Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

5.00 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Sir, the Bill before the House amends the Constitution to create frameworks for the President and Ministers to take on international appointments in their private capacities if the national interest so requires.

Let me first set out the background relating to the amendments for the President.

Under the Constitution, the President is the Head of State. As the Head of State, the President performs a vital symbolic and unifying role. He symbolises our sovereignty at home and abroad, and is an important part of our international diplomacy.

In performing these roles, Presidents have, from time to time, taken on additional appointments in their official capacities. This is done on the advice and with the support of the Cabinet.

For example, domestically, Presidents have served as university chancellors and patrons of charitable or other organisations, lending the prestige of the highest office of the land to worthy causes that unify Singaporeans.

Internationally, Presidents can take on appointments in their official capacity in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest. For example, Dr Tony Tan was inducted as a member of the Honorary Senate of the Foundation Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in 2012 during his tenure as President.

Such appointments reflect the high international standing of the individuals who have served as our President.

In deciding whether to advise the President to take on an appointment in his official capacity, Cabinet applies the following principles:

(a) domestic appointments must be in furtherance of the President’s symbolic and unifying role;

(b) international appointments must be in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest;

(c) the President’s public life must be carried out in a manner that is compatible with his status and role as the Head of State – he is apolitical and cannot become involved in issues or events that might generate political controversy;

(d) in addition, the appointment must not undermine or be incompatible with the President’s discretionary functions under the Constitution, including his custodial functions as the Elected President;

(e) the appointment must not contravene Article 19A(1) of the Constitution, which among other things, prohibits the President from being actively engaged in commercial enterprises.

The Cabinet will continue to apply these principles in deciding whether to advise and support the President to take on domestic and international appointments in his official capacity.

Today, President Tharman is the Chancellor of the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, and patron of numerous organisations like the Singapore Red Cross, Singapore International Foundation, Philanthropy Asia Alliance and the Singapore University of Social Sciences.

President Tharman is also currently holding the following international positions in his official capacity as President, with the advice and support of the Cabinet, and these are:

One, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty (G30). This oversees the governance and directions of the G30, which is a grouping of eminent thought leaders in economic policymaking, academia and the financial industry.

Two, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). This is an advisory board. It helps shape the strategic directions of the WEF without directly overseeing the running of the organisation.

Three, Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW). This is an independent Commission that was convened to examine and make recommendations to the United Nations (UN) and other international forums on how to improve the way societies govern, use and value water for the common good.

Four, Co-chair of the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) Advisory Board. This provides intellectual guidance and advice on the overall vision, direction and messages of the UN HDR.

These are appointments that President Tharman held when he was Senior Minister and before assuming his current office. Cabinet has considered the matter and agreed that it is in the national interest for him to continue holding these appointments as President currently in his official capacity.

And for the information of the House, the President does not receive any remuneration or other benefits from these appointments.

The Government’s original intention was for President Tharman to continue to serve in these international appointments in his official capacity. But after reviewing the matter carefully, we were advised by the Attorney-General that this arrangement was not ideal. Let me explain why this is so.

The four international bodies mentioned earlier want their distinguished appointees to carry on with their official roles, and to bring with them their official status and reputations, such as President Tharman’s former status as Senior Minister and now as Head of State. These international organisations want their distinguished appointees to carry with them their official statuses, but they also want their appointees to contribute independently to achieve the aims of the respective bodies.

To illustrate, the WEF Board of Trustees includes the deputy prime minister of Canada, the heads of the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and leaders of major private organisations. But these Trustees are expected to give their views independent of the governments or organisations they head, so as to shape the strategic directions of the WEF in keeping with its goals of serving the interests of the global community.

Similarly, the G30’s Board of Trustees includes current and former heads of central banks around the world, but they are expected to contribute independently of these central banks. Likewise, the UNHDR Advisory Board and the GCEW expect their members to contribute independently, in the global interest.

If the President were to serve in these international bodies purely in his official capacity, then he would be limited to representing the official Singapore position in everything he says. That would not be in keeping with the requirements of these organisations, nor would it be in the interest of Singapore for our President to be so limited, as it restricts our ability to shape global conversations and initiatives.

From Singapore’s perspective, there is value to have the President represented on these international bodies. It enables us to be plugged into global conversations and to understand and help shape the thinking that takes place in these important and influential international bodies. But for this to happen, the President must be able to function credibly in these international bodies, by lending his expertise to advance the agenda on broader issues of concern to these organisations.

So, we are presented with a novel issue: should the President now be allowed to contribute independently in his private capacity when he takes on these international appointments? That is what this issue is about.

Cabinet considered this carefully and we concluded that the President should be allowed to do so to contribute to these international appointments in his independent and private capacity as this is beneficial for Singapore. These are reputable international bodies with global reach, and with eminent persons serving on their respective boards. The President’s continued involvement in these organisations is in Singapore’s national interest.

To be clear, when we say that the President serves in his “private capacity”, it does not mean that he is doing this outside of his work duties. These international appointments are core to the President’s international diplomacy role. As Head of State, they are, in fact, how we project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world. But allowing the President to serve in his private capacity allows him to act independently in achieving the aims of the international bodies, subject, of course, to the necessary safeguards of our national interest.

Such an arrangement would then enable the President to take on appointments that help to expand Singapore’s influence and network, while acting independently on these international bodies.

The Attorney-General, however, advised that such an arrangement is currently not clearly provided for by the Constitution. And that is why constitutional amendments are needed to enable the President to take on roles where he acts independently in his private capacity.

The provisions in this amendment Bill will put in place a proper framework under which these and future appointments are governed. The framework would not just apply to this President and this Government, but also to future Presidents and future Governments.

In developing the framework, Cabinet had regard to the following broad considerations.

One, the framework would only apply to appointments in international organisations. It would not apply in the domestic context. In the domestic context, the current position will continue to apply, and the President will not have an independent role outside of the specific discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution.

Two, any international appointment for the President to act in his private capacity must be justified by the national interest. Importantly, our own policy matters must remain the responsibility and prerogative of the Cabinet. Any appointment must therefore be supported by the Cabinet in the first place. If need be, Cabinet must be able to intervene to advise the President on how he acts in these appointments.

Three, at the same time, the President should have a say in deciding whether to take on such appointments. He should be able to decline such appointments if, for example, he considers them to be incompatible with his constitutional functions. And any appointment must be on the public record, in the interests of transparency and accountability.

Sir, these are the considerations behind the new Article 22Q. Article 22Q(1) will enable current and future Presidents to accept international appointments in their private capacities, subject to three conditions.

First, the President cannot contravene the disabilities imposed by Article 19A(1), which include a prohibition on active engagement in commercial enterprises.

Second, the Cabinet must assess and advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept the appointment. In making this assessment, Cabinet would be guided by similar principles as those I set out earlier.

Third, the President, acting in his discretion, must concur with the advice of the Cabinet.

The President cannot accept an international appointment in his private capacity outside of the framework set out in this Article.

Article 22Q(2) will enable the Cabinet to advise the President on his execution of such a role so that it is in our national interest, including ensuring that it does not undermine the President’s status as constitutional Head of State or contradict the President’s powers under the Constitution. The President must act in accordance with any such advice.

As a general rule, the Cabinet will advise the President against commenting on domestic politics, laws and policies; making any commitments on behalf of the Government or Singapore, whether formally or informally; and retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment. Subject to any advice by the Cabinet, the President may act independently in his private capacity.

Article 22Q(3) goes on to require the President to relinquish an international appointment if so advised by the Cabinet.

And finally, Article 22Q(4) requires the acceptance or the relinquishment of an international appointment to be published in the Gazette. This Gazette notice will include the term dates of the appointment.

Conceptually, the new Article 22Q will be a specific and defined extension of the President’s international role as the Head of State. It is not part of the Elected President’s custodial powers. The President is therefore not required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers and is not subject to any time limit in deciding whether to take up an international appointment under the Article.

I should also mention that, out of an abundance of caution, we have backdated the new Article 22Q to 14 September, when President Tharman assumed office. But, in fact, we do not need this backdating. Because, as I mentioned earlier, President Tharman currently holds his appointments in an official capacity, on the advice and support of the Cabinet, as provided for in the Constitution.

Should the Bill be passed by Parliament, Cabinet intends to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to continue in his existing international roles in his private capacity, and this will take effect on a forward-looking basis.

Sir, I move now to the position for Ministers.

Today, Ministers take on external appointments in their official capacity in connection with their responsibilities. For example, when Singapore was a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Prof S Jayakumar, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, served as the President of the Council.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers also permits Ministers to take on external appointments in their private capacities if the Prime Minister considers it to be in the national interest and grants permission.

Currently, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean sits on the TotalEnergies’ International Advisory Committee. This appointment was approved by the Prime Minister and was published in the Gazette. Senior Minister Teo donates the honorarium he receives from TotalEnergies to charity.

There are no general legal impediments to Ministers taking on external appointments today. However, as we are putting a legal framework in place for the President to take on international appointments in his private capacity, we will also create a legal framework for Ministers. This is found in the new Article 33A.

The framework is similar to Article 22Q, except that Ministers must obtain the permission of the Prime Minister and are subject to his instructions.

As a general rule, Ministers taking on international appointments in their private capacities will be instructed against breaching collective Cabinet responsibility; against making any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore, whether formally or informally; and against retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment.

The new Article 33A will supersede the relevant portions of the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister intends to give permission to Senior Minister Teo to continue with his TotalEnergies appointment under the new framework.

I should add that the new Article 33A does not apply to the Prime Minister. Previous and current Prime Ministers have not undertaken any such international appointments, and we do not expect future Prime Ministers to do so. Hence, the provision in the new Article 33A only applies to Ministers.

