it. Others have expressed it. In their position paper, the WP talks about the objection in terms of this being restricted to "a super elite" and it narrows the field of candidates.

But then, if you look at the Senate proposal, it is to have eight such people where the same qualifications as an Elected President should have. It is in the transcript, and I will read out the transcript later. Or perhaps, I will read it out now. In the exchange with Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera, I said to Mr Perera, and I quote, "So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for a Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?" A clear question and the response is: "Essentially yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation. So, it is transferring the custodial from an Elected President to a Senate." So, a clear question and a clear answer.

And I listened to the transcript of what Mr Dennis Tan said. He went further to say that the criteria are the same as set out in the Bill that is before Parliament, meaning, I suppose, in context, Senators should meet the criteria proposed for Elected Presidents.

So, instead of one Elected President, we would have eight Elected Presidents. How does this deal with the objection of elitism? Of a narrow field? Of a super elite field? Did anyone think about this? Does it not make the position eight times worse? Or perhaps 16 times worse?

Mr Chen, your views, which you expressed yesterday quite eloquently, completely contradicts the position of your colleagues. It is like your speech was drafted without reference to their views and the divide cannot be bridged. I am referring to the policy viewpoints.

Mr Chen and Assoc Prof Goh, your express positions on elitism directly contradict your Party's decision. And Assoc Prof Goh, look at your Facebook post. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I have these exhibits circulated?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Copies of the exhibits were distributed to hon Members]

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me read out what Assoc Prof Goh has said. This is Assoc Prof Goh's response in December of last year to the proposal to have two Houses of Parliament. We have marked it "Exhibit A". He said, "Keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. No, instead they want more complicated layers that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people. Not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking leading to gridlock down the road. How about including Parliament as it is and restoring the ceremonial presidency? Keep democracy simple, deep and real."

In context, Assoc Prof Goh was arguing against a Senate – an Upper House – a separate House to act as a check and balance on Parliament. That was December last year and I think there was a follow-on article about his views. So, what is the real position? Is there one view on this?

The second major objection that the WP has made is that the candidates will be drawn from a small pool, likely to be establishment and the whole purpose of this exercise and the whole purpose of the exercise over the last 25 years, is to fix a non-PAP Government. It is an astoundingly cynical view.

But if that was the fear, does not the Senate proposal make the position eight times worse? How does the Senate proposal help? We have heard nothing about that.

And on the point that the Elected President will be dishonourable, I think the suggestion itself is unworthy. Dishonourable? Dr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Mr SR Nathan, Dr Tony Tan. Look at what you said about President Nathan. You said that he served Singapore with "great distinction". Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted how Mr Nathan made efforts to reach out to her when she became a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). Mr Pritam Singh recounted how Mr Nathan encouraged him to always "look after… Singaporeans and Singapore", without raising "any doubts or concerns about serving Singapore in a different colour, cause or capacity". I assume these were real sentiments. If so, why then do you make points which you know are untrue?

The third major objection is politicisation, that the Elected Presidency will be politicised. You say that the Government has not explained how the EP can be depoliticised.

The President can play a unifying role despite the electoral process. There are inherent tensions, but it can be done. And again, look at our past Presidents. That is your answer. It depends on the electorate choosing the right person. And, if because of the inherent tensions, you want to suggest an alternative, then, the alternative has to be better and not make the position worse.

Your position paper says the competitive election process pits individuals against one another and the outcomes of a popular election, I quote, "tempts… the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers."

So, how do eight Presidents in a Senate help? Would it not be much more politicised? It does not deal with your objection on politicisation. At least, the Elected President can, after the election, play the role of a unifier. And our Elected Presidents have successfully played that role. Whereas eight Senators, you build in politicisation throughout their term. They have to constantly compete with one another. They have to profile themselves. They have to outdo one another. They want to be re-elected. Will that not considerably increase the risk of politicisation and gridlock? And a possible constitutional crisis?

How do you propose to make it work? It is basically unworkable. It will be a disaster if we did it the way you suggest, and magnify all the problems – some real, some contrived – that you have listed.

The process for the suggestion is also deeply flawed.

Mr Low dismisses the flaws in the process. He says yes, it is "by no means perfect". And "not fully worked out" the details. Let us "focus on fundamentals". And "do not be bogged down by details". The big picture, Mr Low, is not pretty. You are bogged down with the big picture because the proposal, as presented, makes no sense. The proposal fails by reference to every one of the points your team has made. You cannot dismiss the process simply because you cannot answer the questions on it. The process is like an engine in a car. Without an engine, the car will not move, even if you have a co-driver who likes slapping the driver.

Look at the ways in which the process is flawed.

First, how would the candidates campaign? In slates? This question was raised yesterday. No answer has been given. If they run in slates, would it be two slates of eight? Will they identify themselves as two teams? They are supposed to be independent. How do you form workable teams to compete against each other?

Without that being sorted out, the process fails in limine. Even worse, if the proposal is for them to run as independents, how can they then work in a team after that? They will all have to work on their own re-election. Will they not jockey and position themselves?

Second, on the selection process, an extraordinary suggestion on selection – that there will be a Senatorial Election Committee (SEC) which will select 16, even if you have 17 or 20 candidates of equal quality. That is fair? You will seriously present such a proposal to the people of Singapore?

Third, the workings of the Senate. How will it work if there is a split of four to four? Mr Singh was asked. He clearly had not thought about it, so he made up the answers as he went along. He said that it could be a casting vote. If so, who will have that casting vote? He also said that we could have nine Senators – so, nine rather than eight. Quite extraordinary.

I could not believe what I was hearing. I am sure the same goes for many Members. It would have been comical had we not been discussing a very serious matter.

Mr Low, being the seasoned politician that he is, then stepped in, realising the quagmire all of this was getting them into, and tried to put an end to this sorry spectacle by saying these are details. Basically, a plea: can you please spare us, do not ask any more questions.

But Parliament is a place for asking questions; get your proposals thoroughly examined. As champions of Parliamentary democracy, surely the WP believes in that? You do not come to Parliament with half-baked, absurd proposals, and then ask to be spared from searching questions. Does the phrase "First World Parliament" ring a bell?

Next, we move to criteria. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan said the criteria for the Senators are the same as for the Elected President, but only after a long detour. Mr Tan first said – same criteria as the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC). But that is absurd because there are no generally prescribed qualifications for PEC. Then, Mr Tan changed his position and said – same criteria as for the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA). But that is also absurd. Look at the requirements for CPA. Then, Mr Tan, guided by Mr Perera, said – same criteria as in the Bill – one assumes, for the EP, in context. Mr Perera then confirmed that the criteria for the Senators would be the same as for the EP. And I have read out our exchange yesterday.

So, this is also again, clearly, policy made on the fly, in Parliament, when clarifications are sought. And given how basic this is – criteria to qualify as Senators – it is astounding.

And timeline. When did this idea come about? The WP took one position before the Constitutional Commission. Parliamentary super majority if Government wants to touch the Reserves. Now, the suggestion is of an Upper House – Senate. The two are quite different. Everyone who is reasonable will know that it is quite different. Everyone will accept that it is quite different. Everyone, except Ms Lim. She insisted that both were the same when I asked her to clarify. But one has come to expect this of Ms Lim: never admit the obvious; always look for a tactical answer, even if it flies in the face of what is obvious, and even if it is absurd. It was then left to Mr Perera to be more honest. He said these ideas came about after they looked at the Constitutional Commission's report.

So, there are new ideas thought about in the last three months. Why not be just upfront and admit it?

This proposal is like a home built with sand. One touch and it crumbles. After the forensic examination yesterday, nothing of it has survived. It is so flawed I cannot believe it was a serious proposal. It does not withstand the most cursory of examinations.

So, why does the WP really oppose the Elected Presidency?

Let me end with a quote from our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Low Thia Khiang approves of this quote because he quoted a part of it during last year's GE.

Mr Low quoted this part, and I quote, "While honest men are still in charge, it is prudent for us to institute a system of checks and balances in our political system, instead of banking on good fortune to throw up good government for the next 30 years." And he suggested that Prime Minister Lee had forgotten what Prime Minister Goh had said before. I can assure him, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has forgotten it. Just that Mr Low quoted the statement out of context. If he had gone on, the context would have been clear.

The second part which he did not quote was this: "Dishonest men who aspire for power will, I believe, never propose this Bill." Prime Minister Goh was talking about the Elected Presidency. That was not convenient for Mr Low to quote. "They will never propose any amendment to the Constitution to safeguard our financial assets and Reserves and the integrity of the Public Services. They will not want any check and balance to the present parliamentary system of government".

I assume Mr Low agrees with what then Prime Minister Goh said, in particular the last line.

Finally, yesterday, I was taken aback when the WP mentioned that their track record includes running Town councils. If I were the WP, I would not be talking about track records in running Town Councils. If I were the WP, I would run away from talking about track records in Town Councils.

Ms Sylvia Lim also claimed that the Government, or that Ministers, had sleepless nights in 2011, thinking about which candidate would be elected as President. I am not sure where she got the information from. But let me assure Ms Lim, Ministers do not get sleepless nights except when we are worried about Singapore and its future. The people who should be losing sleep are those who are accused of criminal impropriety. They are the ones who should have sleepless nights. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause]

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

1.50 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for distributing my Facebook post. I said in that post we should revert to the ceremonial Presidency, do not dilute popular sovereignty and to improve Parliament. This essentially and fundamentally describes the WP's call for the elected Senate to replace the Elected Presidency and CPA. I am not sure whether the Minister read the article that I was responding to which was for a pretty complicated Upper House.

We have submitted yesterday when charged with changing our views that our fundamental beliefs in Parliamentary sovereignty and reversion to the ceremonial Presidency have not changed. Now, I think the Government should face up to its own contradiction instead of dwelling on a mere Facebook post and try to come up with semantics.

Mr K Shanmugam: Oh, is it a speech, Madam?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: The clarification is coming.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, that is a valid point. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, please put forward your clarification.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Okay. I will, Madam. Thanks. The contradiction is the unelected CPA having the swing vote to decide between the Elected President and Parliament. So, Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister this: i the President needs to be elected to have this democratic mandate to say "no" to Parliament, which is your view, what mandate does the CPA have to influence legislature and say "yes" or "no" to an Elected President and to Parliament?

Mr K Shanmugam: Assoc Prof Goh made two points. First, I am perfectly able to answer his question on CPA, but I will leave it to Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his wrap-up speech so that we do not take more time than necessary. But on the Member's earlier point, let us not move so fast. Is it not quite clear from his post that he opposed an Upper House? And is it not quite clear now that his proposal is for an Upper House? Those are the simple facts, and I think the answer is "yes" and the answer, therefore, is that his Facebook post is contradictory to the proposal now. He may have changed his position. If so, he can say that.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I disagree, Minister. I was responding to the specific article, and I did not say that I opposed an Upper House in principle. I said that we should not dilute popular sovereignty, we should revert to the ceremonial Presidency, and we should improve Parliament.

Mr K Shanmugam: I quote, "keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. Instead, they want more complicated layers…" That refers, surely, to an Upper House, Assoc Prof Goh? It cannot refer to the Elected Presidency which already existed. "…that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people, not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking, leading to gridlock down the road."

Now, it is clear what you have written but if you disagree, let us not continue with this exchange. This is how I read it. I think people can read and decide for themselves.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: The objection to the layers is to the layers that are described in the complex Upper House that is being proposed by an ex-PAP Member.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, the Member would agree to an Upper House which does not have complex layers?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: A Senate of eight Senators.

Mr K Shanmugam: Pardon?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: A Senate of eight Senators, elected Senators.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, the Member would agree with that?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: And the Member's post makes it clear that he would agree to a non-complex Upper House?

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Goh, do you want to answer that?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Could the Minister repeat that?

Mr K Shanmugam: So, the Member's post, one reading his post, one can understand from that that he agrees to an Upper House, as long as it is not complex?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: No, that does not come from the post.

Mr K Shanmugam: Right.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I am not talking about the Upper House in principle. There is no discussion about the Upper House.

Mr K Shanmugam: The Member just said he was talking about the Upper House because it is complex.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I am disagreeing to the article in proposing complex layers which is enshrined in the Upper House as being proposed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Assoc Prof Goh, let the answers stand on the record.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: Let people judge for themselves.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, it is always a pleasure to meet the Minister in such contexts. I have several clarifications for the Minister. First, I am flattered that he has spent so much time to try to cross-examine the WP on details which he said, "don't gel" and so on.

But one of the things which I think he and also the Government have not addressed, which we have put forth as one of the weaknesses that the Government proposal or existing process is, is the current expectation of the Government for the President to play the dual role of being a custodian as well as being a Head of State. The Minister has acknowledged there are inherent tensions, and the Constitutional Commission had also received evidence and thought it necessary to record that.

So, our proposal really for the abolition of the Elected President and the restoration of the ceremonial role of the President would protect the President from having this potential need to confront the Government and now even confront an expanded and stronger CPA. I do not hear any convincing reason from the Government so far and neither from the Minister about how you can ensure that this does not happen, that the President is not faced with a confrontational situation.

Next, the Minister mentioned that it is not kosher for anyone to suggest that the President would behave dishonourably. But it is quite clear from the Hansard that this was a possibility that even PAP senior Ministers had thought to be likely, and I quoted Mr Ong Pang Boon yesterday on how he perceived the scheme to be. So, does the Minister not think that this is actually a reasonable concern?

Third, I do not understand this point about Mr SR Nathan. Yes, we gave our tribute to Mr Nathan as a man. We are not talking about the design of the system and what potential problems it could have. The two are quite distinct.

Madam, I would just like to make a comment that while we are flattered with all this attention given to our proposal, I think Singaporeans overnight are reeling from the announcement that "There is this hiatus-triggered mechanism being proposed in the Constitution which is least intrusive. And the next election is going to be reserved for a Malay candidate". How does this sudden announcement help to unify the country and so on? Should not the Government be concentrating more on persuading Singaporeans of the merits of their proposal rather than to spend all their time attacking us? I do not know who is politicising the process and how the public interest is being served by this.

Mr K Shanmugam: This is quite interesting. A position paper is put out. A proposal is made. "This is our proposal. We have seriously thought about it. We want a Senate, eight people to be elected. We want a referendum. We are a First World Parliament." And then, Ms Lim is essentially pleading, "Why are you looking at our proposal? Yes, it is bad but why are you looking at it?"

Ms Sylvia Lim: I do not plead.

Mr K Shanmugam: Well, I characterise it as a plea. It is quite astonishing. So, essentially, in essence, it is a recognition that the proposal cannot withstand any scrutiny. Otherwise, you would have come back and defended it. I think you are now giving up the defence of the proposal and pivoting, as they would say, to try and move on to a whole lot of other issues. So, let me deal with that.

The last point about reservation for Malay candidates. The Prime Minister explained it quite fully. Why? I think he went into some considerable detail and all the answers are there. As to the current expectation on the inherent tensions, yes, there are inherent tensions between having a President performing both roles, but you do not deal with that by suggesting that you neuter the Presidency, do away with the institution and put forward another institution which is fundamentally flawed, both in substance and in process, and then say, "Here, we have a proposal". And, in fact, the proposal, as the Member can see, does not withstand any scrutiny. The Member calls that a proposal worth talking about? It is sad that we have to talk about it simply to expose how absurd it is.

And then the Member talks about why can she not suggest that Presidents can act dishonourably; the point I was making is that she should not suggest that the proposal is dishonourable and also look at how the Elected Presidents have behaved. Look at how they have discharged their duties. One does not say therefore that it can never happen. But until there is a better solution, this is the solution we have. And we have not seen a better solution.

Third, on Mr SR Nathan, the point I was making is the Member acknowledged his service to Singapore. She acknowledged he was a good person. It leads to the conclusion that he also exercised his powers responsibly as an Elected President. And it contradicts her suggestion that this whole thing is a fix-up.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, I would like to ask one clarification from Mr Shanmugam. The Minister mentioned that the Government does acknowledge there is an inherent tension in the custodial role as well as the historical role. And the Minister alluded to the point that the Government can overcome this issue and also based on the past three Elected Presidents to prove that they have done their job very well. So, I would like to seek a clarification.

But before that, I would like to just add on: does the Minister acknowledge that when the Constitutional Commission made such an observation, they also took into consideration the three past Elected Presidents ‒ what they have done ‒ as well as take into consideration what happened in 2011 during the campaigning? So, I would like to have a simple answer from the Minister ‒ as he always wishes Members to give him a simple answer ‒ does the Minister agree that, in this case, the Constitutional Commission is more prudent than the Government in asking not to continue with the Elected Presidency scheme?

Mr K Shanmugam: First of all, I think the Member probably has not read the Constitutional Commission's report carefully. Go back and read it carefully. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer this a little bit more in detail. Now, three points.

Is there an inherent tension? There is an inherent tension in performing both roles. Can it be overcome? It can be overcome. Do we need an Elected Presidency despite this inherent tension? The answer is yes. The Prime Minister has explained it and, over 25 years, we have explained it. Singaporeans have accepted it.

Do you have a better solution if you want to do away with it? We have seen the quality of your solution. If there is no better solution, and we need this institution, then we proceed while acknowledging that there is risk. The Constitutional Commission made its recommendations on the Elected Presidency, most of which are being implemented now. They made a further observation subsequently about another process that the Government could consider. But the Prime Minister has explained why we need elections and why we need a custodian.

Mdm Speaker: Please keep clarifications short. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Looking at the Hansard ‒ it is not going to be short. It cannot be— I mean, a clarification will follow.

Mdm Speaker: Is it pertinent to any specific clarification you are seeking?

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Yes, of course.

Mdm Speaker: If it is a very long one —

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: It would not be long.

Mdm Speaker: Just a pertinent one.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: All right. On 5 October 1990, then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that what essentially was happening was that the Government was creating a mixed Senate: six appointed Senators forming the Council, and one elected Senator that would be the Elected President. And he said this about the elected Upper House: "In essence, there is no difference between our proposal and the suggestion that there should be an Upper House to supervise or comment on Bills debated in this House. We think this scheme is more workable because when you have a Senate, and let us assume it is an elected Senate, firstly, you have the problem of finding a sufficient number of people to stand for elections to the Senate. We need about 20 to 30 people to make it effective. Secondly, how do we ensure that people who are elected into the Senate have the qualities that we are looking for? There is no control." He said this.

So, the Minister seems to be genuinely shocked by our proposal and says that it is ridiculously and fundamentally flawed. But how does this square with then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh's view that a CPA plus the Elected President, forming a team, comprises the Senate?

Mr K Shanmugam: Do not just look at the Hansard. You can also look at the previous White Papers and they tell you and show you that the Government considered the question of a Senate, an Upper House, very carefully. Having considered it, they dismissed it. But the Government's approach to a Senate was very different from the approach that you are proposing, which, fundamentally, is unworkable. And I have explained various reasons why your proposal is fundamentally unworkable, and my shock and astonishment arise from the nature of the proposal as fleshed out yesterday, clarification after clarification.

The Government has explained that an elected Upper House is inherently unworkable and has explained it many times why. So, look at then-Deputy Prime Minister's statements in context. He pointed out that in the end, we settled on one person to be elected and explained —

Mdm Speaker: Can the Member please address that? Switch off whatever it is.

Mr K Shanmugam: — and explained why. Then, we also have the CPA. And there is a good reason why they are not elected. But he likened the process, that it will give you an effect like an Upper House but without the attendant difficulties and inherent problems. And if you want to know what the inherent problems are, go read the White Paper.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the hon Minister for Law for his comments. I have four points of clarification.

Firstly, yesterday, the Minister for Law said to me, "What would you do if there were too few people, if less than eight wanted to run for the Senate?" So, the Minister for Law seemed concerned that there would not be enough people who want to come forward. May I please finish —

Mr K Shanmugam: Is this a clarification on what I just said or is it a clarification on what I said yesterday?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, you have to keep your clarification to what the Minister just said this afternoon.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes. My point is actually what seems to be a contradiction between what the Minister said yesterday and what he just said. Can I proceed with that, Madam?

Mdm Speaker: Yes.

Mr Leon Perera: Yesterday, the Minister said that there might be too few people to run for the Senate. But, today, the Minister says that our criteria ‒ which is that we refer to the directive track ‒ are too elitist. So, which one is it? Are you saying that because we have eight Senators, there would not be enough people to run, or are you saying that our criteria are too limiting and actually there are many, many people who would want to run and we are limiting it too much? Which one is it? There is a contradiction there.

The second point is: the Minister talked about the Senate proposal possibly creating gridlock. This is extraordinary. The Government has proposed an unelected CPA with Byzantine provisions for staggered two-year terms and this CPA can block a President if the President wants to veto a decision of Parliament, and that does not create the risk of gridlock? But our proposal creates a gridlock? How is that? It is extraordinary.

The third point is the politicisation ‒ how would we avoid the Senate being politicised. And that has been bandied about a great deal. A great deal. I would like to ask the Minister for Law that same risk of politicisation is what the Elected Presidency is now vulnerable to; how do you manage that? No one from the other side of the House has given a definitive and convincing answer to this point. You run the risk of politicising the Elected Presidency, you want to change the conversation block and bridge, do not talk about this. Focus on the technical details in the hopes of focusing public attention on that. Well, there is a problem here, there is a problem there. What about the fundamental system design? The Constitutional Commission pointed that out. You risk politicising the Elected Presidency. You do not want to talk about that, so you said, "Oh, but with a Senate, you risk politicising that." How do you address that? No one has conclusively addressed that.

And my last clarification point is, would the Minister for Law explain why he presumably is opposed to this proposal going to a referendum. I raised this question before, and I would like to ask it again. We have proposed a system design solution of a Senate, and going to a referendum would allow us time in the run-up to that referendum for that proposal to be debated, discussed with experts, with lay persons, and then the public could decide. Rather than we decide in this House, the public can actually decide on something so important.

Mr K Shanmugam: If I may deal with the last point first. I did not talk about a referendum. I do not think it arises from what I said, and I think Mr Perera got more than what he wanted yesterday from Dr Puthucheary on the question of a referendum. I do not think he wants similar treatment this afternoon.

