1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information (a) what has been the trend in complaints about misleading and derogatory advertisements on the Internet over the past three years; and (b) what action has been taken against such advertisers and media owners.
\tThe Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mdm Speaker, the advertising industry is self-regulated. The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) administers the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP), which helps to ensure that advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful. SCAP has been endorsed by organisations representing the advertisers, advertising agencies and the media, and ASAS reviews it periodically to ensure its consistency with community values and changes in the advertising landscape.
From 2013 to 2015, ASAS received a total of 124 complaints against misleading online advertisements and five complaints against derogatory online advertisements. ASAS investigated these complaints, which included examples, such as unsubstantiated product claims and racially discriminatory advertisements, and took action against breaches of the SCAP, including contacting the company or website responsible to amend or remove the problematic advertisements. In cases of egregious or repeated breaches, ASAS may also impose sanctions, such as requiring local media owners that are members of ASAS to withhold advertising space from errant advertisers.
In response to the growing use of online marketing, ASAS issued the Guidelines for Interactive Marketing Communication and Social Media in August this year to clarify its expectations of how advertisers and the parties they work with should design and manage their digital and social media marketing communications, so as to enable consumers to make informed choices about the products and services advertised online.
The Government supports the advertising industry's efforts to strengthen self-regulation. However, the Government will also not hesitate to act against online advertisements that contain egregious content such as those that threaten racial or religious harmony, public morality or are against national or public interest. Consumers can also play an important role, such as by exercising caution against offers that appear too good to be true.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for answering the question. I have two follow-up questions. One is whether the Ministry is concerned that there is an increasing trend in the number of complaints from 2013 to 2015. I am not sure if I missed that – that the Minister of State had mentioned that there was an increasing trend, or whether there was concern that there is going to be an increasing trend, thereafter, from 2015 onwards.
Secondly, I note the guidelines that the Ministry had highlighted. What are the strategies to ensure a sustained standard of ethical advertising in Singapore, on top of the guidelines for the industry?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, the Member asked about the trend. The total number of complaints in 2013 was 39, followed by 2014 with 37, and 2015 with 48. If we compare 2013 with 2014, the number was slightly down; 2014 to 2015, it was up. The total number was 124. Is there a trend? I think it is a little too early to say. Possibly. It may be so with the increasing amount of activity in the media space. We will watch the space and we will do what is necessary. It is not the total number so much as those that are particularly egregious, particularly demeaning or derogatory, that need to be dealt with in a way that allows people to understand what are the standards expected of the industry.
It is this point that addresses the Member's second question. Some of the complaints are really as a result of mistakes and misunderstandings. The industry needs to then learn and improve. Some are because of issues of racial sensitivities or egregious comments that were made. For that, we do take enforcement actions. So, it is a combination of engagement, education and enforcement. It needs a lot of ongoing work, within the industry and in engagement with the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Legal Case for the Late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Oral History Transcripts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information what is the status and outcome of the legal proceedings filed by the executors of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's estate against the Government in September 2015 on the interpretation of an agreement in 1983 concerning the use of transcripts of interviews conducted by the Government's then Oral History Department.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew filed a Court application to seek the High Court's interpretation of an interview agreement between the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government concerning the custody and use of the transcripts of certain oral history interviews given by the late Mr Lee to the Government.
Madam, the Court released its judgment on 28 September 2016. The facts and the Court's interpretation are all set out there. It can be freely accessed from the Supreme Court website.
The executors have since filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court. Madam, as this matter is now pending before the Court of Appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, just be careful as this matter is before the Court of Appeal.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Yes, Madam, I am aware of that and I do not intend to ask any questions concerning the merits of the case on either side, but just to clarify some chronology of events and some undisputed facts. Madam, I have four supplementary questions in relation to this. Originally, I filed the question with Ministry of Law. So, I can understand if Minister Yaacob may not be comfortable, but I have to ask the question to the Government.
First, Madam, the case was filed in September 2015 and, as at the time I filed my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which was in late September this year, the judgment had not yet been released. So, my question is whether the Minister is able to explain why the case took so long before the judgment came out, bearing in mind that it is an originating summons, which means that there are no witnesses coming to testify, but it is just a document interpretation. Usually, these cases are over in just a few months, at most, six months. So, why did it take so long?
Secondly, in terms of the timing of the release of the judgment, as I had mentioned earlier, coincidentally or otherwise, it was released after I had filed my PQ. When I looked at the judgment originally released, it did contain some typographical errors in names, dates and so on. Does the Government know whether the judgment was rushed out?
The third question is: I understand that there is a pending application now on the evidence before the Court as to how the transcripts were taken from the Lee family house to be in the hands of the Cabinet. I understand that the Judge did not want these details to be recorded because he felt that it would be distracting. I am not asking about the merits of this; I am just asking whether the Judge expunged this evidence at the application of the Government or did the Judge do this on his own accord without the Government making that request?
The last question is: the transcripts, according to what we understand, is supposed to be kept by the Cabinet Secretary. I read from the judgment that the family was asked to look at the transcripts at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Is there a reason for this?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the four supplementary questions. I will be very candid – I cannot go into the judgment, because, as the Member knows, there is an appeal before the Court of law, so we would have to leave it as that.
Why did it take so long? I suppose the Judges have to examine all the evidence. Was it rushed? I do not think so. I think our Judiciary works very carefully to make sure that we come up with the best possible judgment. Whether the Judge did this or not, again, I cannot comment because it is basically the prerogative of the Judiciary to decide on the best course of action. As to why the transcripts were read at MHA and all that, again, as I said earlier, because there is an appeal, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment at this point.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, just to follow up. I understand the Minister cannot comment on the merits and I am not asking about the merits at all. In fact, the first question which I asked I think still merits an answer in the sense that this decision by the Judge to expunge the evidence about how the transcripts travelled from the house to the Cabinet, I am now asking whether the Government, during the case, made the request for the evidence to be suppressed or did the Judge do it on his own volition. I do not think that touches on the merits. I am just asking, procedurally, what happened. Did the Government make that request or did the Judge decide it on his own accord?
The last question about why the transcripts were perused at MHA, I do not think that is a question for the Court to decide at all because it is just a fact that the family was asked to go to MHA to peruse the transcripts. So, I am just asking why was that the case? Is there a reason for it? I am not saying that there is anything wrong; I am just asking for a clarification as to why if the transcripts have to be kept at the Cabinet Secretary, they were made available to the family at MHA. It is just an enquiry.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Again, Madam, I am in no position to comment as to what were the reasons behind the various things that the Member asked. Clearly, I would believe that the Judiciary and the Government have given the best possible evidence in order for them to come to the best decision possible.
As to the process by which the transcripts had been shown to the family, again, I think there must be some reason for doing so. At the end of the day, I think this is something which the Government would try its very best to make sure that we can get the best solution possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Readiness of Singapore Telecommunications Companies to Thwart Cyberattacks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Desmond Choo asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information in light of the recent cyberattacks on one of our telcos (a) how ready are our telcos and essential infrastructure in meeting such cyberattacks; and (b) and how can the Government better support our companies to improve their readiness.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, given Singapore's heavy reliance on digital technologies, cyberattacks can significantly disrupt the smooth running of essential services, such as finance, telecommunications and transportation. The Government takes these cyber threats seriously. We formed the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore (CSA) last year and the Prime Minister launched Singapore's Cybersecurity Strategy last month. The recent attack that affected Internet access for some users is a timely reminder that these threats are real and everyone has a part to play to secure our cyberspace.
Eleven critical sectors that provide essential services have been identified and CSA works closely with Government agencies and operators in these sectors to strengthen the cyber resilience of their Critical Information Infrastructure (CII). For example, through the Readiness Maturity Index (RMI) programme, CSA engages sector leads and operators to review the current level of preparedness, identify areas of improvement and take steps to beef up their defences. CSA also conducts regular exercises to validate and test the readiness of these plans.
CSA works closely with the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA), as the sector lead for the infocomm sector. CSA and IMDA place strong emphasis on the cyber resilience of our telecommunications infrastructure as it is a crucial enabler for other sectors. Besides aligning with national level plans, IMDA requires Internet service providers (ISPs) to comply with the Secure and Resilient Internet Infrastructure Code of Practice as part of their licence conditions. This Code requires ISPs to put in place various controls related to prevention, detection and response to cyber-attacks across telecommunications networks. The ISPs are also required to engage IMDA-approved auditors to audit their compliance with the Code.
To improve responses to cyber threats in the infocomm sector, the then-IDA also formed the Infocommunications Singapore Computer Emergency Response Team (ISG-CERT) last year. Its remit has since been expanded to include the media sector with the formation of IMDA. ISG-CERT shares information through the issuance of actionable intelligence and alerts to the telecommunications and media operators to enhance their readiness. ISG-CERT also coordinates sector-wide responses to cyberattacks.
However, Madam, the cyber threat landscape facing our CIIs is rapidly evolving and attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Despite our best efforts, breaches cannot be eliminated entirely. It is important that we respond swiftly when attacked and bring services back to normalcy as soon as possible. We will also need to continually adapt our plans based on lessons learnt. While investigations are ongoing for the recent attack, IMDA, CSA and ISPs have not stood still. IMDA, through ISG-CERT, has issued advisories to local ISPs on measures to take to mitigate similar attacks, such as beefing up Domain Name Server capacity, and monitoring and placing limits, if needed, on traffic coming from identified network ports.
Beyond the critical sectors, it is also important that companies, including small and medium enterprises, adopt good cyber security practices. Consumers expect that digital processes are secured and their private information is protected when transacting with companies. Businesses should, therefore, view cyber security as investments to improve their competitiveness, rather than just additional cost. To keep informed of latest cybersecurity threats and steps to take to mitigate these risks, companies can refer to regular advisories and alerts that are issued by the Singapore Computer Emergency Response Team (SingCERT).
As shown by the recent incident, consumers also play an important role in building a safer cyberspace. Consumers should adopt good cyber hygiene to minimise the risk of falling prey to cybercriminals or unwittingly allow their Internet-connected devices, such as webcams and routers, to be used to launch cyberattacks against others. Each of us can take responsibility by taking steps, such as changing the default password on home equipment and wireless networks, and regularly applying software updates to our computers and mobile phones. Such measures are published regularly on SingCERT's website.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for his responses. I have two points of clarification. One, I note that we have done quite a fair bit for the essential services. Of course, there is a need to level up the individuals and consumers, including companies' capabilities to deal with the attacks. I would like to check what are the additional measures that the Ministry will put in place to help companies that might not have the requisite resources to level up?
Secondly, would the Ministry also consider SG Secure-like counter-terrorism exercises for the individuals and consumers so that everyone can be better prepared in the event of an attack and take better precautions?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the two questions. On the first question as to whether there are additional measures to help our companies to level up, the answer is yes.
CSA will work with the various chambers and trade associations to help our SMEs to understand what are their states of cyber readiness and what are the solutions available out there. We have recently launched a starter kit for companies to see what are the things they need to put in place, the necessary defences of their IT systems.
On the second question as to whether or not we will conduct exercises with the consumers, currently, what is being done, as the way we have organised the space, is that we have 11 critical sectors. CSA works with the sector leads and the various members of the sectors, be it finance, telecomms, water or energy, to do table-top exercises.
At the same time, what we do is that we send out advisories and we inform through our website, what are the things that not only businesses, but also consumers can do.
I agree with the Member that there is a need for us to step up cyber hygiene, especially for consumers. This is something which has to be ongoing. The kind of exercises that the Member suggested is something we can study. Certainly, I think a public campaign is something that we have launched and we want to continue to reach out to as many consumers as possible to make sure, as I mentioned in my reply, that they ensure that their passwords are changed regularly and they adopt good cyber hygiene.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions for Revoking Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) under what conditions does LTA revoke a Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL); and (b) what due process takes place to enable taxi drivers to have a fair hearing before revocation of TDVLs.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, to qualify for a Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL), applicants must meet driving, conduct and medical requirements. The licence can be revoked if the driver is disqualified from driving by the Singapore Traffic Police or by a Court of law, if he is convicted for committing serious crimes, if he has been given more than 20 demerit points for misconduct, or if he is assessed to be physically unfit to be a taxi driver.
Upon notification, the taxi driver has 14 days to appeal, during which, mitigating circumstances or any new information would be considered.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure in her answer whether she actually touched on what due process the taxi driver has to make representations before his TDVL is revoked by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Is there any direct communication between the driver and LTA, which is the authority that actually has the power to revoke the licence?
Secondly, I have come across at least one case where the reason given by LTA for the revocation of licence is that he has an outstanding case. Now, from what I know of the facts, the taxi driver disputes the complaint from the passenger. So, the question, of course, will be what protection does the taxi driver have if frivolous or unjust complaints are made against him? And how does LTA assess the credibility of such a matter and give the taxi driver due hearing before the revocation decision?
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tMadam, I would like to seek a clarification from the Member. When she talked about direct communication between LTA and the taxi drivers whose licences could be revoked, what sort of direct communication does she have in mind?
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, I am basing it also on a previous answer by the Government, but this is, of course, an outdated answer. In 1982, when the decision to revoke taxi drivers' licences was vested in the Registrar of Vehicles (ROV) at the time, the then Minister Ong Teng Cheong, said at that time that the Registrar's decision would be based on evidence adduced from both the complainant and the driver.
So, I wanted to understand more about the process. As in the driver's version of events, is that directly communicated or submitted directly to LTA at the first instance, or how does that come about? What does LTA consider from the driver?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I shall attempt to address the Member's supplementary questions. LTA does not revoke a taxi driver's vocational licence without basis. An important consideration, which LTA must bear in mind in taking its decision, is the risk of the case to potential passenger safety. So, that is an important consideration.
Ms Sylvia Lim, in her supplementary question alluded to an outstanding case by a particular appellant. I would say that if LTA has revoked the licence holder's licence, even after the licence holder has put in an appeal, the holder may then put in an appeal to the Minister for Transport. And I believe in this case, Ms Lim has done so on behalf of the taxi driver licence holder, whose licence was revoked.
LTA is still establishing the facts of this case, and we can review the appropriate course of action, including whether to reinstate his licence when we have greater clarity on the details of the case.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, a supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, but she mentioned that because now there is an appeal route to the Minister, LTA is reviewing the facts of the case.
My question was: at the first instance when they decide to revoke that licence, what protection do taxi drivers have against frivolous complaints being made against them? It is a general question not related to that particular case, but a question of policy.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: So, Madam, with your permission, I would just like to share a little bit more about how taxi drivers' licences could be revoked. I mentioned in my reply that there were several conditions that needed to be met. They are not frivolous; in fact, they are also very transparent.
In the case of a licence being revoked, if demerit points had been accumulated, in many of the cases, the taxi driver could well have experienced periods of suspension. So, before the licence is revoked, quite a number of these taxi drivers would already know that their demerit points are accumulating, so it would not come as a surprise to a lot of them.
And what are the reasons where they might accumulate demerit points? This is also made known to every taxi driver. It is a transparent list of items – what sorts of conduct will lead to what sorts of demerit points, so there are facts which have led to the accumulation of the demerit points. So, it would not be a case of total surprise. That is one example.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim:\tSorry, Madam. Yes, just to clarify again, my question really is premised upon seeking to understand what avenues the taxi driver has to put out his case before LTA makes that decision. Of course, you mentioned this demerit points system and all that —
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tMadam, I thought I made that quite clear in my earlier replies. The taxi driver —
\tMs Sylvia Lim: How does LTA assess whether the complaint —
Mdm Speaker:\tPlease speak one person at a time and address the Chair. Ms Lim, have you got further clarifications?
\tMs Sylvia Lim:\tYes, Madam, I am quite disturbed because I am not refuting the Government's response, but it is just that in the case which I came across, it was not put to the taxi driver that he has accumulated points. It was just put to him that he has an outstanding case against him.
\tMrs Josephine Teo:\tMay I seek clarification from the Member? Is she asking about revocation in general, or she would like to talk about the case that she has encountered?
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: The question actually is about policy. The case which I encountered actually is an illustration of doubts about what the policy is. Is it possible for taxi drivers to have their licences revoked just based on one outstanding case?
I do not need to talk about that case. But, in general, just one outstanding case and a case which has not been settled in the Court of law. Is it possible?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I go back to my earlier answer, which is that there is a set of conditions that may lead to a taxi driver's licence being revoked. An important consideration that the LTA has is the safety of the passengers and the potential risks.
I think we have established from the earlier clarification made by the Member that she is not asking about specific instances. So, if she would like to discuss a specific instance, I suggest we take it offline. But as a general policy, we will have to look at the facts of the case, and the conditions under which a taxi driver's vocational licence may be revoked is made quite clear, including accumulation of demerit points, offences being committed and physical unfitness. So, I think those were already in the earlier reply on the general policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Solutions or Replacement for Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for Transport how will the Ministry fix the problem-prone Bukit Panjang LRT system and whether there are plans to overhaul the entire system or to replace it with a more reliable transport mode to better serve the residents living there.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, Light Rail Transport (LRT) systems are normally deployed for straightforward point-to-point connections on flat terrain. Typical examples include the Sentosa Express and skytrains in airports to connect terminal buildings. The decision to implement the Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT), required shoe-horning an LRT system into a built-up town. This has posed significant engineering challenges, requiring the LRT to make sharp bends and over undulating terrain. The BPLRT's reliability has therefore been unsatisfactory, despite significant efforts by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and the train manufacturer, Bombardier over many years.
There are two main technical challenges for BPLRT. First, the current design of the power rail. It requires three points of contact simultaneously with the trains' collector shoes. Any misalignment could trigger a power trip or even dislodge the collector shoes, causing a disruption. The sharp bends and undulating terrain further contribute to this problem. Sixty percent of the major disruptions in the past three years were caused by power trips or dislodged collector shoes.
Second, the current track layout in the vicinity of Bukit Panjang station and the LRT service routing require trains leaving the Bukit Panjang station to constantly switch tracks. This has made the switch point a critical vulnerability.
Meanwhile, many key components, including the trains, power rail and the signalling system, are coming to the end of their design lives in about four to five years' time. They will have to be replaced. We are taking this opportunity to redo the BPLRT to enable a step jump in reliability. Fortunately, there are now better technology and designs available, compared to 17 years ago.
The engineering study is ongoing. Our likely approach comprises two key elements. First, we are studying a redesign of Bukit Panjang station, its track layout and the BPLRT routing to remove the need to constantly switch tracks and to smoothen some parts of the alignment. Second, we are sourcing for new trains, power rail, signalling system and various other critical components to replace our first-generation assets. These measures should improve reliability and performance.
There have been suggestions to replace the BPLRT with a bus-only transport system. This is not feasible. The road network in Bukit Panjang will not be able to cope.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I appreciate the very candid reply from the Minister and I thank him for the clearest indication yet that the LRT system will not be scrapped. The news headline of that possibility has caused great anxiety and concerns to our residents. But notwithstanding the service breakdowns that they had experienced, I think they still want the LRT system because replacing it with a bus system is just not practical.
So, I would like to ask the Minister, whilst we are looking into how we can significantly upgrade the system to enhance the reliability, in the interim, can LTA improve on the response to breakdowns because there could still be some more breakdowns as we discover new things, whether we can have provision of more buses within the town, feeder service so that in the event there is a disruption or breakdown, the buses can be re-deployed to respond to breakdowns and to minimise inconvenience to our residents?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan:\tThe short answer is yes and we do. And I think the Member would know that if you look at recent incidents of handling, things have improved. But for BPLRT, in particular, a lot of energy is right now also spent on sorting out the medium-term solutions which we need to clean up within the next four or five years. I am reasonably confident that we can tackle this problem. I am more confident about this than my bet on who is the next American President.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa: Yes, we are equally concerned over the next President as well. I just want to also ask the Minister, from my interactions with the SMRT staff and engineers looking after the BPLRT system, I get the sense they are not placing enough priority, or maybe they are not resourced enough to deal with some of these operational problems that they have. And maybe, indeed, they were also thinking and hoping that the system will be scrapped. So, I would like to ask the Minister, as we look at this whole change to enhance the system, whether it makes sense to have this system run by a separate entity on a not-for-profit basis so that we get the system stabilised first before we look at how we can worry about other commercial considerations.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Madam, I find the comment rather unfair on the existing leadership or team working at SMRT. I have worked with them for one year now. I have been in the Ministry for one year. I spend a lot of time on the ground talking to the people from top, senior level to the junior level, including many of the engineers, assistant engineers and technicians working their guts out in the trenches. I cannot speak for the previous leadership of SMRT but, for the current team, they are taking this very seriously, not just BPLRT but the entire MRT network, because they know that whatever they do or fail to do have major impact.
As I said a couple of days ago, more than two million commuters use our service every day and we can make a difference to their lives. That is a very important function that we play.
So, I am less interested in the past but on the way forward. In fact, in the past few months, I believe that things are improving. I take trains, and many commuters come forward to express their direct experience because they are daily users of the service. Just last week, on a train, one secondary school student came to me. He recognised me and he came for a chat. So, I asked, \"Do you use the train service every day?\" He said, \"Yes, every day. How else can I move around?\" I asked, \"Have you personally experienced disruptions?\" He said, \"Many.\" I was very sad to hear that. So, I asked, \"When was your last disruption experience?\" He said, \"December last year.\" I said, \"That means this year, things have improved?\" He said, \"Oh yes.\"
Mdm Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): For the Minister of Transport, I have one question. The investments made on the older LRT in Bukit Panjang, have they been recovered already?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: I think from a purely financial viewpoint, my understanding from SMRT is it has always been loss-making for the BPLRT. But they are also responsible for the North-South East-West Lines. So, as a company, they look at it from a total portfolio point of view. As I said earlier, the current team does not look at it from a pure bottom-line angle, rather that they are a public service provider, they have a duty to perform, and their job is to deliver it to the best of their ability.