In conclusion, Sir, the Bill provides a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, if required by the national interest.

The proposed additions of Articles 22Q and 33A in the Constitution seek to ensure that we safeguard the dignity and status of the roles of the President and Ministers in Singapore, while enabling them to make significant contributions in international bodies and shape global thinking, if these contributions are in the interest of Singapore. In this way, we can make the most of the expertise, experience and personal standing of the individuals we elect to office, so as to advance Singapore’s interests and reinforce our value to the world. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.19 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable Singapore's President and Cabinet Ministers to assume roles in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity, when it serves the national interest. I will now present three compelling reasons to support this Bill, and then raise four common concerns, to which I seek the Deputy Prime Minister's response.

Three reasons to support the Bill: one, enhanced international influence. First, granting the President and Cabinet Ministers the opportunity to take on external roles, albeit in their personal and private capacity, can boost Singapore's visibility and status internationally.

Singapore, as a small nation state, is often recognised for its effective governance and economic and social development. Our leaders can offer essential insights for achieving progress and stability, beneficial to global policy-thinking and global policy-making.

Foreign and international organisations present an excellent platform for small nation states, like Singapore, to actively participate in shaping global policies, which may in turn affect Singapore positively. And this was what the Deputy Prime Minister said about plugging into global conversations.

However, not every international organisation is formal or has the resources to appoint leaders in their official state roles. Therefore, our collective support for our senior leaders to join these organisations, when it aligns with national interests, is crucial and strategic.

For example, President Tharman's significant contributions to entities, such as the IMF, the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and so on, have positively impacted our nation's reputation. President Tharman's continued involvement will offer valuable perspectives on global policymaking, which is especially beneficial for Singapore during these challenging economic and geopolitical times.

During the last presidential election, there was widespread opinion that it would be a loss if Mr Tharman's ascent to the presidency hindered his international contributions. But President Tharman is not the only one whose insights are valued globally. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for example, has also frequently represented Singapore globally, enhancing our country's visibility, influence and reputation on the world stage. And so have other public office holders; we heard about Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, for instance.

Therefore, supporting this Bill is strategic and will offer Singapore the opportunity to punch above its weight, influencing global thinking and policymaking.

The second reason for supporting this Bill is the establishment of a framework, the creation of a formal framework, to prevent potential abuse. In the case of the President, clause 2 in Article 22Q of the Bill spells out the conditions under which the President can accept and hold office in a foreign or international organisation, in his private capacity. The Cabinet must advise the President that the appointment is in Singapore's national interest; and also against saying or doing anything against Singapore, in performing that role.

Clause 3 similarly inserts provisions to apply the same framework to Ministers and empowers the Prime Minister to approve such appointments. The new provisions of both the clauses create a formal framework to ensure greater transparency, accountability and governance when the President and Cabinet Ministers perform non-local roles in their private capacities. And these are much welcomed steps.

Third, this Bill encourages a shift in mindset from individual success to significance for our senior public leaders and nation alike.

Already, the Government has an existing practice of encouraging senior public servants to engage in non-commercial roles in their private capacity, fostering civic engagement and volunteerism. Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), for example, a large charity for the intellectually challenged, has Permanent Secretary Augustin Lee as Chairman. Where I volunteer, in the autism charities, Deputy Permanent Secretary Poon Hong Yuen provides invaluable insights on our Boards. There are many others.

So, when senior public office holders, such as Presidents and Ministers, contribute beyond their formal roles, and extend their expertise and experience globally, they too move the needle, from individual success to significance, benefiting wider communities and nations.

I will next touch on four common concerns that are raised when the public, for example, read about this Bill.

One, the first concern relates to the potential impact on the President and Cabinet Ministers' official duties. Some people worry that engaging in international roles in their private capacity may divert their attention from the elected and appointed responsibilities of the President and Ministers.

The Deputy Prime Minister has shared some background to why this is happening and mentioned about international diplomacy in the President's role in such a case, but exactly what is the tipping point when one's overseas engagements are perceived as excessive? Therefore, guidelines from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will be necessary to strike a suitable balance between the public and private roles of the President and the Ministers.

The second concern is how the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers will determine the potential benefits of these roles to the country. While it is an honour to be invited to key positions in foreign organisations, not all roles may serve Singapore's interests. Therefore, an objective assessment approach should be adopted to weigh the tangible benefits and drawbacks. What is the meaning of "serving national interest"? What are some examples of what might be beneficial or not quite beneficial to the nation? Some clarity in decision-making criteria and assessment weightage would be appreciated from the Deputy Prime Minister.

The third concern is advising the Prime Minister under a similar situation. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about how current and past Prime Ministers do not have roles beyond their official duties in foreign and international organisations. But when such a situation happens, how would we move forward in this?

For example, if the Prime Minister himself is invited to hold office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity, what will happen? The Bill currently outlines advice mechanisms for the President and Cabinet Ministers, but lacks clarity regarding the Prime Minister's situation. It will be useful for the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify that.

And lastly, on security administrative support. Although it is stated that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure, it may not be so, in reality. There is, hence, a fourth concern pertaining to the need for at least basic security and administrative support, even as one tries to distinguish between official and private engagements for the President and Cabinet Ministers.

In cases involving national interest spaces like the economy, security, human development and healthcare, the Government's provision of such support should be considered. There will be times when it is essential to help ensure the organised conduct of the businesses, to ensure that the status of the President and Cabinet Ministers are at least retained for the image of Singapore.

Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that the benefits of this Bill outweigh the concerns. Hence, while operational challenges may arise, and notwithstanding my seeking clarification for some of the concerns that I have raised, I am confident that they can be addressed through transparency, accountability and a commitment to serving the public interest. And therefore, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

5.28 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this constitutional amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities, if it serves the national interest. The PMO asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore's international standing and help to advance our national interest.

President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, Co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR), Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity.

Internationally, it is a common practice for political office holders to resign from their private positions before being sworn into office. Recently, Mr David Cameron resigned from various business and charitable positions, including as president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, when he made a comeback to government, saying, "I have one job – to be foreign secretary and work with the prime minister for the UK to be as secure and prosperous as possible in a difficult and dangerous world."

Conversely, there are many examples of former politicians who are now leading high profile international bodies, but only started serving in these organisations after their political tenure in their home countries. Examples include Mr Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was a former prime minister of Portugal, and Mr Charles Michel, who became the President of the European Council after stepping down as the Belgian prime minister.

The presence of currently serving Senior Public Officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union Ombudsman called on the then-European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi to resign from the G30, the same organisation whose Board of Trustees President Tharman is now Chairing. She said, "Mr Draghi's membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised". Adding that, "For the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes mal-administration on its part."

The PMO stated that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations. Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first? Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted?

Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President's involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitments for these roles?

Prior to his election, Mr Tharman articulated his vision for the presidency, emphasising the need for a different character to the Presidency in Singapore's next phase of development. He underscored the role of the President in checking the governance system, fostering unity and evolving Singapore's norms and culture. During his inauguration, he committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities. His plans include promoting interaction between different communities, ensuring cultural vibrancy and fostering inclusivity through active community participation, civil society and support for the arts and sports.

These are substantial commitments that will demand a significant investment of the President's time and effort. All of us – including the President – have only 24 hours each day. Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties to his constituents – who are the people of Singapore. Surely, the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention.

The President also draws a salary of $1.57 million a year. If we include his entertainment allowance, the salaries of his personal staff and other expenses, the total budgeted expenditure of the President's office in the current financial year is over $12 million. This is a substantial amount of taxpayer money. It is only reasonable for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates all his time and energy in his official capacity to meeting his promises to the people.

The Government may argue that the President serves Singapore by accepting these key positions in international organisations. However, we must note that the proposed Article 22Q specifies that he will act in his “private capacity”, not in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution.

We must more closely examine how these private roles, separate from official duties, genuinely advance Singapore's national interests. How will the Government ensure that the President, when acting in his private capacity, follows the Cabinet's advice about what to say or do in his role, since many of these organisations hold their meetings behind closed doors in foreign countries?

The Deputy Prime Minister said just now that international organisations would want our President to continue in his official role. They also want their appointees to contribute independently. But if the Cabinet can instruct the President what to say or not to say, how is that contributing independently?

Invoking the "national interest" cannot grant the Government unrestricted authority to pursue its every desire. There are varying degrees of national interest. Is there any objective test that the Cabinet will employ to assess the degree of national interest of the President taking up foreign or international roles?

Mr Speaker, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to enhance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. However, Singaporeans justifiably expect him to wholeheartedly dedicate his time and energy to fulfil his national responsibilities. Allowing the President to take up external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties. For this reason, the Workers' Party (WP) will vote against this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.35 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, Sir, we are certainly feeling proud as a Singaporean when our then-Senior Minister Tharman was invited and appointed to serve at prestigious international organisations. He was appointed to Chair the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance. He also Chaired the Board of Trustees at the G30 and so on.

The jobs of our President and Ministers, who are also Members of Parliament (MPs) with constituency duties, are demanding. While it may be beneficial for our national interest to have them appointed in foreign and international organisations and champion for Singapore, the concern is whether the demands of these appointments will have a negative impact on their ability to fulfil their local ones.

One of Singapore's greatest challenges is our small pool of top local citizen talent which the Public Service, political and private sectors need to compete for. Perhaps, one of the intents of this Bill is to overcome the constraints.

Will the Government limit the numbers and type of appointments Ministers can take on in their private capacities? We can understand that foreign and international organisations have their reasons for inviting the Ministers or the President. If they should take these on, they might have to let go of other appointments to ensure that they have the time and energy to fulfil their main responsibilities as Ministers and MPs.