As regards to politicisation, I am not sure that the Member has understood what we have said. We understand and accept that there is a risk. The Prime Minister talked about it. Others have talked about it. There is a risk. We have always acknowledged the risk. We do not run away from the problem. But when you balance out, ultimately, the requirement for a custodian to safeguard the Reserves from dishonest people who will want to raid the Reserves, it is a bigger risk. You need to deal with that bigger risk. And until and unless someone can suggest a better system, our assessment is that this is a risk worth taking. And as our experience shows, if you elect good people, good Presidents, the risk is well manageable. The alternative that is being suggested is a complete disaster. You are so embarrassed by it, you do not even want to answer questions on it now.

As regards to the CPA and gridlock, I am able to deal with it. The Member has gotten it wrong, but Deputy Prime Minister Teo will respond. I did not touch on the CPA.

As regards to your criteria and my suggestion or supposed contradiction in saying there might be too few people or too many people, and at the same time suggesting that this is too elitist, I think the Member could not have misunderstood what I said. The problem is not with what we are saying, the problem is with what the Member is saying.

In your position paper, you say, on the election of one elected President, that it is super elitist and it is such a narrow criterion and so on. But then you turned around and you said, you want 16 people with the same qualifications to run for the Senate, of whom eight will be elected. So, I am pointing out that one of your objections to this whole Elected Presidency is that it is super elitist. But then that major objection is made eight times worse because you want the same people to run for your Senate. So, how does your proposal deal with the objection? That was the point I was making. I think it was a simple point, and you could not have misunderstood.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his elaborate reply to my earlier clarification. But I would like to ask the question again because the Minister has not given me the answer yes or no.

Mdm Speaker: Just put the question, Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I just want to know does the Minister agree that the Constitutional Commission is taking a more prudent approach in dealing with the inherent tension by asking to do away with the Elected Presidency. I just want to have a simple answer, "yes" or "no".

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Faisal Manap, one does not have to characterise the Constitutional Commission's proposals. What I will say is that the Constitutional Commission gave many important recommendations which were directly relevant to the questions that were asked. In addition, it added an observation for the Government to consider if it wished and if it wanted to accept. That is what the Commission said, and I think we will keep to the Commission's words.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, does the Minister not agree that the presidential candidate needs to be a unifier of the country's people, the symbol of unity for the country? However, the Senate is different. The Senate has a specific custodial function. That is the main contradiction between the two ideas that we have here. So, can the Minister comment on this? Does the Senate need to be a unifier of the country?

Mr K Shanmugam: Mdm Speaker, I have dealt with this several times. I do not think I need to repeat myself.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.15 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I rise to express my support for the proposed changes outlined in the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo had given detailed speeches which outlined the importance of these amendments. This is in contrast to the WP's suggestion to set up a Senate and have a referendum. Could this suggestion and essential issue not be put forth earlier so that it can be discussed, because this issue is important to the people and not something trivial?

This is especially so with regard to the in-depth and minor details relating to the appointment of Senators, which is quite important, particularly in addressing multiracialism when these Senators are appointed.

The Government's continuous efforts to create an inclusive community for all races in Singapore are highly commended. Our society is a cultural melting pot that has embraced racial harmony for decades. It is convenient to get complacent and believe that we need not work as hard as before to maintain the status quo.

I appreciate the spirit behind this Constitutional (Amendment) Bill. It is a testament to how much the Government values inclusivity and racial diversity as principles that have to be upheld.

Having spoken to a number of residents and grassroots volunteers, I do not doubt that they welcome the spirit behind this Bill. Some have also said they are glad to note that the Prime Minister has said that he is not being pressured by any group to make the changes but had done it for the long-term benefits to our multiracial society.

I have two main points to make. Firstly, strengthening our Reserves' defence, that is, the President should always be chosen based on meritocracy; and there should be flexibility in choosing the goalkeeper and enhancing the defensive line. Secondly, grooming minority candidates and a call to action. Allow me to elaborate now.

I believe that it is crucial that a President should be chosen on his or her own merits. It is vital not to allow racial issues to cloud our judgement. It is imperative that candidates who meet the race requirement must also meet all the other requirements. There must be no compromises or any give and take on this matter.

Singaporeans must be assured that, ultimately, we are getting the best candidate to represent the nation, regardless of race. This policy has served our country well and we should stick to it. After all, the office holder is no longer just a ceremonial leader.

The candidate is supposed to be the Head of State. He/she is a symbol of respectability, integrity and the face and voice of all Singaporeans. But as we are aware, on top of the ceremonial role, the President is given the two custodial responsibilities over Past Reserves and over key appointments to protect the integrity of the Public Service.

Hence, the person who assumes office through an election has to be someone with sound business exposure and a deep understanding of economic issues. The President, as an institution, will play an important role to ensure that the government of the day displays wisdom when it comes to spending the Reserves.

There has been feedback from the public about how the bar or threshold has been set too high for candidates, that a person's firm must have a minimum of $500 million in shareholders' equity, which means that only the most senior executives of large, complex companies are eligible, further reducing the available pool of talent.

But it is important that the apparent misunderstanding here has to be cleared up. As mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Teo yesterday, this $500 million criterion is not an exclusion criterion and one does not need to be the most senior executive in a large company.

Therefore, even a chief financial officer could qualify as a candidate, for instance, as he/she would understand numbers, good governance and what it takes to safeguard national Reserves.

It is important that we clarify all these qualifying criteria to avoid any unintentional exclusion of suitable talent.

Under this track, a candidate will qualify if he satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he has held an office of a comparable nature to those held under the automatic track that has given him the necessary experience and ability for the office of the President.

Another point I want to add is: what if a candidate from a big corporation is elected as President but, after a period of time, if a malfeasance is uncovered which happened during his watch as the chairman or whatever position he held in the corporation, would there be a process where the Elected President can be removed?

We have seen how misdeeds are sometimes uncovered years after a person has left an organisation or company, or perhaps due to a whistleblower in that organisation.

I support the changes made to the Bill whereby the President should be obliged to consult the Council before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on Singapore's Reserves and all matters regarding key public appointments. I also support the changes to augment the Council with two additional members, one appointed by the President and the other by the Prime Minister.

The Council currently comprises six members with two members appointed by the President and two by the Prime Minister, one member on the advice of Chief Justice and one member on the advice of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

If I can use a soccer analogy, with these changes, we will have a talented goalkeeper able to handle the changes in the game and the skills of the opposing team's forwards, but now this will also be rebalanced by having two additional defenders.

This will be akin to having a set of players who are not only skilful in ball handling but also strong team players. Each one understands their role well, each one can read a game well, be fully alert to what is going in front of the goalmouth and anticipate what is going to happen. Only one goalkeeper, not eight or nine goalkeepers.

With clockwork precision, they can coordinate their moves to get into positions at the right time and place with one common objective, namely, to thwart the opposing team's forwards from getting near the penalty area, let alone attempting to score a goal. What this means is that our Reserves will be guarded and key public appointments will be done smoothly.

My second point is that I support the changes to the Bill to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency via a hiatus-triggered safeguard mechanism without undermining meritocracy.

I am sure that Singaporeans or the Malay/Muslim community have a pool of good candidates. I am also confident that this pool will become bigger in the future since many Malays are doing well academically, received Government scholarships and are currently enjoying success in many fields.

However, one of my concerns is that there may not be sufficient minority candidates when needed. I see it as a call to action and, maybe, Singaporeans and the Malay/Muslim community have to take action to further enhance the talent pool or capability of future minority candidates and encourage them to step forward.

We already have a good process in place to identify and nurture people for high office in the Government. Over time, these changes to the Bill could be seen as a call to action within Singapore and within the ethnic communities to provide and groom talents or individuals from the minority races to gain relevant experience from their careers and when they are in influential positions within the corporate world, whether in the private or non-private sectors.

This should ensure that over the years, we build up a wide talent pool of people from various minorities that are adequate and who have also reaped the required experiences to meet the future prerequisites of a multiracial elected Presidency.

With this in mind, I hope that companies and organisations can work harder hand in hand, to be more inclusive and ensure more comprehensive representation on their management boards and in leadership positions.

This is also beneficial to employees within the company who are of a minority group, as there would be someone who is more sensitive to their needs who could take better care of their welfare in the company. Key Government-linked companies (GLCs) and the Civil Service are already taking the lead to some extent, and it is hoped that the private sector will emulate this.

Similar to the Elected Presidency, any individual must meet the requirements of the job and there must be some effort to ensure we have individuals from the minority groups but would still be in line with the principles of meritocracy and multi-culturalism.

Singapore has built up a good Reserve, and so there is a need for an institution outside of Parliament to check on the spending of Reserves and restrain spending where necessary.

The EP is not alone in the decision-making process. He has the CPA, who are people eminently qualified to guide him in making his decisions. All said, it is pertinent for the public to note that the EP's role is not to provide checks and balances on anything and everything, just as how candidates in the previous elections have misled voters into believing so.

Do not let the election of an EP to be an excuse in a GE for voters to elect any party and their candidates to Parliament. These are separate bodies, each with its own responsibilities.

I wish to conclude that within today's social environment, issues of race and religion are gaining more prominence. When insensitively managed, they can lead to distrust and division among the people.

When the differences are too vast and destructive, social unrest, which may lead to civil war, happens. In the United States, racial tensions between the police and the public are being reported more frequently than before and, in many cases, they have led to deaths of innocent policemen and civilians. It is the same too in Europe. The hype created by the mainstream media and social media only serves to reinforce and magnify the misgivings among ethnic communities. In parts of Europe and the United States, innocent Muslims are targeted for attacks and discrimination due to lack of empathy and stereotyping. Social division is one of the main culprits that lead to alienation.

Consequently, acts of violence and terrorism stem from perpetrators who seek to gain acceptance from a malicious group that takes advantage of the discontent of these people.

Riots, violent crimes, mass exodus of refugees and many other significant social issues are often a result of conflicts among different ethnic groups. While these may seem unimaginable in peaceful, harmonious Singapore, we cannot guarantee that it would not lead to an earthquake when the fissures start to surface.

It is hoped that these latest changes can step up the efforts to create a society in which all Singaporeans know that they will not be marginalised or shut out, that they truly have a place to call Singapore their home and their own country.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

2.29 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Thank you, Madam, for letting me share my views on the topic. Madam, the WP had yesterday sprung an idea of a two-House or bicameral system on us. They have suggested the formation of an eight-member Senate. It has left me asking who are the eight members and who are to be elected? What is the shortlisting process that is going to take place? What is the racial combination and what are the qualification and eligibility criteria? Until today, I am not clear about this. It remains nebulous and, certainly, the details are not finalised.

Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim says it is really no change from the existing CPA. But Member Daniel Goh stated in his Facebook post and also later commented on "Mothership" that two Houses will be too complicated and wants to keep it simple. He feels that two Houses would be better suited for larger countries, those with federal systems, such as the United States and also Australia, or those democracies that are exiting from autocracy, for example, the United Kingdom (UK), where the powerful lords need to be appeased.

He feels that there will be more politicking and a higher chance for gridlock. Well, if he has changed his world view, it certainly has not gotten across to me.

Member Mr Low Thia Khiang also says that it is just a preliminary proposal with no details. It leaves me wondering who is going to tidy it up, clean it up, and do what they have to do. Well, let us ask them: is it right, is it fair to call for a national referendum like this?

I am concerned, Madam, with no concrete details, a lack of time for assimilation, understanding, research, and weighted consideration, it might end up worse than Brexit.

Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim stated, and I quote: "The appointed Presidency will elevate the office". I would ask the Member to review this because with the four Elected Presidents we have had the last few decades, they actually exemplify way above this. In fact, with the Elected Presidency platform, I feel that the office is elevated to its highest level, making its value even much higher. Eligible candidates are putting themselves up for scrutiny and testing by having Singaporeans vote for them.

Member Mr Low also said, and I quote: "People are feeling uneasy about this change." Well, that is not the feeling that I have gotten from the ground. Through dialogues, focus group discussions and interactions with the community, including the minority community, they are appreciative if such a weighted consideration is being given to this. They are given a voice and really, they have come up with some very good suggestions, I have to say. In Malay, Madam.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal Manap spoke about the "community's suspicion". To me, there will always be a small group who does not agree. But if we are really sincere and believe that what we do is for Singapore's benefit, we must implement it and do it as best as we can.

At the moment, I am also unclear whether Mr Faisal Manap is agreeable to the reserved election that was allocated for the Malay minority community next year.

(In English): Ms Sylvia Lim also said, and I quote: "This Bill is like a nightmare coming back to haunt us." Well, I say a nightmare can be recurrent if certain issues are still on our minds. As we have heard, the Elected Presidency scheme is evolving and being refined further. Changes are coming. That is why it is still on our minds until we consolidate this Bill and certainly our stand.

Madam, I will focus on the multiracial representation of the Elected Presidency. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a nation with a plural society that is unique. The way we manage national issues is also unique.

The proposal for an Elected Presidency has given us a platform to reflect about our journey together as a society and as a Malay/Muslim community.

The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore has become more progressive, attained many achievements and succeeded in various fields in a meritocratic country. Our meritocratic system has given opportunities for all races.

Optimally, minorities should be elected in an open election. This can become a reality because Singapore, over the years, has introduced racial integration policies in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and our schools. Now, these policies have become part of our lives and no longer seem strange or conspicuous. In fact, we do not feel any unease towards such policies.

Singapore's GRC system also has some criteria for minorities. But there is a huge difference between what will become a reality and what may become a reality. Therefore, do we want to fight over an issue that will have an impact on Singapore's shared future?

Singapore's minorities, including the Malay/Muslims, are grateful for the review regarding the election of a President from a minority group. This is an issue close to our hearts and is also a sensitive and difficult one. But it is our principle to consult and discuss openly about such issues in Singapore, especially since our community has become more mature.

It is true that for 46 years, Singapore has not had a Malay President since Encik Yusof Ishak. So, we should be heartened that this was considered, especially with the announcement that next year's election will be reserved for Malays. The Government shows concern for the feelings of our minorities. This is crucial in a plural society. If previously we were able to have a President from every race on a rotational basis, with this new system, this cannot be guaranteed any longer.

Let us explore the issues of the Elected Presidency scheme closely.

Firstly, with this Elected Presidency, all races can contest. This is fair and meritocratic.

Secondly, in the Elected Presidency, there are stringent criteria to ensure the eligibility of all candidates. Yes, all candidates. This is also fair. This has been scrutinised and there are candidates among our Malays who can fulfil these criteria.

Thirdly, the recommended period of five terms is a very long time, that is, about 25 years. And if there are no Presidents from the minority groups within these 25 years, only then will this new proposal take effect. This is also fair, in my view, but let us pause and reflect on the other issues.

Do the people still vote along racial lines? Is there a difference in the mindset of the Pioneer Generation and those who are older, compared to the younger generation? Being "race blind" requires a high level of maturity, progressiveness and a deep understanding of race relations in Singapore, which are quite sensitive.

Does having reserved elections for minorities make the issue of race more conspicuous? These are the issues where we must consider and think about its explanations.

In the Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) survey in 2016, Singaporeans are found to be comfortable interacting and living together with the other communities and other races. But when the time comes to vote, they are more inclined to elect a President and Prime Minister from their own race. The same results were also seen in this survey three years ago, that is, in 2013. Hence, we can see that this view has not shifted significantly even though three years have passed. Due to that, without any guarantee that we can become "race blind" or "colour blind", this new proposal is important and has been presented.

What about the issue of tokenism that was highlighted by certain sectors? This issue must be managed with a good and well-crafted clarification. The younger generation in Singapore are used to values like meritocracy and fairness. Surely, they want the President to be elected fairly and impartially, from their point of view. This issue should not just be understood by the Malay/Muslim community but, in fact, all Singaporeans, in general, must also understand it correctly. This is to prevent any suspicion from emerging in the interaction between the different races.

Will the proposed method question the capability of minorities? This is surely a sensitive issue.

My view is that minorities should not feel unimportant or insignificant when, in fact, we have received good benefits in terms of the economy and our shared identity.

Minorities should also be able to give and take, so that our majority community will be comfortable living together with them each day in Singapore. Essentially, if the Presidential candidate carries out these responsibilities fairly and is a person of high calibre and is able to fulfil the same criteria as the other candidates, the issue of tokenism should not surface at all.

Another issue, Madam, is with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that Singapore signed in 2015 and will ratify in 2017, whereby this matter was also highlighted. We must understand the meaning and the real issue behind the words, "political rights of all races".

If you study this closely, it does not contradict and, in fact, provides opportunities for minorities. This scheme does not prevent anyone, including minorities, from taking part. In fact, it invites minorities to come forward.

The proposal that was made by this committee promotes, looks after, gives consideration to and does not belittle our minorities. It does not contradict at all with our values of multiracialism and multiculturalism in Singapore.

Today's global situation, Madam, should make all of us think about how the state of racial harmony, which we have cultivated all this while, can easily unravel. Global trends have churned up race-based politics that exploit populist and unhealthy sentiments seen in many countries.

Therefore, I urge everyone to take the time to understand and study carefully the background to this scheme. It is a difficult issue but it is important for our shared future in Singapore.

In contemplating about this Bill, I also thought that female Presidential candidates can be categorised under their own race. So, if we see this from a wider perspective, this proposal is also related to qualified women from all races in Singapore.

This is important. If we look at, for instance, the United States (US) – a First World and progressive nation – 240 years have passed but they have never had a female President until the present time, whereby Hillary Clinton is a candidate.

Before I end my speech, I have a query that I hope can be clarified. In mixed marriages, which are more common nowadays, the children born from this union will grow up and may one day become our Presidential candidate. How will we categorise them? Under which race? Because they may be placed under the "double-barrelled race" category.

What if both their parents are new immigrants who have become new citizens? What will be stated as their category of race? This is something for us and the next generation of leaders to think about and consider.

Moving forward, our minorities should look at this issue seriously in order to groom suitable candidates who have these characteristics, that is, being respected, loved, qualified and capable.

The President is a symbol of our nation, Madam. Make the right choice. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

2.43 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Firstly, I would like to speak on the aspect of the Bill which addresses the issue of representation of minorities.

As a Eurasian myself, I am proud to be part of a unique group of our community which is incredibly diverse and rich in our cultural heritage. We are literally living and breathing DNA fusions. Although we are routinely categorised as "Others", I have never felt excluded nor discriminated against.

Hence, initially, I did not think it was necessary to set aside an election for members of a racial group from which there has not been a President for five terms. After all, the racial group of a qualified candidate should be irrelevant in our meritocratic and race-blind society. However, the reality is that we are not quite a race-blind society, as the CNA-IPS survey had found. A significant proportion of Singaporeans would still prefer a President to be of their own race.

However, I am heartened to note that despite this, most Singaporeans will accept a Prime Minister or President of another race. The survey found that those who are younger and more highly educated are more accepting of leaders of different races. This, indeed, bodes well for our future.

This Bill highlights the reality of the racial issues our society faces. It is important to acknowledge the need to be more inclusive of our minorities and ensure that they feel that they are also an integral part of our community.

We have not had a Malay President or even a Malay candidate since the Elected Presidency commenced in 1991. Our only Malay President, the late Mr Yusof Ishak, was appointed after our Independence. I am, therefore, very happy to note that our next Elected President will be from the Malay community.

The importance of symbolism that any qualified citizen, regardless of race, language or religion, can be Singapore's Head of State is worth upholding.

As the criteria for qualified candidates for the elected President are so stringent, we can be assured that meritocracy will not be undermined. By placing the onus on members of our minority groups to step forward and stand for election, we are encouraging them to take a more proactive role in our Elected Presidency. An Elected President, compared to an appointed one, has a stronger mandate to represent his people. Each of us has a responsibility to be representatives for our racial groups and our nation.

I would like to suggest that going forward, we consider a separate fourth racial category for Eurasians, for the purpose of the Elected Presidency. I am not making this suggestion in response to the divisive anonymous article posted on the States Times Review website, which made false allegations pertaining to the election chances of Eurasians compared to Indians. Rather, I strongly believe that we Eurasians, being culturally distinct as Asians, with European ancestry and heritage, have a unique perspective to contribute to the office of the Elected Presidency. Our fusion backgrounds influence our attitudes, mindsets and interactions with our community. As the embodiment of East-West unions, we are also living testimonies of interracial, cultural and religious harmony and unity. By bringing something different to the table, we can help enrich the office of the Elected Presidency. Hence, I hope it would be ideal to ensure reserved elections for a Eurasian Elected President.

Secondly, in a similar vein, may I suggest that amendments be made to ensure that the composition of the CPA includes at least a member of each major racial group and at least one woman. The CPA plays a critical role in advising the Elected President on financial Reserves and key appointments. Members of different racial groups and women will offer a diversity of perspectives, which will enrich and inform the discussions of the Advisers and the President. Today, we have the breadth and depth of talent in each of our racial groups and among our women to support this criterion. I hope my suggestion will push the search to unearth and persuade qualified Singaporeans to accept the appointments to the CPA.

Lastly, we must be mindful that some Singaporeans would not be able to differentiate much between an election for the President and the GE, despite the public education efforts to highlight the different responsibilities of the President and elected Members of Parliament (MPs).

The Commission has made its recommendations on campaign methods and how to prevent misinformation, such as setting out-of-bound markers during rallies. I support the government's decision to take more time to study the recommendations carefully before instituting new measures. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Masagos Zulkifli.

2.49 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Singapore today is a country with a rich diversity that we value, respect and celebrate. We see this in our surroundings, where we can find a mosque within the vicinity of a Chinese home or a church close to Muslim homes. It is even more amazing to a visitor to find a mosque beside a temple. We see this as our children go to school in traditional costumes to celebrate Racial Harmony Day and learn about the virtues of strength in diversity. We feel this inclusiveness when we get invited to open houses during Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Hari Raya or even to weddings of friends of different races.

Indeed, we are becoming more socially diverse. The proportion of inter-ethnic marriages has almost doubled from a decade ago. Last year, 21.5% of marriages were inter-ethnic marriages. We have new citizens and immigrants setting up home in Singapore, enriching our diversity.

We have benefited from the peace and prosperity from our racial and religious harmony and made our diversity work for us. Our interpretation of multi-racialism, has thus far, forged strong bonds among Singaporeans, and also engendered trust between the people and the Government. Indeed, it is only with this peace and this trust between the people and the Government that we can have an open discussion on amending the Constitution on the Elected Presidency.