From an overall system's point of view, I must make a point that if you want a good train service, one must invest sufficient resources into the operator, whoever is the operator. Since resources come from both the Government as well as fares collection, fare revisions have to be timely and adequate. That is why we have an independent Public Transport Council (PTC) to ensure the long-term viability of all the train services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Benchmark and Improve MRT Service Disruption Problems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what actions have been taken to improve our MRT service disruption problems; (b) whether there have been any benchmarks made with other rail service providers from other world class cities and, if so, where does Singapore stand; and (c) how long more can it be expected for our MRT services to be seen as on par with other world class cities in respect of frequency of disruptions.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, as I said just a while ago, our rail reliability is improving, but we are not yet where we want to be. Our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) trains now travel about 158,000 train-kilometre (km), almost 160,000 train-km, between delays of more than five minutes. This is a common industry-wide performance indicator on reliability.
This performance, 158,000 train-km, is better than the performance of last year of 133,000 train-km: about 160,000 train-km versus 130,000 train-km. However, we are still quite far off from Hong Kong (Mass Transit Railway’s (MTR's) performance of 360,000 train-km and Taipei Metro's 800,000 train-km. The best in class chalks up 800,000 train-km; we are now 160,000 train-km. We have set ourselves a target of 400,000 train-km by 2018 and 800,000 train-km by 2020 for our MRT lines.
Together with the operators, we have a comprehensive plan to reach this higher standard. First, we are improving the current maintenance regimes. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has introduced new process-based Maintenance Performance Standards to address maintenance issues upstream before delays occur. LTA and the operators have increased their maintenance and engineering manpower and stepped up maintenance checks.
Second, with the transition of the industry to the New Rail Financing Framework, where the Government will own the operating assets, we will be able to renew and replace all operating assets in a timely manner. Some of the renewal works for the North-South and East-West Lines have already begun. For example, the replacement of sleepers, the signalling system and the power rail would all be completed by 2018.
Third, we are expanding our rail network to enhance its resilience. Commuters will then have alternative routes on the rail network to get to their destinations should there be a disruption on one of them.
Finally, we are building up the expertise of our rail engineers. LTA has set up various advisory panels, comprising international and local experts, to get advice and to learn from their experience and the international best practices. We are also setting up the Singapore Rail Academy to augment industry efforts in manpower development.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member):\tI would like to thank the Minister for Transport for such an elaborate answer. One area I would like to know from the Minister, is whether he feels there is a need to set up a quality initiative within the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) organisation?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan:\tThe answer is yes. We are in this business where reliability and quality are paramount because if you are not able to deliver quality and reliability, then you are in the wrong business. So, that must be the culture and, at least, based on the current team that I have been working with the last one year, I think it is in their DNA. We will deliver on this – not to worry.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tMadam, can I take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can update the House on whether the cause of the recent Circle Line breakdown has been uncovered?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan:\tThe Circle Line incident is a very interesting incident that my team has spent several weeks on. We are challenged by that, but we find it exciting tackling this challenging incident. The cause is clear, that there was signal interference – a particular signal was interfering with our wireless signalling system and causing some of these difficulties. But tracking down the source of the interfering signal requires a lot of effort, and it is intellectually very challenging because there are many possibilities and we just got to, one by one, through elimination, try to establish what exactly is the source. We are very close to it now and I am fairly confident that, within this week, we will be able to go public on what exactly was the source and how we will fix it. I think in a few days' time. Let us watch the American Presidential Election first.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Coordination of Services since Launch of Municipal Services Office","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Er Dr Lee Bee Wah –
7 To ask\tMinister for National Development (a) how has the coordination of services been since the launch of the Municipal Services Office; and (b) which Government agency should be contacted when there is a python found in a monsoon drain and the AVA would not act as the drain is not under their purview.
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar):\tQuestion No 7, please.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Since the Municipal Services Office (MSO) was set up in October 2014, there has been an improvement in the delivery of municipal services. The average time taken to respond to cases involving multiple agencies has been reduced by nine days, from 21 days in October 2014, when MSO was set up, to 12 days in June 2016. The proportion of cases which required referrals to multiple agencies has also dropped from 13% to 9% in the same period. This reflected an improvement in work processes and better understanding of the partners' area of responsibility.
These improvements were made possible through the efforts of MSO and the partner agencies. Some of the specific work initiatives included the introduction of OneService App which allowed feedback to be given without knowing or identifying the agency responsible for the problem and the appointment of lead agencies to deal with groups of municipal issues.
For example, public greenery maintenance has been centralised under the National Parks Board (NParks) since June 2015; the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been appointed as the First Responder for feedback on maintenance of connectivity-related infrastructure since June this year.
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has also been appointed the First Responder for animal issues since 2012. Members of public can contact AVA for all animal-related issues, including feedback on the presence of a python in a monsoon drain. AVA will coordinate efforts with the relevant agencies, including external partners such as animal welfare groups, to resolve the problem and be the lead agency to reply to the feedback provider.
Mdm Speaker: We still do not know what happened to the python in the monsoon drain.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Budget for Estate Upgrading Programme for Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) what is the Government's estimated budget for the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for private estates for the next three years; and (b) what is the schedule for calling for EUP nominations each year.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, since the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) was launched in the year 2000, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has committed about S$187 million to upgrade 63 selected private estates through nine batches of EUP. The average budget for each project is about S$20 million.
The pace of the programme will depend on the resources that are currently available, and we also have to coordinate with other Government agencies in terms of planning and upgrading works to minimise inconvenience to the residents and the public. MND will invite nominations for future projects once we have the timeline for implementation.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Is the Minister of State able to tell us or project how much budget would be available in the coming years, which was in my Parliamentary Question (PQ), the next three years?
The second supplementary question is: do I take it that there is no fixed schedule every year to call for EUP and, therefore, it just depends on when the Ministry feels it has the resources to do so?
The third question is: I understand from prior correspondence with the Ministry that the calling of the EUP projects will be through the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC). Could I ask whether the Ministry is also able to let the Member of Parliament of the area know that EUP projects are being called, so that we can try to work with the CCC in some way?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As for how much the budget is, I did say earlier that each project is about $20 million. We do not currently have a block budget for this, but each project is about $20 million. As and when the resources are available, financially, manpower or a need, we will then roll out calls for the next project. So, there is no current fixed schedule at the moment.
In terms of engagement of the ground for project nomination, we generally work through the CCCs because they do know the demands of the estate better, but there is no reason why we will not inform the current Member of Parliament if there is a need to do so. Once the project is ready for announcement and we are working with the CCC and it is quite clear that the project has been finalised, we can actually notify the current Member of the ward as well.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Madam, two supplementary questions. My request for MND to inform the Member is at the start when you are calling for projects. I do appreciate the Minister of State's confirmation that when the project has been more or less fleshed out by the CCC, the Ministry will inform us, but I am asking about the point of calling for projects, because I think we also have feedback that we can share with the Ministry as well. Could the Minister of State confirm that the Ministry would also let the Member of Parliament know when the Ministry is calling for projects when the resources are available?
The second question is, in the recent answer, I think to Member Chong Kee Hiong, in March this year, it was mentioned that the Ministry is aware that there are at least 20 estates that are more than 30 years old that have not benefited from the EUP. I believe, some of these estates are within Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), some areas in Hwan estate, Hillside, Kovan and so on. Would the Ministry put this on their agenda and not forget the EUP and see whether there are resources available to allocate to it?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, estates in Aljunied have also benefitted from EUP projects in the past. Of course, ideally, we will want to upgrade as many estates as possible. But we have to look into the age of the estate, which is just one aspect, and also the physical characteristics there as well as what we can do there physically, plus also resources available, as well as whether there are any ongoing works that agencies have planned for. So, we try to coordinate all these together. It is not a hard-and-fast rule that just because an estate is of a certain age, EUP will have to be done.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Charge on Plastic Bags at Supermarkets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider imposing a charge on plastic bags at supermarkets.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): In Singapore, households generally reuse plastic bags to dispose of their waste in a hygienic manner. In addition, plastic bags which are thrown away are incinerated safely at our waste-to-energy plants before they are landfilled as ash. This is in contrast to many other countries where waste is directly landfilled. In these countries, plastic bags, which are not biodegradable, may remain in the landfills for a long time or find their way into the seas.
Even though Singapore manages the disposal of plastic bags well, there is room for us to cut down on excessive usage. The recent discussions on the plastic bag issue reflect a greater environmental awareness among Singaporeans. I commend environmental groups for raising awareness on the need to curb the excessive use of plastic bags. For instance, ZeroWasteSG conducted a survey among supermarket shoppers and found that only 15% of shoppers were using reusable bags or trolleys without taking plastic bags. I am heartened by recent media reports that major supermarket players in Singapore are open to considering measures to reduce plastic bag usage, such as a voluntary charge on plastic bags if imposed across the industry.
However, some concerns have been raised on implementing a plastic bag charge. For example, will there be unintended consequences, such as the substitution of plastic bags with paper bags or even wastage of reusable bags? Additionally, how can sufficient educational and enforcement measures be put in place to complement the charge and reduce demand for plastic bags by shoppers?
My Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) are looking into the responses to ZeroWasteSG's survey and are engaging supermarket operators to explore potential solutions to reduce the excessive use of plastic bags. NEA has also recently published a tender to study the different types of single-use carriers and how they compare in terms of cost and impact on the environment. These will help in our formulation of any future policies on the use of different types of bags.
Ultimately, the excessive use of plastic bags can only be curbed with the support and participation of the community and retailers. Shoppers can play their part by taking just enough plastic bags for their needs and re-using them for bagging household refuse. They can also utilise re-usable bags as much as possible. With a strong partnership among the public, private and people sectors, I am confident that we can create a more sustainable Singapore together.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I thank her also for considering imposing a plastic bag charge. But is there a timeframe before a decision is going to be made?
Secondly, the Senior Minister of State had given some of the survey results from ZeroWasteSG. But can the Ministry also consider the other part of the survey which showed that 65% of shoppers would reduce the number of plastic bags they take from supermarkets, or 58% would actually bring their own reusable bag if there is a 10-cent charge that is imposed by the supermarkets?
What we are calling for here is not a ban on plastic bags, which we know we need to use to bag our rubbish. But I think this is a pretty good middle ground. It is win-win because it is asking people to reduce the wastage, and the survey results so far show that people would reduce the wastage if there is just a 10-cent charge.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I want to thank the Member for his supplementary questions and comments. Let me first note that we recognise the importance and the benefits of curbing the excessive use of plastic bags. In fact, we are looking at further measures to see how we can achieve this, as I have noted in my reply. But let me also note that we need to recognise that our national circumstances are quite unique and different from those of many other countries. Together with the municipal waste, the plastic bags which are thrown away are actually incinerated and not directly landfilled. So, concerns, for instance, regarding the non-biodegradability of plastic bags, which is really the key reason used to justify a levy on plastic bags in many other countries, really is not applicable in our context.
Moreover, we need to also recognise that the large majority of Singaporeans live in apartments, and they dispose of their refuse through the refuse chute, and they use plastic bags to dispose their rubbish in a hygienic manner. It has taken us quite a long time to get this habit going.
The other thing is that if you look at the views on this issue, which is imposing a charge on plastic bags, it is actually quite mixed. Through our consultation as well as through the media and even social media, many are supportive of this, citing, for example, excessive use of plastic bags, as well as the fact that for countries that have used it, there is a significant reduction in the number of plastic bags used.
But there are also others who have objected, citing reasons like hygiene, in terms of disposing food in used plastic bags, as well as some unintended consequences that may arise. For instance, actually substituting the use of plastic bag with paper bags, which is also a resource. In addition, wastage of reusable bags and such.
There are merits in the arguments on both sides. We really need to do a study on this. We need to engage the stakeholders which we are doing. We are also looking at the experiences of other countries, as well as a life cycle assessment study that we are conducting, which will look at the cost and environmental impact on the different types of bags used. This will help us to formulate policies, including on the use of plastic bags.
I think we need to do this in order to come to a decision and we will share with Members the results and outcome of our studies and the decision on whether to implement a charge on plastic bags. If so, in what manner? For instance, is it just major supermarkets or major retailers as well? We need to do this before we come to a decision.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, just a quick clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Can I confirm if the Ministry has done a study with regard to the emissions from a biodegradable plastic bag when incinerated as opposed to one which is not bio-degradable?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: This is exactly what we are doing. We have recently published a tender and we have commissioned a study – Life Cycle Assessment – on the different types of single carrier bags used, as well as common forms of containers that are used for food and beverage. The idea is to look into how these different types of materials compare in terms of cost as well as environmental impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Treatment of Private PSLE Candidates in Secondary School Posting Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Zainal Sapari asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) (a) in 2015, what is the number of Singaporean PSLE private candidates who have been posted to secondary schools not of their first choice even though they meet the cut-off point; (b) what is the Secondary One placement policy for such candidates; (c) what is the rationale to treat such candidates differently from those studying in mainstream schools during Secondary One placement exercises; and (d) whether the policy can be reviewed to uphold the principle of meritocracy.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Madam, the Secondary One (S1) Posting Exercise is a placement exercise designed for students from national primary schools who are progressing to mainstream secondary schools. Hence, those who are not enrolled in our primary schools and are taking the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) as private candidates, are not included in this Secondary One Posting Exercise.
However, if such private candidates or students are interested and eligible to join mainstream secondary schools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) will facilitate their admission to a secondary school. MOE will take into account the students' choices of schools, PSLE results and available vacancies at the point of facilitation. As vacancies are limited, we may not always be able to offer these students a place in a school of their choice, but we will aim to match the students to a school appropriate to their academic learning needs.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have some supplementary questions. First, I would appreciate it if he could give a sense of the number of students who are doing this as private candidates. I believe many of them might be madrasah students and a few of them are home-schooled children.
My second supplementary question is: were the parents informed and need to sign to acknowledge that they know about this policy that has been in place that they could not be given priority during the Secondary One Placement Exercise after their children get the PSLE results?
My third supplementary question is really whether MOE would consider reviewing this policy, given the fact that it is not aligned to our principle of meritocracy and the fact that these students are sitting for the same national PSLE.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Maybe I will answer the last question first. Yes, parents are informed in various ways. One, we have the information on the MOE webpage for the Secondary One Posting Exercise which states that only students from our national primary schools are eligible to participate in this Secondary One Posting Exercise. Also, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) works with the madrasahs to ensure that parents are aware of this. For the home schoolers, when the parents are applying to homeschool their children, MOE will inform them that they are not eligible to participate in this Secondary One Posting Exercise.
About the number, on average, over the last five years, we received about 20 requests each year from these PSLE private candidates to be facilitated into our mainstream schools. This is a very small number or percentage of the number of students who are not in our national primary schools. And I would also like to inform the Member that we are able to facilitate the majority of these requests to one of the school choices of the students and some of them are also facilitated into their top choices.
So, beyond this, I would like to assure the Member that we have been, and we will continue to facilitate this process. However, we look at the academic merit as well. It is not only about other aspects. The academic merit is also important. Nevertheless, vacancy availability during the facilitation process is also key. While we want to ensure that we are able to facilitate, we have to make sure that our Secondary One Posting Exercise is also being undertaken.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari: Could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate whether MOE would consider reviewing this policy? I strongly believe people are our very valuable resource and we really need to give them the best opportunity possible for them to study in an environment that could maximise their potential. My worry is that some of these students might be doing well but because they are private candidates, they are not able to go to schools of better quality based on their results.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the follow-up question. Like what I have said earlier, these are two separate issues whereby we have informed parents and also students that the Secondary One Posting Exercise is catering to our students from the national schools.
Nevertheless, like what I said earlier, I assure the Member that MOE will try our best to facilitate, to ensure that the posting is tagged to the academic needs of the children and also we have to look at the vacancies available. And I must say that from experience, we have been able to facilitate the majority of the students into the schools of their choice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promotion of Collaborative Tripartism through National Education Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) whether our brand of collaborative tripartism can be better preserved and promulgated by including it in our National Education curriculum.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Madam, the Ministry of Education (MOE) agrees that students should know about tripartism and the part it plays in shaping Singapore's growth in the past, present and future. While it is not specifically taught in a module labelled \"tripartism\", students do learn about it in a number of ways.
Firstly, students learn how positive industrial relations contribute to stability and growth. For example, through History, secondary school students learn how the Labour Movement activity in the 1950s created the need for mediation to maintain peaceful relations between workers and employers in Singapore. Junior college History students study strategies adopted by Southeast Asian countries to pursue development. They may explore the case study of Singapore and learn how tripartism contributed to stability which attracted foreign investment. In Economics, the study of national economic policies, like economic restructuring, wage level management, labour productivity and mobility, allow for the discussion of the roles played by employers, employees and the Government in maintaining a conducive economic climate.
More broadly, students learn how consensus is built when groups with different interests work together to achieve collective goals. In Character and Citizenship Education lessons, emphasis on values like responsibility and resilience helps us stay economically competitive and build social cohesion. In Social Studies, students learn how the Government, the community and individuals work together for the common good of society.
MOE regularly reviews our curriculum to better engage our students, and we will continue to help them learn how societies build consensus, in the same way that tripartism builds consensus and collaboration between unions, employers and the Government.
Mdm Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I have a follow-up question. With regard to tertiary education students, when they go on an attachment, is there some form of attachment to organisation that values tripartism, so that they can have first-hand experience of tripartism and how it works?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary:\tIndeed, Madam, if I can give an example, there is a programme between Temasek Polytechnic and the Singapore National Employers Federation. Through this, the students will have experience in the Ministry of Manpower, Industrial Arbitration Court, National Trades Union Congress, the Workplace Safety and Health Council, and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices. So, through a variety of processes and interactions, the students can learn about the different agencies, offices and activities that contribute towards the outcome of tripartism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Curtailing Increase in Malay Drug Abuser Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs (a) with recent statistics showing an increase in Malay drug abusers, what actions have been taken by the Ministry to curtail this trend; (b) whether Singapore is on the right path in combating drug addiction; and (c) whether the core of the problem has been understood to arrive at the right solutions and action.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): From 2010 to 2015, the total number of drug abusers arrested rose from 2,887 to 3,343.
Of concern is the number of Malay drug abusers arrested. This number increased from 1,376 in 2010 to 1,738 in 2015. The number of Indian drug abusers arrested has also gone up, from 403 in 2010 to 522 in 2015. Worryingly, of these 522 Indian drug abusers, 265 were Indian Muslims. They are disproportionately represented in this context. The number of Chinese abusers arrested was about 1,000 in both 2010 and 2015.
Drug abuse is a complex issue with multifaceted challenges. It affects all communities, not just the Malay community but also the Indian and Chinese communities. We need to work on multiple fronts, with multiple partners in the fight against drugs, to strengthen prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation.
First, we need good preventive drug education efforts. The key focus has to be on our youths. We need to share the facts and evidence with them, so that they can better understand the harms of drug abuse and make the right choice to lead a healthy and meaningful life free from drugs.
The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) has stepped up engagement on various social media platforms to provide more frequent, bite-size information and messages on drugs.
We also work with parents and schools. They are important partners in our efforts to reach out more effectively to our youths. To help parents engage their children on the dangers of drugs, we have developed and distributed information brochures to parents of students in our schools.
We are also building an Anti-drug Abuse Advocacy Network in our communities. The Network comprises individuals who help to promote a drug-free lifestyle and society, through their own social circles. We support the Network by providing members with information on the harms of drugs and organising events for knowledge sharing and networking opportunities. We hope to have more youths come forward to join us as an advocate and help keep their peers away from drugs.
We work closely with our community partners to engage youths with our anti-drug messages. For example, CNB worked with the Council on Education for Muslim Children (MENDAKI) and Majulah Community to provide an anti-drug talk to a group of student leaders, so that they could share what they learnt about drug abuse with their peers.
Second, we need rigorous enforcement to keep drugs away from our streets. CNB has enhanced its capabilities to tackle drug syndicates. The Organised Crime Act, which came into force in June this year, criminalises organised crime activities, such as the recruitment of members into drug syndicates. In particular, the Act introduces Preventive Orders, which can be issued by the Courts as a pre-emptive measure. The Orders will curtail the activities of drug syndicates and deprive them of their ill-gotten gains. This enables us to better detect, disrupt and dismantle drug syndicates.
We have stepped up collaboration with regional drug enforcement agencies to disrupt the operations of drug syndicates. In June 2016, CNB was able to arrest a drug syndicate leader due to intelligence from our Malaysian counterparts. The close collaboration between CNB and the Narcotics Crime Investigation Department (NCID) disrupted the operations of the drug syndicate and its laboratory in Malaysia. More than 270 kilogrammes of methamphetamine were seized from the laboratory, which is 17 times greater than the total amount of methamphetamine seized in Singapore last year. This operation also stopped a potentially large supply of methamphetamine from entering Singapore.
Third, we need to better support drug abusers in their rehabilitation. Since 2014, we have introduced more intensive rehabilitation programmes in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) for drug abusers with more severe drug addiction issues and higher risk of reoffending.