How would the Cabinet screen, vet and make recommendations for appropriate invitations to be approved? We must also put in place mechanics to prevent conflict of interest for the President and Ministers with such appointments. I am in full support of the Bill because for Singapore, one of the smallest nations in the world, having our Ministers or President on select, curated international organisations, will allow us to put our views across and have a say in how certain future international rules will be designed. It is easy for the international arena to ignore tiny nations like us. We need to have a presence wherever possible.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

5.38 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we are debating amendments to the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacity.

This Bill also appears to address, urgently, the circumstances of the President since his inauguration on 14 September 2023. President Tharman is extremely respected by and popular among Singaporeans. He has brought honour to Singapore with his international achievements. Personally, I have great respect for him, and it was my honour to have worked with him briefly in the mid-1980s when I was an Investment Officer at GIC and he was an Economist at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

So, the objections that I will raise in this speech have nothing to do with President Tharman personally or his international appointments specifically. Rather, they arise from this Bill's violation of established legal principles and principles of sound governance, which I will move on now to elaborate on.

Mr Speaker, the first question I like to raise is: are the President's international appointments currently unconstitutional? Currently, under Article 19A of the Constitution, the President is not allowed to hold any other office created or recognised by this Constitution, actively engage in any commercial enterprise, be a member of any political party or be a Member of Parliament.

The Constitution is silent on whether the President can take up foreign or international appointments. But President Tharman has been holding such appointments when he was a Minister, before he was elected as the President. Other Ministers have also held international appointments over the years without question, despite the Constitution also being silent on this matter. The most notable example was Mr Lee Kuan Yew who sat on the JP Morgan International Council while he was Minister Mentor.

So, why is it so pressing to rush through these constitutional amendments now and create this framework for the President and Cabinet Ministers to take up international appointments? Is it simply because no other past President had held international appointments in their private capacity while in office? If so, then the Government should explain why there was no rush to create such a framework when a Minister took up foreign or international appointments for the first time many years ago.

The second question the Government has to clarify is: why is it necessary for these constitutional amendments to be rushed through Parliament and backdated? The Constitution is the bedrock of our nation and any changes to it should be made with prudent consideration, transparency and in the best interest of only the nation.

The constitutional amendments that we are debating today were brought to this House for First Reading less than three weeks ago and Parliament has been recalled today specifically to approve this fait accompli.

Parliament is also being asked to backdate these proposed constitutional amendments to 14 September 2023, the date of President Tharman's inauguration, through clause 1(2) of this Bill. The retrospective amendment of any law should not be taken lightly.

The speed with which these constitutional amendments are being enacted, as well as the fact that they are being backdated, have created unnecessary unease among Singaporeans. A segment of Singaporeans now perceives that the Constitution is being specially amended to enable President Tharman to continue serving in international organisations despite taking up his new office as President of Singapore.

Some other Singaporeans believe that the Government is establishing this framework to control what the President can or cannot say internationally under the new Article 22Q, clause 2. Either way, this has tarnished the elected presidency. Many Singaporeans wonder, if any other person had been elected President, would the Government have enacted these constitutional amendments?

Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes the framework proposed in this Bill by the Government to govern the performance of foreign and international roles by the President and Ministers is not sufficient. It is a universally recognised principle of good governance that situations of conflict of interest should be avoided as much as possible, in order to maintain the integrity of public institutions. While such situations cannot be totally eliminated, the Constitution should certainly not be amended to enable such situations to arise.

The public/private capacity divide itself is controversial. If the President or Minister is truly acting in his private capacity, why then would the national interest be involved? It is not easy, or might even be impossible, to ensure that one capacity does not lead to advantage in the other.

If the Constitution can be amended to enable the President and Ministers to take up foreign or international appointments of an executive nature, as opposed to mere ceremonial roles, an important question would arise – where does the buck stop? What more is permissible or impermissible or what principles or guidelines would such decisions be based on?

Therefore, PSP is of the view that it is better for the President and Ministers to devote themselves entirely to their public offices in Singapore.

As for these other international or foreign appointments, PSP is confident that there are other Singaporean talents suited for them.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we need a more complete explanation from the Government as to why it has rushed to pass this Constitutional amendment and backdate them to President Tharman's inauguration. If President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are not unconstitutional, then it is perplexing why the amendments need to be backdated or even made at all, given that Cabinet Ministers have taken up such appointments over the years without such a framework and without any question of their legality and constitutionality.

If there is a possibility that President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are unconstitutional, then what this House is doing today creates a worrying precedent. This House is being asked to change the highest law in the land and backdate the change to enable a specific individual to remain within legal boundaries.

On the other hand, some Singaporeans believe that the Government has pushed through these amendments to strengthen its control over what the President says and does abroad.

From the feedback we have gathered, there is confusion on the ground and Singaporeans need a full explanation from the Government. Mr Speaker, the PSP does not support the Bill. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.47 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, our Parliament has to decide today whether to allow the Government’s amendment of the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacities.

Under the proposed Article 22Q which is being introduced by this amendment Bill, the President may accept and hold an office in a foreign and international organisation in his private capacity if, and only if, the President is not disabled by Article 19A(1) from performing the functions of that office; the Cabinet advises the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office; and the President, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Cabinet.

The PMO said in a statement that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations, and I quote: "Accepting such positions can enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest..."

It has already been reported in The Straits Times that if the Bill is passed, it would allow President Tharman to continue with his roles in the WEF and G30. We are told that President Tharman currently holds several international appointments, including being chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, a member of the WEF’s Board of Trustees, Co-chair of the GCEW, and Co-chair of the Advisory Board for the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR).

Mr Speaker, it is indisputable that our President’s appointment is a full-time position having a substantial salary, which makes it one of the best-paid elected heads of state in the world.

Mr Speaker, aside from what Deputy Prime Minister said about President Tony Tan serving on the Senate of the Nobel Laureates, I am not aware of any report of any of our past elected presidents holding any concurrent positions in a foreign or international organisations in their private capacity. Certainly, this issue of a president accepting and holding office in a foreign or international organisation in his private capacity has not been brought up for discussion in Parliament until today.

I am also not aware of there being other elected heads of state elsewhere in the world who are allowed to hold any concurrent positions in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities while they are in office.

President Tharman himself noted, when he was a presidential candidate, that the demands of the office have grown in the face of profound global risks and uncertainties. My colleague, the hon Member for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Mr Gerald Giam, has shared with us earlier how President Tharman has articulated his vision for the presidency during his presidential campaign, including the roles he had expected to play and the work he had expected to carry out. Suffice to say, the roles and work he has envisaged are very substantial and will take time and effort. But every person, including all heads of state and our own Head of State, the President, only has 24 hours a day. Whether the President has enough time is just one consideration. Ought the President be allowed to do so is another question altogether.

Mr Speaker, when this Bill was introduced, many Singaporeans I spoke to shared with me and MPs from the WP that they expect our President to concentrate fully on his role as President and they hope our President would not be distracted by the roles he is holding in his private capacity. Indeed, I agree with them. The roles he is holding in international organisations do show that he is held by many with high regard and respect. I can also agree with the Government’s argument that such positions can possibly enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest.

However, the time spent on serving foreign and international organisations, no matter how fruitful they can be for our President and even for Singapore, equates to time not spent on his presidential responsibilities, including the roles he had campaigned on. From the conversations I have had, I think there is a very strong argument for a serving president to concentrate wholeheartedly in his or her presidential responsibilities. In fact, undistracted by other external private responsibilities, our president can be encouraged to serve our country and people more fully, not unlike the way President Tharman has shared in his campaign.

The Government has argued that it has safeguards built into this amendment Bill, for example, under Article 22Q(1), the Cabinet must be able to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office and, under Article 22Q(2), the Cabinet may, from time to time, advise the President against saying something or doing anything in the performance of the functions of any new office that the President is holding privately and the Cabinet may require the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3).

Some safeguards may well be necessary if this Bill is to be passed to expressly allow the President to hold an office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity. But are the proposed safeguards sufficient or ever sufficient? Will the proposed safeguards create other complications or unintended outcomes?

Mr Speaker, while the Cabinet needs to be satisfied that any such appointment must be in the national interest, this does not preclude the possibility that the role that a president is initially allowed to assume in an international organisation may, unforeseeably, later on turn out to require more time and attention, for example, to handle an unexpected international crisis or an important issue affecting the organisation or the community which the organisation serves, which was unforeseeable or not expected at the time of appointment.

Yes, the Cabinet may be able to ask the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3). However, it may also be conceivable to argue that, at a time of crisis for such an international organisation or the community it serves, it may be morally or as a matter of conscience, difficult to step down and walk away from such a position of leadership. If done, it may even affect the standing of our President or our country. But if the President does not walk away and the Cabinet does not require him to relinquish, whether rightly or wrongly, it may still add to the time and responsibilities of the President within this foreign or international organisation which may, in turn, reduce or affect the time or attention he has on his actual role as our President.

Conflicts of interest may happen when one is double-hatting. An example of potential conflicts of interest situation with the President assuming board or leadership positions on foreign or international organisations would be when such organisations were to, after our President’s appointment, hold certain views or may introduce policy reforms or changes in conventions where some such changes may not be completely acceptable to our Government or are inconsistent with our policies; being compelled to not speak up within that organisation, or even to resign at that point in time, may not look impressive to our international friends.

What are the remedies when an actual case of conflict of interest were to happen? Beyond Article 22Q(2) providing for the Cabinet to advise the President against saying or doing anything in his capacity as appointment holder of such a foreign or international organisation, the Cabinet can ask the President to relinquish the external position he is holding pursuant to Article 22Q(3) and, under this provision, he must so relinquish, when asked. However, beyond relinquishing, the Bill, significantly, does not provide for how the President can be held accountable when such a situation happens. In comparison, the Ministerial Code provides that a breach of the Code can result in a Minister’s removal from office. Also, what would be the recourse under the law if a President were to disagree with the Cabinet and does not step down for whatever reasons he may have?

Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill allows the President to hold appointments in foreign or international organisations in his private capacity. The Bill is silent on whether time and expenses incurred in the course of attending to the President’s duties in the foreign or international organisations in his private capacity would be strictly regarded as private and personal, since the appointments were made in his private capacity.

Will taxpayers have to foot the bill for the travel and accommodation expenses of the President and that of his support staff and even the security detail from the Istana? What about the salaries of these civil servants? The Bill, as it stands, does not expressly allow taxpayers’ monies to be spent in the examples I have mentioned, especially as these appointments are held in a private capacity.

The Bill is also silent on the right of the President to accept remuneration from the foreign or international organisation. Will such remuneration be allowed?

Will the President, in his private capacity, have to take a leave of absence when attending to meetings of such foreign or international organisations in his private capacity? Indeed, my questions above are also for the amendments in the proposed Article 33A pertaining to Ministers holding appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity.

I would be grateful for the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarifications on the above as they relate to the use of taxpayers’ monies and the proper conduct of Government officials.

Mr Speaker, in closing, our President, as our Head of State, should focus fully on his official Presidential duties and responsibilities for which he has been elected to do. Allowing the President to take up appointments with foreign or international organisations in his private capacity could detract from his official Presidential duties. The WP will, therefore, vote against this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

5.59 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the invitations to our President and Ministers to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations are testament to the good regard in which Singapore is held. I agree that having our men and women on the seats of these bodies will be highly beneficial to Singapore in providing the opportunity to present our perspectives, shape discourse and advance our national interests. Having a seat at the table makes a difference to Singapore.

If we cast our eyes overseas, there are example of ministers from other countries who are part of international organisations. For example, Canada's deputy prime minister and minister of finance, Ms Chrystia Freeland, and Rwanda's minister of information communication technology and innovation, Ms Paula Ingabire, are members of WEF's Board of Trustees.

As a small island state with no natural resources, Singapore has thrived due to its people's capabilities and their connectivities with our global partners. We need to continue to promote Singapore well.

Indeed, the appointments of our leaders to such institutions will enhance Singapore's visibility and international standing, which include intangible qualities which have tangible and significant impact on our development and progress as a nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have one concern. How would the offices of the President and Ministers manage potential conflict of interest which may arise due to the appointment in their personal capacities? Parliament should have more clarity on this issue.

How can we be assured that all input by our President and Ministers at these bodies will be in our national interest? What happens if they put forth views not representative of, or even contrary to, the Government at these meetings? How do we separate the stances of the private individuals from the office they hold?

(In English): In addition, what would be the criteria set by the Cabinet for the organisations to be deemed acceptable? Will there be any control over the type and number of organisations that the President and Ministers may participate in? What are the guidelines that determine which roles may be approved? How will the Government ensure that these individuals will not take on too many roles which may have a detrimental impact on their ability to fulfil the requirements of their main jobs?

I would also like to ask how different are these international roles from the non-executive ones, such as patrons, which our President and Ministers undertake concurrently? For example, President Tharman is the Patron of the Digital for Life Movement.

Other questions which arise are about to whom or which office will be paid the fees and honorariums from the organisations and the billing of expenses, such as travel, security detail and accommodation, if any.

Despite these concerns, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill in view of the benefits and glory such appointments will bring to Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.03 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendments to allow the President and Ministers to privately take on foreign and international roles in the national interest raises numerous concerns, most of which my Workers' Party (WP) colleagues Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan have articulated.

I will focus my remarks on clause 1.2 of the Bill, notably, the retrospective dating of stipulations to September 2023.

I appreciate that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has indicated earlier that the backdating was not necessary per se but introduced it out of an abundance of caution. If so, for me, this is even more worrisome, for reasons that would become evident over the course of my speech.

Retrospective applications of the law, sometimes referred to as retrospective or ex post facto laws, involve backdating the legal status of actions undertaken prior to the enactment of the law. Legislative retrospectivity may affect previously established legal relationships and rights and may attach new legal consequences to earlier decisions made by parties that did not anticipate these consequences under prior law.

Ex post facto laws are, indeed, permissible in Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as ours because of the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

Yet even legislative sovereignty must be located within the legal order where the rule of law remains absolute. Whether one subscribes to a thicker or thinner conception of the rule of law, the general principle that laws should be prospective, open and clear is not contested. This is for good reason.

If we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then we erode the very stability of the rule of law. These are consequences not just for the institution of the rule of law. Retroactive laws compromise both efficiency as well as equity. You can also, in the words of our own Court of Appeal, "undermine expectations".

Retroactivity becomes especially thorny when applied to matters involving the Constitution. Constitutions are meant to embody deep, fundamental principles that form the legal basis for the governance of sovereign countries. Indeed, in many jurisdictions worldwide, constitutions or Bill of rights form the very basis for prohibitions on retroactive legislation. This includes Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines and Russia.

Even in countries when the constitution does not explicitly prohibit ex post facto laws, they are almost always circumscribed, especially for criminal law.

Retroactive legislation enacted elsewhere has also been challenged on constitutional grounds, often at the very highest levels.

In the last session of Parliament, this House was very careful about enshrining specific provisions and rights into the Constitution precisely because of the notion that matters of policy that may not be sufficiently enduring should not garner constitutional amendments. It stands that we wish to be very careful about introducing retroactive clauses into any constitutional amendments because doing so would open up avenues for other future changes that could likewise be dated retroactively.

Based on a search in Hansard for the term "deemed to have come into operation", I was able to identify only a handful of other instances of Bills where retroactive applicability was hardcoded into the language of the Bill.

One is the Republic of Singapore Independence Act (RSIA), which was raised for First and Second Readings only in December 1965 but commenced on Singapore Day, 9 August, for obvious reasons. Since the RSIA has constitutional significance, this clearly justifies its retroactive application.

Another has to do with certain Bills related to pensions. The Pensions Act, enacted in 1956, was retroactively set to commence in 1939. Amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Act were made retroactive from the commencement of the original Act, and the Act to eventually abolish such pensions was likewise rendered operative a little than a year earlier, relative to when it was passed.

This retroactive applicability was to align either with when the principal Act come into operation or with actual practice, when pensions had already been frozen since May 2011. This is, again, justifiable since the nature of pensions is such that they are accrued incrementally. So, the timing of pension applicability matters.

The most recent example is in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. Certain parts of the Act, notably on conducting in-person meetings, were backdated to March that year. Given the limited understanding surrounding a novel and deadly disease, it is reasonable to expect the need to predate policy changes made in the fog of a life-and-death battle.

To be clear, Mr Speaker, there have been other instances where retroactivity was applicable but not hardcoded into the Bill. Section 8D of the Internal Security Act embeds a commencement provision that applies the amendments to proceedings that predate the Act. Amendments to the Singapore Military Forces Act, which affected reservists, were also ante-dated to two years prior, to be consistent with the functions assigned to the then Defence Forces Record Officer. In 1992, proposed changes to the mandatory death penalty for homicide offences were also applied to existing cases.

But, importantly, as far as I can gather, the common thread among these instances is that the case for retroactivity was always heavily justified, based on the importance of implications that could result were the law not applied retroactively – and it has never been applied to any constitutional amendment since 2007.

I believe Members of this House will, therefore, agree with me that all instances where retroactive legislation making is enacted to be sparing and any such cases should be justifiable by the gravity of otherwise not doing so. As suggested earlier, this basic argument should hold with even greater force when we are looking at a constitutional amendment, lest we run afoul of the underlying principles that undergird the rule of law as embodied in the highest law of the land.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is any incoherence between the Bill at hand and our Constitution itself since the right to due process implied by Article 9 of the Constitution pertains to life and liberty, neither of which are threatened with compromise by the proposed amendments, nor does the present Bill appear to be in contravention to Article 11, which offers protection against retrospective criminal laws.

Nevertheless, we are left with an uncomfortable position of asking ourselves whether the stipulations of the proposed constitutional amendments rise to the level of the sort of circumstances spelt out in the prior instances where legislative retroactivity was accommodated.

Sir, in the run-up to the 2020 elections, I expressed concerns in a public debate over how, were the People's Action Party (PAP) not denied a supermajority in Parliament, that would tantamount to handing them a blank cheque. The stipulations in today's Bill only serve to reinforce that fear.

After all, if one deems the matters raised by this Bill as sufficiently serious, why were they not considered for passage previously? After all, the PMO statement on the Bill suggests that invitations to the President or Ministers to take on international roles arise "from time to time".

If so, why was this sort of accommodation not previously drafted into prospective law rather than now, retroactively, and as a constitutional amendment no less? Or has the Government itself treated the matter lightly, taking for granted the fact that, with a supermajority in Parliament, it is able to alter the Constitution at will and, hence, it would simply be a fait accompli to roll out a retroactive amendment?

It would be useful for this House to know when the Government was first made aware of a possible conflict with the Constitution which would necessitate a potential amendment. If it was prior to the most recent presidential election, could our present need to pass a retroactive law have been avoided with a law that was enacted earlier instead of seemingly taking the passage of the constitutional amendment for granted?

And, if so, why was this matter of the President taking on or retaining such extracurricular appointments not clearly identified as an election issue so that the electorate would be able to make more informed voting choices when they cast their vote?

Sir, allow me to close by putting my main point simply.

Does this House regard the use of retroactive lawmaking embodied in this Bill – that we should retrospectively allow the President and Ministers to take on positions in their private capacity should it serve the national interest – as one that is sufficiently grave as to justify bending away from the sound, general principles of prospective lawmaking? Or is it bordering on an abuse of the Parliamentary supermajority to effect constitutional amendments of this nature at will?