There are three major pillars upon which we have built our multiracial and multi-religious social compact and earned us our peace and harmony. These pillars need to be continually tended to, strengthened or even modified while keeping an eye on achieving the objectives of a workable and peaceful multiracial and multi-religious society.

The first of these three pillars is our policies around building an inclusive society which is both multiracial and multi-religious. Our policies have long been the cornerstones to preserve this sense of inclusiveness of all races, in order to build a sense of equity within the community and political system.

Policies that have steered us towards this sense of inclusiveness are reflected over the years.

In 1965, when we became an independent nation, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew made a promise to Singaporeans to build a multiracial nation. He said, and I quote, "We are going to be a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set an example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture, religion."

To assuage the minorities, particularly the Malays who became a minority overnight, this commitment towards the inclusion of all Singaporeans has been worded in our Constitution under Article 152(1). It states that, "It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore", with special recognition for the position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.

In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established to examine all legislation to ensure that they are not disadvantageous to any racial or religious community as compared to other such communities.

Since 1988, our society's multiracialism has been safeguarded in our Parliamentary system through the GRC system, where at least one of the MPs must belong to one of the minority racial communities.

The Ethnic Integration Policy, which was introduced in March 1989, aims to ensure a balanced racial mix in every neighbourhood and block which approximates the general population. This has promoted racial integration and harmony in HDB estates. It is how many of us grew up smelling and learning to love one another's cooking, going to school together, visiting one another's homes during festivals and familiarising ourselves with the significant occasions at the void deck, be it weddings, birthday celebrations, even funerals – allowing each to celebrate or grieve.

Therefore, the amendment to the Elected Presidency is, to me, a continuation of the policy enhancement that we need from time to time to preserve this need to build an inclusive multiracial society.

Who we elect as President must be representative of who we are and what we stand for as Singaporeans. With the Elected Presidency, the principle of meritocracy applies – we must elect the best person for the job.

However, our value system is not singularly about meritocracy; in as much as competence is key, it is also a matter of principle, that our elected president is a person of integrity. These two principles, meritocracy and integrity, translate to competence and honesty, both necessary elements to the character of the Elected President, for the custodial role.

However, the Elected President also plays a symbolic role as the Head of State representing the multiracial society of Singapore and, at the same time, he or she must be able to connect with all Singaporeans. Ideally, since the Elected Presidency was first enacted in 1990, an Elected President of each ethnic group would have been represented and elected, but unfortunately this has not been the case.

Everyone has quoted the CNA-IPS survey on race relations, which was published recently in August 2016. The survey notes that while the majority of respondents of all races would accept someone from a minority race as President, given a choice, most would prefer someone of the same race as them to become the nation's Prime Minister or President. I do not believe that this is from a sense of deep prejudice or bigotry than a sense of comfort and convenience to choose someone similar to yourself.

This is apparent when, based on the same findings, 59% of Chinese would still say yes to a Malay President, while 75% of Malays would still say "yes" to an Indian President. In an ideal scenario, people will vote independent of racial lines, but the fact is that racial preference is primordial and a natural inclination. It exists today everywhere, it exists in Singapore, and it exists also in the US where ethnic-based campaign counts much in their elections. Therefore, in Singapore, too, if left unchecked, the current rules will more probably than not, elect a President of the majority race for a long time to come.

Indeed, just because we have learnt to live with our differences and can cherish them, does not mean the differences do not matter or the differences have disappeared.

So, I am glad that one of the proposed changes that will be introduced to the Elected Presidency is to have a reserved Presidential Election for a racial group. This will assuage the minorities, particularly. I have heard support from my community for this in the town hall dialogues I conducted. Actually, every time Presidential candidates are announced in every election in the past, I would be accosted by my community with remarks of disappointment because a Malay candidate is not contesting. Of course, it goes away months later, but it never fails to crop up again and again when a Presidential Election arrives again.

Now, these grouses seem a minor matter. Just a small unhappiness. It goes away. The Prime Minister cited last week's massive demonstration in Jakarta, which ended in violence. It was triggered by off-hand comments as part of a contest for high political office. What was allegedly said in that comment had religious connotations and was perceived as an insult to believers. One sentence, just one sentence was enough to enrage many people. Political actors allegedly took advantage of the situation to fuel sentiments further.

Seemingly small things can and do snowball, too, especially when they cut into primordial instincts about race and religion over time. That is why, it is good that we address this seemingly small issue on ethnic representation of the Elected President – because it is a matter touching on race or religion – before it accumulates over time and snowballs with other issues into an avalanche.

The right policies on their own, though, will not guarantee racial and religious harmony – it is no silver bullet. Clearly, however, the wrong policies will destroy this harmony. One policy of the Sri Lankan government in 1944 making Sinhalese the sole official language, excluded Tamil-speaking minorities from the civil service and limited entry into universities.

Other policies came in succession and continued marginalising Tamil-speaking minorities. The burning down of the Jaffna Library in 1981 was probably the ultimate trigger of 26 years of "bombs, bullets, carnage and suffering" from the civil war.

Mdm Speaker, while we have come a long way from the tumultuous times when there was strife between communities, we cannot take for granted the peaceful co-existence that we have today. Even as the Government moves to assuage the care and concern it has for minority communities by introducing new laws or modifying them, both the minorities and the dominant community have crucial roles to play to forge the trust and harmony that the Government seeks to build through an inclusive society.

Inclusivity is a two-way street. Inclusivity would not be successful had the minorities not been responsive. Minorities had participated actively in and continuously built our common spaces; even as minorities, we seek to preserve our identity and culture. Sometimes, integration involves everyone making sacrifices of what is important because it mattered to others. This proactive effort at integration by the minorities makes a crucial second pillar for our harmony.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The harmonious multiracial and multi-religious life that we enjoy and experience together all this while was built on three main pillars.

The first pillar is the good policies of the Government, which has all along continually ensured that all citizens and all races feel a sense of togetherness and inclusiveness, in order to create and cultivate a sense of equality in society and its political system. This includes:

(a) On the day of Singapore's Independence, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged to build a multiracial nation based on equality. This commitment is further strengthened in our country's Constitution in Article 152(1), which states the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the minorities in Singapore.

(b) In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established.

(c) The GRC scheme was created in 1988 so that there will be a minority candidate in the slate of election candidates in order to avoid race-based politics.

(d) A year later, the Ethnic Integration Policy was established to ensure that there is a racial balance among the residents in each public housing estate.

The amendment to the Constitution to ensure that a candidate from each race can become an Elected President is another adjustment that was made this time round to change a situation that has not been conducive for someone from the minority group to become President. This has been well-received by the Malays, who also want a candidate from our community – someone who is qualified, capable and trustworthy. I welcome it, too.

Nonetheless, no matter how much the Government shows concern and takes care of the minority communities' welfare, both parties – be it the minorities or the dominant group – play an important role to cultivate and strengthen trust and foster mutual respect towards each other so that we can continue to enjoy this harmony.

At the same time, we should also agree that the integration process is essential for harmony. I am pleased that, as a minority, the Malay/Muslim community has always done its best to integrate with society in general in Singapore. Without depending on any welfare system, they have been able to enjoy modern life with other citizens based on meritocracy, while at the same time, still managing to preserve their identity as Malay/Muslims. This is the second pillar of our harmony.

In any process of integration, minorities will always want to see and sense the sincerity of the majority or dominant group in the effort to create an inclusive society; and this is no different in Singapore. It is the genuine acceptance of minorities that will create a sense of togetherness. This will form the third pillar of racial harmony in our country and I will elaborate further in English.

(In English): In many countries, where there is a dominant majority and significant minorities, we see a whole spectrum of how multiracialism is lived. This ranges from the negative, such as with oppression and rejection, to simply ignoring them to let them live any way they want; to the positive, integrating and embracing them as full-fledged members of the community. There are also societies that force minorities into assimilation. We are our own working model of a multiracial society and the most important part of which is to instil the sense of belonging of our minorities.

The sense of belonging of our minorities is crucial in ensuring that Singapore remains resilient against any force that threatens to tear our society apart. As minorities adjust to integrate, they continuously sense whether the majority is embracing the "inclusive society".

It is no different for Singapore. The warm embrace of the majority and, consequently, a sense of belonging by the minorities, makes the final third foundation for our multi-racial society to live in harmony. On the contrary, in countries which instead play up racial and religious differences by the dominant community, we see unhappiness within the minority community festering and, in certain cases, exploited.

Everyone here would be familiar with the Iraq conflict and the pronouncement of territories of the Islamic Caliphate by ISIS. But what is more interesting is that individuals from minority groups from countries so far away have also joined this war. The Soufan Group estimates 27,000 foreign fighters at the end of 2015. Why that many? I heard former US Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jane Lute, said, "They came from everywhere because they belonged to nowhere". There is at least a battalion of Uighur and Chechen fighters within ISIS. BBC reported, "It's the general colonial attitude of the Han Chinese officials to Uighurs that generate huge resentment."

In the end, there were violent clashes between the Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese in Xinjiang, China, such as that in 2014 as a result of the radicalisation of the Uighurs. In Chechnya, what started out as a nationalist uprising in Russia's north Caucasus region in the 1990s was met by a brutal clampdown which, in turn, spawned a violent Islamist movement. Chechnyan and Uighur militants spilled their fight into Syria hoping they can feel they belong and can call it home.

Thus, today, we see that the rejection or sense of rejection of a minority group in the community, or the use of force to make them conform to the majority, has not only caused a loss in the sense of belonging but often resulted in dire consequences, with some of the oppressed turning towards violence and terrorism.

Even Singapore is not immune to the growing threat of terrorism. The Government has arrested a dozen Singaporeans, most of whom were self-radicalised. Several intended to go to the Middle East to join ISIS, and a few were planning to mount attacks in Singapore.

The threat is real, and our best measure in tackling terrorism is to strengthen the sense of belonging of the minorities and, in today's context, of the Muslims and Malays in Singapore. We need this sense of belonging and an inclusive society to be pervasive even while the Muslim communities fortify their strength within to repel this threat. It is this sense of belonging that motivates Muslim leaders in Singapore to stand ready to come forward to defuse conflicts, and not exploit them nor goad the community to extremism or terrorism. In no small measure, too, it is this sense of belonging that the community has responded to reject extremism and terrorism.

Mdm Speaker, I am grateful that we in Singapore, continue to tend to our racial harmony with great care and concern. The amendment of the Constitution to ensure all ethnic groups a chance at becoming an Elected President will be remembered as a prudent foresight of the Government and a great generosity of the majority. In the passing of this amendment, I see a continued effort at acknowledging the aspirations, quiet aspirations, of my community and all the minorities, and thus, see a commitment to our multiracial and multi-religious compact. My community and I appreciate this.

At the end of the day, racial inclusiveness and harmony is up to us – you and me. Our diversity will only become our strength, if we consciously ensure that the generosity to be inclusive are ingrained into the fabric of our society. It has to be embodied in our thoughts and actions. This responsibility cannot rest on the Government alone, nor can it be just a top-down approach.

Everyone needs to play a part in this to integrate, to embrace, to understand and adapt. This sense of inclusiveness in Singapore is unique, and we need to continue working hard to preserve this.

Yesterday, the Americans voted. I do not know what the outcome is yet. But I saw an article in The New York Times by Imbolo Mbue, who is the author of the novel "Behold the Dreamers". She migrated from Cameroon and became an US citizen years ago. And she wrote, "I've seen the best of America during my time here. When I was considering dropping out of graduate school because of financial constraints, an American professor helped me get a scholarship so I could complete my master's degree. Twice, I had an American co-worker give me hand-me-downs because I couldn't afford to buy clothes. An American employer once said to me, at a time when I was questioning who I was, 'You are a breath of fresh air'. Being black, female and an immigrant – and for a good portion of my life here, low-income, too – I've weathered my share of prejudice. But the empathy Americans have shown me far outweighs the unkindness. That is why on Election Day, I'll be voting for empathy."

Yesterday, too, I felt a poignant moment when the Prime Minister said, "As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay Elected President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak." And the Prime Minister finished with, "I look forward to this." There was spontaneous applause from my colleagues – Chinese and minorities alike. I felt generosity. I felt empathy. That is why, for this amendment Bill, I, too, am voting for empathy. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.12 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, the office of the President is a highly significant one in our country. It has undergone significant changes. The proposals made under this Bill continue to keep it relevant, influential and important.

I would like to raise a few questions and comments as we further the debate.

Firstly, we are proposing that the President should now consult the CPA on all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. I appreciate that we are proposing more safeguards, which is important, and this really is a safeguard on top of a safeguard for all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. It will be very safe, and I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has clarified the importance of this. But I am still concerned that this may dilute the significance and power of the President.

Secondly, as Singaporeans, we value meritocracy and we certainly want the best man or woman on the job. Enhancing the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates is thus in line with this principle. It is sensible and no one should dispute its importance.

Based on the proposed amendments and the Prime Minister's earlier announcement, Madam, I would like to ask how many Malay Singaporeans would be eligible to run for President. Do we have a rough estimate based on the amended eligibility criteria?

Thirdly, how about the representation of women? This is equally important, given how we have not had a single woman President. This is an area we can do better in, as even in the current Cabinet, there is only one woman full Minister. As such, I believe that while we look at the race, at our Presidential candidates, we should also look at gender and I hope that future reviews will include this. In fact, I hope we will have a woman candidate in the upcoming Presidential Election, making such a future review redundant.

Lastly, like meritocracy, multiracialism is a cherished value in our country. The representation of the different communities through this amendment is a right step in that direction. Having reserved elections allows us to do this, though it may appear to be affirmative action or betray a belief that minority candidates are not capable of being elected on their own merits or that our electorate still largely votes along racial lines. The fact that Mr Murali Pillai won a resounding victory in the recent Bukit Batok by-election perhaps serves as a useful test case, which shows that race may not be such an important factor.

While a reserved election can expediently solve this problem, it is worth asking why we have not had an eligible Malay or Eurasian candidate thus far, to better understand the issue. There is certainly much more we can do as a Government to improve the representation of various races in politics, their socioeconomic conditions and their leadership positions of different private and public sectors. We can do more by heading more upstream and tackle remnants of discrimination that still exists in our society.

Many of us have talked about the IPS survey and I will quote some findings as well. The recent survey indicates that 45% of respondents have heard racist comments in their workplace; 27% think it is okay not to hire someone because of his or her race; and only 35% and 41% of Chinese Singaporeans said they would accept a Malay or Indian Singaporean respectively to manage their businesses.

Madam, let me end by saying I am thankful that the Deputy Prime Minister spent 90 minutes explaining all the details in this Bill comprehensively.

Contrary to the earlier comments by Mr Low, I do believe that details are important. We cannot debate, decide or delay a decision if no details or incomplete details are provided. I am sure if incomplete details were provided in this Bill, Opposition Members will say the same things I am saying now. I am certain that we all welcome alternative ideas, but I am also certain we should particularly welcome alternative ideas that have been thoroughly thought through and where complete details are provided.

After all, as in the quote by John Wooden, "It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen". Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

3.16 pm

Mr Leon Perera: Mdm Speaker, yesterday saw a robust debate on the Government's Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the WP's proposal for an elected Senate. But what we saw from the PAP was a point-scoring exercise, focusing on technical aspects of our proposal, as well as casting misleading aspersions like, this will lead to a politicised Senate, rather than addressing the fundamental system design issue that this proposal raises.

I would like to return to those fundamentals of what we ought to be debating. Fundamentally, the Government has not made its case on this Bill – a politicised election for President undermining the President's unifying role. That is the crux of the issue. And no, it is not something we should simply accept because it has been there for 25 years.

And what is the case for giving the unelected CPA so much power, as my colleagues have argued extensively? This creates a President who is supposed to be a checker, who is prone to be check-mated by an unelected Council with both parties interacting in a black box. Arguing that the President need only to persuade four members of the CPA to support him is neither here nor there. Why should he or she have to?

It seems that the PAP is afraid that it is more likely that their preferred candidate would lose in the Presidential Elections, rather than their preferred candidates in the GEs. And so, the Elected President now needs to be further checked by an unelected body. If in the future, the CPA does not return the kinds of decisions that the PAP likes, will you introduce a fourth body to check the CPA?

Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy GE.

I voted in the 1992 and 2011 Presidential Elections. There was a palpable sense that many Singaporeans wanted to elect a non-establishment candidate to provide an alternative voice and to balance a one-party dominant system. That explains why the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow obtained 41.3% of the vote – the national vote, mind you – although he was relatively unknown and hardly campaigned at all. What is the PAP's strategy for managing this politicisation of the Presidency? So far, no one has explained it.

Is there anything wrong with a Presidential Election that is tinged with partisanship? Yes. The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission, recognised this. They had the courage to do so and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected. And I quote from their report, "The President would retain his symbolic and ceremonial role of the Head of State as it had been at independence and hold an appointed office. Parliament would abide by the convention by rotating the office among the different ethnic groups."

Madam, they are right. Yet, the Government has rejected the Menon Commission's advice on this hugely important issue, which is the nub of this debate.

It wants to retain Presidential Elections, but introduce changed eligibility and racial criteria. Why? Because we are told we had no Malay President for a long time, which is true. Because we are told we need to clarify the powers of the CPA. Because we are told we need to update the eligibility criteria to make them less lax because times have changed. Many of these concerns seem to stem from the experience of the last Presidential Elections in 2011.

But here is the thing: why did the Government not moot these changes soon after that 2011 Presidential Election, if that is the case? Why was this not part of the National Conversation in 2012? Why did the Government not talk about these planned changes in GE2015? Why introduce these changes now, without a referendum?

Singaporeans cannot be said to have consented to these changes at the last GE because they did not know about them. The idea of a referendum is the elephant in the room and, whenever it is raised, so far, the best response I have heard is: "Well, a referendum should be reserved for something that is a really big issue, a really big deal." To me, this is a really big deal.

Madam, this is gravely troubling. What aspect of our Constitution will the Government, with its supermajority in this House, choose to amend without a referendum right after GE2020? The one-person, one-vote system itself?

The Government has pointed out that we have not had a Malay President since 1970s, and we agree this is a concern. So, here is my question: why did the Government not urge a Malay candidate to run for one of the Presidential Elections between 1992 and now, as my colleague Mr Faisal Manap has argued yesterday?

The PAP has controlled all of the levers of political power since 1992. What was the PAP doing all this time on this issue? Under the WP's proposal for an appointed President, we would have had a Malay President a long time before now. In fact, we would have had multiracial Presidents in succession as we did in the past. No need to reserve elections.

Madam, on reserved elections, it opens up a Pandora's box of racialised, divisive politics, and where will it end? The Prime Minister is also a hugely symbolic office, possibly even more so than the Presidency as far as many Singaporeans are concerned because the Prime Minister is featured in the media on practically a daily basis, unlike the President. Should we reserve the office of the Prime Minister for some races?

Rather than focusing on the ethnicity of the President, I suspect many ethnic minority Singaporeans would rather that the Government address concerns like the possible existence of labour market discrimination facing some members of these communities – a matter that has yet to be definitively studied, quantified and debated, but was recently discussed in this House. Or helping minority Singaporeans who struggle to sell their flats due to HDB's ethnic quotas.

Madam, reserved elections risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may entrench the notion that Singaporean minorities need mandates to be elected because they are unelectable. A new generation of Singaporeans may grow up internalising this view. Is this what we want for Singapore? Does this help in the forging of genuine multiracialism?

I hope that no one inside or outside this Chamber twists the Workers' Party position as meaning that we oppose a Malay President. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for updating the paid-up capital requirements, this Bill replaces a $100 million threshold for automatic inclusion with a $500 million one. There is a deliberative track, yes, but the bar for automatic inclusion is now raised. What is the basis for this? Why $500 million, and not $400 million or $600 million? Did the PAP designers of this system have in mind limiting automatic eligibility to some arbitrarily defined number of candidates because the pool cannot be too big? By the way, this is one of those technical details that I think some Members have referred to.

The Government has said that the number of eligible candidates would not decrease versus the number in 1992. This is a misleading statement to make. The number of eligible candidates has decreased from the number in 2016. Why can the pool not be too big? To exclude some individuals?

Taken all together, Mdm Speaker, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government is making these changes to prevent an alternative, non-establishment sanctioned candidate from becoming the next President of Singapore.

Madam, there is a better solution to protecting the Reserves and the Public Service. We have proposed an elected Senate which would have the clout to stand up to the Executive and say no when necessary. The PAP seems determined to oppose this proposal for the sake of opposing, trying and probing to find any detail to attack with: there would not be enough candidates; too many candidates; too elitist.

But let us think, the Menon Commission suggested, and I quote, "the unbundling of the President's custodial role and its devolution to a specialist body". Our proposal for a Senate builds on their suggestion but extends it in the following ways.

Why not let the public be the judge of this Council's wisdom by electing them? Why does it need to be unelected? Let them form a Senate. Let the public see them exercise their collective wisdom by deliberating publicly. Where matters are sensitive for certain Reserves matters, for example, let them discuss in camera.

Let these wise men and women have the staffing and resources to really form an independent fact-based opinion about whether any executive request for Reserves drawdown really makes sense for the economy and for the country.

Let the Senate engage public finance consultants and economists where necessary. Or let them engage non-partisan full-time staff like other legislatures have, who do not report to either party, like the Congressional Budget Office in the US or the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, to provide independent research to inform these Reserves drawdown decisions independently from the civil servants who report to the Executive.

The President and the CPA do not currently have these resources. All the current President and, as far as I can see, the future President, have to go on, it would seem, are his regular lunch meetings with the Prime Minister.

Most importantly, let this Senate, under the Official Secrets Act, have access to the data they need to do their job – the kind of data that the late President Ong Teng Cheong requested.

Rules of non-partisanship would apply to Senatorial elections as per current Presidential Elections. But can we guarantee not the slightest taint of partisanship will creep into Senatorial elections? And much has been made of this by Members on the other side of the House.

No. We cannot guarantee this, but the PAP cannot guarantee that the same will not happen for Presidential Elections, as the Presidential Elections in 2011 showed, even by the admission of many leading figures in the PAP. What our system would deliver is a President seen to be above partisanship, and that is important for Singapore. That is important for Singapore. Madam, please allow me to speak briefly in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government has said that Singapore has not had a Malay President since 1970. Why did the Government not urge Malay candidates to contest in the Presidential Elections between 1992 until now?