Earlier this year, we introduced a day release programme for low-risk drug abusers in the DRC, to facilitate their reintegration into society. Under this arrangement, drug abusers are allowed to work or study in the community during the day, and they will return to a community facility at night. They are subjected to supervision, such as regular urine tests.
A strong in-care programme is not sufficient. The rehabilitation journey after release is a crucial step. If the drug abusers do not have good family and peer support, they are more likely to relapse.
We work closely with the community to help ex-abusers. One example is the Community Befriender Project. The Project matches volunteers with inmates who have poor family or peer support. The volunteers visit the inmates and offer them moral support. They continue to meet the inmates after their release and help them build a new social support network. Since 2010, about 600 inmates have benefited from this Project.
The Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) opened its Step-Up Centre in January 2015. This Centre serves as a one-stop centre for services, such as counselling and support groups, to support ex-drug abusers and their families in their reintegration journey. More than 600 ex-abusers have sought help from the Centre.
To conclude, drugs have a devastating impact on individuals, families and the society. This is why we have a zero-tolerance approach towards drugs.
The drug situation will remain challenging going forward. This is due to the regional and global drug supply situation. Our youths may also be affected by the increasingly tolerant attitude towards drugs in some other parts of the world.
We must, therefore, not let up on our efforts to be a drug-free society. We will continue to improve our prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation efforts. The community and families have a critical role to keep our youths away from drugs and to keep ex-abusers from returning to drugs.
Ultimately, the individual must also want to change. Drug abusers must take charge of their rehabilitation journey and work with us to stay away from drugs.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member):\tI would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing. The information, unfortunately, I must say, is very alarming; the rate at which the drug abusers can be seen among the Malay community. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can share with us whether there are any specific and targeted measures on anti-drug engagement programmes and efforts for the Malay community only?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the hon Member for the question. We share the concern. We work with multiple partners on our engagement efforts and programmes, and some of these are designed to reach a wide audience while others are targeted at various communities or groups, such as youths. It has to be emphasised that it is not a problem facing just the Malay community but also others.
Let me provide a few examples of efforts which focus on reaching out to the Malay community. On preventive drug education, I spoke about CNB's collaboration with MENDAKI and Majulah Community. CNB also works closely with community partners such as the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) and the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) to reach out to the Malay community.
Last year, CNB worked with AMP to conduct workshops for secondary school students, where the students were encouraged to share their thoughts on drug-related issues. This provided an interactive learning experience for students to learn about the dangers and consequences of abusing drugs.
This year, CNB is engaging the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) to include anti-drug messages into their youth programmes and adult courses. The Singapore Prison Service also collaborates with MENDAKI to provide an information and referral service for the families of Malay inmates. MENDAKI acts as a touchpoint for these families and refer them to the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) if they require any services. Over the past year, MENDAKI has helped more than 180 inmates.
These engagement efforts and programmes targeted at the Malay community complement those that are designed to reach out to a wider audience. We hope more community partners can come forward to help CNB develop outreach programmes to spread the anti-drug message more effectively.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade):\tMadam, can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has the breakdown by gender for those figures that have been quoted, in particular, for the Malay and the Indian Muslim community?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I do not have the exact breakdown but, generally, the number of female abusers is smaller in number compared to male abusers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Police Post at Institute of Mental Health to Protect Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs whether the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) can have a Police Post with Police vigilance to protect and safeguard the interests of IMH staff who may be threatened or subjected to physical abuse by unwell patients in a high-risk environment.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, to maintain security and order within the hospital compound, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) deploys Auxiliary Police Officers on a 24/7 basis. IMH also provides panic alarm tags to inpatient ward staff and equips clinic consultation rooms with panic alarm buttons. These Auxiliary Police Officers are trained to respond to incidents involving persons with mental health conditions. They are able to handle most incidents of abuse of IMH staff and will contact the Police to handle cases that they deem more serious.
From January to September 2016, IMH staff reported 12 cases of physical or verbal abuse to the Police. Police investigated these cases and prosecuted one discharged IMH former patient for unlawful stalking of an IMH staff under the Protection from Harassment Act, applied for another to be detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act, and administered stern or conditional warnings to six more persons. The Member can be assured that the Police will take action against abusive individuals who compromise the safety of public health workers.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, just a clarification. The IMH staff have to report to the Police, but the Police Post is far away from the hospital. The inconvenience has put off some people from reporting to the Police. In the past, there had been a Police Post within the hospitals, and they do the so-called procedural processes. So, can this be effected in IMH to safeguard the interests of the workers who have been already abused and yet have to travel by public transport to report the case?
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tMadam, as I mentioned earlier, there are security officers, and in the case of IMH, Auxiliary Police Officers, trained to respond to incidents that may occur in the hospital. The Member is referring to administrative referrals or making of reports, most likely after the fact, so the staff is advised to make a Police report. That was the role of Police Posts in hospitals in the past from the 1980s to about 2011 when MHA rationalised the resource allocation of Police Officers and these Police Posts were principally handling, as the Member mentioned, administrative tasks, such as making Police reports, the Coroners' cases, and so on. Now, this can be made at Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs), Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs), and Police Divisions. Between the Police, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the restructured hospitals, including IMH, there are protocols in place, and we will certainly look at the Member's concern about how we can make this more efficient and effective for the staff. We thank her for her suggestions.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi:\tMadam, just one more question for the Minister of State. I hope that he would seriously take into consideration this request because, during our dialogue session with our union members, they actually appealed for a Police Post to be set up in IMH itself. We are not looking at all the other hospitals but in particular IMH, because there are high incidences of abuses by the residents there as well as the public. So, we need to protect and safeguard the interests of these healthcare workers within the premise of IMH, I hope certainly the Minister of State would take this request seriously.
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tThank you.
Mdm Speaker:\tThe next question, please, Ms Thanaletchimi.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Re-employment of Women beyond Age 62","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of re-employment of female workers who have reached the age of (i) 62 years and (ii) 65 years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider strategies to improve the employment of female workers beyond 62 in light of females having a longer lifespan.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) collects re-employment data regardless of their gender. In 2015, over 98% of local employees who wished to continue working were actually offered re-employment upon reaching the ages of 62 and 65. It shows that the re-employment rates for male and female workers, older workers, were both very high.
The Government will continue to help older workers work for as long as they are willing and able to. And how do we do this? First, we will raise the re-employment age from 65 to 67 by 1 July 2017. We will also support employers with Special Employment Credit of up to 11% of wage offset when they employ workers aged 65 and above.
Secondly, we seek to improve the quality of employment for our older workers. We fund companies to implement age-friendly workplace practices through WorkPro. And employers can also make free use of the Job Redesign Toolkit jointly developed by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), and they can sign up for age management courses under the Age Management@Workplace programme. And we also support and promote public education through campaigns, such as \"Ability is Ageless\" run by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State. Madam, just a supplementary question. Are there further strategies that we can embrace to ensure that older workers, especially the female cohort, could work longer in the workplace because it is important that they have sufficient savings, especially those low-wage workers and those who are middle income? They need to continue with their employment.
The second supplementary question is: while the retirement and re-employment age has been raised to 67 by next year, in the meantime, what are the measures that we can take to ensure that these older workers will continue remaining in their employment, before this legislation is enacted?
\tMr Sam Tan Chin Siong: Mdm Speaker, I thank the hon Member for raising two very important questions. Older workers have always been an important consideration in our work in MOM. This is why we have paid a lot of attention and also rolled out a lot of programmes to help older workers to get re-employed if they are willing and able to.
So far, we have worked very closely with the tripartite partners in finding ways and means to assist the older workers to continue working beyond the ages of 62 and 65. As a matter of fact, I chair a tripartite committee on mature workers, and the main function is to help them.
The approach taken by the tripartite partners has been that we will take a gender-neutral approach in helping older workers to continue working beyond 62 and 65. So far, the programme, activities and strategy have been working reasonably well, in the sense that older workers beyond 62 and 65, including both genders, male and female, 98% of them are able to continue working and get re-employed by the employers.
The challenge for the tripartite partners is not how much more we can do to roll out new initiatives, strengthen the current initiatives and raise the re-employment age. One of the challenges is to how to better reach out to older workers, particularly the female older workers. In this aspect, we can work very closely with the tripartite partners, and I understand that NTUC has a programme called U Live, catering to older workers aged 55 and above, U65 catering to older workers aged 65 and above.
I welcome NTUC and MOM together with SNEF to work together in a tripartite collective effort to reach out to older workers, particularly the senior female workers to encourage them to come back and rejoin the work force and then also to work beyond 62 and 65.
The Member also asked about what more we can do during the interim period to encourage greater opportunities for re-employment of older workers. From MOM's effort, we have been doing or providing three kinds of support, to encourage and also entice employers to offer re-employment opportunities to older workers.
First, it is the wage offset to manage the manpower cost. We do this through the Special Employment Credit, which I mentioned in my reply just now.
We also subsidise employers who adopt age-friendly workplace practices through this programme called WorkPro.
The third support that we are giving to employers and HR practitioners is to raise the age management capability through a programme called Age Management@Workplace programme jointly launched by NTUC and SNEF in July this year.
MOM also works together with NTUC and SNEF to jointly launch this toolkit called Job Redesign Toolkit to help companies, employers to better enable the older workers to work in the workplace. All these are still work-in-progress, and we will continue to work very closely with the tripartite partners to make sure that whether we will raise, or whether we raise the re-employment age from 65 to 67 come next July or not, there is always a sustained and collaborative efforts by the tripartite partners to help the older workers.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok):\tMadam, given the time, I wonder whether this question can be held over. There is only one more minute.
Mdm Speaker:\tWe have one minute, so the Minister of State can make his reply. If you can reply in one minute, Minister of State.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee):\tI can, Mdm Speaker.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please, reply in one minute.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installing Access Symbols at Tables Reserved for Disabled and Care-givers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Murali Pillai asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether BCA can enhance the requirement set out in the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment 2013 for access symbols to be affixed on tables set aside for use by persons with disabilities at eating houses so as to make clear that the fixed seats provided at such tables are reserved for accompanying caregivers, family members or friends of persons with disabilities and not for general use.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): The Code on Accessibility already requires eating establishments like hawker centres, food courts, fast food outlets and restaurants to set aside at least one in every 10 tables for use by persons with disabilities. A symbol of access is affixed to these tables.
The intention is clearly to give priority to persons with disabilities and their companions. People are kind and compassionate, by and large, and if a person with disability and his or her companions need to use one of these tables, I think it would be rare for able-bodied diners not to vacate and to allow them to do so. Ultimately, what we want is an inclusive and gracious society and we will certainly take the Member's feedback and send it, pass it on to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Minister for Transport.
[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 the 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":"Active Mobility Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"an \tAct for the establishment of public paths for walking, cycling or other similar purposes, to regulate the use of these public paths, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (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) Resumption of Debate on Question [7 November 2016], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I will focus my speech on the proposal that has been put forward for an elected Senate. I would make two points.
This proposal is fundamentally flawed – flawed in substance and flawed in terms of the process. In substance, the Workers' Party (WP) had many objections to the proposal on the proposed amendments. Their proposal for an elected Senate does not deal with any of the objections they have raised for the Elected Presidency. In fact, their proposals make it worse. Second, the process is so flawed that it is unworkable.
Let me deal with the substance.
The first point that the WP raises is the point on elitism. It is a major objection to the Elected Presidency with the qualifying criteria. Yesterday, Mr Chen Show Mao made this point. I think Assoc Prof Daniel Goh referred to it. Others have expressed it. In their position paper, the WP talks about the objection in terms of this being restricted to \"a super elite\" and it narrows the field of candidates.
But then, if you look at the Senate proposal, it is to have eight such people where the same qualifications as an Elected President should have. It is in the transcript, and I will read out the transcript later. Or perhaps, I will read it out now. In the exchange with Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera, I said to Mr Perera, and I quote, \"So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for a Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?\" A clear question and the response is: \"Essentially yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation. So, it is transferring the custodial from an Elected President to a Senate.\" So, a clear question and a clear answer.
And I listened to the transcript of what Mr Dennis Tan said. He went further to say that the criteria are the same as set out in the Bill that is before Parliament, meaning, I suppose, in context, Senators should meet the criteria proposed for Elected Presidents.
So, instead of one Elected President, we would have eight Elected Presidents. How does this deal with the objection of elitism? Of a narrow field? Of a super elite field? Did anyone think about this? Does it not make the position eight times worse? Or perhaps 16 times worse?
Mr Chen, your views, which you expressed yesterday quite eloquently, completely contradicts the position of your colleagues. It is like your speech was drafted without reference to their views and the divide cannot be bridged. I am referring to the policy viewpoints.
Mr Chen and Assoc Prof Goh, your express positions on elitism directly contradict your Party's decision. And Assoc Prof Goh, look at your Facebook post. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I have these exhibits circulated?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [Copies of the exhibits were distributed to hon Members]
Mr K Shanmugam: Let me read out what Assoc Prof Goh has said. This is Assoc Prof Goh's response in December of last year to the proposal to have two Houses of Parliament. We have marked it \"Exhibit A\". He said, \"Keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. No, instead they want more complicated layers that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people. Not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking leading to gridlock down the road. How about including Parliament as it is and restoring the ceremonial presidency? Keep democracy simple, deep and real.\"
In context, Assoc Prof Goh was arguing against a Senate – an Upper House – a separate House to act as a check and balance on Parliament. That was December last year and I think there was a follow-on article about his views. So, what is the real position? Is there one view on this?
The second major objection that the WP has made is that the candidates will be drawn from a small pool, likely to be establishment and the whole purpose of this exercise and the whole purpose of the exercise over the last 25 years, is to fix a non-PAP Government. It is an astoundingly cynical view.
But if that was the fear, does not the Senate proposal make the position eight times worse? How does the Senate proposal help? We have heard nothing about that.
And on the point that the Elected President will be dishonourable, I think the suggestion itself is unworthy. Dishonourable? Dr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Mr SR Nathan, Dr Tony Tan. Look at what you said about President Nathan. You said that he served Singapore with \"great distinction\". Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted how Mr Nathan made efforts to reach out to her when she became a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). Mr Pritam Singh recounted how Mr Nathan encouraged him to always \"look after… Singaporeans and Singapore\", without raising \"any doubts or concerns about serving Singapore in a different colour, cause or capacity\". I assume these were real sentiments. If so, why then do you make points which you know are untrue?
The third major objection is politicisation, that the Elected Presidency will be politicised. You say that the Government has not explained how the EP can be depoliticised.
The President can play a unifying role despite the electoral process. There are inherent tensions, but it can be done. And again, look at our past Presidents. That is your answer. It depends on the electorate choosing the right person. And, if because of the inherent tensions, you want to suggest an alternative, then, the alternative has to be better and not make the position worse.
Your position paper says the competitive election process pits individuals against one another and the outcomes of a popular election, I quote, \"tempts… the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers.\"
So, how do eight Presidents in a Senate help? Would it not be much more politicised? It does not deal with your objection on politicisation. At least, the Elected President can, after the election, play the role of a unifier. And our Elected Presidents have successfully played that role. Whereas eight Senators, you build in politicisation throughout their term. They have to constantly compete with one another. They have to profile themselves. They have to outdo one another. They want to be re-elected. Will that not considerably increase the risk of politicisation and gridlock? And a possible constitutional crisis?
How do you propose to make it work? It is basically unworkable. It will be a disaster if we did it the way you suggest, and magnify all the problems – some real, some contrived – that you have listed.
The process for the suggestion is also deeply flawed.
Mr Low dismisses the flaws in the process. He says yes, it is \"by no means perfect\". And \"not fully worked out\" the details. Let us \"focus on fundamentals\". And \"do not be bogged down by details\". The big picture, Mr Low, is not pretty. You are bogged down with the big picture because the proposal, as presented, makes no sense. The proposal fails by reference to every one of the points your team has made. You cannot dismiss the process simply because you cannot answer the questions on it. The process is like an engine in a car. Without an engine, the car will not move, even if you have a co-driver who likes slapping the driver.
Look at the ways in which the process is flawed.
First, how would the candidates campaign? In slates? This question was raised yesterday. No answer has been given. If they run in slates, would it be two slates of eight? Will they identify themselves as two teams? They are supposed to be independent. How do you form workable teams to compete against each other?
Without that being sorted out, the process fails in limine. Even worse, if the proposal is for them to run as independents, how can they then work in a team after that? They will all have to work on their own re-election. Will they not jockey and position themselves?
Second, on the selection process, an extraordinary suggestion on selection – that there will be a Senatorial Election Committee (SEC) which will select 16, even if you have 17 or 20 candidates of equal quality. That is fair? You will seriously present such a proposal to the people of Singapore?
Third, the workings of the Senate. How will it work if there is a split of four to four? Mr Singh was asked. He clearly had not thought about it, so he made up the answers as he went along. He said that it could be a casting vote. If so, who will have that casting vote? He also said that we could have nine Senators – so, nine rather than eight. Quite extraordinary.
I could not believe what I was hearing. I am sure the same goes for many Members. It would have been comical had we not been discussing a very serious matter.
Mr Low, being the seasoned politician that he is, then stepped in, realising the quagmire all of this was getting them into, and tried to put an end to this sorry spectacle by saying these are details. Basically, a plea: can you please spare us, do not ask any more questions.
But Parliament is a place for asking questions; get your proposals thoroughly examined. As champions of Parliamentary democracy, surely the WP believes in that? You do not come to Parliament with half-baked, absurd proposals, and then ask to be spared from searching questions. Does the phrase \"First World Parliament\" ring a bell?
Next, we move to criteria. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan said the criteria for the Senators are the same as for the Elected President, but only after a long detour. Mr Tan first said – same criteria as the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC). But that is absurd because there are no generally prescribed qualifications for PEC. Then, Mr Tan changed his position and said – same criteria as for the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA). But that is also absurd. Look at the requirements for CPA. Then, Mr Tan, guided by Mr Perera, said – same criteria as in the Bill – one assumes, for the EP, in context. Mr Perera then confirmed that the criteria for the Senators would be the same as for the EP. And I have read out our exchange yesterday.
So, this is also again, clearly, policy made on the fly, in Parliament, when clarifications are sought. And given how basic this is – criteria to qualify as Senators – it is astounding.
And timeline. When did this idea come about? The WP took one position before the Constitutional Commission. Parliamentary super majority if Government wants to touch the Reserves. Now, the suggestion is of an Upper House – Senate. The two are quite different. Everyone who is reasonable will know that it is quite different. Everyone will accept that it is quite different. Everyone, except Ms Lim. She insisted that both were the same when I asked her to clarify. But one has come to expect this of Ms Lim: never admit the obvious; always look for a tactical answer, even if it flies in the face of what is obvious, and even if it is absurd. It was then left to Mr Perera to be more honest. He said these ideas came about after they looked at the Constitutional Commission's report.
So, there are new ideas thought about in the last three months. Why not be just upfront and admit it?
This proposal is like a home built with sand. One touch and it crumbles. After the forensic examination yesterday, nothing of it has survived. It is so flawed I cannot believe it was a serious proposal. It does not withstand the most cursory of examinations.
So, why does the WP really oppose the Elected Presidency?
Let me end with a quote from our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Low Thia Khiang approves of this quote because he quoted a part of it during last year's GE.
Mr Low quoted this part, and I quote, \"While honest men are still in charge, it is prudent for us to institute a system of checks and balances in our political system, instead of banking on good fortune to throw up good government for the next 30 years.\" And he suggested that Prime Minister Lee had forgotten what Prime Minister Goh had said before. I can assure him, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else has forgotten it. Just that Mr Low quoted the statement out of context. If he had gone on, the context would have been clear.
The second part which he did not quote was this: \"Dishonest men who aspire for power will, I believe, never propose this Bill.\" Prime Minister Goh was talking about the Elected Presidency. That was not convenient for Mr Low to quote. \"They will never propose any amendment to the Constitution to safeguard our financial assets and Reserves and the integrity of the Public Services. They will not want any check and balance to the present parliamentary system of government\".
I assume Mr Low agrees with what then Prime Minister Goh said, in particular the last line.
Finally, yesterday, I was taken aback when the WP mentioned that their track record includes running Town councils. If I were the WP, I would not be talking about track records in running Town Councils. If I were the WP, I would run away from talking about track records in Town Councils.
Ms Sylvia Lim also claimed that the Government, or that Ministers, had sleepless nights in 2011, thinking about which candidate would be elected as President. I am not sure where she got the information from. But let me assure Ms Lim, Ministers do not get sleepless nights except when we are worried about Singapore and its future. The people who should be losing sleep are those who are accused of criminal impropriety. They are the ones who should have sleepless nights. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause]
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for distributing my Facebook post. I said in that post we should revert to the ceremonial Presidency, do not dilute popular sovereignty and to improve Parliament. This essentially and fundamentally describes the WP's call for the elected Senate to replace the Elected Presidency and CPA. I am not sure whether the Minister read the article that I was responding to which was for a pretty complicated Upper House.
We have submitted yesterday when charged with changing our views that our fundamental beliefs in Parliamentary sovereignty and reversion to the ceremonial Presidency have not changed. Now, I think the Government should face up to its own contradiction instead of dwelling on a mere Facebook post and try to come up with semantics.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tOh, is it a speech, Madam?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tThe clarification is coming.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, that is a valid point. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, please put forward your clarification.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tOkay. I will, Madam. Thanks. The contradiction is the unelected CPA having the swing vote to decide between the Elected President and Parliament. So, Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister this: i the President needs to be elected to have this democratic mandate to say \"no\" to Parliament, which is your view, what mandate does the CPA have to influence legislature and say \"yes\" or \"no\" to an Elected President and to Parliament?