For me, it is closer to the latter and, for that reason, I and the WP cannot support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

6.13 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this proposed amendment Bill.

We may be a small nation, but Singapore has gained international respect and admiration in several areas since our founding. The world today is yet again facing a series of challenges. After recovering from the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 with seeming peace and financial stability, COVID-19 hit. I use "seeming peace" because there were still areas of conflict and, if those were not contained, could have certainly brought global disruptions.

Geopolitical tensions between the United States (US) and China have deepened, although there may seem to be some ray of hope recently, and Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, triggering political and economic fallout.

Regionally, we are seeing the continuing issues in Myanmar. Most recently, we are witnessing the Israel-Hamas war, with ripples through racial and religious communities despite statements that this is neither a racial nor a religious conflict.

Singapore's domestic well-being depends on regional and global well-being. As a country dependent on regional and global peace and prosperity, we cannot look the other way when and where events occur that impact trade, financial systems, peace and global order. This, of course, must also include the ongoing efforts to address the urgent needs concerning climate change and the environment.

The proposed amendments may seem like a couple of sentences. But the potential impact will likely be much more. I refer to potential positive impact on a regional and global scale. And I believe, harnessed wisely, this will, in turn, reap positive impact for us domestically.

Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, put Singapore on the world map despite our small nation status. He was supported by a capable and able strong team, as he often acknowledged. He also made it a practice to bring younger leaders along with him to observe, listen and learn. Many are in the House today. After handing over political leadership, Mr Lee remained highly sought after internationally for his advice, his views and his outlook on a whole range of matters. He also concurrently provided guidance and advice when requested on domestic matters.

Global institutions continue to be dominated by the global powers. Often, this comes down to fundamental dominance by size and funding. Global institutions, though, are also facing the risk of losing relevance. There are many different views why this is the case. Despite this, it would be against our interests to ever feel that we, as a small nation, cannot contribute. It may take time, effort, persuasion, trust, cultivating relationships.

If our leaders are invited to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacities, we should, therefore, encourage this if this is in our national interest.

The recent rapid increase in interest rates from a decade of almost zero interest may continue to test the global economic fabric. Stock markets remain volatile and rise and fall in anticipation of whether the US Federal Reserve will increase interest rates. The ability to navigate the global financial uncertainty in the coming years will need the best minds and, of course, sound fiscal policy.

This is all happening at a time when global trade is becoming increasingly protective. We, therefore, need to protect our future interests, both domestically and internationally. And we have been doing so and we must continue to do so.

As our leaders with sharp minds, expertise and experience debate and discuss issues of importance at international forums, we play our part in contributing to global solutions and actions. Participation at international forums will also be a channel where we remain open to learning from others and, perhaps, bringing back lessons that may improve our own policies and practices. I trust our leaders will be bringing along younger leaders to observe, listen and learn.

Our private and people sectors have also contributed on the global stage over the decades. It may be timely to see whether more public, private and people sector collaboration may be beneficial in selected global arenas. As a financial hub, we will have gained much private sector knowledge and expertise and continue to attract a significant amount of funds under management. We have also gained significant experience in establishing and stewarding our Sovereign Wealth Funds.

The Singapore International Foundation (SIF) has been mobilising the people sector in cross-border engagement. Since 1991, SIF has brought together communities in a variety of initiatives with the aim to connect and collaborate for positive change. One programme, the Young Social Entrepreneurs Programme, brings together social entrepreneurs from the region each year to sharpen their socially driven initiatives, undergo mentoring and, eventually, participate in a final pitching session. Social entrepreneurs emerging from this programme have brought positive impact and change to a whole spectrum of communities.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are currently behind schedule and many are unlikely to achieve the targets set for 2030. If the SDGs are achieved, the world should be in a better place. The SDGs have attracted both public and private funding and have been often used to benchmark philanthropic giving across all levels.

While we may not specifically align our various public and private philanthropic endeavours with the UN SDGs, we are, nevertheless, engaging in many of these goals through many ongoing public programmes and private and people initiatives.

I hope that as our leaders engage at the highest levels, there will be consideration for building a whole-of-society approach to global engagement. Working with young and aspiring leaders and also, in particular, social entrepreneurs, they have much to offer to the Singapore of today and tomorrow.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, to conclude with this well-known quote from Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "For the young, let me tell you the sky has turned brighter. There is a glorious rainbow that beckons those with the spirit of adventure. And there are rich findings at the end of the rainbow. To the young and to the not-so-old, I say, look at that horizon, follow that rainbow, go ride it." I cling onto the few words that say, "not-so-old".

Mr Speaker, Sir, though a non-voting Member of this House on constitutional matters, I strongly encourage and support our leaders, our President and our Ministers, to perform foreign and international roles in our national interests and I thank them, particularly where this is in their private capacities to contribute towards a much-needed better world.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.22 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to seek clarification on several aspects of the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to allow the President or Ministers to hold and accept office in their "private capacity". The distinction between whether the President or the Minister is acting in the capacity of a Singaporean officeholder or a foreign one is important. This is especially considering the potential for perceptions that they are still acting as officeholders even in a private capacity.

Will it be apparent as to whom the President or Minister represents when wearing these different hats? The potential switching between roles raises concerns about the clarity of representation. The public must be able to discern whether the President or Minister is acting on behalf of Singapore, the foreign organisation or both.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the role of the President and Ministers in foreign organisations must not run counter to our national interests. How do we ensure that individuals holding these roles align with our national priorities? Are there restrictions on the types of organisations that they can serve in?

Is the President and are the Ministers prohibited from serving on foreign bodies, even remotely, if the foreign organisation's agenda poses a conflict of interest? This consideration is paramount in preventing Singapore's officeholders from using privileged information gained from their positions or accidentally disclosing official secrets.

Another key consideration is the connection that exposes them to vulnerabilities that cybercriminals may exploit. In addition, if a Minister had served, for instance, in the Ministry of National Development but is now transferred to another portfolio, is there a moratorium on their service in a foreign organisation that could pose a conflict of interest?

Were there prohibitions in place before the appointment as President? Do the amendments apply to the appointments made before the role of the President was assumed? I ask these questions because if the constitutional amendments are made retrospectively, it would be a practice not commonly observed in legislative amendments.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the potential impact on the President's and the Ministers' abilities to fulfil their duties to the nation. With this amendment, are we confident that they will have sufficient time and bandwidth to execute their roles in both the external organisation and their official capacities? Is there a time limit for serving in these foreign or international organisations? We must prevent a scenario where our leaders become entangled in external commitments to the detriment of their duties to the nation. Should a rule prioritise their national duties?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask about financial considerations. We must address the issue of remuneration for these external positions. Do they retain the remuneration they receive? Who bears the expenses associated with travel for these appointments? Besides the monetary aspects, it touches upon the very image and perception of the office. How palatable would it be for the President to receive full wages alongside additional remuneration for a secondary appointment?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the net benefit of such engagements holds the potential to significantly enhance Singapore's global standing. Participation in international organisations provides our leaders with an exceptional platform to establish diplomatic connections with influential leaders across diverse nations and sectors. These networks can translate into collaborations and partnerships that ultimately benefit Singapore.

Such appointments also provide the opportunity to showcase their expertise at an international level. This not only elevates their personal standing but further amplifies the influence and reputation of our nation. These international roles often involve addressing pressing global challenges, such as climate change. Our leaders, in such capacities, can contribute to meaningful solutions on a broader and international scale.

In addition, by actively participating in international organisations, our leaders become effective advocates for Singapore's interests on a global stage. This may encompass negotiations on international agreements and influencing global policies in favour of our nation. Hence, achieving a balance among these diverse roles, all the while steadfastly prioritising Singapore's national interests, is critical. In doing so, we would allow for the optimal utilisation of our leaders' skills on both the domestic and international fronts, ultimately contributing to the advancement of Singapore. My clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the House.

Debate resumed.

6.27 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I have listened to the speeches of the Opposition Members of Parliament. They are entitled to their views, but I take a very divergent view. In my view, the amendments are fundamentally about Singapore's voice in the international arena and how we keep our little red dot shining brightly.

Why oppose that? Why oppose something that should be done in Singapore's interests? Sir, I give seven reasons why I support this amendment. These reasons also track broadly why I disagree with the Opposition's broad points. And having listened to the Opposition's aversions towards the amendments, I will end off giving my own personal view on the subject at hand from personal experience.

The first point is this: we are a small country, yet we have done well. We are privileged to have gained respect around the globe for what we have built and for the people we have become. It is broadly on that basis that members of our Cabinet have been invited to participate in various international organisations and contribute generally globally.

Second, our Ministers have accepted these international roles to extend Singapore's standing abroad, so long as it is aligned with our national interests.

The third point, today, we are debating whether to extend this practice to the President as well. The proposed Article 22Q allows the President to accept and hold an office in a foreign or international organisation in his private capacity. This, of course, is limited by Article 19A(1), meaning that he cannot actively engage in any commercial enterprise. The President can only accept such a role if the Cabinet advises him that it is for the national interests and he himself concurs.

Furthermore, even after the acceptance of such a role, the President is limited against saying or doing anything in that role if the Cabinet so advises, and must relinquish the role if so advised by the Cabinet. This means that even as the President takes on a role, the Cabinet will continually consider if this role aids our national interests and how it helps Singapore and Singaporeans.

Fourth, this Bill is built on the backbone of our strong and established relationships with partners from around the world, as we seek to advance Singapore's national interests on the global stage and to gain international and commercial perspectives on issues that all countries face today.

