1 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) to date, how many companies have implemented portable medical benefits for their employees; (b) how can it be made more pervasive and attractive for both employers and employees to support such initiatives; and (c) apart from contributing to MediSave, whether portability of medical benefits can be in the form of reimbursements to employees for the premium that they pay for standard medical insurance.
2 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) whether the tripartite work group has been successful in encouraging employers and employees to shift to portable medical benefits; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider legislation to mandate that corporate outpatient medical insurance plans become portable in order to protect employees who may be unable to qualify for a subsequent insurance plan due to pre-existing conditions.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say):\tMdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, at the national level, the Government ensures that Singaporean workers have portable medical benefits through mandatory MediSave contributions by employers and employees. At the company level, more than 90% of employers provide additional medical benefits. Among them, some employers provide portable medical benefits on a voluntary basis. Our last survey in 2013 showed that about 4% of companies employing about 20% of our local workers do so. These companies may enjoy higher tax deductions for their medical expenses if they meet the qualifying conditions.
With the introduction of MediShield Life in 2015, all Singaporeans now have portable medical insurance. The tripartite partners are, therefore, promoting MediShield Life as the platform for voluntary portable benefits. MediShield Life is universal and employees can use MediSave contributions to pay for premiums for MediShield Life, as well as Integrated Shield Plans which build on top of MediShield Life.
With MediShield Life, all our local workers can be assured that their medical coverage, including for pre-existing illnesses, would follow them, regardless of any change in employment status or employer. More importantly, the annual claim limit has been raised significantly and the lifetime claim limit has been removed.
Our focus going forward is to encourage employers to shift from providing non-portable medical benefits, such as the Group Hospital and Surgical insurance, to making additional contributions to employees' MediSave accounts. The tripartite partners have, for a start, included this recommendation in the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees released in May 2016. We will continue to encourage more employers to shift towards offering voluntary portable medical benefits which leverage on MediShield Life.
\tMdm Speaker:Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member):\tI thank the Minister for the reply. I just wish to clarify with a supplementary question. Since the take-up rate is rather slow, about 4%, is there something more that we can do to entice employers to contribute more to MediSave? The second point I would like to make is that benefits, besides being extended to the individual employee, employers do extend some benefits to their family members. Thus, I wish to ask whether there can be some other incentives to allow employers to contribute to the immediate family members of the employee's family.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, the reason why the take-up rate has been low is both because of the employers' as well as the unions' preferences.
On the part of the employers, many of them found it more effective for them to attract and retain the workers that they want; in other words, they can tailor their company's medical scheme as an attraction. Secondly, most of their workers at the working age are mostly healthy. As a result, employers adopt the shorter-term perspective. It is more cost-effective for them to continue the current practice.
On the part of the unions, they also find it a challenge to convince the workers to move towards portable medical benefits because, for most of the company-provided medical insurance schemes, the payment starts from the first dollar. So, there is no co-payment needed from the first dollar.
The challenge for the tripartite partners is to convince both the employers as well as the unions and workers to adopt a longer-term perspective. Today, there are already financial incentives for employers to move towards portable medical benefits. For example, the tax deduction can be up to 2% of the payroll, instead of 1%. There are incentives in place. But I would say that the hurdles – in terms of how we overcome this short-term perspective of the workers and employers – would be something we will continue to work on through tripartite efforts.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister for the reply. Part of the question is whether employees have the opportunity to apply for portability. Many times, it is not a case of the employee not wanting to pay for the additional portability, but it is that they are not even given the opportunity by the employer. There are certain countries which mandate or legislate this portability, for example, the United States, through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
My second clarification is, especially with our economy going into a bit of a slowdown and we hear of retrenchments going on, aside from peace of mind that employees will get, sometimes also, because their family members have pre-existing conditions, for example, their wives or children may also be tagged to these corporate insurance schemes. So, it would help them very much if they can at least have the option of opting for this portability. I would like the Minister to consider this point.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for raising the two points. Firstly, on the part of the employers, the Member asked why they cannot offer this option to the individual employees. Basically, the schemes offered by the companies, or by the employers to the workers, would be through the Group Hospital and Surgical scheme. Economies of scale are important. For example, if a company were to offer their employees portability, there would be the option for the employee to either come under the group scheme or the individual scheme. First, they will face a self-selection problem. The healthier ones may go for the individual scheme. Secondly, from the point of view of the employers, the costs would go up because once the group of employees is divided, the size of the group is smaller, there are no economies of scale. From that viewpoint, I can understand why most employers would not offer this individual option.
But more importantly, Mdm Speaker, I would like to highlight that Singapore has a feature which is quite different from most other countries, which is MediShield Life. MediShield Life is for everyone, including the family, children and spouses of the workers. Secondly, it is for life, from the day you are born to the day the person passes on. MediShield Life provides that medical safety net for everyone, not just the workers, but also their families. This is the reason why the tripartite partners have decided to channel our energy to encourage companies, employers to move from non-portable schemes to a portable scheme, but building on MediShield Life.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
\tMr Ong Teng Koon:\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for providing MediShield Life for the workers. The problem is MediShield Life only extends to inpatient insurance. What happens if the employee or the family members have huge, large like tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in outpatient hospital bills? How are they going to pay for them without portable insurance?
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, MediShield Life is primarily targeted at hospitalisation. However, to my understanding, and the Minister for Health can correct me if I am wrong, for outpatient treatments which are longer term and expensive, such as dialysis and cancer treatment, they are covered under the MediShield Life. If there are other areas of expensive and long-term outpatient treatment which the Member feels should be included in MediShield Life, he may wish to file a separate Parliamentary Question to the Health Minister.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi:\tI just wish to again clarify with the Minister that in unionised companies, unions keep putting in effort to ensure that employers embrace portability through contributions to MediSave, but the concern is that there are many un-unionised companies. I also understand that there is a gap of understanding. MediShield Life has been very pervasive and people do understand what MediShield Life is. However, the part about portability, the contribution by employers to MediSave, it is that part that we need to create more awareness of. We need to ensure that people also know the advantage of having the money in MediSave, as it can earn interest, it is long term, it is portable and it grows.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Thanaletchimi, can you put forward the question?
\tMs K Thanaletchimi:\tYes, I am sorry. So, I think we should do more and we need to have a concerted effort to educate and create awareness, both to the employees as well as employers. Unions are already educated.
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, I agree with everything that Ms Thanaletchimi had mentioned. Yes, we need to step up awareness promotion and education, both for the employers and the employees. May I also add that we should cover both the unionised and the non-unionised sector as well because the adoption rates for the unionised sector and the non-unionised sector are equally low. We need to work on both sides.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rates of Government Career Assistance Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked\t the Minister for Manpower (a) what have been the success rates of (i) the Career Support Programme (ii) the Professional Conversion programme and (iii) the P-Max Programme so far; and (b) whether the Ministry will increase the number of intakes for each programme or improve the system including the extension of grants from one year to three years.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, the Adapt and Grow initiative was launched earlier this year to support workers, especially mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), in finding jobs. In the first three quarters of this year, 6,400 PMETs found jobs through the assistance of Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).
To help more PMETs to take up available jobs in a different profession, we are increasing the number of Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) from 22 covering 12 sectors at the beginning of this year to more than 50 covering almost all sectors by the end of the year. This will benefit more than 1,000 PMETs a year.
For mature PMETs who are made redundant, we are helping them to find new employment by providing wage support for the first year of employment. This is done through the Career Support Programme (CSP). Out of 1,500 eligible PMETs who have registered with WSG and e2i, more than 200 have received such wage support through their new employers since the inception of CSP in October 2015.
We have also helped about 900 PMETs to secure jobs in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) under P-Max so far this year. We expect this number to exceed 1,000 by the end of the year.
Together with the tripartite partners, WSG will continue to raise the awareness of these Adapt and Grow programmes among workers and businesses. We will continue to expand our capacity to support more workers and employers as we go through this economic transition. We will also continue to refine these programmes to ensure that they are effective in helping workers and businesses to adapt and grow.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio):\tI thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. May I know, how many employers have participated so far in those schemes that the Minister had mentioned? And how effective have they been? And will the Ministry reach out to more businesses or companies to start these programmes, in order to reach out to more affected workers?
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, Mr Gan asked how many employers have participated in these programmes. As I mentioned, this year alone, we have helped about 6,400 employees. I do not have a breakdown in terms of the number of employers, but if we look at that number, we can easily estimate that the number of employers would be in the thousands as well.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. Looking at the structural challenges that we are facing in terms of unemployment, there are three types of mismatches, as the Minister would be aware. The jobs mismatch, skills mismatch and expectations mismatch: both on the part of the employee as well as the employer. Many of our Adapt and Grow programmes, rightly, address the skills mismatch.
So, I hope the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can work closely with the tripartite partners to address also the expectations as well as the jobs mismatch factors. I have noticed quite a number of such cases in the course of our dealings with many of the retrenched workers, but clearly amongst the professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), where they have a bit of a challenge.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I agree with Mr Patrick Tay in terms of job matching for the PMETs. We have identified basically two key challenges.
One is that of a mismatch, meaning that the PMETs looking for jobs and the jobs looking for PMETs, due to an information gap, are both not able to find each other. So, there is a mismatch.
The second type of challenge is the mismatch, meaning that they have found each other, but either the jobs do not find the jobseekers suitable, or vice versa. Under our Adapt and Grow programmes, we are trying to address both. For example, if you talk about the case of the expectation gap, in fact, this is exactly what the CSP is about. CSP is to bridge the expectation gap in terms of wages between employer and employee, and this is the reason why we provide this wage support for the first year of their employment so that, hopefully, after one year, both sides' expectation gap can be narrowed and they continue from there.
Having said so, certainly, there is a lot more that we need to do and can do. I really appreciate that the Labour Movement is playing a very active part in this whole exercise. Take, for example, the e2i. The e2i is a very important part of our employment and Career Support Programme, and I hope that the National Trades Union Congress and the Labour Movement will continue to partner MOM, together with the tripartite partners, and do more for our PMETs.
\tMdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.
\tAssoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member):\tMadam, the Minister gave some useful data on the number of placements under the CSP as well as the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP). But does the Ministry track other measures of performance, for instance, that could include the number of sectors which are being covered through these placements as well as the number of PMETs who drop out after being placed?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: I thank the Member for the question. Yes, if we look at the numbers presented, these are the overall numbers. But in terms of actual tracking, we track by sector. We track by ages as well. For example, of the PMETs that we supported so far, we keep track of what percentage of them are below 40 years old, between 40 and 50, and above 50. As pointed out by the Member, we also track in terms of which are the most so-called popular sectors and which are the sectors where there are most openings.
In other words, our programmes are not at the national level. In fact, all our Adapt and Grow programmes are sector by sector. PCP is sector by sector; P-Max is targeted at the SME sector; and CSP is targeted more at those with this expectation gap. So, on the whole, we try to be as comprehensive as possible in our outreach.
As to the question about retention, for some of our schemes, we do attach a condition. For example, in the case of CSP, the employment period must be a minimum of one year. In the case of PCP, we do track after that. But at the end of the day, the key number that we track is the unemployment number. Some of them, after their professional conversion, they go and work for a company. But even if they have left the company, as long as they continue to be in employment, to us, the outcome is still a positive one.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Industry Information on Recruitment Plans of Employers for Future Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Murali Pillai asked\tthe Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry regularly obtains industry information on recruitment plans of employers for future jobs, especially those involving time spans of three years and beyond, in the major economic sectors and, if so, whether it is prepared to publish such information on a regular basis to assist the general public in making better job plans.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, under the Committee on Skills, Innovation and Productivity chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, sector agencies and tripartite partners are charting the transformation of their respective industries. These Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) outline the key growth areas for each sector and the future profile of skills and jobs that Singaporeans can pursue. The ITMs are also accompanied by their respective skills frameworks which outline very specific career paths, occupations, salary range, skills requirements and training programmes available for each of these sectors.
To date, ITMs have been launched for the Retail, Food Services and Precision Engineering sectors. As for the skills frameworks, they have also been launched for Hotel and Accommodation Services, Early Childhood Care and Education, and Precision Engineering. Career fairs are also being held to attract Singaporeans, to strengthen our Singaporean Core in these sectors. More sectors are in the pipeline, and the relevant career and employment information will be incorporated into our National Jobs Bank as and when it is published.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation. Will the Minister consider encouraging, particularly, private sector companies, to give forecasts of employment, with these forecasts-giving a factor to be considered when issuing Employment Pass or other work passes?
The basic point is this. If a company makes a forecast very close to the time of recruitment, then Singaporeans may not be able to benefit from it. Either they lack training or opportunities. Then, the Ministry may be presented with a fait accompli in terms of applications from foreigners for these jobs.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the suggestions. Yes, in fact, we are trying to look ahead and make a forecast in terms of future jobs and future skills. However, to make a forecast at the company level, three years ahead may be a challenge because not many companies are prepared to make that kind of commitment upfront. However, forecasts at the industry level is being done and will continue to be done.
If I may just give an illustration on how much is being done. At the last Parliament Sitting, I shared with this House the skills framework for the hotel sector. So, I will not repeat that again. Today, I have brought another two skills frameworks as an illustration.
One is for Early Childhood Care and Education. In this skills framework, the career paths that are being presented, as we move forward in this sector, are clearly spelt out. There are three career paths. Either you are an educarer, teacher or in a leadership position. For each of these career paths, there is a detailed description in terms of what are the jobs available, what are the skill requirements and so on. Therefore, any person who is looking into a career development in the future, in the next three years, can take a look at this and decide for himself/herself whether this is a sector that he/she wants to go into. If so, these are the career paths, these are the job positions, as well as the skills that they can pursue.
Another example is Precision Engineering. Here again, you can see that in this skills framework, it is clearly spelt out that anybody can join the sector to pursue two-career tracks. One is the engineering and technician track; the other is the management track. Again, the job positions are well spelt out. Even the salary range is all in there. For those who are interested in any particular position, they can go into the detailed write-ups, job by job.
On the whole, I want to emphasise again that Singapore is one of the very few countries in the world that is putting in so much effort to prepare our workforce and our industries for the future. Without the Industry Transformation Maps, this skills framework is not possible. For example, if you look at Precision Engineering, we talk about future manufacturing, which are the four key directions that are happening. These are very important because when they know that these are the emerging trends in Precision Engineering, then people will understand what the future openings are. For example, it is highlighted that robotics and automation are one of the emerging trends. Digitisation of manufacturing is another emerging trend; so also additive manufacturing, data analysis.
Therefore, I just want to emphasise again and again that we are one of the very few countries in the world that is putting in so much effort to try to visualise the future and try to put in place a skills framework to guide our fellow Singaporeans in their future career selection and development.
I hope that Members of this House can help us to bring out the message to the ground, because all these efforts may not be known enough on the ground. But as far as the Ministry of Manpower is concerned, this information, as and when they become available, we will incorporate them into our National Jobs Bank so that workers accessing the Jobs Bank will be able to have this information, decide for themselves which sector to go into, which career path to pursue, what job, what skills are needed and, from there, under SkillsFuture Singapore, they can pursue the skills upgrading in advance of their career change.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for his clarification. It is certainly very encouraging to know that the Government is doing a lot to help the workers. What is going to help the workers, going ahead, will be that they know that there is a job waiting for them if they have made the required training and they have bothered to upgrade themselves.
Two points of clarification: one, whether the Ministry can consider ways to have more Place and Train programmes with companies; and two, how it is going to work with economic agencies, such as the Economic Development Board, to make sure that the investments that we bring in, the companies will work with the agencies through the Place and Train programmes so that our workers will be job-ready when the investments are here.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Madam, in terms of preparing the workers for the jobs of the future, there are two broad approaches. One is Place and Train, the other is Train and Place. Most of our focus today is on Place and Train. In other words, we try to guide the workers of today and tomorrow in terms of future job openings. From there, we put them through training programmes with the support of their employers. This is to ensure that by the time the worker has gone through the training, he/she will be meaningfully employed. So, most of our programmes are targeted at Place and Train for those not in employment.
For those in employment, the focus would be on Train and Place. In other words, today, you have a job but you are planning ahead for the next three to five years. So, under SkillsFuture, we are encouraging workers to take on the personal responsibility to take on training which may or may not have the support of their employers.
So, I fully agree with Mr Desmond Choo's point that we have to keep doing more to prepare workers of today for the jobs of tomorrow. So, for those who are already in employment, we try and help them to take on their personal upgrading through personal responsibility under SkillsFuture without having to depend on their employers.
Yet, at the same time, for those who are out of employment, the immediate task is to get them a job and train them for the job. So, it is more for Place and Train.
If we can continue to strengthen the Place and Train, and the Train and Place programmes, then, hopefully, we can minimise this mismatch, and the mismatch for professionals, managers, executives and technicians.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Home Improvement Programme to Flats Built after 1986","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether the Home Improvement Programme can be extended to flats built after 1986 when they reach 30 years.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 300,000 eligible flats. Flats built up to 1986 and which have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme are eligible for HIP.
To date, HIP has been announced for over 200,000 flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is working to first complete the selection of the remaining flats eligible for HIP by financial years (FY) 2018 before we assess whether to extend HIP beyond the current cohort of flats. But as with all publicly-funded programmes, this will be contingent on the Government's fiscal position and budget availability.
\tMdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions.
First, in the older part of Nee Soon South, I have half of the total of HDB flats there which are built in 1985/1986 and the other half built in 1987/1988. So, very often, residents would ask me \"为 什 么 对 面 有, 我 们 没 有?\", and the flats are reaching 30 years old. When you first announced those that were selected, we were talking about flats of 30 years. Next year, they will be 30. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can get the funding and announce the next batch so that they will know that they will have it, rather than keep comparing with the blocks across the street.
Second, after doing these few batches of HIP, would there be modifications in the design? The feedback from some of those early batches is that \"Before HIP, I do not have music during the rainy days. Now, after HIP, I always hear 'tick tock, tick tock'.\" That means some design modification is required. I think the clothes drying poles also need modification.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, I thank the Member for her feedback. We will, indeed, take into consideration, should there be a new scheme, all the feedback from residents and see how future upgrading can be improved. That is continuously being done.
On the budget, this is something that we are studying. As I have mentioned, it is not a small expense because an upgrading project is not just a one-time expenditure; it is a multi-year expenditure. The last upgrading HIP was announced in 2007, and we are only going to be able to complete it in FY2018. More than 10 years, billions of dollars being invested. When we want to think about another round of upgrading, I think it is fair and prudent for the Government to think about sustainability, to consider whether or not we are able to afford such a major programme that will run through many years, potentially even past this term and future terms of Government.
That is something that we would have to think very carefully about and consider. Certainly, from a Ministry of National Development point of view, I will be very happy to support this and I will want all our older towns to be upgraded as soon as possible. From a Ministry of Finance (MOF) perspective – and perhaps here I wear my other hat now – I have to say we will have to consider this very carefully and study it to make sure that budget availability is sustainable.
\tMdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: From the MOF point of view, I think it is good to push out more HIP. Because of the economic downturn, a lot of contractors out there are hungry for jobs, you will get value-for-money. So, please. Thank you.
\tMr Lawrence Wong:\tMadam, we note the Member's feedback and we will certainly take that into consideration.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast):\tI would just like to ask a supplementary question: if the programme cannot be extended in its totality, with regard to the clothes hanging facility, that is because of an ageing population causing quite a lot of challenges for the older flats. For the residents to be able to actually use those contraptions now, it is challenging and poses a safety issue as well. Can consideration be given at least to look at upgrading and modifying that for residents?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, as I have said earlier, we do not just look at major upgrading per se. As part of these major upgrading programmes, we have various other smaller refinement, fine-tuning, upgrading schemes that are also in place.
We will always take into consideration feedback, like the ones that have been expressed about the hanging of clothes, and we will see what we can do in future rounds of upgrading to see how these can be taken into consideration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternatives to Partial Demolition of Ellison Building","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked\tthe Minister for National Development in respect of the demolition and rebuilding of three units of Ellison Building (a) whether LTA and URA have considered realigning the North-South Expressway without affecting Ellison Building when the alignment plan was announced in 2011; (b) whether studies were made before arriving at this option and, if so, whether they were disclosed; (c) whether LTA and URA have consulted with stakeholders, such as the long-term tenants of the building, residents living in the area and heritage organisations and, if not, what are the reasons; (d) what is the loss in heritage value created by this option; (e) what are the mitigation measures considered before deciding on this option; and (f) why is this decision the best option.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm, Speaker, the North-South Corridor (NSC) is an integrated transport corridor which incorporates bus lanes, cycling trunk routes and an expressway that runs elevated as well as underground. When completed, it will connect the residential towns and estates in the north, such as Woodlands, Sembawang, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Bishan and Toa Payoh, to the city centre.
Given the 21-kilometre length of the NSC, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had conducted detailed engineering studies over many years. Throughout this time, agencies worked very hard to minimise the impact of the NSC works on neighbouring buildings and developments.
The segment of the NSC leading into the city centre runs underneath Bukit Timah Road, where space is extremely tight due to the underground public infrastructure in that area. On one side of Bukit Timah Road is the underground Rochor Canal. This is an important drainage facility which helps low-lying areas in the city cope with intense periods of rainfall. The North-East Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Line (NEL) cuts across Bukit Timah Road, while the Downtown MRT Line (DTL) runs beneath Bukit Timah Road. This means that the NSC tunnels must run in between the foundations of existing buildings along both sides of Bukit Timah Road, the underground Rochor Canal as well as the NEL and DTL stations, as well as tunnels.
I wish we had a 3D diagram to show Members of all these underground facilities that criss-cross this underground space, but we do not have that facility here. If we do, it will give Members a better sense.
This is a very challenging engineering task for LTA. Sufficient clearance distance must be allowed between the NSC tunnels and the surrounding underground structures for safety reasons.
The NSC tunnel also cannot be lowered further into the ground to avoid these underground infrastructures, as doing so will require extensive ramps and portal structures to connect the NSC carriageway with surface streets which will then affect the nearby MRT stations and impact many more other buildings and development. Given these constraints, LTA has had to work out the best possible alignment for the NSC tunnel under the circumstances.
Madam, the original alignment for the NSC would have impacted even more buildings and developments and spaces, including Rex Cinema, as well as several of the shophouse units at Ellison Building, much more than what the public is aware of today. In fact, Rex Cinema was completely affected in the initial alignments. Nevertheless, we recognised the heritage value of Rex Cinema and Ellison Building. Hence, agencies were committed to carrying out detailed engineering studies to further minimise the impact on these buildings. On that basis, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) proceeded to gazette the two buildings for conservation in 2008.
Indeed, the agencies had worked hard to carry out extensive studies and eventually managed to develop a solution for the NSC to avoid Rex Cinema completely. However, given the very tight space in the Bukit Timah Road corridor, the NSC alignment will not be able to avoid Ellison Building entirely – at least the space underneath the building – which, unlike Rex Cinema, stands much closer to the road carriageway. And I am sure the Member has seen maps that show this. These engineering studies were concluded only recently, and the result is that the impact on Ellison Building can, under current plans, be reduced to one corner shophouse unit, instead of a larger portion or the entire building.
Subsequently, LTA put out a tender to invite applications from contractors to be prequalified for the design and build civil contracts for the NSC tunnels. This is a prequalification tender and the document gave general descriptions of the scope of works in these subsequent civil contracts, including the fact that the contractor has to undertake works on part of Ellison Building. Now, these prequalification tender specifications were not just about Ellison Building. They were about the north and south, the whole length of the NSC, from north all the way to south where it terminates. It was not the actual tender for the construction of NSC.
LTA's intention had been that following this tender for prequalification of the contractors, LTA will engage a conservation specialist to provide advice on how to better protect Ellison Building. This is akin to how, in the case of Circle Line 6 which will affect part of the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station (TPRS), LTA had similarly engaged conservation specialists to advise on how they could remove and reinstate part of the TPRS platforms.
We recognise that the circumstances of each development are unique and the conservation measures have to be tailored accordingly.
In this regard, LTA and URA have started engaging heritage groups to seek their views on how to better protect the Ellison Building when the construction process begins. There have been two rounds of discussion thus far, which centred on possible mitigating measures to protect the building during the construction of the NSC. In taking this forward, LTA's conservation consultant will explore various mitigating measures in detail as part of the study on Ellison Building.
URA and LTA will continue to work closely with the heritage groups and the heritage community in Singapore on the construction methods to protect Ellison Building, as well as the measures that should be taken to preserve the heritage and history of that site. The Government will finalise its implementation plans after these discussions are concluded.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. The newspaper announcement that Ellison Building, or at least that part, will be demolished was actually quite disconcerting. And that is why a lot of non-government organisations (NGOs) responded to it.
Are there no other options? Could the NGOs be engaged much earlier in the upstream discussions so that such miscommunication will not happen?
The third thing that I want to check is: would the Ministry consider making culture impact assessment mandatory and compulsory in such development projects? When I say culture impact assessment, it will not just be heritage impact assessment, but also social, environmental as well as economic impact assessments.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his comprehensive series of questions. Let me deal with the last question first.
As the Member would probably be aware, the Ministry of Culture, Community and the Youth had about two years back announced plans for a heritage survey to be conducted in different parts of Singapore and that will aid in our current conservation process.
As the Member is aware, the current conservation process involves URA looking at various areas, buildings and places with the potential for conservation. It is based on what URA assesses to be potential sites. It also works with Government agencies like the National Heritage Board and takes in views from the Conservation Advisory Panel set up since 2002, which comprises many passionate members of the heritage community. URA takes views from heritage groups directly and suggestions from the public. URA will then assess with the assistance of Government agencies.
If a site is deemed to be worthy of conservation based on historical, architectural and aesthetic merits and so on, URA will then put it out as a gazette and invite the larger public to comment. The building owners, if it is a private property, will also be consulted and their views taken into account, because conservation does impact their flexibility to use the building. We have to then strike the right balance. After a decision is made, it will then be gazetted, as was in this case for Ellison Building and Rex Cinema at the side.
Let me assure the Member that all efforts were taken by the agencies, including the heritage departments in URA, to minimise the impact on Ellison Building.
As I said earlier, initial plans would involve the whole building going. At that point in time, Ellison Building and Rex Cinema were not conserved. They were not. But keeping in mind that these are buildings with heritage value, agencies worked very hard to minimise the impact and tried very hard to conserve the building, knowing that there should be minimal impact and with the commitment to ensuring that with any impact, it would be mitigated. Engineering studies would be put in to see how we can protect the building and, if there is an impact, how we can remove and reinstate it to its authentic appearance.
They then decided in 2008, many, many years ago, to proceed with that conservation measure. What they could have done back then, if you go back in time, is maybe: do not conserve. Affected, so do not conserve. Is it the right decision? Not sure. Or partially conserved: this part affected, so we conserve the rest of the units. Not sure if this is the right decision. Fully conserve? Knowing that we do our best to minimise the impact and, if there is impact, what acceptable conservation measures can be undertaken in tandem with the community and conservation experts whom we are working with, in my view, from the heritage point of view, I would think it is the best of the three options.
The Member asked about cultural impact assessment embodying various strands of impact on the environment, community, heritage. This is something we need to study carefully. Certainly, for heritage impact, we begin the process which is currently an internal deliberative process that involves also reaching out to the community, especially the heritage community. We are going to begin with the heritage surveys which were announced. I think we need to work out on that, we need to work with the various heritage groups and let it work first. Then, downstream, let us have a closer look.
The second question the Member asked was whether the heritage community like Heritage Society Singapore can be involved further upstream. This is something we need to strike a right balance on because, as Members would know, the projects that LTA undertakes, whether it is underground tunnelling works, whether it is road and infrastructure, there are implications beyond heritage. They are important but they also impact people's businesses, homes, public amenities, parks and greenery. We need to do work from conception to a certain level of certainty before we then engage the community. But certainly, working upstream, as far as possible, is a better outcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nationwide Awareness Promotion for Appointment of Deputies for Those who have Lost Mental Capacity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development how can the Ministry urgently implement and communicate a nationwide action plan to help families in need to apply for the appointment of Deputies for family members who have lost their mental capacity due to accidents, dementia or other disabilities.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, families need to apply to the Courts to appoint a deputy for any family member who loses capacity and has not made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), in order to have the legal authority to act on his behalf.
But before I explain more about deputyship, let me say that a better option would be for Singaporeans to plan ahead and make an LPA. One key advantage of making an LPA is that the individual is able to choose his proxy decision-maker and discuss the LPA with his family so that his wishes are made known. So, the key thing is, the better option really is for Singaporeans to plan ahead and make the LPA ahead of time.
In order to encourage Singaporeans to do so, can I ask the Members of this House to please encourage your residents to do so? The fee waiver for Singaporeans making an LPA Form 1 giving the donee general powers has been extended till 31 August 2018. In the last two years, about 23,000 LPA applications were received, compared with 7,200 received over the previous four years prior to the fee waiver. We hope that many, many more Singaporeans will take advantage of the fee waiver to pre-plan.
Broadly, allow me to share some initiatives which my Ministry is undertaking to streamline the deputyship process further. Firstly, the Family Justice Courts have simplified the forms for deputyship application. We are also discussing with the Courts regarding how deputyship applications may be made more accessible to families.
Last year, we partnered the Family Justice Courts and the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled in Singapore (MINDS) on a pilot project to simplify the deputyship application process for parents of MINDS students. In this project, parents are assisted by MINDS school psychologists, social workers, volunteer academics and students from the National University of Singapore Law Faculty. We hope to extend the project to two more Special Education schools by the end of this year, and three more next year.
In working on the MINDS project, we realised the need to have a better, more standardised mental capacity assessment form which could be submitted to the Courts. Hence, we have organised an inter-agency committee to develop a mental capacity assessment form for deputyship which covers key domain areas of capacity. Special Education schools and doctors could, in future, use the form for their students and patients respectively.
For low-income individuals who have no family members or friends willing and able to be appointed as their deputies, my Ministry has established a panel of professionals that the Court can appoint as deputies on a pro-bono basis. There are currently 18 public-spirited professionals from the financial, healthcare, legal and social work sectors on this panel.
Families in financial difficulty can seek legal assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau under the Ministry of Law to file the deputyship application. Applicants will have to go through a means test and merits test to qualify for legal aid.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister for his response. Two questions. First, how can we increase the number of Singaporeans to complete the LPA? More of them instead of remaining at the current level, which is already an encouragement, but grossly still insufficient.
The second question is: there is still much concern and lack of awareness amongst the families where the members are older than 21 and presumed to be lacking in mental capacity. Many of them are affected and could not proceed in quite a number of life decisions, for example, in healthcare, property and financial matters because they have not had their deputies to act on their behalf. So, for this group, what more can be done for them, because they are currently in a limbo? How can the state help this group of persons?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, with regard to the first question, we are in the process of trying to encourage Singaporeans to take up the LPA. As mentioned earlier, the numbers have been increasing but I would agree that the numbers are nowhere near what we would like them to be, short of compelling and making it compulsory. The last mile really needs to be taken by the individual. So, I do ask for Members' support to encourage their residents to do so. We are doing as much as we can to raise awareness and that is something that we will keep on doing.
With regard to the second question, I have highlighted some of the various processes available right now to assist the individuals. Where possible, decisions to take up the LPA should be done as early as possible so that individuals can pre-plan. For those who do have some of these incapacities already and are concerned about what they can do, then some of the steps highlighted earlier should be taken. But again, the main thing is to help raise awareness amongst all the various individuals concerned, so that they can take the necessary steps.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten):\tMdm Speaker, I do have some residents who have children who lack mental capacity. Can the Ministry consider amending the law to allow parents of children without mental capacity to make an LPA on their behalf? Currently, the children already cannot make an LPA, so can the parents do so on their behalf so that we can dispense with the need to apply for an order under the Mental Capacity Act?
\t
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think it is a common feedback. At first glance, it would seem like a very reasonable request, but allowing someone to make a decision for an adult is a very serious matter. Hence, a judicial body, for example, the Family Justice Courts, should evaluate if the person lacks capacity to make his own decisions and the proposed deputy is suitable to act in the long term, even if it is the next-of-kin, for example, the parents. For instance, relatives could be abusive and could also have debilitating illnesses that impair their own mental capacity. It may not always naturally be suitable.
I understand where the Member is coming from, but I think it is a very serious step. This is something that for the present moment, we do not feel that is a step we are prepared to take. It is important for a judicial body like the Family Justice Courts to evaluate and make the decisions accordingly.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
\tMs Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, the Minister mentioned the simplification of procedures in the Family Courts. Can I know when the procedure simplification would take effect? From what we understand now, the application process remains very complex because judges are understandably, as the Minister noted also, very concerned about the applications.
The second question is in relation to the forms. While we are trying to encourage people to apply and sign the LPA, are there ways to simplify the forms so that it is actually easier for them? A very simple example will be that currently, the form requires a legal seal to be affixed and anyone filling up the form at home would not have access to all those little red stickers. So, these are little oddities that should not even be present. Would the Ministry consider revising the form to make it more user-friendly?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I do agree that there is a need to ensure that it is as accessible as possible and easy for individuals to apply. But at the same time, it is also important to remember that this is an important legal document. So, we need to strike a balance. We are quite happy to continually improve the forms. For example, the feedback from the Member, I would be happy to convey to the Courts to see whether they can streamline the stickers and so on.
We are taking on board feedback from the public and from concerned individuals. I am not sure whether the Member has surfaced some of these particular pieces of feedback, but the idea is to continually improve and to make it as easy as possible while at the same time making sure that it is sufficiently rigorous.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Lifelong Replacement of Aids for Persons with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can further assist persons with special needs who require replacement for aids such as (i) motorised wheelchairs and (ii) cochlear implants and other hearing aids throughout their lives.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mdm Speaker, the Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) helps persons with disabilities defray the cost of assistive devices, such as motorised wheelchairs and hearing aids. It subsidises up to 90% of equipment cost for persons with disabilities. The scheme was enhanced in August 2015 in three main areas.
First, we broadened the criteria. Previously, only students and working adults with disabilities could tap on the fund. Persons with disabilities can use the fund for various purposes, ranging from education, employment to independent living.
Next, the lifetime cap for each person with disability was doubled from $20,000 to $40,000. We recognise that the needs for assistive technology may change as persons with disabilities transit into different life-stages or they may require several replacements of devices or aids over time. Depending on the level of customisation, usage and subsidies received, persons with disabilities can tap on the fund for at least four times for replacement of devices.
Lastly, we raised the per capita monthly income eligibility criteria from $1,500 to $1,800. We have also worked with the National Council of Social Service to provide additional funding to better support low-income families with their out-of-pocket payments for the devices through the Special Assistance Fund.
To enable ease of application by persons with disabilities, SG Enable which administers the scheme, has simplified the application process. SG Enable has also set up a TechAble centre at the Enabling Village to encourage and facilitate the adoption of assistive technology. Persons with disabilities can approach the centre to assess their needs and seek advice on different types of devices such as motorised wheelchairs. With such support, those with disabilities and their caregivers can make better informed decisions on assistive technology.
Since the enhancements, close to 1,200 persons with disabilities have benefited from the fund. This is more than a seven-fold increase in the take-up rate from 15 beneficiaries a month in 2014 prior to the enhancement, to about 110 beneficiaries a month after the enhancements. Twenty percent are for repeat beneficiaries. We will continue to monitor the needs of persons with disabilities and how the ATF supports them.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the response. SG Enable and the Agency for Integrated Care are doing quite good work here. I guess my request is really to look further into the assistive technology landscape to see if there are some more gaps and opportunities that can be leveraged upon.
Two ideas in particular. One, would the Ministry consider taking a deeper look into the total lifetime cost for the major disability groups? How much would it cost, including, for instance, wheelchairs, especially because our country is really on a very rapidly ageing trend? That is one, study the total lifetime cost of assistive devices.
The second one is, really, if there are more and more people, for example, using wheelchairs, including specialised or motorised wheelchairs, is there some opportunity that can be identified, so that persons who need to replace them, who need to use them on a very regular basis, can be helped further? We can study to see if there are more economies of scale and what more can be done. Currently, under this free market mechanism, there are more and more models of wheelchairs, more and more specialised, more complicated models. And every time you see that, when the average lower-income wheelchair user wants to replace their wheelchairs, they have a lot of problems because either the parts are not available or the vendors are simply not interested. I hope that the Ministry would be able to look into it, especially these two areas, study the total lifetime cost for the use of assistive devices and look into opportunities for more economies of scale.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, we will take note of the Member's suggestions. Our effort and purpose are to enhance the lives of fellow Singaporeans and we will do that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Entry Criteria for Dental Surgery Assistants Switching to Nursing Career","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether the Ministry will review the entry criteria for dental surgery assistants who are keen to switch to a nursing career but do not meet the minimum Grade Point Average requirement; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider a bridging programme for such dental surgery assistants so that they can pursue a diploma in nursing.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (Mr Ong Ye Kung): I am encouraged by the drive of Dental Surgery Assistants (DSAs) to want to upgrade themselves, including switching to a nursing career. From an interest and aptitude point of view, an enthused DSA is more likely to be committed to a nursing or healthcare-related career. However, from an educational point of view, we have to recognise that the job scope and skillsets required of DSAs and nurses are quite different. And that is why we currently do not provide module exemptions or advance standing for DSAs switching into nursing careers.
There are a few realistic pathways for a DSA to take on a nursing career. One is to go through the National Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Certificate (Nitec) programme in nursing, which will then prepare them to be Enrolled Nurses. After some years of experience, they can go through a diploma course in one of our polytechnics, which will then prepare them to become Registered Nurses. They may also apply for admission into the ITE Skills Certificate programmes in healthcare to become Healthcare or Clinic Assistants.