Mr K Shanmugam:\tAssoc Prof Goh made two points. First, I am perfectly able to answer his question on CPA, but I will leave it to Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his wrap-up speech so that we do not take more time than necessary. But on the Member's earlier point, let us not move so fast. Is it not quite clear from his post that he opposed an Upper House? And is it not quite clear now that his proposal is for an Upper House? Those are the simple facts, and I think the answer is \"yes\" and the answer, therefore, is that his Facebook post is contradictory to the proposal now. He may have changed his position. If so, he can say that.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tI disagree, Minister. I was responding to the specific article, and I did not say that I opposed an Upper House in principle. I said that we should not dilute popular sovereignty, we should revert to the ceremonial Presidency, and we should improve Parliament.
Mr K Shanmugam: I quote, \"keep things simple and deepen existing institutions and their trust quotient. Instead, they want more complicated layers…\" That refers, surely, to an Upper House, Assoc Prof Goh? It cannot refer to the Elected Presidency which already existed. \"…that will dilute popular sovereignty and check the will of the people, not to mention the unintended inevitable consequences of inviting more politicking, leading to gridlock down the road.\"
Now, it is clear what you have written but if you disagree, let us not continue with this exchange. This is how I read it. I think people can read and decide for themselves.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tThe objection to the layers is to the layers that are described in the complex Upper House that is being proposed by an ex-PAP Member.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSo, the Member would agree to an Upper House which does not have complex layers?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tA Senate of eight Senators.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tPardon?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tA Senate of eight Senators, elected Senators.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSo, the Member would agree with that?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tYes.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tAnd the Member's post makes it clear that he would agree to a non-complex Upper House?
Mdm Speaker:\tAssoc Prof Goh, do you want to answer that?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tCould the Minister repeat that?
Mr K Shanmugam:\tSo, the Member's post, one reading his post, one can understand from that that he agrees to an Upper House, as long as it is not complex?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tNo, that does not come from the post.
Mr K Shanmugam: Right.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tI am not talking about the Upper House in principle. There is no discussion about the Upper House.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThe Member just said he was talking about the Upper House because it is complex.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tI am disagreeing to the article in proposing complex layers which is enshrined in the Upper House as being proposed.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tAssoc Prof Goh, let the answers stand on the record.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tYes.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tLet people judge for themselves.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, it is always a pleasure to meet the Minister in such contexts. I have several clarifications for the Minister. First, I am flattered that he has spent so much time to try to cross-examine the WP on details which he said, \"don't gel\" and so on.
But one of the things which I think he and also the Government have not addressed, which we have put forth as one of the weaknesses that the Government proposal or existing process is, is the current expectation of the Government for the President to play the dual role of being a custodian as well as being a Head of State. The Minister has acknowledged there are inherent tensions, and the Constitutional Commission had also received evidence and thought it necessary to record that.
So, our proposal really for the abolition of the Elected President and the restoration of the ceremonial role of the President would protect the President from having this potential need to confront the Government and now even confront an expanded and stronger CPA. I do not hear any convincing reason from the Government so far and neither from the Minister about how you can ensure that this does not happen, that the President is not faced with a confrontational situation.
Next, the Minister mentioned that it is not kosher for anyone to suggest that the President would behave dishonourably. But it is quite clear from the Hansard that this was a possibility that even PAP senior Ministers had thought to be likely, and I quoted Mr Ong Pang Boon yesterday on how he perceived the scheme to be. So, does the Minister not think that this is actually a reasonable concern?
Third, I do not understand this point about Mr SR Nathan. Yes, we gave our tribute to Mr Nathan as a man. We are not talking about the design of the system and what potential problems it could have. The two are quite distinct.
Madam, I would just like to make a comment that while we are flattered with all this attention given to our proposal, I think Singaporeans overnight are reeling from the announcement that \"There is this hiatus-triggered mechanism being proposed in the Constitution which is least intrusive. And the next election is going to be reserved for a Malay candidate\". How does this sudden announcement help to unify the country and so on? Should not the Government be concentrating more on persuading Singaporeans of the merits of their proposal rather than to spend all their time attacking us? I do not know who is politicising the process and how the public interest is being served by this.
Mr K Shanmugam:\tThis is quite interesting. A position paper is put out. A proposal is made. \"This is our proposal. We have seriously thought about it. We want a Senate, eight people to be elected. We want a referendum. We are a First World Parliament.\" And then, Ms Lim is essentially pleading, \"Why are you looking at our proposal? Yes, it is bad but why are you looking at it?\"
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tI do not plead.
Mr K Shanmugam: Well, I characterise it as a plea. It is quite astonishing. So, essentially, in essence, it is a recognition that the proposal cannot withstand any scrutiny. Otherwise, you would have come back and defended it. I think you are now giving up the defence of the proposal and pivoting, as they would say, to try and move on to a whole lot of other issues. So, let me deal with that.
The last point about reservation for Malay candidates. The Prime Minister explained it quite fully. Why? I think he went into some considerable detail and all the answers are there. As to the current expectation on the inherent tensions, yes, there are inherent tensions between having a President performing both roles, but you do not deal with that by suggesting that you neuter the Presidency, do away with the institution and put forward another institution which is fundamentally flawed, both in substance and in process, and then say, \"Here, we have a proposal\". And, in fact, the proposal, as the Member can see, does not withstand any scrutiny. The Member calls that a proposal worth talking about? It is sad that we have to talk about it simply to expose how absurd it is.
And then the Member talks about why can she not suggest that Presidents can act dishonourably; the point I was making is that she should not suggest that the proposal is dishonourable and also look at how the Elected Presidents have behaved. Look at how they have discharged their duties. One does not say therefore that it can never happen. But until there is a better solution, this is the solution we have. And we have not seen a better solution.
Third, on Mr SR Nathan, the point I was making is the Member acknowledged his service to Singapore. She acknowledged he was a good person. It leads to the conclusion that he also exercised his powers responsibly as an Elected President. And it contradicts her suggestion that this whole thing is a fix-up.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, I would like to ask one clarification from Mr Shanmugam. The Minister mentioned that the Government does acknowledge there is an inherent tension in the custodial role as well as the historical role. And the Minister alluded to the point that the Government can overcome this issue and also based on the past three Elected Presidents to prove that they have done their job very well. So, I would like to seek a clarification.
But before that, I would like to just add on: does the Minister acknowledge that when the Constitutional Commission made such an observation, they also took into consideration the three past Elected Presidents ‒ what they have done ‒ as well as take into consideration what happened in 2011 during the campaigning? So, I would like to have a simple answer from the Minister ‒ as he always wishes Members to give him a simple answer ‒ does the Minister agree that, in this case, the Constitutional Commission is more prudent than the Government in asking not to continue with the Elected Presidency scheme?
Mr K Shanmugam: First of all, I think the Member probably has not read the Constitutional Commission's report carefully. Go back and read it carefully. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer this a little bit more in detail. Now, three points.
Is there an inherent tension? There is an inherent tension in performing both roles. Can it be overcome? It can be overcome. Do we need an Elected Presidency despite this inherent tension? The answer is yes. The Prime Minister has explained it and, over 25 years, we have explained it. Singaporeans have accepted it.
Do you have a better solution if you want to do away with it? We have seen the quality of your solution. If there is no better solution, and we need this institution, then we proceed while acknowledging that there is risk. The Constitutional Commission made its recommendations on the Elected Presidency, most of which are being implemented now. They made a further observation subsequently about another process that the Government could consider. But the Prime Minister has explained why we need elections and why we need a custodian.
Mdm Speaker:\tPlease keep clarifications short. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tLooking at the Hansard ‒ it is not going to be short. It cannot be— I mean, a clarification will follow.
Mdm Speaker:\tIs it pertinent to any specific clarification you are seeking?
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tYes, of course.
Mdm Speaker:\tIf it is a very long one —
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tIt would not be long.
Mdm Speaker:\tJust a pertinent one.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: All right. On 5 October 1990, then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that what essentially was happening was that the Government was creating a mixed Senate: six appointed Senators forming the Council, and one elected Senator that would be the Elected President. And he said this about the elected Upper House: \"In essence, there is no difference between our proposal and the suggestion that there should be an Upper House to supervise or comment on Bills debated in this House. We think this scheme is more workable because when you have a Senate, and let us assume it is an elected Senate, firstly, you have the problem of finding a sufficient number of people to stand for elections to the Senate. We need about 20 to 30 people to make it effective. Secondly, how do we ensure that people who are elected into the Senate have the qualities that we are looking for? There is no control.\" He said this.
So, the Minister seems to be genuinely shocked by our proposal and says that it is ridiculously and fundamentally flawed. But how does this square with then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh's view that a CPA plus the Elected President, forming a team, comprises the Senate?
Mr K Shanmugam: Do not just look at the Hansard. You can also look at the previous White Papers and they tell you and show you that the Government considered the question of a Senate, an Upper House, very carefully. Having considered it, they dismissed it. But the Government's approach to a Senate was very different from the approach that you are proposing, which, fundamentally, is unworkable. And I have explained various reasons why your proposal is fundamentally unworkable, and my shock and astonishment arise from the nature of the proposal as fleshed out yesterday, clarification after clarification.
The Government has explained that an elected Upper House is inherently unworkable and has explained it many times why. So, look at then-Deputy Prime Minister's statements in context. He pointed out that in the end, we settled on one person to be elected and explained —
Mdm Speaker:\tCan the Member please address that? Switch off whatever it is.
Mr K Shanmugam:\t— and explained why. Then, we also have the CPA. And there is a good reason why they are not elected. But he likened the process, that it will give you an effect like an Upper House but without the attendant difficulties and inherent problems. And if you want to know what the inherent problems are, go read the White Paper.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the hon Minister for Law for his comments. I have four points of clarification.
Firstly, yesterday, the Minister for Law said to me, \"What would you do if there were too few people, if less than eight wanted to run for the Senate?\" So, the Minister for Law seemed concerned that there would not be enough people who want to come forward. May I please finish —
Mr K Shanmugam:\tIs this a clarification on what I just said or is it a clarification on what I said yesterday?
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera, you have to keep your clarification to what the Minister just said this afternoon.
Mr Leon Perera:\tYes. My point is actually what seems to be a contradiction between what the Minister said yesterday and what he just said. Can I proceed with that, Madam?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes.
Mr Leon Perera: Yesterday, the Minister said that there might be too few people to run for the Senate. But, today, the Minister says that our criteria ‒ which is that we refer to the directive track ‒ are too elitist. So, which one is it? Are you saying that because we have eight Senators, there would not be enough people to run, or are you saying that our criteria are too limiting and actually there are many, many people who would want to run and we are limiting it too much? Which one is it? There is a contradiction there.
The second point is: the Minister talked about the Senate proposal possibly creating gridlock. This is extraordinary. The Government has proposed an unelected CPA with Byzantine provisions for staggered two-year terms and this CPA can block a President if the President wants to veto a decision of Parliament, and that does not create the risk of gridlock? But our proposal creates a gridlock? How is that? It is extraordinary.
The third point is the politicisation ‒ how would we avoid the Senate being politicised. And that has been bandied about a great deal. A great deal. I would like to ask the Minister for Law that same risk of politicisation is what the Elected Presidency is now vulnerable to; how do you manage that? No one from the other side of the House has given a definitive and convincing answer to this point. You run the risk of politicising the Elected Presidency, you want to change the conversation block and bridge, do not talk about this. Focus on the technical details in the hopes of focusing public attention on that. Well, there is a problem here, there is a problem there. What about the fundamental system design? The Constitutional Commission pointed that out. You risk politicising the Elected Presidency. You do not want to talk about that, so you said, \"Oh, but with a Senate, you risk politicising that.\" How do you address that? No one has conclusively addressed that.
And my last clarification point is, would the Minister for Law explain why he presumably is opposed to this proposal going to a referendum. I raised this question before, and I would like to ask it again. We have proposed a system design solution of a Senate, and going to a referendum would allow us time in the run-up to that referendum for that proposal to be debated, discussed with experts, with lay persons, and then the public could decide. Rather than we decide in this House, the public can actually decide on something so important.
Mr K Shanmugam: If I may deal with the last point first. I did not talk about a referendum. I do not think it arises from what I said, and I think Mr Perera got more than what he wanted yesterday from Dr Puthucheary on the question of a referendum. I do not think he wants similar treatment this afternoon.
As regards to politicisation, I am not sure that the Member has understood what we have said. We understand and accept that there is a risk. The Prime Minister talked about it. Others have talked about it. There is a risk. We have always acknowledged the risk. We do not run away from the problem. But when you balance out, ultimately, the requirement for a custodian to safeguard the Reserves from dishonest people who will want to raid the Reserves, it is a bigger risk. You need to deal with that bigger risk. And until and unless someone can suggest a better system, our assessment is that this is a risk worth taking. And as our experience shows, if you elect good people, good Presidents, the risk is well manageable. The alternative that is being suggested is a complete disaster. You are so embarrassed by it, you do not even want to answer questions on it now.
As regards to the CPA and gridlock, I am able to deal with it. The Member has gotten it wrong, but Deputy Prime Minister Teo will respond. I did not touch on the CPA.
As regards to your criteria and my suggestion or supposed contradiction in saying there might be too few people or too many people, and at the same time suggesting that this is too elitist, I think the Member could not have misunderstood what I said. The problem is not with what we are saying, the problem is with what the Member is saying.
In your position paper, you say, on the election of one elected President, that it is super elitist and it is such a narrow criterion and so on. But then you turned around and you said, you want 16 people with the same qualifications to run for the Senate, of whom eight will be elected. So, I am pointing out that one of your objections to this whole Elected Presidency is that it is super elitist. But then that major objection is made eight times worse because you want the same people to run for your Senate. So, how does your proposal deal with the objection? That was the point I was making. I think it was a simple point, and you could not have misunderstood.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tMadam, I would like to thank the Minister for his elaborate reply to my earlier clarification. But I would like to ask the question again because the Minister has not given me the answer yes or no.
Mdm Speaker:\tJust put the question, Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tI just want to know does the Minister agree that the Constitutional Commission is taking a more prudent approach in dealing with the inherent tension by asking to do away with the Elected Presidency. I just want to have a simple answer, \"yes\" or \"no\".
Mr K Shanmugam:\tMr Faisal Manap, one does not have to characterise the Constitutional Commission's proposals. What I will say is that the Constitutional Commission gave many important recommendations which were directly relevant to the questions that were asked. In addition, it added an observation for the Government to consider if it wished and if it wanted to accept. That is what the Commission said, and I think we will keep to the Commission's words.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tMadam, does the Minister not agree that the presidential candidate needs to be a unifier of the country's people, the symbol of unity for the country? However, the Senate is different. The Senate has a specific custodial function. That is the main contradiction between the two ideas that we have here. So, can the Minister comment on this? Does the Senate need to be a unifier of the country?
Mr K Shanmugam:\tMdm Speaker, I have dealt with this several times. I do not think I need to repeat myself.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I rise to express my support for the proposed changes outlined in the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo had given detailed speeches which outlined the importance of these amendments. This is in contrast to the WP's suggestion to set up a Senate and have a referendum. Could this suggestion and essential issue not be put forth earlier so that it can be discussed, because this issue is important to the people and not something trivial?
This is especially so with regard to the in-depth and minor details relating to the appointment of Senators, which is quite important, particularly in addressing multiracialism when these Senators are appointed.
The Government's continuous efforts to create an inclusive community for all races in Singapore are highly commended. Our society is a cultural melting pot that has embraced racial harmony for decades. It is convenient to get complacent and believe that we need not work as hard as before to maintain the status quo.
I appreciate the spirit behind this Constitutional (Amendment) Bill. It is a testament to how much the Government values inclusivity and racial diversity as principles that have to be upheld.
Having spoken to a number of residents and grassroots volunteers, I do not doubt that they welcome the spirit behind this Bill. Some have also said they are glad to note that the Prime Minister has said that he is not being pressured by any group to make the changes but had done it for the long-term benefits to our multiracial society.
I have two main points to make. Firstly, strengthening our Reserves' defence, that is, the President should always be chosen based on meritocracy; and there should be flexibility in choosing the goalkeeper and enhancing the defensive line. Secondly, grooming minority candidates and a call to action. Allow me to elaborate now.
I believe that it is crucial that a President should be chosen on his or her own merits. It is vital not to allow racial issues to cloud our judgement. It is imperative that candidates who meet the race requirement must also meet all the other requirements. There must be no compromises or any give and take on this matter.
Singaporeans must be assured that, ultimately, we are getting the best candidate to represent the nation, regardless of race. This policy has served our country well and we should stick to it. After all, the office holder is no longer just a ceremonial leader.
The candidate is supposed to be the Head of State. He/she is a symbol of respectability, integrity and the face and voice of all Singaporeans. But as we are aware, on top of the ceremonial role, the President is given the two custodial responsibilities over Past Reserves and over key appointments to protect the integrity of the Public Service.
Hence, the person who assumes office through an election has to be someone with sound business exposure and a deep understanding of economic issues. The President, as an institution, will play an important role to ensure that the government of the day displays wisdom when it comes to spending the Reserves.
There has been feedback from the public about how the bar or threshold has been set too high for candidates, that a person's firm must have a minimum of $500 million in shareholders' equity, which means that only the most senior executives of large, complex companies are eligible, further reducing the available pool of talent.
But it is important that the apparent misunderstanding here has to be cleared up. As mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Teo yesterday, this $500 million criterion is not an exclusion criterion and one does not need to be the most senior executive in a large company.
Therefore, even a chief financial officer could qualify as a candidate, for instance, as he/she would understand numbers, good governance and what it takes to safeguard national Reserves.
It is important that we clarify all these qualifying criteria to avoid any unintentional exclusion of suitable talent.
Under this track, a candidate will qualify if he satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he has held an office of a comparable nature to those held under the automatic track that has given him the necessary experience and ability for the office of the President.
Another point I want to add is: what if a candidate from a big corporation is elected as President but, after a period of time, if a malfeasance is uncovered which happened during his watch as the chairman or whatever position he held in the corporation, would there be a process where the Elected President can be removed?
We have seen how misdeeds are sometimes uncovered years after a person has left an organisation or company, or perhaps due to a whistleblower in that organisation.
I support the changes made to the Bill whereby the President should be obliged to consult the Council before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on Singapore's Reserves and all matters regarding key public appointments. I also support the changes to augment the Council with two additional members, one appointed by the President and the other by the Prime Minister.
The Council currently comprises six members with two members appointed by the President and two by the Prime Minister, one member on the advice of Chief Justice and one member on the advice of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
If I can use a soccer analogy, with these changes, we will have a talented goalkeeper able to handle the changes in the game and the skills of the opposing team's forwards, but now this will also be rebalanced by having two additional defenders.
This will be akin to having a set of players who are not only skilful in ball handling but also strong team players. Each one understands their role well, each one can read a game well, be fully alert to what is going in front of the goalmouth and anticipate what is going to happen. Only one goalkeeper, not eight or nine goalkeepers.
With clockwork precision, they can coordinate their moves to get into positions at the right time and place with one common objective, namely, to thwart the opposing team's forwards from getting near the penalty area, let alone attempting to score a goal. What this means is that our Reserves will be guarded and key public appointments will be done smoothly.
My second point is that I support the changes to the Bill to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency via a hiatus-triggered safeguard mechanism without undermining meritocracy.
I am sure that Singaporeans or the Malay/Muslim community have a pool of good candidates. I am also confident that this pool will become bigger in the future since many Malays are doing well academically, received Government scholarships and are currently enjoying success in many fields.
However, one of my concerns is that there may not be sufficient minority candidates when needed. I see it as a call to action and, maybe, Singaporeans and the Malay/Muslim community have to take action to further enhance the talent pool or capability of future minority candidates and encourage them to step forward.
We already have a good process in place to identify and nurture people for high office in the Government. Over time, these changes to the Bill could be seen as a call to action within Singapore and within the ethnic communities to provide and groom talents or individuals from the minority races to gain relevant experience from their careers and when they are in influential positions within the corporate world, whether in the private or non-private sectors.
This should ensure that over the years, we build up a wide talent pool of people from various minorities that are adequate and who have also reaped the required experiences to meet the future prerequisites of a multiracial elected Presidency.
With this in mind, I hope that companies and organisations can work harder hand in hand, to be more inclusive and ensure more comprehensive representation on their management boards and in leadership positions.
This is also beneficial to employees within the company who are of a minority group, as there would be someone who is more sensitive to their needs who could take better care of their welfare in the company. Key Government-linked companies (GLCs) and the Civil Service are already taking the lead to some extent, and it is hoped that the private sector will emulate this.
Similar to the Elected Presidency, any individual must meet the requirements of the job and there must be some effort to ensure we have individuals from the minority groups but would still be in line with the principles of meritocracy and multi-culturalism.
Singapore has built up a good Reserve, and so there is a need for an institution outside of Parliament to check on the spending of Reserves and restrain spending where necessary.
The EP is not alone in the decision-making process. He has the CPA, who are people eminently qualified to guide him in making his decisions. All said, it is pertinent for the public to note that the EP's role is not to provide checks and balances on anything and everything, just as how candidates in the previous elections have misled voters into believing so.
Do not let the election of an EP to be an excuse in a GE for voters to elect any party and their candidates to Parliament. These are separate bodies, each with its own responsibilities.