Being a part of such international groups and committees is essential as we look to bring Singapore forward. Not only does it put Singapore on the map and allows us to contribute to issues beyond our borders, but we can gain insights into the considerations of other leaders in their respective countries and fields. The commercial insight we gain helps us to keep abreast with how policies are affecting the economy and vice versa. By understanding the ramifications in both the public and the private spheres, we are able to chart a better way forward for Singapore.

Fifth, over the years, our Cabinet has been invited to be a part of many international groups. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when he was Minister Mentor, took on such positions. He was a special advisor to Citigroup Inc. back in 2006, as well as being a part of the JP Morgan Chase International Council.

And, of course, President Tharman, when he was Senior Minister, took on several roles, including being a member of the WEF Board of Trustees, Co-chair of the GCEW and the G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for pandemic preparedness and response.

Sixth, Mr Speaker, all these roles our Ministers have taken on have been appointments that have advanced Singapore's national interest and allowed our Cabinet to have a broader perspective, which they can utilise in governing Singapore.

Seventh, in the same way, to extend this role to our President, will serve Singapore well internationally and allow for greater global cooperation between us and the world. We can continue to build and strengthen relationships and significantly forged new ones, so that Singapore will always have a seat at the international table.

My ultimate point, before I go on to discuss the speeches before me, is one that comes from personal experience and deep personal belief. Perhaps I can give a personal account to drive home my point as to why international memberships are good for Singapore.

Just late last year, in 2022, I travelled with Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean on a Government trip to Egypt, and then to Paris, France. In Egypt, our objective was to get a sense of the security situation in North Africa, the region, southern Europe and the Middle East, and how movements there would impact Singapore.

We took a flight from Cairo to Paris. Our mission in Paris was to get a good sense of the Russia-Ukraine war, whether there was an end in sight – all in Singapore's interests.

On the third day of our Paris leg, Senior Minister Teo attended the meetings of the TotalEnergies International Advisory Committee. At the same hotel we were staying at were Senior Minister Teo's fellow industry advisory committee members from TotalEnergies. I met them socially at breakfast and spoke with them. The calibre of Senior Minister Teo's counterparts was exceptional. That is my own honest, personal and real-life experience. Captains of global industries, leaders in science and global experts in their fields. That Senior Minister Teo was invited to be among such peers is both a credit to Singapore and to the Senior Minister.

I was left in no doubt, I repeat, I was left in no doubt that memberships at these high-level international bodies put Singapore on the map and advances our interests. But equally important, it advances global interests and our common humanity.

Is it any coincidence that Senior Minister Teo is also our Minister-in-charge of climate change? His perspectives add value to the global debate.

While Senior Minister was at the TotalEnergies meetings, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) kept me occupied with bilateral meetings at the French Senate. No time was wasted, and no resources were wasted; back-to-back meetings trying to advance Singapore's interests and global interests.

Now, returning to the President. Like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was invited to international boards, or Senior Minister Teo, if our President is also held in such high esteem and his views are sought to advance a better world, why say no? Why say no?

It is a feather in the cap for Singapore, and what more Singapore gets a seat at the table. And many a time, global goals – eradication of poverty, protection of water supplies and mitigating climate change – are in concert with, in other words, are consistent with our own national priorities.

There is little divergence. And that is why voting in favour of this constitutional amendment is a vote in favour of Singapore.

We are talking about the highest office of the land. I listened carefully at the Opposition Members' speeches and had to say to myself, "I must respond to some of their arguments".

So, let me start off with Mr Gerald Giam. Mr Gerald Giam has four points, or arguments rather, the hon Member uses some – and here, I speak through you, Mr Speaker, Sir – the hon Member has some reservations about some members of boards and committees who may not be in full integrity of the role they occupy on the board, given their other occupations.

Also, Mr Giam's view is that Mr Tharman should be focused predominantly on inclusivity, arts and sports, and provide undivided attention to some of the declared objectives while he was on campaign.

But there is no divided attention. Is arts, sports and inclusivity not also a global goal? Ought Singapore not be seen at boards and international meetings and conferences, promoting this global ideal? Where is the undivided attention? If anything, there is economies of scale of attention to put forward this value.

Mr Giam also says, "The Cabinet can say what he cannot say". But it does not say that the Cabinet has to dictate what he has to say beyond what he cannot and therefore, there is free play, and we all know President Tharman, or most of us would know President Tharman as a man of his own thinking and deep integrity to his values.

So, I do not agree with the positions taken by my hon fellow Member Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Dennis Tan goes on to talk about how no other Head of State acts like this and there are only 24 hours in a day. I think Members of this House would know that former Senior Minister Tharman, now President Tharman, packs a lot in, in 24 hours of his day.

I do not see there to be binary duties between what Mr Dennis Tan, or as I understood Mr Dennis Tan to say, is a domestic role and more of an international role. The President is our top diplomat. He represents the state, and therefore, he has both to fulfil to the maximum of his ability and his or her talent the obligations at the international stage in addition to the domestic stage, which are not incompatible.

Mr Dennis Tan then talks about what if there is a crisis and where should the President's attention be? But if you look at some of the institutions that the President is now party to, they include the Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

So, if indeed we are talking about a crisis or a pandemic, ought it not be to Singapore's fillip, to Singapore's advantage, to Singapore's utility, that we have a person there, a reputable person, stating his own personal views, subject, of course, to the constraints and fetters offered by Cabinet, if any?

Let me move on to Mr Leong Mun Wai. Mr Leong says there is a violation in what we are doing today. There is no violation. We could have easily carried on the status quo of having the President carry out duties in his official capacity. But as I understand it and as I understand Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech, it was the organisations who said, "Yes, you have brought forth an even greater ballast by your elevation to Head of State, and brings with the credibility to the organisation, but actually what we really want are your personal views, so you are not fettered by what the government of the day thinks."

And that presented a novel situation, which, in good conscience, the Attorney-General flagged out, and which we are ironing out today.

So, I hope that puts in perspective the good faith nature of what we are doing today. There is no surreptitious, outflanking manoeuvre. It is honest and transparent Parliamentary business that we are passing today.

And if, indeed, there are any disagreements, which I think Mr Leong, or maybe another Member alluded to, that is exactly why we have Article 22 to Article 22Q, which places in conditions what the President can do and cannot do.

And the last limb, if I am not mistaken, if the Cabinet is of the view that the President does not carry on these duties, he must relinquish them. It is not a "may", if I read it correctly. It is a "must". And let us hope that never comes to it.

So, we are not in a situation of a binary choice where we have to say, "Look, no memberships because we do not want our President being overly distracted by international duties" or "we want a largely domestic President to be on the ground". In the President, in who is elected, we can actually have both, and what a fillip advantage that would be for Singapore.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim then speaks about retroactivity, and I think when I listened very carefully, the hon Member talked about some element of retrospectivity and raised Article 11.

I do not have Article 11 with me here now, but Article 11 actually talks about criminal offences. And therefore, it is not, strictly speaking, relevant to what we are debating today. So, what we are doing today is not incoherent with the Constitution.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim ended off with really what was a political point, and what was the political point of today's debate among the Opposition Members of Parliament, in my humble view – which was a political point, "Thank goodness that we have Members in this House, that if we had enough Members, we could railroad and prevent this amendment from going through if we had the one-third. But we do not."

I would like to take that conclusion and flip it on its head. I am humbly proud, that I am part of the two-thirds that pushes through constitutional legislations that are robustly in favour of our national interests. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

6.46 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Member, Mr de Souza, for responding to my speech. I think Mr de Souza is making a strawman argument. He is arguing that the WP does not think that our President and Ministers should sit on international boards. This is not what I said. What I did say is, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to advance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests.

We have no issue with him taking up these roles in his official capacity. What we disagree with him, is him taking up these roles in his private capacity. I think Mr de Souza has not addressed that in his speech. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister already clarified that these international organisations are happy to have our President and Ministers in their official capacity. So, I do not see what the issue is.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I am afraid the Member is incorrect on two counts. The first is that the private bodies see the elevation of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam as the President, as Head of State, to be an advantage to their organisations. But as I understood it, they did not want him to be just stating what the Government's position on things would be. They wanted his personal view. And this was never contemplated in the Constitution, because the Constitution always had official capacity.

So, Cabinet looked at this. They were upfront about it. They did not sneak it under the carpet and said, bygones be bygones. Just carry on with official capacity and let the President say what he wants to say in private capacity. No, that would be wrong, even if nobody found out.

The Attorney-General said, "Look, based on the tools, the framework and the mechanics of the Constitution, this may not – this may run into a little bit of trouble. So, why do we not allow memberships via private capacities, but fetter them?" Fetter them by Cabinet, and that is why we have Article 22C. So, it was out of an abundance of caution that we are doing what we are doing today. That puts it in perspective.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, Mr de Souza himself said in his speech, that Mr Tharman has a mind of his own, I am just paraphrasing him. He said, but Mr Tharman has been on these Boards in his official capacity all this time. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has confirmed that all these positions that he is currently on, are in his official capacity and he has been speaking his mind all this time. So, what is wrong with that?

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Tharman is now the Head of State. And therefore, we have to have a structure, predictability, a framework in order to resolve what could be internationally prickly situations. And if you look at the explanatory statement, it states very clearly under Article 22C what the Cabinet can advise the President to do.

Three conditions must be met before the President may do so.

First, the President must be disabled by article 19A(1) from performing the function of the office. Second, the Cabinet must advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold the office. Third, the President acting in his discretion must concur with the Cabinet's advice.

In deciding whether to give his concurrence, the President is not subject to a time limit. And the President must relinquish the office if so advised by the Cabinet. So, Mr Tharman has now been elevated to Head of State. And this provides, I think, both His Excellency and the regulators in the form of the Cabinet to have a very predictable framework to deal with these issues.