All these courses and pathways have academic entry criteria, but they should not be the only yardstick for entry. There must be also alternative yardsticks, such as good job performance or achievements in other courses, for DSAs to be enrolled. Such open accessibility is a key principle of adult training and lifelong learning.
So, as Ms Thanaletchmi has raised, it is an important and broader question about lifelong learning. Under SkillsFuture, we do not just provide more opportunities for lifelong learning, but also enhanced accessibility to upgrading pathways. We will continue to work with our post-secondary education institutions to find meaningful ways to recognise an individual's skills and experience beyond academic qualifications for enrolment into their adult learning programmes.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. I just wish to clarify the point on whether some of the programmes for upgrading, especially in the health profession, can be made modular. Because there are people who find it difficult to go on full-time study with so many other commitments, although they are under the Professional Conversion Programme, and whether modular aspects of a training programme, some form of bridging can be considered.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: There are several key principles of lifelong learning. Like what I mentioned earlier, open accessibility is one. The other is what the Member just mentioned, which is modular training. It is a direction that we are pushing very proactively towards.
As for nursing, it is something that we will have to study as well. But as the Member know, in nursing training, there is also a lot of dedication and some full-time dedication is also required especially when you are on attachment to a hospital. But within the limits of professional requirements, we will certainly go in that direction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture-equivalent Scheme for Singaporeans Aged under 25","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Ministry will consider creating a SkillsFuture-equivalent scheme for Singaporeans aged under 25 to help them pursue extra-curricular training or enrichment courses which may not be available in their present educational institution.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Mdm Speaker, all Singaporeans below 30 years of age have a Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to support their learning needs.
First, there are approved programmes at certificate, diploma, post-diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate levels at our publicly-funded post-secondary education institutions (PSEIs).
Secondly, there are some 500 skills-based modular courses approved by the Ministry of Education offered by our polytechnics and publicly-funded universities, and around 2,000 Singapore Workforce Qualifications (WSQ) courses provided by WSQ Continuing Education and Training (CET) Centres.
In addition, Singaporeans who are studying in these PSEIs can also use their PSEA balances to pay for fees and charges on selected extra-curricular training or local and overseas enrichment programmes. Such programmes could either be conducted by the PSEIs or external organisers, but are approved by the PSEIs. Examples include overseas attachments, leadership training courses, short study trips or tours, community involvement programmes, seminars, workshops and conferences.
The PSEA thus supports our young Singaporeans in accessing learning opportunities over a wide spectrum of programmes. Our young Singaporeans are empowered to take charge of their learning needs, so that they can be future-ready and economically relevant.
Nonetheless, we note Dr Tan's suggestion that there may be other programmes that could be included under the coverage of PSEA. We acknowledge that the learning space is dynamic. We want to assure Dr Tan that we review the coverage of PSEA regularly, with the intention of providing even more options for young Singaporeans.
\tMdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. Would her Ministry be willing to comment on whether there is an increased role for having more skills ladders, more stacking of educational modules, with a view to helping these young folks transit seamlessly to adult education as they grow and mature?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Dr Tan for his supplementary question. I want to assure Dr Tan and all the Members that Singaporeans under 30 have access to avenues like the PSEA I mentioned, or even when they are in the tertiary institutions, the Opportunity Fund, to help them pursue extra-curricular courses.
If they are using PSEA balances to pursue the courses, it includes around 2,000 of the WSQ courses and the bulk of these WSQ courses are also listed in the SkillsFuture Credit course directory. So, indeed, we want to ensure that from the PSEA-supported courses, moving to the SkillsFuture Credit course directory, it is a bit more seamless.
Having said that, I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that the SkillsFuture movement is really not just about SkillsFuture Credit. Because the Member asked about Singaporeans younger than 25 years old, it gave us the opportunity to talk about the PSEA.
While SkillsFuture Credit caters for Singaporeans 25 years old and above, our young Singaporeans have access to many learning opportunities via a wide spectrum of SkillsFuture initiatives. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), Workforce Singapore (WSG) work very closely with our tertiary institutions to scope out initiatives like enhanced internships and even the SkillsFuture Young Talent Programme where young Singaporeans can be involved in overseas immersion programmes. After graduation from polytechnics and ITEs, our young Singaporeans can then move on to the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme where they can study and work at the same time.
So, we want to assure the Member that SSG, WSG will continue to work very closely with our tertiary institutions to really help our young Singaporeans gain the relevant experience in training, whether in school or workplace, through the various SkillsFuture programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture Credits for Overseas Courses Not Available through Singapore Training Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether SkillsFuture Credits can be used for overseas courses that are not available through training providers in Singapore, on a case-by-case basis, for example, where the skill in question is of economic value and where local training providers are scarce.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Mdm Speaker, we have taken an inclusive approach in building up the list of courses eligible for SkillsFuture Credit. As at 30 September, the SkillsFuture Credit course directory has about 17,000 skills-based courses covering over 50 areas of training.
However, by and large, we do not include courses conducted overseas in the SkillsFuture Credit course directory because their lack of presence here means that we are unable to audit or check these training providers for quality or to prevent any possible misuse.
This, notwithstanding, we recognise that there could be useful overseas courses. So, we have brought in many best-in-class training institutions from overseas and provided course fee subsidies for these programmes. An example will be the courses conducted by the Lean Transformation Innovation Centre that is established by the Singapore Institute of Technology in partnership with US-based training provider Lean Enterprise Institute. Another example is the collaboration between the Singapore Productivity Centre and the Boston Consulting Group, which offers training to retail professionals in best practices and areas like concept development, portfolio management and business process improvement.
In addition to that, we have also included Massive Open Online Courses designed by overseas institutions which are offered through reputable overseas-based companies like Udemy and Coursera, under the SkillsFuture Credit.
SSG will continue to work closely with the relevant Government agencies and training providers to expand the list of courses under the SkillsFuture Credit course directory. If there is a specific training programme that is not conducted in Singapore but is industry-relevant, we welcome and invite the Member to highlight it to SSG for consideration and evaluation. Wherever appropriate, SSG will explore cost-effective and sustainable ways to enable Singaporeans to gain access to good and relevant programmes.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I just have two supplementary questions. I appreciate the answer that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary and may I implore the Ministry to keep the line open for possible exceptional situations where the local training providers may not be able to provide a certain training. So, not just structured programmes that the Ministry may expand into from time to time.
The other question is: I believe that the Government has announced previously they will be giving out individual study awards up to $5,000 to support young and mid-career workers as well as fellowships worth $10,000 to help senior workers. For that, the SkillsFuture Secretariat has said that these awards may include overseas courses in certain sectors. I would like to clarify with the Parliamentary Secretary what sectors and courses are included in this and what are the criteria for the selection.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his two supplementary questions. I want to reiterate, if Mr Tan comes across any specific training programme that is currently not conducted in Singapore, not in the 17,000 SkillsFuture Credit course directory, but deemed as industry-relevant, we welcome him to highlight it to us, to SSG, for consideration and evaluation.
I want to again assure the Member that the diversity of courses reflected in the 17,000 SkillsFuture Credit course directory includes almost 2,000 online courses: that means about 12%. The bulk of these online courses are delivered by overseas providers. So, we are open-minded, we are taking a very inclusive approach to make available courses across more than 50 areas of training for eligible Singaporeans. We continue to welcome feedback and suggestions from Members on relevant overseas courses for SkillsFuture Credit, bearing in mind the need for quality assurance and also periodic reviews on the relevance of the course. It does not mean that once you put it in the directory, it is always there. We have to review the relevance, effectiveness, level of demand.
The Member can be assured that we will continue to review the directory for relevance, quality, level of demand, and we will also continue to validate the training providers, the training organisations' internal standards, to ensure standards of quality and integrity of assessment.
The Parliamentary Question (PQ) is related to SkillsFuture Credits, but the second supplementary question is related to SkillsFuture study awards. The amount is capped at $5,000. SSG is currently working with various Government agencies like the Economic Development Board and SPRING Singapore to identify and scope out the study awards with a view to developing a strong Singaporean Core for the sector. I would encourage the Member to file a separate PQ so that we can provide him with more information for the study awards.
\tMdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, to a lot of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), professional courses and examinations that lead to the certification of their professional qualifications are rather important. I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider letting applicants to apply on a reimbursement basis, just like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. There are many professional courses that are not on the list because the examiners or the course conductors are overseas. A few I can name are: certified Internal Auditor Course which my residents say is not on the list; certified Information System Auditor Course; and the other courses like those offered by the Institution of Electricial Engineers (IEE) and the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) which professionals value a lot. So, maybe, one way is to let them take the examination on the courses and then they would submit based on a reimbursement basis. Would you consider that?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the suggestion and please allow SSG to look at the case in point. The Member cited a few areas which seem to be professional qualifications required, for example, by engineers. This is an area where we can work with the Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES). SSG is happy to sync up with IES or even other domain experts to understand what are the peculiar learning needs of the professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) in the sector.
Please allow me to reiterate that the SkillsFuture movement is really not just about SkillsFuture Credit. We have a slew of SkillsFuture initiatives, even benefiting, targeting and focusing on the needs of the PMEs and also C-level executives. One example is the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative. We would encourage Members to help to also heighten awareness of the various SkillsFuture initiatives amongst residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defined Route for Foreign Medical Graduates who Take Singapore's Qualifying Examinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) whether there is a defined route for Singaporeans who are foreign medical graduates to do the Qualifying Examinations held by the Singapore Medical Council; (b) whether there is a preparatory programme offered by NUS for such graduates; and (c) whether there is any internship/attachment offered by hospitals for such graduates to familiarise themselves with our healthcare system in preparation for the Qualifying Examinations.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, it is important to ensure that graduates from both local and overseas medical schools are competent before they can practise medicine in Singapore. Graduates, including Singaporeans, from overseas medical schools that are listed under the Second Schedule of the Medical Registration Act can apply to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to practise in Singapore. These medical schools have been assessed by SMC to have the standing and capability of producing doctors suitable for practice locally.
Singaporeans from overseas medical schools that are not listed in the Second Schedule of the Medical Registration Act (MRA) can still apply to SMC to sit for the Qualifying Examination (QE). If they pass the QE, they can then practise in Singapore under provisional qualification, similar to a new graduate from recognised medical schools.
The QE is similar to the final examination for the MBBS Degree conducted by the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore (NUS), for their final year medical students. To help candidates prepare for the QE, NUS sends them an information package which outlines the examination rules, curriculum extracts for the various disciplines, and past examination papers. There are, however, no preparatory programmes offered by NUS or our hospitals for the purpose of preparing candidates for the QE.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I have two questions. Will the Ministry consider having a preparatory programme for this group of overseas graduates to be well in sync with the system of healthcare and also the demands of the curriculum? The second question is: even if there is no preparatory programme offered by any university, could the Ministry consider giving these people an opportunity to be attached to the hospitals to be observers?
\tDr Lam Pin Min:\tI would like to thank Ms Thanaletchimi for the supplementary questions. Mdm Speaker, there are currently no preparatory programmes offered for QE candidates, as the preparatory requirements of each candidate may vary depending on individual needs. NUS, however, does send all QE candidates an examination package, which I have already alluded to during my answer and that includes the rules and regulations of the examinations, the curriculum, extracts for the various key disciplines that these students need to undertake as well as the examination papers for the past three years. For candidates who wish to familiarise themselves with our healthcare system, they are also encouraged to apply directly to the respective regional healthcare clusters for clinical attachment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring Quality of Healthcare Delivery and Adequacy of Healthcare Resources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) what benchmarks are used to measure the quality of healthcare delivery and the adequacy of healthcare resources, such as staffing and infrastructure; and (b) how does the Ministry determine whether our elderly healthcare needs are sufficiently covered by the Pioneer Generation Package and MediShield Life.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Madam, Singapore's healthcare system has served us well. With our life expectancies at birth of 81.9 years in 2015, Singapore residents are not just living longer, but are also enjoying more healthy years of life. We were ranked first and third in the world for male and female Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) respectively, according to a 2015 Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) by The Lancet. There are certainly areas where we can still improve.
In addition to quality of care, the Ministry of Health (MOH) continues to invest in developing healthcare infrastructure, manpower and technology in line with our Healthcare 2020 Masterplan so as to meet our current and future healthcare needs. Between 2014 and 2020, we will add about 3,500 more acute and community hospital beds, 6,300 more nursing home beds as well as 8,300 more home and centre-based care places.
Under the 2020 Healthcare Manpower Plan announced recently, we are taking steps to expand our healthcare workforce by 30,000 between 2015 and 2020 to meet the changing needs of Singapore's population. Through care redesign and adoption of technology, we will further enhance the delivery of healthcare services.
Besides improving quality and access, we have also substantially improved healthcare affordability to provide better assurance, especially to our elderly. For example, the Pioneer Generation Package, which many of us are familiar with, provides significant support for Pioneers. Since the Package was launched in 2014, more than 400,000 Pioneers have benefited from it and the Government has provided over $700 million in benefits in total.
MediShield Life now provides lifetime protection for large hospitalisation bills for all Singaporeans, including coverage for the elderly, many of whom were previously uninsured or unable to obtain coverage. In its first 11 months, MediShield Life paid out about $282 million for claims by older Singaporeans aged above 65, almost double the total $151 million payout under the previous MediShield over the same period last year.
MOH will continue to review affordability and coverage of healthcare for the elderly, while ensuring that our healthcare financing system is sustainable over the long term.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Madam, I thank the Minister for his reply. We all know that there are great physical and mental demands on our healthcare workers and this might affect the quality of care provided. So, I am very happy to hear that we will be expanding the healthcare workforce. Would the Minister consider allocating more funds to manage the well-being and stresses that our healthcare workers will face, especially now with an ageing population?
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Madam, as the Member has pointed out, we have an ageing population going forward and this will continue to add demand on the healthcare system as well as our healthcare workers. We will continue to work on our journey to transform our care delivery system so that it is more effective and sustainable in the long term. I mentioned this during the Committee of Supply debate. We are moving from hospital to community: we are moving from quality to value. At the same time, we are also moving from healthcare upstream to health. These are three key shifts that will make sure that our healthcare, healthcare system and healthcare workers will be sustainable in the long term.
Healthcare, indeed, is a very demanding career but it is a very meaningful and rewarding one. That is what drives Singaporeans to want to join this sector. I want to take this opportunity to thank all our healthcare workers for their dedication. But all of us can make their job easier in many ways. I have shared our efforts over the last few years.
The Government has improved the career prospects for our healthcare workers. For example, for nursing, we introduced the Care Package to improve their recognition, to provide more opportunities for career advancements as well as training, education and development. These are very important efforts. We have also rolled out a campaign \"Care To Go Beyond\" to profile many of our healthcare workers, including allied health professionals as well as support staff, to ensure that they have a fulfilling and rewarding career and are well-recognised.
Healthcare institutions can also play their part by providing greater support for these healthcare workers, as the Member pointed out, and provide more opportunities and take care of their personal aspirations as well as their needs.
But, more importantly, I believe all of us can play our part, too, whether we are patients, family members helping to take care of the patients or as a general member of the public. Very often, when we give due recognition to the contribution of the healthcare workers, it will help them in their work. As I mentioned many times before in this House, a simple \"Thank You\" card will go a long way in making a healthcare worker's job a lot easier. I believe that if we work together, we will be able to help our healthcare workers do a better job to take care of our loved ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Citizens and Permanent Residents Unable to Pay MediShield Life Premiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Png Eng Huat asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) what is the number of citizens and Permanent Residents who could not pay for their MediShield Life premiums since its implementation; (b) what are the main reasons; and (c) what is the total amount of premiums owed.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, as of September 2016, around 51,000 residents have outstanding premiums due, or about 1% of total members. This includes Singaporeans living overseas and those who cannot be contacted. The total amount outstanding is $12.8 million, or less than 1% of total premiums due.
We are reaching out to remind Singaporeans and help them with their MediShield Life premiums. The Government has provided subsidies to help Singaporeans pay for their MediShield Life premiums. These include transition subsidies, means-tested subsidies for lower- and middle-income households, as well as additional subsidies for the Pioneer Generation. Low-income Singaporeans who require financial assistance can apply for Additional Premium Support.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Png, we have got one minute. So, please, keep it very short.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang):\tThank you, Madam. I thank the Minister of State. Just a quick question: can the Ministry share whether the trend of non-payment of MediShield Life premiums is actually going up or down?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat:\tMdm Speaker, I thank Mr Png for his supplementary question. As Mr Png is aware, MediShield Life started in November last year. So, this is the first year that we are administering MediShield Life. We will keep track of the numbers. Importantly, the efforts to reach out to remind and help Singaporeans pay for their premiums will be a continuous one that we will work together with the Central Provident Fund Board and other Government agencies on, and to help low-income Singaporeans who require financial assistance to also benefit from MediShield Life through Additional Premium Support. In this way, we have a good universal medical insurance scheme that is for all and for life.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien):\tMdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.\"
Mdm Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [7 November 2016], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Prime Minister Lee.
The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Since the Opening of Parliament in January, we have had a full programme. We have implemented Silver Support and MediShield Life; we have expanded SkillsFuture; we have been busy building our infrastructure, housing and transport.
These are all good policies, but all not possible without good politics. It is good politics that enables Singapore to have a Government that produces good policies, one that is responsible and does the right thing; serves the people; safeguards our stability and success; leads the country to greater heights.
That is why in January, I raised the subject of the Elected President and then appointed a Constitutional Commission to review the Elected Presidency scheme.
The Elected President sits at the apex of our political system and our country. He is the Head of State, representing Singaporeans of all races and religions, and he holds the second key over the Reserves and Public Service appointments.
The Elected Presidency scheme is working; there has been no pressure to change the system. But it is my Government's duty to review the scheme to make adjustments well ahead of time to enable it to continue to function well.
Because the Elected Presidency is a long-term stabiliser for our system, the consequences of any strengths or weaknesses in the design of the Elected Presidency scheme will only show up much later. Either they will build up gradually and cumulatively over the terms of successive Presidents, or they may manifest themselves suddenly but unpredictably in a crisis one day, when we most need the second key. Therefore, if we wait until the problems are urgent and obvious before we act, it will be much too late.
We have had a comprehensive national debate on this matter over the last 10 months. The Constitutional Commission received over 100 submissions from the public, held two months of public hearings, deliberated and published their report two months ago. I spoke about the matter at the National Day Rally and I followed up in a Mediacorp interview. In September, the Government published a White Paper setting out the changes that we would make. And my colleagues have held many dialogues with groups of different backgrounds and ethnicities. And yesterday, we began debating the Bill in this House.
It has been an important and necessary debate because changes to the Constitution, as major as this one, determine the direction for the country. I am glad that many Singaporeans have taken an interest, brought their minds to bear on the matter, and have given their views.
The details are necessarily voluminous and complex. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spent 90 minutes explaining the Bill. Today, let me focus on two fundamental points: the Elected President as an important stabiliser in our system and the need for the Presidency to be multi-racial.
First of all, why is the Elected President an important stabiliser in our system? Let me start with a bit of history.
Singapore did not begin with a fully conceived Constitution. When we separated from Malaysia and became independent, all we had was the State Constitution for Singapore within the Federation of Malaysia. It was fit-for-purpose for Singapore as a constituent state in a federation but not a complete Constitution for an independent country.
To get that, we took a practical approach. We grafted pieces from the Federal Constitution of Malaysia onto our State Constitution and so it became the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore in December 1965. It was patchwork; it was inelegant, but it provided us a working basis to start from.
It was such a messy document that in 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked the British to help draft us a more elegant, comprehensive and enduring Constitution. The idea was to have something like the United States (US) Constitution, amended only 27 times in 200 years, with a beautiful, timeless form of words that everyone knows and venerates, and that will guide the country for many years to come.
The British law experts who have drafted many constitutions for different Commonwealth countries, came back with a shiny, new Constitution. From the legal point of view, they did a first-rate job. But in the end, Mr Lee Kuan Yew decided not to use it because the drafters did not understand our circumstances and our history, and did not have direct experience of Singapore – what worked and what would not work.
So, we stuck to our patchwork Constitution which took into account the idiosyncrasies of our history and our circumstances. It was a document that our people understood and were used to, and which worked. And as time passed, we amended it repeatedly and adapted it to our needs.
Mr Lee famously described it as being like stretching and occasionally re-soling and easing into worn-out old shoes, instead of buying a brand new pair – beautiful, shining but which would not fit as well.
And that has been our Constitutional path over the last 50 years. Our Constitution is a living document. It has evolved as our needs changed and it has served us well. The journey of our Constitution reflected how our political system evolved.
As a newly independent country, with the State Constitution as a basis, we started off with a unicameral legislature. It is a big word to mean a single House of Parliament. At that time, the People's Action Party (PAP) occupied every seat in Parliament and had the full support of the people. The Opposition was virtually non-existent. Mr Lee and his team could have done anything they wanted if they had wished.
But we were fortunate that our founding leaders were capable, responsible and trustworthy stewards. They used the freedom of action which they had to steer Singapore safely through many dangers. And they had operated the system in the long-term interest of Singapore. As Mr Lee once said, if he had wanted to, he could have changed this into a one-party state but he did not because he preserved the democratic system in order that you would have a government which is lean, subject to competition and which will serve the long-term interests of the country.
But even then, Mr Lee and his team were conscious that the system was not inherently robust and that they needed to build up state institutions like the Civil Service and the Courts. We would always need good people in politics, but we also required sound institutions.
By the early 1980s, the time was right for us to consider what more we needed to do because, by the early 1980s, after two decades of nation-building, we had accumulated a nest egg of Reserves. Mr Lee worried that, one day, we might have a freak election result, and the money would be squandered by a profligate government.
Our Public Service had also established a reputation for impartiality, integrity and quality. And if the service ever got corrupted, especially the key appointments, it would be impossible ever to clean it up again. In fact, in the 1959 General Election (GE), when the PAP first came into office, Mr Lee and his colleagues thought very carefully before deciding to fight to win because they knew they were in a weak position vis-a-vis the Communists in the PAP, and if they fought to win after they got them into the Government, they would have a big fight with the Communists in the PAP.
But nevertheless, they decided to go for it and to win. And their consideration was that if they did not win and another team came in and corrupted the Civil Service, that would be the end. And if the PAP came in a term later, it would be unable to put things right again. That is how important maintaining the integrity of the Public Service was to our founding generational leaders.
So, after 20 years with the Reserves to worry about, with the Civil Service and the high quality, Mr Lee proposed the idea in 1984 of an Elected President. And the idea was debated, refined and eventually legislated in 1990.
For the past quarter of a century since we have implemented the scheme, the Elected Presidency has worked well and become a valuable part of our political system. It is unique. Other political systems may have stabilising institutions like an Upper House or a Constitutional court, or an Executive President, separate from Parliament. But no other country has anything quite like Singapore's Elected President. It is a unique system, very difficult to get right, because the balance is a delicate one – a symbolic Head of State, but elected through a national ballot. With a popular mandate, but not a mandate to govern. He can use his mandate to say no in certain specified areas but not to push for policies or to initiate action.
The Presidential Election itself presents some difficulties. In a fiercely contested campaign, emotions and sentiments can build up, and issues that have nothing to do with the role of the President can become hot. Candidates may then make claims, promises and declarations which go beyond the President's powers and competence under the Constitution.
We saw that happen in the 2011 Presidential Election. One candidate championed a $60 billion economic plan, supposedly to create jobs and enterprise. Another candidate made proposals, such as better recognition for National Servicemen, for more help for the poor and unemployed.
But these are the Government's responsibility, for the Prime Minister and Cabinet to decide. The person who is standing for election as the guardian of the Reserves is offering as his platform to open the doors and make free. It is not for the President to promise these things in a campaign or push for them after being elected. But in 2011, some candidates' attitude was: never mind, just say it, get elected first, worry about the Constitution later on.
But for all these difficulties, I am convinced that the Elected President has been a plus for our system. Having this stabiliser is critical and has already made a difference. Even though it is not easy to get right, we should persevere to improve the system. We can find ways to mitigate the difficulties, and will do so, because the alternatives to the Elected President will create other, probably worse, difficulties.
What are the alternatives? There have been different suggestions, including by the Constitutional Commission, which raised the issue in their report, though it was not within their terms of reference, because they felt strongly that this was important and should be brought to the Government's attention.
Let me discuss three of the ideas. The first suggestion is to have a non-elected President, but with the same custodial powers as the Elected President, namely, Reserves and personnel, key appointments.
I do not think this is wise. To veto the Government is a major decision; you must have a democratic mandate to make that call. When the elected Government asks an unelected President to approve something and the unelected President says yes, there is no problem. But when an unelected President has to say no to an elected Government, he will find it very hard to stand his ground, and the public will find it very hard to accept. The Government will argue, with justification: \"Who are you to say no? We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will. Please approve what we propose.\" The President's \"no\" will not stick.
The second suggestion is to revert to a ceremonial President chosen by Parliament, not elected in a national election, but vest the second key in the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), give the power to the CPA.
However, the same argument for electing a President with custodial powers would apply to a CPA with custodial powers. An unelected CPA, a council of non-political wise men, working as an advisory panel to the Elected President who makes the final decision and has a democratic mandate. That works well. The President has a mandate; the President makes the final decision. The advisory panel gives him wise, informed, impartial advice, non-elected but with experience brought to bear. We can do that. But once the CPA itself becomes the decision maker, if the CPA members are unelected, the same problem that an unelected President has saying \"no\", the CPA will have saying \"no\". So, what is the solution?
The solution then is we elect the CPA. In effect, the CPA becomes an Upper House. Then, instead of having one national election to choose a President, we would have elections for six, eight or 10 Presidential Advisers. Instead of having one presidential race risking being politicised, we would have six, eight or 10 CPA races at similar risk. The problem will be amplified, not reduced.
The third alternative is to return to the status quo ante. Go back to a non-elected President, purely ceremonial, like before 1990. Do away with the President's custodial powers and do away with the CPA. Let Parliament be supreme, with unrestricted power to do as it pleases. No safeguard, no stabiliser, no fault tolerance. But that would be very unwise.
I believe that over the last 25 years, even though the Elected President has never had to veto any spending proposal by the Government, by the very existence of his powers, he has influenced Singapore politics for the better. The prospect of the veto alone has lessened the temptation for political parties to promise the world to voters in GEs. Everyone knows that a government which says, \"Just spend the money\" ‒ $60 billion, $80 billion, $100 billion ‒ on free university education, free healthcare, cheap homes, has first to persuade the President to unlock the Reserves. And that is an important reason why Opposition parties have been quite cautious in their spending proposals even during GEs. Without this second key, I am quite sure some Opposition parties would have gone to town many elections ago. And the PAP Government would have come under pressure to match their generosity and might well have found it difficult to hold the line.
You heard about the Australian experience yesterday. It holds many lessons for us. During the commodities boom, the Australian government started to accumulate budget surpluses. They wanted to save these surpluses for their future. So, they established the sovereign wealth fund, called the \"Future Fund\", to cover Australia's future pension liabilities. But the political dynamics of the electoral contest resulted in elections becoming auctions. So, what happened? Seven consecutive years of personal income tax cuts; increased subsidies and benefits for pensioners. Somebody subsequently did a report which concluded that during the boom, out of every AUD19 that the government received in additional revenue, it saved AUD1 and it spent AUD18. So, in total, they gave back AUD180 billion either to taxpayers through tax cuts or by spending it. AUD180 billion.
When the commodities boom ended, as all such booms do, Australia went into deficit. The Future Fund is empty, the government has had to make very painful spending cuts and still the budget will be in deficit for years to come. Singapore is not in such a position. And for that, some credit must go to the system of the Elected President with veto powers over the Reserves.
Some agree that we should have safeguards on the Reserves, but argue that the powers should be vested in Parliament, instead of a separate institution. That may help but, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo pointed out yesterday, in Parliament, the pressure is to do more rather than to spend less. I cannot recall the last occasion in this House where any political party or Member of Parliament has pressed the Government to spend less or to raise more taxes. In fact, on the contrary, when spending proposals come up and we pressed the Members of Parliament (MPs), \"How are they to be paid for?\" The answer is, \"You don't have to worry. This is a good investment.\" And that is why we need the second key to be held by another elected institution, separate from Parliament, and that is the Elected President.
Furthermore, making everything depend on one institution, namely, the Parliament, creates what the engineers would call \"a single point of failure\". Everything hinges on the outcome of a single GE, on the Government elected into Parliament in that one vote every five years. If the election takes place when the country happens to be worked up over some issue, then the Government that is elected may take action that the country will later regret.
That is why countries with an Upper House and a Lower House often hold their Upper and Lower House elections separately ‒ staggered timings and different constituencies, not exactly the same, so that when you decide the future of the country at the ballot box, you are never risking everything in one throw of the electoral dice. What the Chinese call, \"孤注一掷\" (gu zhu yi zhi), that is, put all your chips there and risk it.
That is why we decided that, in Singapore, the second key would be held by the Elected President, a different and independent institution, elected in a separate Presidential Election with a different term of office from the Government.
We are trying to design our political system to have the right balance between a decisive Executive and having adequate stabilisers. At one extreme, without stabilisers, the system will be unstable. If anything goes wrong, the consequences can be very serious. At the other extreme, if the stabilisers are too strong, we risk gridlock; difficult to get anything done. We started very close to the first extreme ‒ a unicameral, single Parliament, untrammelled. Then, we made a careful shift. We introduced this safeguard, the Elected President, to protect Reserves and appointments, and address specific vulnerabilities which we have in Singapore.
Seen against the range of democratic systems that exists in different countries, this is not a fundamental shift from our system of parliamentary democracy. But it is an important one, because every political system needs stabilisers.
Let me illustrate with two quite extreme examples ‒ Britain and the US. The country which comes closest to a Parliament which has no constraint is the United Kingdom (UK). There is no written Constitution. Theoretically, the House of Commons, by simple majority, can make any decision ‒ decide to do away with the monarchy, abolish the House of Lords, even do away with elections altogether. Still, even in Britain, the courts have become a check on the government. The courts have taken an expanded view of their traditional role interpreting and administering the law, but doing it in such a way now that they make judgments and orders that are, in effect, executive decisions.
For example, 40 years ago, during the Northern Ireland conflict, the UK government enacted tough measures against IRA terrorists. They restricted civil liberties, tightened court procedures and implemented internment, which is detention without trial. By and large, these measures were met with robust judicial acceptance and approval. But in more recent times, that has changed. After 9/11, when jihadist terrorism prompted the government to push for similar measures, the judicial response has been more critical and challenging. When the UK government tries to deport convicted foreign terrorists, the cases are endlessly litigated, and the judges made their interpretation of the facts and what the Ministers are entitled to do, and the government finds itself impotent to act. That is one extreme.
The other extreme is the US, which lays great store on checks and balances. The US has elevated the separation of powers almost into a sacred doctrine. Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court ‒ three centres of power, constantly checking and balancing one another. Congress itself is divided between the House and Senate, separately elected, often with different parties controlling each one. The tension is always there, and sometimes results in gridlock. Some people would say, usually, results in gridlock. But the US accepts that, because their overriding priority and philosophy are to prevent an overbearing government. Because of their historical experience of the British, they wanted to make sure that their government would never impose the same tyranny on their people.
Right now, the US is about to go to the polls in a few hours' time to elect a new President. The world is watching with bated breath, exceptionally concerned what the outcome will be. Because, this time, the two candidates represent radically different world views, and in the case of one candidate, a very unconventional approach to the issues and the challenges that the country faces. The outcome will matter a lot to the US and to the world. But one factor which people take some comfort in is the strong checks and balances in the US political system. They make it not so easy to make things happen, but they make it very difficult for things to go disastrously wrong. So, whoever wins, hopefully it will not be so easy for things to go completely out of kilter.
When I was in Washington in August just before National Day, I was asked this question at the press conference with President Obama. I made this point, speaking slightly out of turn, and President Obama commented wryly: \"The wisdom of your founding fathers\". But there was wisdom there.
James Madison, one of the founding fathers, wrote in the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays which set out the philosophy and the arguments and the options as the US debated how to craft the Constitution of the United States. And he wrote, \"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.\"
And he goes on to say, \"A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.\" In other words, elections are very important to choose the government your people need and deserve but you cannot rely just on that simple bare idea. You need other ideas to make a complete and a stable system. And that is wisdom.
I do not think the system like the US can work for Singapore. But we, too, need some \"auxiliary precautions\", some stabiliser, besides the \"primary control\", which is the fact that Parliament is elected by the people. And for us, that stabiliser is the Elected President.
Therefore, we should keep the Elected President and finetune its stabiliser role. So, we are raising the eligibility criteria. We are strengthening the CPA. We are revising the entrenchment framework. That is one major part of this Bill.
Let me now speak specifically about the racial provisions. Amongst all the changes in this complicated Bill, the one which we thought hardest about, and where the most is at stake, is the question of ensuring multiracial representation in the Elected Presidency.
To raise the qualifying criteria is relatively straightforward, because it is an objective bar. To strengthen the CPA is a matter of finetuning. The provisions on veto and entrenchment are, essentially, a legal drafting problem, setting the right balance between flexibility and rigidity in the Constitution, but it can be done. It may take several tries. This is our third try but it can be done.
But whether to ensure that people from different races can and do, indeed, become President is the most difficult question, because it goes right to the core of our fundamental belief in a multiracial society.
As the Head of State, the President is the symbol of our nation. He represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the office must be multiracial. At the same time, whichever ethnic group the President belongs to, he has to be multiracial in his approach. He has to reach out to all races, connect with every Singaporean. And fortunately, all our Presidents so far have done that.
If the President, who is a symbol of a multiracial nation, always comes from the same race, not only will he cease to be a credible symbol of our nation, the very multiracial character of our nation will come under question. Every citizen – Chinese, Malay, Indian, or some other race – should know that someone of his community can become President and, in fact, from time to time, does become President.
This is not a theoretical matter. For us, race is a very \"live\" consideration, with real-world implications. We have made enormous progress in our racial harmony certainly, but we are not completely there.
As a small, open multiracial country, our ethnic groups are always subject to different external pulls and influences. Our racial harmony can be affected by developments in other countries and this applies to all our ethnic groups.
Take the rise of China, with which we have substantial relations. I spoke about this in the National Day Rally, and Ms Tin Pei Ling, I was happy to hear, spoke about it yesterday, too. China's rise is a tremendous plus for Singapore, and for the world. Our companies do a lot of business in China, and many Chinese companies participate in our economy. We work on G-to-G projects – Suzhou, Tianjin, and now Chongqing, on the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative.
We have to-ing and fro-ing intensively – tourism, culture, education. Every Chinese New Year, without Chinese artisans, you will not have all the \"灯笼\" and the Riverside Hongbao. Every community event, there is some engagement, some flow, some connection with some part of China which can add some extra colour and vividness to our Singapore Chinese culture.
We want to grow this cooperation with China and take full advantage of our familiarity with the culture and the language. So, we talk about not just bilingualism but biculturalism and we make a big effort to develop those links.
And yet, there is a risk because of our population composition; because of our cultural familiarity, people may misunderstand us to be a Chinese country and forget that, in fact, Singapore is an independent sovereign country, cooperating with other countries on the basis of our own national interests and positions. It can lead to misunderstandings; it can lead to unrealistic expectations; it can lead to us being carried away even domestically and forgetting this fundamental fact about Singapore – that we are independent, sovereign, multiracial, in Southeast Asia. And that is what we must always remember: we are not a Chinese country. We are a multiracial, multi-religious Southeast Asian country with an ethnic Chinese majority but not a Chinese country.
We have to show this. We have to show this domestically, to our own population, the Chinese population as well as the non-Chinese population. And we have to show this externally, to other countries, too. So, that is one important way in which the external world influences our domestic racial cohesion and considerations.
Secondly, among our closest neighbours, race and religion are hot issues. If we look at Indonesia, Basuki Tjahaya Purnama – you may know him by another name, Ahok, running for re-election as Governor of Jakarta. Ahok is a Chinese and a Christian. His opponents cited a Quranic verse to tell Muslims not to vote for Ahok. They called him a \"kafir\", an infidel; strong word. Ahok responded in a Youtube video, accused them of lying and misinterpreting the Quran. Then, they attacked Ahok for blasphemy. And Ahok was forced to apologise. But his opponents staged a huge demonstration in Jakarta last Friday. The protestors yelled, \"We want a Muslim Governor!\" and \"Burn Ahok!\" There was violence and rioting. And today, I read in the newspapers that Ahok went to the police yesterday and the police interviewed him for nine hours. They are investigating whether he committed blasphemy.
In Malaysia, politics is based on race and religion. It is the antithesis of the way politics is conducted in Singapore. Political Islam is a dominant feature. Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) has tabled a hudud Bill in Parliament. The Barisan Nasional Government has allowed it to be put on the Order Paper. Non-Muslim parties are deeply upset about this, but they know that in such matters, they do not decide. The divide between the races is very deep.
In Singapore, we worry about race and religion ourselves, too. What will happen to our society if we have a terrorist attack? What more if the attack is by a Singaporean, self-radicalised after visiting extremist websites? Will we stand together or will we split along racial and religious lines? A terrorist attack is frightening but if it comes from outside, I think it is not so hard to understand; we pull together. If it should come from within, are we sure that we can heal back together so easily, unless we work very hard at it before the fact?
So, these events, external events and influences will affect our social cohesion. We are building a radically different society in Singapore than other countries in the region; than China, because that is overwhelmingly one ethic group, the Hans; than our neighbours, who are working on a different basis than we are. We are seeking to be multiracial, equal, harmonious; gradually enlarging our shared Singaporean identity, while celebrating our different cultures and faiths; allowing minority communities ample space to live their own ways of life, never forcing everybody to conform to a single norm set by the majority.