I suspect that the minority races in Singapore are more concerned with everyday issues, for instance, the possibility of facing discrimination at work or difficulties that may be encountered when selling their flats due to the ethnic quota imposed by HDB, rather than the debate on the race of the Singapore President.

The WP's suggestion to revert to the system of an Appointed President is a valid suggestion, because through this system of an Appointed President, Parliament can ensure that every race is given a chance to be appointed as President, as we have done before. Parliament can also ensure that the Appointed President is someone who has integrity and is respected by all Singaporeans. There is no need for us to elect a President through an election that is reserved only for candidates from a certain race.

I hope that the WP's views will not be twisted by anyone, and portrayed to mean that the WP's will not support a Malay President. We will not accept such an allegation because anyone who makes such an allegation would be using the issue of race for political ends.

The fact is, we felt that a Malay who has integrity and is respected should have been appointed as President before this.

(In English): Let me now say a few words about the NCMP scheme. The hon Member, Mr Cedric Foo, told me after my maiden speech in this Chamber that my presence here as an NCMP was effectively a gift from the PAP, that it proved the PAP's commitment to political diversity. If indeed it is a gift, it is a Trojan horse. Every NCMP in history, other than Ms Sylvia Lim, my party Chairman, has gone on to lose the next GE they contested. The PAP knows this.

NCMPs cannot use public facilities or draw on the People's Association's (PA) lavish resources to fund grassroots activities in the wards they contested, as my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, observed.

The NCMP scheme allows the PAP to ask voters to vote out all Opposition from elected Parliamentary seats and leave only NCMPs. The likely effect of this is to cap Opposition presence in this Chamber at 12, but more importantly, much more importantly, if this scheme is fully exploited by the Ruling Party and fully embraced by voters in the way that the PAP hopes, it would be 12 unelectable Opposition MPs, and that is a crucial difference.

Such NCMPs would not play the balancing role that a healthy democracy needs. If the Opposition is no more than token, unelectable NCMPs, the ruling party need never fear losing in any elected seat. It can then do what it likes, never mind what the people think. It can steamroll alternative voices, it can amend the Constitution willy-nilly, it can force Singapore into a never-ending dependence on only one party for generations to come, like a computer with no back-up. This is good for the PAP. But is this good for Singapore?

I am sure some hon Members of this House will say later that if the NCMP scheme is so bad, why did you accept the NCMP position? Because this is not a choice between rejecting an NCMP seat and accepting it with gratitude and praise to the Ruling Party, as the PAP would have us believe. Because I decided, rightly or wrongly, that being in Parliament and arguing for what I believe is right, outweighed the risk of damage to our politics from accepting this NCMP position. Whether that was the right call to make, whether I am indeed contributing positively by being here, is best left to others to judge.

The PAP will say that the WP would not have accepted NCMP seats unless it benefited the WP. By the same token, we should conclude that the PAP would not have offered NCMP seats unless it benefited the PAP.

What if the Ruling Party fails in the future? This is not an academic question. This is not a trivial question. This is not an unimportant question. This is a crucial question. What if we wind up with an erratic Prime Minister of the PAP one day in the future and there is no credible, rational and electable Opposition ready to provide an alternative government or even an effective check? Some countries are in this position today.

What if we get another mismatch between population and infrastructure, such as what happened during the decade of the 2000s, when our trains, hospitals and housing stock were severely stressed and Singaporeans suffered, necessitating policy reversals after the GE of 2011 to repair the damage? Would those policy corrections have happened if the Ruling Party faced no risk of losing even a single seat in a GE? I do not think so.

Is this the legacy we want to leave for Singapore? A politically imbalanced one party-dominant system that buys international respectability with a token, unelectable Opposition of only NCMPs?

Rather than focus on the NCMP scheme as the solution to Singaporeans' desire for alternative voices, we should enhance our existing Parliamentary democracy to make it truly contestable. Delink the PA from the Ruling Party. Reform the regulation of the media to allow for regulated but free competition in broadsheet newspapers, television and radio. Set electoral boundaries transparently and consultatively. Educate every voter aggressively from the classroom onwards that their votes are, in fact, secret. Many voters still do not believe this.

Madam, I would like to conclude with a single, very simple question to the Government. With this amendment to the NCMP scheme, is it your goal that your party wins 100% of elected seats in Parliament? This is not a question about whether the people will ultimately determine the outcome of elections, and not the Government and not the PAP. I know they will and I do not need to be told that. It is a question about your goal as a Ruling Party for the next GE. And it is a "yes" or "no" question.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

3.36 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, a Bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution does not happen very often. And as expected, we have had many issues here being debated in the House over the past few days.

This has brought up some intriguing debates. We have heard debates involving references to shoes and when shoes should be changed, when shoes should be used. We have had certain Members talked about Senate and Senators, which, in my opinion, has raised a lot more questions than the solutions that it proposes to solve, and it also had the "R" word, "referendum", being bandied about in a far too casual and cavalier manner, in my opinion. No doubt, this has led to some strident and vigorous debate in this Chamber.

But I would like now to shift the focus a little bit back to, not so much what has been debated in this Chamber, but also what has been debated and discussed outside the Chamber – in the streets, among the people – based on my interaction with my residents and also with my constituents and some feedback that I have got from the ground with regard to the issues raised in this Bill.

And that is the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for the Presidential candidates and also the proposed changes that ensure all ethnic groups have the opportunity to be elected President from time to time. I think that most of us will agree that if the elected President has custodial powers, as meant to be the second key to our country's Reserves, then we need to ensure that whoever is elected to the Office has the right combination of the appropriate skillsets, experience and gravitas to take on the mantle of that role.

There will never be a list of specific eligibility criteria that everyone will agree on. However, I believe that the overall recommendation to change the eligibility criteria for candidates from the private sector is timely and appropriate, especially when we consider how the economic and business environment has changed in the last two decades.

I have also noted the Government's point that these changes are by no means permanent and will be reviewed from time to time.

As such, I am supportive of the proposed changes to the criteria and would thus like to spend a little more time discussing the issue of ensuring representation across the different ethnic groups.

Since Encik Yusof Ishak became our first President more than 50 years ago, the President's Office has been occupied and represented by distinguished individuals from different ethnic groups. In that regard, the notion of having presidents from different ethnic groups in Singapore's context is not new.

What is new, however, is that this Bill, for the first time, will enshrine in our Constitution that Singapore is guaranteed to have an Elected President from a particular ethnic group from time to time. This will be done via a proposed "closed-election" system reserved for that particular ethnic group, should there be no president from that group after a certain period.

Madam, multiracialism has always been one of the core pillars of Singapore since we achieved our Independence. Yet, while the various races have the freedom to celebrate their religion and culture, the Government has always been mindful of the need to maintain racial harmony, and rightfully so.

Many of our policies today are deliberately designed to prevent the formation of racial enclaves and to create common social spaces and a common community experience so that the different races can understand one another better.

The closure of ethnic-based schools and the introduction of a common curriculum allow primary school children to mix freely and to be comfortable with members of a different race. The ethnic-based public housing quota ensures that the resident composition of each block of flats within each housing estate is an approximate representation of ethnic composition based on the national average. The formation of the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC) further reinforces the importance of us standing united as one country regardless of race and religion.

These policies have worked well for us over the years. If I may reference Minister Masagos, the statistics that were published by SingStats indicate that the number of interracial marriages is on the rise, from approximately 7.6% of all total marriages in 1990, to about 21.5% of all marriages in 2015. That is one in every five marriages.

However, while these are positive signs and we continue to make progress, we also have to acknowledge that race and ethnicity are still deep and visceral concepts, and they not only shape our own identities, but also how we feel towards others.

In a series of landmark studies on implicit bias, Harvard social psychologist Mahzarin Banaji and her colleagues found that people are influenced by their implicit biases towards races. These biases exist at the subconscious level, often affecting our decisions and interactions with others without us being consciously aware of their existence.

The much-quoted CNA-IPS survey of Singaporeans conducted earlier this year supports this. More than 85% of respondents indicated a preference for national leaders from their own ethnic group. This indicates that the issue of race and ethnic identity is deeply ascribed, and many people still feel a strong sense of affinity to their own ethnic group.

Also, each respective ethnic group surveyed had different preferences and attitudes with regard to national leaders of different ethnicities, depending on which ethnic group that leader would hypothetically come from.

Many of the other Members of this House have made reference in their speeches to other data and surveys that indicate that racial bias does exist in Singapore. Indeed, my own experience with residents on the ground in the heartlands has also led me to believe that this is so.

But based on this, I feel that while Singaporeans might be accepting of other ethnic groups in terms of their cultures and traditions and that we all live in peace and harmony, this harmony and tolerance might not translate to truly "race-blind" political elections. This is a sobering reality that we have to face and acknowledge that race continues to be a significant factor in our sociopolitical sphere. So, while we have our ideals, we also have to live in reality.

Mdm Speaker, I feel that while meritocracy is a cornerstone of our society, the other "M" – multiracialism – is also a key foundational pillar of our social fabric. While I believe in equality of all races and equal opportunity for all, I also believe that certain measures must be in place to ensure that our multiracialism is not compromised.

The President is a symbol of our society, and he or she should epitomise the values and philosophy of Singapore. Going for many years without an Elected President from a particular ethnic group is certainly not desirable and does not reflect the multiracial and multicultural spirit of our country.

A circuit breaker "closed-election" that ensures that an eligible and qualified president from a particular ethnic group is elected from time to time is not merely tokenism or "affirmative action"; neither is it a compromise on the values of equality and meritocracy.

Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the core Singaporean values of multiracialism and meritocracy can and should coexist with each other. The sociopolitical challenges that Singapore faces are unique, and that is why we need to create a unique political system that suits our needs.

Madam, I mentioned Encik Yusof Ishak earlier in my speech and since Encik Yusof passed on in 1970, we have not had a Malay President, in 46 years. In the course of my lifetime, and many of my generation, and the generation that has come after me, we have never known a Malay President.

I am heartened, however, that should this Bill get passed, and should an eligible candidate step forward that next year, this will change and I can then put my hand on heart and say that I am proud to have known a Malay Singaporean as my Elected President in my lifetime and it is something that not just me, or my generation but all Singaporeans should be proud of come 2017. And with that Madam, I end my speech in support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

3.45 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I will speak in English, followed by Mandarin and English, so that we have time to change.

This Bill is one of great importance to our nation, not only because of the powers vested in the Presidency, but also because it involves the process of selection and the system's inherent justice.

Allow me to begin with a personal anecdote from my childhood. The year was 1971 and I was five years old. I vaguely remember that time the President had just passed away and there were programmes on our black-and-white television about him and his work because I was young and really did not know what a President really means. But what struck my impressionable mind was how he must have been an important person, so much so that his passing had a huge impact on everyone around me and, of course, that moment, there was no regular TV for a young boy like me.

But this has informed my impression of the Office of the President to this day. While the President does not mete out policies nor is he supposed to have political affiliations, he or she does more than a ceremonial role. As noted by the Prime Minister and also in the White Paper, I quote: "Very importantly, the President is also a symbol of the unity of the country." In essence, the President serves to unite and bring people together. What does unity mean? How is unity achieved?

Let me refer to our National pledge here, "…In order to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, We must be united as one people, 'regardless of race, language or religion'", three aspects of which the late Mr S Rajaratnam has identified as possible divisive factors to our national fabric. And how do we achieve this? We do this through a system that is "based on justice and equality".

This brings me to the Bill's amendment of reserving the Elected Presidency for a racial group if it is not represented for five terms. Naturally, we would want to see different races being successful across all strata of society. I would personally be most proud to have a President, or a Prime Minister for that matter, who is of a different race as myself.

It would send a signal to both Singaporeans and the world that our society has a system that embraces individuals, regardless of race, language or religion; that we are proud to have them as our leaders and role models to uphold our values and Constitution.

Yet, while racial representation is valued, how we achieve it is equally important. So, my question is: does the proposed mechanism in the amendment Bill honour the vision of justice and equality that we aspire towards?

There has been cynicism, criticism that such a provision is indicative of tokenism. Would these sentiments put doubt and even undermine the role of the President as a unifying symbol? Is the rationale behind this provision because we feel that Singaporeans will vote strictly according to racial lines? If so, then having this provision may not eradicate the problem but, in fact, indicates that there is a lot of work to be done to achieve our vision.

I have spoken to a number of young Malay Singaporeans and, while most agreed that they would welcome and be proud to have a Malay President, they questioned the process of the selection. Is it possible, in a democracy, to pre-select the race of the President before any campaign or contestation has even begun? Do we, in trying to be inclusive, come across as quite exclusive and, sometimes, maybe even a bit discriminatory?

I do not know if I can adequately speak about the minority races' aspirations or apprehensions on this issue. But as a member of the Chinese majority, I feel that I can speak about my concerns instead.

Our current population is predominantly Chinese and, therefore, how Chinese Singaporeans vote will have an undeniable influence on the final results. So, can we Chinese Singaporeans look beyond race to make an informed choice for our votes? Do we know enough about what happens in communities other than our own? Do we interact enough with other races meaningfully? Or do we keep to our own, assuming that our well-being implies the well-being of others who are not like us?

Are we aware that our majority status inherently creates an imbalance that privileges us where resources and opportunities are concerned? Or do we imagine that since our society is a meritocratic one, then all, regardless of race, will enjoy the same starting point in life?

Does our language-based media expose us to news about other communities? I read the Chinese newspapers and I can say that little is written about other communities. I watch our local Chinese television and you would think, given what is on screen, that Singapore is made up largely of Chinese people, with minority races making silent cameo appearances on television series.

Is this a problem? Our Chinese majority has yet to raise this issue with a concerted voice. Maybe, most think that it is not of concern. But I believe otherwise. The fact that we need to amend the Elected Presidency Bill to ensure minority representation says a lot about how far the majority is from real engagement with minority races. And by real engagement, I am not talking about superficial exchanges, such as eating thosai or mee rebus, or wearing other races' traditional outfits on Racial Harmony Day.

In fact, such a provision may exacerbate the issue, in that it provides a convenient argument for the majority to say this special provision already allows for a Malay, Indian or Eurasian President, negating the need to really reach out, understand, appreciate and support the best candidate, regardless of race, language or religion. In some ways, this provision may placate the minorities, only to reassure the majority and, above all, may even sometimes feel patronising.

In layman's terms, what we are possibly saying to the minority races is this: we have made provisions for you. So, let us move on and allow some of these people, and maybe even allow some of these people to say, "do not complain and do not be so ungrateful." For the longest time, we, as a society, have not addressed this issue adequately, deeply, honestly and meaningfully. We are able to do so because, in Singapore, there is hardly any hate crime or physical attacks because of race.

However, other forms of racism can still rear their ugly heads. Comments such as Little India being dark because there are too many Indians there and racial discrimination in the rental and job markets, where the phrase "Mandarin speakers only" seems to be code for "non-Chinese need not apply". Such actions reveal the cracks existent in our social fabric. It is worse when those who voice their discontentment regarding such actions are said to be "too sensitive" or "overreacting" by members of the majority race.

According to a survey on race relations commissioned by CNA-IPS, nearly two in three Singaporeans surveyed have heard racist comments being made, and about half the time, it was by workplace colleagues and friends. Faced with such comments, 65% of respondents said they ignored the person's comments. This is in spite of the fact that 84% said they would get upset if they heard racist comments about any race; 62% said it was never acceptable to make jokes about another race in the company of friends; and 67% said it was never acceptable to call a racial group terms like dirty, lazy or money-minded.

I will now proceed in Mandarin. It is sort of related to what I said just now.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This debate on the Elected Presidency has caused me much confusion. Again, this time, we are focusing on the minorities.

Frankly speaking, as a member of the majority community, I feel some anxiety mixed with a bit of shame. I will be proud that we can elect a respectable minority candidate. It demonstrates the success of our multiracialism and our meritocracy system. However, it also satisfies our sense of ego. Look, what a fair society Singapore is, and how progressive we are!

I know that the minorities have reacted differently to this proposal. I have discussed with some minority people and the response I get is that, should a minority candidate become the President, the community would be very proud.

But how do we achieve this outcome? As proposed by this amendment Bill, when a member from any racial group has not occupied the President's office after five continuous terms, the next Presidential election will be reserved for a candidate from that racial group. This arrangement is rather controversial.

By proposing this amendment, the Government is reminding us that many people vote along racial lines. If that is the case, we must then ask ourselves, how far are we from our vision of seeking a common ground among differences?

We clearly know that under the "one man, one vote" system, if we vote along the racial lines, then the majority community can easily decide the outcome of the election. That is to say that the majority, which is the Chinese community that I belong to, is key to this debate.

This brings me to my point of feeling a sense of shame. This is my personal reflection mostly. As a member of the majority race, do I have a deep understanding of the minorities? Is my interaction with the minorities deep enough, both economically and culturally? Is eating mee rebus in the morning and thosai in the afternoon enough? Is showing off a few Malay words, such as "terima kasih", enough?

As the majority, do we realise that, compared to the minorities, our starting point is different? Because we are the majority, we are privileged in terms of resources and opportunities. So, as a member of the majority, do we join in when we hear people of our own community making fun of the minorities? Or do we stand up when we see minorities being treated unfairly at the workplace? Do we realise that it is putting up fences when we see phrases like, "can speak Mandarin" in employment or rental advertisements?

Hence, it is not the minorities who should feel uneasy about this proposal. The proposal reminds us to ponder what we have contributed to our multiracial society as the majority. Is it enough just to settle problems in our own community?

You can see this mindset from our Chinese media. The Chinese newspapers seldom report news about the minorities. If we look at our television dramas, you may think that people living in Singapore are all Chinese. Occasionally, you will see minorities in shows but they only serve as a decoration. Should we not feel ashamed of this bias? Perhaps we should reflect more on our mindset as the majority, instead of focusing on the plight of the minorities.

We know that our hearts are biased. To have the same heart is not easy. We need tolerance. We must be accommodating and broad-minded. Our mind should not be filled with anxiety, misunderstanding and ignorance.

(In English): My intention, Mdm Speaker, is not to sway this debate into a discussion on racial politics. However, race is very much at the core of the issue here with regard to the Elected Presidency Bill. It is not a special provision. Ultimately, it is not a special provision for a minority President or Prime Minister that we need. What we need is better, inclusive and genuine engagement across racial and ethnic lines. To me, "regardless of race, language and religion" means that, in a society, we need to consider and care for people of other races and religious beliefs, people who speak a different language from us, perhaps more so than our own race, language and beliefs.

I would also like to speak about another important criteria of the Elected President, that is, he or she should be someone whom we believe has his or her heart in the right place, someone who will act for the good of the nation, for the people.

So, while we argue that the President needs to have strong financial knowledge and advice to decide when to employ our Reserves in difficult times, he or she will also need the moral courage and integrity to make sometimes difficult important decisions. These same qualities will inform the President's decision to support or veto the appointment of key officeholders. It is, therefore, the President's value system that is critical here.

In view of this, I would, therefore, like to remind the House of this: yes, it may be important for the Presidential nominee to have qualifications, such as having being a chief executive officer (CEO) of a company of more than S$500 million of shareholders' equity or having been in senior positions in the Public Service. But, ultimately, it is the nominee's value system and moral strength that will guide him or her to make responsible, independent decisions for the nation.

And this leads me to another suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider. As articulated very fluently by my fellow Nominated Parliamentarian Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, we are faced with a complex world rife with standoffs and contestations among people, the government, interest groups and so on.

There were indications in the 2011 Presidential Election that Singaporeans yearn for alternative possibilities to deal with such difficult situations. Some had hoped that the Elected President could provide such an alternative institution for arbitration or maybe for mediation, something akin to what Prof Tommy Koh and President Tony Tan have suggested: an ombudsman. Could this ombudsman, a role of mediation and negotiation, and one built on trust, reside in the Office of the President, given that it possesses a unifying symbol for the nation?

And lastly, as I heard my fellow Parliamentarian, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who had proposed that maybe we should now debate and revisit the role of the Nominated MPs (NMPs) and see how they can help in being a good check and balance instrument in our Parliamentary and legislative process.

The Elected President is a symbol of unity, not just in good and peaceful times, but also in difficult ones. It is in crises that the true mantle of the President is tested, where his or her moral integrity and independence is counted upon to make necessary decisions. We must, therefore, ensure that the President is elected based on a fair system, one that embraces the values of equality and justice that we seek to uphold, regardless of race, language or religion; regardless or class, gender or sexual orientation.

Let me end by reading a monologue in a radio play, "A Malayan Language", written in 1957 by the late Mr S Rajaratnam.

"What does it matter that we are Malays, Chinese, Indians or Eurasians – or Eskimo or Patagonians? What matter if our skins are this or that shade? Remember that beneath the skin we are brothers. We are fellow Malayans. That is why I am here before you, to preach to you the gospel of brotherhood. That is why my party has fought bitterly against those who preach communalism, against those vile men whose insane ambitions has led them to exploit fears and hatreds."

With that, I thank you. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

4.02 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, allow me to begin in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When our Prime Minister Lee spoke about the review of the Elected Presidency, I voiced my concern about the proposal to have a process to ensure that there is representation from the minority groups.

In my maiden Parliamentary speech, I said that although we want to see representation from our Malay community, we would like our Malay representative to be selected because he or she is the best person, and not just because he or she is a Malay. We do not want the selection to be merely a symbolic one.

During the discussions at various dialogue sessions on the changes to the Elected Presidency, I was able to see a variety of views from the community regarding this matter. I also heard some concerns from our Malay/Muslim community. Some said that they were worried about being given special treatment in this matter which is not in line with our system of meritocracy. Some said that many Malays may not qualify and may not fulfil the established criteria. Some said that we should see Malays in various careers and fields, and not just for the office of the President.

I think that these discussions have definitely created awareness about important issues related to our lives within a plural society. We have not yet reached the ideal state where everything is perfect. Nonetheless, we must not lose hope. We must continue to make the effort and have constructive discussions so that we can continue to improve this situation.

Yesterday, when the Prime Minister announced that the upcoming Presidential Elections will be reserved for Malays, there was a feeling of joy in our community. This shows that the community welcomes this change.