And let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are issues that are facing the globe which our Ministers and also the President have unique, deep insights to contribute towards. So, do we put a roadblock or do we find a workable solution? And in the Singapore way, we find a workable solution.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.51 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Let me start by clarifying that my citation of Article 9 on due process, as well as Article 11 on retroactivity, was to say that I actually did not believe, and I quote myself, "that there was any incoherence between the Bill itself and the Constitution". So, let me first put that on the record.

But, if I heard Mr de Souza correctly, he suggests that one impetus for this Bill is that it was to accommodate, potentially, the concerns of these international organisations, about the independence of our potential representatives were we to send them there. Perhaps I should ask the question: what does it say about us as a nation, as a sovereign nation, if we are amending the highest law of the land, just so that we can potentially appease the desires of international organisations?

Mr Christopher de Souza: If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. So, when you get invited to these organisations, they speak well of Singapore, they speak well of the person who has been invited. The door is ajar, Singapore's interests can be presented by way of osmosis and the whole ecosystem, in the boardroom or the committee room, you get a sense of each continent's political difficulties and economic difficulties. So, why say no?

We are not pandering to the requests of international organisations. The fact that people who I have mentioned – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister Teo, other esteemed Cabinet Ministers and Senior Minister Tharman – continue to be sought after, after years in Government, speaks well that they are relevant.

But they want not just the official line. If there is room to share from their own experience and their own wealth of knowledge, what they have been through, how they think things can pan out, not just for Singapore, but for the world and for the region, why veto that? Why shut that out? How can that be construed as us pandering to international organisations when it is a feather in the cap to actually be invited in the first place? And then set down rules as to what can or cannot be done, so that the international organisations know the rules of engagement and so do we, both on His Excellency's Head of State side and on Cabinet side.

So, I turned it on its head and say we are not pandering. We should be honoured and humbled, and accept, as far as possible, subject to national interests.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I listen to the debate, especially the points raised by Member Christopher de Souza. I am very confused. So, I want to make one clarification. Can I make a clarification to the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr Speaker: You can raise your clarification with respect to his opening speech, but later, he will have a chance to give his closing speech.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, because I would like to develop further the issue about official capacity and private capacity. I am totally in support of the WP's position, explained by Member Gerald Giam. We are in support of the official capacity if our Ministers perform the international appointments in their official capacities.

But I want to make one clarification with the Deputy Prime Minister. Our Ministers have, in the past, been always taking up all these international appointments. Is it the first time, through this Bill, that we are differentiating official capacity and private capacity? I would like to raise this clarification first.

6.56 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to wrap up and, in the process, clarify the issues that have been raised. I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the amendment. In fact, many of the questions from Members, if you had listened carefully to my opening remarks, were already addressed in my opening remarks. But nevertheless, let me go through some of these points again.

First, on why this does not apply to the Prime Minister. We have got the President, we have got Ministers, but why not the Prime Minister? In my opening remarks, I said we do not intend, the Government does not intend for either the current or future Prime Ministers to serve in international organisations. So, this is not relevant to the Prime Minister.

Second, what is the status of President Tharman's current appointments? The present status are the four appointments which I have highlighted just now. They are appointments in the official capacity and they are not unconstitutional. They are made in accordance with the advice and support of the Cabinet. These are not full-time appointments; these are not executive appointments. They are roles as Board of Trustees, advisory roles; so, it is quite different from some of the examples that Mr Giam had cited earlier too.

Third, on the issue of backdating, I had addressed that too. But let me go through that again. Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law.

And so, if you backdate, then the ones who had relied on existing law may well be prejudiced. But this is not the case here. No one is prejudiced under this backdating. But in any case, setting aside the principle of it as I had highlighted just now, we are doing this out of an abundance of caution. We will not use this provision, and the approval of the President's appointment will be done on a prospective basis.

Let me now go through the rest of my remarks on the additional queries and issues that have been raised.

There were several Members who asked how the Government would assess invitations for the President or Ministers to participate in these international bodies.

The framework that we are setting out makes it clear that the President or the Minister, can only hold a foreign or international role in their private capacities, if it is in the national interest to do so. The critical phrase is "national interest".

Then, you might ask, what do we mean by "national interest"? In general, the President or Minister's participation should be helpful in advancing Singapore's standing and interests on the international stage. There should be benefits, be it direct or indirect, to Singapore as a whole or the Government agency which oversees the sector that the organisation operates in.

There might also be clear outcomes we want to help progress through these arrangements. For example, the President or the Minister's participation could help advance views that are aligned to Singapore's outlook and approach on issues to help shape the global agenda in areas that are critical to Singapore.

These benefits could also take the form of staying plugged into global discussions on topics salient to Singapore or generating mindshare for Singapore among influential thought leaders and networks. So, that is what we would say broadly is in the national interest.

But what I want to reiterate, and it is important and a substantive point to reiterate here, undertaking this role in a private capacity does not mean that the President or the Minister is somehow doing some extra-curricular activity, something that is outside of his work duties. That is not the case.

When the President serves in this capacity, he is contributing to his national responsibilities, and he is undertaking his presidential duties. As Mr Christopher de Souza correctly said, the presidential office is not a President for domestic or international, it is a President serving both domestic and international interests. A key role of the President is as Singapore's top diplomat. International dimensions are part and parcel of the President's role and how he contributes to Singapore. So, this is not a trade-off, as though doing this is outside of his presidential duties; they are integral to his presidential duties.

Another misunderstanding from what I have heard so far is a confusion between private views and private interests. A lot of the comments suggest that when the President serves in his private capacity, he is serving in his private interests. That is not the case.

We are allowing him, when he serves under this new clause, to serve in a way that allows him to contribute his private views, subject to safeguards, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. Safeguards are not so much that we control what he says, but we say that he is not able to comment on domestic policies and politics. That is the safeguard.

Beyond that, we allow him to contribute independently to these organisations in his private capacity. But when he does so, he does so in the national interest. So, he is not serving in his private interests, he is serving in the national interest.

So, I hope that clarifies what this envisages, this provision allows the President and Ministers to do.

Approving an appointment, when the Cabinet agrees to the President or to a Minister undertaking these assignments, we are doing this for the national interest. We are doing this so that the President can project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world, fulfilling his presidential duties.

Approving an appointment in its private capacity is a way for us to facilitate the President acting independently to achieve the aims of the organisations, subject to the necessary safeguards of our national interest.

You could say – and I think, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked just now – this is the first time we are doing this. Yes, it is for the President. Previously, Ministers have served in organisations with the approval of the Prime Minister and when they did so, they did so in their private capacity. There was no legal impediment for Ministers to do so, but now, we are dealing with a novel situation where it comes to the President.

The President had in the past served in international organisations in his official capacity before. And the Government could very well, as an alternative to what we are discussing today, have said, "Maybe we should just allow the President to continue holding the international appointments in his official capacity. After all, had been done before, Dr Tan had served so why not continue to do so with President Tharman?"

And, indeed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this was our thinking. And we only came to the realisation after President Tharman's election, as we were deliberating over the matter. We could have said we will continue with this arrangement, let him serve in his official capacity. In fact, we might even have given him latitude to express some independent views while contributing to these organisations. We could have done that.

We asked the Attorney-General’s Chamber (AGC). AGC said this is not expressly prohibited by law and if we had taken this approach, people would be none the wiser. The Opposition would not even have objected to it, I assume, from what I gathered from Mr Gerald Giam just now. But is it correct? Is it correct?

Our conclusion was that this will not be ideal for us, for Singapore; and neither will it be ideal for the international organisations.

Why? Because the nature and parameters of the President's involvement would be unclear. Is he speaking for Singapore or is he speaking for himself? He will essentially be operating in a new, novel and grey zone.

And that is why the Government decided it is far better to be upfront, transparent and direct about this matter instead of operating in an area with some ambiguity. We come to Parliament, pass a proper and principled framework and work within this framework going forward. That is the proper thing to do.

So, when I heard some of the speeches from Opposition Members and their opposition to this Bill, with phrases suggesting that this is not proper, that somehow it is unconstitutional and that this is some violation of established principles – this is completely unfounded. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us not use this technical language to camouflage political grandstanding. Let us come back to the substance of what this is about. Ultimately, this is about Singapore, or as Mr Leong Mun Wai would say, "This is for country, for people".

So, we have to ask ourselves the substance of these provisions. Do they further the interests of Singapore? Do they bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans? That is what the substance of it is. And from the Government's point of view, the provisions are very clear. This will enable our little red dot to shine brightly on the international stage. It is a plus for Singapore.

On that basis, if that is the case, how about resourcing support for the President when he undertakes these international roles in his private capacity or for that matter when a Minister does so? Based on the explanation I said just now, precisely because when the President serves, he is not serving in his private interest, he is serving in the national interest.

Therefore, the resourcing support is no different from how the Government supports the President when he undertakes an official trip. This will just be a working trip. He contributes his private views to these organisations, but he is going on these trips on the basis of national interest, not for his private business.

In the President’s case, this will include staff support to review the materials, provide briefs for the meetings he attends, as well as funding for the travel costs of President and his delegation as and when there are international meetings. In other words, this is like a working trip; no different from any other working trips the President or the Minister undertakes in the national interest.

In fact, while some of the international organisations, the ones I cited, would be willing to pay for the President's cost, we think it is proper that the Government foots the Bill because when we do this, when the President goes on these trips, as I said, it is on the advice of the Cabinet and it is in the national interest that he holds these national appointments.

So, remember, private views are not the same as private interests.

This Bill allows him to express private views but still serve in the national interest, doing duties that are integral and part and parcel of presidential duties.

Then there were questions of possible conflicts of interest. These could arise, for example, if the foreign or international organisations were to take positions that are different from the Government or if a President or Minister were to take steps that are detrimental to the nation’s interest.