I wish to conclude that within today's social environment, issues of race and religion are gaining more prominence. When insensitively managed, they can lead to distrust and division among the people.
When the differences are too vast and destructive, social unrest, which may lead to civil war, happens. In the United States, racial tensions between the police and the public are being reported more frequently than before and, in many cases, they have led to deaths of innocent policemen and civilians. It is the same too in Europe. The hype created by the mainstream media and social media only serves to reinforce and magnify the misgivings among ethnic communities. In parts of Europe and the United States, innocent Muslims are targeted for attacks and discrimination due to lack of empathy and stereotyping. Social division is one of the main culprits that lead to alienation.
Consequently, acts of violence and terrorism stem from perpetrators who seek to gain acceptance from a malicious group that takes advantage of the discontent of these people.
Riots, violent crimes, mass exodus of refugees and many other significant social issues are often a result of conflicts among different ethnic groups. While these may seem unimaginable in peaceful, harmonious Singapore, we cannot guarantee that it would not lead to an earthquake when the fissures start to surface.
It is hoped that these latest changes can step up the efforts to create a society in which all Singaporeans know that they will not be marginalised or shut out, that they truly have a place to call Singapore their home and their own country.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Thank you, Madam, for letting me share my views on the topic. Madam, the WP had yesterday sprung an idea of a two-House or bicameral system on us. They have suggested the formation of an eight-member Senate. It has left me asking who are the eight members and who are to be elected? What is the shortlisting process that is going to take place? What is the racial combination and what are the qualification and eligibility criteria? Until today, I am not clear about this. It remains nebulous and, certainly, the details are not finalised.
Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim says it is really no change from the existing CPA. But Member Daniel Goh stated in his Facebook post and also later commented on \"Mothership\" that two Houses will be too complicated and wants to keep it simple. He feels that two Houses would be better suited for larger countries, those with federal systems, such as the United States and also Australia, or those democracies that are exiting from autocracy, for example, the United Kingdom (UK), where the powerful lords need to be appeased.
He feels that there will be more politicking and a higher chance for gridlock. Well, if he has changed his world view, it certainly has not gotten across to me.
Member Mr Low Thia Khiang also says that it is just a preliminary proposal with no details. It leaves me wondering who is going to tidy it up, clean it up, and do what they have to do. Well, let us ask them: is it right, is it fair to call for a national referendum like this?
I am concerned, Madam, with no concrete details, a lack of time for assimilation, understanding, research, and weighted consideration, it might end up worse than Brexit.
Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim stated, and I quote: \"The appointed Presidency will elevate the office\". I would ask the Member to review this because with the four Elected Presidents we have had the last few decades, they actually exemplify way above this. In fact, with the Elected Presidency platform, I feel that the office is elevated to its highest level, making its value even much higher. Eligible candidates are putting themselves up for scrutiny and testing by having Singaporeans vote for them.
Member Mr Low also said, and I quote: \"People are feeling uneasy about this change.\" Well, that is not the feeling that I have gotten from the ground. Through dialogues, focus group discussions and interactions with the community, including the minority community, they are appreciative if such a weighted consideration is being given to this. They are given a voice and really, they have come up with some very good suggestions, I have to say. In Malay, Madam.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal Manap spoke about the \"community's suspicion\". To me, there will always be a small group who does not agree. But if we are really sincere and believe that what we do is for Singapore's benefit, we must implement it and do it as best as we can.
At the moment, I am also unclear whether Mr Faisal Manap is agreeable to the reserved election that was allocated for the Malay minority community next year.
(In English): Ms Sylvia Lim also said, and I quote: \"This Bill is like a nightmare coming back to haunt us.\" Well, I say a nightmare can be recurrent if certain issues are still on our minds. As we have heard, the Elected Presidency scheme is evolving and being refined further. Changes are coming. That is why it is still on our minds until we consolidate this Bill and certainly our stand.
Madam, I will focus on the multiracial representation of the Elected Presidency. In Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a nation with a plural society that is unique. The way we manage national issues is also unique.
The proposal for an Elected Presidency has given us a platform to reflect about our journey together as a society and as a Malay/Muslim community.
The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore has become more progressive, attained many achievements and succeeded in various fields in a meritocratic country. Our meritocratic system has given opportunities for all races.
Optimally, minorities should be elected in an open election. This can become a reality because Singapore, over the years, has introduced racial integration policies in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and our schools. Now, these policies have become part of our lives and no longer seem strange or conspicuous. In fact, we do not feel any unease towards such policies.
Singapore's GRC system also has some criteria for minorities. But there is a huge difference between what will become a reality and what may become a reality. Therefore, do we want to fight over an issue that will have an impact on Singapore's shared future?
Singapore's minorities, including the Malay/Muslims, are grateful for the review regarding the election of a President from a minority group. This is an issue close to our hearts and is also a sensitive and difficult one. But it is our principle to consult and discuss openly about such issues in Singapore, especially since our community has become more mature.
It is true that for 46 years, Singapore has not had a Malay President since Encik Yusof Ishak. So, we should be heartened that this was considered, especially with the announcement that next year's election will be reserved for Malays. The Government shows concern for the feelings of our minorities. This is crucial in a plural society. If previously we were able to have a President from every race on a rotational basis, with this new system, this cannot be guaranteed any longer.
Let us explore the issues of the Elected Presidency scheme closely.
Firstly, with this Elected Presidency, all races can contest. This is fair and meritocratic.
Secondly, in the Elected Presidency, there are stringent criteria to ensure the eligibility of all candidates. Yes, all candidates. This is also fair. This has been scrutinised and there are candidates among our Malays who can fulfil these criteria.
Thirdly, the recommended period of five terms is a very long time, that is, about 25 years. And if there are no Presidents from the minority groups within these 25 years, only then will this new proposal take effect. This is also fair, in my view, but let us pause and reflect on the other issues.
Do the people still vote along racial lines? Is there a difference in the mindset of the Pioneer Generation and those who are older, compared to the younger generation? Being \"race blind\" requires a high level of maturity, progressiveness and a deep understanding of race relations in Singapore, which are quite sensitive.
Does having reserved elections for minorities make the issue of race more conspicuous? These are the issues where we must consider and think about its explanations.
In the Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) survey in 2016, Singaporeans are found to be comfortable interacting and living together with the other communities and other races. But when the time comes to vote, they are more inclined to elect a President and Prime Minister from their own race. The same results were also seen in this survey three years ago, that is, in 2013. Hence, we can see that this view has not shifted significantly even though three years have passed. Due to that, without any guarantee that we can become \"race blind\" or \"colour blind\", this new proposal is important and has been presented.
What about the issue of tokenism that was highlighted by certain sectors? This issue must be managed with a good and well-crafted clarification. The younger generation in Singapore are used to values like meritocracy and fairness. Surely, they want the President to be elected fairly and impartially, from their point of view. This issue should not just be understood by the Malay/Muslim community but, in fact, all Singaporeans, in general, must also understand it correctly. This is to prevent any suspicion from emerging in the interaction between the different races.
Will the proposed method question the capability of minorities? This is surely a sensitive issue.
My view is that minorities should not feel unimportant or insignificant when, in fact, we have received good benefits in terms of the economy and our shared identity.
Minorities should also be able to give and take, so that our majority community will be comfortable living together with them each day in Singapore. Essentially, if the Presidential candidate carries out these responsibilities fairly and is a person of high calibre and is able to fulfil the same criteria as the other candidates, the issue of tokenism should not surface at all.
Another issue, Madam, is with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that Singapore signed in 2015 and will ratify in 2017, whereby this matter was also highlighted. We must understand the meaning and the real issue behind the words, \"political rights of all races\".
If you study this closely, it does not contradict and, in fact, provides opportunities for minorities. This scheme does not prevent anyone, including minorities, from taking part. In fact, it invites minorities to come forward.
The proposal that was made by this committee promotes, looks after, gives consideration to and does not belittle our minorities. It does not contradict at all with our values of multiracialism and multiculturalism in Singapore.
Today's global situation, Madam, should make all of us think about how the state of racial harmony, which we have cultivated all this while, can easily unravel. Global trends have churned up race-based politics that exploit populist and unhealthy sentiments seen in many countries.
Therefore, I urge everyone to take the time to understand and study carefully the background to this scheme. It is a difficult issue but it is important for our shared future in Singapore.
In contemplating about this Bill, I also thought that female Presidential candidates can be categorised under their own race. So, if we see this from a wider perspective, this proposal is also related to qualified women from all races in Singapore.
This is important. If we look at, for instance, the United States (US) – a First World and progressive nation – 240 years have passed but they have never had a female President until the present time, whereby Hillary Clinton is a candidate.
Before I end my speech, I have a query that I hope can be clarified. In mixed marriages, which are more common nowadays, the children born from this union will grow up and may one day become our Presidential candidate. How will we categorise them? Under which race? Because they may be placed under the \"double-barrelled race\" category.
What if both their parents are new immigrants who have become new citizens? What will be stated as their category of race? This is something for us and the next generation of leaders to think about and consider.
Moving forward, our minorities should look at this issue seriously in order to groom suitable candidates who have these characteristics, that is, being respected, loved, qualified and capable.
The President is a symbol of our nation, Madam. Make the right choice. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Firstly, I would like to speak on the aspect of the Bill which addresses the issue of representation of minorities.
As a Eurasian myself, I am proud to be part of a unique group of our community which is incredibly diverse and rich in our cultural heritage. We are literally living and breathing DNA fusions. Although we are routinely categorised as \"Others\", I have never felt excluded nor discriminated against.
Hence, initially, I did not think it was necessary to set aside an election for members of a racial group from which there has not been a President for five terms. After all, the racial group of a qualified candidate should be irrelevant in our meritocratic and race-blind society. However, the reality is that we are not quite a race-blind society, as the CNA-IPS survey had found. A significant proportion of Singaporeans would still prefer a President to be of their own race.
However, I am heartened to note that despite this, most Singaporeans will accept a Prime Minister or President of another race. The survey found that those who are younger and more highly educated are more accepting of leaders of different races. This, indeed, bodes well for our future.
This Bill highlights the reality of the racial issues our society faces. It is important to acknowledge the need to be more inclusive of our minorities and ensure that they feel that they are also an integral part of our community.
We have not had a Malay President or even a Malay candidate since the Elected Presidency commenced in 1991. Our only Malay President, the late Mr Yusof Ishak, was appointed after our Independence. I am, therefore, very happy to note that our next Elected President will be from the Malay community.
The importance of symbolism that any qualified citizen, regardless of race, language or religion, can be Singapore's Head of State is worth upholding.
As the criteria for qualified candidates for the elected President are so stringent, we can be assured that meritocracy will not be undermined. By placing the onus on members of our minority groups to step forward and stand for election, we are encouraging them to take a more proactive role in our Elected Presidency. An Elected President, compared to an appointed one, has a stronger mandate to represent his people. Each of us has a responsibility to be representatives for our racial groups and our nation.
I would like to suggest that going forward, we consider a separate fourth racial category for Eurasians, for the purpose of the Elected Presidency. I am not making this suggestion in response to the divisive anonymous article posted on the States Times Review website, which made false allegations pertaining to the election chances of Eurasians compared to Indians. Rather, I strongly believe that we Eurasians, being culturally distinct as Asians, with European ancestry and heritage, have a unique perspective to contribute to the office of the Elected Presidency. Our fusion backgrounds influence our attitudes, mindsets and interactions with our community. As the embodiment of East-West unions, we are also living testimonies of interracial, cultural and religious harmony and unity. By bringing something different to the table, we can help enrich the office of the Elected Presidency. Hence, I hope it would be ideal to ensure reserved elections for a Eurasian Elected President.
Secondly, in a similar vein, may I suggest that amendments be made to ensure that the composition of the CPA includes at least a member of each major racial group and at least one woman. The CPA plays a critical role in advising the Elected President on financial Reserves and key appointments. Members of different racial groups and women will offer a diversity of perspectives, which will enrich and inform the discussions of the Advisers and the President. Today, we have the breadth and depth of talent in each of our racial groups and among our women to support this criterion. I hope my suggestion will push the search to unearth and persuade qualified Singaporeans to accept the appointments to the CPA.
Lastly, we must be mindful that some Singaporeans would not be able to differentiate much between an election for the President and the GE, despite the public education efforts to highlight the different responsibilities of the President and elected Members of Parliament (MPs).
The Commission has made its recommendations on campaign methods and how to prevent misinformation, such as setting out-of-bound markers during rallies. I support the government's decision to take more time to study the recommendations carefully before instituting new measures. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Masagos Zulkifli.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Singapore today is a country with a rich diversity that we value, respect and celebrate. We see this in our surroundings, where we can find a mosque within the vicinity of a Chinese home or a church close to Muslim homes. It is even more amazing to a visitor to find a mosque beside a temple. We see this as our children go to school in traditional costumes to celebrate Racial Harmony Day and learn about the virtues of strength in diversity. We feel this inclusiveness when we get invited to open houses during Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Hari Raya or even to weddings of friends of different races.
Indeed, we are becoming more socially diverse. The proportion of inter-ethnic marriages has almost doubled from a decade ago. Last year, 21.5% of marriages were inter-ethnic marriages. We have new citizens and immigrants setting up home in Singapore, enriching our diversity.
We have benefited from the peace and prosperity from our racial and religious harmony and made our diversity work for us. Our interpretation of multi-racialism, has thus far, forged strong bonds among Singaporeans, and also engendered trust between the people and the Government. Indeed, it is only with this peace and this trust between the people and the Government that we can have an open discussion on amending the Constitution on the Elected Presidency.
There are three major pillars upon which we have built our multiracial and multi-religious social compact and earned us our peace and harmony. These pillars need to be continually tended to, strengthened or even modified while keeping an eye on achieving the objectives of a workable and peaceful multiracial and multi-religious society.
The first of these three pillars is our policies around building an inclusive society which is both multiracial and multi-religious. Our policies have long been the cornerstones to preserve this sense of inclusiveness of all races, in order to build a sense of equity within the community and political system.
Policies that have steered us towards this sense of inclusiveness are reflected over the years.
In 1965, when we became an independent nation, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew made a promise to Singaporeans to build a multiracial nation. He said, and I quote, \"We are going to be a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set an example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture, religion.\"
To assuage the minorities, particularly the Malays who became a minority overnight, this commitment towards the inclusion of all Singaporeans has been worded in our Constitution under Article 152(1). It states that, \"It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore\", with special recognition for the position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.
In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established to examine all legislation to ensure that they are not disadvantageous to any racial or religious community as compared to other such communities.
Since 1988, our society's multiracialism has been safeguarded in our Parliamentary system through the GRC system, where at least one of the MPs must belong to one of the minority racial communities.
The Ethnic Integration Policy, which was introduced in March 1989, aims to ensure a balanced racial mix in every neighbourhood and block which approximates the general population. This has promoted racial integration and harmony in HDB estates. It is how many of us grew up smelling and learning to love one another's cooking, going to school together, visiting one another's homes during festivals and familiarising ourselves with the significant occasions at the void deck, be it weddings, birthday celebrations, even funerals – allowing each to celebrate or grieve.
Therefore, the amendment to the Elected Presidency is, to me, a continuation of the policy enhancement that we need from time to time to preserve this need to build an inclusive multiracial society.
Who we elect as President must be representative of who we are and what we stand for as Singaporeans. With the Elected Presidency, the principle of meritocracy applies – we must elect the best person for the job.
However, our value system is not singularly about meritocracy; in as much as competence is key, it is also a matter of principle, that our elected president is a person of integrity. These two principles, meritocracy and integrity, translate to competence and honesty, both necessary elements to the character of the Elected President, for the custodial role.
However, the Elected President also plays a symbolic role as the Head of State representing the multiracial society of Singapore and, at the same time, he or she must be able to connect with all Singaporeans. Ideally, since the Elected Presidency was first enacted in 1990, an Elected President of each ethnic group would have been represented and elected, but unfortunately this has not been the case.
Everyone has quoted the CNA-IPS survey on race relations, which was published recently in August 2016. The survey notes that while the majority of respondents of all races would accept someone from a minority race as President, given a choice, most would prefer someone of the same race as them to become the nation's Prime Minister or President. I do not believe that this is from a sense of deep prejudice or bigotry than a sense of comfort and convenience to choose someone similar to yourself.
This is apparent when, based on the same findings, 59% of Chinese would still say yes to a Malay President, while 75% of Malays would still say \"yes\" to an Indian President. In an ideal scenario, people will vote independent of racial lines, but the fact is that racial preference is primordial and a natural inclination. It exists today everywhere, it exists in Singapore, and it exists also in the US where ethnic-based campaign counts much in their elections. Therefore, in Singapore, too, if left unchecked, the current rules will more probably than not, elect a President of the majority race for a long time to come.
Indeed, just because we have learnt to live with our differences and can cherish them, does not mean the differences do not matter or the differences have disappeared.
So, I am glad that one of the proposed changes that will be introduced to the Elected Presidency is to have a reserved Presidential Election for a racial group. This will assuage the minorities, particularly. I have heard support from my community for this in the town hall dialogues I conducted. Actually, every time Presidential candidates are announced in every election in the past, I would be accosted by my community with remarks of disappointment because a Malay candidate is not contesting. Of course, it goes away months later, but it never fails to crop up again and again when a Presidential Election arrives again.
Now, these grouses seem a minor matter. Just a small unhappiness. It goes away. The Prime Minister cited last week's massive demonstration in Jakarta, which ended in violence. It was triggered by off-hand comments as part of a contest for high political office. What was allegedly said in that comment had religious connotations and was perceived as an insult to believers. One sentence, just one sentence was enough to enrage many people. Political actors allegedly took advantage of the situation to fuel sentiments further.
Seemingly small things can and do snowball, too, especially when they cut into primordial instincts about race and religion over time. That is why, it is good that we address this seemingly small issue on ethnic representation of the Elected President – because it is a matter touching on race or religion – before it accumulates over time and snowballs with other issues into an avalanche.
The right policies on their own, though, will not guarantee racial and religious harmony – it is no silver bullet. Clearly, however, the wrong policies will destroy this harmony. One policy of the Sri Lankan government in 1944 making Sinhalese the sole official language, excluded Tamil-speaking minorities from the civil service and limited entry into universities.
Other policies came in succession and continued marginalising Tamil-speaking minorities. The burning down of the Jaffna Library in 1981 was probably the ultimate trigger of 26 years of \"bombs, bullets, carnage and suffering\" from the civil war.
Mdm Speaker, while we have come a long way from the tumultuous times when there was strife between communities, we cannot take for granted the peaceful co-existence that we have today. Even as the Government moves to assuage the care and concern it has for minority communities by introducing new laws or modifying them, both the minorities and the dominant community have crucial roles to play to forge the trust and harmony that the Government seeks to build through an inclusive society.
Inclusivity is a two-way street. Inclusivity would not be successful had the minorities not been responsive. Minorities had participated actively in and continuously built our common spaces; even as minorities, we seek to preserve our identity and culture. Sometimes, integration involves everyone making sacrifices of what is important because it mattered to others. This proactive effort at integration by the minorities makes a crucial second pillar for our harmony.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The harmonious multiracial and multi-religious life that we enjoy and experience together all this while was built on three main pillars.
The first pillar is the good policies of the Government, which has all along continually ensured that all citizens and all races feel a sense of togetherness and inclusiveness, in order to create and cultivate a sense of equality in society and its political system. This includes:
(a) On the day of Singapore's Independence, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged to build a multiracial nation based on equality. This commitment is further strengthened in our country's Constitution in Article 152(1), which states the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the minorities in Singapore.
(b) In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established.
(c) The GRC scheme was created in 1988 so that there will be a minority candidate in the slate of election candidates in order to avoid race-based politics.
(d) A year later, the Ethnic Integration Policy was established to ensure that there is a racial balance among the residents in each public housing estate.
The amendment to the Constitution to ensure that a candidate from each race can become an Elected President is another adjustment that was made this time round to change a situation that has not been conducive for someone from the minority group to become President. This has been well-received by the Malays, who also want a candidate from our community – someone who is qualified, capable and trustworthy. I welcome it, too.
Nonetheless, no matter how much the Government shows concern and takes care of the minority communities' welfare, both parties – be it the minorities or the dominant group – play an important role to cultivate and strengthen trust and foster mutual respect towards each other so that we can continue to enjoy this harmony.
At the same time, we should also agree that the integration process is essential for harmony. I am pleased that, as a minority, the Malay/Muslim community has always done its best to integrate with society in general in Singapore. Without depending on any welfare system, they have been able to enjoy modern life with other citizens based on meritocracy, while at the same time, still managing to preserve their identity as Malay/Muslims. This is the second pillar of our harmony.
In any process of integration, minorities will always want to see and sense the sincerity of the majority or dominant group in the effort to create an inclusive society; and this is no different in Singapore. It is the genuine acceptance of minorities that will create a sense of togetherness. This will form the third pillar of racial harmony in our country and I will elaborate further in English.
(In English): In many countries, where there is a dominant majority and significant minorities, we see a whole spectrum of how multiracialism is lived. This ranges from the negative, such as with oppression and rejection, to simply ignoring them to let them live any way they want; to the positive, integrating and embracing them as full-fledged members of the community. There are also societies that force minorities into assimilation. We are our own working model of a multiracial society and the most important part of which is to instil the sense of belonging of our minorities.