For me, this is just a step towards the effort to emphasise the importance of our identity as a multiracial society. The Malay community is part of our plural society. Having an Elected President who is Malay is an important signal to the country and to the whole world.

We should not just stop here. Certainly, we have to think about the positive steps that can be taken to improve our community's quality of life and strengthen interracial relations. The Malay/Muslim community should continue to work hard so that we can produce future generations that are of a high calibre and are able to compete. We have already seen progress year after year. I am confident that if we strengthen our resolve and efforts, we will continue to see more of our Malays becoming leaders in various fields and who will play a leading role in this country.

(In English): When the matter of the review of the Elected Presidency was first raised by the Prime Minister earlier this year, I was apprehensive. In particular, I had concerns with the issue of ensuring minority representation in the office of the Elected President. I was concerned about the sentiments towards the minorities if we took what is perceived as "affirmative action". I was worried about the impact on the Malay community especially. In his speech, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim explained the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community. I can relate to this and it truly reflects the sentiments on the ground.

I had expressed in my maiden speech in Parliament that the Malay community would not want a Malay to be President just because of his or her race. The Elected President should be there because he or she is the best for the job.

Following the Prime Minister's announcement, an independent Constitutional Commission conducted a thorough review which culminated in a 153-page report, excluding the annexes. This report not only gave me an insight to the diversity of views on the matter, but also a better understanding of the role of the Elected President in Singapore.

In the wake of the Government's White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission report, I engaged in numerous discussions with many Singaporeans on the issue; in my personal capacity and as a Member of Parliament. I would like to share and reflect on my observations at these discussions, more specifically, on the sentiments regarding race representation in the Elected President system. I made three main observations.

Firstly, there are clearly many different views on the matter. But I saw a common thread in these different views – everyone agrees that it is important to preserve multiracialism in Singapore. Secondly, the desire for a representative from one's community to sit in the highest office of the land is real. It may be unspoken at times, but it is real. Thirdly, the discussion on this aspect of the Elected Presidency has awakened an awareness about the actual state of affairs in Singapore. We are not race-blind yet.

With regard to my first point, in the discussions, some felt that the proposal to ensure a reserved election for a certain race ran against the grain of our Singaporean values. It appears to contradict our commitment to meritocracy and is seen to be a regressive step in building a multiracial, race-blind nation. People can decide regardless of race or religion, they say. Some felt that such a step would be counter-productive for the minorities as their capabilities would be called into question and this would be unhealthy for the country as a whole. I would add that those who held these views included members from the minority communities.

On the other hand, others felt that this is a pragmatic step forward. We could see from examples around the world that managing racial differences is not an easy matter with no easy solution. In Singapore, too, there were challenging times but over the years, there has been much peace and understanding among the different racial groups. So, many lauded the deliberate efforts the Government had taken over time to manage racial differences and encourage racial integration in Singapore. Many understood the need to take certain steps to maintain our multiracial identity. The step to ensure racial representation in the office of the Elected President is one such deliberate effort.

What is heartening for me is that at the core of these arguments, is a great desire to see Singapore embrace its multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious identity. There was a firm acknowledgment of our commitment to make Singapore a place for all races. I think this is worth reflecting on and would be a galvanising force to rally people to decide on what is best for Singapore.

So, what is the best for Singapore? We could choose to let nature take its course and let the various communities in Singapore evolve. Or we could be proactive to address the elephant in the room. Is there an issue, one may ask? I believe there is.

As I mentioned, my second observation is that there is a keen desire to see a representative from one's community to become President. It is symbolic but very important. Sure, not everyone in the community feels this way. However, I believe many Malays do. At every single dialogue session I have had with members from the Malay community, participants would express their desire to see a Malay President in office. When the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next Presidential Election would be reserved for the Malay community, there was a buzz of excitement among many in the community.

At this juncture, I note that in the debate in this House so far, there appears to be a general agreement in this House regarding the importance of the symbolic role of the President. There also appears to be an acceptance that it is important for someone or some entity to play a custodial role to safeguard our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. There is also a general agreement that there needs to be a direct mandate from the people, via an election to perform this custodial role. So, the issue is: how do we do it? And again, the key question is: what is best for Singapore?

I started out by saying I was apprehensive when announcements about the review of the Elected President system was made. Despite my earlier reservations, I am fully supportive of this Bill. I set out my reasons.

I have come to appreciate that there is a need to make changes to the current Elected President system. In particular, I believe there is an important need to address the issue of minority representation in the office of the President. I believe that the changes put forth address these needs and promote multiracialism by introducing a concept of racial representation in the Elected President's office. I would, therefore, like to ask the Opposition whether they would actually support a reserved election for Malay candidates when it is put forth in the next Election.

The proposed Bill reflects minimum intervention and does no more than necessary to achieve the aim of ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency. The hiatus-triggered mechanism allows for a natural sunset which means that it would recede in significance over time and, hopefully, one day, ceases to be necessary. In addition, all candidates are required to satisfy the same eligibility criteria and this ensures that our commitment to meritocracy is not compromised.

I note the importance of the custodial role of the Elected President. The position of the Elected President in Singapore is, indeed, unique. This role has served Singapore well in shaping the politics in this nation. Other models, in particular, the proposal for a senate brings with it other complications, including potential for a gridlock down the road as well as further politicisation with an increased number of people who are, effectively, as what Dr Janil Puthucheary called "custodial presidents". The proposal put forth must be one wherein the implications have been fully thought through. I am not certain that the senate is a healthy introduction to the Singapore political system, especially when the mechanics and the impact of the same are not completely clear.

Lastly, I believe that the tension between the symbolic role and the custodial role of the Elected President can be addressed, especially if the candidate is clear about his duties and role. The candidates must demonstrate to the electorate his or her ability to balance these roles. And our past Elected Presidents have demonstrated that the balance is possible. Further, any concerns of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with through honing the rules governing election campaigns.

I would like to end off with a reflection on my third observation – the awareness that we are not there yet; we are not race-blind. I heard Mr Kok Heng Leun's passionate speech and I really feel him. Now that we know that we are not race-blind, what do we do about it? I feel that this discussion on minority representation for the Elected Presidency system has created an openness to talk about what used to be perceived as a sensitive topic like race. It made us a bit uncomfortable to think about the current state of affairs but it has pushed us to think about issues a little bit more.

As Mr Murali had mentioned in his speech, there is much to be discussed about our religious practices, our common spaces. We should ride this wave and be open to engage in these discussions. And as Dr Tan Wu Meng had also said, we must be willing to take positive steps in our daily lives to connect with people from different races and religions. We should reflect on how we interact with our neighbours and friends who are different from us. How can we improve the existing interactions? How can we be more inclusive and be good examples to our children and grandchildren? We should continue to take positive steps to work towards our vision of being race-blind. I believe that with the continued effort, we can and will make Singapore a place where the people remain united regardless of race or religion. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

4.14 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, as stated by my fellow MPs of WP, we agree with the Constitutional Commission and the Government that this Parliament should be the centre of power in our democracy.

The Constitutional Commission observed that in the two-key mechanism, Singapore can ill afford an impasse on matters touching on the use of national Reserves or where appointment to key Public Service positions are concerned. The Commission concluded that it is critical that the Government retains the ability to function effectively in this area. We also agree that the Reserves need to be safeguarded and the body safeguarding the use of the Reserves has to be given a mandate by the people to say no to the Government.

The office of the Elected Presidency, instituted in1991, as described by the Law Minister in 2011, sounds imprisoned by the Cabinet. The Minister said in his speech in 2011, "that the President must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties, and he cannot act or speak publicly on issues of the day except as advised by the Cabinet".

In other words, the Elected President cannot play Jailhouse Rock when the Government prefers Beethoven. And to remind the President that he does not have absolute veto powers, the Government established an appointed body, the CPA, to check on him. So, why is this Government telling the people they need to elect a President in order to give him specific powers to say no to the Government when he can never act alone in exercising his veto powers? The Presidential veto does not carry any weight without the support of the CPA.

With the passing of this amendment Bill, the Elected President will have to share power with an enlarged CPA in the discharge of his custodial and key appointment roles. The CPA, although only an appointed body, is bestowed with considerable powers to challenge and delay the decision of the President.

This Bill also imposes a general duty on the President to consult the CPA before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on the Reserves and all matters relating to key Public Service appointments. Without the support of the CPA, the President can hardly veto anything. The CPA, with its expanded role and size, now functions like an Upper House to ensure the President does not act contrary to the will of the Cabinet, since the President has limited say in the composition of the Council. The introduction of staggered term appointments by dividing the members of CPA into three divisions has little to do in ensuring continuity of the Council. Rather, it has the effect of ensuring stability in the decision-making process, as the composition of the all-powerful CPA cannot be altered by the President in one term.

A founding father of the USA adopted staggered terms in the Senate for a number of reasons. And one of them is that the majority party in the Senate may change every two years, thus bringing fresh ideas and policies over time. However, the same effect will not happen for the CPA as all the eight members are not elected but appointed under specific conditions. The Prime Minister and President can appoint three members to the CPA each, evenly spread over three staggered terms, the remaining two of the tie-breaker appointments will come from the Chief Justice and Chairman of the Public Service Commission respectively.

Singapore will elect its fourth President in 2017. The President will not be able to appoint his first member to the CPA until 2020. If this President were to serve two terms or 12 years, he can only appoint up to a maximum of three members. This is the absolute influence the President is going to get in the eight-member CPA even if he serves for life. The circle of influence in the CPA is very important. Whenever the President decides to disagree with the Government on certain matters, the CPA has the power to turn the Elected Presidency into a lame duck institution over time if it chooses to disagree with the President each time he uses his veto powers.

Check and balance under a political framework must be legitimised and mandated by the people. We cannot have a popularly elected President and then subject his influence and power to be checked by an appointed body at the same time. Such a system will polarise the society and politicise the CPA over time. We do not need to look into the future to see this happening. We already have Government-appointed grassroots advisers in Aljunied and Hougang to check and co-share the influence and powers of Elected MPs. Estate upgrading projects funded by HDB can stall unless the appointed grassroots advisers support the initiative. The political divide in our estate is telling and not healthy. If I may quote what the Prime Minister said yesterday about giving a non-elected President custodial powers, "Who are they to say no. We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will, please approve what we propose".

The CPA, like grassroots advisers, is not elected but wield considerable influence and power. In fact, the CPA was described to be on equal footing with the President in the analogy by Mr Goh Chok Tong in 1990. He said, "The six members of the CPA are like appointed Senators while the President is like an elected Senator."

Madam, it is important to let the people know that when they are voting for a President with custodial powers, they are not voting for a standalone person but the vehicle mechanism comprising the CPA, which may render the Elected President powerless in the process.

The Elected Presidency, together with the proposed amendment tabled today, has the propensity to turn our democracy into a dysfunctional one in the future. For example, if there were to be a change in government by a simple majority, the incoming administration would not be able to make changes to the key appointments in the Public Service or tap on the Reserves to save jobs without the concurrence of the President whose candidacy was most likely derived from the automatic track, as history had shown, and the all-powerful CPA whose members were all appointed by the previous administration. A veto by the President and the concurrence by the CPA are enough to stop any Supply Bill or key appointment dead in its track, even though the incoming administration has the mandate of the people to run the country.

Similarly, if an outsider President were to take office and decide to stop the incumbent administration from introducing populist measures to buy voters' support or to appoint its own people to the Public Service to move its own agenda, the CPA can send the veto back to the Government to trigger an override by the Parliament. In both scenarios, the power of the CPA and the resultant political unrest cannot be understated. It is irresponsible of us to kick this can down the road, too.

Madam, as far as I can remember, the appointed Presidency has served Singapore very well. Most of the appointed Presidents that graced the office of the Head of State from 1965 to 1991 were apolitical and were not conflicted in any way to represent the citizens of Singapore regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation. Most important of all, they had proven to be enduring symbols of unity.

When the Elected Presidency came into existence, the issue of a candidate's political affiliation becomes even more acute, as the President is supposed to act as a check on the Government on specific matters. The late Mr Ong Teng Cheong became the first Elected President of Singapore in 1993. Mr Ong was the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the People's Action Party prior to participating in the election. Mr Ong ran against a very reluctant candidate, the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow, who did not put up any poster, distribute any pamphlets or hold a single rally. In short, the late Mr Chua did not do any campaigning for votes. He gave only two 10-minute television broadcasts. It was reported that he did not even want to give an interview but relented eventually.

The result of the first Presidential Election was totally unexpected. Mr Chua got a very respectable 41.31% of the total votes cast. For a reluctant candidate to do so well against an eminent opponent from the Ruling Party with absolutely no campaigning at all is a shocker to say the least. The Presidential Election of 2011 provided the affirmation on the type of candidates Singaporeans would prefer to check on the Government. The leading candidate, coincidentally the Chairman of the People's Action Party and Deputy Prime Minister at one time, came within a hair's breadth away from losing the Presidential Election in the four-way contest. The nation was so divided that President Tony Tan was elected on a mandate of 35.2% of the valid votes, beating Dr Tan Cheng Bock by a margin of 0.35%. This a razor-thin margin unheard of even in the history of our Parliamentary election. When a constituency came that close to changing hand in a parliamentary election, it will usually disappear from the electoral map. But you cannot make Singapore disappear. So, the next thing, I guess, for this Government is to raise the bar and make some candidates disappear.

I understand the Minister has said that the changes are not targeted at any individual, but I am sure the Minister would agree that the changes will narrow down the pool of eligible presidential candidates going forward. While the amendment in this Bill will raise the bar for other candidates, it will continue to ensure an endless supply of candidates from the ruling elite, a source of candidacy where voters had made their disapproval known, not once but twice, in as many Presidential elections.

Custodial powers aside, did the two contested Presidential elections entrench the notion that the Elected President is supposed to be a unifying symbol of the nation after all? It certainly did not feel that way. From the result of the election, it was easy to see that the people of Singapore value something more intangible than whether a presidential candidate is a CEO of a $500-million company or an ex-Minister. They value political independence and for good reason, because this democracy is overrun by one party for the longest time.

I agree that the Elected Presidency did not change the symbolic role of the President, but it is highly politicised as a result of the dual roles the President is expected to play. The system has inherent flaws and the Commission has picked it up as well. And this reality will continue as long as the Elected President is expected to perform his custodial function and symbolic role at the same time.

Madam, the Constitutional Commission went beyond the terms of reference to suggest the unbundling of the custodial and symbolic roles of the President to facilitate a return to the appointed Presidency. One can only surmise that the Commission is acutely aware that an Elected President will always be conflicted in some ways going down this road.

The WP does not see the need to have an Elected President. We call upon this Government to do away with the Elected Presidency and revert to an appointed President. The WP recognises the importance to safeguard past Reserves and proposes to have a Senate body elected by the people solely for the custodial function as intended for the Elected President, as explained by my Parliamentary colleagues earlier.

The wide-ranging amendments in this Bill, such as the tightening of the qualifying criteria for Elected Presidency, the expanded role of the CPA and on the reserved election for minorities, to name a few, bear the hallmarks of an experiment gone awry for the Government.

Madam, how many walkover Presidential Elections do we want to have before we acknowledge that the system is not working? How many reluctant candidates does this Government intend to field, just to give the electorate a semblance of contest, before we may end up with a reluctant President? And if this Government wants to narrow down the field to a sole candidate, where is the legitimacy to real power?

Race has never been an issue for the highest office of our land until the Elected Presidency came along. This is a fact. Is this not an experiment gone wrong? Is the Elected Presidency the best platform to safeguard the Reserves or merely a veiled attempt by the PAP to safeguard its control over all levels of government at the same time? Only a national referendum can provide the answer. My wife showed me a message yesterday. It was a simple question. It says, "Why are we asked to elect a President when the Government has decided who we should vote?" This rhetorical question came from a young student. Madam, I do not support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.30 pm until 4.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore(Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

4.50 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, I am thankful for this opportunity to address the House. Before I go into the substance of my speech, I would like to seek a clarification.

In the proposed amendment to the Constitution, I note that the intention is to enlarge the President's veto powers, with the President acting on the advice of the Council. If the President exercises his veto vote contrary to the Council's advice, the Government may trigger the overruling mechanism, presumably because the President must take the advice of the Council seriously.

However, should the President assent despite the Council recommending a veto, the Bill still becomes law. Should not the same rationale apply and the Bill be then sent back to Parliament for further deliberation and debate? After all, the Bill is about empowering the President to exercise his veto powers. So, I hope that the Government will look into this clarification.

Secondly, I now move to the substance of what I would like to say. Madam, I support the enhancement in the criteria for the selection of the President. However, I join a few of my hon Members in requesting that we look into other criteria as well, not just financial expertise but also other factors that show the heart of the President. Could we formalise the criterion to show community involvement so that our financial gurus also are persons with heart whom we can confidently vote into Parliament?

I support the enhancement on the veto powers and I support the entrenchment of minority representation in this very important office of our land. There are two ways to look at minority representation in this office. Either we look at it as an institutionalisation of a racial divide or the respect for differences, regardless of race or religion.

I used to look at anything that we do that highlights differences in race as the institutionalisation of racial differences. For that, for many years, I had reservations and I could not in good conscience support a lot of initiatives. But I am coming to realise that when we talk about minority representation, it is a recognition of differences and when we institutionalise that in the Office of the President, we are respecting the differences. This is not new to have the rotation of different races in the Office of President. Switzerland has it. New Zealand has it. And I do not know why Singapore cannot have it.

For the longest of time, I had prided myself as being colour blind. After all, I grew up in a kampong. I have Malay friends, Eurasian friends and Indian friends. We grew up together, played together, worked together, and I have always proudly said I was colour blind. I did not realise that my kind of colour blindness is blindness and that if we had enough people like me with this type of colour blindness, we will ultimately destroy our society.

I did not like to talk about race; I did not like to talk about religion; and I always said we are all the same, and we are. But just because we do not talk about it does not mean that difficulties do not exist. And so, for years, I shied away from talking about race and religion. But just because talking about something hurts does not mean we do not talk about it. If it exists, it exists. If we got to do something about it, we do something about it and we do it before it is too late.

So, I support the amendments to the Presidential Office and I say that, beyond that, we go beyond, we go beyond what we want to do today and to the people-level relations. We look at how we relate to one another and we talk to one another and relate to one another as equals, with respect. I hope that Singaporeans will not politicise race and religion. We have too much at stake and, so, beyond the political debate within this House, let us be one people.

Madam, this is my call to Singaporeans. I decided to speak because I could not take discussions, whether within or without this House, that attempt to turn race into stature, into anything that gives a person a better standing. Talking about race and religion hurts but we got to talk about it and we got to face it squarely and, if we do not have a better solution, let us do what we have with what we can now. Madam, I will speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am a Singapore Citizen. My forefathers came from China to Singapore and the South Seas. We have sunk our roots here. My skin colour is yellow. I grew up in a kampong; I played with many friends, went to school with them, and went to work with them. I have never thought of their skin colours, because I never thought that we were from different races. I only thought that we were all Singaporeans. Very often, I would proudly tell everybody that we are all Singaporeans.

I did not like to talk about race and religion. However, not wanting to talk about race and religion does not mean that problems do not exist. In this society, we have seen many problems but I always denied them. I am beginning to feel afraid; I am afraid that our society may not be as perfect as I thought; I am afraid that my thoughts have neglected other fellow citizens' challenges and the problems they face. Growing up in a multiracial society and being a Chinese, I could not appreciate my fellow citizens' difficulties. I can only say that all are equal, but is it true? We can say that, but can we do it? We all have our own thoughts.

The Government is now introducing this Constitutional amendment regarding minority candidates in the Elected Presidency for us to debate on. In the beginning, I did not wish to participate in the debate because I did not want to talk about racial issues. But having heard the debate for three days, I feel it is not right to remain silent.

From the beginning of our nation-building, our Pioneers have worked together regardless of race and religion. We have experienced many racial and religious riots or disputes. True, for many years, we have enjoyed a peaceful society, but what we worry is that because there is no storm, we forget that the undercurrent is still there. Though we cannot see it, it has tremendous power. This is my illusion. I thought what is unseen does not exist.

The Government announced that once the Constitutional amendment is passed, we will have an Elected President from the minorities from time to time. I support this amendment because I believe this can further strengthen our society, as well as the mutual respect and tolerance among the different races.

In addition, among ourselves, we should also look after and understand one another. Everyone has been in a situation where he is a minority, sometimes in the workplace, sometimes it is when others are all good friends but we are alone without friends. We have all experienced that feeling – a not so nice feeling.

So I hope that as Chinese, we can understand the challenges, loneliness and aspirations of our minority fellow citizens; I hope that we can support our minority President; I hope that we will not use race and religion for our own self-interest to stir up problems; I hope that Singapore will always be one nation and one people; I hope we can always say that we are Singapore Citizens, regardless of race, language and religion, united as one.

Only by doing this can Singapore survive and continue to be successful; only by doing this can our children enjoy a peaceful, prosperous and equal society, generation after generation.

Mdm Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.

5.05 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on a topic of my interest and also a topic that is close to my heart.

First and foremost, I am exceptionally encouraged that the current leadership and the government of the day are placing great efforts to address the issue of the future. It is vital that the Government attempt to address not only the current issues that the Republic is grappling with but also the issues that the nation may face in the near future.

A nine-member Constitutional Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister earlier this year in February to review three aspects of the Elected Presidency. Upon the release of the Commission's report, the Government has subsequently in September issued a White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission's report.

The changes to the Elected Presidency are essential and timely to ensure that the existing political system in Singapore continues to serve the needs of the nation. As an ethnic minority, I acknowledge that the racial and religious differences as well as their influence on voting preferences continue to exist in our society. In other words, we cannot deny the fact that each of us is different because of the diverse cultures while we embrace ourselves as a multi-ethnic nation. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the political system continues to serve and meet the necessities of the diverse population, ensuring that no minority groups are left behind, so as to build an inclusive society.

A study from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) shows that the general public is uncertain about several aspects of the Elected Presidency reforms. Although the data shows that there was an increasing awareness by the public since June 2016 to October 2016, about 37% of those polled are still not following the issue. Moreover, a large number, about one in five, recorded "unsure" on most of the agree/disagree questions conducted by Blackbox Research Pte Ltd for IPS. This shows that a substantial number of the general public are unclear of the proposed changes for the various aspects of the Elected Presidency.