But such potential conflicts of interest or questions of conflict will be considered in deciding whether or not to support an appointment in the first place. Clearly, it would not be in Singapore’s national interest to support appointments that place the President or a Minister in conflict with their official functions.

And furthermore, as I explained in my opening remarks, the President and Ministers will not be able to make any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore in the course of such engagements in international bodies.

If the questions of conflict do arise later on in the course of an appointment, the individual can take steps to remove the conflict, for example, by recusing himself or herself from a particular decision that would conflict with their official duties.

The Cabinet can also advise the President accordingly. The Prime Minister can likewise instruct a Minister.

If there are serious questions of conflict that cannot be resolved, the President or the Minister would have to relinquish the appointment. If necessary, Cabinet would advise the President to do so, and the Prime Minister would instruct a Minister.

And if the President, as I think, Mr Dennis Tan says, intentionally refuses to follow the Cabinet's advice, then that would be grounds for removal and there are procedures set out for such removals.

On the issue of remuneration, I confirm that that the President and Ministers may not retain any remuneration or benefits in connection with appointments in their private capacity.

The President has not received any such remuneration or other benefits, like an honorarium from the international bodies that he is represented on currently. And should he be offered such benefits, the President is expected to decline it or to donate the sum to charity. This is already the current arrangement for Ministers, and it will continue to be so under the new framework.

Again, Cabinet will advise the President, and the Prime Minister will instruct Ministers, to this effect.

Then, there were some questions about bandwidth. This is having accepted that the President's roles cover both domestic and international, but I suppose there will be questions asked about emphasis and bandwidth and how you spend the time. These are legitimate questions.

And so, in assessing invitations to the President, the Cabinet will consider, among other things, the commitments expected by this international role. Cabinet will also consider the meeting load and travel demands, and whether these are reasonable. So, this will ensure that the President’s holding of these roles remains to Singapore’s benefit and will not, in any way, affect his ability to exercise the rest of his constitutional duties. The Prime Minister will likewise do the same for roles involving Ministers.

At the end of the day, it would not be in the national interest for the President or a Minister to take on external appointments that affect their ability to perform their official duties. All assessments made by Cabinet will carefully weigh any potential bandwidth concerns against the potential benefit the appointments will bring.

So, Sir, at the end of the day, I think we have to come back to the substance and merits of what this amendment Bill is about. Do we want the President to take on these international roles in his independent and private capacity, when it is in the national interest? And if so, do we want to put in place a proper legal and governing framework for such an arrangement rather than to pretend, fudge the issue and just operate in this ambiguous, grey zone without being upfront?

The Government’s position is very clear. We want to have a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, where required by the national interest.

And we want to do so sooner rather than later. We have identified the issue, it came up, we looked at it and we settled on a solution which is being proposed in this House. The sooner we get this done, the sooner the President can embark on his engagements under a clear constitutional framework. There is nothing to be gained by delay.

Up to now, out of an abundance of caution, I should say, President Tharman has not attended any formal meetings of the four international bodies that he has been appointed to since 14 September and prior to this reading in Parliament. That is out of an abundance of caution because he has been appointed in an official basis, but he has decided not to attend any formal meetings.

Should Parliament pass this amendment Bill, then the new framework will be in place and President Tharman will be able to attend future meetings under this new governing arrangement. And, indeed, there are upcoming meetings, including the G30 Winter Plenary in New York next week.

Sir, this Government will always take a sensible, rather than a dogmatic or ideological, approach to the Constitution. We know that the Constitution is a living document. It should not be amended frivolously, but it also cannot stay static. It has to evolve as our needs change over the years.

And indeed, it was Cabinet that assessed the need to move this constitutional amendment. We agreed that it would be a positive and necessary structural change and would increase the ability of individuals to contribute to Singapore while ensuring the relevant safeguards and ensuring greater accountability.

Sir, as a small and open economy, Singapore has always recognised the importance of staying engaged with the international community. Our survival depends on us being able to respond to the changing global landscape and to deliver value to the world.

Opportunities to take up office in respected international institutions where we can actively contribute to shaping global norms – these do not come by all the time. It is not as though these institutions will say, "Look, any Singaporean also can come and serve in my organisation."

But the few occasions when these invitations come by, I think we should treasure them. They are invaluable for Singapore. And this is indeed how we have built strong relationships with other countries, while safeguarding our interests and ensuring that our voices are heard on the global stage.

I cannot emphasise how much Singapore has gained because our top officials are regularly tapped on by international bodies and foreign governments. And this was the case from our founding generation of leaders. Dr Goh Keng Swee, for example, was tapped on by the Chinese government in 1985 to advise them on the setting up of the Special Economic Zones in China. He was then Deputy Chairman of both the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and GIC. While he was Deputy Prime Minister, he was also tapped on by the Sri Lankan government to advise them on the restructuring of the economy.

The Chinese and Sri Lankan government did not ask Dr Goh because they wanted him to act in the interest of the Singapore Government in China or Sri Lanka, obviously. They asked him because they knew his record as the architect of Singapore's economy and hope that he would be able to help them.

The Prime Minister then Mr Lee Kuan Yew readily agreed to Dr Goh playing these roles because they brought credit to Singapore. They underlined our usefulness to the world and projected our influence abroad.

Likewise, these international bodies are not asking President Tharman to continue playing a role in their organisations because they want him to represent Singapore's views or the views of the Singapore Government. They are asking him because they know his record in the Singapore Government and hope he would be able to give sound advice on global issues. And Cabinet has readily agreed to President continuing in these roles because they bring credit to Singapore, underline our usefulness to the world and project our influence abroad effectively.

And so, we are amending the Constitution so that the President can act independently to bring value to the organisations he operates in, while serving our national interest, because he is the Head of State, and this is why it is novel. Previously, it was okay for Ministers, but now we are dealing with the President. It is a new situation and because he is the Head of State, we have put in place a framework to ensure his participation in these international bodies does not affect in any way his constitutional responsibilities to Singaporeans or the discharge of his custodial duties.

The President will not be directly representing Singapore's official positions in these bodies or commenting on any of Singapore's domestic or foreign policies abroad. And when there is any danger of him being put in a difficult position or in conflict with national interest, the Cabinet will advise him not to take part or even to withdraw from the body.

Sir, this Bill recognises and supports the Government's commitment to always look out for opportunities to further advance Singapore's interests, in this case, through facilitating arrangements to tap on deserving individuals' experiences and personal standing.

And it also reflects how this Government works – to deal with issues squarely to be upfront and transparent and to act in a way that is consistent with sound legal and governance principles.

So, I will ask the WP and the PSP, having heard my explanations to reconsider your positions. There is no need to oppose for the sake of opposition. There is no need to oppose something that will clearly advance Singapore's interests and bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans.

In some ways, Singapore is at the stage of our development where our national interests are becoming more closely intertwined with global interests. So, we need to find ways to achieve this intertwining, and this Bill is one of the ways to achieve this. So, let us all, hopefully everyone in this House will agree, give your support for the Bill, do our part to strengthen Singapore's voice on the international stage, to add to our participation in influential global forums and to ensure that this little red dot continues to shine brightly in a dark and troubled world. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

7.21 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for answering my question clearly that, in the past, when the Ministers have taken up international appointments, they would have also taken up appointments in their private capacity. I have two more clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister.

One, is the current position taken up by Senior Minister Teo in TotalEnergies in his private capacity?

Two, if, in the past, Ministers had been taking up positions in their private capacity and so, now for the President, the Cabinet is being advised by the AGC that there are some issues. I think to be a responsible Opposition, we still want to understand what are the issues that the AGC has raised? Is it pertaining to the fact that: one, that the Cabinet does not have complete control over the President's appointments and that is why we need this Bill? Or is it because there are certain appointments, just like what the WP and us are saying, where he can perform his role in his official capacity, that should be no problem. But if certain appointments require a private capacity, what are those appointments? Is the AGC's position along those lines? Can I seek the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarification, please?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the answer to the first question is yes. Senior Minister Teo or, for that matter, the many examples I cited before him – Dr Goh Keng Swee and other Ministers – were acting in their private capacity in these international organisations. And that is because they were authorised to do so by the Prime Minister. There is no legal impediment for the Prime Minister to so authorise Ministers to act in their private capacity, subject to safeguards and principles, which I have just described. And so, this has been happening not just with Senior Minister Teo, but even way back with Dr Goh and many other examples.

Then, you say, why can you not do it for the President? And as I have explained, the Prime Minister cannot authorise the President to do likewise. The AGC has advised this is an area that the Constitution does not clearly provide for. And that is why we debated, and we thought about it. One option, as I described just now, was for us to, rather than authorise the President to act in his private capacity, allow the President to serve in his official capacity, but with some latitude to express his private views. And AGC said that is not clearly, expressly prohibited. But it is not ideal.

That was what I tried to explain in my speech – not ideal. It leads us into new grey and ambiguous areas because no one will know whether what the President says is reflecting his personal views or the Singapore Government's views, official views, what is it? And we prefer not to operate like that in such an ambiguous manner. We prefer to be upfront. We prefer to be transparent. And we prefer to do this in a principled manner, with a clear governing framework, hence the amendments before this House.

7.25 pm

Mr Speaker: Any further clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Wong? Alright. The question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote 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 and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr 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 the arm rest start to blink.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system.

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.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I think my vote is not registered. I vote yes.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. We will record it as such.

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 75 "Ayes"; eight "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 and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

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 Lawrence Wong]

Bill considered in Committee, reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote 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 Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 60 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a third time."

Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. Again, may I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system.

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.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No.

Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 75 "Ayes"; eight "Noes"; 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 and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Leader.