We have to work consciously and systematically at this. It will not happen by itself, nor will we get there if we blithely assume that we have already arrived and do not talk about it, do not do anything about it, that we are okay. That is not the way to be okay.
The President is the most important unifying symbol of the nation. Singaporeans look up to the President as the personification of all that Singapore stands for and all that we stand for in Singapore. So, it is a fundamental necessity that the Presidency be multiracial.
If we have a nominated President, we can do this informally. Parliament can choose Presidents of all races over a period of time, as it did. And the office will, de-facto, be multiracial, without explicit, formal constitutional arrangements.
But if the President is elected in a national election, then if we do not make deliberate arrangements to ensure a multiracial outcome, the Presidency could well, over time, become a single-race office, because minorities do find it harder to win in a national election.
This is not an easy subject to speak about openly. Many of us want to be race-blind. We feel ourselves to be race-blind. We feel that we ourselves are race-blind and we are understandably uneasy about any suggestion that perhaps we are not so.
I am heartened that that is our ideal and our aspiration but, at the same time, I have to be realistic about where we are today. And you have seen the surveys; they show that a significant minority of Singaporeans at least consider race as a factor when they vote and will not vote for somebody of a different race to be President. Not everybody but not a small minority either. And that puts minority candidates at a disadvantage in an election.
Mr Murali Pillai spoke about this yesterday and he knows this, from personal experience. And I knew this when I sent Mr Murali Pillai to Bukit Batok to fight a by-election in a Single Member Constituency, knowing that it is not so easy for a non-Chinese to do that. But I did it because he knew the ground; I knew him, and I judged that this was a risk that I was prepared to take. He fought hard. He won, but he can tell you, and I can tell you, that he had to fight harder than if I had sent a similar Chinese candidate familiar with the ground to go and fight and win. It is a reality of Singapore society and Singapore politics.
And it is not just Singapore. It is so in every country, including the US. In 1992, when Bill Clinton first stood for election as President, he ran against George HW Bush, the senior George Bush. The blacks voted for Bill Clinton. Toni Morrison, who is a black female Nobel laureate for Literature, described Bill Clinton rapturously as \"the first black President\".
Years later, 2008, Hillary Clinton, his wife, ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in the primaries. Bill Clinton repeated this phrase; described himself as \"the first black president\", to shore up Hillary. He thought it would help. Instead, he caused an uproar in the African-American community. The blacks voted overwhelmingly against Hillary, for Obama.
Then, Obama became President. It was a real breakthrough for African-Americans. People said, \"Marvellous! Race no longer matters in US politics.\" But they were too optimistic. After eight years of a black President, in the election, you have two white candidates: Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. What is the election about?
At one level, it is about globalisation, jobs, insecurity. But at another level, race is front and centre. Trump supporters are overwhelmingly white, lower- and middle-income voters. They feel threatened by the demographic changes happening in America. Theirs is a white protest vote.
The blacks are again overwhelmingly voting for Hillary Clinton this time, but with somewhat less enthusiasm than when they voted for President Obama. And the Latinos also, ethnically as a group, are voting against Mr Trump and turning out in big numbers because they see that perhaps Mr Trump may win if they do not vote.
So, the moral of the story is that race and religion are very deep-seated realities in every country. We must take them very seriously. So, even though there is no pressure, even the minority communities have not pressed for it in Singapore, we should make arrangements now to ensure that the Presidency will be multiracial.
We have decided to do this through what the Constitutional Commission has called the hiatus-triggered model, which means that Presidential Elections are generally open to candidates of all races. But if we have not had a President from a particular community for five consecutive terms, then the next term will be reserved for candidates from that community. If one of them is elected, you will have a President from that community.
So, it is five terms; if without, then one is reserved. This means that over six election terms, we should expect to see at least one Chinese President, one Malay President, one President who is either an Indian or another minority, provided qualified candidates appear. Which means that, out of six terms, there will be at least two non-Chinese Presidents, which means one in three Presidents will be non-Chinese, which is a bigger proportion than the proportion of non-Chinese in the population.
Some people have objected that this arrangement goes against the principle of meritocracy. I understand their concerns. But I would like you to consider two points. First, a candidate in a reserved election must still meet the same qualifying criteria. He must be competent for the job of wielding the custodial powers and he must be as qualified as any other candidate who stands and wins in a non-reserved election.
Second, the symbolic role of the President is just as important as his custodial role. As a symbol of the nation, the race of the candidate is relevant. So, while individually, a good candidate of any race will be satisfactory, collectively, over a period of time, we need that mix of Presidents of different races, and the election mechanism must be designed to produce such a mix over time. That is what the hiatus-triggered model delivers.
When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point. The Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.
We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency.
We also have to define the ethnic group of each of the Elected Presidents we have had so far. There is no practical doubt, but as a legal matter, we have to define it because you cannot convene the Committee retrospectively to certify them. So, the Act will deem:
(a) Dr Wee Kim Wee as Chinese,
(b) Mr Ong Teng Cheong as Chinese,
(c) Mr S R Nathan, who served two terms, as Indian,
(d) and Dr Tony Tan as Chinese.
Therefore, by the operation of the hiatus-triggered model, the next election, due next year, will be a reserved election for Malay candidates. That means if a Malay candidate steps up to run, or more than one Malay candidate steps up to run, who is qualified, Singapore will have a Malay President again. As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak. I look forward to this. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker, these are practical arrangements we must make, in order to make our multiracial system work. We recognise where we are and we will work to strengthen our multiracial society. Our ideal is to be race-blind. We \"pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion\", and we must continue striving towards this goal. As we get closer to this ideal and minority candidates are regularly elected President in open elections, we will need the hiatus-triggered reserved elections less and less.
We have spent a lot of energy and time on the changes to the Elected President this year. I personally have paid a lot of attention to this. I feel strongly that it is my responsibility and something that I need to do now.
Let me explain to Members why. I have been involved with the Elected Presidency almost from the start. As a young Minister, I helped Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team to develop Mr Lee Kuan Yew's concept into a complete scheme, and I helped Prof Jayakumar to draft the White Papers in 1988 and 1990. Since the Elected Presidency began, I have been operating the mechanism that we designed and discovering its glitches. I helped to refine and amend the scheme as we went along. After becoming Prime Minister, I have worked closely with two Elected Presidents, Mr SR Nathan and Dr Tony Tan, including asking President Nathan for permission to draw on the Reserves during the Global Financial Crisis.
So, I think I can say that I know the system – what the design intent was, when we first formulated the scheme, how it has worked in practice, how conditions have changed, how our ideas have evolved and how we should finetune and improve the scheme to make it work for our long-term future.
These changes are my responsibility. I am doing it now because it would be irresponsible of me to kick this can down the road and leave the problem to my successors. They have not had this long experience with the system and they will find it much harder to deal with.
I am sure the result will not be perfect. I fully expect that, one day, my successors will find it necessary to make further improvements and adjustments to the Elected Presidency scheme. But I believe the changes in this Bill will make the Elected Presidency work better for Singapore, now and in the future.
But please understand, whatever we do, it is not cast-iron and foolproof – things can still go wrong in Singapore with Singapore politics. A government may be elected with good intentions, only to find its policies turn out badly. A President may be elected on a basis different from his Constitutional role. Relations between the President and the government may become strained, or even break down. Most fundamentally, Singaporeans may become split along fault lines – race, religion, income or class – and then no political system will produce a stable government for the country. All these are possible, despite all the safeguards we are putting in place. And yet we know that without the Elected President, we have more cause to worry that things can go disastrously wrong.
Strengthening the Elected Presidency will reduce the chances of this happening but, ultimately, our safety, and our future, lie in the hands of Singaporeans. We must rely on Singaporeans to remain united, so that our politics can be constructive and cohesive. To get people to come forward to serve the nation in many different ways. To elect good people into Parliament and Government, and to serve as President. And then we can work together with those entrusted with authority and responsibility to deliver the results that we know Singapore can achieve. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied):\tMdm Speaker, I have one clarification for the Prime Minister. During his speech, there was a portion where he spoke about possible alternative stabilisers to the Elected Presidency. He discussed the possibility of an unelected president having custodial powers, and an unelected council. And then I think the last option that he discussed was the possibility of a council being elected. May I ask him to clarify again what is his concern about such a proposal? If I heard him correctly, there will be too many elections or what is the concern?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mdm Speaker, this is a serious question. It is something which we considered carefully and the issue is this. Our system is focused on Parliament. We have tweaked the system to stabilise the Parliament but without changing the fundamental nature of this system. If we wanted to change the fundamental nature of the system, we would say \"Let's have an Upper House\". I have 10 or 20 senators, vote for the senators, have a separate set of elections. So, I have GEs, Parliament general elections, Upper House. And then I have Parliament making legislation and Upper House vetting, approving legislation, having some powers.
We decided, when we went into this, and I think rightly, that Singapore is too small and does not really have the range of people and talent to form two Houses like that. When you are looking for the check which we need over Reserves, over people, what you are looking for is not a politicised decision of a jostle but a judgement of somebody who has got the experience and the wisdom to say, \"Yes, what the Government is asking is wise, we do that\", or \"No\". Informed by advisors who have experience, who can tell him \"Mr President, the Budget which has been put up, projects next year a 10% growth in revenues, I don't believe that\" or \"Mr President, this is a very serious economic crisis. We better spend the money and do as the Government proposes\".
We are looking for this check to be instituted in a person who is well-advised. And we want the person who is elected to make the decision, and the advisors to give him inputs but the elected person decides. That is the model we have gone for, and it has worked well.
If we go the other way and we have the CPA elected, what happened in 2011 when electing one President, can easily happen when you elect half a dozen or a dozen CPA members. Each time, each one of them, and you will be contesting for CPA members and arguing, \"On what basis will you put yourself up for election as CPA members?\" Party lines? That is unsatisfactory. Lines like \"I want to spend money\"? That is even worse.
What am I looking for in the CPA members? Expertise, experience, judgement. They may not be the person who will be the President but they are people who can advise the President. They may not be people who can easily make a campaign speech and win elections and rouse the crowd, but they are people you will go to for advice when you need to make a difficult decision. That is how the CPA has worked. We think it is good. I have discussed this with the President, he has discussed it with the CPA, and they have found this arrangement to be a prudent and a judicious one. I think we should keep it like that.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tJust a brief point of clarification to the Prime Minister. The hon Prime Minister alluded to the fact that the UK Parliament could, in theory, if it so decides, abolish elections altogether. So, my question to the Prime Minister would be, what within our system would prevent a future government – I do not think the current Government would do that and previous Governments clearly did not – but what in our system will prevent a future government from either abolishing or radically curtailing a GE at some point in the future? What would be the stabiliser for that?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong:\tMdm Speaker, the difference is we have a written Constitution, the British do not. So, in Singapore we have to amend the Constitution to do that. In the UK, if there is no Constitution to amend, you can just pass a resolution of Parliament, an Act, and it is done. That is the difference.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, please deliver your speech.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this Bill is evidence of how a nightmare may come back to haunt us.
The Elected Presidency was created in the 1990s with the intention of safeguarding our past Reserves from being squandered by a \"rogue government\". However, the experience with the Elected Presidency has seen the PAP Government coming back to the House to amend the Constitution again and again, as unintended consequences arose.
One public episode of tension between the Elected President and the Government surfaced when President Ong Teng Cheong, a former PAP Deputy Prime Minister, held a press conference to highlight his lack of access to information about the assets he was supposed to safeguard. The Presidential Elections in 2011 were also a nightmare for the PAP leadership, with four candidates contesting the elections. I understand that some leaders were kept awake at night at the prospect of one of the other three candidates being elected.
Today's Bill presents complicated amendments to try to undo problems created by the Government itself. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spent 90 minutes meticulously taking the House through the changes brought about by this Bill, together with seven pages of meaty handouts, the kind of content ripe for a major law exam.
Before I go further, there are three fundamental truths that underpin this debate, which the Workers' Party (WP) would like to acknowledge at the outset.
First, that the President's principal role is as Head of State, a unifying figure and symbol of the nation, domestically and to the world.
Second, that the President should not be another centre of power. In fact, this was a concern that the WP had articulated since the 1980s when the Elected Presidency was first mooted. In January this year, the Prime Minister reiterated that the President was not another centre of power.
Third, that the country's past Reserves should be preserved and strongly safeguarded by an entity that is elected by the people. The issue is who should be the gatekeeper.
Madam, I shall touch on the President as the Head of State which, we say, should be his principal and only role.
The WP notes that our past system of having appointed Presidents has produced Presidents who are generally held in very high esteem and are greatly respected by the people. Beginning with the appointment of President Yusof Ishak to President Wee Kim Wee, the fact that the President did not campaign and go through elections, in fact, elevated the office to being above politics. His focus on being Head of State was of universal appeal, and, in no way, diminished his stature, compared with our elected Presidents.
Today, the WP and many Singaporeans still believe the President should be an appointed office and above politics. To revert to such a system of appointed Presidents is not regressive; in fact, it would naturally take care of any concerns that minority communities would not be represented in the office, as this would automatically be resolved by a system of rotational appointments.
Madam, we disagree that the Presidency should be an elected office and should be tasked to safeguard the past reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. We thus oppose this Bill.
Our past reasons for objecting to the Elected Presidency have been recorded over the years. Under the scheme designed by the PAP Government, the strict and specific eligibility criteria would likely see the election of a pro-PAP President. In the event of a change of government, the President was likely to be the legacy of the previous administration, who could prevent the new government from being effective, for political reasons. This prospect was not just WP's thinking but the honest misgivings of some senior PAP MPs as well. For instance, during the Parliamentary debate on the 1988 White Paper on the Elected President, Mr Ong Pang Boon, a former Minister, noted as follows, and I quote:
\"...the intention of the proposal as contained in the White Paper has gone even much further than originally mooted, which was to protect the country's financial Reserves from being raided by a profligate government elected to office. The reserved powers of the elected President now extend beyond financial reserves to cover all assets of the government and key Public Service appointments.\"
\"The proposal, as contained in the White Paper, whichever way one looks at it, would ensure the election of a Presidential candidate from the PAP. Should by some freak election results, which the Government claimed to be possible, an Opposition government were elected to office, it would be logical for the PAP President to work to undermine and bring down the Opposition Prime Minister and his government, even if the Opposition wants to act responsibly.\"
Madam, fast forward to today. Today, we have an even clearer picture as to why the President should not be asked to take on the dual role of being Head of State and also safeguarding the Reserves and Public Service at the same time. Such a dual role has an inherent tension that politicises the office of the President.
This fact was recognised by the Constitutional Commission to Review Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency. After considering the matter in detail and receiving submissions and evidence, the Commission felt compelled to point out the inherent problem with the dual role, even though it was going beyond its Terms of Reference to do so. The Commission noted that being a Head of State was a unifying role while being a custodian was a confrontational role; in addition, requiring the President to go through an election necessarily made him a partisan figure. The Commission also noted that the two roles required \"different chemistry\". The Commission went on to ask the Government to consider unbundling the two roles, so that the President could concentrate on his role as Head of State, while the custodial role be given to another body of persons. We respectfully agree with the Commission's observations.
Next, I move on to how the Reserves and other matters may be safeguarded. The WP agrees that the country's Reserves built up during the previous terms of government should be safeguarded. As the past Reserves belong to the people of Singapore, we believe the safeguard should rest with Parliament, as the elected representatives of the people.
To this end, we have studied the Constitutional Commission's recommendation that safeguarding of the past Reserves could be vested in a separate body, to be appointed, who have powers of delay. In other words, when the Government wants to spend past Reserves, it would need to send its proposal to this appointed body for review. If the body had reservations about the proposal, it would then send the proposal back to Parliament, which could then pass it with a supermajority vote.
Madam, the WP has always acknowledged that the past Reserves are worthy of strong safeguards. We also see the merits of the Constitutional Commission's rationale that MPs would benefit from the collective wisdom of a separate body with some expertise.
Having considered the Commission's report, the WP believes it is apt to consider creating a second Chamber in the Legislature, which could be called the Senate. Its primary role would be to safeguard the country's past Reserves. Besides past Reserves, we recognise that there is also some public sentiment that it is prudent that a body outside the Government should review the other decisions that the President is currently overseeing, such as approving key Civil Service appointments. We acknowledge that these are important matters, including decisions on whether a corruption investigation should proceed if the Prime Minister objects to it.
Madam, we do agree that there are benefits in having another body review such decisions. To ease the transition from the Elected Presidency system, we propose that all the discretionary powers currently vested in the Elected President be vested in the newly-created Senate. After the Senate has worked for some time, the Senate's scope could be reviewed.
Under this proposal, the Senate would be elected by the people in a national election, rather than appointed as suggested by the Commission. The election will be of individuals who do not represent any political party. We could start with a Senate of, say, eight individuals.
Madam, we see the election of the Senate members as critical, to make the membership process open and not susceptible to political interference. This will also give the Senate the necessary mandate for the important decisions it makes. Candidates for the Senate should possess relevant experience and expertise for the functions expected of the Senate. My colleagues will set this out in more detail.
Madam, as far as spending the past Reserves and key Civil Service appointments are concerned, the Senate would only have delay powers to refer any proposal back to Parliament for consideration. At that stage, Parliament should consider the reservations of the Senate, and, if thought fit, could still pass the proposal but with a supermajority of, say, three-quarters of MPs. Such a mechanism would see the safeguards on Reserves remaining with Parliament.
Next, Madam, I move on to some concerns about the Bill. Madam, the provisions of this Bill show that the Government knows that it is unwise to let one man have too much power. However, the Government seems to be locked into a position that there must be an Elected President, and is devising more ways to check him. However, the Government's chosen method of strengthening the CPA and enlarging its role is fraught with difficulties. The increased clout of the CPA will make it yet another power centre, which is not tenable as it is an unelected body.
One clear example is clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 deals with the entrenchment framework, which was summarised in Handout 4 distributed yesterday. Parliament had previously considered and passed the existing Article 5(2A) and Article 5A, but these had not been brought into operation. Those provisions had envisaged that any Bill to amend the Constitution that affected the President's role or powers could not be presented to Parliament unless the President agreed to it, or it had been put to a national referendum and two-thirds of voters agreed to it.
Clause 3 of the Bill will now introduce a re-revised entrenchment framework. The proposed Articles 5A and 5B will enable a Bill affecting the President's role or powers to be presented even if he does not agree and the proposal is not put to a referendum, so long as the CPA agrees to it.
As Deputy Prime Minister Teo confirmed yesterday, the new framework will give \"legal weight\" to the opinion of the CPA regarding entrenchment provisions. This had not been the case before this Bill. This provision will thus strengthen the position of the CPA vis-a-vis the President. How do we justify letting the CPA be the gateway to amendments to our fundamental law, the Constitution, when the CPA is itself unelected?
Madam, while we have stated our views, we do not believe that Parliament should arrogate to itself the right to decide such fundamental matters concerning the political system and state power or, as the Prime Minister put it just now, provisions which \"determine the direction of the country\".
It is proper to consult the people directly in a national referendum. We call on the Government to allow the people to make a decision on the nature of the Presidency and how the country's assets should be safeguarded.
Madam, we have the liberty of drafting the question that we believe can be considered to be put to a referendum. Madam, may I have your permission to distribute the question to Members?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [A document was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker, the annex that is being distributed to Members seeks to ask Singaporeans to choose between two models in a national referendum. Option A, as advanced by the PAP Government, is where the President is elected and plays dual roles. Option B, which is the model that the WP prefers, is an appointed President without the custodial role which is now vested in an elected Senate.
Madam, let me conclude. Many Singaporeans, including our residents, have asked why the Government is rushing such an important matter through Parliament. They noted that Prime Minister Lee had said that there was no urgency, while the Law Minister has gone on record that the changes were not targeted at disbarring any individual from running. If that is the case, surely, there is still time for any change to be carefully considered for implementation in the following Presidential Election in 2023, rather than the one next year.
Madam, there have been public discussion and scepticism about the proposed changes. Indeed, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged previously that it would not be easy to convince Singaporeans about the need for these changes. There is an illustration. I came across a post on the Facebook page of Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a former Presidential candidate. The post from a member of the public read as follows, and I quote, \"What kind of legacy are we leaving to the next generation when we define our Head of State by his wealth and race, rather than by his character, social contributions and public spiritedness?\"
Madam, this is, indeed, an important question for all of us to answer. The matter before the House is a grave one and a hasty decision could well prove unwise.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill that has large implications on the future of governance in Singapore. I would like to keep my comments to three key areas of this amendment Bill.
Firstly, on the role of the President. As Head of State, the President is really a representative of the people. A representative of Singapore and Singaporeans on the global stage and a symbol of the shared values of Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. I also know that, to many Singaporeans, many of our past Presidents also meant much more. They were unifying figures that were above policies and politics, endearing characters that some were labelled the \"People's President\". And like many Singaporeans, I, too, hope that our ideals in what we want in our President will not be lost, as we strengthen the qualifying criteria and governance of custodial powers.
During the last Presidential Elections, it was clear that many Singaporeans, including some of the candidates themselves, as the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech, did not have an accurate view of the role of the President and what powers came along with it. As a result, the debates surrounding the election and the election itself took on an unnecessary political slant.
But this episode gave us the opportunity to ask a question. Do Singaporeans know what the President represents? Clearly, over the last two days, we had heard that the role of the President is different from the Government's, otherwise the President would be no different from other executive political office holders like the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. I agree with President Tony Tan that the Elected President \"cannot be a second centre of power\". As a small state, decisions have to be made with mutual trust and respect between the offices for the long-term benefit of Singapore.
Thus, it is important that if these changes are applied by the next Presidential Elections, more education must be provided for voters to better understand the Constitutional amendments and the role of the President. It must also be ensured that candidates are also better kept aware of their role and powers that they are standing for so that voters are not misguided.
That brings me to my second point, Mdm Speaker, the criteria for eligibility to be a President.
The constant emphasis on the custodial role of the President seems to be the financial acumen and executive experience of the candidate. I agree that times have changed and while the role of the second key to the Reserves is important, but an overemphasis on this in this Bill, manifesting in the tighter criteria of having led a $500-million company to justify the complexity of the role, immediately narrows the consideration of what qualities a President ought to have. Many I spoke to are concerned whether this criterion will discount other candidates who have other strengths to offer and what it takes to represent Singaporeans and Singapore.
There is another change that is made in tandem, with regard to the CPA which covers the enhanced safeguards of the CPA, the composition of the CPA and clarity on the veto powers of Parliament should the CPA and President disagree.
It is clear in this amendment Bill that adequate safeguards are in place for the custodial decision-making by the President, guided by \"wise men\" of the CPA. So, does the criterion have to be so rigid on financial acumen since he can always fall back on the CPA for sound expert advice, and that Parliament will also have veto powers of a two-third majority under specific circumstances?
Given the strengthened council that the President can seek wisdom from and the role of Parliament in intervening in a gridlock, could we have then retained the qualification criteria of $100 million in an executive responsibility, instead of $500 million?
The other criterion under Article 19(4)(a) that the company run by the candidate chief executive officer (CEO) must be profitable over the three-year period does not reflect market reality. Some sectors face challenging times due to the global environment. If you are a CEO in an oil and gas firm, it will be hard to manage three years of profitability today.
The reality is that even Government Budgets are not always in surplus positions when we have to take strategic measures for economic downturns. Also, some CEOs are also in place to turn around companies, but it does not mean that their performance was poor. But I assume that in such cases, they may still qualify under the private sector deliberative track in Article 19(4)(b).
However, as the deliberative track may be a catch-all for anyone who does not make a clear-cut case from the private sector track, it may also be good to explain whether the deliberations will be made transparent and reasons for acceptance or rejection of the candidate be made public.
Madam, we have had Presidents in the past who endeared themselves to the hearts of many Singaporeans. Many Presidents in the past, such as Mr Yusof Ishak, Dr Benjamin Sheares, Mr Wee Kim Wee, among others, were seen as Presidents of the people, above politics and represented Singapore well internationally.
The Presidential candidate is not applying for a job to be a Chairman of a listed company, where his financial and corporate track record should be the key criteria for evaluation. He is applying to be the President of Singapore, a role that demands a track record of service to society, of demonstrated ability and willingness to have contributed to society and Singaporeans, in a leading role, in addition to his role as custodian of Singapore's Reserves.
Therefore, I would argue that perhaps, we could have done the incremental increase for the financial criteria, rather than by a single step. Complement that criterion with some softer and relevant criteria like maybe the candidate should have played a key role in an organisation that has contributed back to society, say, a charity, community organisation or non-profit organisation.
My point is that it is not reflective nor healthy for governance in the long run, if the key criterion to evaluate a President's ability is his corporate track record. In Singapore, where we are encouraging multiple peaks of excellence and promoting diversity and inclusiveness, the gauge to measure the President must be broader and not narrower.
This brings me to my next point about enshrining race representation in the presidency. I support this change as I see it as a safeguard to reflect Singapore's racial diversity. Many I have spoken to have taken to it positively that the Government is committed to reflecting diversity in the presidential office.
So, we must embark on it carefully, having considered all the implications and pitfalls. At no time must the credibility of the seat of the President be seen to be undermined or under-valued by Singaporeans as this will not only erode the goodwill that previous Presidents have built up, it will also not be fair to the minority-elect President if there is even a doubt that he is there based on his ethnicity. While this is not a case, the Government must ensure that any such perceptions on the ground must be reversed through education and awareness.
I am heartened that the Prime Minister has just announced that the next election would be a reserved Presidential Election and I think many in the Malay community would also be heartened to have potentially a first Malay Elected President for Singapore. It must have been a heavily considered decision by the Government. I think the Prime Minister is expending political capital to get the citizens behind this, to also protect our multiracial and multi-religious diversity and principles.
I am in favour of this Bill, Madam, in general, as it is done in the spirit of keeping the office of President relevant to today's context. However, while we are at it, it also truly reflects on the demands and aspirations of today's society and have the office of the President of Singapore reflect those ideals. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposed changes to the Elected Presidency that was first mooted by the Prime Minister earlier this year, is an important political process for our nation.
When I touched on this issue in Parliament at that time, I said that the move to have a provision for minorities is welcomed by the Malay community. I welcome the proposal by the Constitutional Commission that proposed a reserved election for the candidate of a certain race if, for over five terms, no candidate from that race has been elected as President. The Government has also accepted the proposal in its White Paper.
The Malay community's maturity stands out in this issue. Although they welcome the change, which promises the certainty of a Malay President, their main concern is that this should not be seen as an act of tokenism. Some are worried that the selection will not be based on merit. This concern is understandable because meritocracy is an important value in the lives and success of Singaporeans.
So, I feel that the emphasis by the Commission regarding the level of eligibility is a guarantee that no matter which candidate is elected, he or she must fulfil the criteria that have been set. Therefore, when we have a Malay Elected President, this will certainly be a moment of pride for the Malay community because he or she is a President who is qualified and capable and have met the conditions for eligibility that have been determined.
The one and only Malay President in Singapore's history, the late Encik Yusof Ishak, was a President for all the people. It has become a source of great pride to the Malay/Muslim community.
If the community is proud to have President Yusof Ishak who performed his duty exceptionally, representing all races outstandingly, surely there will be a Malay of a high calibre and is able to fulfil the eligibility criteria. The late Encik Yusof Ishak left us a priceless legacy, including as a leader who became a symbol of unity and harmony for a multiracial and multi-religious society.
The proposed amendments to the Elected Presidency with regard to the minority provision, must be seen in a wider context and goes beyond life as a plural society in Singapore. The issue of racial cohesion cannot be taken lightly, and it is also not something that comes automatically. Efforts will still be needed to preserve this situation. Therefore, the review of the Elected Presidency is timely.
The Prime Minister's clear position about the need to have a provision for minorities, including Malays, in the Elected President system is much appreciated. It is certainly heartening to the Malay community who have not seen a Malay President since the late Encik Yusof Ishak held the highest office in the land.
Nonetheless, more importantly, it is a measure that will further strengthen the principle of a multiracial country, that is the crucial principle of upholding Singapore as a nation for all races, even though the Chinese is in the majority.
The Prime Minister's decision to propose this change is a courageous decision, especially in terms of the political risk in convincing the majority community that it needs to be done in order to preserve this principle of multiracialism. I, therefore, call upon the Malay community to accept this as an important trust and fully support the intent and this principle.
I thank the Prime Minister for his long-term vision for Singapore. I am certain that this development will be welcomed by the Malay community.
(In English): Madam, the changes to the veto and entrenchment framework will further strengthen the governance of the country, providing clarity on the process for Parliamentary override to avoid Government gridlocks and not to create an alternative power centre. These changes ensure a safeguard for Singaporeans to be assured that an irresponsible or profligate government does not raid our Reserves.
This process keeps the intent and integrity of any standing government on the use of Singaporeans' hard-earned Reserves under scrutiny. This is where the WP's position against the Elected Presidency is certainly outdated. The Elected Presidency framework is being evolved with enhanced safeguards to prevent gridlocks and, certainly, the Elected President does not have the powers to block the Government from functioning. Ultimately, the Elected President still has to seek re-election and has to justify his actions to the people.
So, why is the WP afraid of the Elected Presidency and why its designs on the Reserves to block this? On the elected Senate, how different is it from the CPA, apart from the election? The Prime Minister has mentioned earlier in his speech that the CPA has certain constraints. Therefore, if you want to elect a CPA, it is no different from electing your eight-man Senate. I think the Prime Minister has already explained in his clarifications. We have also seen how Senators out there have also caused gridlocks in the US.
So, we have to trust the judgement of a standing Elected President to do the right thing for Singapore, for our people, for our nation and for our nation's future. And this is why our trust and faith in the Elected President's judgement lies in his moral authority. This moral authority, as the Prime Minister has mentioned earlier, can only be earned by being elected by the people, and not appointed, as the Head of State. I rise in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, just a short while ago, the hon Member for Aljunied Ms Sylvia Lim suggested in this House that we conduct a referendum in place of what is on the table today.
There are three points in response I would like to make. The first is that this would create a political contest that would be polarising, divisive, time-consuming and energy-sapping, repeatedly for eight members of the proposed Senate. Would this not be far more political and politicising than the current model that is on the table?
Second, it may be in the WP's interest to continually politicise issues and continually have a platform to allow themselves to politicise issues that affect Singaporeans and Singapore in general. But that is not the mandate of this House. That is not the purpose of having the second key and the custodian to the Reserves and the guardian of the Public Service infrastructure in Singapore.
Third, in any case, the issue of whether or not we should have an Elected President was in fact settled 25 years ago. It was settled 25 years ago when two White Papers were put to this House in 1988 and again in 1991 and, eventually, passed in this House. And it was one of the platforms on which the 1988 GEs were run and Singaporeans voted on it.
So, the only issue today that remains is whether the criteria should be updated in the manner in which this Bill has proposed, and whether or not there should be additional safeguards in connection with minor racial representation.
And I would add, Mdm Speaker, that just not long ago, two months ago, in paying tribute to our ex-President SR Nathan, Ms Sylvia Lim had said that, in fact, President SR Nathan made great efforts to reach out, including to her. Mr Pritam Singh told us a story about how President SR Nathan was always there to look out for everyone and encouraged him without raising doubt or concern about serving Singapore in a different colour, different course or different capacity.
So, Mdm Speaker, it is very easy for issues in this debate to be clouded and coloured by emotive propositions. For example, the office of the Elected President has been accused of being a PAP legacy, capable of only being drawn from an elitist group of senior civil servants. Never mind that these senior civil servants operate in a Westminster form of government who are loyal to the government of the day but should be, and are, impartial to political affiliation.
Or that all these amendments are apparently being proposed to debar some inconvenient candidates who might turn out to be uncooperative Elected Presidents. And it is said that the reason why the eligibility criteria have been revised upwards is precisely to make it more elitist. There is also the question of the minority racial representation. When one talks about racial representation, it can become quite emotive. But that would be the wrong approach to take when we look at this Bill.
The present amendments which this House has been asked to consider are not about establishing a PAP legacy. It is not about entrenching its powers and it is certainly not about stopping one or more individuals from coming forward if they are qualified.
In truth, the fundamental basis behind the concept of the Elected President is quite the contrary and the details in this Bill are quite the contrary. The Elected Presidency, with its custodial veto powers, in fact, limits the Government's ability to do as it wishes with the country's key assets and resources, namely, our financial Reserves and our Public Service infrastructure.
This is quite possibly one of few, if any, governments in the world proposing an elected counter-balance to check its own power to ensure that it is the system and not any individual or any government of the day that remains strong. And in seeking to achieve that, the qualifying criteria have to be set to ensure that any candidate has to possess the right attributes and experience to see through these functions.
So, far from being elitist, in fact, we should make no apology for wanting the bar to be set higher to ensure that everyone aspiring to that position will be well-qualified. And really, why should we accept any less when the issues at stake are our Reserves, which represent our future and our children's future?
Ms Sylvia Lim has also suggested that this has been rushed through, the process has been taken very quickly. It has been close to 10 to 11 months since the Prime Minister first raised this question in this House at the start of Parliament in January. The Commission was set up. A hundred and seven submissions were invited and received, including from the WP. There were several months of public hearings, very publicly reported in the papers. Subsequently, Ministers, Cabinet Ministers – we heard from the Prime Minister earlier – went out to conduct ground sensing, explain the Bill and do surveys.
The WP had the opportunity to present their submissions and make themselves heard by the Commission. They were invited to do so but they declined. Why? They had every opportunity of having their views considered and taken into account by the Commission, put into the Commission report tabled in the White Paper, and for this House to consider. They chose not to do so. Instead, they turned up with a proposed referendum which seeks, in my view, to enhance the unnecessary politicising of matters and issues in Singapore.
In relation to Ms Sylvia Lim's contention on the CPA, the suggestion was because there is now a CPA that has been enhanced, and the enhancement of the CPA was one of the suggestions I had myself mooted in January when I spoke about the Elected President when Parliament opened. I am heartened to note that the Commission has taken on board at least that suggestion, not necessarily by me, but perhaps from other sources as well. But it strengthens the CPA and it gives a greater resource to the Elected President.
The Elected President has three nominees onto the CPA, plus the ability to nominate the Chairman who has a casting vote. So, in any given issue that is put before the CPA, the President just needs to persuade one other Member of the CPA, together with a casting vote, before the CPA would go along with the President's decision. That is not the mechanism that overrides the President's powers or that curtails the President's powers. In fact, the Commission specifically considered this point and took the position that, in fact, if that happens, if the Chairman had to use his casting vote, then the Parliamentary override should be a higher supermajority of three-quarters, and that was not accepted.
So, Mdm Speaker, we come back now to what I think are the key issues of this Bill, which is, having put the office of the Elected President in place for the past 25 years, we are now looking at enhancements to the powers and roles of the CPA. When Emeritus Senior Minister Goh explained in 1998 to this House the background to the White Paper at that time, he said the financial Reserves and integrity of our Public Service would be the two key assets that we cannot afford to be eroded. The amendments that are being proposed today about enhancing and fortifying the key functions which the Elected President currently performs remain, in my view, as crucial today as when the Elected President was first introduced 25 years ago.
So, if we accept that fiscal Reserves and public infrastructure are worth safeguarding, then really, inevitably, the question has to be what qualifications should the Elected President have in order to best discharge that responsibility? In that context, having a qualifying criterion that is at least 25 years old based on being a CEO of a company that has a paid-up capital of at least $100 million, that criterion really needs to be updated.
If we look at the numbers proffered by the Commission, in 1993, only 0.2% of Singapore incorporated companies met the $100 million paid-up capital requirement. Today, however, the smallest of the top 0.2%, the same percentage of Singapore incorporated companies, we have a paid-up capital of approximately $431 million or more than four times what the threshold was. So, those numbers alone tell us why, how urgent it is to update those criteria.
The suggestion that the updating of the criteria is to foreshadow or foreclose some candidates, I think is also not tenable. If we look at the percentage of companies which would meet the shareholder equity criterion today, that is roughly similar to the number in 1993 – 0.23%. Further, because the absolute numbers have grown larger, 0.23% today will represent, in absolute terms, a bigger number of persons who would qualify. So, the fear that this criterion is being revised to close off an uncooperative Elected President really is unfounded.
Mdm Speaker, I want to move on to this question of the hiatus-triggered mechanism. And I am heartened to have heard the Prime Minister outline the reasons and the rationale behind that, and I would just like to add my views on this. I think it is important that the Elected President plays that symbolic role. It is as important as the custodial role and function that he performs.
The Bill proposes that this balance be achieved by having a reserved election for a community that has not held the office for five or more consecutive terms. And this stems from the Commission's recommendation. The rationale behind it was that multiracialism and racial harmony are crucial in Singapore, and I quote, \"An important element of multiracialism, in particular, racial minorities, are never represented in the office of the President.\"
But to be honest, when the Prime Minister first raised it in January, I was a little sceptical and somewhat reserved about this proposal. And the reason for that was because, in Singapore, we have always had a system that is strongly based on the bedrock of meritocracy. It is not about which race you come from. It is not about the creed that you subscribe to but whether or not you are up to the job. And that has always been our ethos and belief.
We have had many other policies in Singapore that revolve around racial mix. One example is the Ethnic Integration Policy, first devised, I think, in 1989 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to promote racial integration and harmony in our HDB estates. That policy was formulated as there were concerns that ethnic or racial enclaves were forming around Singapore.