In addition, I have also engaged with and heard the many diverse views of my fellow healthcare members.

While I acknowledge that we need to review the aspects of the current Elected Presidency to serve our nation, it is essential to address and clarify some of the ground feelings on this issue. In view of time constraint, I shall highlight four concerns that I feel that the public needs a more in-depth explanation.

Firstly, some felt that there needs to be more clarity on the criterion on "most Senior Executive". There are usually two arms in a company, namely, the Executive arm and Oversight arm. The Executive arm is led by the chief executive officer and the Oversight arm is led by the chairman of the board of directors. Both have important leadership functions and there needs to be clarification of which role is viewed as the most senior. Moreover, how are the criteria on "most Senior Executive" addressed with regard to a group of companies? For example, a Singapore holding company's CEO may be the most senior, but the company only holds $500 million in investment. The situation may end up in a dormant company's CEO qualifying for the Elected President's criteria. Also, a regional CEO may or may not qualify under the current rules.

Secondly, we observe a growing number of interracial marriages in Singapore and the Government has also implemented a double-barrelled race identity since 1 January 2011 for Singaporean children born to parents of different races. Hence, in the case of "Chinese-Indian" or "Indian-Chinese", how do we determine the race and whether they would qualify as a minority? Are the considerations too subjective if the following factors are the ones taken into account:

(a) how the candidate perceives himself or herself in terms of ethnicity?

(b) whether the community perceives him or her as part of the community?

These are the two questions that I have experienced. If the issue of ethnicity and ethnic identity is largely a subjective one, would using the "Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others" (CMIO) model still be relevant in today's context?

Thirdly, the recommendations include raising the threshold for private sector candidates from senior executives of companies with $100 million in paid-up capital to $500 million in shareholders' equity. I am concerned on the ability of a minority to meet this qualification. With this new recommendation, it may seem that the candidates from the minorities will come from the Public Service, which is not so healthy. We need to ensure that the system is all-encompassing and provides equal and fair opportunities for all qualified individuals.

In order to ensure the right person with not only the right qualifications and aptitude for the job stands for election but can we also put in place condition that one must be born in Singapore or has lived in Singapore for a period of time or have assets in Singapore to be eligible to stand for election? This condition will not only provide assurance to the voters but gives greater credibility that our highest officeholder has a deep affiliation and stake in Singapore. This condition is important as we see ourselves in a new world of globalisation where Singaporeans are increasingly more mobile and have stakes in various levels in various countries.

On the CPA, to vary consequential support for a Parliamentary override based on the differing decision of perhaps only one CPA member may result in more fractious discussions within the CPA and between the CPA and the President. Will the Commission's recommendation accord an unelected CPA member a disproportionate amount of influence? If the Commission's recommendation to accord "greater weight" to the CPA is to be incorporated into the Constitution, will the democratically elected President truly wield "real power" or only when he has the agreement and unwavering support of his appointed advisers? Should the political bodies/figures be allowed to endorse presidential candidates? If they are to be truly non-partisan, would not allowing them to be endorsed defeat the essence of non-partisan spirit? Hypothetically, what if we have a coalition government? Will this model of Elected Presidency and CPA still work?

The above questions and clarifications are raised to address the concerns of many Singaporeans of various walks of life. They speak in simplicity but the thinking behind is profound and deep-seated. It is essential for all issues to be raised and made transparent for the good of the society at large, especially the voters, who will decide on the next President next year. Madam, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

5.13 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the proposed amendments to the Elected Presidency Bill. It has been an intense three days of debate. Members have discussed in detail amendments to this Bill.

Of all the proposed amendments, I feel that the most important is ensuring minority representation in the Presidency. Multiracialism is our defining value. It is at the core of our existence. We chose independence in 1965 because we chose to be a multiracial society, where all races feel that we are a part of this country. Since then, our policies, such as our education and housing policies, have always been guided by this key principle. We are Malay Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans but, most importantly, we are all Singaporeans.

It is easy to take the unique situation we have today for granted. But we must all constantly remind ourselves that this peace and harmony that we enjoy did not come by chance. This is something we should treasure and we should do everything we can to preserve this core value.

Mdm Speaker, the importance of having minority representation in the Presidency may have been overlooked since much focus has been placed on the President's custodial and protective functions. The Elected President is our Head of State. He is also the symbol of the unity of our country and the personification of our multiracial state. As such, it is important that he represents all races and his office is also an office for all races.

Our last Malay President was our first President, Mr Yusof Ishak who held this highest office from 1965 to 1970. In other words, it has been 46 years since we last had a President from the Malay race. It is a long time, considering that our nation celebrated its 50th birthday last year.

If we agree that the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state, then the proposed amendment to ensure minority representation in the Presidency is a timely and long overdue move that I strongly support.

Mdm Speaker, even as this proposed amendment is an important and necessary step in ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency, I hope that one day, this mechanism will no longer be needed, that from time to time, representatives from different races will be voted into office. When that happens, the need for "reserved elections" will no longer be needed. But until that day comes, I support the move to put in the safeguard mechanism.

Mdm Speaker, many Members in this Chamber have spoken about other amendments to strengthen the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates. If we agree that our Elected President must have the necessary qualifications, experience and knowledge to exercise his or her responsibilities effectively, then there should be no dispute that the eligibility criteria for all Presidential candidates must be updated from time to time to reflect our current economic context.

Finally, I would like to make two suggestions. First, I suggest that the Government conduct more public education on the Elected Presidency. As noted in the Constitutional Commission report, "only 42% of the respondents were able to correctly identify the proper ambit of the President's role". This is perhaps not surprising, considering that a voter who voted in the first Presidential Election in 1993 only had the chance to elect a President again in 2011. During this 18-year gap, he could have voted in five GEs. I believe this could have contributed to the lack of awareness of the Elected Presidency system. More worrying, it could give rise to the electorate being misled by candidates who make promises that are not within the constitutional authority of the President.

Second, I suggest that the Government strengthen the rules governing how Presidential election campaigns are conducted. The last Presidential election in 2011 showed us that it is necessary to prevent misinformation concerning the proper role of the President and the function of the office. It is dangerous for Presidential candidates to make promises or even take positions that are incompatible with the office of the President. This would create expectations that, once elected, the promises would be fulfilled whereas, in fact, it is not constitutionally permitted.

Mdm Speaker, yesterday, Members of the WP said that they would be elaborating on their proposal on having an eight-member Senate. Today, after hearing them for the entire day, we have yet to hear any details from them. This is a major proposal to have a second House in our country. I hope that Members can have more details on their proposal. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

5.18 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mdm Speaker, since the recommendations made by the Constitutional Commission on proposed changes to the Elected Presidency were announced, there had been much talk about the motivation behind all the proposals. The flurry of questions and discussions continued not only in this House but both online and offline. The questions were varied. Was it designed for specific individuals who could become the potential candidates? Was it made to reduce the net pool of individuals who could qualify or was it about multiracialism and politics?

From this, I see three aspects that are worth deliberating: leadership, race and politics.

First, on leadership. In all processes where selection of leaders is concerned, we generally need a set of criteria as a starting basis of comparison for consistency and fairness. To be relevant with time and context, I agree and support that the qualifying criteria must be reviewed on a periodic basis, especially this case in point pertaining to the post that belongs to the highest office in Singapore.

Based on the recommended criteria, the initial impression was that the stringent criteria would have restricted the eligible candidates to individuals who have experience as CEOs and also senior management in the private or public sector. Would this then mean that other outstanding professionals not in top management be unlikely Presidential candidates in the future? To answer this, it is important for us to understand that, as citizens, how do we see our President's role and the appropriate balance between the ceremonial and custodial roles?

For the custodial role, it is without doubt that material knowledge of broad economic and financial fundamentals is necessary. However, this role does not need to be solely performed by the President. After all, the President is not responsible for governing or passing Bills pertaining to Budgets. Like the CEOs and top management in many companies, they lead and work with the support of expertise from various cross-functional teams. In this instance, the CPA similarly advises on the exercise of the President's custodial and discretionary powers.

Should we be prepared to encompass broader diversity and have a President who is not from top posts of the private or public sector, there are some questions we have to ask ourselves. First, do we need to review the selection and appointment process of the CPA, for example, supplement the CPA with an expert team focused just on the economy and financials of the country's wealth management, or having the CPA that is solely appointed by the President? Two, if the custodial role of guarding our nation's Reserve is a critical mandate, should the President have the final right to veto against any decision made by the Government if it is substantiated to be detrimental to Singapore? Three, by changing the criteria, it may provide the possibility for more potential candidates to be contenders. Is this just a formality or will it truly enable and inspire more capable candidates to step forward and serve?

The stringent criteria recommended are necessary to ensure that we have the best qualified individual with critical capabilities to make central decisions when crises arise and safeguard our past Reserves for future generation. As our country progresses, there will be circumstances from time to time where one role may take dominance over the other, and vice versa. In order to achieve a right balance between both roles, and the diversity and inclusiveness of different individuals who can potentially be our Head of State, we can consider broadening the criteria over time and supplementing it by reviewing the process and selection of the CPA.

Next, on race. For Singapore to achieve and enjoy the social harmony where people today exist in a multicultural and multiracial society; it did not come easy and certainly it was not an unplanned miracle. Every step was cautiously designed from our housing quota, bilingual education system to interfaith and racial harmony events. All efforts were taken to strengthen and evolve the culture that we want entrenched in our nationhood. But in order to achieve a race-blind state, whether as a nation and as individuals, we need to embrace the race identity beyond a definition and make true connections. As mentioned by several Members in this House over the past few days, deep-rooted connections that reflect our attitudes towards different cultures and races, the human touch of readiness to support fellow Singaporeans and the ability to imbue the different cultures as one common identity that resonates with all Singaporeans are exactly what we need.

Most would say they do not look at race and simply want the best man or woman to stand for election as the President. However, surveys and history have shown that human beings have an affinity to find and settle with environments or even communities that provide them with most familiarity to their own belief or even values. This, in itself, has an added layer of complexity, especially if there are new faces of potential candidates whom we are unfamiliar with. How best then do we assess them or even judge?

The Head of State is not just a symbolic figure, but a person whom the citizens respect, can assimilate to and can unify the nation as one. Most would believe that we uphold the values of meritocracy regardless of race, language or religion. The challenge will be if five terms down the road, we still find ourselves in a situation where a reserved election has to be held, then Singaporeans have to seriously consider whether we have indeed evolved as a country and have been multiracial in our roots and identity. To note, Singapore by then will be close to 80 years since our nation's Independence. If multiracialism is what we pride ourselves high on, it should have been second nature to us. Elections by then should be one where any capable man or woman, regardless of their race, will feel confident and comfortable to step forward and vie for the highest office on this land. By then, the term "reserved election" would be unnecessary.

In my opinion, we must first acknowledge that these individuals who stand for elections are there due to their own merits instead of fulfilling a quota or even as a symbolic figure. Failure to differentiate their merits from their race and acknowledging it as a prerequisite in standing for election, would be, in my opinion, a retrograde step in forging a multiracial society.

And lastly, on politics. Unlike some countries, Singapore's Presidential candidates do not enter an election campaign representing any party and effectively should not run a campaign with a list of promises to be delivered after being elected. Understanding and accepting this as the design of the President's role is important because it directly relates to the expectations of the electorate. Among the two roles that the President is accountable for, he or she must be equally qualified to deliver both the ceremonial and custodial roles.

Over the years, it seemed that the associations with which people had drawn among the former Presidents, past potential candidates and even the political parties had become more intertwined. This was a result of most candidates being known public figures, that is representing a Party, or they are individuals who have extensive track records in the public sector. The number of "new" or unknown contestants were few and far between. There is no issue of past or present politicians that I see coming forth to contest for the higher office if they meet the qualifying criteria. But as a citizen, we are always mindful if the individual will have the moral integrity to stand up for decisions done in the interest of the country and be apolitical in their new role.

The likelihood of a former public figure or individuals with prior knowledge from the public institutions to stand for elections is higher. We cannot deny that. The need to encourage them to serve as compared to a private individual, will be much easier. The concern is not about having a former public figure to run for the office. Rather, it is the need for this individual to: (a) understand their role as one being different from what they used to contribute when in governance; (b) establish their role in a needful manner and consciously demonstrate independence of thoughts with the nation's interest as top priority; and (c) to demonstrate the ability to reconcile differences in opinions and work through solutions with the Government to ensure that all the key proposition is in preserving wealth for the future generations of Singapore.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I support the need to update the qualifying criteria, making it more stringent and keeping it relevant with the changing times. For other intangible measures or even indicators of whether we have progressed as a nation in terms of multiracialism and encouraging individuals from diversified backgrounds to step forward and contest in elections, these efforts can only be meaningful and enhanced over time with the participation of our citizens. Amendments to the Constitution are not one-off discussions but rather a constant work in progress that should bring us forward as a nation, one that gives soul and substance to this Constitution. Ultimately, the President is one whom we want to deliver his or her responsibilities as is a human that touches and connects with the lives of every Singaporean. And with this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

5.28 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I shall deliver my speech first in English and later in Malay.

Let me express my personal views on the Elected Presidency. I was one of those who actually did not believe that Elected Presidency is the way to go for Singapore. I have always believed an appointed President would suffice the need to play the dual role as a symbol and unifier for all Singaporeans as well as a custodian to our national Reserves. However, I changed my position, considering a possible scenario when the President could be at loggerheads with the government of the day on the use of our national Reserves. Thus, a President who is elected by the people shall have the mandate and moral authority to exercise his discretion without doubt and without fear.

With so much debated, I shall only focus on two changes that have been suggested by the Commission and supported by the Government through its White Paper, namely, first, the eligibility criteria for private sector service requirement and, secondly, the five-term hiatus provision for the minorities.

First, let me touch on the eligibility criteria for the private sector service requirement where numerous changes have been suggested by the Commission. Two significant changes which I would like to highlight are: only the most senior executive, however named, can be allowed as a candidate; and minimum shareholders' equity of S$500 million.

While I can see the rationale behind this eligibility criterion to presume that only the most senior executive, say, an executive chairman or a CEO and others alike, takes the primary leadership position and thus making all critical and important decisions, I also do believe that there are other senior executives in high-ranking positions who are also making and taking charge of such similar critical and important decision-making. Examples are the chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO) and senior executive vice presidents.

Good leadership of any organisation is never always about the most senior executive taking decision unilaterally. But and however, it is always collective decision-making that prevails to be the best stewardship in action. In this case, the most senior executive of any good organisation has to depend on the work and advice of his close second ranked executives, be it a CFO or COO, and others alike. They are the also the ones that assume similar critical roles and thus making important decision within the organisation.

Henceforth, I urge that we re-consider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the CFO and COO, to be considered, too, within this "most senior executive" framework. And more importantly, I would even go beyond to say that the second ranked executive CFO will probably have better knowledge in making informed judgements when it comes to financial matters, which is very much related to the custodial role of the Elected Presidency.

Let me now go on to the next criterion, that is, the minimum shareholders' equity requirement of S$500 million. With all being said through the statistics, I am not convinced if such a criterion can guarantee a candidate to be a good President. Making this notion into action may assume that the person who has not met the criterion may probably not be able to make a good President. I believe we can all agree that this is not what the criterion is meant to be. The criterion may even be seen as a disadvantage to individuals in some specific industries. While it is a "nice-to-have" criterion, I am certain there are equally capable men and women out there who can be considered for the Presidency without having to meet the criterion. For a fact, I know of some individuals who will not be able to meet the criterion, but I am convinced that they have the mettle to be considered for the Elected Presidency.

Let us devise a criterion which truly measure one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his or her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society. While many "hard" criteria have been suggested for eligibility, I believe there are more that we should consider, especially those "soft" ones.

I will now move on to the five-term hiatus provision. A multiracial Singapore should not only be said and written but, more importantly, it must be seen and exercised. This was nicely explained by both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in their earlier speeches. As a member coming from a minority community, I would like to express my appreciation to the Commission for having included this in ensuring that a member from the minority community will always have a place in the highest office in Singapore.

However, though I am more upbeat and positive with regard to this provision, please allow me to express my concerns. Like always, there are always two sides to a coin. Likewise, for this case, I hope not that the provision be construed as a tokenism. After a long journey of 50 years in nation-building with meritocracy as our underpinning principle, such provisions can always be seen as one.

Assurance from senior officers of our Government is important to bring this message across. Henceforth, I look forward to such sharing and engagement so as to ensure that we are embarking on this journey as a nation that cares deeply about our multi-racial fabric, bringing a balanced dimension in our journey towards nation-building in the years to come. As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision. Mdm Speaker, I shall proceed with the next part in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker and my hon Parliamentary colleagues, I would like to wish you good afternoon.

The Presidential elections which will be held next year, that is, 2017, will very likely mark a historic occasion for our nation, if the Bill on the Elected Presidency that is being debated in Parliament is passed. For the first time, a provision for a five-term hiatus, which was suggested by the Constitutional Commission, and also supported by the Government, will commence at the next Presidential Election, as proposed by the Prime Minister yesterday.

As the Prime Minister also said, the Presidential Election next year will be reserved for Malays, after 46 years without someone from the Malay community assuming the office of the President. Is this something good and should be celebrated by us? Or is this something bad and we should feel concerned or suspicious?

We can look at any issue from two perspectives, either from a healthy viewpoint or otherwise. Taking a positive perspective, I feel that this is a very encouraging step, especially since we would like to fulfil and realise the principle of multiracialism that we have always accepted in our country.

This principle of multiracialism that we have always treasured since having Independence for 50 years is not something that we should merely say and write about but, more than that, it is something that should be implemented and practised, similar to the objective of the provision of the five-term hiatus. Does this mean that a President from the minority group, including Malays, can only assume the office of the Elected President once every five terms?

The answer is definitely no. Each candidate from the minority group, be it from the Malay, Indian and also Eurasian community, will all have the chance and can participate and contest in every Presidential election. If elected, this provision will only be reconsidered, if there are no Presidents from the minority group in the next five terms.

What is important is that each candidate must fulfil the established conditions if he or she would like to contest in the Elected Presidential elections. Through that, the principle of meritocracy can be achieved together with the principle of multiracialism, which we all treasure.

Therefore, let us take this opportunity together with an open mind and positively. I would like to urge all those who are qualified and can fulfil the established criteria, please – come and step forward, both the men as well as the women, and put yourself up as the candidate for the upcoming Elected President elections.

Let us together prove to our fellow countrymen, that the Malays, as a minority community, are capable and have candidates who are as qualified as the other communities. After 50 years of separation from our neighbouring country, and throughout that period, we have been self-reliant and became a part of Singapore's modernity through meritocracy, and thus I am confident that there are those among us who have progressed and become successful in in their respective fields.

Do not hesitate. Put yourself forward if you are capable. Turn yourself into someone who will be the pride of our community. Prove that our community has progressed and is able to come up with an excellent candidate.

In conclusion, although this provision will be implemented only for the Malay minority group this time round, I am certain that the Malay community has qualified candidates. Therefore, let us use this opportunity in a positive manner. I will now deliver the rest of my speech in English.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, summarisng my speech, I would like to highlight the following three points. First, that we reconsider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the COO and CFO, to be considered too, within this "most senior executive" framework. Let us device a criterion which truly measures one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his/her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society.

As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision and call upon capable Malay individuals who qualify and meet the requirements as set forth in the eligibility criteria, to step forward and respond to the next Presidential Election.

With all being said, I am of the opinion that we deal and discuss too much quantitatively on the Elected Presidency. Notwithstanding the need to suffice the custodial role, I fear that we have forgotten to stress the importance and salient characteristics of a President as a symbolic figure of the nation as well as a unifier across all Singaporeans. Getting a candidate truly to meet these should be the primary driving force – a President representing the heart and soul of our nation, whom we all can depend on, cutting across all sorts of divides. Majulah Singapura.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

5.43 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill which seeks to make amendments to the Constitution on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency. I will be speaking on the following areas: the role of the President, the eligibility criteria, the reserved election and the CPA.

On the role of the President, the changes need to be appropriately understood. I think we had quite a lot of discussions on the role of the President but it is still important to stress and make sure that we Singaporeans understand and appreciate with clarity the role that the Elected President will discharge. Effectively, the proposed amendments on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency outline what the President can and cannot do, and the measures to ensure safeguards, given the custodial powers that will be vested in the hands of a single individual.

There are really three important roles that are expected of the President and they are distinct roles which call for different skills. The President needs to be someone that every Singaporean can relate to – a symbol of national unity, and I think many have spoken of this – and of the need to fully represent the view of Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion.

As the Head of State, the President, although having no policymaking role, performs constitutional and official duties, and functions as a Head of State.

The custodial power that the President holds is the holder of the "second key" to safeguard two specific areas: our nation's financial assets as well as the integrity of our Public Service. Effectively, we are asking for someone who has the strength of character and also of competence. With the understanding of the scope of the role of the President, we must agree that the responsibilities are significant and, therefore, require a person to have the appropriate skills.

There are some who argue that perhaps, the role of the President, given that he does not have policymaking authority, is insignificant and may not even be required. And we should not be too hasty to come to this conclusion because Singapore – I think we need to remind ourselves – we have no natural resources and our financial Reserves are our key assets. Having a "second key" ensures appropriate measures to safeguard decisions to draw down on the Reserves.

Singapore's economy and success, as well as our social stability, depend on our financial stability and resilience. Given this importance, we do need stringent eligibility criteria to ensure competent decision-making. I do, however, think that – both during the last three days of debate, as well as outside of this House – since the Commission's report, there has been a lot of discussions around the custodial functions and duties. In doing so, to some extent, the qualification criteria that were set out in the Constitution on the character of the candidate have not been given as much attention.

I would just like to remind everyone that clause 19(20)(e) of our Constitution outlines that the Presidential Elections Committee, before issuing certificate of eligibility, is to assess that the candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. That does not go away. That is also an equally important part. The eligibility criteria must lend weight to both the character and competence of the candidates. Having someone financially competent and equipped with the executive management skills does not guarantee integrity and the ability of the individual to represent Singapore in interactions with other world leaders.