The sense of belonging of our minorities is crucial in ensuring that Singapore remains resilient against any force that threatens to tear our society apart. As minorities adjust to integrate, they continuously sense whether the majority is embracing the \"inclusive society\".
It is no different for Singapore. The warm embrace of the majority and, consequently, a sense of belonging by the minorities, makes the final third foundation for our multi-racial society to live in harmony. On the contrary, in countries which instead play up racial and religious differences by the dominant community, we see unhappiness within the minority community festering and, in certain cases, exploited.
Everyone here would be familiar with the Iraq conflict and the pronouncement of territories of the Islamic Caliphate by ISIS. But what is more interesting is that individuals from minority groups from countries so far away have also joined this war. The Soufan Group estimates 27,000 foreign fighters at the end of 2015. Why that many? I heard former US Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jane Lute, said, \"They came from everywhere because they belonged to nowhere\". There is at least a battalion of Uighur and Chechen fighters within ISIS. BBC reported, \"It's the general colonial attitude of the Han Chinese officials to Uighurs that generate huge resentment.\"
In the end, there were violent clashes between the Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese in Xinjiang, China, such as that in 2014 as a result of the radicalisation of the Uighurs. In Chechnya, what started out as a nationalist uprising in Russia's north Caucasus region in the 1990s was met by a brutal clampdown which, in turn, spawned a violent Islamist movement. Chechnyan and Uighur militants spilled their fight into Syria hoping they can feel they belong and can call it home.
Thus, today, we see that the rejection or sense of rejection of a minority group in the community, or the use of force to make them conform to the majority, has not only caused a loss in the sense of belonging but often resulted in dire consequences, with some of the oppressed turning towards violence and terrorism.
Even Singapore is not immune to the growing threat of terrorism. The Government has arrested a dozen Singaporeans, most of whom were self-radicalised. Several intended to go to the Middle East to join ISIS, and a few were planning to mount attacks in Singapore.
The threat is real, and our best measure in tackling terrorism is to strengthen the sense of belonging of the minorities and, in today's context, of the Muslims and Malays in Singapore. We need this sense of belonging and an inclusive society to be pervasive even while the Muslim communities fortify their strength within to repel this threat. It is this sense of belonging that motivates Muslim leaders in Singapore to stand ready to come forward to defuse conflicts, and not exploit them nor goad the community to extremism or terrorism. In no small measure, too, it is this sense of belonging that the community has responded to reject extremism and terrorism.
Mdm Speaker, I am grateful that we in Singapore, continue to tend to our racial harmony with great care and concern. The amendment of the Constitution to ensure all ethnic groups a chance at becoming an Elected President will be remembered as a prudent foresight of the Government and a great generosity of the majority. In the passing of this amendment, I see a continued effort at acknowledging the aspirations, quiet aspirations, of my community and all the minorities, and thus, see a commitment to our multiracial and multi-religious compact. My community and I appreciate this.
At the end of the day, racial inclusiveness and harmony is up to us – you and me. Our diversity will only become our strength, if we consciously ensure that the generosity to be inclusive are ingrained into the fabric of our society. It has to be embodied in our thoughts and actions. This responsibility cannot rest on the Government alone, nor can it be just a top-down approach.
Everyone needs to play a part in this to integrate, to embrace, to understand and adapt. This sense of inclusiveness in Singapore is unique, and we need to continue working hard to preserve this.
Yesterday, the Americans voted. I do not know what the outcome is yet. But I saw an article in The New York Times by Imbolo Mbue, who is the author of the novel \"Behold the Dreamers\". She migrated from Cameroon and became an US citizen years ago. And she wrote, \"I've seen the best of America during my time here. When I was considering dropping out of graduate school because of financial constraints, an American professor helped me get a scholarship so I could complete my master's degree. Twice, I had an American co-worker give me hand-me-downs because I couldn't afford to buy clothes. An American employer once said to me, at a time when I was questioning who I was, 'You are a breath of fresh air'. Being black, female and an immigrant – and for a good portion of my life here, low-income, too – I've weathered my share of prejudice. But the empathy Americans have shown me far outweighs the unkindness. That is why on Election Day, I'll be voting for empathy.\"
Yesterday, too, I felt a poignant moment when the Prime Minister said, \"As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay Elected President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak.\" And the Prime Minister finished with, \"I look forward to this.\" There was spontaneous applause from my colleagues – Chinese and minorities alike. I felt generosity. I felt empathy. That is why, for this amendment Bill, I, too, am voting for empathy. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, the office of the President is a highly significant one in our country. It has undergone significant changes. The proposals made under this Bill continue to keep it relevant, influential and important.
I would like to raise a few questions and comments as we further the debate.
Firstly, we are proposing that the President should now consult the CPA on all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. I appreciate that we are proposing more safeguards, which is important, and this really is a safeguard on top of a safeguard for all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. It will be very safe, and I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has clarified the importance of this. But I am still concerned that this may dilute the significance and power of the President.
Secondly, as Singaporeans, we value meritocracy and we certainly want the best man or woman on the job. Enhancing the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates is thus in line with this principle. It is sensible and no one should dispute its importance.
Based on the proposed amendments and the Prime Minister's earlier announcement, Madam, I would like to ask how many Malay Singaporeans would be eligible to run for President. Do we have a rough estimate based on the amended eligibility criteria?
Thirdly, how about the representation of women? This is equally important, given how we have not had a single woman President. This is an area we can do better in, as even in the current Cabinet, there is only one woman full Minister. As such, I believe that while we look at the race, at our Presidential candidates, we should also look at gender and I hope that future reviews will include this. In fact, I hope we will have a woman candidate in the upcoming Presidential Election, making such a future review redundant.
Lastly, like meritocracy, multiracialism is a cherished value in our country. The representation of the different communities through this amendment is a right step in that direction. Having reserved elections allows us to do this, though it may appear to be affirmative action or betray a belief that minority candidates are not capable of being elected on their own merits or that our electorate still largely votes along racial lines. The fact that Mr Murali Pillai won a resounding victory in the recent Bukit Batok by-election perhaps serves as a useful test case, which shows that race may not be such an important factor.
While a reserved election can expediently solve this problem, it is worth asking why we have not had an eligible Malay or Eurasian candidate thus far, to better understand the issue. There is certainly much more we can do as a Government to improve the representation of various races in politics, their socioeconomic conditions and their leadership positions of different private and public sectors. We can do more by heading more upstream and tackle remnants of discrimination that still exists in our society.
Many of us have talked about the IPS survey and I will quote some findings as well. The recent survey indicates that 45% of respondents have heard racist comments in their workplace; 27% think it is okay not to hire someone because of his or her race; and only 35% and 41% of Chinese Singaporeans said they would accept a Malay or Indian Singaporean respectively to manage their businesses.
Madam, let me end by saying I am thankful that the Deputy Prime Minister spent 90 minutes explaining all the details in this Bill comprehensively.
Contrary to the earlier comments by Mr Low, I do believe that details are important. We cannot debate, decide or delay a decision if no details or incomplete details are provided. I am sure if incomplete details were provided in this Bill, Opposition Members will say the same things I am saying now. I am certain that we all welcome alternative ideas, but I am also certain we should particularly welcome alternative ideas that have been thoroughly thought through and where complete details are provided.
After all, as in the quote by John Wooden, \"It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen\". Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Mdm Speaker, yesterday saw a robust debate on the Government's Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the WP's proposal for an elected Senate. But what we saw from the PAP was a point-scoring exercise, focusing on technical aspects of our proposal, as well as casting misleading aspersions like, this will lead to a politicised Senate, rather than addressing the fundamental system design issue that this proposal raises.
I would like to return to those fundamentals of what we ought to be debating. Fundamentally, the Government has not made its case on this Bill – a politicised election for President undermining the President's unifying role. That is the crux of the issue. And no, it is not something we should simply accept because it has been there for 25 years.
And what is the case for giving the unelected CPA so much power, as my colleagues have argued extensively? This creates a President who is supposed to be a checker, who is prone to be check-mated by an unelected Council with both parties interacting in a black box. Arguing that the President need only to persuade four members of the CPA to support him is neither here nor there. Why should he or she have to?
It seems that the PAP is afraid that it is more likely that their preferred candidate would lose in the Presidential Elections, rather than their preferred candidates in the GEs. And so, the Elected President now needs to be further checked by an unelected body. If in the future, the CPA does not return the kinds of decisions that the PAP likes, will you introduce a fourth body to check the CPA?
Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy GE.
I voted in the 1992 and 2011 Presidential Elections. There was a palpable sense that many Singaporeans wanted to elect a non-establishment candidate to provide an alternative voice and to balance a one-party dominant system. That explains why the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow obtained 41.3% of the vote – the national vote, mind you – although he was relatively unknown and hardly campaigned at all. What is the PAP's strategy for managing this politicisation of the Presidency? So far, no one has explained it.
Is there anything wrong with a Presidential Election that is tinged with partisanship? Yes. The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission, recognised this. They had the courage to do so and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected. And I quote from their report, \"The President would retain his symbolic and ceremonial role of the Head of State as it had been at independence and hold an appointed office. Parliament would abide by the convention by rotating the office among the different ethnic groups.\"
Madam, they are right. Yet, the Government has rejected the Menon Commission's advice on this hugely important issue, which is the nub of this debate.
It wants to retain Presidential Elections, but introduce changed eligibility and racial criteria. Why? Because we are told we had no Malay President for a long time, which is true. Because we are told we need to clarify the powers of the CPA. Because we are told we need to update the eligibility criteria to make them less lax because times have changed. Many of these concerns seem to stem from the experience of the last Presidential Elections in 2011.
But here is the thing: why did the Government not moot these changes soon after that 2011 Presidential Election, if that is the case? Why was this not part of the National Conversation in 2012? Why did the Government not talk about these planned changes in GE2015? Why introduce these changes now, without a referendum?
Singaporeans cannot be said to have consented to these changes at the last GE because they did not know about them. The idea of a referendum is the elephant in the room and, whenever it is raised, so far, the best response I have heard is: \"Well, a referendum should be reserved for something that is a really big issue, a really big deal.\" To me, this is a really big deal.
Madam, this is gravely troubling. What aspect of our Constitution will the Government, with its supermajority in this House, choose to amend without a referendum right after GE2020? The one-person, one-vote system itself?
The Government has pointed out that we have not had a Malay President since 1970s, and we agree this is a concern. So, here is my question: why did the Government not urge a Malay candidate to run for one of the Presidential Elections between 1992 and now, as my colleague Mr Faisal Manap has argued yesterday?
The PAP has controlled all of the levers of political power since 1992. What was the PAP doing all this time on this issue? Under the WP's proposal for an appointed President, we would have had a Malay President a long time before now. In fact, we would have had multiracial Presidents in succession as we did in the past. No need to reserve elections.
Madam, on reserved elections, it opens up a Pandora's box of racialised, divisive politics, and where will it end? The Prime Minister is also a hugely symbolic office, possibly even more so than the Presidency as far as many Singaporeans are concerned because the Prime Minister is featured in the media on practically a daily basis, unlike the President. Should we reserve the office of the Prime Minister for some races?
Rather than focusing on the ethnicity of the President, I suspect many ethnic minority Singaporeans would rather that the Government address concerns like the possible existence of labour market discrimination facing some members of these communities – a matter that has yet to be definitively studied, quantified and debated, but was recently discussed in this House. Or helping minority Singaporeans who struggle to sell their flats due to HDB's ethnic quotas.
Madam, reserved elections risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may entrench the notion that Singaporean minorities need mandates to be elected because they are unelectable. A new generation of Singaporeans may grow up internalising this view. Is this what we want for Singapore? Does this help in the forging of genuine multiracialism?
I hope that no one inside or outside this Chamber twists the Workers' Party position as meaning that we oppose a Malay President. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As for updating the paid-up capital requirements, this Bill replaces a $100 million threshold for automatic inclusion with a $500 million one. There is a deliberative track, yes, but the bar for automatic inclusion is now raised. What is the basis for this? Why $500 million, and not $400 million or $600 million? Did the PAP designers of this system have in mind limiting automatic eligibility to some arbitrarily defined number of candidates because the pool cannot be too big? By the way, this is one of those technical details that I think some Members have referred to.
The Government has said that the number of eligible candidates would not decrease versus the number in 1992. This is a misleading statement to make. The number of eligible candidates has decreased from the number in 2016. Why can the pool not be too big? To exclude some individuals?
Taken all together, Mdm Speaker, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government is making these changes to prevent an alternative, non-establishment sanctioned candidate from becoming the next President of Singapore.
Madam, there is a better solution to protecting the Reserves and the Public Service. We have proposed an elected Senate which would have the clout to stand up to the Executive and say no when necessary. The PAP seems determined to oppose this proposal for the sake of opposing, trying and probing to find any detail to attack with: there would not be enough candidates; too many candidates; too elitist.
But let us think, the Menon Commission suggested, and I quote, \"the unbundling of the President's custodial role and its devolution to a specialist body\". Our proposal for a Senate builds on their suggestion but extends it in the following ways.
Why not let the public be the judge of this Council's wisdom by electing them? Why does it need to be unelected? Let them form a Senate. Let the public see them exercise their collective wisdom by deliberating publicly. Where matters are sensitive for certain Reserves matters, for example, let them discuss in camera.
Let these wise men and women have the staffing and resources to really form an independent fact-based opinion about whether any executive request for Reserves drawdown really makes sense for the economy and for the country.
Let the Senate engage public finance consultants and economists where necessary. Or let them engage non-partisan full-time staff like other legislatures have, who do not report to either party, like the Congressional Budget Office in the US or the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, to provide independent research to inform these Reserves drawdown decisions independently from the civil servants who report to the Executive.
The President and the CPA do not currently have these resources. All the current President and, as far as I can see, the future President, have to go on, it would seem, are his regular lunch meetings with the Prime Minister.
Most importantly, let this Senate, under the Official Secrets Act, have access to the data they need to do their job – the kind of data that the late President Ong Teng Cheong requested.
Rules of non-partisanship would apply to Senatorial elections as per current Presidential Elections. But can we guarantee not the slightest taint of partisanship will creep into Senatorial elections? And much has been made of this by Members on the other side of the House.
No. We cannot guarantee this, but the PAP cannot guarantee that the same will not happen for Presidential Elections, as the Presidential Elections in 2011 showed, even by the admission of many leading figures in the PAP. What our system would deliver is a President seen to be above partisanship, and that is important for Singapore. That is important for Singapore. Madam, please allow me to speak briefly in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government has said that Singapore has not had a Malay President since 1970. Why did the Government not urge Malay candidates to contest in the Presidential Elections between 1992 until now?
I suspect that the minority races in Singapore are more concerned with everyday issues, for instance, the possibility of facing discrimination at work or difficulties that may be encountered when selling their flats due to the ethnic quota imposed by HDB, rather than the debate on the race of the Singapore President.
The WP's suggestion to revert to the system of an Appointed President is a valid suggestion, because through this system of an Appointed President, Parliament can ensure that every race is given a chance to be appointed as President, as we have done before. Parliament can also ensure that the Appointed President is someone who has integrity and is respected by all Singaporeans. There is no need for us to elect a President through an election that is reserved only for candidates from a certain race.
I hope that the WP's views will not be twisted by anyone, and portrayed to mean that the WP's will not support a Malay President. We will not accept such an allegation because anyone who makes such an allegation would be using the issue of race for political ends.
The fact is, we felt that a Malay who has integrity and is respected should have been appointed as President before this.
(In English): Let me now say a few words about the NCMP scheme. The hon Member, Mr Cedric Foo, told me after my maiden speech in this Chamber that my presence here as an NCMP was effectively a gift from the PAP, that it proved the PAP's commitment to political diversity. If indeed it is a gift, it is a Trojan horse. Every NCMP in history, other than Ms Sylvia Lim, my party Chairman, has gone on to lose the next GE they contested. The PAP knows this.
NCMPs cannot use public facilities or draw on the People's Association's (PA) lavish resources to fund grassroots activities in the wards they contested, as my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, observed.
The NCMP scheme allows the PAP to ask voters to vote out all Opposition from elected Parliamentary seats and leave only NCMPs. The likely effect of this is to cap Opposition presence in this Chamber at 12, but more importantly, much more importantly, if this scheme is fully exploited by the Ruling Party and fully embraced by voters in the way that the PAP hopes, it would be 12 unelectable Opposition MPs, and that is a crucial difference.
Such NCMPs would not play the balancing role that a healthy democracy needs. If the Opposition is no more than token, unelectable NCMPs, the ruling party need never fear losing in any elected seat. It can then do what it likes, never mind what the people think. It can steamroll alternative voices, it can amend the Constitution willy-nilly, it can force Singapore into a never-ending dependence on only one party for generations to come, like a computer with no back-up. This is good for the PAP. But is this good for Singapore?
I am sure some hon Members of this House will say later that if the NCMP scheme is so bad, why did you accept the NCMP position? Because this is not a choice between rejecting an NCMP seat and accepting it with gratitude and praise to the Ruling Party, as the PAP would have us believe. Because I decided, rightly or wrongly, that being in Parliament and arguing for what I believe is right, outweighed the risk of damage to our politics from accepting this NCMP position. Whether that was the right call to make, whether I am indeed contributing positively by being here, is best left to others to judge.
The PAP will say that the WP would not have accepted NCMP seats unless it benefited the WP. By the same token, we should conclude that the PAP would not have offered NCMP seats unless it benefited the PAP.
What if the Ruling Party fails in the future? This is not an academic question. This is not a trivial question. This is not an unimportant question. This is a crucial question. What if we wind up with an erratic Prime Minister of the PAP one day in the future and there is no credible, rational and electable Opposition ready to provide an alternative government or even an effective check? Some countries are in this position today.
What if we get another mismatch between population and infrastructure, such as what happened during the decade of the 2000s, when our trains, hospitals and housing stock were severely stressed and Singaporeans suffered, necessitating policy reversals after the GE of 2011 to repair the damage? Would those policy corrections have happened if the Ruling Party faced no risk of losing even a single seat in a GE? I do not think so.
Is this the legacy we want to leave for Singapore? A politically imbalanced one party-dominant system that buys international respectability with a token, unelectable Opposition of only NCMPs?
Rather than focus on the NCMP scheme as the solution to Singaporeans' desire for alternative voices, we should enhance our existing Parliamentary democracy to make it truly contestable. Delink the PA from the Ruling Party. Reform the regulation of the media to allow for regulated but free competition in broadsheet newspapers, television and radio. Set electoral boundaries transparently and consultatively. Educate every voter aggressively from the classroom onwards that their votes are, in fact, secret. Many voters still do not believe this.
Madam, I would like to conclude with a single, very simple question to the Government. With this amendment to the NCMP scheme, is it your goal that your party wins 100% of elected seats in Parliament? This is not a question about whether the people will ultimately determine the outcome of elections, and not the Government and not the PAP. I know they will and I do not need to be told that. It is a question about your goal as a Ruling Party for the next GE. And it is a \"yes\" or \"no\" question.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, a Bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution does not happen very often. And as expected, we have had many issues here being debated in the House over the past few days.
This has brought up some intriguing debates. We have heard debates involving references to shoes and when shoes should be changed, when shoes should be used. We have had certain Members talked about Senate and Senators, which, in my opinion, has raised a lot more questions than the solutions that it proposes to solve, and it also had the \"R\" word, \"referendum\", being bandied about in a far too casual and cavalier manner, in my opinion. No doubt, this has led to some strident and vigorous debate in this Chamber.
But I would like now to shift the focus a little bit back to, not so much what has been debated in this Chamber, but also what has been debated and discussed outside the Chamber – in the streets, among the people – based on my interaction with my residents and also with my constituents and some feedback that I have got from the ground with regard to the issues raised in this Bill.
And that is the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for the Presidential candidates and also the proposed changes that ensure all ethnic groups have the opportunity to be elected President from time to time. I think that most of us will agree that if the elected President has custodial powers, as meant to be the second key to our country's Reserves, then we need to ensure that whoever is elected to the Office has the right combination of the appropriate skillsets, experience and gravitas to take on the mantle of that role.
There will never be a list of specific eligibility criteria that everyone will agree on. However, I believe that the overall recommendation to change the eligibility criteria for candidates from the private sector is timely and appropriate, especially when we consider how the economic and business environment has changed in the last two decades.
I have also noted the Government's point that these changes are by no means permanent and will be reviewed from time to time.
As such, I am supportive of the proposed changes to the criteria and would thus like to spend a little more time discussing the issue of ensuring representation across the different ethnic groups.
Since Encik Yusof Ishak became our first President more than 50 years ago, the President's Office has been occupied and represented by distinguished individuals from different ethnic groups. In that regard, the notion of having presidents from different ethnic groups in Singapore's context is not new.
What is new, however, is that this Bill, for the first time, will enshrine in our Constitution that Singapore is guaranteed to have an Elected President from a particular ethnic group from time to time. This will be done via a proposed \"closed-election\" system reserved for that particular ethnic group, should there be no president from that group after a certain period.
Madam, multiracialism has always been one of the core pillars of Singapore since we achieved our Independence. Yet, while the various races have the freedom to celebrate their religion and culture, the Government has always been mindful of the need to maintain racial harmony, and rightfully so.
Many of our policies today are deliberately designed to prevent the formation of racial enclaves and to create common social spaces and a common community experience so that the different races can understand one another better.