The policy was thus meant to facilitate Singaporeans mixing freely with one another, with other races, in our HDB estates. And as a result, we have a variety of people from different races living in the same estate. We have hawker centres catering to persons of different races. So, we have a wide array of different food types. Children grow up and play with friends from different cultures in the void decks. Neighbours invite one another for meals on festive occasions – Chinese for Deepavali, the Indians for Hari Raya and so on. When we look back at it, I believe that such cohesion would not have been possible without this Ethnic Integration Policy, a policy that was active, deliberate and very consciously initiated and practised.
The concern, however, was that when you institutionalise minority representation in the office of the President, then you are choosing based on race and not on merit. I think we have heard the Prime Minister respond to that by saying that merit actually comes first. So, you might have a reserved election but the candidate who stands and steps forward must first pass the eligibility criteria.
Mdm Speaker, the mechanism that has been proposed and which the Bill proposes for adoption in the Constitution can, in fact, be a very valuable means of helping us to achieve multiracialism and racial harmony. But I see it as a means and not as an end. Looking back at our past, it is clear that where we are here today, 51 years from 1965, has been achieved by design and not by chance. The racial integration and cohesion which we enjoy including in our HDB estates, are precisely evidence of that.
The results of the CNA-Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey which Deputy Prime Minister Teo outlined yesterday, I think amply bear that out. And one other number jumped out at me which I would like to share with this House. There was the feedback unt Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) survey and it raised this question: whether there should be a reserved election for minority candidates if a minority member had not been elected President for five terms and so on. And the respondents were grouped by race. And the numbers, I think, tell us a story.
Amongst the Chinese respondents, 28% said they would support such a move. But amongst the Malay and Indian respondents, at least 40% said they would support the move. So, there is a differential. Why? Because those two races are in the minority.
And so, we may say that our ideal is to live in a racially colour-blind harmonious society, but all of that takes effort. The racial harmony that we enjoy today, in a world where racial fault lines are at their most divisive, is really the product of the carefully conceived and consistently applied policy of deliberate integration.
It is the product of various policies which have become almost second nature to us today, for example, reciting the words every day at the school pledge \"regardless of race, language or religion\". They mean something.
We see our signs, our Mass Rapid Transit announcements in four different languages, and they are taken for granted. The Prime Minister mentioned at the conference in October last year that we made a lot of progress for the last 50 years, but all of these stemmed from \"an act of will, which we have sustained over many decades, but it is still work-in-progress\". And that is where I think our hiatus-triggered mechanism fits in. It is part of this work-in-progress towards a truly race-blind and multiracial society. And I think Singaporeans are supportive of such policies.
Madam, some comparison has been raised between the system that the Commission has proposed and that of what is done in France, Canada and Switzerland as well. All I would say, Mdm Speaker, is that different countries have different motivations, and this just shows us how each country, each set of different ideals has to forge its own path and decide what is best and what suits its local environment. I take a leaf out of what the Prime Minister said earlier about how the British drafted us a very good Constitution, but if it does not work for us, it does not work for us.
So, the situation we find ourselves in is really sui generis, unique. As the Constitutional Commission noted, \"The office of the Elected President is unique. It is not an institution derived from one which exists in any other jurisdiction. Rather, it is an entirely indigenous creation, designed to address the particular imperatives and vulnerabilities in our system of governance against the backdrop of our own historical context.\"
Consistent with our own unique history and that of the Elected President, the Bill now proposes a unique hiatus-triggered mechanism, which I think, after much consideration, does fit into our own historical, social and racial context.
I would also add that the beauty of this mechanism is that it would entirely recede into insignificance and into the background if candidates from the minority groups are regularly elected into office. And that means that we can keep up with our work-in-progress. And when the day comes when we have truly arrived at the objective of a race-blind state, then the mechanism which will help in the background will eventually fade into oblivion. Madam, with that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tSorry, Madam, may I have some clarifications from the Member?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please proceed.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Madam. I would like some clarifications from Mr Tong. He mentioned earlier that the issue of whether to have an Elected President or not had been settled in the 1998 GEs. But does he not agree that more than 20 years have passed since then and, importantly, the Constitutional Commission had actually gone out of its way to note that having seen the office in operation, there now seem to be a tension in these dual roles, and that there may be a need to look at it in the future. So, is Mr Tong proposing that we ignore these findings from the Constitutional Commission?
The second question is: he seemed to suggest that asking for a referendum is a waste of time. Does he not agree that the Constitution itself provides for referendums to be called in certain situations? And in fact, the Bill itself, as far as entrenchment framework is concerned, also has a provision for a referendum to be sought? So, is he saying that these provisions are just there for show and the Government has no intention of calling wasteful referendums?
The third clarification is: he mentioned that the CPA would not really be a problem for the Elected President because the Elected President nominates a certain number of members to the CPA, and all the Elected President would need to do is to persuade the CPA members he nominated to agree with him. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that the CPA members will do the bidding of their nominator? I mean, is that the point he is making?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I will address the last point first. I think Ms Lim may have misheard. There is no suggestion that any member of the CPA will do the bidding, as she puts it, of the President. Instead, I am responding to her suggestion that because there is an enhanced and strengthened CPA that therefore, the Elected President's powers and roles are effectively neutered. That is not the case.
On her question of the 1988 elections and the question of whether or not this Elected President has been settled. The point I am making, simply, is that: in this debate, in this Bill, the question of whether the Elected President should or should not be there is not the issue. The issue today is whether or not the enhancements to the powers, the revision to the criteria, as well as the hiatus-triggered mechanism should be implemented and put into the Constitution. That is the question.
To that extent, that is why I said that it is not on the table as to whether or not you should now, today, have a referendum to decide on whether or not to continue with the office of the Elected President through your referendum. It may well come about another day. I am not ruling it out, but that is not for today.
On the Member's point on the referendum, the last point, the point I made was simply that if we had a referendum each time to elect all of her eight, 10 or 12 Senate members, then we would effectively spend our time electioneering, as well as spending our time politicising and over-politicising issues. I think we need to get on with the issue of governance and bringing Singapore forward.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, Ms Lim. Please keep it short.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Madam. Just one point. I do not think Mr Tong has understood us correctly when it comes to the election of the Senate. I am not sure why he is saying that every time we have an election for the Senate, we have to go for a referendum. There was no suggestion of that.
All we are suggesting is: it should be considered that whether to change the system from the Elected President to an elected Senate, that would call for one referendum. We would, of course, have Senate elections periodically, but that is not the same as having referendums.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Member had suggested a referendum, which I have responded to, and she has also suggested that for each member of the Senate, they will have a separate election. And that is why I said that we will be over electioneering.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, that is not correct. I never suggested, or we never suggested, that there will be a separate election for each member of the Senate. My colleagues will elaborate later on the mechanism of the elections and I would just like to say that Mr Tong is wrong on this point.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai:\tIt says, \"The Senate shall be established and elected by people.\" That is what it says here, in the Member's own document. You have proposed a Senate of eight persons. Unless I heard you wrongly. Unless you are suggesting that they will all be elected as a slate, which has its own different views. Otherwise, I think we can see from the Member's own document what Option B says.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tMadam, I think my colleagues will elaborate.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, Member Edwin Tong has raised several issues with the WP's proposal. My colleagues will elaborate on some of them. I will talk a little bit on the referendum.
The Member took issue with the WP calling for a referendum on the change of the political model we have. Yes, I understand that the Elected President system has been instituted long ago. In fact, on the issue of the change of the political model from a purely Parliamentary democracy inherited from the UK to the one that we have now, the Elected President, the issue has been set out by the WP at the very beginning when the Elected President's idea was mooted and debated publicly in the 1980s.
This is the second time the WP has called for a referendum on the change of political model. We called for a referendum in the 1980s. And there was a debate, a TV debate, on this. The PAP said that the 1988 election will be the one to decide whether the electorate will support the Elected President, and that was it.
Madam, I believe that a referendum is overdue for a change of the political model that we have. The change in the political system that we have now, the Elected President, is drastic to me. It will change our political system in a fundamental way that will have deep implications in the future because it will change from one that believes in Parliamentary democracy, where the people is sovereign and, thereby, Parliament is sovereign, being elected and representative of the people, to one where Parliament's powers will be curtailed, and it can cause gridlock if you are not careful. So, we should not take it lightly.
Moreover, as what Ms Sylvia Lim has said, when certain provisions in the Elected Presidency are entrenched, if you want to change it, it will require a two-third majority in a referendum. So, I think it is logical that since you want to have a change in the Constitution that requires, if there is a further amendment to that provision, a two-third majority in the referendum, we should have a referendum to make sure that Singaporeans agree today.
Mr Edwin Tong said that a referendum will politicise the debates and the system. But what were we talking about? We are talking about changing the political system. So, is it not political? A referendum is one way to determine in a democratic way whether Singaporeans will endorse and support such a new model. And I think it will settle the matter once and for all whether the Opposition will oppose it and whether our view on the system is supported by the people. Madam, I will turn now to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President is our Head of State. He represents Singapore and is the symbol of our nation and our people. The WP believes that the prestigious identity and status of the President will not be compromised simply because the Presidency is established through appointment by Parliament.
However, the WP has, since the beginning of the 1980s, strenuously opposed the Elected Presidency. We do not oppose having a President for Singapore per se, but we are concerned about the far-reaching profound adverse influence on our nation resulting from the ulterior motive behind this whole mechanism. Very obviously, the stringent conditions required of the candidates are to ensure that whoever eventually is elected to be the President will be a pro-PAP person. In the event of the PAP losing a GE, this pro-PAP President can then obstruct the effective ruling of the non-PAP government.
Why did the PAP start to implement this Elected Presidency only after they lost the 1981 Anson By-election and the Potong Pasir Constituency at the 1984 GEs?
Since Independence, each and every President appointed by the PAP through Parliament had commanded the respect of the people. Moreover, since the implementation of the Elected Presidency in 1991, the PAP has never raised any issue concerning this system. Why is it that they are now suddenly taking issue with this system and going through all the trouble to set up a Constitutional Commission to review the matter, and make substantial amendments to the Constitution?
The 2011 Presidential Election caused uneasiness to the PAP. This was the first time since the inception of the Elected Presidency that four candidates contested for the position and they were not the preferred candidates of the PAP. Furthermore, the candidate who was eventually elected to be the President, won by a majority of not more than 1% of the votes. Despite all the manoeuvring, the PAP nearly stumbled at their own wishful thinking. That is why they are hurriedly conducting this exercise and trying to push through this amendment Bill to stop the frightening situation from happening again at the next Presidential Election.
The political system inherited by Singapore from the British is one of Parliamentary democracy, with the people electing the MPs, and the political party that wins the most seats in Parliament will form the government. All the Ministers are elected by the people. This gives the Cabinet the legitimacy of having won the mandate directly from the people. Under such a system, whether it is the Queen or the President, the Head of State has no administrative power.
Those days when the President was appointed, there was no need to worry about the Presidency being perpetually dominated by a certain race. That is why if you want to guarantee that the appointment of the President would reflect the needs of a multiracial society, the most straightforward method is to return to the appointment system.
Is this amendment to the Elected Presidency really meant to protect the interest of the minorities? If this is indeed the case, then why did the PAP not raise this issue in the course of the past two decades? It was only when the PAP nearly became a victim of the Presidential Election matrix designed by themselves in 2011, a situation which should never have happened, that the PAP quickly moved this amendment Bill.
This round of Constitutional amendments to vary the Elected President system has made the people uneasy. The ulterior motive behind this exercise is to ensure that even when the PAP has lost the majority in Parliament, they could still make use of the Elected President to contain the operation of the new government.
First, the amendment Bill raises the qualifying criteria of the Presidential Election candidates, thereby reducing the number of eligible candidates. Eventually, whether the voters would have anyone to choose from is unknown.
The present Elected Presidency is already trending towards senior public officers. Among them, many are senior leaders of the PAP, such as former Ministers or Speaker of Parliament. This round of amendments further raises the already stringent qualifying criteria. It further curtails the possibility of a candidate from outside the system to contest the election.
In such a situation, eventually, it is highly probable that the election would go uncontested, year after year, or all the candidates will be pro-PAP personnel. In the event that the PAP losses a GE, the Elected President can then act on behalf of the old regime to contain the new government, making the new government a lame duck which is unable to make use of the past Reserves when needed, and even could not appoint important officials.
When a non-PAP government elected by the people could not effectively operate and collapse, due to containment by the system designed by the PAP when it was in power, Singapore will be like the other democratic regimes which failed to make a political transition and resulted in social unrest, using violence and illegitimate means to settle the political conflicts. We could see for ourselves the political process experienced by some of our neighbouring countries. This is also the worry of the WP. We feel that the PAP is only concerned with its own interest and leaving Singapore to face great risks in the future.
In fact, this kind of political measures with the aim to paralyse a government has worried even some of their own PAP members. Former Minister Ong Pang Boon said during a Parliamentary debate on 12 August 1988, \"No matter how you look it, the recommendation in the White Paper on Elected Presidency, is aimed at making sure a PAP candidate would be elected, so that in the event another party wins the next GE, he could unseat the new Prime Minister and his government, even when the new government is a responsible government.\"
Furthermore, for fear that the Elected President would not follow its instructions after being elected, the PAP has also enhanced the power of the CPA through this amendment Bill. The President is obliged to consult the CPA on all financial matters and appointments of key public servants. Should the President and the majority of Presidential advisors hold the same views, Parliament will have no right to overthrow the joint decision of the President and the CPA.
Members of the CPA are appointed and not elected by the people. Yet, not only has the President to consult them, even the Parliament formed by the Members elected by the people has no right to overthrow the joint decision by them and the President. As such, a President with no administrative power and a CPA which is not elected by the people, can stop the government from making use of the past Reserves and making key appointments of civil servants at the critical moments. Their power is greater than the Elected President and the Parliament elected by the people. This is certainly not in compliance with the principles of Parliamentary democracy. It is designed with an attempt to obstruct the normal functions of a new government which is legitimately elected and formed.
The WP agrees with having a set of mechanism to protect the Reserves from being abused. However, we want to remind the PAP that the Reserves do not belong to any term of government. It belongs to all the people of Singapore.
We do not agree with dedicating the important responsibility of protecting the Reserves and appointing key civil servants to one single person, namely, the President, and allowing a few members of the CPA to make the decision. Ultimately, the responsibility of protecting the Reserves from being abused should be vested in the Parliament elected by the people.
As such, the WP suggests setting up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency, to exercise the powers of the President and the CPA. Senators shall be elected at a nationwide GE. Candidates for election to be Senators must possess certain qualifications, to be accredited by an Election Eligibility Committee.
Should the Senate not agree with the recommendations by the government to draw on the Reserves or to make certain key appointments, the proposals concerned shall be rejected. Under such circumstances, the veto by the Senate can only be overruled by the government with a three-quarter majority in Parliament.
On the appointment of the President, the Constitutional Commission recommended relieving the President of the political function of protecting the Reserves. The main role of the President is in uniting the nation. It should go beyond politics. Making the President protect the Reserves amounts to wanting him to be confrontational towards the government at certain times. This is in conflict with the function of the President. The WP concurs with this recommendation by the Constitutional Commission.
Such an important amendment to the Constitution concerns the operation of the future political system of our nation, with far-reaching impacts. The WP holds the view that in dealing with such a major reform to our political system and the separation of powers of the various government institutions, it should be decided by a public referendum of the people. A referendum enables the people to collectively decide on how to adjust our political system to deal with our future challenges. The referendum shall vote on two proposals: one, the solution as tabled by the PAP in the White Paper, and two, the solution by the WP which specifically includes the following points.
One, the President is the Head of State, to be appointed by Parliament on a majority vote, to represent Singapore.
Two, in appointing the President, Parliament should take into consideration the multiracial situation in Singapore.
Three, set up a Senate to replace the Elected Presidency and to exercise the veto power of the President and the CPA, including protecting the Reserves and upholding the integrity of the civil servants to be appointed by the government.
Four, Parliament can override the veto by the Senate, by way of a three-quarter majority of the total number of Members voting in favour thereof.
Mdm Speaker, basically, the WP agrees with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own statement that \"a nation shall not have two rulers\". All the more, the Elected President shall not be another power centre. We agree with protecting the Reserves, but the Reserves protection mechanism must comply with the fundamental principles ofParliamentary democracy. At the same time, the situation whereby the elected government is unable to operate due to grossly excessive containment should be avoided.
As such, the WP strongly advocates that it can only be passed through voting by all the people.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, when the Elected Presidency was set up in 1991, the key discussions at the time were about the need for elections and the role of an Elected President. Racial representation was not a key point of contention. And yet it was implicit in our discussions over time, in particular in 1999, when two elements of the Presidency became clear.
First, that the President was not an alternative centre of power and his role was likely to remain largely ceremonial for most of the time. Second, that the President was a symbol of unity and of our nationhood. In this, the need for the President to come from the different races of our country becomes obvious.
The key reason for our debate today is that rules made in the past need to evolve to suit present circumstances. For a country whose anthem is in our national language, it cannot escape notice that there has been no Malay President for close to 50 years. A Malay President is not tokenism. It is an important part of our national life. The Malay culture, heritage and language deserve a larger place in our public spaces, especially given the large social changes brought about by the forces of globalisation.
Majulah Singapura is about the progress of Singapore. But progress is meaningless without a clear idea of the purpose and promise of our country. Purpose: semangat yang baru. One of our key purposes in this small island is to strive to achieve great things together: \"Marilah kita bersatu; Dengan semangat yang baru\".
Our new spirit – semangat yang baru – is to create a new nation regardless of race, language or religion. Yet, to say \"regardless\" is not to say \"disregard\" – therein lies the way towards irrational liberalism. To have complete freedom is mere jungle survival. In Singapore, our model of multiracialism is not a pretense of colour-blindness, but an \"eyes open\" model where rules are made to balance whatever inequalities bestowed by nature, circumstance or human bias.
In general, I know that Singaporeans will support a President from any race, but the proposed changes to the Elected Presidency scheme to reserve an election for a minority group comes across as compromising on meritocracy.
This is an easy argument to make – if we want fair political competition, we must open the playing field to all. This is a marketplace heuristic and, many times, it carries well into the political arena.
In the marketplace, it is the duty of those who create rules for the market, to make these as fair as possible. This is what we strive to do in our politics as well. As what the Prime Minister says, we need good politics.
For example, this is why in the GEs in Singapore, we cap the amount of money that any party is allowed on campaigning to blunt the competitive edge that richer parties may have. We use rules to make the competition as fair as we can, knowing that the goal is to pick the best candidate, not the one that has the most monetary resources.
This idea of \"best\", therefore, needs to be regarded in relationship to the job at hand, and the rules must allow us the best chance to get the \"best\" man in.
Let me state the purpose of an Elected President without frippery. The purpose of electing a president in Singapore is to make sure that someone safeguards our Reserves from a populist government. He and his Council of advisors will provide the rational, clear-headed analysis that will veto any attempt to raid our Reserves. They are our shield and the Bill we are debating today gives this shield strength.
What then is the role of popular elections within this statement of purpose? In a way, the rules of Presidential Elections are analogous to those Singapore has adopted for all our political processes. We know that the processes of voting and popular election are subject to human biases and we need, therefore, to ensure that the best man or best woman has a chance of being in office despite these biases.
Singaporeans have a pragmatic job scope for our President. We are more concerned that the Presidential candidates have the necessary experience and acumen to safeguard the nation's Reserves than his race. Saying this, however, does not mean we step down and say, \"Okay, this is a free-for-all popular contest. If race does not matter, then surely it does not matter that, yet again, a Chinese is elected president\".
Here, it is important to understand what being race-blind means. It means that no one should be prevented from high office because of his race, no one should be discriminated from any office or job because he is a Malay, Indian, Eurasian or Chinese. It does not mean that we, therefore, treat all races the same in all aspects of life.
The Americans took many years before they elected a Catholic President. Many more, before they elected an African-American. And they are an older democracy than we are. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, even in 2008, the vote for Obama was markedly along racial lines.
It would be naive to think that after just 50 years of nationhood, we are race-blind when it comes to politics. It is thus that I support these amendments and, in particular, the hiatus-triggered principle because equality of races is not a given. It is because we hold true to that ideal that we must make rules, knowing that we are not playing at some Platonic form of a game, but in the very real world.
This hiatus-triggered principle is an example of Singapore's semangat yang baru, a legislative innovation that shows how seriously Singapore takes equality among races.
Today, this need to ensure that all races have a part in national life has been corrupted by accusations that the revisions in the law are part of a political chess game. So, to gainsay these critics, I ask that the changes come into effect in phases: perhaps, the revised eligibility criteria before the next Presidential Election and the reserved election provision to be only after the next Presidential Election.
Do we need an Elected President? There are those who take advantage of this debate to re-open old lines of argument. They say that we do not need an Elected President because the President is an alternative centre of power and blocking the Government could create gridlock in our policy-making.
Some political party had in the past said that the Elected President undermines Parliamentary democracy, because the office is similarly popularly elected and the veto power effectively gives one person the power to stop an elected government from its work. These objections are based on a wilful ignorance of the clarifications of the role of the Elected President I have laid out above. A close reading of the Bill should put these to rest.
Mr Low Thia Khiang says that the WP objects to the Elected Presidency because it \"could potentially cripple a non-PAP government in its first term\". On the face of it, they said that the \"crippling\" is caused by the President blocking replacements to some of the key appointment holders. But given that the purpose of the Elected President is to block the squandering of our Reserves, we need to relook the WP and other parties' objection to today's Bill.
Let me ask: who can object to a President who wants to prevent a populist rundown of Reserves? Who would do that except for people who may have plans to run this down?
This may seem to be a hypothetical parlour game, but I assure you, for shareholders of any company whose reserves in their company or for residents whose reserves in their Town Councils have been run down, this is not. Fiduciary responsibility may seem to be a boring game, something that we expect and take for granted. But I assure you, for the people of a country with nothing but its Reserves, it is deadly serious.
Singapore's Reserves have been built up over 50 years. In that time, we have had reason to call upon its use only once. We ought to be fearful of any party that thinks it will face the risk of running it down in its first term, and, moreover, that it will be calling for its use in such contestable situations that the President and his Council will feel obliged to block it.
Mdm Speaker, the Government has accepted the Commission's proposal to revise the amount to $500 million in shareholders' equity, from $100 million in paid-up capital, as it is probably a better measurement indicator of the financial complexity of the organisation led by the private sector candidate. Given today's inflation and financial landscape versus 25 years ago, the previous requirement is no longer adequate to ensure that candidates have the fiscal savvy to hold the second key to the Reserves. In fact, throwing in the political complexity of today's world would mean that the eligibility criteria need to be updated significantly.
Using the $500 million benchmark, I believe about 700 companies are still eligible to nominate their most senior executives to be the country's next Elected President. Hence, the potential candidates that can come from this pool is still sizeable.
Promise: berjaya Singapura. Second, I feel that Singapore has now come of age, with a large pool of Singaporeans with deep links and affinity to this country. Hence, I believe that we should consider only Presidential candidates who are born in Singapore, in contrast to those who have taken up citizenship along the way.
In addition, we look up to a President as a symbol of unity to the nation. Currently, the required qualifications as stated in our Constitution are: being a citizen of Singapore, and not below the age of 45. I feel the candidate's age can be set higher, at not below the age of 50. I think the new 50 is the old 45.
A potential Presidential candidate now applies to PEC for a certificate of eligibility. In turn, the PEC is tasked to ensure that a candidate fulfils the necessary qualifications of integrity, good character and reputation set out in the Constitution, before the certificate of eligibility is issued. The task on them is crucial, to mitigate the dangers of candidates who over-promise and over-commit beyond legislative provisions if they are elected, and having a process to deal with this.
If the candidate is found, for whatever reason, intentional or not, to have delivered inaccurate information attesting to his qualifications, can the PEC consider a process to rescind the certificate of eligibility and disqualify that candidate? This is not of course something that we expect, only something we must guard against.
To add on, it will also be prudent of the PEC to consider a process that allows Singapore Citizens to register their objections to the Committee on that candidate's nomination.
On the Prime Minister's announcement on tweaks to the NCMP scheme, I have some reservations on the voting rights. Given their nominated status, I feel that NCMPs do not have the mandate of the people. Hence, I am of the view that there is no basis to grant them full voting rights as elected MPs.
However, since I fought hard for my seat in a GE, I could, of course, be thought to be biased. I, therefore, would not object to this but instead urge a closer review of the consequences of full voting rights and the danger of allowing NCMPs who may represent special interest to vote on matters of national interests. Of course, in many cases, the two may not conflict, but one can imagine that in those few that they do, difficulties may arise.
We have always had a unique take to racial harmony that cannot be found in other nations. We believe that it takes careful, deliberate and calibrated interventions plus policies on our part to make racial harmony a reality in Singapore and leaving nothing to chance or fate.
I have spoken about the legislative innovations in GEs to keep faith with both the legitimacy that derives from a popular process, while ensuring fairness in this process. In the same way, I consider today's debate on the Elected President as part of our singular and Singaporean way of dealing with race relations.
In this and in so much more, we are guided by the phrase which our children pledge themselves to every school day – may our hopes and dreams bring Singapore every success. \"Cita-cita kita yang mulia;berjaya Singapura!\"
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\t Mdm Speaker, just a quick clarification for Mr Seah Kian Peng. I think the Member has confused the Nominated Member (NMP) with the NCMP. We are not nominated and we do not represent special interest. So, may I know which special interest we could possibly represent?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng:\tMdm Speaker, I am not saying that all NCMPs represent special interest. I am just highlighting the potential danger of that and, in those aspects, to just pay attention to that area.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tA quick clarification, Madam. Perhaps Mr Seah could give an example, just so we can understand what the concerns he has.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng:\tI do not have any particular issue but I am just stating that there could be different interest groups that may make their cases known to a particular NCMP for them to take up his case. And, in effect, that Member then basically is just putting forth an agenda on that basis.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Just to clarify that point with Mr Seah. Would not the same apply to an elected MP?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng:\tWell, first of all, we represent the majority. In highlighting any concerns, I think it is important, first, to state upfront who we represent and, if there are any conflicts of interest, that should be declared upfront.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, Singapore is a young country. It is rightfully expected that Parliament continues to work hard to get the foundations of our democracy right, the foundations of a functioning democracy right.
While it is good for us to look around the world for best practices, it is also extremely important that, ultimately, we do what is good for Singapore. Our democracy needs to be a functioning democracy, so as to work effectively and efficiently in Singapore's environment.
Let me start with the Elected Presidency. As we are debating the highest office of the land, it is important to have strict criteria to ensure that candidates have the ability to carry the heavy responsibility, not just domestically, but out there in the world. In this regard, it is right that the Constitutional Commission was set up to think long and hard and independently on how to construct the qualification criteria.
Yes, it is important that we have criteria to help ensure presidential candidates are able to discharge responsibilities with dignity and distinction. But, Madam, it is also especially important that the deliberative track defined under paragraph (c) of clause 3 and (b) of clause 4 of Article 19 as amended by clause 7(b) of the Bill allows for a deep collection of candidates.
In 15, 20 years' time, it would not be too difficult to envision a situation in which Singapore may not need to use its past Reserves but, nonetheless, is facing a crisis of another sort, which may require a Head of State to augment the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs' efforts to make Singapore relevant to the world.
It is not easy to walk the tight rope between US-China relations today. It may get even tougher in years to come. In fact, it may even get tougher tomorrow.
The role of the Head of State to help navigate the tensions to stay relevant to both sides and to show to other nations that neutral Singapore is in their interest may, in fact, be more important a role than the custodian of the second key, or at least of equal importance.
So, we need to accommodate for flexibility in the deliberative track. In my view, the deliberative track should be broad enough to include the first four Presidents who, in my opinion, contributed immensely to Singapore before they were appointed. Encik Yusof Ishak, a Malay; Dr Benjamin Henry Sheares, a Eurasian; Mr Devan Nair, an Indian; and Mr Wee Kim Wee, a Chinese. What were their attributes?
Encik Yusof Ishak deeply believed in and was deeply committed to multiracialism. Dr Benjamin Sheares, an exceptional medical professional, inspired many Singaporeans, including people from the Eurasian community, to excel and to show that minority groups do have a role and future in our country, Singapore. Mr Devan Nair devoted his life to the unions. Mr Wee Kim Wee was a man, who through sheer hard work, became successful in journalism, contributed much in the diplomatic corps. Yet, where would these men fit in the current criteria? They neither ran $500 million companies or equivalents then, nor did they occupy an office that would immediately qualify them even to stand for elections. So, I request the Government to explain how the deliberative tracks under clause 7(b) of the Bill will be flexible enough to include men like Mr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Devan Nair, Dr Benjamin Sheares and Encik Yusof Ishak.
When it comes to understanding what would be comparable contributions for the deliberative track, the National Day Awards provides guidance in its rich tapestry of precedents, presenting criteria of what the State recognises as significant contributions. As one example, and just as one example, the description of the Distinguished Service Order, the Darjah Utama Bakti Cemerlang, states, \"The Order may be awarded to any person who has performed within Singapore any act or series of acts constituting distinguished conduct.\"
What I am asking for is that the deliberative track through clause 7(b) recognises distinguished conduct for and on behalf of the state. This reasoning finds support in the deliberations of the Commission itself, who formed the view that it was not prudent to fetter the PEC's discretion by setting out an exhaustive list of factors that the PEC should consider, save one pertaining to performance, but that the PEC should take a holistic view of the applicant's experience and expertise, and assess whether he is likely to be qualified to hold the office of President.
What I am proposing is comparability in contributing to the lives of people or contributions to the lives of people. Yes, at this point in time of Singapore's history, we need to ensure that Presidential candidates have the competency to make decisions on the second key. But we cannot be overly focused on the second key. Needing to tap into our Reserves is only one aspect of the difficulties that Singapore may face. It is just as important for Singapore's future and survival that our Head of State reflects the ability, dexterity, diligence and resilience of Singaporeans to the rest of the world.
Today, let us not overly restrain ourselves to a qualification criterion that is not wide enough to draw a man or woman whom the body of Singaporeans or the Government believes is needed in years to come. It is for this reason that I ask for flexibility in the deliberative track.
I turn now to the second or alternative criterion, that is, the private sector criterion. Clause 7(b) of the Bill amends Article 19 such that the candidate has to be the most senior executive of a company with $500 million shareholders' equity and who is principally responsible for the running of the company.
We have heard the economic justifications for the change from $100 million paid-up capital to $500 million shareholders' equity in the form of several arguments. One, how the number of companies with $100 million paid-up capital has increased between then and now. Two, how shareholders' equity shows whether a company is a going concern rather than a historic figure which may be all lost. And three, how the candidate has to be hands-on, actually involved in the running of the company, rather than just the big picture.
Purely, economically and statistically, this may make sense. But I would like to go further than that. I would like to ask what is required of a President of Singapore. Does a senior executive of a company with $500 million shareholders' equity lead to the automatic conclusion that that person is cut out for the Presidency? Let me put my point into perspective.
Is it tough to run a $500 million company? Yes. Does one need to have financial proficiency and leadership ability? Yes, especially to hold the company together. These are useful attributes for the office of the President, but it cannot be all about commerce. And here, I agree with my learned colleague Mr Zaqy Mohamed. There must be an important additional requirement that that Singaporean must be people-centred, community-centred and nation-centred.
Essentially, in addition to running a $500 million company, a qualifying candidate should also have a record of public service. This could come in the form of holding a leadership position in a public charity or a similar community-centred institution. This is because being a custodian of the second key is just one among many other significant roles and duties the President holds which have, at their heart, people, their hopes and aspirations. Being community-centred is, therefore, a key characteristic and should be accorded that priority in any qualification criterion. Therefore, I ask whether this would be included in the deliberative track under the private sector path.
In conclusion, Madam, just 57 days ago in this House, we paid tribute to a giant of a man, the late Mr SR Nathan. His attributes and, indeed his whole life bring into clear focus the importance and the reality of what we are debating today – the responsibilities, pressures, expectations of the office of the President. Indeed, the lives of Encik Yusof Ishak, Dr Benjamin Sheares, Mr Wee Kim Wee and Mr SR Nathan paint a rich tapestry of selfless service to Singapore and Singaporeans. I hope the qualification criteria are flexible enough in its current form to collect men or women of similar robust calibre. I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the changes proposed by the Government to the provisions that deal with the Elected Presidency in the Constitution by way of this Bill are uniquely significant. A key significance lies in the fact that a Constitutional Commission was formed to review the Elected Presidency, only the second time such a Constitutional Commission was formed in the history of post-independent Singapore.
However, the deepest significance of the Commission's findings, I would argue, Mdm Speaker, lies in chapter 7 of their report which rests firmly outside the Commission's terms of reference, something that the Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission also did earlier to include points outside their terms of reference.
After reading 107 written submissions and receiving oral representations from selected contributors, the Menon Constitutional Commission was compelled to ask a critical question, which, in the opinion of the WP, all Singaporeans ought to ponder over seriously, and that is, should the Presidency remain an elected office?
Having had many months to immerse itself in the genesis of the Presidency, its historical role and the function and operation of the Elected Presidency, the Commission found it a critical enough responsibility and duty to pen its thoughts about the Singapore without an Elected President and for the Government to consider undertaking a more fundamental change to the office.
With this background to the Commission's work in mind, my speech will cover four main points. Firstly, as guiding principles, the WP agrees that the President should not become an alternative centre of power, of political power and an elected entity should safeguard the nation's Reserves.
In January this year, when the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Constitutional Commission to study changes to the Elected Presidency, Prime Minister Lee said that the President cannot be an alternative centre of power. In September, when the Law Minister rebutted the Constitutional Commission's alternative proposal to replace the Elected Presidency with an appointed Council of Experts, he said that the President himself must be elected to have the popular mandate to veto an elected Government.
The WP agrees with the Government on these two fundamental principles. First, the President should not become an alternative centre of power with the potential to undermine the sovereign authority of Parliament. Second, our national Reserves need to be safeguarded and the bodies safeguarding the Reserves would need to be elected to say \"no\" to the government of the day and to force a debate in Parliament.
This has been the WP position when the Elected Presidency was first introduced in 1991. We believe that an Elected President should not fetter the supreme power of Parliament as the people's representatives. The Presidency should be a dignified ceremonial office and a President from any race should focus on performing his or her role in fostering national unity and representing Singapore to the world. We also believe that the past Reserves should be safeguarded. But this custodial function should lie with the elected representatives of the legislature.
Secondly, the WP believes that reviewing the Elected Presidency by strengthening the CPA to check the Elected President complicates the Elected Presidency further. To this end, we disagree with the Government that the solution to the current problem is to tighten the qualifying criteria of the Elected Presidency and to strengthen the CPA).
In tightening the qualifying criteria for the Elected Presidency, the Government seeks to lessen the potential for the Elected President to become an alternative centre of power by severely reducing the number of qualifying candidates and restricting the pool to a super elite group of executives in the private and public sectors. This is based on the mistaken premise that a candidate from such a pool is immune to politicisation and will not become an activist President.
The Government has refused to recognise that the problem is inherent to the Elected Presidency by virtue of a popular mandate. Unlike the typical MP, the Elected President is elected by the whole nation to represent the country without political affiliation. The competitive election process between individuals against one another compels candidates to offer platforms to attract votes. The outcome of such a popular election tempts candidates to use the percentage of votes garnered as an indication of popular endorsement and the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers.
The Government had recognised that, even with existing discretionary powers, we run the risk in the Elected Presidency of placing too much power in one person to properly check a popularly elected Parliament.
The CPA was set up to moderate this risk by endowing the Elected President with a team of advisors so that his or her decisions would always have the benefit of a group of experts and/or experienced persons.
Again, in order to further moderate the risk of the Elected Presidency having too much power to clip the Government's wings, the Government is turning to the unelected CPA. By expanding the CPA from six to eight members and obliging the President to consult the Council on all monetary matters related to the reserves and all key Public Service appointments, the Government is not merely strengthening the CPA's advisory capacity, but is changing the very nature of the CPA beyond its advisory function.
In attempting to create another check, namely, the strengthened CPA on the original check, namely, the Elected Presidency, the Government's approach will, in effect, create a third key for safeguarding the Reserves. When the President disagrees with the Government, the strengthened CPA will be empowered to settle the decision on the side of either party. This makes the CPA another alternative centre of power. This approach risks politicising the office of the Presidency further, by placing the Elected President in a situation where he will be caught in a three-way face-off in making crucial custodial decisions. This approach also risks producing complicated three-way situations that could end in gridlock and the erosion of the legitimacy of the elected Government. An unelected CPA should not have the power to create such outcomes.
The Government's proposal to reserve an election for an ethnic community, if the past five Elected Presidents did not come from that ethnic community, does not solve the problem. Over a long period, our Presidents should come from the main ethnic communities to symbolise and express the multiracial fabric of our nation. However, to tie this important symbolic role with the electoral process risks politicisation of the role. As the ethnicity of the candidates will be pushed into the glare of competitive elections in the case of reserved elections, this will inadvertently lead to the politicisation of multiracialism and may even introduce communal interests into the contest.
Thirdly, the WP proposes to revert to the ceremonial Presidency and to establish an Elected Senate to fulfil the custodial role as the solution.
We studied and deliberated the Constitutional Commission's report and agreed that the most elegant solution to the problem is the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to set up a group of experts to exercise the Elected President's custodial role. However, as the body performing a check on Parliament should have a popular mandate, we believe this group of experts ought to be popularly elected.
With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to distribute a two-page handout which presents two flowcharts. The first is titled Checks and Balances under Option A, which fleshes out the key details of how the Elected Presidency system with a strengthened CPA, as conceived by the Government ,would operate. The second, titled Checks and Balances under Option B, presents a streamlined system of checks and balances with an elected Senate, as put forth by the WP.