While many will agree on the need for high standards and the quality of the candidates, and the concerns that perhaps the criteria being too stringent might limit the pool of individuals that can qualify, but I would like to remind everyone that, given the significance of the role of the Elected President and what he or she will play, we do need stringent criteria.

To illustrate the point, all of us trust our general practitioner (GP) as our doctors or family doctors, but would we let our loved ones go for a surgery and having our GP do that surgery? I think the answer would be no. Not that we do not trust our GP, we do. But there are specific skills that are still required and, therefore, the need for the stringent criteria, both of character and of technical competence, that are required. There have been a lot of insinuations of why the criteria has gone up. Why is there a need? I think we all have to look at the importance of the role and also the relevance of where Singapore is today.

Let me now touch on the reserved elections. When this recommendation was made, I asked myself the question why we have a need for this, given the progress we have made as a multiracial society and the proclamation in our Pledge that says, "regardless of race, language or religion". Many of us hold this very dear. So, the very recommendation is highlighting the need for provisions to be made for race. This seems contrary to the very core of our principles as a nation. I pondered on this for some time and it brought me back to a speech that Mr Lee Kuan Yew made in this very House. He referred us to Mr Rajaratnam and our Pledge.

He said, "Was it ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to keep trying." He reminded us also, "We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everyone as equal. It is not reality; it is not practical. It will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle. So, this was an aspiration."

When I read this and I thought about it again, I realised that the racial harmony that we treasure in Singapore did not just happen. The progress that we have made in the last 50 years was because, as a country, as a society, we have been deliberately interventionist to make this happen.

As a society, Singapore has been unconventional in pursuing this aspiration to ensure inclusiveness. Our housing policy has enabled us to remove racial enclaves and to promote integration. We continue to strive to ensure that there is opportunity for education and progress for all Singaporeans, regardless of our race or our social circumstances. Race is an uncomfortable topic for us to speak about. We do, however, need to be able to speak about how we can ensure that the highest office in this country is inclusive and that no racial group in a multiracial Singapore feels that they are not able to achieve it.

It is in this spirit that the amendments are made to ensure representation of the main communities of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian in Singapore for the Office of the President.

The proposed amendment in clause 9 of the Bill with the new Article 19B provides a framework that seeks to balance the need for multiracialism with our meritocratic ideals. What it states is: "A candidate to qualify for a reserved election would need to meet the constitutionally prescribed eligibility criteria which include character, proven experience and competence. If during the reserved election, there is no qualified candidate from that racial group, the election will then be opened to candidates from all races."

It is important to note that a reserved election will not be required if the election produces Presidents of different races. It is only if no persons belonging to one of the main racial communities has held the office of President for a five-term hiatus, which translates to 30 years, that there will be a reserved election for that racial group. Thirty years. And in the last 46 years, we have not seen a Malay candidate.

This approach, while it is not comfortable and I do not think it is ideal, it is important because it is a balanced approach to ensure that we maintain our principles of both meritocracy and multiracialism.

Let me just touch on this point. As I reviewed the amendment and so on – this is not so much related to race – I could not help but ask this question: what about women? I will be very clear. I am not advocating for provisions in the Constitution to be made for women representation, but we must, however, recognise that women do make up 51% of Singapore's population.

Women are not a minority in Singapore and there is a pipeline of women, from both the public and commercial sectors, of character and integrity who do qualify and will qualify, even with the new eligibility criteria. Why then have we not seen women candidates step forward? We do have to ask ourselves what we are missing if we do not tap on this base of female talent and how we can attract women to run for President.

Let me now touch on my final point on the CPA.

The Bill outlines amendments to strengthen the role, composition of the Council, as well as the framework for the Council's provision of advice to the President on related matters. And it does oblige the President to consult the Council before exercising any discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution, subject to the exceptions specified, where consultation is optional.

We should note that the CPA's role is only relevant when the President disagrees with the Government. What this implies is that the Council plays the role as a "check" on the President's ability to check on the Government. Feedback from many is that this runs counter to having an Elected President and the concept of the role being the holder of the "second key".

I would like us to take a step back on this, because I asked myself this question: why check on the checker? But I think there is one important point that we all feel we may have in this discussion fail to realise, that no one leader operates alone. Leaders still need the advice of people of good knowledge and competence as well, and that is the role the Council plays. But then I ask myself: if that Council has the ability to check it in such a way that it could create either a gridlock or to counter and just make it difficult for the President, then what happens?

So, then I looked at the composition of the Council and the recommendations by the Commission, in terms of increasing the number. Not to go into the technicality of the timing, the appointment of the Council or the number, but a very fundamental question came to my mind: "Why do we make the President do that?" And then I realised, if the President is not able to even convince half of eight people of why he or she would veto that decision, then I think it is worth taking that forward and having the President's decision on his veto to be put forward for Parliament to take a vote on.

That is what the Commission and the composition and the changes have recommended. One of the things that the proposed amendments also did include was the calibration on the threshold which Parliament may override against the degree of CPA's support for the President's decision. I think this was also another area that the Commission had recommended, which the Bill will also put into place.

What this proposed amendment is striving to achieve is to enable a system of safeguards while preventing a risk of a constitutional gridlock and ensuring that the Government can continue to do what it legitimately should be able to do in the best interests of Singapore.

From the debates we have had during the last three days in this House, we all recognise that this is, indeed, a complex balance to achieve, but with this check of the elected President and the counter-checks of the CPA, I do ask that we must be cautious that the system is agile enough to work for the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans when it is most needed, because we cannot afford a system of gridlock as well. Because when those decisions have to be made and when that time comes, there needs to be that ability for us to also be able to move forward.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill, and I hope that all of us, regardless of some of the concerns that we have, will go forward to make sure that these changes will allow us to ensure that Singapore and our future will be taken into really serious consideration because the role that the President has, will have a very important impact on us. Not now, but in the future.

Debate resumed.

5.59 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): I will try to be briefer than two days ago. First, I would like to thank the 38 Members for speaking on the Bill. This is an important debate about improvements to a key national institution – the Elected Presidency. The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about the broad principles that underlie the need for the Elected Presidency, the provisions to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency, and why the Elected Presidency remains the most workable and effective solution for Singapore.

Let me address the specific matters raised by Members, which can be grouped into two main sets of issues. First, the two core custodial functions of the Elected Presidency: first, safeguarding of past Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service; and second, representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency.

Let me begin with the first issue.

Mdm Speaker, I am heartened that all the speakers have expressed the need for safeguards to our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service, as a legacy for our future generations. Let us lay to rest the notion that these safeguards are meant to stymie a new government coming into power. The safeguards will only do so if that government, indeed any government, even the current one, intends to use the Reserves irresponsibly or erode the integrity of the Public Service. This agreement on the need for safeguards allows us, then, to focus on framing the most appropriate way of providing these safeguards. There is no perfect solution. I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. What we are trying to do is to find the best way of doing so.

The changes proposed in the Bill flow from the recommendations of an independent Constitutional Commission appointed by the Prime Minister in January this year. There was wide consultation by the independent Commission, which conducted its review in a non-partisan, inclusive, transparent, open and comprehensive manner.

Why did I emphasise "independent" Commission and why did the Prime Minister decide to set up an independent Commission? Because he did not want this review to end up being embroiled in partisan to-ing and fro-ing, as we have seen in the last few days. We wanted an objective look at the issues so that we could have the most comprehensive report and to do it openly and transparently. After the Government received the Commission's recommendations, the Government held dialogues as well. This entire process has taken 10 months.

We know from our collective experience and knowledge built up over the past 25 years that the Elected Presidency is an important and complex institution, and that we should only move after having carefully considered the options.

Mdm Speaker, in contrast, the second day into the debate, the WP sprung a new proposal upon the Members of the House. Their proposal for an Upper House – composed of elected Senators – is a fundamental change to our institutions of government. It is also a marked departure from what the WP has advocated in the past since the inception of the Elected Presidency – different from their manifesto at the recent GE in September last year, and different again from their submission to the Constitutional Commission in March this year. No mention of a Senate, let alone an elected one.

What is most extraordinary is that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, one of the WP's NCMPs, who had spoken at length in this debate yesterday supporting an elected Upper House, just in December last year, had argued strongly – and I must say, quite persuasively – against just such a bicameral system. He takes quite a different interpretation on that today. This was also just barely two months before the Constitutional Commission was formed.

The WP was invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission. Unfortunately, they chose not to do so. The WP was the only one of the 20 invited contributors that declined the invitation. I was speaking to MP Mr Christopher de Souza, and he said that the Eurasian Association had many views and concerns, and they found that it was a very useful process to discuss with the Constitutional Commission. They went away not completely agreeing with everything, but understanding what the concerns and considerations were, much, much better.

The Commission, nevertheless, considered all the 107 written submissions it had received, including that of the WP. The problem is, of course, that the WP's current proposal is very different from what they had submitted to the Commission. The WP has now, less than 36 hours ago, in fact, about 30 hours ago, put their proposal before this House – I must say – in a non-transparent, non-consultative way, literally keeping things close to their chests, and asked this House to consider it. Even so, we endeavoured very hard to find out more of this proposal.

Unfortunately, it is apparent from the tentative way that the WP Members have attempted to respond to questions about the most basic and important features of their proposal that this proposal has not been well-thought through. The proposal has the benefit of brevity but, unfortunately, not of clarity. We saw WP Members go back and forth on whether the Senate's power was limited only to delay, or whether it actually held a veto; we saw them flip-flop on what eligibility criteria the Senators must satisfy; and we saw them hem and haw over how those Senators are to be elected into office.

Mdm Speaker, governing is a complex and serious issue, and no responsible party should deal with an important issue, such as changes to key national institutions, in a cavalier manner. It is not something you can just be brazen about and dismiss by saying, "Oh, do not be bogged down by the details". However, the lack of a well-thought through proposal with a clear plan has not stopped the WP from going even further, calling for a referendum – in fact, almost insisting on one – on their proposal. They even put forward a draft referendum question for the House to consider, when they are not even clear what exactly it is that they are proposing.

Mdm Speaker, we do not need to repeat the post-Brexit referendum confusion, where the British were left with no clear plan and lacked the execution ability to carry out what they had persuaded the voters to vote for.

The WP has also failed to articulate clear or consistent reasons for why they say their proposal is better than the EP. Just 11 months ago, one of the key Members arguing for it these two days in this very Chamber had publicly argued the opposite. Their proposal gives an unelected Senate Elections Committee the ability to bar eligible candidates from even participating in the Senate elections. This exclusion is done in an entirely non-transparent, unaccountable and potentially arbitrary manner. It multiplies the difficulties associated with finding a suitable candidate for the Presidency by eight. Also unresolved are innumerable operational issues with the proposal. For example, how is gridlock in the Senate resolved?

Mdm Speaker, what is troubling also is that Members of the WP have, during this debate, attempted to draw support for their proposal by representing that the Commission recommended such a structure. This paints an incorrect picture of the Commission's report and its actual recommendations.

Let us go to the Commission's report itself. In paragraph 7.47 of the report, the Commission stated, with regard to the proposal to unbundle the custodial and symbolic functions, and I quote, "The Commission considers that this is a proposal that the Government may wish to consider if and when it is appropriate and timely to undertake a more fundamental change to the Presidency". And again, at paragraph 7.53, I quote, "The Commission has set out its thoughts on this issue only for the Government's consideration and, if the Government deems it fit and profitable, further debate. The Commission does so only as a group of citizens".

Mdm Speaker, this was certainly not a recommendation made by the Commission, much less a main or major recommendation. It was a suggestion that the Commission made for the Government's consideration based on some of the submissions it had received. Furthermore, what the members of the Commission had actually described for consideration was an appointed council of experts with no veto powers. This is fundamentally different from the WP's proposal, which is an Upper House of elected senators, something which, I think, in the words of one of the WP's Members, was apparently a minor difference. It is a fundamental and major difference.

Instead, Mdm Speaker, the Commission's main recommendations focused squarely on enhancing and improving the existing institution of the Elected Presidency. It dealt with the revision of the eligibility criteria, the strengthening of the CPA, and the hiatus-triggered mechanism to ensure multiracial representation. The Government, in most part, has accepted these recommendations. Where we have not done so, we have stated quite clearly, in the White Paper, where and why.

If the WP wants to advocate and campaign for the idea of an elected Senate, they can and should do so. But they should do so in an open, transparent and fully consultative way. Do not spring it on people. They can start by putting out a proper proposal. It is not a novel idea – a bicameral system. Some countries have a bicameral system. And one should examine its merits and pitfalls objectively – a pity that it was not submitted to the Constitutional Commission. We should study its merits and pitfalls, for example, the very issues that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had so eloquently put forth less than a year ago. It is very well-written.

The WP can then campaign on that proposal at the next GE, and, if they succeed, they can see to it that it comes to pass. In fact, if it is a good proposal, we will be prepared to consider it, too. Why would we want to consider something that is good for Singapore and not accept it just because it comes from somewhere else? If it is better than the Elected Presidency that we have constructed today, we will be prepared to accept it. But I do not think it is. What they cannot do is to pull a half-formed proposal out of a hat and press for a referendum on the issue. Madam, I do worry if this ad hoc-ism is symptomatic of the way they would wish to run our country and the public institutions they are responsible for.

Let me now turn to the substantive matters at hand – the changes that the Government is making to improve the present system – the Bill that is before this House.

These recommendations are in accord with the recommendations of the Commission, and have been arrived at after thorough consideration, through the open, consultative process over 10 months, that I had described earlier.

The changes to the eligibility criteria bring the 1991 figures up to date. The changes to the CPA framework harmonise it to make it function more smoothly and uniformly. I will come to this a little more later. The changes for minority representation introduce a new mechanism to ensure multiracial representation from time to time.

Mdm Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, the Elected Presidency is not a perfect system. But what we are doing in this House is institution-building. We are trying to improve our institutions and strengthen them for the Singapore of the future. It is part of an overall effort to build stabilisers in the system so that whether you are a Town Councillor, an MP, a President or a Prime Minister, you are governed by a set of laws and are held accountable to them. Each person understands his or her role, and carries them out diligently and faithfully for the good of the country. The important point when we consider voting later this evening is that the WP has really not come up with a workable and better alternative to the system that we have, and the improvements that we are proposing.

The President continues to be the foremost symbol of our national unity. We acknowledge that there may be potential tension between the President's historical and custodial roles. We have always said so. It is not something that we have ducked. We have said so and acknowledged it. But as we have explained in the White Paper, and again in this House ‒ the Prime Minister and myself ‒ and as the Constitutional Commission itself noted, all our elected Presidents have been able to perform the two roles with distinction. And not a single Member from either side of this House has refuted this point.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon. It is quite common in other countries, such as the US and France, for an elected Executive President to concurrently be the Head of State. While there is potential tension between an electoral process and the President's unifying role in these countries, the President continues to play this role in these countries which are long-standing democracies. In these cases, the President is an Executive President, not just a President with safeguard powers. The Executive Presidents in these countries have wide-ranging and extensive powers. In our case, our President is not an Executive President with wide-ranging powers. He is a President with symbolic and custodial roles. He is not elected on a party platform and I believe that if we have wisdom, particularly among our voters, we should be able to elect good Presidents and to handle this.

Madam, with the introduction of elections for the Elected Presidency, eligibility criteria were put in place to ensure that candidates standing for elections have a certain baseline of experience and skills for the Presidential role.

The Commission considered the imposition of criteria as a "necessity". These are the words of the Commission. Many Members have spoken on this, including Miss Cheryl Chan, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, and agreed with the need for stringent criteria.

Yet, some Members, while accepting the need for eligibility criteria, asked whether the revised criteria were aimed at limiting the pool of candidates to certain groups. The WP said in response to the Commission's report that the "real risk" is that "you have a PAP Government with an Elected President which is from the establishment – both squandering away the national Reserves".

Mdm Speaker, what is the WP saying? That the past Elected Presidents have been unable to act independently or carry out their duties properly? I have seen first-hand how our Elected Presidents have carried out their roles. These are men of integrity, men who have principles and are prepared to stand by them and act on them. Has the WP itself not acknowledged, in this very House, the independence of mind of the late President Ong or the way that the late President Nathan had always treated them with courtesy, fairness and consideration?

So, let us not unfairly run down the system and particularly cast aspersions on honourable men in an attempt to try to score political points.

I also note that the WP, while seemingly critical of eligibility criteria, also accepts the need for eligibility criteria in its elected senate proposal. Mr Leon Perera said yesterday and confirmed today that the eligibility criteria for its elected senate proposal are the same as those for elected Presidents. Yesterday, he promised to give details in his main speech and he put his hands up several times, but we have not heard from him today on further details.

Madam, the WP is effectively also restricting its senate to a limited group of people. But the serious problem here lies with their proposed Senate Elections Committee (SEC), which is tasked to shortlist 16 candidates from a pool of qualified applicants. Now, the SEC is not an elected body. It is an appointed one.

As Dr Janil Puthucheary pointed out, unlike the current inclusionary model where the PEC certifies the eligibility of any applicant who meets the qualifying criteria, the WP's model is exclusionary in that the SEC sets a cut-off at 16 candidates. The WP has not provided any details as to how the SEC will draw the line between the 16th and the 17th, and other candidates. So far, it has said that this line is drawn at the discretion of the SEC, and Mr Pritam Singh yesterday emphasised that the exercise of such discretion should be non-justiciable.

The system, as proposed by the WP, is far from transparent. I bring up some of these issues because, if you want to criticise our present system, you need to offer something that works better. And I bring it up to show how difficult it is to design a system and make it better than the one that we have today.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the raised eligibility criteria and how they might impact the pool of qualified candidates. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked about the differences between a chief executive of a $100 million paid-up capital company and that of a company with a $500 million shareholders' equity.

Madam, the quantitative threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity for candidates from private sector companies was proposed by the Commission after studying the matter carefully. This took into consideration the need for a President to have the requisite experience and ability to make "large and complex financial decisions on an urgent basis" and the "diverse strategic and operational considerations" that bear upon such decisions.

The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation to increase the quantitative threshold. And as explained in the White Paper, the President may have to scrutinise huge potential drawdowns, possibly within short periods of time, and to effectively discharge responsibilities of such a scale and magnitude, the President must have the confidence that comes with familiarity with making decisions involving large sums of money.

As I have already mentioned in my opening speech, there are significantly more companies today that would meet the revised threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity than the 158 companies in 1993, which would have met the $100 million paid-up capital threshold. There will continue to be qualified minority candidates, from both the public and private sectors. I do not have a precise figure. A precise figure is not available – companies do not make public the information on the racial background of their officers.

But if we agree, as I think we do, that we must be uncompromising on the criteria and that we cannot lower the bar for any community, we should focus on growing the pool of eligible candidates. Every community should aspire towards producing leaders that may one day represent the nation in her highest office and to encourage those leaders to come forward to serve in that office. The pool will grow over time as our country progresses.

Are the criteria too focused on financial acumen? I think Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked this question. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Zaqy Mohamad spoke about the financial aspects of these eligibility criteria. Madam, the criteria are to ensure that the candidates running for office have the knowledge, competence and judgement to make decisions on financial matters of significant magnitude or scale, as well as on key appointments to the Public Service. These are criteria that we are able to state in an objective way. We can codify them.

However, other criteria, such as integrity and good character, are also crucial. We can write them down, but how do you measure them? They are required of a Presidential candidate, as provided for under the existing Article 19(2)(e). This is, of course, not exhaustive of all the "intangible" qualities we desire in a President, such as public-spiritedness, compassion and empathy. These are key and critical qualities. But it is very difficult to legislate for all these "intangibles". It is our people who will ultimately have to be the judge of whether a candidate has what it takes, especially where these important intangibles are concerned, to be the President when our people exercise their vote.

Now, the CPA. Some Members, like Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, have asked about the CPA's functions and raised queries about an unelected body playing a role in the system of checks and balances. Others, like Mr Louis Ng, asked if the extension of the Parliamentary overruling mechanism would dilute the President's powers.

Mdm Speaker, I must emphasise that there are no changes to how the President's veto powers, the moderating effect of the CPA's advice or the Parliamentary overruling mechanism operate in respect of the President's custodial powers over Reserves and appointments, and I went to some trouble to prepare a slide two days ago to explain this. This was Handout 3, one of the simpler slides.

The changes merely adopt a uniform approach towards the President's obligation to consult the CPA on financial and appointment-related matters, as well as extend the overruling mechanism in a uniform way to these areas. Today, the President is obliged to do this in some areas but not in others. There is some inconsistency there. So, we are making it uniform. But the President's powers and the mechanism remain the same. As I have explained, the overruling mechanism already applies in two areas, namely, Supply Bills and key appointments. The approach taken is to harmonise the approach towards Parliamentary overruling by subjecting the rest of his core custodial powers to the same overruling framework. In short, what is being proposed simply ensures uniformity in the President's obligation to consult the CPA, and the availability of Parliamentary overruling, insofar as his core custodial powers are concerned. There is no change in the way the mechanism operates.

As for the weight given to the CPA's recommendations, I have already explained in my opening speech that the CPA's role is to provide its advice to the President. It is the President who decides whether to veto a Government proposal, and not the CPA. The CPA has no veto powers, neither over what the President does nor what the Government proposes. The CPA provides its advice.

The WP has suggested that the Bill elevates the unelected CPA to an "alternative centre of power". They create a spectre of this very powerful CPA vetoing and blocking everything. It is just simply not true. If you read the White Paper, if you listen to my speech and if you look at the diagram, you will know that it is not true.

Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh have referred to the CPA as a "third key" and questioned its moral authority. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Leon Perera said that the CPA can "checkmate" or "block" the President. Mr Low Thia Khiang even went so far as to suggest that the CPA's power exceeds that of the elected President, or even the Government itself, and said that, at critical moments, the CPA can block the Government from drawing on Past Reserves and making key appointments.

Madam, as I have said, this is entirely untrue. The WP MPs fundamentally misunderstood the role the CPA plays under the Constitution, despite the fact that it is written down and thoroughly explained yesterday in a diagram.

In fact, they are misleading this House. It is not a third centre of power. It is unable to single-handedly block a Government proposal. This has been the same for the past 25 years and remains unchanged under the Bill. When the President agrees, the CPA's view has no weight. The CPA's role is only relevant when the President vetoes a proposal from the Government. In such cases, where the President has exercised his veto, but the CPA agrees with the Government's proposal, the CPA's agreement serves to moderate the weight of the President's veto – but only by referring the issue to Parliament. The Parliament – as the "most important deliberative body in the country" – has the opportunity to take a look, or a "second look", at the matter, and can decide by a two-thirds majority to proceed with the proposal.