The closure of ethnic-based schools and the introduction of a common curriculum allow primary school children to mix freely and to be comfortable with members of a different race. The ethnic-based public housing quota ensures that the resident composition of each block of flats within each housing estate is an approximate representation of ethnic composition based on the national average. The formation of the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC) further reinforces the importance of us standing united as one country regardless of race and religion.
These policies have worked well for us over the years. If I may reference Minister Masagos, the statistics that were published by SingStats indicate that the number of interracial marriages is on the rise, from approximately 7.6% of all total marriages in 1990, to about 21.5% of all marriages in 2015. That is one in every five marriages.
However, while these are positive signs and we continue to make progress, we also have to acknowledge that race and ethnicity are still deep and visceral concepts, and they not only shape our own identities, but also how we feel towards others.
In a series of landmark studies on implicit bias, Harvard social psychologist Mahzarin Banaji and her colleagues found that people are influenced by their implicit biases towards races. These biases exist at the subconscious level, often affecting our decisions and interactions with others without us being consciously aware of their existence.
The much-quoted CNA-IPS survey of Singaporeans conducted earlier this year supports this. More than 85% of respondents indicated a preference for national leaders from their own ethnic group. This indicates that the issue of race and ethnic identity is deeply ascribed, and many people still feel a strong sense of affinity to their own ethnic group.
Also, each respective ethnic group surveyed had different preferences and attitudes with regard to national leaders of different ethnicities, depending on which ethnic group that leader would hypothetically come from.
Many of the other Members of this House have made reference in their speeches to other data and surveys that indicate that racial bias does exist in Singapore. Indeed, my own experience with residents on the ground in the heartlands has also led me to believe that this is so.
But based on this, I feel that while Singaporeans might be accepting of other ethnic groups in terms of their cultures and traditions and that we all live in peace and harmony, this harmony and tolerance might not translate to truly \"race-blind\" political elections. This is a sobering reality that we have to face and acknowledge that race continues to be a significant factor in our sociopolitical sphere. So, while we have our ideals, we also have to live in reality.
Mdm Speaker, I feel that while meritocracy is a cornerstone of our society, the other \"M\" – multiracialism – is also a key foundational pillar of our social fabric. While I believe in equality of all races and equal opportunity for all, I also believe that certain measures must be in place to ensure that our multiracialism is not compromised.
The President is a symbol of our society, and he or she should epitomise the values and philosophy of Singapore. Going for many years without an Elected President from a particular ethnic group is certainly not desirable and does not reflect the multiracial and multicultural spirit of our country.
A circuit breaker \"closed-election\" that ensures that an eligible and qualified president from a particular ethnic group is elected from time to time is not merely tokenism or \"affirmative action\"; neither is it a compromise on the values of equality and meritocracy.
Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the core Singaporean values of multiracialism and meritocracy can and should coexist with each other. The sociopolitical challenges that Singapore faces are unique, and that is why we need to create a unique political system that suits our needs.
Madam, I mentioned Encik Yusof Ishak earlier in my speech and since Encik Yusof passed on in 1970, we have not had a Malay President, in 46 years. In the course of my lifetime, and many of my generation, and the generation that has come after me, we have never known a Malay President.
I am heartened, however, that should this Bill get passed, and should an eligible candidate step forward that next year, this will change and I can then put my hand on heart and say that I am proud to have known a Malay Singaporean as my Elected President in my lifetime and it is something that not just me, or my generation but all Singaporeans should be proud of come 2017. And with that Madam, I end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I will speak in English, followed by Mandarin and English, so that we have time to change.
This Bill is one of great importance to our nation, not only because of the powers vested in the Presidency, but also because it involves the process of selection and the system's inherent justice.
Allow me to begin with a personal anecdote from my childhood. The year was 1971 and I was five years old. I vaguely remember that time the President had just passed away and there were programmes on our black-and-white television about him and his work because I was young and really did not know what a President really means. But what struck my impressionable mind was how he must have been an important person, so much so that his passing had a huge impact on everyone around me and, of course, that moment, there was no regular TV for a young boy like me.
But this has informed my impression of the Office of the President to this day. While the President does not mete out policies nor is he supposed to have political affiliations, he or she does more than a ceremonial role. As noted by the Prime Minister and also in the White Paper, I quote: \"Very importantly, the President is also a symbol of the unity of the country.\" In essence, the President serves to unite and bring people together. What does unity mean? How is unity achieved?
Let me refer to our National pledge here, \"…In order to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, We must be united as one people, 'regardless of race, language or religion'\", three aspects of which the late Mr S Rajaratnam has identified as possible divisive factors to our national fabric. And how do we achieve this? We do this through a system that is \"based on justice and equality\".
This brings me to the Bill's amendment of reserving the Elected Presidency for a racial group if it is not represented for five terms. Naturally, we would want to see different races being successful across all strata of society. I would personally be most proud to have a President, or a Prime Minister for that matter, who is of a different race as myself.
It would send a signal to both Singaporeans and the world that our society has a system that embraces individuals, regardless of race, language or religion; that we are proud to have them as our leaders and role models to uphold our values and Constitution.
Yet, while racial representation is valued, how we achieve it is equally important. So, my question is: does the proposed mechanism in the amendment Bill honour the vision of justice and equality that we aspire towards?
There has been cynicism, criticism that such a provision is indicative of tokenism. Would these sentiments put doubt and even undermine the role of the President as a unifying symbol? Is the rationale behind this provision because we feel that Singaporeans will vote strictly according to racial lines? If so, then having this provision may not eradicate the problem but, in fact, indicates that there is a lot of work to be done to achieve our vision.
I have spoken to a number of young Malay Singaporeans and, while most agreed that they would welcome and be proud to have a Malay President, they questioned the process of the selection. Is it possible, in a democracy, to pre-select the race of the President before any campaign or contestation has even begun? Do we, in trying to be inclusive, come across as quite exclusive and, sometimes, maybe even a bit discriminatory?
I do not know if I can adequately speak about the minority races' aspirations or apprehensions on this issue. But as a member of the Chinese majority, I feel that I can speak about my concerns instead.
Our current population is predominantly Chinese and, therefore, how Chinese Singaporeans vote will have an undeniable influence on the final results. So, can we Chinese Singaporeans look beyond race to make an informed choice for our votes? Do we know enough about what happens in communities other than our own? Do we interact enough with other races meaningfully? Or do we keep to our own, assuming that our well-being implies the well-being of others who are not like us?
Are we aware that our majority status inherently creates an imbalance that privileges us where resources and opportunities are concerned? Or do we imagine that since our society is a meritocratic one, then all, regardless of race, will enjoy the same starting point in life?
Does our language-based media expose us to news about other communities? I read the Chinese newspapers and I can say that little is written about other communities. I watch our local Chinese television and you would think, given what is on screen, that Singapore is made up largely of Chinese people, with minority races making silent cameo appearances on television series.
Is this a problem? Our Chinese majority has yet to raise this issue with a concerted voice. Maybe, most think that it is not of concern. But I believe otherwise. The fact that we need to amend the Elected Presidency Bill to ensure minority representation says a lot about how far the majority is from real engagement with minority races. And by real engagement, I am not talking about superficial exchanges, such as eating thosai or mee rebus, or wearing other races' traditional outfits on Racial Harmony Day.
In fact, such a provision may exacerbate the issue, in that it provides a convenient argument for the majority to say this special provision already allows for a Malay, Indian or Eurasian President, negating the need to really reach out, understand, appreciate and support the best candidate, regardless of race, language or religion. In some ways, this provision may placate the minorities, only to reassure the majority and, above all, may even sometimes feel patronising.
In layman's terms, what we are possibly saying to the minority races is this: we have made provisions for you. So, let us move on and allow some of these people, and maybe even allow some of these people to say, \"do not complain and do not be so ungrateful.\" For the longest time, we, as a society, have not addressed this issue adequately, deeply, honestly and meaningfully. We are able to do so because, in Singapore, there is hardly any hate crime or physical attacks because of race.
However, other forms of racism can still rear their ugly heads. Comments such as Little India being dark because there are too many Indians there and racial discrimination in the rental and job markets, where the phrase \"Mandarin speakers only\" seems to be code for \"non-Chinese need not apply\". Such actions reveal the cracks existent in our social fabric. It is worse when those who voice their discontentment regarding such actions are said to be \"too sensitive\" or \"overreacting\" by members of the majority race.
According to a survey on race relations commissioned by CNA-IPS, nearly two in three Singaporeans surveyed have heard racist comments being made, and about half the time, it was by workplace colleagues and friends. Faced with such comments, 65% of respondents said they ignored the person's comments. This is in spite of the fact that 84% said they would get upset if they heard racist comments about any race; 62% said it was never acceptable to make jokes about another race in the company of friends; and 67% said it was never acceptable to call a racial group terms like dirty, lazy or money-minded.
I will now proceed in Mandarin. It is sort of related to what I said just now.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This debate on the Elected Presidency has caused me much confusion. Again, this time, we are focusing on the minorities.
Frankly speaking, as a member of the majority community, I feel some anxiety mixed with a bit of shame. I will be proud that we can elect a respectable minority candidate. It demonstrates the success of our multiracialism and our meritocracy system. However, it also satisfies our sense of ego. Look, what a fair society Singapore is, and how progressive we are!
I know that the minorities have reacted differently to this proposal. I have discussed with some minority people and the response I get is that, should a minority candidate become the President, the community would be very proud.
But how do we achieve this outcome? As proposed by this amendment Bill, when a member from any racial group has not occupied the President's office after five continuous terms, the next Presidential election will be reserved for a candidate from that racial group. This arrangement is rather controversial.
By proposing this amendment, the Government is reminding us that many people vote along racial lines. If that is the case, we must then ask ourselves, how far are we from our vision of seeking a common ground among differences?
We clearly know that under the \"one man, one vote\" system, if we vote along the racial lines, then the majority community can easily decide the outcome of the election. That is to say that the majority, which is the Chinese community that I belong to, is key to this debate.
This brings me to my point of feeling a sense of shame. This is my personal reflection mostly. As a member of the majority race, do I have a deep understanding of the minorities? Is my interaction with the minorities deep enough, both economically and culturally? Is eating mee rebus in the morning and thosai in the afternoon enough? Is showing off a few Malay words, such as \"terima kasih\", enough?
As the majority, do we realise that, compared to the minorities, our starting point is different? Because we are the majority, we are privileged in terms of resources and opportunities. So, as a member of the majority, do we join in when we hear people of our own community making fun of the minorities? Or do we stand up when we see minorities being treated unfairly at the workplace? Do we realise that it is putting up fences when we see phrases like, \"can speak Mandarin\" in employment or rental advertisements?
Hence, it is not the minorities who should feel uneasy about this proposal. The proposal reminds us to ponder what we have contributed to our multiracial society as the majority. Is it enough just to settle problems in our own community?
You can see this mindset from our Chinese media. The Chinese newspapers seldom report news about the minorities. If we look at our television dramas, you may think that people living in Singapore are all Chinese. Occasionally, you will see minorities in shows but they only serve as a decoration. Should we not feel ashamed of this bias? Perhaps we should reflect more on our mindset as the majority, instead of focusing on the plight of the minorities.
We know that our hearts are biased. To have the same heart is not easy. We need tolerance. We must be accommodating and broad-minded. Our mind should not be filled with anxiety, misunderstanding and ignorance.
(In English): My intention, Mdm Speaker, is not to sway this debate into a discussion on racial politics. However, race is very much at the core of the issue here with regard to the Elected Presidency Bill. It is not a special provision. Ultimately, it is not a special provision for a minority President or Prime Minister that we need. What we need is better, inclusive and genuine engagement across racial and ethnic lines. To me, \"regardless of race, language and religion\" means that, in a society, we need to consider and care for people of other races and religious beliefs, people who speak a different language from us, perhaps more so than our own race, language and beliefs.
I would also like to speak about another important criteria of the Elected President, that is, he or she should be someone whom we believe has his or her heart in the right place, someone who will act for the good of the nation, for the people.
So, while we argue that the President needs to have strong financial knowledge and advice to decide when to employ our Reserves in difficult times, he or she will also need the moral courage and integrity to make sometimes difficult important decisions. These same qualities will inform the President's decision to support or veto the appointment of key officeholders. It is, therefore, the President's value system that is critical here.
In view of this, I would, therefore, like to remind the House of this: yes, it may be important for the Presidential nominee to have qualifications, such as having being a chief executive officer (CEO) of a company of more than S$500 million of shareholders' equity or having been in senior positions in the Public Service. But, ultimately, it is the nominee's value system and moral strength that will guide him or her to make responsible, independent decisions for the nation.
And this leads me to another suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider. As articulated very fluently by my fellow Nominated Parliamentarian Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, we are faced with a complex world rife with standoffs and contestations among people, the government, interest groups and so on.
There were indications in the 2011 Presidential Election that Singaporeans yearn for alternative possibilities to deal with such difficult situations. Some had hoped that the Elected President could provide such an alternative institution for arbitration or maybe for mediation, something akin to what Prof Tommy Koh and President Tony Tan have suggested: an ombudsman. Could this ombudsman, a role of mediation and negotiation, and one built on trust, reside in the Office of the President, given that it possesses a unifying symbol for the nation?
And lastly, as I heard my fellow Parliamentarian, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who had proposed that maybe we should now debate and revisit the role of the Nominated MPs (NMPs) and see how they can help in being a good check and balance instrument in our Parliamentary and legislative process.
The Elected President is a symbol of unity, not just in good and peaceful times, but also in difficult ones. It is in crises that the true mantle of the President is tested, where his or her moral integrity and independence is counted upon to make necessary decisions. We must, therefore, ensure that the President is elected based on a fair system, one that embraces the values of equality and justice that we seek to uphold, regardless of race, language or religion; regardless or class, gender or sexual orientation.
Let me end by reading a monologue in a radio play, \"A Malayan Language\", written in 1957 by the late Mr S Rajaratnam.
\"What does it matter that we are Malays, Chinese, Indians or Eurasians – or Eskimo or Patagonians? What matter if our skins are this or that shade? Remember that beneath the skin we are brothers. We are fellow Malayans. That is why I am here before you, to preach to you the gospel of brotherhood. That is why my party has fought bitterly against those who preach communalism, against those vile men whose insane ambitions has led them to exploit fears and hatreds.\"
With that, I thank you. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong):\tMdm Speaker, allow me to begin in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When our Prime Minister Lee spoke about the review of the Elected Presidency, I voiced my concern about the proposal to have a process to ensure that there is representation from the minority groups.
In my maiden Parliamentary speech, I said that although we want to see representation from our Malay community, we would like our Malay representative to be selected because he or she is the best person, and not just because he or she is a Malay. We do not want the selection to be merely a symbolic one.
During the discussions at various dialogue sessions on the changes to the Elected Presidency, I was able to see a variety of views from the community regarding this matter. I also heard some concerns from our Malay/Muslim community. Some said that they were worried about being given special treatment in this matter which is not in line with our system of meritocracy. Some said that many Malays may not qualify and may not fulfil the established criteria. Some said that we should see Malays in various careers and fields, and not just for the office of the President.
I think that these discussions have definitely created awareness about important issues related to our lives within a plural society. We have not yet reached the ideal state where everything is perfect. Nonetheless, we must not lose hope. We must continue to make the effort and have constructive discussions so that we can continue to improve this situation.
Yesterday, when the Prime Minister announced that the upcoming Presidential Elections will be reserved for Malays, there was a feeling of joy in our community. This shows that the community welcomes this change.
For me, this is just a step towards the effort to emphasise the importance of our identity as a multiracial society. The Malay community is part of our plural society. Having an Elected President who is Malay is an important signal to the country and to the whole world.
We should not just stop here. Certainly, we have to think about the positive steps that can be taken to improve our community's quality of life and strengthen interracial relations. The Malay/Muslim community should continue to work hard so that we can produce future generations that are of a high calibre and are able to compete. We have already seen progress year after year. I am confident that if we strengthen our resolve and efforts, we will continue to see more of our Malays becoming leaders in various fields and who will play a leading role in this country.
(In English): When the matter of the review of the Elected Presidency was first raised by the Prime Minister earlier this year, I was apprehensive. In particular, I had concerns with the issue of ensuring minority representation in the office of the Elected President. I was concerned about the sentiments towards the minorities if we took what is perceived as \"affirmative action\". I was worried about the impact on the Malay community especially. In his speech, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim explained the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community. I can relate to this and it truly reflects the sentiments on the ground.
I had expressed in my maiden speech in Parliament that the Malay community would not want a Malay to be President just because of his or her race. The Elected President should be there because he or she is the best for the job.
Following the Prime Minister's announcement, an independent Constitutional Commission conducted a thorough review which culminated in a 153-page report, excluding the annexes. This report not only gave me an insight to the diversity of views on the matter, but also a better understanding of the role of the Elected President in Singapore.
In the wake of the Government's White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission report, I engaged in numerous discussions with many Singaporeans on the issue; in my personal capacity and as a Member of Parliament. I would like to share and reflect on my observations at these discussions, more specifically, on the sentiments regarding race representation in the Elected President system. I made three main observations.
Firstly, there are clearly many different views on the matter. But I saw a common thread in these different views – everyone agrees that it is important to preserve multiracialism in Singapore. Secondly, the desire for a representative from one's community to sit in the highest office of the land is real. It may be unspoken at times, but it is real. Thirdly, the discussion on this aspect of the Elected Presidency has awakened an awareness about the actual state of affairs in Singapore. We are not race-blind yet.
With regard to my first point, in the discussions, some felt that the proposal to ensure a reserved election for a certain race ran against the grain of our Singaporean values. It appears to contradict our commitment to meritocracy and is seen to be a regressive step in building a multiracial, race-blind nation. People can decide regardless of race or religion, they say. Some felt that such a step would be counter-productive for the minorities as their capabilities would be called into question and this would be unhealthy for the country as a whole. I would add that those who held these views included members from the minority communities.
On the other hand, others felt that this is a pragmatic step forward. We could see from examples around the world that managing racial differences is not an easy matter with no easy solution. In Singapore, too, there were challenging times but over the years, there has been much peace and understanding among the different racial groups. So, many lauded the deliberate efforts the Government had taken over time to manage racial differences and encourage racial integration in Singapore. Many understood the need to take certain steps to maintain our multiracial identity. The step to ensure racial representation in the office of the Elected President is one such deliberate effort.
What is heartening for me is that at the core of these arguments, is a great desire to see Singapore embrace its multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious identity. There was a firm acknowledgment of our commitment to make Singapore a place for all races. I think this is worth reflecting on and would be a galvanising force to rally people to decide on what is best for Singapore.
So, what is the best for Singapore? We could choose to let nature take its course and let the various communities in Singapore evolve. Or we could be proactive to address the elephant in the room. Is there an issue, one may ask? I believe there is.
As I mentioned, my second observation is that there is a keen desire to see a representative from one's community to become President. It is symbolic but very important. Sure, not everyone in the community feels this way. However, I believe many Malays do. At every single dialogue session I have had with members from the Malay community, participants would express their desire to see a Malay President in office. When the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next Presidential Election would be reserved for the Malay community, there was a buzz of excitement among many in the community.
At this juncture, I note that in the debate in this House so far, there appears to be a general agreement in this House regarding the importance of the symbolic role of the President. There also appears to be an acceptance that it is important for someone or some entity to play a custodial role to safeguard our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. There is also a general agreement that there needs to be a direct mandate from the people, via an election to perform this custodial role. So, the issue is: how do we do it? And again, the key question is: what is best for Singapore?
I started out by saying I was apprehensive when announcements about the review of the Elected President system was made. Despite my earlier reservations, I am fully supportive of this Bill. I set out my reasons.
I have come to appreciate that there is a need to make changes to the current Elected President system. In particular, I believe there is an important need to address the issue of minority representation in the office of the President. I believe that the changes put forth address these needs and promote multiracialism by introducing a concept of racial representation in the Elected President's office. I would, therefore, like to ask the Opposition whether they would actually support a reserved election for Malay candidates when it is put forth in the next Election.
The proposed Bill reflects minimum intervention and does no more than necessary to achieve the aim of ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency. The hiatus-triggered mechanism allows for a natural sunset which means that it would recede in significance over time and, hopefully, one day, ceases to be necessary. In addition, all candidates are required to satisfy the same eligibility criteria and this ensures that our commitment to meritocracy is not compromised.
I note the importance of the custodial role of the Elected President. The position of the Elected President in Singapore is, indeed, unique. This role has served Singapore well in shaping the politics in this nation. Other models, in particular, the proposal for a senate brings with it other complications, including potential for a gridlock down the road as well as further politicisation with an increased number of people who are, effectively, as what Dr Janil Puthucheary called \"custodial presidents\". The proposal put forth must be one wherein the implications have been fully thought through. I am not certain that the senate is a healthy introduction to the Singapore political system, especially when the mechanics and the impact of the same are not completely clear.
Lastly, I believe that the tension between the symbolic role and the custodial role of the Elected President can be addressed, especially if the candidate is clear about his duties and role. The candidates must demonstrate to the electorate his or her ability to balance these roles. And our past Elected Presidents have demonstrated that the balance is possible. Further, any concerns of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with through honing the rules governing election campaigns.
I would like to end off with a reflection on my third observation – the awareness that we are not there yet; we are not race-blind. I heard Mr Kok Heng Leun's passionate speech and I really feel him. Now that we know that we are not race-blind, what do we do about it? I feel that this discussion on minority representation for the Elected Presidency system has created an openness to talk about what used to be perceived as a sensitive topic like race. It made us a bit uncomfortable to think about the current state of affairs but it has pushed us to think about issues a little bit more.