Mdm Speaker:\tPlease proceed. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members. Please see Annex 2.]
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We propose that a Senate be established within our Legislature as an Upper House to exercise the custodial functions that are now exercised by the Elected President. Eight Senators shall be elected from a list in periodic elections where non-partisan candidates will have to fit the qualifying criteria. A Senate Elections Committee will select the most suitable 16 candidates to stand for the Senate election. Properly mandated by popular elections, the Senate will take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency.
A Senate veto will return relevant Bills to Parliament for debate, which Parliament can veto with a 75% or three-quarters majority. As part of the legislative arm of the State and not the Executive arm, and mandated to fulfil a limited custodial role, Senators would be under no illusion of having any executive or policy-making powers. It is the WP's belief that such a two-chamber legislative system will minimise gridlock and enhance constructive politics.
With the establishment of the Senate, the Presidency shall revert to an office appointed by Parliament with no custodial role to perform. By focusing on unifying Singaporeans and representing Singapore to the world, the dignity of the office will be preserved and protected from the risk of politicisation inherent in electoral competition and in checking Parliament and being checked by an appointed CPA. Parliament shall consider the multiracial character of society and factor in multiracial representation when making the appointment. This way, the symbolic role of representing our coveted multiracialism will also be preserved and protected from politicisation.
Fourthly, the WP is of the view that the proposed constitutional amendments are major changes that should not be made with indecent haste and should be put to a referendum.
The amendments to the Constitution that the Government has proposed are far-reaching and wide-ranging and deserve much more airtime where the changes can be subjected to proper and thorough public debate. Any changes made with indecent haste will expose the Government to suspicions and accusations that it is seeking to shape the terms and outcome of the election when the country is on the verge of the next Presidential Election.
In the amendments proposed by way of the new Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, the Government has affirmed the utility, desirability and legitimacy of a national referendum in introducing controversial changes to presidential candidate eligibility. Given that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the proposed fundamental changes to the Presidency are controversial and potentially unpalatable to many members of the public, we believe that a national referendum on these proposed amendments should be held after an appropriate period of public debate.
The public should be presented with a simple choice between the Government's proposed amendments and the WP's proposal as outlined in this paper. The two options represent the main ideas mooted by the Constitutional Commission, with minor modifications. As such, we believe the referendum questions should be marked in a non-partisan manner as simply Option A and Option B, as explained by Ms Sylvia Lim earlier. A simple majority should suffice to decide the referendum.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, should this Bill be passed in its current form, the Elected Presidency will soon host a triple-weak situation. A weak institution that is structurally flawed in hosting different and contradictory objectives, weak public knowledge about the powers of the Elected President and, finally, an Elected President whose electoral mandate will be weakened as a result of the strengthening of the unelected CPA.
This House needs to focus its energies on the path that the Commission has laid for the future of the Elected Presidency. Instead of rushing this Bill through Parliament in time for the next Presidential Elections, the WP calls for the Government to delay any changes to the Elected Presidency. The Government should do this not because it has been suggested by the WP or the Constitutional Commission in varying forms but to protect the institution of the Presidency and to create a more accountable and robust system than the one we host today for the next 50 years.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Mahdev Mohan. One minute, please. Dr Tan, do you have a clarification? Yes, please.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his exposition. I just have three small clarifications which I am curious about. The Member for Aljunied mentioned that there would be a Senate with eight members, elected periodically. Would he be able to let us know how often in their proposal would they want to re-elect the Senators?
Secondly, the Members also mentioned that a list would be outlined of 16 candidates of which eight will be elected. Would the Member be able to clarify whether they would be elected through a straightforward highest vote count or whether through, say, a single transferable vote system?
And thirdly, would the Member be able to clarify how, under his model, they would handle a situation where there is a deadlock in the Senate, where four of the proposed Senate members vote one way and four vote the other? I was wondering if the Member could help us understand this a bit better.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first few occasions in this House where the person asking the question actually sits next to the Member who just made the speech. Let me try and help the Member and answer his questions.
In the first case, as to how often we see Senate elections, we see them every six years. So, the Senate is elected every six years.
The second question about the list, who would be selected to comprise the Senate, it would be on the basis of a simple percentage of votes won. The top eight become Senators.
The final question was about deadlock. In the case of a deadlock, Parliament, ultimately, still has to ratify whatever decisions are made at the Senate. If there is a deadlock, then Parliament would have to come and make a decision as to whether to approve the Government's proposal or not. Those are the answers.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng:\tJust one more clarification for the Member. He mentioned the re-election process that would take place every six years. Would this be for all members en bloc or would it be a staggered process whereby the tenures are spaced out and overlapping? I was wondering if he could provide a bit more information, please.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tMdm Speaker, subsequent speakers would be pursuing this topic in greater detail. So, I do not really want to speak about that. But if the question is not answered by the WP Members who would speak after me, then I would be happy to take that question in the course of the debate.
Mdm Speaker:\tSenior Minister of State Desmond Lee.
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development (Mr Desmond Lee):\tMadam, the Members have been speaking about the elected Senate of professionals and experts. What would be the criteria to be nominated for election?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for that question. We see the Senate Elections Committee really taking on the form and substance of the current PEC So, the same individuals will determine which individuals can stand for Senate elections and, for the same reason, those six individuals, we believe, would be able to put their minds to assessing who ought to qualify to be on the Senate. So, it is like the PEC.
Mdm Speaker:\tDr Janil Puthucheary.
The Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary):\tMadam, I did not quite understand the Member's last point. Is he suggesting that out of a possible pool of applicants, that there would be a set of shortlisting criteria to derive 16 individuals that the Senate Elections Committee would then forward for the general public to select from? So, what would the Senate Elections Committee use as criteria to suggest who could and could not stand as a Senator?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tMdm Speaker, the way we see it, the Senate Elections Committee will operate very similarly to how the PEC currently operates. It will have to determine Senators for the purposes for which it had been constituted. It has to oversee financial matters. It has to oversee appointment of public officials and, of course, other appointments. It would be very important that individuals who can perform that role or perform some checking role in that regard and have the qualifications for that role, would be selected for that purpose.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary:\tMadam, I am still confused. The Senate Elections Committee is not itself elected; the members would be appointed, I presume by Parliament. So, how do they then prevent – in other words, actually, the key point is that if you have a pool of 24 or 36 candidates, how does the Senate Electoral Committee and what mandate does it have to prevent somebody standing as a Senator, and restricting that list to 16 people for the public to decide? Would they be given strict criteria by the House to decide upon, such as age, financials? What is the nature of that decision? What is the mandate for that decision? That is what I am asking.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tLike I mentioned, it really follows the mandate that is given to the PEC. But the main point is that they will have to narrow down the slate of applicants to the number 16. The Minister of State asked about the mandate, what mandate do they have. It is the same mandate as the PEC has today. The members are appointed.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, maybe I did not explain my points to the Member. The PEC today does not prevent people to a given number. It is to look at those applicants and to see who are suitable for going forward. So, they do not have a mandate to say, \"You stop at one, two, three, four.\" It is merely to assess the suitability of candidates going forward and it is for the people to decide which of the suitable candidates are elected.
But if I understand the Member's proposal, a key point of the role of the Senate Electoral Committee would be to prevent more than 16 people standing forward. So, the 17th and downstream would have been prevented from being exposed to public vote. So, my question then is, on what grounds does the Senate Electoral Committee decide that the 16th person is good enough and the 17th person is not good enough for the public to make up their mind?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tI think it is a fair question. The issue is, at the point, before the process becomes unwieldy, the Senate Elections Committee has to draw a line. And it will have to determine for the 16 individuals that it has decided upon who are the best qualified for that job and, after that, when it goes to the polls, the citizens of Singapore will whittle that list further down to eight, basically. That is how it works.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I am clarifying. What I want to clarify is that the WP has put forward an alternative to the system of Elected President. Of course, by no means it is perfect. It is the same as what the Prime Minister said, it is not perfect. The idea is for us to look at the fundamental difference, look at which is the better system we should have and, of course, there are details. You have had the Elected President system for 25 years, you have problems, you come for amendments.
Similarly, we expect our system of Senate, if accepted, will have similar problems. So, let us have debate on the fundamental idea, the pros and cons of having a Senate and the Elected President. Do not be bogged down by details. If you are going into the details, it would thereby end up debating the details rather than the main substantive proposal.
So, let us focus on what is fundamental and whether the idea sounds logical and whether it is a fairer system. Details, yes, we can work them out and I think we can finetune them in time to come.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): I share my colleague's concern about the politicisation of the office of the President and I would seek a clarification on what measures the Members would propose to ensure that the election of the Senate will not be politicised and that we will not have eight persons in the Senate who may make a decision on a politicised basis.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tMdm Speaker, I do appreciate that when you go through the process of an election, there is some degree of politicisation. The same applies for the Elected President. The question is, do we want to preserve the symbolic and unifying role of the President, and by doing that have an elected Senate which we will, of course, have to persuade the public, \"Look, these are my credentials, I am a Singaporean and I seek to play my role as part of a legislative member\".
So, while there will be some degree of politicisation, and I do concede that, I think it is a better situation than having the Presidency itself be politicised.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang):\tI would like to ask the WP this: currently, for the CPA, there is a certain diversity in the background. We have senior civil servants, we have retired, very well-regarded judges. So, this diversity of background helps.
In the WP's proposal, when it is just an election, how then do you get the kind of diversity, such as you have the people with business experience or civil servants who know how the Government runs, judges who know how to interpret the law? I think that is very important.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tWell, Mdm Speaker, I do not see why those same individuals would be prevented from standing for senatorial elections. They can stand for the Senate.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Yes, they can stand, but how it works is that, currently, because they are appointed, the diversity helps in giving a different perspective and a more rounded decision-making. But if they stand for election, some of these people, they may not be able to, for example, give a very rousing speech. So, they may not end up being elected. So, that is my point to the WP.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh:\tI think that really would be the remit of the Senate Elections Committee and the individuals that it identifies. It will have to put its mind to identifying individuals who it believes would be able to perform the role expected of Senators.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Koh Poh Koon.
The Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Madam, just a point of clarification for the Member. I believe the Member said just now that if there is a gridlock in the Senate, the decision will be passed back down to Parliament. In that case, why would Parliament float the matter up to the Senate in the first place? Can the Member maybe clarify the mechanics of how this decision actually works?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Well, it would have to go to the Senate by virtue of the fact that that would be the process. So, if the government of the day wants to draw down on the Reserves, then, by its very nature, it would go to the Senate. But it does not mean that there will always be a four-four decision, down the middle. But if that also is seen to be problematic in the evolution of the Senate, then there is always the option of introducing an odd member to resolve that problem. But that is an easy answer. The real issue is, we want to allow the Senate to perform its role and there is always the prospect of having a chairman in the Senate to perform a casting vote.
Mdm Speaker:\tAsst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Madam, I will be addressing three points today: one, the framework of the Elected President; second, the eligibility of the Elected President; and third, I will be speaking shortly on what the Constitutional Commission has proposed as innovative ideas.
Mr Ramaswamy in 1967, Madam, said \"The President or Head of State is merely a symbolical figure and is expected to do…more than just the normal dreary ceremonial chores. This may be so in terms of constitutional abstractions, but in the eyes of the ordinary people who do not understand political abstractions, the Head of State is something more than a legal abstraction. He is the state personified\". I think the Prime Minister also said that today.
As we go more into ideas of the Senate, as we have just been speaking about, other ideas or abstractions in Mr Ramaswamy's words, we may lose a little bit of the sight of what the people of Singapore is looking out for and that is, quite simply, something that they can digest and read and understand very quickly. What are we proposing, what does this stand for, how does it change the current status quo?
Constitutional amendments were made through an amendment in 1991, as we know, based on two White Papers, one Select Committee Report and extensive Parliamentary debates. Subsequent amendments have also been made. Not only is the Elected President real to the people now as Singapore's chief public representative, as someone that they can cast their vote at the ballot box for, but he can also become our non-partisan custodian, as he is. He is endowed with discretionary powers over a range of fiscal matters and has the power to veto any proposed appointment or removal of key office holders in the Public Service.
In the wake of the last Presidential Elections in 2011, two well-known Singaporeans had this to say: journalist Mr Janadas Devan, as he then was, and businessman Mr Ho Kwon Ping said that, \"If the end is to have an apolitical Presidency, then the means to enjoy having this…must be apolitical\". They felt that one candidate in the 2011 Presidential Elections saw \"what the framers of the constitutional provisions establishing the elected presidency perhaps did not…they saw that you cannot hold an election for an apolitical office and not expect politics to intrude upon it\". Mr Devan and Mr Ho recommended elections by an electoral college instead of an election by citizens.
Theirs is a very valid one, as my colleague and fellow NMP Chia Yong Yong just said, we must be wary of politics getting too involved over what is currently an apolitical situation. If we have an Elected Presidency, as we now have, by votes, we must wonder whether we want to revert to something else. What Mr Ho and Mr Devan said was based on the Indian presidency. The Indian president is elected by an electoral college, so appointed within Parliament. He plays an important role in India's financial administration. He is the fiscal head of India. Without his recommendation no Money Bill can be introduced in the Indian parliament. The president has, under his oversight, the Contingency Fund of India, out of which provision can be made for advances to meet unforeseen expenditures.
I have examined Chief Justice Menon's Constitutional Commission report issued this year. It is the second time in 50 years for the Constitutional Commission to issue a report after considering both submissions as well as hearing evidence from various people. I have also seen the latest White Paper in this regard which responds to the report and forms the basis of this amendment Bill.
It is clear to me, Madam, that the President should remain an elected office and his CPA should be appointed. Singaporeans have been accustomed to this since 1991. We should not go back in time to extinguish their right to vote for a Head of State who is empowered, in specific circumstances, to veto the Government, if it is necessary to do so.
What can the President veto? If we look at it closely, the list is extensive. The Government's proposals of past Reserves are something he can veto. The appointment and removal of key officeholders in the Public Service and in the Statutory Boards and Government companies which are listed in the Fifth Schedule. He can veto changes to investment powers of the Central Provident Fund Board. He can veto Restraining Orders under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. He can veto continued detention under the Internal Security Act, and he can veto, finally, refusal of investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. These are wide-ranging protective powers, Madam.
The Bill paves the way for entrenchment provisions to operate, albeit in two tiers, where the possibility of the President's veto being Parliamentary overrule where the CPA recommends assent. New Articles 5A, 5B and 5C seem to fulfil, in part, statements made by this Government in the past that it would consider entrenching provisions, and entrenching provisions that the President's custodial powers should be entrenched in part. I am happy to see that there has been a response to these Parliamentary Questions over the years and there are some entrenching provisions that are now envisioned.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo said yesterday in the Second Reading speech that the amendments would, among other things, \"help to avoid gridlock in situations where the President and the Government do not agree\".
President Tony Tan's message to this House before that Second Reading speech was powerful, Madam. He said, among other things, \"We cannot hamstring the Elected President. We cannot guard against the worst-case scenario of a populist or power-hungry President. We must rely upon the wisdom of our electorate to elect a President who is able to work with the Government of the day for the proper and effective governance of Singapore\". This must be correct.
I think in all changes that we are making, we must be wary not to hamstring the Elected President. We often hear judges, Madam, refer to the wisdom of Parliament. Similarly, we hear Parliamentarians refer to the wisdom of judges and key officeholders in the Public Service. But we rarely hear of the wisdom of the people. For our current sitting President to refer to the wisdom of the people, it is the true mark of his timbre as a President.
The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon's Constitutional Commission Report noted that approximately one third of all the constitutional amendment Acts passed between 1991 and 2007 concerned the Elected Presidency, and that half of those amendments were directed at the President's fiscal powers. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify if the new Articles 5A, 5B, and 5C – in response perhaps to such critiques about whether they are going to be aimed directly at the fiscal powers of the President – are designed to preserve instead or introduce transparency by causing to be published in the Gazette the President's grounds for non-concurrence or conveying the CPA's grounds for concurrence through the Speaker of this House.
Looking at eligibility, Madam, speaking in jest about his role as President, former President, the late Mr SR Nathan once likened his role to that of a \"performing bear\". He said, \"You are put in a cage and once a day, the door is opened, and they say come out and perform. Then you are called back in.\"
A consummate diplomat, President Nathan was nothing if not modest. The President's custodial role to safeguard Singapore's financial Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service could not be more important. Indeed, it is only now that we know that in the very month that this House last spoke about entrenchment of the President's powers in 2008, President Nathan had in that same month, October 2008, willingly exercised his discretion. He had approved a $150 billion guarantee on all bank deposits to be backed by our Reserves. That is an awesome responsibility for one person with his CPA of six people at that time, to shoulder.
It says much again about the man and the office that he occupied. By the same token, it does raise questions, Madam. Although I agree with the Government that an electoral mandate gives the President the moral authority to act as a second key, with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as the first, I ask this: is it the Government's position that to deal with the CPA, the President, too, must be their professional equal? This is no mean feat, Madam, when considering the existing members of the CPA.
Could the Minister provide an example as well of a situation where the Chief Executive of a company with a $100 million paid up-capital may be ill-equipped to make a decision on the CPA's advice, compared to a Chief Executive of a company with $500 million as shareholders' equity?
Under the new Article 19, will the PEC be required or encouraged to provide reasons for its decisions on whether the discretionary limb, that is, \"whether a person has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the Office\"? What would it be? This would assuage current concerns that the PEC's decisions are not transparent, Madam, and would accord with the transparency that is now expected of the President and his CPA in the event of a dispute between them on certain matters.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister as well for clarifying yesterday that renowned Singaporean diplomats and members of international organisations with a long record of service for Singapore would be found likely eligible under this discretionary track or deliberative track. Would recipients, Madam, of the nation's highest Orders and decorations, such as the Order of Temasek or the Order of Sang Nila Utama, who may not automatically qualify, also be considered or deemed to qualify under the deliberative track?
Moving forward to the final point, Madam, that is, on the Council of Experts or the idea of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Chief Justice Menon's Constitutional Commission is clear and I am happy to see that many of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government. But it conceptualises also certain innovations which Parliament or the Government has not included in this Bill, and one such innovation is having a Council of Experts as a second Chamber of Parliament.
Madam, this is quite different from what is being proposed by the WP. The WP has eloquently put up an idea of having an Elected Council as an Upper House. What the Constitutional Commission actually suggested was having an appointed Council within Parliament as an Upper House.
A Council of Experts as a second Chamber of Parliament with the ability to delay measures, force a debate upon them and require the Government to override any objections only with a supermajority, was what they said. Unlike the Elected President, the Council, as an appointed body of experts, would never have the power to absolutely block the Government or veto Government initiatives but through a combination of raising the issue, forcing a debate on the Council's objections and requiring a supermajority, a suitable balance could perhaps be struck between the need to safeguard our critical assets on the one hand and, on the other hand, to enable the Government to act expeditiously. The Commission noted that the second Chamber or the Upper House, so to speak, with mainly appointed as opposed to elected members, is not uncommon. Examples include those both in India and Malaysia.
Yet, it appears from the White Paper that the Government does not feel that this mechanism is appropriate. Properly construed, however, Madam, this mechanism that has been suggested by the Commission is an addition, not an alternative, to the Elected President. It is complementary. On page 143 of the Commission's report, the idea behind the Council of Experts is clearly explained.
Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: as a matter of principle, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider this appointed Council, in his words, a \"ballast\", or as the Prime Minister said earlier, a \"stabiliser\" which could help Singapore weather financial storms and insulate it from rough seas? The Prime Minister has explained that the Government has decided against pursuing an Elected Upper Chamber; what about a small appointed one within Parliament?
If this idea is not to the liking of the Government, does perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister believe in the possibility of a Parliamentary Commissioner in due course?
This has been raised, Madam, several times before. It was raised, first, by Mr David Marshall before Independence and, after Independence, it was raised on the heels of the 1966 Constitutional Commission Report, at that time presided by Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin. It has also been raised and answered by several Law Ministers. It was raised by our current Law Minister when he was a backbencher in this Government.
When it was raised in 1966 to the Wee Chong Jin Commission, the response by the Law Minister at that time Mr EW Barker was this. He said, \"The creation of the Ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner on the lines of the recommendations of this Commission should be deferred until the results of the experiment in New Zealand and elsewhere.\" The reason for this was, at that time, it was only in the UK that had preferred to have a Parliamentary Commissioner. Fifty years later, the Parliamentary Commissioner in New Zealand has been hailed a success, Madam. I would argue that we should, if nothing else, study the feasibility of including this within our system in due course. In 1990, I do note that we had Member of Parliament Davinder Singh compellingly making the case to have such an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner.
I would add at this point that we have many ideas to add some form of transparency and accountability in this House. Perhaps this is not because transparency and accountability are lacking but it is because we are living in the new normal and, in this new normal, questions are asked at every turn. And perhaps one way to keep these questions at bay is to suggest that we have mechanisms that all of us are proud to have within this House.
Finally, Madam, I would like to ask about the role of NMPs and whether this would be enhanced in due course. I ask this because I realised that NCMPs have been increased, and I do not ask this in terms of quantity, Madam, I must say it is in terms of the day-to-day of the NMPs' job. In 1999, in reply to Mr Srinivas Rai's question on whether the Government will consider setting up an Upper House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was Minister for Home Affairs at that time, said, \"In our unicameral Parliament, which has worked well, there are already nine nominated non-elected Members in this House. There is no need to set up an Upper House comprising non-elected Members to oversee the work of elected representatives.\"
In my limited time in Parliament, Madam, \"overseeing\" has not been my experience. I would not see that as the role of the NMP. The NMP has a complementary role and it is to be involved in the debates and to get things moving along. But if the Government would see the NMPs having an oversight role in the absence of an Upper House or a Council, I would ask the Minister to provide certain guidelines, and what could be our policy-related interactions and advocacy with the Government and with the Opposition, because our accountability must be, first and foremost, to this House and to its best traditions. Madam, if I may just say a few words in Tamil and conclude.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tRespected Parliamentarians, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim's speech yesterday was a heartfelt one. As a person from another minority group, I would like to now say that I fully support it. It is important for minorities to be ensured of a representative in the highest office of the country. The reason? There have been instances of Chinese and Indians becoming President. Should Malays alone be the exception? Yesterday, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim mentioned that only minorities can understand their own dilemmas. Indians know that sentiment well. Our path is a unique one.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.00 pm until 5.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.20 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, with regard to the handout that I distributed just now, I referred to \"Checks and Balances under Option B\". There is a typographical error. It reads \"Supply Bill passed by Parliament/Key appointment recommended to President\". It says \"to President\", but it should be \"to Senate\". So, that is the amendment: \"President\" to be replaced by \"Senate\". I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Teo for pointing it out to me during the break.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, recently, I met a resident who is living in an HDB flat with her daughter. She asked if I could help her apply for a smaller new flat, as she wanted to sell her current flat to help pay off her daughter's debts. She said her daughter was planning to migrate to another country, so she does not need such a big flat.
I was a bit worried for her because this HDB flat represented her lifelong savings. How is she going to survive for the rest of her life after selling the flat and paying off her daughter's debts? She was very confident that her daughter would send money back to her and support her. I hope that the daughter would really do that, but I am still worried for her, because we have heard about stories where children squander away their parents' savings.
Emotionally, parents will always sacrifice unconditionally for their children, and, in fact, many children do feel grateful to their parents for bringing them up and sincerely want to take care of their parents. But from a pragmatic point of view, what that mother is doing may not be the best way to manage her finances, as there are considerable risks.
The situation is similar to that of companies. Some companies go bankrupt because of mismanagement by the new generation of leaders, which resulted in losses and huge debts, and all the hard work done by the older generation gone to waste. This is why the Chinese have a saying that \"the wealth of a family will not go beyond three generations\".
However, I do not believe that this is the natural course of things. It is just a reminder to all the successors that they should cherish what their predecessors have achieved. In fact, many businesses have lasted generations after generations, including those from the west.
In Singapore, we also have companies that have stood the test of time, and many are established brand names, for example, Singapore Airlines, OCBC, UOB, Tiger Balm, Sembcorp, Keppel Corp and so on.
These companies have survived many ups and downs because their management and leaders have a strong sense of responsibility to properly manage the business they inherited.
This is a continuation of good management practices. Even though the \"steward\" of a company is not managing his own money, he is still committed to his responsibilities. Therefore, the new qualifying criteria for the Elected President does not mean that he has to be wealthy. The new criteria mean that the Elected President must be a good \"steward\" who is capable and responsible.
However, we cannot rely solely on an individual's sense of responsibility. That is why we have the Elected Presidency, and we have institutionalised this spirit of self-discipline to ensure that our wealth can last beyond three generations.
The President holds the \"second key\" to our Reserves. With the \"second key\", Singaporeans will not blindly believe in the empty promises of a populist. Political parties will not issue blank cheques casually because people will question, \"With so much welfare, where is the money coming from?\"
If the Elected President is to stand up against the elected government, then the \"second key\" that he holds will have to be as powerful as the \"first key\" held by the ruling party. This is why the President must be elected by the people.
Only then can there be an effective system of checks and balances. We can call this \"self-control\", some people describe this cheekily as \"ownself check ownself\". There is nothing wrong with this concept because frankly, self-discipline is a virtue that our society needs right now.
However, only a wise and responsible Government will exercise 'self-discipline', while a power-hungry party will not do so.
In Mr Low Thia Khiang's speech, he described this amendment Bill as a political manoeuvre by the ruling party, that this is a reaction to the results of the 2011 GEs and Presidential Election. I am afraid this is not a fair comment, and it appears we are not speaking on the same wave length. In fact, what the Government is doing is precisely the opposite; our intention is to strengthen the democratic institution.
Let us think about this. Politics change with the times. If people really desire a change in government, who can stop the transition of political power? The President is directly elected by the people and has their mandate and definitely has his own independent views and way of doing things. Who can manipulate him? We all know that former President Ong Teng Cheong was a former Deputy Prime Minister in the PAP Government, and he had his own views. Likewise, for former President SR Nathan and the current President Tony Tan. All of them are men with independent minds and were good stewards of the people.
Mr Low Thia Khiang believes that the bar was raised to ensure that only candidates endorsed by the ruling party can run for President. I think this is an exaggeration. I see nothing wrong in adjusting the qualifying criteria of Presidential candidates over time and according to the economic development of our country. In fact, figures show that the number of people who meet the new criteria to run for President now is even more than that in the 1990s. In future, there will definitely be presidential candidates who meet the new criteria, but with views different from that of the ruling party.
The Government can only strengthen the democratic political system when there is political stability. No matter which political party becomes the ruling party in future, this system will be better able to self-regulate and curb powers, to provide further assurance for the future of our country and people.
The WP also suggested that instead of relying on the Elected President, we should set up an Upper House or senate like the West, to ensure there is a system of checks and balances. This appears to be the core suggestion of the WP in this debate. However, our current worry is not the lack of scrutiny of the constant, but a safeguard against the unexpected. For years, the Senate in Western countries has acted as a check and balance against hundreds of thousands of Bills. This may have worked for them but, to us, it may result in a Parliamentary deadlock. Our concern is that an elected government may misuse the Reserves, or appoint aides or friends to key positions in the government. To prevent such a situation, we need an Elected President who is assisted by a CPA, not a cumbersome senate. On the contrary, if we do away with the Elected Presidency; and replace it with Senate elections and a referendum, there will definitely be a further polarisation of Singapore politics. Would the Senate not become another centre of power? Is this beneficial to our country? Is this relevant to the needs of our country today?
Next, I would like to talk about meritocracy in the selection of candidates. The issue that people are concerned about is not whether there are outstanding candidates from various racial groups. Instead, they are concerned that if a minority candidate wins a particular term of the Elected Presidency that is reserved for minorities, will people focus only on the fact that he or she is from the minority and overlook the fact that he or she is, indeed, a capable individual?
Traditionally, the President is the Head of State and represents all Singaporeans. With the Elected Presidency, the President has been given the added role of protecting our Reserves. Both roles are equally important. Yet, they require the President to possess different capabilities and qualities.
We all agree that meritocracy should not be measured with one single yardstick. The selection criteria should be flexible, inclusive and relevant. The qualities required of the best talent should depend on his responsibilities and his role.
If we want to build a large bridge, what we need is an engineer, not a renowned economist; if we want to prepare a delicious dish, we need a good chef, not a scientist; if we are sick, we need a good doctor, not a good carpenter.
By the same logic, if we want our Reserves to be well-protected, the Elected President will need to have relevant experience in managing a large organisation. I believe most people understand this logic.
However, does it necessarily mean that an individual with experience managing a large organisation will be able to perform the traditional role of the President, namely, as a head of state and a representative of all Singaporeans?
The answer, of course, is not necessarily so. As a representative of our country and its people, he should care about the welfare of Singaporeans, be able to communicate with people from all walks of life, as well as represent Singapore in diplomatic relations. I believe there are talented individuals who possess both qualities from various races.
However, besides personal capabilities, you will notice that all our past Presidents are talented individuals from various races in Singapore. The Elected President must come from various races. Only then can he represent our multi-racial Singapore. Only then are we staying true to the spirit of meritocracy.
Mdm Speaker, Singapore's achievement depends on the contribution of Singaporeans from all walks of life, races and religions. Multiracialism, multiculturalism and meritocracy are the cornerstones of our nation. These beliefs ensure our solidarity and justice.
I believe the Chinese majority in Singapore understand that. This is why they have always prioritised the big picture of preserving social harmony and are willing to make important compromises where necessary during the process of nation-building so as to safeguard our multiculturalism. The acceptance of English as the common language of all Singaporeans is a good example.
There is never a good time for implementing necessary changes. It is precisely because of this steadfast belief that we are prepared to further strengthen and enhance our current Elected Presidency system after it has been in operation for some years.
(In English): At the beginning of this debate, Ms Sylvia Lim said that this is a nightmare that came back to haunt us. Indeed, it is never a perfect system and it has to be improved over time. And this is really what building an institution is about. You never get it right the first time. You have to keep on improving.
And as the WP proposed a Senate, likewise, the details will be hazy and it will be an idea that you have to keep on improving. That is really the nature of what building an institution is about. And I think there is nothing wrong with the Government coming back to amend the Constitution from time to time to improve this institution.
As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, it is an old pair of shoes. You do not throw it away at the first blister. Wear it a bit more. Season it a bit more. It will be more comfortable. Rather than throw it away and buy a more complicated pair of shoes giving you all kinds of problems. But I also cannot help but notice, even the WP's view on the matter has also evolved over time.
The WP's August 2015 manifesto stated, \"The power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered\". In other words, it is possible for Parliament to raid the past Reserves. That is in the manifesto. In March 2016, the WP presented its ideas and proposal on the Constitutional Commission. You accepted that there should be checks, but checks from a Parliament having an enhanced majority.
Later on, there was an article in The Straits Times titled \"Time for two Houses of Parliament\". I think this was someone's idea. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, reacted on a Facebook post on 30 November by saying, \"keep things simple and deepen existing institutions\". In other words, just have the current one layer of Parliament. And now, the proposal is: elect an Upper House and then have a referendum to decide on that. Change one Elected Presidency into elections for eight Senators.
The ideas have, indeed, evolved. I would think that if the WP believes strongly that there should be a referendum for this, you can have it, which is, in the GEs. Put the idea to the next GEs and make it into your party's manifesto.
I want to end my speech with reference to something that Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan mentioned. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned something that I thought was quite wise: \"We discussed all these details, complicated stuff, but in the end, what does the people want? What do people understand? And what can they digest?\"
I would say that what the Government propose today for this debate boils down to two things. One, many years have passed. The eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency should be raised, together with time and economic growth. Second, let us put in place a mechanism to ensure that minorities can be President, in line with our principles of a multi-racial Singapore. I support this Bill.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, on the issue that Minister Ong Ye Kung said where ideas of the WP have evolved, I would leave it to other Members to clarify. I will clarify the matter on what the Minister said about the Senate in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMinister Ong said that the Senate system will result in a political gridlock. I would like to clarify that the power of the Senate we are proposing is not much different from the CPA. It is not like in the western countries where the Senate is responsible for reviewing Bills passed in the lower house. The Senate we are proposing is basically the same as our current CPA. Theoretically, it should not create any gridlocks. Should there be gridlocks, then the Elected Presidency can equally create gridlocks.
Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tIf the two concepts are the same, then do not throw away the old pair of shoes so quickly. I think the old pair of shoes would be more comfortable and we can keep on improving it.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, clarification on what the Minister said earlier about how the WP position has evolved. Actually, if we look at our positions from the 1980s to date, the fundamentals are still the same, as in:
one, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and we believe that it should be abolished – that position has not changed; and
two, we have always agreed that there should be additional safeguards on our past Reserves, and that safeguard should vest in Parliament. That also has not changed.
But we have noticed the Government appointing the Constitutional Commission to look into this matter, and we do have great respect for the work that was done by the Constitutional Commission to take into account how society has evolved over the years and the expectations of the people as well.
So, in that regard, the proposal that we have today about having an elected Senate, Members will recall that we said that there should be a second chamber in the legislature. And in any case, if the matter is not agreed to by the Senate, it will come back to Parliament to be passed by a supermajority.
So, in that sense, the fundamentals are the same, it is just that we have taken into account the Commission's work and we believe that it is prudent and wise to refine our position in keeping with public expectations that there should be some oversight over some of these matters, but the fundamentals have not changed.
We do not agree with the Elected Presidency. We do believe that the safeguards should vest in Parliament; these fundamentals are still there.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I do concede that some of the fundamentals have not changed, but it was also a fundamental belief of the WP that Parliament should be unfettered. And now to have a Senate, it may constitute a fundamental change.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): I seek a clarification on what Ms Sylvia Lim said. I think in the manifesto last year, the WP said, \"Power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered\".
In March this year, to the Constitutional Commission, the WP said, \"Parliamentary safeguards requiring its supermajority vote in Parliament before past Reserves can be used by the Government.\"
Today, it is an elected Senate which will overrule Parliament. Is that not a change? Can Ms Lim please clarify?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, as I said earlier in response to Minister Ong, the fundamentals are still the same. We do not believe in the Elected Presidency. We believe that Parliament should have the final say over the safeguarding of the past Reserves. And since the Minister quoted from our submission to the Commission, I can read to Members what we said.
We said that, \"We agree that large Reserves built up in the past should be safeguarded, but we believe the Elected President is not the right mechanism for this. For all the years prior to the introduction of the Elected President, there has not been a need for additional safeguards. We are, however, open to additional Parliamentary safeguards over the Reserves, such as requiring a supermajority in Parliament, before past Reserves can be used by the Government.\" The framework is still similar.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tIt is a simple question. Please answer it if you can – a clarification, really. Is it not different from what you said in March? Supermajority in Parliament to use Reserves, as opposed to having an elected Senate with 16 people contesting and eight people being elected. It looks to me different. If you say it is the same, so be it.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang:\tA point of clarification with Minister Ong.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate does not differ very much from the Elected Presidency. In fact, they are quite different. Under the Elected Presidency, decisions are made by one person, plus eight other unelected CPA members. We feel that such important decisions should not be left to just one Elected President and eight appointed advisers who are not elected by the people. However, the Senate is elected by the people. We are willing to leave our destiny to the collective wisdom of these senators who are elected by the people.
He also quoted what Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said about old shoes, that if shoes are old and worn, it would be more comfortable. Just have them mended, do not throw them away. However, I would like to remind everyone that if you continue to wear broken shoes, you risk slip and fall. The soles could get slippery and it is better not to continue wearing them for too long.
Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tI think we have said all of these before, this CPA is not elected and does not have executive powers. As I have explained just now, what we are worried about is \"What if\". If something happens, we will need a wise Elected President to prevent an irresponsible Parliament or government from squandering our Reserves.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tI agree that we should play on the safe side, just in case something happens. But can the Senate not play the same role?
Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Senate, as I have already said, will entail another GE. In addition, we need to conduct a referendum to ask the people whether they need to have such a system. Is this what our country really needs? Is this what our people need? Will this become another centre of power? There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Madam, I rise to oppose this Bill. In my speech today, I will be touching on the contradictions of the President being a Head of State and unifier of the country versus the President in his custodial role. I will also be touching on the topic of NCMP.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
There are two unique and important roles which our Elected President currently plays under the present system. One, the President is a Head of State as well as a symbol of the unity of the country. Two, the President has a custodial role in safeguarding our financial Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service. The WP believes that the office of the Elected President should be abolished and the Presidency be reverted to its former ceremonial position.
Though we understand that many Singaporeans desire that this right of election should not be taken away from them, it does not remove the fact that it is difficult for an Elected President to concentrate on being a Head of State and be a unifying force for Singapore and Singaporeans while having a separate custodial role in respect of our country's Reserves.
The Constitutional Commission of 2016 led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon reflected on seven principles that have informed the evolution of the Elected Presidency. It accepted that, I quote, \"There is an undeniable tension\" between some of the principles reviewed\". I quote, \"especially those pertaining to the President's historical role and the custodial role that was subsequently grafted on.\" Please allow me to quote certain paragraphs of the Constitutional Commission here on the seven principles as I feel that they are important and have been aptly described.