So, ultimately, whether the Government makes a decision with the President's concurrence, the President disagrees with the Government's decision, or Parliament overrules the President's disagreement, it is always an elected institution that makes the decision.

At this juncture, I should address the points raised by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh on the standing and independence of the CPA. I found it very disappointing that Assoc Prof Goh repeatedly suggested yesterday that the CPA is a politicised body, while providing no substantiation for such a serious claim. Lowering the dignity of the CPA's role and standing in this manner is entirely uncalled for.

Mdm Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Government when I say that the CPA members are eminent members of our society who have done much good work throughout their terms of CPA office. The CPA members are highly distinguished, competent and experienced persons who have given willingly of themselves to Public Service and their record of service and integrity speak for themselves. They have always acted independently of their appointing authorities, and advised the President based on what, in their judgment, is in the best interests of Singapore. The changes that we have proposed further strengthen the CPA and enhance its ability to play its enlarged role. We have added two members to the CPA as well so that the President can benefit from a wider range of views.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the disclosure of the President's and the CPA's grounds in a situation where the President exercises his veto. He referred to Articles 5A, 5B and 5C. These actually reflect the broader framework set out in the new Articles 37ID, 37IE and 37IF, which deal with the disclosure of the President's and CPA's reasons in the general context of the President's veto powers.

As stated in the White Paper, the proposed approach seeks to strike a suitable balance between enhancing the CPA's and the President's accountability for matters involving vetoes on the one hand and protecting potentially sensitive and confidential information on the other. The three-stage approach I have set out in my opening speech gives form to this approach.

I now turn to the second issue: whether we should ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. Does race matter?

Mdm Speaker, many Members have supported the need to ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. The issue is how we achieve this representation. Singapore has made significant progress in building a multiracial society. It is difficult to do. Countries have fallen apart even when they have lived in harmony for decades, even a century or two. We are only 50 years old. We are in a better situation than most countries and have managed to avoid the toxic racial debates and tensions that we see elsewhere precisely because the Government has always taken an honest, preemptive, open and active approach to fostering multiracialism. We did not leave this to chance.

As Mr Edwin Tong mentioned yesterday, we see this in HDB's Ethnic Integration Policy and in the ethnic-based self-help groups, such as MENDAKI and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA). We also see this in the GRC scheme, which has ensured multiracial representation in Parliament. When we introduced the GRC scheme, there were similar concerns expressed about how we make sure that there is adequate racial representation.

And, if I may add as a footnote, I think Mr Leon Perera fully understands why we have an Ethnic Integration Policy and how it has helped to avoid concentration of races and to make sure that we live together in harmony in all our housing estates, and yet he chose to raise it in a very political way in his speech just now.

Mdm Speaker, as a result of these policies, we have expanded the common space, facilitated racial integration and ensured that our politics remain above race and religion. Contrast this with the approach that France has taken, which Dr Tan Wu Meng alluded to in his speech on Monday. In principle, the approach that France takes espouses a "colour-blind" approach to race relations. But, in effect, what has happened is that it has masked the stark differences in socioeconomic opportunities and outcomes between the races, which has, in turn, led to racial tension and strife.

I was in France recently, about a month-and-a-half ago, and had a deep discussion with my French counterparts and interlocutors on radicalisation. Senior French officials, scholars and those who were doing community work acknowledge that there are deep fissures in their society. They are trying to grapple with it. But they run up against their long-held belief that the issue of race would go away if one simply does not acknowledge race and racial differences. But the issue has not gone away. Racial differences have been accentuated and become worse over time.

Mdm Speaker, we have come a long way. But achieving a society where individuals make decisions independent of racial considerations will take time, as the recent CNA-IPS survey suggests. Race is likely to have an effect in elections that are moderately close. That is why we have introduced the hiatus safeguard mechanism recommended by the Constitutional Commission. It addresses present realities, while encouraging us to strive to achieve our goals and aspirations. Is it perfect? No. Does it have some drawbacks? Yes. Does it help us to achieve our aim of having multiracial representation in the Presidency from time to time? Yes. Does it do it in a way which is self-extinguishing if we reach a point where we are race-blind? Yes. I think the Commission has applied its mind and come up with a good solution for our times.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether a gap of five terms was too long for the hiatus safeguard mechanism. The Commission had proposed five terms as they felt it would strike a right balance between ensuring minority representation while not being too invasive or prescriptive. A gap that is too short, in effect, would create a rotation among races, which could impede our progress towards the ideal of a society where race is no longer a significant issue and the Government agrees. I think some of the most passionate and best speeches we have heard in the last few days have been on this subject of race and ethnicity. Several Members of Parliament – Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, on the first day, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, and others – spoke from the heart – and Ms Chia Yong Yong just now as well, from deep in the heart. Mr Kok Heng Leun, too. And I think this is an advance on the way that we interact with one another, the way we look at one another and at ourselves. We hope that with this process we will become a better country, a more integrated country, and a more multiracial, truly multiracial, country.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether a separate, fourth category for Eurasians could be established for the safeguard mechanism. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef spoke about mixed-race marriages. The model that the Constitutional Commission has proposed, and the mechanics we have adopted in the Bill, closely follow the framework for racial classification in the GRC system. The framework has worked well. Committees will be established to certify whether a person belongs to the Chinese community, Malay community or Indian and other minority communities. The mechanics of these will be dealt with in the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act. Any person who does not fall within one of the three racial groupings may still contest in open elections.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether we should ensure the representation of the major racial communities in the CPA. The Commission considered this but did not find this necessary. It highlighted that the primary role of the CPA is to provide expert advice to the President in the exercise of his discretionary powers. Unlike the President, the CPA is not intended to discharge a symbolic role as an expression of our national identity the way the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction between the Presidency and the CPA, which justifies the need to ensure racial diversity in the former but not the latter. The Government agrees with the Commission.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the lack of representation of women in the office of President. Madam, if we look at some of the sizeable companies and key public sector offices, the pool of women who qualify is not insignificant. So, rather than legislate female representation in the office of President, we should identify, support and encourage qualified female candidates to run for presidency.

Before I conclude on this segment, may I say that I was also very moved when the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next election for the presidency would be a reserved election for Malays and I will explain to you why later on.

Let me now address the questions raised by Members on the NCMP scheme.

Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about the changes to the NCMP scheme and asked how granting NCMPs full voting rights would relate to the role and responsibility of the elected Members.

Madam, the NCMP scheme ensures that there will always be Opposition voices in Parliament. A floor of nine today, a floor of 12 in the future – not a cap, Mr Perera. The NCMPs secured the highest votes among the candidates who did not win the seat they contested. They have contributed their views to debates in Parliament, and we want to give more weight to these opposition voices in Parliament by giving them a vote in those additional areas where they currently do not have a vote. However, this does not diminish or detract from the vital role and responsibilities that we, as elected Members, have to serve the needs of our constituents. This is a vital, important and critical role and duty that we have.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera repeated the WP's contention that the scheme distracts and dissuades voters from voting in Opposition MPs. Madam, the Worker's Party has taken up its full quota of NCMP seats and it has even positioned candidates from specific constituencies to be NCMPs in preference to other candidates. This shows that being an NCMP offers advantages, not least of which are public exposure and Parliamentary experience. Ms Sylvia Lim herself has been a beneficiary of this and has said so.

Mdm Speaker, Mr Leon Perera has said that we would not have introduced the NCMP scheme for the benefit of the Opposition alone. Surely, the PAP benefits from it, too. Well, the Government has found the presence of NCMPs in Parliament useful. All the three NCMPs have made their views heard during the debate over the past three days. But it benefits the PAP in a way that is different from what Mr Perera implies. Let me explain.

It helps the PAP in two ways. First, and this point has also been made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, it exposes PAP MPs to the types of arguments that Opposition MPs – how you take a situation, how you turn it to your political advantage and to score political points, how you twist, how you turn, how you argue. He wanted our PAP Members to have this experience in this House, not just during GEs, but every time this House sat. And I think we have had ample demonstrations of this throughout the terms of Parliament that we have had. And also, teach our PAP Members, to give them the experience of how to respond clearly and calmly.

Second, and equally importantly, it allows the Government to engage the Opposition, unlike "phantoms in the night" that turn up only at GEs, make claims, not engage, and then disappear again. Here, policy alternatives have to be put up, scrutinised, examined and discussed. Just as the Opposition questions and examines the policies that the Government puts up, the Government examines the policies and the proposals that the Opposition puts up, just as we have seen over the past few days with the WP's proposal for the elected senate. You cannot make this proposal and disappear. You may try to retreat into rousing rhetoric, but you have to answer the questions in detail. We are looking not for rousing rhetoric, but practical policy, practical programmes, and also how one can execute these things, and where the resources are going to come from. We can do this in Parliament, engage the Opposition on these things, rather than fighting with shadows who appear and disappear in the night. Ultimately, Singapore and Singaporeans will benefit from such debate and the diversity of views.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. There has been vigorous debate over the past three days on eligibility criteria, representation of communities in the office of President and other specific details.It is important that we stand back and end by bringing the focus back to the key principles underlying the EP.

First, the President is the key symbol of our multiracial nation. The importance of this symbolism is something that has touched my life since my young days as a schoolboy. I remember, as a schoolboy in the National Cadet Corps (NCC), saluting President Yusof Ishak and marching proudly past him in the rain at the National Day Parade on the Padang. I still recall his funeral procession 46 years ago and the crowds that lined the streets to bid farewell to him.

I remember receiving my commission as a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officer, and the President's Scholarship from the hand of President Benjamin Sheares, and then later serving as an Aide-de-Camp (ADC) to him and also attending at his funeral. After President Sheares' passing, I continued to serve proudly as an ADC to President Devan Nair. I have also experienced the additional custodial powers of the President.

As a Naval officer, I received my appointment as the Chief of Navy from President Wee Kim Wee in June 1991, shortly after the new provisions for Elected Presidency came into force. The Chief of Navy is one of those appointments that require the President's concurrence.

And I have served in Cabinet, when Presidents Ong Teng Cheong, SR Nathan and Tony Tan carried out their Presidential duties, including the additional custodial roles of the office. They did so with dignity and grace, reaching out to all communities and doing us proud internationally. They exercised their custodial powers with integrity, circumspectly, and with independence of mind.

Mdm Speaker, in my own lifetime, I have seen how our Presidents, collectively, have stood for our values as a multiracial society, as a unifying symbol of a united, harmonious Singapore. I want my children, my grandchildren and the children of every community in Singapore to see in their own lifetimes the rich ethnic diversity that is Singapore reflected in the Presidency. The changes that we are making to provide for ethnic representation will ensure that they do so.

Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans had no Reserves to protect. They lived by the sweat of their brow, and worried about how the vagaries of life might throw them and our country on hard times. They saved, scrimped and steadily built up our Reserves, so that by the mid-1980s, we actually had Reserves and had something to protect. Before that, we did not, which is why we did not need to have a President to safeguard and protect the reserves. This is what they have bequeathed to us.

The Elected Presidency has helped to safeguard these Reserves accumulated by previous generations. It is our duty to make sure that the system continues to do the same for future generations. That we leave the generations to come with the Reserves that will help us survive and bounce back in a crisis; not empty coffers or a debt to repay because we have failed to put in safeguards when we could.

Mdm Speaker, today, we enjoy racial harmony. Our Reserves are strong and healthy. Our Public Service is honest and able. These are not things that come about on their own. They require both good people and good systems in place. Let us, then, Members from both sides of this House, do the responsible thing today, by putting in place the safeguards that will help ensure that we continue to have good governance, and a harmonious and stable future for those who will come after us.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move and I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill. [Applause.]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

6.53 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Mdm Speaker, I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the three questions that I asked in my speech yesterday.

One is: I would like to know why after 25 years of inception of the EP has the Government decided to propose a reserved Presidential election for the minorities. This is referring to President Tony Tan's message to Parliament which mentioned that, "It was not a coincidence that the first four Presidents of Singapore represented the main four communities in Singapore". Hence, based on this explanation, I believe that the reserved —

Mdm Speaker: No speech please, Mr Faisal Manap. Just ask the question, please.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I am just repeating my questions from yesterday.

Mdm Speaker: Just put forward your questions.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: My second question is: I did ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Malay individuals would be eligible for the next Presidential election and how many of them are from the public sector as well as how many from private sector.

My last question is: the very basis of having a reserved Presidential election for the minority communities is to address the issue of feelings and perceptions of minorities not able to access the Office of the President. On this very basis, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will consider forming a committee or a commission to address the feelings and perceptions of the Malay community on the issue of fairness and equality?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Madam, why now? The Member would recall – when did we introduce the GRC scheme? Was it in 1988? Yes. Not long before the Elected Presidency. There were some discussion and controversy after that also. But today, the GRC system is well accepted. In fact, Mr Fasial Manap is here because he is part of the GRC team, too. I think it is well-accepted, and minority MPs and NCMPs are accepted as colleagues. But it has enabled a stable system and a system which encourages racial relations to pull together, rather than to pull apart. That has helped.

We had the Elected Presidency in 1991; that was when it was introduced. We could have done it then, it was considered but we decided to wait and see what the outcome would be. And you can see, after 25 years, it is not so easy to achieve such an outcome if you just leave things on their own. So, rather than wait and leave it for the future, the Prime Minister fought strongly that this is something that we ought to do now, before feelings or misunderstandings arise in the future.

How many Malays are eligible? I think I answered that question. I said there are minority candidates. I do not know how many there are in the private sector. I know there are in the public sector. Because in the private sector, they do not generally declare race for their officeholders, unless Mr Faisal Manap is suggesting that this is something that they do.

For the feelings and perceptions, Mdm Speaker, this is something which we do on an ongoing basis, every day. Every day, we tend to these issues of race and religion, not just once in a while or when there is a committee. We tend to it every day. And I hope that Mr Faisal Manap does as well. In this context, Madam, maybe I should ask Mr Faisal Manap whether he and the WP welcome and support the reserved election for a Malay candidate in the next Presidential Election. Just a straight answer.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap, do you wish to respond?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, as I mentioned just now, on the very basis of addressing the issue of feelings and perceptions of minoritiy candidates, that is why the reason of having a —

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm, can the Member answer my question rather than going into another speech.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I am answering the question, so please allow me to answer. Madam, I believe it was mentioned that the very purpose of having a reserved Presidential election is to address the perceptions and feelings of minorities. I believe that this particular issue of addressing such feelings can also be settled through the option of having an appointed Presidency, with the inclusion of the rotational system.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I seem to detect some reluctance on the part of Mr Faisal Manap to answer my question definitively. So, perhaps, I will give the Member another opportunity to answer the question and then we can assess whether he is reluctant to do so.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, my answer just now was very clear.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Just very clearly, so do you support or not the reserved election for the next Presidential Election? I did not hear your answer, I am sorry.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I stand by my answer.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Madam, sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Madam, just four clarifying questions to the hon Deputy Prime Minister. My first question is in relation to the idea of taking this Bill to a referendum. It appears to be that this is a Constitutional amendment. It was not made clear to the electorate before the GE. So, it was not a campaign issue and yet the Government does not wish to take this to a referendum. So, my question is: is it the view of the Government that any kind of Constitutional amendment need not be put to a referendum, need not be campaigned on during a GE, and it can still be done without a referendum? If that is not the position of the Government, what types of issues would be brought up for referendum? That is my first question.

My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times: what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past Executive Presidents that we have, but there is good reason to believe that in future Presidential elections, if, let us say, there are 10 candidates and the winner gets 5% of the votes or the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government's strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.

My third question is in relation to staffing and resources for the President and the CPA under this Bill. In other countries, similar kinds of bodies have full-time staff, independent staff, public finance specialists, economists and researchers, and they have budgets to engage such specialists. Will the Government make available resources and budgets and staffing to the President or the CPA to help them to make the decisions that they make, and to have an independent source of research from what the Government provides?

And my last question was the question that I ended off my speech with, which is, in relation to the NCMP provisions within this Bill. If these provisions are passed, is it really the goal of the Government to take back 100% of elected seats and leave the Opposition only as NCMPs? I know that it is ultimately up to the Singaporean people, but my question is: is this the goal of the Ruling Party in the next election?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: On the issue of referendum, I think it was Mr Leon Perera who suggested a referendum. And I would not be very trigger-happy on a referendum, unless there are fundamental issues involved. In this case, I think the WP has made a mountain out of a molehill. I explained just now that, for example, on the CPA's powers, the WP has gone out and said that we have created new powers for the CPA which are even bigger than those of the Elected President and the Government. This is entirely untrue.

So, if the basic structure of the system has not changed and we are making increments to it, I think it is a matter of judgement whether it is absolutely necessary to go for a referendum or not. But I would leave the WP to decide, when they have developed fully the idea of an elected senate, whether they would want to try and request for a referendum. I leave it up to you. But I suggest that there is a more straightforward way of doing it. It is to make that part of your platform for the next GE. Campaign on it. If you win, implement it.

Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit, and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.

On the staffing of the CPA, I would say that the President and the CPA, if they do need staffing and resources, the Government will certainly consider providing. Our purpose is to have these institutions operate well and to do their functions well.

On the NCMPs, we go into an election with the intention of fighting for every vote and winning every seat. But there is a floor of nine and subsequently, 12 NCMP Opposition voices in Parliament, regardless of the outcome. A floor, not a cap, Mr Perera. And this will always guarantee Opposition voices in Parliament.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first concerns what the Bill is proposing regarding the role of the CPA and whether there is actually any change or not. The Deputy Prime Minister referred briefly to my speech, but I would like him to confirm whether I am actually correct on this point. My point was that in clause 3, the entrenchment provisions, it is now intended under the Bill that the CPA is another gateway with whose concurrence a Bill that amends the role or powers of the President could be presented to Parliament.

Under the existing framework, which is enacted but not in operation, the CPA does not have this role as a gateway. In other words, the existing mechanism which is enacted but not in operation has only the President or a referendum as the gateway. But now, in this proposed clause 3, the CPA is an alternative gateway. So, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether I am right on this point.

Secondly, Madam, regarding the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister that the next Presidential election is going to be reserved for Malay candidates, I have received, of course, feedback also from residents on this point, and there was an expression of surprise. And I think the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice on how to count the terms. So, I am asking if the Government is prepared to publish that advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers.

And the second point is, under clause 32 of this Bill, it is stated that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count when the first reserved election would be. It is under clause 32. So, am I right then that the Government will actually come back to the House to present what the Attorney-General's Chambers has advised for us to debate on it?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Ms Sylvia Lim is correct in that on the entrenchment provisions, we had made some changes to the way the entrenchment provisions operate. That is correct. But it is still true that the CPA has no veto. So, the CPA cannot veto the President and cannot veto the Government. So, that is still true with regard to the entrenchment provisions. But with regard to the safeguards on the Reserves and the safeguards on appointments, there is no change in the powers.

I explained extensively in my speech, although it was rather late in the speech, about an hour plus into the speech, the entrenchment provisions. I provided the charts as well to explain that. I am glad that Ms Lim looked at it carefully. That is indeed so. And the purpose of doing so, as I explained, is to have the correct balance between rigidity and adaptability of our Constitutional system.

Ms Lim and the WP have expressed, from time to time, serious concerns about gridlock. And, in fact, if you have serious concerns about gridlock, then you should welcome and support these changes.

On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge it judicially.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, that was not my question actually. My question was whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers because there is public interest in that advice. Is there something that is controversial or confidential that it cannot be published? And the second part of that was, under clause 32, it says that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count. So, is the Government going to present a Bill on that?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. It is in the Hansard. Is the Member saying that the Prime Minister has falsely told the House that this was the advice he received from the Attorney-General's Chambers? And yes, we will be passing a law, the Presidential Elections Act to state so, that these are the designated races, and so forth.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker, I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth or anything of that nature. What I was saying was that there is public interest to read the advice. So, I am just asking whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice. That is all. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of anything at all.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, the advice is quite straightforward. It is not normal – Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer herself – not the usual thing that is done to publish a lawyer's advice, because that is something which is provided to the Prime Minister. But I would ask the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister has stated so, I think there is no doubt about it.

7.11 pm

Mdm Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs, which is 60 Members.

Clerk, ring the division bells.

After a slight pause –

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, I suppose we ring the division bells and lock the doors?

Mdm Speaker: The bells are supposed to be ringing. It is being heard outside, but not inside the Chamber, so we are activating another way. We tried ringing the bells many, many times, I assure Members, even as recent as just this morning, this afternoon, but it is one of those problems with technology. Always. Always. Please ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mdm Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats, and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their arm rests start to blink.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mdm Speaker: Take a division. You may now begin to vote.

Mdm Speaker: Please check your names on the display panels to see that you have voted.

There are 77 "Ayes", six "Noes", and zero "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 –

The Chairman: Clause 22. Deputy Prime Minister Teo.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I have explained the rationale for the amendment to the clause in my opening speech.

*The amendment reads as follows:

"In page 33: after line 30, to insert –

"(3) Despite clause (1) –

(a) a refusal by the President to approve a budget, revised budget or supplementary budget of an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule; and

(b) a decision by the President to disapprove under Article 22B(7) or 22D(6) a proposed transaction by an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule,

cannot be overruled unless the chairman of the entity or the chairman of the board of directors of the entity (as the case may be) has made a request to the Cabinet for a resolution under clause (1) to be moved with respect to the refusal or the decision.".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments* to be made will be made.

*The amendments read as follows:

(i) In page 33, line 31: to renumber clause (3) as clause (4).

(ii) In page 34, line 7: to renumber clause (4) as clause (5).

Clauses 23 to 35 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee; reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mdm Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Now, Madam. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mdm Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected MPs, which is 60 Members.

Clerk, ring the division bells. It is a little bit faint, but you can hear the bells.

After one minute –

Mdm Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mdm Speaker: Take a division. Members may now start to vote.

Mdm Speaker: Please check your names on the display panels. Before I proceed to read the results, Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

There are 77 "Ayes", six "Noes", and zero "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.