\"First, the President's historical role as a symbol of the country's unity is premised on the President being non-partisan. However, in discharging the custodial role, the President faces the prospect of having to confront the Government of the day – a task which might appear to be at odds with a non-partisan unifying role. Further, the prospect of having to stand up to the Government necessitates an electoral mandate, in order to endow the President with the requisite legitimacy to do so. This requires that candidates to undergo an intensely political and potentially divisive election process. It may fairly be asked whether a person who emerges victorious after a sharply contested election can convincingly lay claim to being the nation's symbol of unity. Finally, in terms of the President's eligibility criteria, the maximisation of his symbolic and unifying role suggests a premium on inclusivity, in particular, with respect to matters, such as minority representation, as well as the ability to relate to and connect with the general populace. In contrast, however, the custodial role entails a significant degree of exclusivity, particularly in relation to the requirement that the candidate possesses demonstrable experience in high office, in matters of policy and/or financial and technical expertise.\"
The Commission heard submissions and proposals from many Singaporeans. After deliberation, the Commission found it difficult to overcome, I quote \"the strains rooted in the unavoidable tension between the President's historical and custodial roles\" and recommended that the Government may wish to consider unbundling the custodial role from the symbolic role of the President and have the custodial role be performed by an appointed body of experts operating like a second chamber of Parliament but with no veto or blocking power.
The WP studied the Constitutional Commission's report and we agree with the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to have a separate body to exercise the custodial role. The main difference is that we think that this body must be elected by the people directly, not merely appointed by any persons.
The custodial role of the President requires that he be prepared to confront the Government if necessary. He can only do so if he has gone through a national election, competed in the hustings to be elected above other candidates and received the elected mandate of the people. The Constitutional Commission said that the election will likely be politicised and divisive. To contest in such an election to be the Head of State will require one to be partisan in some ways, even if it should not be along party lines like for Parliamentary elections. Being partisan may not sit comfortably with the notion of a unifier of the entire country which the President is supposed to be, even if an election may not be divisive.
The strict eligibility criteria which are said to be necessary for the President's custodial role are not similar to the traits that may make a candidate a good Head of State and unifier of the country. The strict eligibility criteria ensure that only a very exclusive group of people are eligible. They will be made even stricter under the proposed amendments being debated and become even more exclusive and narrow such that only a very small group of people with a very exclusive profile may qualify.
In contrast, as a unifier, the President must have, in the words of the Commission, \"a premium on inclusivity\". I feel that this must surely include the ability to relate to Singaporeans from all walks of life, races, ages and classes.
By combining the roles and having the strict eligibility criteria, we have restricted the eligible persons to a very exclusive group: some past political officeholders or senior public servants or chairman or CEO of a company with a minimum average value in shareholders' equity of at least $500 million.
In my view, we have unnecessarily limited ourselves here. Good political leaders of the world have come from very diverse backgrounds. There must be people from different walks of life who can be a good Singaporean Head of State and unifier of our people, without being a CEO of a company with a large shareholders' equity or who have not been in politics previously. Surely, it is very possible that we can have someone who come from a charity or voluntary welfare organisation background, or someone who is an educationist, doctor or even a journalist, but who may not have the financial management experience required under this system. President Sheares was a doctor. President Wee Kim Wee was a journalist. Under our present rules, they would never have qualified.
Yes, admittedly, our Elected President system with its two distinct roles, is unique. But are we not selling ourselves short in the process when we force the two elements to co-exist? The Commission clearly thinks that it is better to split these roles. This was the second time since Independence that the Government has convened a Commission. Is this not a very good time to consider this recommendation from the Commission?
Next, on the proposed minority requirements in the amendment Bill, I am concerned that these requirements can be construed as patronising and unmeritocratic. They may encourage unhealthy stereotyping of racial perceptions. I also fear that by having the statutory assurance of a reservation for a certain minority after five terms, people may unintentionally and unwittingly be encouraged to vote along racial lines.
What we should be doing is always to encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate. I fear that any minority requirement will not encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate but may achieve the opposite result. I believe that this provision is unnecessary as Singaporeans will rise to the occasion to choose their Head of State based on the person's character and achievements, regardless of race, language and religion.
The Government, in its White Paper on the Review on Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency, rejected the Commission's proposal to unbundle the President's symbolic and custodial roles and assigning the custodial role to an appointed body of experts. The Government said that the second key should be held by an elected body with direct mandate from Singaporeans. The Government also said that the body of experts, as proposed by the Commission, would not be able to veto as it lacks the democratic mandate and this would impair the efficacy and rigour of the second key.
The WP's response is that we can still have such a body as proposed by the Commission but that, as this body is supposed to perform a check on Parliament, it should have the popular mandate of the people and be directly elected.
The WP is, therefore, proposing that the Senate be established as the Upper House of the Legislature. The Senate shall, essentially, take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency. Sir, this will allow the custodian role to be taken away from the President and free the President to perform the role of Head of State and be the symbol of unity for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Sir, the Government accepts in its White Paper that there is an inherent tension between an electoral process and a President who discharges a unifying, symbolic function but believes that it can be mitigated, even if not entirely eliminated. The Government did not elaborate in its White Paper on how it intends to do so. May the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify how the Government intends to do this?
The Commission touched on their concerns on how Presidential Elections can be divisive and recommended that the election rules be improved upon, including the understanding of candidates on the roles of the Elected President. The Commission also touched on the need for greater public education to have a better understanding of the role of the President.
The Government's response is that the risk of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with to some extent through the rules governing election campaigns.
I expect that the Government would probably have rightly considered such changes before it tabled the present amendment Bill. Will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what would be the proposed changes to the rules for future Presidential Elections? It is important that we should also know this now as we should consider critically all the proposed changes, both in this Bill as well as other changes that the Government intends to introduce.
I now move to the topic on NCMP. The Constitution of Singapore was amended in 2010 to provide for a minimum of nine Opposition MPs via the NCMP scheme. If there are fewer than nine Opposition Members elected in a GE, the NCMPs would be selected in priority among the best losers from the Opposition, depending on the percentage of votes obtained, until there were nine Opposition Members.
This Bill now seeks to increase from a maximum of nine to 12 NCMPs. The WP's position on NCMPs was enunciated at the Debate on the President's Address at the beginning of the 13th Parliament in January this year and our position has not changed. The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected Members with the full mandate of the people.
The introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and the consistent gerrymandering at every GE with the redrawing of electoral boundaries compelled the WP to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats. We believe that if GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary.
Our WP Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. Essentially, an NCMP is not the elected Member of any constituency.
As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party without any elected Member will be placed at a distinct disadvantage. We have seen from recent elections that a political party which is not able to show a track record of having run a Town Council gives room for scaremongering to make voters less certain about whether to vote for its candidates.
The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected Members from alternative parties and, if Singaporeans buy their story, it will only help to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than NCMPs alone to check the Government. It is the fear of losing elected seats that will enable Singaporeans to check the PAP Government and to compel the ruling party to take the people seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill is seeking to increase the number of NCMPs from a maximum of nine to 12.
The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected MPs with the full mandate of the people.
The PAP Government amended the Constitution and the rules governing Parliamentary elections. It introduced the GRCs system, making it more difficult for Opposition party members to be elected into Parliament. It has been redrawing the electoral boundaries at every GE. The WP is compelled to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats.
If GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary. We believe that under a fair and healthy democratic system, and if the system is running well, there will surely be Opposition party members being elected into Parliament to represent the voters. Thus, Parliamentary debates can then represent diverse views, and more balanced decisions can be made.
Our Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party with only NCMPs and no elected MP will be placed at a distinct disadvantage.
Therefore, if we only have NCMPs in Parliament but not elected Opposition MPs, the Opposition will never have the opportunity to accumulate the relevant experiences in running a Town Council. This will be unhealthy for the future of Singapore politics.
The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected MPs from alternative parties. This is to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than just NCMPs to check the Government. We need a good political system whereby a check-and-balance mechanism on the Government can be implemented through a fair and competitive election process.
When the voters vote for Opposition candidates and the Opposition candidates successfully become fully elected MPs, they will then be able to enter Parliament with the full mandate of the voters and can then be said to truly represent the constituencies which voted them into Parliament. An NCMP does not represent any constituency. The point is that it is the fear of losing elected seats in GEs that compels the PAP to take the pleas of the people seriously.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment with regard to NCMPs.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in English. I have a very general question for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding this Bill. There are many changes that have been introduced under this Bill. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House which of the proposed changes are now being tabled because of something that has gone wrong in the past and thereby necessitating the changes required under this Bill? If there are any such instances, will the Deputy Prime Minister elaborate on the circumstances which took place?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I oppose the proposed amendment to the provisions in the Constitution for NCMPs. I also oppose the other amendments in this Bill relating to the Elected President scheme and the CPA.
The WP calls for a referendum on the Elected Presidency. Let the people decide whether the Presidency should remain an elected office in the manner under the present law or as proposed by the WP ‒ the Senate proposal.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I heard the Member say that he supports the proposal for a Senate. As I understood earlier from Mr Pritam Singh, there will be 16 candidates − the criteria would be like, I suppose, a Senate election committee which will act like the PEC and operate like the PEC. So, does that mean that the criteria would be the same as for the current Elected Presidents?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister for the clarification. The criteria would be similar to the present criteria.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSimilar? Is there a difference? Can you tell me what are the differences?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at the framework, the details, we probably will have to finetune them.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tCan I take it that the details have not been worked out?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: We have talked about the details, and, yes, not fully worked out.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tCan you tell us, to the extent that you have worked out, what has been explained in this Parliament today?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, we have explained.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSo, what you have talked about is what you have explained so far?
Mr Low Thia Khiang:\tThere will be Members of Parliament who will be speaking on some of the details later.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tI have had Mr Pritam Singh explain and Mr Dennis Tan explain. I have asked a simple question − fundamental to all of this is the criteria. So, I have you on record, Mr Low, as saying that you have thought of some, and some other criteria and details will have to be worked out further.
Second, I have you on record as saying that whatever you have worked out, has been set out. I would like to ask Mr Dennis Tan, if there is any other detail on the selection criteria, please let us know. I would also like a clarification. You said that it is similar − the criteria for the Senators would be similar to the criteria for the Presidents. Can you tell me to what extent will they be different?
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan, would you like to respond to that?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong:\tThe details are similar. We are going to, we have – the details will be similar to the current PEC. The criteria in the Bill.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tCriteria for the candidates will be similar to those for the Elected Presidents. To what extent? \"Similar\" means?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Similar to the CPA.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tMr Tan, let me explain my question. The SEC − let us call it the Senate Elections Committee, the SEC – has got to shortlist 16 candidates. We are now focusing on the criteria for those candidates. My understanding is that, based on Mr Singh's answers and your earlier answers, the criteria for those individuals will be similar to those who qualify for the Elected Presidency. But \"similar\" is not exact. So, I am asking – in what way will there be differences?
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera, do you intend to respond on behalf of Mr Dennis Tan or do you intend to seek a clarification? Because if it is a response, I think Mr Dennis Tan should respond to it because this question was posed to him.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThis question is being posed to Mr Dennis Tan on his speech.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong:\tIt will be similar to the criteria for the current CPA.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tWhat criteria does the current CPA have? And to what extent would it be similar to the current CPA?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera:\tMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I make some clarification?
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan, would you like to answer that first before the others clarify or you have finished with your answers?
Mr Leon Perera:\tMay I clarify with the Minister?
Mr Deputy Speaker: You can seek your clarification now.
Mr Leon Perera:\tOkay. Yes, I would like to make a clarification with regard to that particular question on eligibility criteria. I intend to touch on that in my speech which is scheduled either later today or tomorrow. But, in essence, I think what was meant earlier by saying it is \"similar\" is that the eligibility criteria would revolve around similar qualities – that is, the ability ‒ because essentially, it is the custodial role that we are proposing be transferred from an Elected President to an Elected Senate. So, the kinds of qualities that would be needed to fulfil that role would be inherently similar in nature, meaning to say, exposure to managing finances, exposure to exercising managerial discretion over human resource, decision-making, and so on and so forth. I think similar, but not exactly the same.
How that works is that in our proposal, the Senate Elections Committee would operate in a similar manner to the PEC but with different mechanics. It would consider applicants who would like to run for the office of Senator. It would review those applications with those eligibility criteria in mind, that is, financial management capability, human resources and so on, criteria that one needs to play a custodial role and it would rank the 16 most suitable and most eligible candidates to go on to the ballot and, from that, the senatorial election would then elect eight candidates from a ballot of 16. I was intending to clarify that later on.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tWill they, the candidates, need to, for example, have run companies of the size as set out currently in the requirements?
Mr Leon Perera:\tIt would be part of the criteria to be considered, and that would be an advantage in the selection process. So, the more relevant experience that you have, the more eligible you will be.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tBut there must be some basic criteria. And can I take it that the basic criteria must be similar to the current Elected President's qualification criteria?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThe basic qualities would be similar because what we are talking about is the custodial role being transferred.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tI am not taking about the qualities. I am talking about the criteria − criteria lead to qualities. Can you answer that point? Today, you know that there is a set of objective criteria. Would you require the same criteria for the Senators? So that they can exercise, and we presume to have similar qualities?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThe criteria would be similar but what would not be similar ─
Mr K Shanmugam:\tI have heard this word \"similar\" several times. To what extent will they be different?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThey would be different in the sense that we would not have a hard and fast threshold of cut-off to say that regardless of the applicants who apply for this role ─
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThank you, but that is similar to the deliberative track today that we have, because that is also not a hard and fast rule. So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for the Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?
Mr Leon Perera:\tEssentially, yes.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThank you.
Mr Leon Perera:\tEssentially, yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation. So, it is transferring the custodial role from an Elected President to a Senate.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThat clarification is very useful. So, we will have 16 people who are qualified to be Elected Presidents, who will have to contest.
Second point, if I may seek a clarification. Today, as you know, the PEC does not limit the number of people who can take part in a Presidential Election. Under your proposal, the SEC will choose the top 16, and this is not justiciable, Mr Singh told us. So, it is entirely in their discretion to choose 16 people who will submit their names. Will that be right?
Mr Leon Perera:\tIn this regard, the mechanics of the selection criteria will be similar to the PEC currently. They would exercise their discretion. There would be some requirement that whether ─
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThere is a difference because the PEC, as I said, does not limit. It simply satisfies itself that you qualify the criteria. If 30 people qualify, 30 can stand. But the Members are proposing to limit. I just want to understand: they can make their decision, they choose 16 people, and that is not justiciable?
Mr Leon Perera:\tIn respect of that, they choose 16 people and they limit it to 16 people, whereas the proposal of the Government could, in theory, as the Minister rightly pointed out, be far more than 16, it could be 100 if 100 people meet those criteria, yes, that is correct.
Mr K Shanmugam: And what happens if less than eight people qualify or stand?
Mr Leon Perera:\tI think the current Presidential Election system that you have proposed would also face a similar objection. What if nobody comes forward to run for the Elected Presidency under your system? We are confident that there will be sufficient candidates to come forward for this system. I think that the conundrum that the Minister posed would be equally faced by many and, in fact, possibly by all types of electoral systems.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Shanmugam, I think Mr Leon Perera did indicate that he will provide further clarification when it is his time to speak. So, Mr Leon Perera, please collect your thoughts.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tI assume the answers will not change overnight. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tAre there any more clarifications before we move on? No. Ms Kuik.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to debate about today's Bill without reflecting upon the political upheavals that democracies older than our own are experiencing right now.
Both the US and the UK are going through an unprecedented public display of disunity at the government as well as the ground level. In Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, far-right parties are gaining in political traction with the electorate with uncomfortable ease, and racist and xenophobic political agendas have become normalised.
It is not just about the state of the political candidates but the state of the electorate that is causing great anxiety around the world. Few leaders at the top expected that there would come a day when so many voters on the ground would become so disillusioned with the prospects of political reform that they were willing to overturn political norms, values and behaviours that everyone once assumed were foundational for their democracy.
So, there has been much soul-searching in those democracies about what could have caused such profoundly wide divides to open up between leaders and their people and what could have been fixed earlier to prevent this situation.
It is in such extraordinary times when the world's attention becomes focused on the rigour and resilience of each country's political institutions. Will the system fall apart or will the centre hold?
In each of these democracies now, a generation of young people are holding their breath to see whether their system's fail-safes – the precious checks and balances a generation before them had designed during peaceful times – will kick in and do its work to protect the future of all that they hold dear.
We are one of the world's youngest democracies. Barely over half a century old, we still have much to learn and we are presently still living in our season of peace.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe this is now our time to fix things. And perhaps each one of us here in this House was somehow made for such a time as this.
Given the backdrop of current global events, I am reminded that there is no better time than now for our own politicians to meet across partisan divides to look – to really look – at the state of our own union, to build our own system's circuit breakers, to fight for the checks and balances we most believe in. And to do all that not for short-term political gain but for long-term national preservation.
Do you know what stands out to me most about the role of the Elected President? It is that he is given the responsibility to stand as a non-partisan symbol of national unity.
The Government's White Paper explains that \"This crucial role as a unifying symbol of the nation is unique to the President's office. No other public office is intended to be a personification of the State and a symbol of the nation's unity in the way that the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction in principle between the Presidency and other public offices…He embodies the nation itself.\"
When I read those words, I hear them as a voter. I take them absolutely to heart. Because that is the kind of President I want. And that is the kind of President we will need. Because in times to come, we will appreciate having a Unifier-in-Chief, especially in a world where internal hostilities and growing divisions are becoming more the norm than not.
But the question here is: if unifying the country is such a significant and distinctive responsibility of the President, then are the Constitutional amendments built to favour candidates with that sort of particular strength and inclination – or not?
Presently, the discussion of this particular unifying role of the President is centred purely on multiracial representation. And I have no quarrel with the Government's decision to go for a reserved election option to ensure that the Presidency is accessible to all the major races in Singapore. I accept the Government's argument that as long as there is a real possibility that 10%-20% of the voting population may still be swung by factors of race, we have to be realistic and put in the least intrusive short-term mechanism possible to guarantee some level of multi-racial representation. Meanwhile, I also accept that we all must share in the long-term responsibility of helping one another reach that ultimate destination where such an artificial safeguard would no longer be needed. We can go beyond community self-help groups and work towards a multiracial story of lifting one another's communities together.
But I share the perspective of many young Singaporeans, that a President's ability to unify a country is not really about his race. Young people will tell you frankly that they could not care less about the colour of the President's skin as much as they care about the complexion of his politics. Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland \"yes man\"-sounding candidate from their own race any day.
Some political scientists have argued that the political dysfunctions we are witnessing right now in America have less to do with race and more to do with class divides, partisan politics and a divisive electoral process. And the reminder I will take from the US presidential election is that racism is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed simply by minority representation in the highest office of the land. Representation is important and useful but even two terms of having a powerful, competent, charismatic African-American as President of the US could not do enough to defuse the racial tensions that continue to divide their country. Some analysts even feel that Obama's presidency inadvertently provoked more open expressions of racism than ever before.
So, fixing representation issues in the highest office of the land must be always accompanied by fixing representation issues in the lower offices of the land as well. It matters that we address how many women get a seat at the table in corporate boardrooms as much as Cabinet positions. It matters that we address how many minorities ascend the ranks in our armed forces. It matters that we address how many children from less-privileged families and less prestigious schools actually emerge victorious in leadership positions all across the sectors. And it matters because, as a globalised city-state, we will always struggle with high income inequality. So, I do worry more about the effects of polarised elitism than racism on our democracy, especially because the former enflames and exacerbates the latter.
Again, there is a lesson to be learnt from the US. Rising inequality is most extreme in America. In 1979, the top 1% in the US earned 9% of its income; today they earn almost 25%. In 2010, more than 90% of the country's income gains went to the top 1%.
As the elite and less-elite become further and further removed from each other's lived realities, it becomes difficult to build the mutual understanding and wide-reaching consensus needed for effective democracy to happen. Pollsters discovered that out of the many demographic fault lines exposed by the current US elections, few divisions went deeper than that of educational attainment. Those with the most schooling clearly back one candidate. And those with the least number of years of education clearly back the other.
When elite group-think settles in at the leadership level and an empathy gap grows between an elite political class and an economically and politically frustrated middle to working class electorate, a dangerous vulnerability in the democratic system is created. It is a vulnerability that can be hijacked at the right time by an opportunistic populist politician unafraid of riding upon a racist or xenophobic agenda.
And what we see happening elsewhere can all too easily happen right here.
To be a unifying symbol, the future President of Singapore cannot just wear the right skin tone. He or she must have the political courage and moral gumption to navigate the divides of class and partisan politics. It is those divides that intersect with and exacerbate racial issues. In times to come, it is across those divides where we will most need a bold non-partisan voice of national unity to step out to be that bridge. He or she is de facto Diplomat-in-Chief not just to the world but within our homeland as well. He or she must be the centre of calm that can hold a space for not just the different races, but the elites and non-elites, powerful and powerless and establishment and anti-establishment as well.
As an NMP, I cannot vote on Constitutional amendments. But I will still bring three requests today to the table.
My first request concerns the eligibility criteria. I am still hesitant to support the new stricter set of eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency. I fully understand the need to always update the criteria for the times. And it is not that I think the new criteria are wholly unreasonable. It is just that I am unsure whether having such criteria now will help us sieve in more good candidates or sieve out more promising ones. I am unsure whether stricter private sector criteria will end up slanting our Presidency towards more public sector candidates, especially in the case of minority candidates. And I am unsure whether if we keep setting the bar higher and higher for who gets to run for President, one of the unplanned outcomes would be a further widening of an empathy gap between an ever more elite leadership and an ever less elite electorate. How drastic is the difference between CEOs who lead $500 million organisations and CEOs who lead $100 million or $300 million organisations in terms of their intellectual competency, financial proficiency, moral courage and diplomatic sensitivity? Given how small our country is, are we running the risk of arbitrarily cutting off potentially great presidential candidates?
I hear the Government's reasoning that \"quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country's economic situation does not itself remain static.\" And I agree. But qualitative thresholds are not fixed in perpetuity either. A country's emotional, socio-political and cultural situation does not remain static either and is equally demanding of nuanced understanding.
So, why do we not have more holistic eligibility criteria that also specifically demand a candidate display a minimal level of sophisticated understanding about the state of our nation? Should we not require candidates hoping to become the symbol of national unity to possess at least a bullet point or two on their resume in some actual ground experience in bringing communities together across socio-political divisions?
I know my request might sound strange but, if unifying is such a significant and unique responsibility of the President, then would it not be worthwhile attempting to word out some criteria more explicitly along those lines?
I would hope that in designing our criteria for a future President, we do not word it such that we only get applications from brilliant technocrats with the right degrees, right organisations and the right positions. All that is impressive, and it is good and necessary, but a person can have all that, carry out the custodial duties of guarding the national Reserves with immense technical expertise and still fall short in that other equally demanding, equally important duty of embodying and unifying a nation. The latter duty demands no less rigour than the former.
I request that we consider relooking the strictness of criteria, especially if we start to see either a recurring pattern of uncontested elections due to lack of eligible private sector candidates or a recurring pattern of elections dominated only by public sector candidates. Because I believe those patterns will reveal the onset of a dysfunction in our democracy. A string of uncontested elections or even elections with homogeneous establishment candidates harms our democracy as it only feeds into a dangerous narrative of a \"rigged system\" that entrenches either cynicism or apathy among the electorate. And already, we are seeing that scenario play out in the current US elections where opportunistic candidates readily ride on that narrative and exploit the sentiment to gain popularity. Especially in the case of uncontested elections, the lack of a victory won by actual votes will forever cast a shade of doubt on the authority of even the most worthy and capable of candidates.
My second request is on staying open to alternative solutions to depoliticise the Presidential Elections.
The 2011 Presidential Elections was surprisingly divisive and there is no reason to assume that future Presidential Elections will not take on a similar tone. We cannot hold an election for a politically neutral office and be surprised when politics intrudes because the medium is the message. Elections are quintessentially political and tend to attract politicised candidates who want to play the game. Only the rarest of qualified candidates from the private sector, without prior political party affiliation or political experience, will be willing to subject themselves to politicking.
I know the Government is unconvinced that reverting to a Parliament-nominated Presidency is the solution. And I agree because it would be a conflict of interest for Parliament to be tasked to choose the very person whose chief role would be to act as a check on it. Personally, I believe further down the road, it is worth reconsidering what Mr Janadas Devan and Mr Ho Kwon Ping suggested in 2011 about establishing an electoral college instead. The college should be large enough to proportionately represent major stakeholders and interest groups in Singapore. They suggest that the electors could be selected according to processes set by each stakeholder group and the college would finally nominate a few candidates from among those who offer to stand for President. With electoral college as the first sieve and either the Supreme Court or Public Service Commission holding the right of final approval, the system would get a qualified Presidential candidate drawn from a greater diversity of stakeholders.
However, the present reality is that the idea of getting to elect an independent President has already sunk in with the electorate as their democratic right. So, to take that right away now would not go down well either. I do think the next best thing to do, for now, would be to establish clearer rules of engagement for the upcoming 2017 Presidential Elections. I agree with the Commission that shortlisted candidates must be held to a higher standard of understanding about the Constitutional role of the President and to be held publicly accountable for any outrageous claims or policy promises made on the campaign trail that fall well beyond the scope of what a President can do. And I also agree with the Commission's observations that public rallies add to the divisiveness of the electoral process and believe broadcasted presidential debates might be a less politicised way for the people to get to know the quality of their candidate.
Another way to depoliticise the Presidency is to provide other democratic institutions that can take on the more interventionist role that some voters want to shoe-horn into the President's role even though it conflicts with his need to symbolise national unity. So, can the Government consider setting up the institution of an ombudsman to take that up? President Tony Tan himself suggested it on his own campaign trail – an ombudsman who can act as a respectable yet independent representative for the people, who is empowered to investigate the public's complaints against the Government as well as any public allegations about the Government will strengthen the public's trust in our democracy and add a useful layer to our system's checks and balances.
I also believe that the politicisation and misunderstandings we saw in 2011 are a reflection of how much more we could invest into the general political education of our people, especially the next generation of voters. Can we start taking seriously the need to teach basic political concepts as part of civic education for our youths? Introducing young people to the value of a Constitution, the meaning of a vote and the balance of power among the executive, judiciary and legislative branches will go a long way in helping us build up the rigour of our future electorate.
My third and final request is with regards to the role of the people sector. In the last few years, the Government has been pushing for tri-sector, whole-of-society collaboration as the best way to solve wicked problems in a volatile, ambiguous world. Thus, the absence of any reference to the people sector in this Bill really stood out to me.
Going by the eligibility criteria, only experience and expertise in the public or private sector prepare an individual to be a President of Singapore. Even though there is a deliberative track, it would be really difficult and almost impossible to find a leader from our local landscape of voluntary welfare groups, non-profit charities, philanthropic foundations and carts or cultural groups who can say their organisations are of equivalent size and complexity as a $500 million company or a Government agency. Yet, exceptional leaders exist in the people sector with on-ground wisdom and deep experience in community-building.
Beyond the world of corporations and Government agencies, there is another realm of expertise whose day-in and day-out work is all about bringing broken people and broken communities together again. They have listened into the country's most silent sufferings and they have seen where our most profound heartbreaks lie. They have walked beside the faultlines that cut through our nation's communities. And they have stood in the gap together with this country's walking wounded to help them get past anger and bitterness to unite with others again. Without these everyday warriors working on the frontlines of the people sector, you can bet there would be more national disunity than less.
This is not about simplistically asking for people sector leaders to be given an easier shot at running for the Presidency. I accept that the President's custodial role of safeguarding our national Reserves demands a level of financial sophistication and organisational expertise that is likely to be beyond the scope of most people-sector leaders.
But what of that other equally significant ceremonial role of unifying the nation? Would not the people sector's unique strengths and insights be profoundly useful in serving that role?
The people sector may currently be small and not as steeped in power, organisational sophistication and financial resources. But neither should it be seen as a lesser brother to the public and private sectors. It is a vital part of the equation in the total defence of our country and the guardianship of our national unity and it deserves equal respect.
I would hope that the President, in the carriage of his responsibilities as National Unifier-in-Chief would have access to the street-level wisdom and ground-informed insights of the chief unifiers on the ground. I would hope that the people in charge of selecting potential Presidential candidates have that access, too.
Can I request that in the composition of the PEC as well as the CPA, we make a space somehow for leaders from the people sector? Because our sharpest people sector leaders could well be the ground experts you need who can first spot the canaries in our sociocultural coal mines. We should hear out their intuitions.
Ultimately, I am encouraged that this Government is not afraid of refining the Constitution from time to time for the sake of future-proofing our country. Franklin Roosevelt once said that a Constitution should be revered \"not because it is old, but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come.\"
A Constitution must be protected enough to ensure stability from government to government but it must also have enough breathing room to be a living, vital thing, evolving enough such that it remains relevant to the needs of every new generation.
I urge our politicians across both parties to be unafraid to go deeper and wider with those changes so that they can take all of us further into the future. Because we are all in this together, for our children and our children's children.
And please, do not despair that our youths do not seem interested in Constitutional issues. Just because they do not express interest now does not mean they do not feel a stake in it later. It is just that most of them only feel it and show it when election season hits.
Our young voters want the same things as our older voters. Good jobs. A decent shot at happiness. Fair treatment regardless of race, language or religion. And they all know their access to those things has plenty to do with the state of our politics.
But at the heart of it, the average young person here – as everywhere in the world – wants to just be able to say this one thing, \"You know what? I live in a country where the people in charge actually give a damn about me and my future.\"
Let us make whatever changes we need to help them say that. Let us please work together to bring down walls, protect the state of our union and find a way for Singapore to be a small but strong and powerful light of unity even in the darkness of a divided world. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied):\tMr Deputy Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the WP rejects this amendment Bill that is being presented and debated on. We would like to state that we stand by our original position we had since the office of the Elected Presidency was instituted, that is, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and call for the Presidency to be returned to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency.
Sir, I would like to touch on the differences of opinion found in the report of the Constitutional Commission and the Government's White Paper regarding the issue of \"Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office\", and the WP's stand on this matter. I would also like to touch on whether it is necessary to have a reserved Presidential Election so that minorities have the chance to become the President.
Sir, one thing that caught my attention, which is located in the report of the Constitutional Commission, was the suggestion that the Government consider reverting the Presidency to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency. This is an interesting issue because this issue was not contained in the Terms of Reference that the Government gave to the Constitutional Commission to conduct the review. However, the Commission stated that this issue was raised because when they were performing their review, the Commission had the opportunity to focus on and make considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of the Elected Presidency scheme and the matters that are related to the weaknesses of this scheme and how these can be overcome by an alternative system.
I would like to share the main points that were touched on and discussed by the Constitutional Commission when it gave its suggestions to the Government to reconsider the Elected Presidency scheme. The Commission stated that after 25 years since the scheme was first introduced, and with changing situations and over time, it was observed that there was some tension between the two main roles of the Elected Presidency, that is, the historical role or the unifying role, and the custodial role.
The Commission had given at least three clarifications about their observations on this issue of tension. First, the Commission found that the historical role requires a President who is neutral, who is non-partisan, and has a role as the unifier of the nation. On the other hand, the custodial role requires a President who will confront and query the Government, if the situation requires it. This is a responsibility that is rather unsuitable for an office that is supposed to be a symbol of a unifier of the nation.
Secondly, the Commission then stated that there is some irony in the Elected Presidency scheme. This is because the Presidential Election process itself, which will surely have political and divisive elements, contradicts with the role as a unifier of the nation. In other words, these political and divisive elements should not be present in the process of electing a President who will become a unifier of the nation.
Thirdly, the Commission stated that the role of the Elected President is to serve as a check on the Government. But the irony is, this aspect can become an incentive for a candidate to campaign on an anti-government platform. Such a President, who is political in nature, will surely be likely to come head-to-head frequently with the Government. When this situation occurs, it will surely have a negative effect on the role of the President as the unifier of the nation.
Sir, the Government has rejected the proposals put forward by the Constitutional Commission as stated in the Government's White Paper. The Government has presented these arguments. First, the Government accepted that there are tensions between the election process and the role of the Elected President as the unifier of the nation. However, the Government believed that this tension can be mitigated, although not totally removed.
With regard to this argument, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. First, on what basis does the Government believe that this tension can be mitigated and, second, what will the Government do to mitigate this tension?
The Government's second argument is that, although tension can potentially happen between the historical and custodial roles as identified by the Commission, the Government said that all the Elected Presidents so far have performed both roles successfully.
Sir, the answers given by the Government on this matter are not that convincing. Just because something bad did not happen previously, it does not mean that it will not happen in the future. At the same time, all the previous Elected Presidents are individuals who have a direct or indirect relationship with the ruling party before they became President.
However, Sir, imagine the situation during campaigning at the Presidential Elections, whereby some candidates use messages that are political in nature in order to attract votes, as mentioned by the Constitutional Commission. For example, if elected as President, they say that they will become the check and balance against the Government. Such messages are incongruous with the custodial role of the President, which is only concerned with the nation's Reserves and other duties.
The Prime Minister himself has touched on this issue in his speech during the debate on the President's Address at the Opening of the 13th Parliament. I quote his speech in English.
(In English): \"By design, the President has no executive, policy-making role and this remains the prerogative of the elected Government commanding the majority in Parliament. But in the last Presidential Election, many people did not understand this. I suspect even now, quite a number of people still do not understand this. Regrettably, during the last Presidential Election, those who did not understand it included some candidates. They campaigned for President as if they were going to form an alternate government\".
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I end with this quote. If such an undesirable situation happens, where a politically-inclined Presidential candidate exploits the agenda to \"check\" on the Government as an incentive to campaign on an anti-government platform, surely, if such a candidate were to be elected, this candidate would highly likely go head-to-head frequently with the government. When this happens, it will certainly hinder the role of the President as the unifier of the nation. I believe when the Commission thought about this matter, it also took into account the situation that happened during the 2011 Presidential Election.
Sir, I will now touch on the custodial role. Although the Commission suggested that this Elected Presidency scheme be unbundled in an effort to stabilise and strengthen the role of a unifier of the nation, the Commission, however, agreed that the custodial role must be retained. But the President should not be playing this role. The Commission suggested that this custodial role be given to an appointed body comprising a panel of experts. The Commission conceptualised this appointed body as a body of experts that will be the second chamber of Parliament, that is, given a process-delaying role, by forcing something to be debated again and requiring the Government to override any objections only with a supermajority.
Sir, in answering the proposals of the Commission for the custodial role to be given to an appointed body, the Government used the following arguments.
First, the Government believes that the second key must be held by an institution that has obtained the direct mandate from Singaporeans through an election process. This is so that this institution has the moral authority and the mandate to use its veto power against the Government.
Second, the appointed body that is suggested by the Commission can only force something to be debated again and cannot use the veto power to block the Government's initiatives because it does not have the mandate to do so.
Sir, when we look back at the differences of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the matter \"Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office\", it is clear that both parties – the Commission and the Government – agree that there is tension when a President performs both the historical and custodial roles.
If we studied the arguments put forth by the Constitutional Commission, it is, firstly, forward-looking, and secondly, it is also preventive in nature, in order to prevent something undesirable from happening. On the other hand, the Government's argument is based on the experience over the past four terms of the Presidency. It is also based on the reason that something can be done when the tension occurs. Nonetheless, the Government did not say how this can be mitigated or overcome.
Sir, the Government constantly adheres to the principle of caution and takes a careful and preventive approach when creating national policies in order to prevent or mitigate the risk of something undesirable from happening. Based on this, I say that the argument used by the Government to reject the proposal of the Commission in this matter is incongruous with the principle and the attitude of the Government that I just mentioned.
One other thing about the difference of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the issue of \"Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office\", I would urge everyone to make an honest assessment. The Constitutional Commission, that was set up by the Prime Minister himself and comprising individuals who do not have any political interests, is of the view that the Presidency should revert to an appointed office, with the concern that this can avoid something undesirable from happening in the future, that is, society being divided and political conflict occurs between the President and the Government. On the other hand, the one who wants to retain this Elected Presidency scheme is the ruling political party. So, think about that.
Sir, now I would like to state the WP position on the matter \"Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office\". In this matter, we are inclined towards the view put forward by the Constitutional Commission, that is, firstly, the Presidency reverts to the office of an appointed President, and secondly, the custodial role is given to a body. However, there is some difference between our proposals and the Commission's proposal about the custodial role. We suggest that this role be given to a chamber or Senate comprising eight individuals who are elected via a national election process. This is because we believe that individuals holding this responsibility should get a mandate from the people so that they are equipped with the moral authority to perform their duty.
Another thing that I would touch on is about the suggestion to have a reserved Presidential Election for minorities so that they have the chance to become President.Sir, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the Government's plan to have a reserved election only for Malay candidates.
Firstly, why now? After 25 years, since the introduction of the Elected Presidency? Would it not be the best time to give an opportunity to the Malay community to become President during the first Presidential Election in 1992, because after the late Encik Yusof Ishak became first President, the three Presidents after him were from races other than the Malay community? This is based on the message by President Tony Tan that was delivered by Mdm Speaker yesterday, whereby President Tony Tan said that it is not a coincidence and it was arranged this way, that the first four Presidents are from different races. This statement further reinforces the fact that the first Elected President in 1992 should have been reserved for the Malay community if that was the actual intent. But why was it not done?
Second, in answering media queries recently, the Prime Minister said that there are enough Malay candidates to contest for the Elected Presidency. I would like to ask how many Malays who are qualified to contest and, out of this, how many are from the public sector and how many are from the private sector.
Sir, the WP's stand is that when the office of the President reverts to an appointed office, the concern about minorities not having the chance to assume the office of the President can be overcome, by having a system of rotation.
Sir, before I end my speech, I would like to touch on the statement by the Constitutional Commission, which drew my attention towards the issue of perception and minorities. As a multiracial and multi-religious nation that holds fast to the principle of meritocracy, every race, especially minorities, should feel that they are given an equal and fair chance and do not perceive otherwise in every aspect of life in Singapore.
Sir, I have highlighted the issue of equality many times in this Chamber. I have quoted the feelings and perceptions of the Malays, that were expressed in the report, about the issue of equality and I requested for solutions to this issue through the formation of a committee. However, my suggestions have remained just a suggestion.
Sir, the issue of having a halal kitchen in the Republic of Singapore Navy's ships during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates this year has received much attention. I have received many personal messages of thanks and support for highlighting this issue. I was also approached by many individuals when I was out in public, and they gave their views and thanked me. On the issue of having a reserved Presidential Election for Malays, although generally the Malay community accepted it with an open heart, however, at the same time, we hear many comments, that display suspicion and dissatisfaction, among the Malay community. Sir, on the whole, what I said earlier showed that there is still a lingering suspicion about the issue of equality that is buried deep in the hearts of Malay/Muslims in Singapore.
Once again, I would like to request for a committee or, better still, a commission, to be formed to delve into or study ways to alleviate these feelings of angst and unhappiness among the Malay community that are still being heard in relation to this issue of equality, even though our nation has been independent for 51 years.
Sir, finally, the crux of my speech is that the concern about the tensions that can emerge from the friction between the historical and custodial roles can be resolved by reverting the Presidency to an appointed office. If we look back, such concerns did not emerge at all throughout the period when the Presidency was an appointed office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok):\tPoint of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the hon Member for Aljunied, in respect of the speech that he made, the part of the speech where he referred to elected Senators, dealing with the custodial function, how would that concept alleviate the concern of the WP in the report to the Constitutional Commission that an Elected President in the term of the previous government would stymie the efforts of the government in the next term, perhaps, in relation to usage of the past Reserves, noting that the elected Senators would have the similar criteria as the Elected President as well?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tSir, I would like to go back to the basic where we mentioned that we prefer to have an appointed Presidency, together with eight elected Senators. Sir, I believe that this question has been asked over and over again, asking for clarification. What I can say is that we believe the basic, the fundamental, is that these eight elected individuals will do a better job than one Elected President.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong):\tThank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal Manap mentioned in his speech just now that among the issues raised in the report by the Commission was the issue of conflict between the President's symbolic and custodial roles and that was why they gave certain recommendations to have an unbundling or separation of duties.
But in the report, they also mentioned how to try to balance these duties that seem to conflict. And in addition, what they recommended is an appointed body. It is not similar to the suggestion by WP, that is, a Senate.
So, can the Member please clarify what is his view about this – because he kept referring to the report by the Constitutional Commission but the suggestions that he proposed are not at all similar to what the Commission suggested?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tSir, as stated by my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, we respect the views of the Constitutional Commission. However, we also have our own views and this view is different from that of the Commission. I have stated earlier in my speech that this view is inclined towards the view of the Constitutional Commission. I did not say that we agree with them totally. Hence, we have our own views whereby we said that the elected Senators are a better option than a body that is not elected, in order to retain its moral authority and also to receive the mandate from the people.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Yes, you have stated that you do not agree. But does this not show that what was stated by the report of the Commission is just a basis and there are many alternatives or ways for us to resolve this issue, which includes the suggestion given by the Government?
Now, you are moving towards another suggestion, which is to create another body, which will also be elected by the people, because as you said, if we give the custodial role to someone, that person has to get a mandate from the people. That person has to be elected in an election in order to get the full mandate before they can do their job.
So, this is an issue. Why do we have to create a separate body and, by virtue of having this other body, will also bring about other problems? So, I would like a clarification.
And in addition, you mentioned earlier, during an election, in relation to the President's role, there were some suggestions raised, that is, how certain issues can come out and how it can be politicised. But you did not say that the suggestion provided in the Commission's report was to have changes in the rules. So, you are simply cherry-picking what you like, but you did not explain fully how, on the whole, it will be better than the proposals by the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, my apologies, the reply to that question will be a bit long, but I will try to go back to the main points.
Yes, the report by the Constitutional Commission contains many proposals. Just like the Government. They also did not choose certain proposals. Although they have studied it, they decided to choose some proposals.
It is the same with me. I think I showed that the WP's view is inclined towards certain things stated by the Constitutional Commission. Hence, I used what was there to explain why we agree and why we disagree with certain proposals.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tSo, what is your basis and your stand? The issue that you presented was that you felt that it was important to speak about the concerns of the Malay community on this issue. And later, when you spoke about the issue, you now say that you do not agree to have a reserved election for the Malay community. How can this Senate improve and take care of the concerns of the Malay community compared to the proposals by the Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, by having a Senate, yes, it has nothing to do with the matter of taking care of Malay issues.
As I stated earlier, we do not discount the importance of taking care of Malay issues or giving the Presidency to the Malays. We did say that the issue of minorities not having a chance to become a President can be resolved by having a rotational system for the appointed Presidency. So, what I said was that the Malay issues or the concerns of the Malay community can also be taken care by the appointed President.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio):\tSir, I just have a question of clarification for the hon Member so that I can understand. The Member, therefore, does not agree that there should be a reserved election for the Malay community or any other minority, is that correct?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tSir, I did not mention that in my speech. What I mentioned is that instead of allowing the minority to hold the office of Presidency, it can be addressed by reverting to the appointed President scheme.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just need one clarification from the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap. He alluded to the halal kitchen, implying that there are no Malay National Servicemen serving in the Navy ships.
I am just wondering if he is aware that there are actually Malay National Servicemen serving in our Navy ships and provisions are made where possible to provide them with their dietary requirements.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, the issue was brought up at the Committee of Supply debate. I mentioned this issue today on the basis that the Malay community are still unhappy and are still having some concerns about the issue of loyalty.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari:\tMr Deputy Speaker, I think when the community raised the issue of the halal kitchen, they will have the impression that there are no Malays serving in the Navy ships. I think as a responsible Malay community leader, we should tell them that there is actually progress being made to have Malays serve in the Navy ships and we should not allude to the fact or even imply that because of the absence of a halal kitchen in the Navy ship, there are no Malay officers or Malay crewmen serving on the Navy ships. That is my point, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tSir, as I mentioned just now, it is not part of my speech. But I would like to address the point where I did mention during the Committee of Supply debate that there is no doubt there is progress being made in the Singapore Armed Forces on the whole in getting Malays to assume those sensitive posts. I mentioned this quite a number of times in this Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Okay, I am glad to see that there is agreement on that point. Mr Yee Chia Hsing, please.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill relates to the proposed changes to our Constitution, which include, amongst other things, having a mechanism to ensure multi-racial representation for the Office of the Elected Presidency.
Allow me to share two everyday examples where, without active intervention, minority representation would not be achieved due to our demographic of having more than 70% Chinese population.
Every now and then, there would be articles on what should be Singapore's National Dish. Based on Internet searches, Hainanese chicken rice is the unanimous first choice, followed by chilli crab in second place, and laksa in third place.
Every time I come across one of these National Dish articles posted by local food bloggers, I cringe a little. Hainanese chicken rice and chilli crab are typically non-halal dishes. I wonder how our Muslim friends and residents would feel after reading these articles.
Imagine then, as a nation, we would have to vote for one dish as the National Dish. I am afraid that it is likely to be either Hainanese chicken rice or chilli crab. Nasi lemak or roti prata would not have a chance. How then would our minority citizens feel?
I am glad that we do not have to vote for one National Dish as it would be impossible for one dish to reflect the rich diversity of our multiracial, multicultural society.
Closer to home, at my constituency in Nanyang, many of the grassroots volunteers and residents like to sing, and I realised that many of them choose to sing Chinese or Hokkien songs when we have karaoke at grassroots events.
At a recent dinner, after listening to several Chinese and Hokkien songs, I was also asked to sing on stage. So, I chose an English oldie \"Always on my mind\". I reminded the audience that we should be mindful that we have non-Chinese volunteers and residents amongst us, so we should also sing some non-Chinese songs. Similar to the recommendation for Elected Presidency, I am toying with the idea that after every five Chinese or Hokkien songs, the next singer must sing English, Malay or Tamil songs.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is human nature that we generally feel more comfortable with people who have more in common with us. In a recent television documentary \"Regardless of Race\" hosted by Member Janil Puthucheary, there was one scene where Janil visited Townsville Primary School and asked some school children what race is their best friend. It is telling that, for most of the children, their best friend is someone of the same race, thus showing that even from a young age, it is natural for someone to feel more affinity with another person of the same race.
One of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to provide for a Presidential Election to be reserved for a community if no person belonging to that community has held the Office of President for five presidential terms.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, our President is a symbol of our national identity, representing all Singaporeans, and multiracialism is an important aspect of Singapore's social fabric and remains fundamental to our unity and survival. I agree with the introduction of the hiatus-triggered mechanism to ensure minority representation in our highest office. However, is a gap of five presidential terms, which is about 30 years, considered too long? I hope the Government would monitor public sentiments in this respect and to make the appropriate adjustments in future, if necessary.
Once again, thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me the chance to share my thoughts on this, and I reaffirm my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, the Office of the Presidency in these days of increasing diversity amongst our people can have an even bigger unifying role to play.
A few years ago, I said in this House, \"How do we find as much common ground as possible? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans, in spite of their political differences. Make these institutions inclusive and focus on our common objectives. The office of the Presidency, for example\", I said.
Indeed, President Tony Tan, in his swearing-in ceremony, said, \"I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. Whatever your political views, I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you\".
Do the proposed amendments before us strengthen the Presidency in this important unifying role? Does an enforced reservation of Presidential Elections to particular groups of Singaporeans defined along racial lines best help the Elected President play a unifying role?
We believe that Singaporeans, when called upon, will rise to the occasion to choose their Head of State based on the person's character and achievements, regardless of race, language or religion.
Does a tightened, narrower set of eligibility criteria help the Elected President unify a broader group of Singaporeans? Tightened eligibility criteria have been advanced as a proxy for the suitability and competency of the candidate for President. We are told that more stringent criteria are necessary for a President to perform his or her custodial functions in our bigger and more expansive times.
But these tightened eligibility criteria have their own costs. They reduce the number of men and women who could be President at a time when we understand that good men and women for the job are so hard to find. We focus on the benefits of selecting our President from a smaller pool of eligible candidates with the requisite \"merit\" – the merit that we feel we are able to define – but there are also costs to our society of thereby excluding, by our definition, other candidates with qualities that may be harder to approximate. Other qualities of a good President, which are no less important than this financial savvy that the eligibility criteria try to fathom.
In this House, just these two days, we have heard that the President should also be of good character, honest, selfless, willing to serve, independent, \"able to think for himself\", and should have integrity, judgement and courage.
Sir, these are human qualities, not angelic ones. With the proposed tightened eligibility criteria, how many of our former Presidents – Yusof Ishak, Benjamin Sheares, Devan Nair, Wee Kim Wee – would have been found ineligible to serve, even if they were ready and eager to do so, and in the eyes of vast numbers of Singaporeans, be qualified to do so? How many other Singaporeans?
Why are we seeking to restrict further the number of men and women who could be President? Has any of our Elected Presidents – Ong Teng Cheong, SR Nathan and Tony Tan – behaved so untowardly that we feel corrective action is needed to limit the number of eligible candidates from, say, qualifying companies with paid-in capital of at least $100 million, to those with shareholders' equity of at least $500 million?
We are told that the Elected Presidency system is working well and by these proposed amendments what we hope to do is anticipate problems before they appear. If that is the case, without an existing identifiable and specific thing to fix, then it behoves us to be even more humble about the possibility of unintended consequences of keeping out credible presidential candidates by what is proposed here today.
Even just looking at the custodial functions of the President, why are we seeking to restrict further the number of men and women who could be President by eliminating the non-executive chairmen of eligible companies from consideration, where both the chairmen and the chief executive officers used to qualify under the current rules? If we were to look at the constitutional functions to be performed by the President, including the custodial functions currently required, can we not say that they are in many ways more like those of a non-executive chairman than an executive officer?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill but I must say I am rather confused by some of the statements that have been made by Members of the Opposition. And the answers that they have given for some of the clarifications that have been sought have not actually provided any degree of clarity.
Firstly, I would like to address the issue of the NCMP, which Mr Dennis Tan brought up. The NCMP does have a mandate. There were people who voted for the NCMP. The NCMP can serve in a Town Council, they are not required to, unlike an elected MP, but all kinds of people can serve in a Town Council and can be appointed by MPs, including NCMPs from the same party. The opportunity is there.
And in service, that is how we define ourselves for all the people that we serve. We do not serve just the voters who elected us. We serve our constituents. And the same is true for the Elected President. Yes, the process of an election can be divisive, it can be contestable, it should be contestable. But, afterwards, we choose to come together.
This is a principle that is not unique to Singapore. It actually happens in many, many systems around the world and people expect that after the election there is a reconciliation. And part of the reconciliation is a recognition from the people that the person occupying that office serves everybody, and a recognition from the person elected that his or her duty is to serve everybody, regardless of the electoral choices in the first instance.
Elections are difficult. They are potentially divisive. The details are vital to get right. But I am glad that the WP, the Opposition, has repeatedly enumerated their support for the electoral process. Again and again, we hear about the elections for a Senate, the senators. This is an issue, perhaps, of labelling. They say they do not support the Presidency but yet they are taking the custodial powers of the President and devolving it to eight senators. Realistically, these are now eight Presidents. These are the same custodial powers that were vested in the President that have now been divided across eight Senators.
So, they are taking one Elected President and are now saying that we need to have eight elected Senators. Or I am going to call them eight elected Presidential Senators; we can make up the names.
This is confusing. They fundamentally believe that the custodial powers should go with an electoral process. We believe that is so. And yet they believe that having those custodial powers divided over eight people is somehow better than having it in one person. The only reason they had given is this \"wisdom of a crowd\", I believe it was the phrase that was used, or \"the collective wisdom\", that somehow, automatically, collective wisdom is better.
This is not a small change. It is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It is a major overhaul of our entire Presidential system and, possibly, our political system. And yet they are accusing the PAP Government of rushing this through when, in fact, this has been debated and discussed in public and in this House repeatedly from our side of the House. But they did not put this proposal forward, they did not submit this proposal to the Constitutional Commission, they did not submit it for public scrutiny or public debate. At the last minute, when the vote is tomorrow on this Bill before us, we hear of this extraordinarily radical proposal to take apart our President, make it symbolic and elect another eight people who are effectively the custodial Presidents.
The issue of being humble if you are making a radical change, I take Mr Chen Show Mao's point absolutely. We should be humble and not suggest something so completely radical when the proposal before the House is an amendment to strengthen and adjust the existing system. The Bill before the House is not about whether we should have an electoral process. The Bill before the House is not whether we should completely upend the system. The Bill before the House is how do we strengthen the existing Elected Presidency.
The lack of clarity extends to this issue of inclusion versus exclusion. They seem not to actually fundamentally understand what it is that the Presidential Electoral Commission does. And, repeatedly, the issue of the financial criteria, the number of people who are available, the types of businesses that are available, are brought up. The assumption is that if you do not meet those criteria, you are excluded from being a candidate for President.
That is not the case. This is an inclusive process. If you meet those criteria, the Commission is required to then pass you through. There is still a deliberative track where candidates who do not automatically qualify can put themselves forward and a case has to be made for why those candidates should be allowed to stand.
In contrast, what they proposed as a Senatorial Electoral Commission is an exclusive criterion because there is a hard stop at the 16th man or woman who will stand. What separates out at 17th person from that 16th person? That is an absolute exclusion criterion. If you are the 17th person, whether you ran a $100 million company, whether you are someone in the people sector, whether you ran a $1 billion company, for whatever reason, under their proposal, the Senatorial Electoral Commission can exclude you.
We have had some back and forth about whether the criteria are similar to the existing Presidential candidate criteria, but if the pool of candidates that come forth every year change, if you had to select 16 out of 24, versus 16 out of 100, then those criteria are going to change year on year. Where is the transparency there? It is going to be arbitrary for a non-elected body to then decide who will be elected in. It is not the public. Under the existing system, the Presidential Electoral Commission can put anybody who meets the criteria forward and it is the public then who has ultimate scrutiny over the process. Whether there is one, two, three or 100, it is the public then who decides about the integrity of this person who stands. It is the public then who makes the decision about what are the values that are expressed and how did this individual demonstrate those values in the conduct of their duties, whether it was a $100 million company, whether it was a $500 million company, whether they are a community volunteer or whether they were in the Public Service. It is for the public to make those decisions!
If you have an exclusionary criterion where a non-elected body keeps people out, that is the complete opposite of democracy. It is an autocracy. That is what the proposal put before the House today is about. We are being asked to consider the difference in their Option B versus our Option A, the difference between a strengthening of our democracy and the assignment of an autocracy to an appointed body, where an appointed body can keep people out. How will this strengthen the multiracial fabric of our nation?
I have a direct question for Mr Faisal Manap who is not here. A direct question: does he or does he not support the reserved election for a Malay candidate? It is a straightforward question. If he cannot answer a yes or no, how do you expect a referendum to be constructed around this? Yes or no, do you support the proposal that there will be a reserved election for a Malay candidate after many decades? It is a very simple question.
Or does he prefer for that electoral mandate and for that custodial power that our next Malay President could have, to be removed, and so our next Malay President will be, by his direction, a symbol only with no custodial power? What is going to be better for the Malay community? What is going to be better for all of us, regardless of our race and the colour of our skin? For that President, that Malay President, to have only symbolic powers, or to have a combination of symbolic and custodial powers, and to have stood in an election, even if it is an election against another Malay. It is still an electoral mandate that will be handed to the winning candidate by the people, and not by the WP, or whoever has been appointed by Parliament. It will not be an autocracy. It will be a strengthening of our democracy.
These are serious issues, serious proposals and, frankly speaking, serious problems in some of the proposals that have been put up by Option B by the WP.
There are a number of inconsistencies. Do you support more electoral processes or do you support less electoral processes? Do you want the Malay President to have custodial powers or only have a symbolic election? Do you want the power to rest in the people ultimately or do you want an appointed body?
The misunderstandings about what the CPA does have been brought up again and again. The implication that the CPA can step forward and block Parliament, when it is for Parliament to put matters up to the President in the first place. Parliament becomes the initiator of the process, and the President does not. And the CPA, as proposed, only advises the President. And the decision-making – whether it is four, whether it is one extra casting vote, is only about the bar that is then set for Parliament, and ultimately Parliament then has to make the legislative decision.
These are falsehoods or misunderstandings or implications, but they are not true. The proposals need to be studied properly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have alluded to and highlighted a number of inconsistencies and problems with the positions and statements of the Opposition. What could possibly be the cause, the driving force that led them in this direction? It could be suggested that there is a lack of understanding, incompetence. I do not believe so. I absolutely do not believe so. They have a bench with lawyers, economists, academics, people who have served in our uniformed services, people who have served in academic institutions, people who have served running organisations and run Town Councils. It could be malice but I do not believe so. These are not malicious people. People do not step forward and give of their time to serve in politics with the intention to be malicious. It is a hard, difficult choice to make in your life and you do it for good reasons. Why then?
Frankly speaking, it is merely the product of the adversarial nature of the Westminster system that we have inherited and that we have here today. It is the product of electoral politics. It is the natural outcome of contestable politics. They are doing what they need to do to attack, take issue with the Government and, if possible, take down our proposals. This is precisely why there is a need for a process that stands outside and above this House. They have demonstrated in their approach, in their ability to try to obfuscate, to add confusion, to misdirect and imply malice on our part. They have demonstrated exactly why we need a process and an office that stands apart and stands above.
For the Opposition to do otherwise – to not oppose, to not attack, to not question – frankly speaking, would be difficult. It would be especially difficult from an electoral viewpoint because any difficult Parliamentary issue can potentially risk votes. It takes great courage, confidence and determination to support a Motion or a Bill that goes against the expressed views of your core party supporters.
It takes courage and vision to put the interests of the nation first. It takes courage to identify and go against any facet of human nature. And it is difficult to change your mind once you have stated your position, especially if you have stated your position publicly. Once you have had a firm stance and you have engaged in battle – whether in word, in print – how to change it?
But this House, this Chamber and its predecessor have repeatedly seen examples of such courage, confidence, determination and vision. We have had a clear demonstration in recent times, of how a government and a political party can change its views, change its position, change its policies in response to the needs and aspirations of the country and our people.
In the short time since I was elected in 2011, I have seen several examples – Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life, compulsory education for special needs kids, maternity leave, changes to provisions for single mothers, many others – each one of those welcomed with applause in the House, welcomed with cheers outside. Because there is a recognition that our policies and positions need to adapt to best serve our country and our people. Just as our own views can change, our own personal views can change. As was alluded to, perhaps Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's views have changed, perhaps the WP's views have changed.
Just as my own view, on the mechanism for the minority representation on the Elected Presidency has changed since the proposal was first published. The need for any kind of safeguard in our electoral and political processes, it reminds us of the less-than-perfect human nature that we have to deal with.
As the Prime Minister mentioned in his quote of James Madison about angels, the need for safeguards reminds us how imperfect we are. We wish that it was not so. We wish that it was a much nicer world where we would not need such a mechanism. But we have to deal with the reality around us, we have to decide if we are going to hold a position as a marker of an ideal for the future, or deal with the reality here and now – deal with what our people face and the issues that we have to help them with.
So, on the issue of the five-term hiatus and the reserved election, I have changed my own mind since I first heard about it and I fully support the Bill for all the various reasons that have been described by the Members of this House.
So, with an understanding of why the Opposition does what it does – you may or may not agree with me – an understanding of the opportunities that there are in this House to make lives and things better for Singapore and Singaporeans, and I believe you do agree with me, which is why you serve here.
Embracing the possibility for change that I have just described, I want to propose a radical idea – I have a proposition – a proposition for the Opposition: I propose that the Opposition support the Bill. Change your mind, lose and leave behind your intransigence on this matter that has lasted more than 20 to 25 years.
Tomorrow, we will need to vote. This is a Constitutional amendment. We will need to vote and the process is called a division. It does not have to be divisive. What if in this one instance, we could have a demonstration of unity? You may ask: how could you possibly vote? How could you possibly vote to support this Bill? You may also ask why you should possibly vote.
Well, let me tell you why you should possibly vote \"yes\" to support this Bill, why you should stand with the \"ayes\". This is a Bill that strengthens our democracy, this is a Bill that strengthens our processes. It stands in the same vein as those processes that established a separate Civil Service that works for all Singaporeans without fear or favour. It stands in the same vein as our Armed Forces that swear loyalty to the Constitution and the President, and will do what is necessary for our country regardless of politics. It stands in the same vein that we have an Auditor-General and an Attorney-General that does what it has to do to uphold the law, to uphold the best principles of our Constitution and integrity and not to serve a political agenda. It does all these and more.
It strengthens the role of NCMPs and gives voice to people who perhaps have not had a voice before. It strengthens the diversity in this House. It allows our first Malay Elected President after many decades. And it guarantees that we will have an Elected President with representation across all the races. It does all these and more.
And in its mechanism for that multiracial Elected Presidency, it has a natural sunset where, over time, that mechanism may no longer be needed.
And, so, you have built in into this Constitutional amendment. I believe one of the first times we can identify when we might truly arrive in the future as that ideal multiracial state. Not when we have an open contested election of various races. That would just be the start. We need to have a few of those. We need to have a minority candidate that loses and loses gracefully, not because of his or her colour of the skin but because he or she was not the best person for the job.
And, finally, we will need in this House, standing at one of these podiums, someone from one of the political parties to stand up and propose a Constitutional amendment to remove the five-term hiatus and the reserved election mechanism. And then we will know that there is political confidence that we can do so because there are no votes at risk, and we will have arrived at that ideal state as a multiracial nation.
For all these reasons, you should support the Bill. But how could you support the Bill, given the position you have taken?
First of all, you need to understand and you need to convince people within your party and your core supporters that the Bill before you is not about whether we should have an Elected Presidency or not. You can continue to hold that line and support this Bill. The matter before us that we are debating is, given that we are going to have an Elected Presidency, what kind of Elected Presidency should we have?
This is the reality of political progress and political compromise. There is no point having an extreme absolutist view and refuse to engage on what is the reality in front of you. Having an absolutist, an extremist view is never going to be productive in politics. We need progress, we need some compromise.
The matter of whether the President should be elected, we have talked about why and how. That has already been settled. So, by voting in support of this Bill, you can still hang on to your party's principled position and accept the reality of today. And the reality is that Singaporeans want to vote for the President. Your constituents, the vast majority of all our constituents, whether they voted for the WP or any other Opposition candidate, they voted in the Presidential Election. They may have supported different candidates, but they expressed a democratic voice. They support the idea of an Elected Presidency and they will not accept having that democratic voice removed.
Could you not consider adapting to that world view after 25 years? Could you not demonstrate the ability to change, just as you expect other people to change? I have suggested why the Opposition could vote for the Bill with a clear conscience. I hope they will. We have heard several times now how symbols matter, and I think this could be one the most important reasons why I believe they should. Symbolism is important not just in terms of words, flags and badges or a person, although all those are important. But perhaps, more importantly, in the symbolism of our actions.
One of the most memorable images for me in this in this debate was the image evoked by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim of his whole clan turning up at Paya Lebar Airport to send off his brother. And you can imagine the joy, the celebration, the fun that they had coming together as a family. And family, being very loosely defined, the whole clan turned up. We instantly, instinctively understand his description. We smile. We wish all of our families could behave in that way all the time. We know what it means and why it is important.
But why? Why is this important? The plane is not going to fly any faster. The journey is not going to be any safer because the whole town full of people turn up. Your well wishes can be written on a card, your goodbyes can be spoken on the phone. Loving words can be said at home, you do not have to go all the way to the airport. But no, it is the action of accompanying that person, that action of going together as a family, of coming together as a family, and standing there and waving through the glass. We understand this matters, and it demonstrates something, in a symbolism far more powerful than any words or expressed wish might demonstrate. They stand together as one even though some of them may be very distant relatives. The action says, \"We are one, and together we are here for you.\"
Today, here, and tomorrow, we have a Bill to strengthen our Presidency and our nation. The President is meant to be an office that rises above politics, that acts as a symbol of national unity, that takes a long-term view, and that protects our national interest over and above anything else. This debate will become part of our historical record. Imagine how the record might demonstrate that, in this House, we might have had a real engagement of ideas where people are open to what is being said and not just who is saying it. A real discussion of policies and proposals, where sometimes we are persuaded by the debate, that this is not just merely the transmission of a prepared speech, that we are listening to one another and engaging in a contest of ideas. And a contest of ideas requires people to be open to persuasion.
Demonstrate in your actions tomorrow by voting for the Bill to strengthen our system and our country. Vote and demonstrate the spirit behind the words, \"Mari kita bersatu, dengan semangat yang baru.\" Show that sense of unity, show that sense of purpose in support of a strengthening democracy here in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I would like to thank the hon Member Dr Puthucheary for what was genuinely a very eloquent and very interesting speech. I would like to engage with some of his ideas.
Firstly, and most importantly, we have argued that subjecting the office of the Presidency to an election runs the risk that that election will inevitably become a proxy GE, will become politicised. As a result of that process, the Elected President that emerges from there with a mandate that is less than 50% will be seen in a political light and will, therefore, have his or her ability to unify the entire country severely curtailed.
We have suggested returning to an appointed President that can rise above politics and to take the custodial power currently vested in the Elected President and to place it into an elected Senate. That would be the advantage of having a President like President Yusof Ishak who is seen as above politics.
So, my first clarification to the Minister is what would be his strategy for ensuring that the Elected President, if we continue to elect presidents, is seen to be above politics? That is the first clarification.
The second one is that Dr Puthucheary pointed out that we are rushing to a new conclusion about the elected Senate. I would like to clarify that we were actually not arguing that Parliament should vote for an elected Senate during this debate. We are arguing that the country should go through a referendum on this issue. Why does he disagree that the country should go through a referendum on this issue? Mr Edwin Tong said that it is because it is time-consuming, it is resource-intensive, it is energy-sapping. Does he agree with that point of view? That is my second question.
My third question is a very simple one. The Member made a rather extraordinary statement that a President appointed by Parliament is an autocrat and that amounts to an autocracy. Does he believe President Yusof Ishak was an autocrat?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: If I may begin with your last one, I did not imply that our President would be an autocrat. I suggested that the use of an appointed body in the process of the Senatorial Electoral Commission, a non-elected body, to then prevent people arbitrarily from standing for election on a moving target year-on-year ‒ because you have a different pool of candidates ‒ amounted to an autocracy, that you would not then expose the 17th and downstream candidates to the scrutiny of a vote and for the public to make their choice. So, that was your last question.
The first question was about politicisation and the second was the misuse of?
Mr Leon Perera: Can the President be a unifying figure, after being subject to an election that is vulnerable to the tinge of partisanship?
Dr Janil Puthucheary:\tYes. And your second question is about the previous President as well?
Mr Leon Perera:\tThe second question is why you oppose having a referendum.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Yes. On the issue of a unifying figure, the Member is absolutely right that it is not easy to be a national unifying figure. But were not all our past Presidents national unifying figures, including those that had gone through an election? The issue of a unifying figure is not automatic to the process. It is something that you have to discharge in your duties. And that judgement as to whether someone can fulfil the role, is that not something that the public of Singapore are in a position to make a judgement about?
Secondly, if you have a concern about one election being politicised, how is your Senatorial election any less politicised? And in actual fact, because you have to put up a slate of 16 candidates, surely that opens up a can of worms in terms of the opportunity for politicisation amongst those 16 candidates. Any one of the elected candidates, by definition, is going to have lesser of the vote share than any Elected Presidency who ‒ well, depending on how many Elected Presidents are under our current system ‒ but you will have one-eighth, right? Because your vote is divided across eight people. So, the issue now is, in your Option B, whether you see the Senatorial process as equivalent to what we have currently as the Elected Presidential process, and I am putting it to you that those eight people are equivalent to our single President now, for two major reasons.
The custodial powers that are currently vested in our President will be vested in them. Secondly, the criteria for becoming a Senator are as stringent ‒ but I would argue, even more stringent because of the exclusionary process that you have proposed.
Under the system currently we are proposing, there is no maximum limit on the number of people who can stand. But under your system, it is not that you have come down to 0.2%; you have come down to 16 individuals across the whole of Singapore. You cannot have a 17th person standing. So, the proposal you have would be more politicised than our current system. More politicised than our proposal. It will have an increasing dilution of the vote share and it would be increasingly exclusionary because fewer people would potentially be able to stand for elections.
So, I fail to see how you articulated that it is a better proposal than what we have currently or what we are proposing on the grounds of the concerns that you yourself have raised. That is my position. I hope I have explained everything.
On the issue of a referendum, history and the world around us have demonstrated that referendums need to be crystallised into simple issues. Pressing, urgent, simple issues. Is this pressing? Well, it does not need to happen today, it does not need to happen tomorrow. You could not justify that you have a referendum tomorrow, next week or next month. But the reality is that this is a complex issue. In this House, amongst us, we are debating the intricacies of how that Senatorial Electoral process would occur. How do you convey that on the ballot box? How do you convey exactly how you operationalise one complex system versus another complex system? Fundamentally, this is exactly what happened in Brexit where two very complex proposals were reduced to a referendum. And, as has been admitted repeatedly, many people who voted had no idea what they were voting for.
There is another proxy for a referendum. It is called the GE. That had been done before where the PAP Government put up its manifesto proposals for the Elected Presidency as part of the electoral process. If you wanted a referendum by proxy, it would be very simple for the WP to then stand in the next GE and articulate every single point of how they would operationalise a non-Elected Presidency and set up a Senatorial body as part of their electoral manifesto. And that would be a referendum if the WP became the government and the PAP Government did not.
But I return the question to you. If you feel that a referendum is important and people have exercised their choice, then do you not respect the choice that people made in the previous time when they did so, where they chose the PAP Government that stood on a platform of Elected Presidency? That was the choice of the people.
So, I return to the idea. The idea of an Elected Presidency has been settled. What we need to do is to debate and take it forward. Taking it forward is: how do we operationalise the Elected Presidency?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Firstly, on the point of a GE as a substitute for a referendum, I would point out to the hon Member that this issue has never been straightforwardly put as a referendum. There is no simple equation between a GE and a referendum on the issue of the Elected Presidency. There are many other factors that come into consideration in a GE. Voting a particular party in a GE does not equate with consenting to the Elected Presidency. That has never been put to the electorate, that specific issue on whether the Presidency should be appointed or elected.
The hon Member said that we are not pressed on this issue. If we are not pressed on this issue, why are we passing this Bill now? You talked about GEs. This proposal of making these changes to the Elected Presidency was not put to the Singapore electorate in GE2015. They cannot be said to have consented in GE2015 to these proposals.
Because you are suggesting that a GE kind of equates to a referendum but the people did not know about these proposals in GE2015. And you said that it is not pressing, why not wait? If it is not pressing, why not go through a process that has a referendum at the end of it? That will be my first point.
The second point, the more important point, I think, is that I do not believe you have fundamentally addressed the issue of the risk to the Presidency of a polarising direct election. I think many figures in the Government have talked about the risk in the context of the Elected Presidency in 2011, which did become in some ways a proxy GE. It became politicised. Our proposal actually saves the Presidency from the risk of this kind of politicisation.
You mentioned that the previous Elected Presidents were able to unify the country but that does not necessarily prove the case. That may have been the case in the past, perhaps. It may not continue to be the case in the future as Presidential Elections get more and more polarised.
So, our solution is actually so elegant and has such a powerful advantage of preserving the President as a symbol of unity, the unity of the country above politics. It is so advantageous in that sense that none less than the Constitutional Commission actually proposed it in its report. I do not think you have fully addressed that merit of our proposal. In the same vein that you invited us to vote for the Bill, I urge you to consider voting against this Bill just on that ground alone. It is a hugely important point.
The third point I will make is that you mentioned the potential for politicisation of the Senate election. I think this is a red herring. The custodial power, what we are proposing, is moved to a Senate; that is true. So, the risk of politicisation of that Senatorial Election is there, just as the risk of politicisation of the Presidential Election is there. But the benefit is that the Presidency in our proposal, which is appointed, no more suffers from the risk of politicisation. It can become more of a unifying figure.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that the possibility of politicisation of the Senatorial race is not a red herring. Actually, that is the key. There is absolutely no reason not to politicise this. You have every reason to politicise this. If you believe that the Presidential race can be politicised, and now you have the opportunity to insert eight candidates into part of your political system, why is this any different? So, I think to brush aside the concern of possible politicisation of the Senatorial race and yet say it is still valid for the Presidential race, you are not making a logical argument there. If it is possible for the Presidency race to be politicised, it is just as possible, if not more so, for that politicisation to apply to the Senatorial race.
The WP did not put this proposal on their 2015 GE manifesto either. I am not suggesting that it was in 2015 where this was part of the public consciousness. This was settled long before I came on the scene, but the issue before us is not about whether we have the Elected Presidency. It is not of that nature. We have had one referendum: should we merge with Malaysia?
A referendum should be reserved for fundamental issues of sovereignty, of the kind of the nation that we want to be. This is a Bill before the House to strengthen our political, democratic and constitutional processes. It is complex.
You heard the Deputy Prime Minister's speech yesterday. How many Articles and issues and all the various clauses? You hear the confusion in this House today. How is this going to be reduced to a \"yes\", \"no\" referendum? So, the issue of whether referendum exists or do not exist, they exist as part of the system. There is an extraordinarily high bar set for the types of things that you put forward as a referendum to the public. That bar should be high. But it exists and the option is there.
Below that bar, we are elected into this role to serve the public and not return to them the responsibility for making laws for this country, for strengthening our democracy and for strengthening our processes. That is the responsibility that we have been elected into this role for. And so, therefore, a GE becomes a proxy for the voice of Singaporeans.
They have appointed us as lawmakers. Now, we do not take that absolute approach and, in between a proposal or a discussion, we have an extended period of public scrutiny and public session, which is exactly what we have done – nearly a year of public hearings, a Constitutional Commission, debate in print, debate in person, engagements. We have not rushed this.
And I contrast that again with your proposal which you have come here to the House. The details have not been worked out. Fundamental details of whether this will actually in any way address your concerns have not been worked out. What you are asking to do is to immediately go out and put it to a referendum. How can that be seen as responsible politics?
You have not submitted this to the Constitutional Commission where you would have had independent legal experts and all the various minds that applied themselves to this series of problems that you have highlighted to examine your proposals. You have not had your proposals out there in the public for debate by a variety of commentators, from the lay public to renowned experts and academicians.
All of which has happened. We have had an extensive public debate and then we have capped that off with a debate in the House. This is meant to be the final lap of an extensive consultative process, an extensive engagement process and, at the eleventh hour, you throw this in here and you expect that it is done seriously and taken seriously by the Members of this House and the public, which would be fine if you had done the homework.
Frankly speaking, if you understood how the CPA works currently and what the actual proposals that have been in print under the White Paper for a good long period of time and then debated those and what you think those changes are, we can take that forward. But you have not done so. You kept silent; you kept quiet; you kept your cards in reserve. You play politics with this issue which I do not blame you for. You are politicians; we are politicians. But that is not how we take an issue like this forward. I hope I have answered your questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I think the Member talks about the Constitutional Commission. Why did we not present this view to the Constitutional Commission? Why are we presenting it now? Precisely because we read the Constitutional Commission report and we took that seriously and we allowed that to change our mind and evolve our thinking. We took that report seriously. We did not defend our past position and dig in our heels for the sake of defending. We did not defend for the sake of defending, for the sake of losing face. No, we allowed the Constitutional Commission report. We took that seriously and that led to an evolution of our position.
The Member talks of a rush to a referendum. The kind of scrutiny of the WP's proposal by experts, laypeople, by the general public. That is precisely what will take place in the run-up to a referendum campaign and during a referendum campaign. As I said, again, we are not asking the House to vote on our proposal now. We want a more thorough and more inclusive process, leading up to an actual referendum on this particular issue which has never happened. Elected versus appointed President. It has never happened.
Two last points. The point being made about the issue having been settled. This is your argument – that we should accept the Elected Presidency as a fait accompli, as a reality of Singapore's political landscape. It is a done deal. That is not an argument. That is closing down an argument. That is not an argument. That is my third point.
And the last point, and really the most important one, I have to come back to these false equations between the politicisation of a Senatorial election and the politicisation of a Presidential Election. You are saying our Senate proposal is just as bad because the senatorial election could be politicised, just like the Presidential Election. But you have not addressed the elephant in the room, which is that our proposal saves the Presidency from politicisation. It allows the Presidency to rise above politics and be a unifying force, that one symbol that is non-political, unlike Dr Janil Puthucheary, unlike myself, that one symbol that is not political. That is a huge merit of this proposal. It is so huge that the Constitutional Commission argued for the same thing.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tDr Janil, very briefly. I think both sides are keeping their positions very tightly.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rise above my human nature. The issue of saving the Presidency is a false argument because the Presidency that you are proposing is a fundamentally different Presidency from what we have today and what we are proposing in the future. It retains only its symbolic nature. So, you are saving the Presidency by removing the opportunity for an electoral mandate because he or she will no longer have a custodial role. So, substantively, where the electoral process is concerned, it is mapped to the custodial role. Substantively, this role now is played by the Senators. So, the possibility for the Senatorial role to be politicised, given that is where the electoral process will now sit, stands. That has not changed.
The issue of the consultative process and rushing to referendum. To have a referendum, you would need to debate in the House a Motion and a whole bunch of Government processes. To go forward, you have to have that agreement, it is not just something that you put out.
But if I could take the process a little bit further, if I could address the issue of why we did not ask the Constitutional Commission, again it is a false argument. The problem was set before the Constitutional Commission as laid out by the Prime Minister in his original speech and in his direction to the Commission. It is the Government that constituted the Constitutional Commission and said, \"How do we address these series of issues?\" It is not that we have bypassed them or ignored them. They took in information from a wide variety of sources, a wide variety of people, a wide variety of ideas. They synthesised down a series of possible recommendations.
They are not the final arbiter on which of those recommendations should go forward. This House is the final arbiter of which of those recommendations should go forward and it is the Government's duty to take those recommendations and put them together in a Motion that should stand before the House. We have followed that process through over the course of this year. There is no abrogation of responsibility, there is no short-cut, nothing has been hidden. And, in contrast, that is what I am saying the WP has been doing.
I think we have batted the points back and forth. I am not sure we will come to a complete meeting of minds but I hope my position is clear. If I can understand your position, you are supporting very much a symbolic Presidency with a devolution of all the custodial powers and, hence, the electoral process to a Senate, the eligibility criteria of which would be an approximate to the eligibility criteria of our current President and there will be an exclusionary process at 16, where you feel that somehow this is better than our current system. I, fundamentally, disagree and that is the separation between us.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tThank you, Dr Janil. I think the Hansard will show that both Members have stated their positions very clearly and forcefully. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, please. It is your turn to speak.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government calls the constant reworking of the Elected Presidency as part of the evolution of the institution. But let us call a spade a spade. The institution is being re-engineered because the Government experienced a discomforting close shave with the Elected Presidency almost becoming a second centre of power in the country.
The WP does not desire a second centre of power either. We believe in the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. The ruling party should just admit that it has gotten the Elected Presidency experiment wrong. It is time to cut losses and restore the Presidency to focus on its critical symbolic function of unifying the country as the Head of State. At this rate of re-engineering, we are creating a political Gordian Knot for future generations.
This latest round of re-engineering will deepen the existing problems with the Elected Presidency, tying more knots around the Gordian Knot. One of these secondary knots is the CPA. The proposed changes see the strengthening of the CPA. The CPA will be expanded to eight members and the Elected President is now obliged to consult the CPA on all monetary matters related to the Reserves and all key Public Service appointments.
The Prime Minister, borrowing from his predecessor, likened the Elected President and the CPA to a goalkeeper with his team of defenders. But this is a bad analogy. With the expanded powers, and the system of strong and weak vetoes by the Elected President depending on how the CPA votes, the CPA has become the key decision-maker. If there is a disagreement between the elected party in Government and the Elected President, the CPA decides which side will win the argument. In effect, the CPA is the referee. But even this analogy is wrong.
Let us put it another way. It has been said that what have been instituted here is a two-key system to protect the Reserves. But with this expanding role of the CPA, our system is becoming a two-of-three-keys system. In order to open the locked box of Reserves, the Government would need either the Elected President's agreement, or failing which, the CPA's agreement. The CPA has effectively become a third key.
On face value, a two-of-three-keys system may not seem like a bad thing. After all, is this not a common practice for signature requirements for corporate account withdrawals? However, we object to the CPA holding such powers for four reasons. And these four reasons are also contradictions of principles that the Government espouses.
First, the Government believes that the people should elect the President, so that he would have the moral authority to veto the Government. In principle, this puts the President on par with the Government, as both are popularly elected, thus giving the President the political mandate to check the Government. But members of the CPA are not elected. Given that the CPA is effectively a third key with powers to uphold the Presidential veto or to check the President by paving the way for Parliamentary override, what is the basis of the mandate? What is the basis of their moral authority to check the President? An unelected CPA should not hold so much power to be a check on the elected powers and be unaccountable to the people under a democratic constitution.
Second, one could argue that the authority of the CPA members lies in them being experts with deep experience in the managing of large corporate or Public Service entities. But the same applies to candidates for the Elected Presidency, which is why the candidates have to meet stringent, determinable criteria to be eligible to stand for election. However, similar qualifications are not applied to the appointment of CPA members, save for general precepts such as those requiring a member to be of \"integrity, good character and reputation\", as mentioned in the White Paper.
So, while the eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency will be tightened significantly so as to narrow the field of candidates down to a select super elite few in society, nothing is being done to ensure that the CPA members will have the right expertise and experience to exercise their powerful vote to swing crucial decisions of state. The question remains, if the Elected President, having passed the stringent eligibility criteria, so vetoes the Government on the basis of his expert opinion, then on what basis should the CPA concur with the veto to check the Government or disagree with the veto to allow Parliament to negate it?
Third, as the expanded CPA's opinions now carry more weight, including dissenting views that will be disclosed to the Prime Minister and Parliament, one would reasonably expect the Council to become deliberative and also more deliberate in its adjudication of opposing views. In this sense, the CPA ceases to be a collection of advisers. It will become more properly a debating chamber, like this House, where the opinions matter for the progress of the state and are recorded for posterity. The expanded CPA with more powers will start to look and act very much like an Upper Chamber of Parliament in its function as the third key as well as in its deliberative and disclosure procedures.
Fourth, the Government rejects the Constitutional Commission's recommendation for a more calibrated approach for Parliament to override the veto, taking into consideration the extent of the CPA's support of the veto, stating it wants to avoid politicising the CPA. But the CPA is already political in nature. What exactly does the Government mean by \"politicisation\"?
The Government claims that the Commission's finely calibrated approach would emphasise how individual members have voted and undermine the CPA's ability to make collective judgements. The Government cites the example of the Cabinet, in which the deliberation and debate of opposing views give way to the collective responsibility for the final decisions.
This analogy is telling. On the one hand, it is wrong, since a Council of Advisors must be able to provide majority and minority opinions to the President to properly advise him. They cannot simply provide a summary of total votes and the majority opinion. Since the President, and for that matter, surely the Prime Minister and Parliament too, would like to know why some CPA members voted differently. Thus, the Government is right to accept the recommendation for the disclosure of the grounds for the CPA's advice, including dissenting views.
On the other hand, the analogy is correct in that the CPA, like the Cabinet, appears to have become another potential centre of power, a third key, with the weight of its collective judgement strengthened with the addition of two more members and scope expanded to all monetary matters concerning the Reserves and all key appointments. The CPA is already politicised, knowing that its decision would swing the veto, knowing that the collective judgement of six and now eight wise men in CPA would carry much weight in the court of public opinion, knowing that any dissenting views disclosed and published would affect political debate, calculating that any check on the President's veto would require a two-third majority to override.
I do not see how the CPA's work can avoid politics altogether. The work is inherently political. This is not to mention that the right of appointments to the CPA are split amongst the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, with the appointees inevitably bringing the representation of the interests and views of the branch of Government that appointed them into their CPA work.
So, let us call a spade a spade. The CPA is a misnomer. It is neither a council, presidential, nor advisory. It is an unelected third key that risks being populated by unqualified members making political decisions affecting the state and country. So, why not just cut the pretense and the Gordian Knot as well?
Ironically, this attempt by the Government to strengthen the CPA to check on the President provides the answer to all our problems. Since the CPA has become a third key making political decisions, why not make it accountable to the people and give the CPA its proper political mandate by holding list elections for the CPA members – become a Senate? Eligibility conditions similar to those set for the Elected Presidency could be set and we should trust the people to select the most qualified people for the offices.
Then, use this to cut the Gordian Knot. Return the Presidency to being the dignified ceremonial Head of State again, to be indirectly elected by Parliament. The elected CPA, let us call it the Senate, will then hold the second key in a direct relationship to Parliament in a truly two-key system of deliberation, veto and override that is transparent and accountable. The President will focus on the critical symbolic function of unifying the nation, \"everyone is part of my parish\", as the late President SR Nathan famously said, and representing the nation to the world, as the late President Nathan did terribly well. It is important to note that, even as an Elected President, the late President Nathan performed this dual symbolic role to its maximum effect because he was not burdened by the contest of political election and its aftermath in public memory, especially since people read too much into voting percentages these days.
The President should never have to consider the need to butt head against the elected Government and Parliament, or an unelected council of political appointees, which would create ripples of political division that will undermine constructive politics. The President should never have to choose between unity and division. Free the President to focus on national unity and to represent the nation in our entirety. In the mistake that is the strengthened CPA, we have stumbled on the opportunity. Turn it into the elected Senate. Cut the Gordian Knot, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move \"That the debate be now adjourned\".
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That the debate be now adjourned. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tResumption of the debate, what day?
Mr Chan Chun Sing:\tTomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tSo be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow at 12.00 pm.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t8.08 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consumers Pursuing Complaints against Merchants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) for a complainant who wishes to pursue a complaint against a merchant, what kind of assistance from any consumer protection organisation is available and at what cost; and (b) has any complainant been refused assistance by such organisation and, if so, what is the breakdown of these reasons for the past five years.
Mr S Iswaran: The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) is the first point of contact for consumers who have disputes with retailers. CASE advises consumers on their rights and the possible courses of action that they may choose to take. The consumer can pursue the issue on his own or enlist CASE's assistance. Consumers who want CASE to assist them can choose from a range of measures, such as negotiation and mediation. CASE has a set of fees for its services, which is tiered depending on the extent of services provided and the value of the claims. The list of fees is published online on CASE's website.
Over the past five years, CASE has helped to clarify an average of about 15,500 consumer enquiries per year. In addition, CASE has assisted or counselled an average of about 8,600 consumer cases per year. Of these cases, about 20% obtain letters from CASE which set out the consumer's rights, the case-specific concerns and resolution sought. The consumers use the letters to engage the retailers. Consumers pay CASE an administrative fee of $10.70 for this letter.
Consumers may also choose to have CASE negotiate with the retailer on their behalf. As CASE is constituted as an association, it is only able to represent its members when dealing with the retailer. Consumers who become individual CASE members pay an annual membership fee of $26.75. Depending on the value of the claim, the consumer also pays an administrative fee which is tiered based on the value of the claim – ranging from $10.70 for claims of less than $5,000 to $53.50 for claims of up to $20,000; with an additional $53.50 for every $10,000 or part thereof above $20,000.
CASE has not rejected any requests from consumers for assistance, except where the requests are beyond the ambit of consumer protection laws. These include business-to-business disputes, application for accident claims and investment contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issuance of Newspaper Street Vendor Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many newspaper street vendors have been issued with licences in the past three years; (b) how does one qualify for the licence; and (c) whether there is a quota on the number of licences issued for any one location.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Street hawking was rife in the early days of Singapore's development. The proliferation of street hawkers, however, posed a risk to public health as the street hawkers lacked proper equipment and amenities, such as clean tap water. The lack of a proper waste management system also resulted in waste being thrown indiscriminately which, in turn, led to environmental pollution and the proliferation of vectors.
To address these problems, most of the street hawkers were relocated into purpose-built hawker centres which were provided with essential amenities, such as piped water supply, proper sewage connections and bulk bin centres for the disposal of waste. Some hawkers were, however, allowed to continue operating in the streets as their trades were not compatible with those in hawker centres but their activities were strictly enforced to ensure that their stall sites and their surroundings were kept clean at all times.
In 1994, street hawkers were licensed in a one-time exercise to control their numbers and no more licences were issued after that. The intention was to phase out these street hawkers through natural attrition and allow such trades to move into proper premises. However, in the early 2000s, the street hawking scheme was reopened as a means to temporarily help those who are needy and less employable tide over their financial difficulties. Today, licensed street hawkers sell items, such as newspapers, ice-cream, canned drinks, costume jewellery and phone cards. Out of the 179 licensed street hawkers who sell newspapers, five of them were issued their licences in the last three years.
There are several criteria that applicants must comply with to obtain a street hawking licence. For example, applicants must be at least 45 years of age and be physically fit to conduct their business. Notwithstanding this, the National Environment Agency will look at each application on a case-by-case basis. While there is no quota on the number of licences for any one location, licences can only be granted with the support of the relevant land agency or Town Council, which designates locations for street hawking activities so as to minimise disamenities to residents and unfair competition to businesses and other stakeholders in the vicinity.
Ultimately, street hawking is not a permanent solution for anyone trying to make a living. Those experiencing financial hardship can be better assisted through the various help and job placement schemes available. There are also various Government-funded training programmes for those who wish to pick up new skills and seek more stable forms of employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Misconduct against LTA Enforcement Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) since the deployment of LTA enforcement officers, how many complaints have been received and what action have been taken against these officers for misconduct; (b) what is the procedure to lodge a complaint against these officers; (c) what is the training given to these officers; and (d) whether the Ministry considers the temperament of the candidates before appointing them as enforcement officers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has received 499 complaints against its enforcement officers this year, of which 74 were found to be valid. These 74 complaints were against outsourced enforcement officers. LTA investigates these complaints and takes appropriate action against officers found guilty of misconduct, which can range from counselling to dismissal.
Members of the public who wish to lodge a complaint against LTA's enforcement officers can do so via email, text message or an online feedback form. The information can be found on LTA's website.
LTA's enforcement officers are, indeed, assessed for suitability for the job, including temperament. They undergo training that includes code of conduct, rules of engagement, and how to handle members of the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into \"Penny Stock\" Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister in light of the securities fraud investigations relating to the \"penny stock\" case which have been ongoing for several years (a) how robust are Singapore's safeguards against such cases of fraud; and (b) how does the Commercial Affairs Department compare to equivalent bodies in other developed countries in terms of the level of staffing and resources devoted to detecting and investigating securities fraud.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singapore has robust safeguards against attempts to manipulate or rig our capital markets. There are strict rules in place and our regulatory regime against market misconduct is comparable to those in other developed markets. But it is not possible to have safeguards that can prevent all misconduct, which is why we have an effective enforcement regime to ensure that any market misconduct is swiftly detected, thoroughly investigated and firmly dealt with. In the most recent Financial Sector Assessment Report on Singapore, the International Monetary Fund rated our regime very favourably.
The Singapore Exchange (SGX), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) work closely together in investigating suspected fraud in our capital markets and taking enforcement actions. SGX is the frontline supervisor. It monitors trading activities and conducts preliminary assessments of possible market misconduct, using electronic surveillance systems. SGX recently enhanced its \"Trade With Caution\" alerts by providing investors more detailed information on unusual trading activities. Such alerts serve to disrupt at an early stage any efforts at market manipulation by those who may be responsible for the unusual trading activities.
Besides referrals from SGX, MAS and CAD also receive market intelligence on suspected misconduct from interactions with financial institutions and market participants, suspicious transaction reports lodged with CAD, and public feedback.
MAS and CAD conduct joint investigations on securities market misconduct, such as insider trading and market manipulation. This close interagency cooperation leverages MAS' expertise in financial markets and CAD’s experience in investigating financial crime. MAS and CAD are continually enhancing their enforcement capabilities to detect and investigate market abuse and misconduct, including the use of data analytics and digital forensics.
MAS and CAD have also taken tough enforcement actions to deter securities fraud. Between 2011 and 2015, MAS took 21 civil penalty actions against market misconduct offences under the Securities and Futures Act. Over the same period, CAD prosecuted a total of 34 persons for false trading and other serious market misconduct.
Given the complexity of most instances of securities market fraud, investigations take time. The amount of evidence that needs to be gathered and analysed, such as bank accounts and transactions, is typically large. If suspects and witnesses are not available or uncooperative, it adds to the length of investigations. These are challenges that cannot be directly addressed by merely increasing resources.
The resources that Singapore has devoted to investigating market misconduct offences are commensurate with the market capitalisation and number of listed companies in our securities market, and comparable with other developed markets, such as Hong Kong and Australia. More important than the numbers are the quality and type of resources we have to detect and investigate capital market crimes. The approach taken by CAD and MAS is to focus on having dedicated units equipped with specialised skillsets that look into securities fraud-related crimes and to continually deepen expertise and capabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teachers who Offer Tuition Services Outside School Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education (Schools) how many teachers in primary and secondary schools currently give tuition after their working hours.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The Ministry of Education (MOE) currently does not track the number of teachers who give tuition.
Teachers are allowed to provide private tuition outside school hours as long as it does not exceed six hours a week and does not adversely affect their work in school. They are not required to seek permission to do so.
MOE has an interest in ensuring that such activities do not adversely affect teachers' ability to discharge their duties. The Ministry is planning to collect information on such activities on a regular basis and is considering different options for doing so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Granting Foreign Entity Permit to Engage in Activities Relating to Speakers' Corner Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what criteria will be used to determine whether a foreign entity gets a permit to engage in activities relating to a Speakers' Corner event.
Mr K Shanmugam: On 21 October 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced changes to the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2016 to reinforce the principle that the Speakers' Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans. These changes came into effect on 1 November 2016.
The changes include allowing Singapore entities to organise or assist to organise events at the Speakers' Corner without the need for a permit, subject to the conditions in the Order. This is an extension of the existing exemption for Singapore Citizens to organise events without the need for a permit.
Non-Singapore entities were not previously exempted and continue not to be exempted. As such, a permit will be required if a non-Singapore entity organises or assists to organise an event at the Speakers' Corner. This includes sponsoring, publicly promoting the event, or organising its members or employees to participate in the event.
Police will assess such applications on a case-by-case basis. Some factors that the Police will consider include (a) whether the event poses law and order concerns; and (b) whether the event addresses issues pertaining to race and religion.
In addition to the above considerations, a permit will not be granted to foreigners, including non-Singapore entities, if the event relates to political or controversial social issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Welfare of Animals Bred in Local Pet Farms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for National Development what checks and enforcement measurements are in place to ensure the welfare of animals being bred in our local pet farms and whether AVA has sufficient certified personnel to conduct these inspections.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There are legislative provisions to safeguard animal welfare under the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore's (AVA's) Animals and Birds Act (ABA). Under the Act, all owners owe a duty of care to the animals under their charge.
For pet farms, AVA imposes additional licensing conditions to safeguard the welfare of animals that are bred and sold. Licensees have to fulfil stringent requirements on healthcare and the living environment of their animals.
In August 2016, AVA issued a Code of Animal Welfare for the pet industry. It applies to all pet farms and shops, as well as pet businesses not licensed by AVA like pet groomers. This Code stipulates minimum requirements for kennel spaces, housekeeping, diet and feeding and so on. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement action by AVA.
AVA has enough trained officers to conduct regular spot checks on pet farms. However, as animal welfare is a shared responsibility, we also encourage the public to be vigilant and to report errant pet farms to AVA. Enforcement aside, AVA will also continue to work with the pet industry to raise animal welfare standards through partnership and education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discontinuation of Hardship Scheme for Hawkers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the reasons for the discontinuation since 1989 of subsidised stalls under the Government's hardship scheme in markets/hawker centres managed by NEA; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reinstating this scheme.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the old Hardship Scheme, vacant hawker stalls were offered to those experiencing financial hardship at subsidised rent. However, the take-up rate was low as most hardship cases preferred to hold out for a vacant stall only in the more popular centres. Due to its limited effectiveness, this scheme was discontinued in 1990. Today, anyone can bid for vacant hawker stalls which the National Environment Agency puts up for tender every month.
There are no plans to reinstate the scheme. To be successful and sustain a hawker stall, a hawker requires entrepreneurship and passion, no different from any business. It would, therefore, make more sense to let those who are genuinely interested in the hawker trade to bid for stalls, as they will have built in both the risks and the gains. It is not tenable to ring-fence a certain number of stalls for those in financial difficulty and believe they will automatically succeed. Those who face financial hardship can seek assistance through the various Government help schemes available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scaling Water Conservation Tax to Allow for Minimum Hygiene Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider scaling the application of the water conservation tax (WCT) for households such that there is no WCT imposed on a quantity of household water consumption deemed necessary for minimum hygiene standards.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The total water price comprises the water tariff, used water charges and the Water Conservation Tax (WCT). Currently, both the water tariff and the WCT are tiered. While households that consume less than 40 cubic metres (m3) of water pay a water tariff of $1.17/m3, and a WCT at 30% of the water tariff, households that consume more than 40m3 of water per month pay a higher tariff and a higher WCT, at 45% of tariff. The differentiated tariff and WCT serve to discourage excessive water consumption. Mr Perera’s suggestion would mean further differentiating WCT such that consumption within a certain volume below the first consumption tier will not attract the WCT.
We have imposed WCT on overall water consumed because of the principle that water conservation should apply to all households from the first drop. Whether water is used for basic or discretionary purposes, there is a need to ensure prudence and avoid wastage. Hence, the WCT is levied as a percentage of water tariff to reinforce the message that water is precious from the very first drop.
This is consistent with our water pricing principle and approach, which is to price water to reflect its Long Run Marginal Cost. The WCT, together with the water tariff and used water charges, seek to price water such that it reflects the cost of producing the next drop of potable water, which is likely to be more from desalination and NEWater. This ensures that water demand, for whatever purposes, takes into account the scarcity value of water.
Nonetheless, we appreciate Mr Perera's intent in ensuring that water remains affordable for household needs. For this, the Government provides appropriate cash grants to all Housing and Development Board households through the Utilities-Save scheme to help defray their utilities expenses.
This approach allows the Government to right-price water to encourage prudent use of water, while at the same time ensure affordability of utilities to lower income households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training and Help for Teachers to Cope with Stress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what services or mechanisms are available to teachers to resolve disputes between parents and teachers; (b) how does the Ministry address work-related stress faced by teachers; and (c) what services are available to teachers who cater to their psychological well-being.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Our schools seek to establish positive and mutually respectful partnerships with parents. In doing so, they are supported with resources, such as a Parent Engagement Guide, and teachers are also given training in parent engagement skills. In cases where teachers need help in engaging parents, they can seek advice and guidance from their school leaders. When needed, school leaders will engage the parents directly.
With regard to work-related stress, measures have been put in place to support and guide schools in teacher work allocation. We also regularly review resources provided to schools, including manpower support, to ensure that schools are able to implement their programmes well while keeping the work assigned to teachers manageable. In addition, teachers are provided with protected vacation time to enable them to rest and recharge.
Our teachers are strongly encouraged to share and discuss their concerns about workload with their supervisors and school leaders. Should they need emotional and psychological support, there are dedicated professional counsellors within the Ministry of Education who provide counselling support to individual teachers. These professional counsellors also conduct workshops for teachers in areas, such as managing difficult conversations and work with the teachers on stress management.
The well-being of our teachers is important and we will continue to support them in managing their work and workload.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Concrete Slabs Covering Water Tanks at Roof-tops of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can explore building concrete slabs over water tanks and pipes at the roof top of old HDB flats or other effective methods to cover the tanks and pipes to prevent them from being exposed under strong sunlight as a result of which water flowing out from the taps in the flats will not be overly hot for use.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In older Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, the water tanks are housed in the roof top water tank rooms, which are not exposed to direct sunlight. Hence, water tanks might not be the cause of the feedback on hot water flowing out of the taps of some flats during hot weather. The likely cause is exposure of the main water distribution pipes to the sun's heat, especially for pipes running over a long distance due to the block’s configuration of a long span.
It is thus doubtful that the suggestion to build concrete slabs as shelter for the tanks and pipes will address the problem. In addition, the building structure and rooftop of HDB blocks may not be designed to take such additional load. There are other feasible ways to mitigate the extent of water pipes being heated up. Town Councils could install rigid PVC pipes as a cover over the water pipes to provide some insulation. For shorter water pipes, reflective paints could also be used to reflect solar radiation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Housing and Flat Rental Assistance for Single Unwed Moms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how does the Ministry work with HDB to solve housing issues of single unwed mothers who are too well-off to qualify for a rental flat but too poor to buy a flat; (b) why does the Ministry believe that home ownership and not rental access is the better long-term solution to help families escape poverty; and (c) how does the Ministry help single mothers balance the financial trade-offs between working for more income versus having their rental go up once their income goes up.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Single unwed parents with housing difficulties can approach the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for assistance and advice on their housing options. Where necessary, HDB would refer the parents to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and social service agencies for counselling and support. MSF works closely with HDB and social service agencies to help address their family and relationship issues and to provide financial and employment assistance. Each family will be assisted based on their individual circumstances, and the agencies will work with them to achieve housing stability.
We believe that home ownership is a better long-term solution for families than rental because it provides a greater sense of stability and gives families an asset, allowing them to share in Singapore's progress. Monthly instalments for sold flats can also be paid using Central Provident Fund monies, unlike rental housing which must be paid in cash. This will save some cash for families and help them with their immediate cash positions.
HDB also recognises the needs of low-income households who cannot afford to own a flat immediately and have no family support, and provides public rental flats as temporary housing for them. Public rental tenants with higher incomes pay higher rent than those with lower incomes. This ensures that subsidies are progressive and targeted at those who need more help. However, HDB also exercises flexibility. For instance, for tenants whose monthly income has just improved from the lowest income tier to the next, HDB could waive their rent increase at tenancy renewal so that they can continue to pay the lower rent for another two years. After two years, if their income increase is still low relative to the rent increase, HDB will continue to waive the rent increase for another two years.
With these waivers, tenants effectively have up to four years to improve their incomes to be better off than before, even after taking into account any rental increases. We thus encourage tenants to focus on improving their incomes. This is a surer and better way to increase disposable incomes and to eventually go beyond public rental to homeownership.
Families who face difficulties can continue to approach their nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Transboundary Haze Pollution Act on Air Quality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) to what extent the improvement in air quality this year can be attributed to the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act; and (b) how can it be ensured that the problem does not resurface in future years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There have been more occurrences of rain in the region, in particular, over Sumatra and Kalimantan, during the traditional dry season from June to October this year as compared to the same period in 2015. The wetter weather has helped to alleviate the hotspots and smoke haze situation in the region. We also appreciate the Indonesians' efforts to prevent and mitigate the forest fires on the ground. Air quality in 2016 has, therefore, been better than that in 2015. In 2016, we have so far only recorded four \"Unhealthy\" days. In comparison, there were 40 \"Unhealthy\" days, five \"Very Unhealthy\" days and one \"Hazardous\" day in 2015.
Nevertheless, we need to be mindful that transboundary haze has been a persistent problem in our region, and we cannot prematurely conclude that it is behind us because of one good year. The international community has become increasingly aware that eradicating haze in our region is crucial to the global fight against climate change. The 2015 haze episode in our region was found to occur mostly on degraded peatlands, which are major carbon sinks. According to a recent scientific study conducted by scientists from the Netherlands, Britain and Indonesia, the 2015 fires in Indonesia had generated 850 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. This is more than half of the 1.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide that was saved from the increased use of renewable energy by the whole world in 2015.
Fundamentally, the main cause of transboundary haze in our region remains commercially driven. This means that there must be continual efforts to get companies in the pulp and paper and the palm oil industries to adopt environmentally sustainable practices that do not contribute to smoke haze.
One key measure is the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA) which seeks to hold haze-causing companies accountable and deter entities from engaging in activities that would contribute to haze in Singapore. The National Environment Agency has sent a number of Notices under the THPA and investigations are still on-going. We will take the necessary steps to enforce the THPA, while bearing in mind that we also have to operate within the ambit of international law. We will hold any Singapore-linked persons or entities to account. At the same time, even if the errant company's officers are foreigners, they will have to comply with the laws of the country, including the Notices under the THPA, should they come to Singapore. As the THPA has only been in force for a short time, we cannot draw any conclusions on its effectiveness, as this will only be apparent over the longer term.
Apart from regulatory deterrence, it is also important for consumers at various levels of the supply chain, in Singapore and our region, to send a strong signal against practices that contribute to the haze. Recently, NTUC FairPrice shared that their FairPrice house brand edible oils that contain palm oil are from sources certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). This is indeed commendable. In addition, ground-up initiatives by non-governmental organisations can also complement this. For example, the formation of the Singapore Alliance on Sustainable Palm Oil in June this year has helped to raise public awareness on the use of Certified Sustainable Palm Oil.
This builds upon what has been happening globally. In April 2016, consumer groups including Nestle, Unilever, Mars and Kellogg, suspended business with Industrial Oxygen Incorporated (IOI) Group after a decision by the RSPO to suspend certification for the company's palm oil. This suspension was due to IOI’s failure to prevent its subsidiaries' involvement in deforestation in Indonesia in 2015. Even with the RSPO restoring IOI's certification in August 2016, consumer groups, such as Unilever, had indicated that they do not intend to resume business with IOI Group until they see tangible progress in IOI's declared remedial action plan.
Lastly, regional cooperation is also essential in our fight against transboundary haze. We continue to support initiatives that can help prevent future occurrences of the haze at regional fora, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For example, Singapore hosts the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre, which provides daily hotspot information and other monitoring and assessment functions for the region. We also contribute to the capacity building efforts in the region through workshops under the Regional Haze Training Network for ASEAN Member States (AMS). In addition, Singapore has been actively participating in the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution to ensure that regional countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Thailand, undertake collective action to tackle the haze problem. We had also developed an ASEAN Sub-regional Haze Monitoring System (AHMS) to improve transparency and accountability on companies and to promote sustainable land clearing practices by the landowners and have been working with MSC countries to operationalise the AHMS.
In August this year, the Roadmap on ASEAN Cooperation towards Transboundary Haze Pollution Control with Means of Implementation was formally adopted by AMS at the 12th Conference of Parties to the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in Kuala Lumpur. It serves as a strategic framework to implement collaborative actions to achieve a vision of \"Transbounday Haze-Free ASEAN by 2020\".
We must press on with our efforts, not just during the haze season, but consistently throughout the year because haze is a serious environmental disaster with wide-ranging impact for us now, and into the future. Irresponsible burning over the years has affected the health of millions of people, impacted regional economies, and caused irreversible loss of biodiversity. We cannot rest on our past efforts and must continue to urge all relevant parties to work together towards realising a haze-free ASEAN by 2020 if not earlier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Carpark Provisions with Redevelopment of Golden Shoe Complex","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the impact on carpark provisions in the CBD when Golden Shoe Car Park is developed into an office building; and (b) whether the Ministry is revising the car park provision guidelines of shopping centres and office buildings inside and outside the CBD.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are adequate parking lots in the vicinity of Golden Shoe Car Park, even if it is redeveloped into an office building. There are also many public transport options, with two Mass Rapid Transit stations on three different lines and 50 bus services serving the area.
The Land Transport Authority will revise its requirements for the provision of car parks from time to time, in tandem with the expansion of our public transport network and in line with our car-lite strategy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Smokers and Patients with Smoking-related Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the number of patients with diseases caused by smoking has fallen in the last three years; (b) whether the number of smokers, especially those aged 30 and below, has decreased; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reducing hospital subsidies for active smokers as a deterrent measure.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on the two most recent national health surveys conducted in 2010 and 2013, smoking prevalence among those aged 18 to 69 declined slightly from 14.3% to 13.3%. Amongst those aged 30 and below, smoking prevalence decreased more significantly from 16.8% to 13.4%.
The age-standardised hospitalisation rates of Singapore residents for smoking-related diseases fell slightly over the last three years, from 15.8 per 1,000 residents in 2013 to 15.4 per 1,000 residents in 2014 and 15.0 per 1,000 residents in 2015.
Reducing hospital subsidies for smokers as a deterrent measure could result in unintended consequences, for example, patients may delay seeking treatment, which can increase the risk of complications and further affect their health.
We want to focus on helping smokers to quit smoking. The Ministry of Health has developed a comprehensive tobacco control plan with both legislative and non-legislative measures to encourage smokers to quit and discourage non-smokers, especially youths, from picking up smoking.
The Health Promotion Board has more than 200 smoking cessation touchpoints, including healthcare institutions and retail pharmacies in the community. Smokers who want to quit smoking can also seek help through the toll-free QuitLine and available online resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Renunciation of Singapore Citizenship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) from 2005 to 2015, how many Singaporeans renounced their citizenship each year; (b) what is the breakdown of the top five reasons for citizens wanting to emigrate each year as revealed through the mandatory questionnaire; (c) what is the breakdown of the top three reasons for the renunciation of Singapore Citizenship each year, as revealed through the mandatory questionnaire; (d) whether the Government has done a thorough study to understand the reasons for renunciation of citizenship; and (e) what is being done to prevent such numbers from increasing.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): An average of 1,200 Singaporeans renounced their Singapore Citizenship (SC) each year from 2005 to 2015. The annual SC renunciation rate remains low at under 0.1%.
Singaporeans renouncing their citizenship will be asked to indicate their reasons in a non-mandatory questionnaire. The most frequent reasons given include (a) family-related reasons, such as marriage to a foreigner or to join their family members overseas, (b) preference for a different lifestyle or environment, or (c) career or business-related reasons.
Our focus is to ensure that Singapore continues to be the best home for all Singaporeans. We will continue to develop an attractive living environment and a thriving economy which creates good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. We also want to strengthen Singaporeans' bonds with one another and build a strong sense of identity and belonging to the nation.
We actively engage our Singaporeans who are studying or working overseas. Through efforts such as the Overseas Singaporeans Unit's programmes and initiatives, Singapore Day in selected cities overseas being one example, we seek to ensure that our overseas Singaporeans maintain a strong identity and remain connected and committed to Singapore's future even while they are overseas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cyclists of Electric/Motorised Bicycles or Vehicles' Liability for Victim's Medical Fees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider amending the law to make it mandatory for cyclists of electric/motorised bicycles or vehicles who are found guilty in accidents with pedestrians to pay compensation for the victim's medical fees.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The law already provides for those injured by bicycles, power-assisted bicycles or vehicles to seek compensation through private settlement or civil Court action. For cases where the offender is prosecuted and convicted in a criminal Court, the Courts will consider if compensation to the victim should be paid, based on the circumstances of each case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Balloting of National Day Parade Tickets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many National Day Parade (NDP) tickets are up for balloting each year; (b) whether the Ministry will consider disallowing those who successfully balloted in one year from balloting the following year; and (c) whether there is any other measure explored so that more Singaporeans can watch NDP live at least once in their lifetime.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The total number of tickets put up each year for balloting by the public to attend the previews and the National Day Parade (NDP) show range from 50,000 to 165,000. The Padang and Marina Bay sites for NDP have lower seating capacity while the new National Stadium has the largest capacity, especially since an additional preview show has been added to increase the pool of balloted tickets. The two National Education Shows also provide opportunities to tens of thousands of school children to watch the NDP live as part of their national education. In addition, a small proportion of tickets are set aside to be given to sponsors, grassroots organisations, and families of participants and Ministries, in recognition of their support and hard work and effort in organising the NDP.
Since 2013, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has already excluded applicants who were successful in the preceding year from the current year's e-balloting. This should improve the chance of success for ballots by those who have never seen the NDP live. MINDEF is gratified with the strong interest shown by Singaporeans to celebrate the NDP shows but the overall success of ballots would still be dependent on the total number of applicants, which can be many times the number of balloted tickets each year. Live telecasts of the NDP will continue to ensure that as many Singaporeans as possible get to watch the NDP show and celebrate National Day together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2892,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":2893,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2060,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf","fileName":"Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2061,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang(1).pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2062,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Mahdev Mohan(1).pdf","fileName":"Mahdev Mohan(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2063,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Ong Ye Kung(1).pdf","fileName":"Ong Ye Kung(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2064,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang(2).pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2065,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Ong Ye Kung(2).pdf","fileName":"Ong Ye Kung(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2066,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang(3).pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2067,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Ong Ye Kung(3).pdf","fileName":"Ong Ye Kung(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2068,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang(4).pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2069,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ong Ye Kung","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Ong Ye Kung(4).pdf","fileName":"Ong Ye Kung(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2070,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Dennis Tan(1).pdf","fileName":"Dennis Tan(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2071,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(1).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2072,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(2).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2073,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2074,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(3).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2075,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(2).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2076,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(4).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(4).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2077,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(3).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2078,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(5).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap(5).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}