As Mr Murali had mentioned in his speech, there is much to be discussed about our religious practices, our common spaces. We should ride this wave and be open to engage in these discussions. And as Dr Tan Wu Meng had also said, we must be willing to take positive steps in our daily lives to connect with people from different races and religions. We should reflect on how we interact with our neighbours and friends who are different from us. How can we improve the existing interactions? How can we be more inclusive and be good examples to our children and grandchildren? We should continue to take positive steps to work towards our vision of being race-blind. I believe that with the continued effort, we can and will make Singapore a place where the people remain united regardless of race or religion. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, as stated by my fellow MPs of WP, we agree with the Constitutional Commission and the Government that this Parliament should be the centre of power in our democracy.
The Constitutional Commission observed that in the two-key mechanism, Singapore can ill afford an impasse on matters touching on the use of national Reserves or where appointment to key Public Service positions are concerned. The Commission concluded that it is critical that the Government retains the ability to function effectively in this area. We also agree that the Reserves need to be safeguarded and the body safeguarding the use of the Reserves has to be given a mandate by the people to say no to the Government.
The office of the Elected Presidency, instituted in1991, as described by the Law Minister in 2011, sounds imprisoned by the Cabinet. The Minister said in his speech in 2011, \"that the President must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties, and he cannot act or speak publicly on issues of the day except as advised by the Cabinet\".
In other words, the Elected President cannot play Jailhouse Rock when the Government prefers Beethoven. And to remind the President that he does not have absolute veto powers, the Government established an appointed body, the CPA, to check on him. So, why is this Government telling the people they need to elect a President in order to give him specific powers to say no to the Government when he can never act alone in exercising his veto powers? The Presidential veto does not carry any weight without the support of the CPA.
With the passing of this amendment Bill, the Elected President will have to share power with an enlarged CPA in the discharge of his custodial and key appointment roles. The CPA, although only an appointed body, is bestowed with considerable powers to challenge and delay the decision of the President.
This Bill also imposes a general duty on the President to consult the CPA before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on the Reserves and all matters relating to key Public Service appointments. Without the support of the CPA, the President can hardly veto anything. The CPA, with its expanded role and size, now functions like an Upper House to ensure the President does not act contrary to the will of the Cabinet, since the President has limited say in the composition of the Council. The introduction of staggered term appointments by dividing the members of CPA into three divisions has little to do in ensuring continuity of the Council. Rather, it has the effect of ensuring stability in the decision-making process, as the composition of the all-powerful CPA cannot be altered by the President in one term.
A founding father of the USA adopted staggered terms in the Senate for a number of reasons. And one of them is that the majority party in the Senate may change every two years, thus bringing fresh ideas and policies over time. However, the same effect will not happen for the CPA as all the eight members are not elected but appointed under specific conditions. The Prime Minister and President can appoint three members to the CPA each, evenly spread over three staggered terms, the remaining two of the tie-breaker appointments will come from the Chief Justice and Chairman of the Public Service Commission respectively.
Singapore will elect its fourth President in 2017. The President will not be able to appoint his first member to the CPA until 2020. If this President were to serve two terms or 12 years, he can only appoint up to a maximum of three members. This is the absolute influence the President is going to get in the eight-member CPA even if he serves for life. The circle of influence in the CPA is very important. Whenever the President decides to disagree with the Government on certain matters, the CPA has the power to turn the Elected Presidency into a lame duck institution over time if it chooses to disagree with the President each time he uses his veto powers.
Check and balance under a political framework must be legitimised and mandated by the people. We cannot have a popularly elected President and then subject his influence and power to be checked by an appointed body at the same time. Such a system will polarise the society and politicise the CPA over time. We do not need to look into the future to see this happening. We already have Government-appointed grassroots advisers in Aljunied and Hougang to check and co-share the influence and powers of Elected MPs. Estate upgrading projects funded by HDB can stall unless the appointed grassroots advisers support the initiative. The political divide in our estate is telling and not healthy. If I may quote what the Prime Minister said yesterday about giving a non-elected President custodial powers, \"Who are they to say no. We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will, please approve what we propose\".
The CPA, like grassroots advisers, is not elected but wield considerable influence and power. In fact, the CPA was described to be on equal footing with the President in the analogy by Mr Goh Chok Tong in 1990. He said, \"The six members of the CPA are like appointed Senators while the President is like an elected Senator.\"
Madam, it is important to let the people know that when they are voting for a President with custodial powers, they are not voting for a standalone person but the vehicle mechanism comprising the CPA, which may render the Elected President powerless in the process.
The Elected Presidency, together with the proposed amendment tabled today, has the propensity to turn our democracy into a dysfunctional one in the future. For example, if there were to be a change in government by a simple majority, the incoming administration would not be able to make changes to the key appointments in the Public Service or tap on the Reserves to save jobs without the concurrence of the President whose candidacy was most likely derived from the automatic track, as history had shown, and the all-powerful CPA whose members were all appointed by the previous administration. A veto by the President and the concurrence by the CPA are enough to stop any Supply Bill or key appointment dead in its track, even though the incoming administration has the mandate of the people to run the country.
Similarly, if an outsider President were to take office and decide to stop the incumbent administration from introducing populist measures to buy voters' support or to appoint its own people to the Public Service to move its own agenda, the CPA can send the veto back to the Government to trigger an override by the Parliament. In both scenarios, the power of the CPA and the resultant political unrest cannot be understated. It is irresponsible of us to kick this can down the road, too.
Madam, as far as I can remember, the appointed Presidency has served Singapore very well. Most of the appointed Presidents that graced the office of the Head of State from 1965 to 1991 were apolitical and were not conflicted in any way to represent the citizens of Singapore regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation. Most important of all, they had proven to be enduring symbols of unity.
When the Elected Presidency came into existence, the issue of a candidate's political affiliation becomes even more acute, as the President is supposed to act as a check on the Government on specific matters. The late Mr Ong Teng Cheong became the first Elected President of Singapore in 1993. Mr Ong was the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the People's Action Party prior to participating in the election. Mr Ong ran against a very reluctant candidate, the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow, who did not put up any poster, distribute any pamphlets or hold a single rally. In short, the late Mr Chua did not do any campaigning for votes. He gave only two 10-minute television broadcasts. It was reported that he did not even want to give an interview but relented eventually.
The result of the first Presidential Election was totally unexpected. Mr Chua got a very respectable 41.31% of the total votes cast. For a reluctant candidate to do so well against an eminent opponent from the Ruling Party with absolutely no campaigning at all is a shocker to say the least. The Presidential Election of 2011 provided the affirmation on the type of candidates Singaporeans would prefer to check on the Government. The leading candidate, coincidentally the Chairman of the People's Action Party and Deputy Prime Minister at one time, came within a hair's breadth away from losing the Presidential Election in the four-way contest. The nation was so divided that President Tony Tan was elected on a mandate of 35.2% of the valid votes, beating Dr Tan Cheng Bock by a margin of 0.35%. This a razor-thin margin unheard of even in the history of our Parliamentary election. When a constituency came that close to changing hand in a parliamentary election, it will usually disappear from the electoral map. But you cannot make Singapore disappear. So, the next thing, I guess, for this Government is to raise the bar and make some candidates disappear.
I understand the Minister has said that the changes are not targeted at any individual, but I am sure the Minister would agree that the changes will narrow down the pool of eligible presidential candidates going forward. While the amendment in this Bill will raise the bar for other candidates, it will continue to ensure an endless supply of candidates from the ruling elite, a source of candidacy where voters had made their disapproval known, not once but twice, in as many Presidential elections.
Custodial powers aside, did the two contested Presidential elections entrench the notion that the Elected President is supposed to be a unifying symbol of the nation after all? It certainly did not feel that way. From the result of the election, it was easy to see that the people of Singapore value something more intangible than whether a presidential candidate is a CEO of a $500-million company or an ex-Minister. They value political independence and for good reason, because this democracy is overrun by one party for the longest time.
I agree that the Elected Presidency did not change the symbolic role of the President, but it is highly politicised as a result of the dual roles the President is expected to play. The system has inherent flaws and the Commission has picked it up as well. And this reality will continue as long as the Elected President is expected to perform his custodial function and symbolic role at the same time.
Madam, the Constitutional Commission went beyond the terms of reference to suggest the unbundling of the custodial and symbolic roles of the President to facilitate a return to the appointed Presidency. One can only surmise that the Commission is acutely aware that an Elected President will always be conflicted in some ways going down this road.
The WP does not see the need to have an Elected President. We call upon this Government to do away with the Elected Presidency and revert to an appointed President. The WP recognises the importance to safeguard past Reserves and proposes to have a Senate body elected by the people solely for the custodial function as intended for the Elected President, as explained by my Parliamentary colleagues earlier.
The wide-ranging amendments in this Bill, such as the tightening of the qualifying criteria for Elected Presidency, the expanded role of the CPA and on the reserved election for minorities, to name a few, bear the hallmarks of an experiment gone awry for the Government.
Madam, how many walkover Presidential Elections do we want to have before we acknowledge that the system is not working? How many reluctant candidates does this Government intend to field, just to give the electorate a semblance of contest, before we may end up with a reluctant President? And if this Government wants to narrow down the field to a sole candidate, where is the legitimacy to real power?
Race has never been an issue for the highest office of our land until the Elected Presidency came along. This is a fact. Is this not an experiment gone wrong? Is the Elected Presidency the best platform to safeguard the Reserves or merely a veiled attempt by the PAP to safeguard its control over all levels of government at the same time? Only a national referendum can provide the answer. My wife showed me a message yesterday. It was a simple question. It says, \"Why are we asked to elect a President when the Government has decided who we should vote?\" This rhetorical question came from a young student. Madam, I do not support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.30 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, I am thankful for this opportunity to address the House. Before I go into the substance of my speech, I would like to seek a clarification.
In the proposed amendment to the Constitution, I note that the intention is to enlarge the President's veto powers, with the President acting on the advice of the Council. If the President exercises his veto vote contrary to the Council's advice, the Government may trigger the overruling mechanism, presumably because the President must take the advice of the Council seriously.
However, should the President assent despite the Council recommending a veto, the Bill still becomes law. Should not the same rationale apply and the Bill be then sent back to Parliament for further deliberation and debate? After all, the Bill is about empowering the President to exercise his veto powers. So, I hope that the Government will look into this clarification.
Secondly, I now move to the substance of what I would like to say. Madam, I support the enhancement in the criteria for the selection of the President. However, I join a few of my hon Members in requesting that we look into other criteria as well, not just financial expertise but also other factors that show the heart of the President. Could we formalise the criterion to show community involvement so that our financial gurus also are persons with heart whom we can confidently vote into Parliament?
I support the enhancement on the veto powers and I support the entrenchment of minority representation in this very important office of our land. There are two ways to look at minority representation in this office. Either we look at it as an institutionalisation of a racial divide or the respect for differences, regardless of race or religion.
I used to look at anything that we do that highlights differences in race as the institutionalisation of racial differences. For that, for many years, I had reservations and I could not in good conscience support a lot of initiatives. But I am coming to realise that when we talk about minority representation, it is a recognition of differences and when we institutionalise that in the Office of the President, we are respecting the differences. This is not new to have the rotation of different races in the Office of President. Switzerland has it. New Zealand has it. And I do not know why Singapore cannot have it.
For the longest of time, I had prided myself as being colour blind. After all, I grew up in a kampong. I have Malay friends, Eurasian friends and Indian friends. We grew up together, played together, worked together, and I have always proudly said I was colour blind. I did not realise that my kind of colour blindness is blindness and that if we had enough people like me with this type of colour blindness, we will ultimately destroy our society.
I did not like to talk about race; I did not like to talk about religion; and I always said we are all the same, and we are. But just because we do not talk about it does not mean that difficulties do not exist. And so, for years, I shied away from talking about race and religion. But just because talking about something hurts does not mean we do not talk about it. If it exists, it exists. If we got to do something about it, we do something about it and we do it before it is too late.
So, I support the amendments to the Presidential Office and I say that, beyond that, we go beyond, we go beyond what we want to do today and to the people-level relations. We look at how we relate to one another and we talk to one another and relate to one another as equals, with respect. I hope that Singaporeans will not politicise race and religion. We have too much at stake and, so, beyond the political debate within this House, let us be one people.
Madam, this is my call to Singaporeans. I decided to speak because I could not take discussions, whether within or without this House, that attempt to turn race into stature, into anything that gives a person a better standing. Talking about race and religion hurts but we got to talk about it and we got to face it squarely and, if we do not have a better solution, let us do what we have with what we can now. Madam, I will speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am a Singapore Citizen. My forefathers came from China to Singapore and the South Seas. We have sunk our roots here. My skin colour is yellow. I grew up in a kampong; I played with many friends, went to school with them, and went to work with them. I have never thought of their skin colours, because I never thought that we were from different races. I only thought that we were all Singaporeans. Very often, I would proudly tell everybody that we are all Singaporeans.
I did not like to talk about race and religion. However, not wanting to talk about race and religion does not mean that problems do not exist. In this society, we have seen many problems but I always denied them. I am beginning to feel afraid; I am afraid that our society may not be as perfect as I thought; I am afraid that my thoughts have neglected other fellow citizens' challenges and the problems they face. Growing up in a multiracial society and being a Chinese, I could not appreciate my fellow citizens' difficulties. I can only say that all are equal, but is it true? We can say that, but can we do it? We all have our own thoughts.
The Government is now introducing this Constitutional amendment regarding minority candidates in the Elected Presidency for us to debate on. In the beginning, I did not wish to participate in the debate because I did not want to talk about racial issues. But having heard the debate for three days, I feel it is not right to remain silent.
From the beginning of our nation-building, our Pioneers have worked together regardless of race and religion. We have experienced many racial and religious riots or disputes. True, for many years, we have enjoyed a peaceful society, but what we worry is that because there is no storm, we forget that the undercurrent is still there. Though we cannot see it, it has tremendous power. This is my illusion. I thought what is unseen does not exist.
The Government announced that once the Constitutional amendment is passed, we will have an Elected President from the minorities from time to time. I support this amendment because I believe this can further strengthen our society, as well as the mutual respect and tolerance among the different races.
In addition, among ourselves, we should also look after and understand one another. Everyone has been in a situation where he is a minority, sometimes in the workplace, sometimes it is when others are all good friends but we are alone without friends. We have all experienced that feeling – a not so nice feeling.
So I hope that as Chinese, we can understand the challenges, loneliness and aspirations of our minority fellow citizens; I hope that we can support our minority President; I hope that we will not use race and religion for our own self-interest to stir up problems; I hope that Singapore will always be one nation and one people; I hope we can always say that we are Singapore Citizens, regardless of race, language and religion, united as one.
Only by doing this can Singapore survive and continue to be successful; only by doing this can our children enjoy a peaceful, prosperous and equal society, generation after generation.
Mdm Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on a topic of my interest and also a topic that is close to my heart.
First and foremost, I am exceptionally encouraged that the current leadership and the government of the day are placing great efforts to address the issue of the future. It is vital that the Government attempt to address not only the current issues that the Republic is grappling with but also the issues that the nation may face in the near future.
A nine-member Constitutional Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister earlier this year in February to review three aspects of the Elected Presidency. Upon the release of the Commission's report, the Government has subsequently in September issued a White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission's report.
The changes to the Elected Presidency are essential and timely to ensure that the existing political system in Singapore continues to serve the needs of the nation. As an ethnic minority, I acknowledge that the racial and religious differences as well as their influence on voting preferences continue to exist in our society. In other words, we cannot deny the fact that each of us is different because of the diverse cultures while we embrace ourselves as a multi-ethnic nation. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the political system continues to serve and meet the necessities of the diverse population, ensuring that no minority groups are left behind, so as to build an inclusive society.
A study from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) shows that the general public is uncertain about several aspects of the Elected Presidency reforms. Although the data shows that there was an increasing awareness by the public since June 2016 to October 2016, about 37% of those polled are still not following the issue. Moreover, a large number, about one in five, recorded \"unsure\" on most of the agree/disagree questions conducted by Blackbox Research Pte Ltd for IPS. This shows that a substantial number of the general public are unclear of the proposed changes for the various aspects of the Elected Presidency.
In addition, I have also engaged with and heard the many diverse views of my fellow healthcare members.
While I acknowledge that we need to review the aspects of the current Elected Presidency to serve our nation, it is essential to address and clarify some of the ground feelings on this issue. In view of time constraint, I shall highlight four concerns that I feel that the public needs a more in-depth explanation.
Firstly, some felt that there needs to be more clarity on the criterion on \"most Senior Executive\". There are usually two arms in a company, namely, the Executive arm and Oversight arm. The Executive arm is led by the chief executive officer and the Oversight arm is led by the chairman of the board of directors. Both have important leadership functions and there needs to be clarification of which role is viewed as the most senior. Moreover, how are the criteria on \"most Senior Executive\" addressed with regard to a group of companies? For example, a Singapore holding company's CEO may be the most senior, but the company only holds $500 million in investment. The situation may end up in a dormant company's CEO qualifying for the Elected President's criteria. Also, a regional CEO may or may not qualify under the current rules.
Secondly, we observe a growing number of interracial marriages in Singapore and the Government has also implemented a double-barrelled race identity since 1 January 2011 for Singaporean children born to parents of different races. Hence, in the case of \"Chinese-Indian\" or \"Indian-Chinese\", how do we determine the race and whether they would qualify as a minority? Are the considerations too subjective if the following factors are the ones taken into account:
(a) how the candidate perceives himself or herself in terms of ethnicity?
(b) whether the community perceives him or her as part of the community?
These are the two questions that I have experienced. If the issue of ethnicity and ethnic identity is largely a subjective one, would using the \"Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others\" (CMIO) model still be relevant in today's context?
Thirdly, the recommendations include raising the threshold for private sector candidates from senior executives of companies with $100 million in paid-up capital to $500 million in shareholders' equity. I am concerned on the ability of a minority to meet this qualification. With this new recommendation, it may seem that the candidates from the minorities will come from the Public Service, which is not so healthy. We need to ensure that the system is all-encompassing and provides equal and fair opportunities for all qualified individuals.
In order to ensure the right person with not only the right qualifications and aptitude for the job stands for election but can we also put in place condition that one must be born in Singapore or has lived in Singapore for a period of time or have assets in Singapore to be eligible to stand for election? This condition will not only provide assurance to the voters but gives greater credibility that our highest officeholder has a deep affiliation and stake in Singapore. This condition is important as we see ourselves in a new world of globalisation where Singaporeans are increasingly more mobile and have stakes in various levels in various countries.
On the CPA, to vary consequential support for a Parliamentary override based on the differing decision of perhaps only one CPA member may result in more fractious discussions within the CPA and between the CPA and the President. Will the Commission's recommendation accord an unelected CPA member a disproportionate amount of influence? If the Commission's recommendation to accord \"greater weight\" to the CPA is to be incorporated into the Constitution, will the democratically elected President truly wield \"real power\" or only when he has the agreement and unwavering support of his appointed advisers? Should the political bodies/figures be allowed to endorse presidential candidates? If they are to be truly non-partisan, would not allowing them to be endorsed defeat the essence of non-partisan spirit? Hypothetically, what if we have a coalition government? Will this model of Elected Presidency and CPA still work?
The above questions and clarifications are raised to address the concerns of many Singaporeans of various walks of life. They speak in simplicity but the thinking behind is profound and deep-seated. It is essential for all issues to be raised and made transparent for the good of the society at large, especially the voters, who will decide on the next President next year. Madam, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the proposed amendments to the Elected Presidency Bill. It has been an intense three days of debate. Members have discussed in detail amendments to this Bill.
Of all the proposed amendments, I feel that the most important is ensuring minority representation in the Presidency. Multiracialism is our defining value. It is at the core of our existence. We chose independence in 1965 because we chose to be a multiracial society, where all races feel that we are a part of this country. Since then, our policies, such as our education and housing policies, have always been guided by this key principle. We are Malay Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans but, most importantly, we are all Singaporeans.
It is easy to take the unique situation we have today for granted. But we must all constantly remind ourselves that this peace and harmony that we enjoy did not come by chance. This is something we should treasure and we should do everything we can to preserve this core value.
Mdm Speaker, the importance of having minority representation in the Presidency may have been overlooked since much focus has been placed on the President's custodial and protective functions. The Elected President is our Head of State. He is also the symbol of the unity of our country and the personification of our multiracial state. As such, it is important that he represents all races and his office is also an office for all races.
Our last Malay President was our first President, Mr Yusof Ishak who held this highest office from 1965 to 1970. In other words, it has been 46 years since we last had a President from the Malay race. It is a long time, considering that our nation celebrated its 50th birthday last year.
If we agree that the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state, then the proposed amendment to ensure minority representation in the Presidency is a timely and long overdue move that I strongly support.
Mdm Speaker, even as this proposed amendment is an important and necessary step in ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency, I hope that one day, this mechanism will no longer be needed, that from time to time, representatives from different races will be voted into office. When that happens, the need for \"reserved elections\" will no longer be needed. But until that day comes, I support the move to put in the safeguard mechanism.
Mdm Speaker, many Members in this Chamber have spoken about other amendments to strengthen the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates. If we agree that our Elected President must have the necessary qualifications, experience and knowledge to exercise his or her responsibilities effectively, then there should be no dispute that the eligibility criteria for all Presidential candidates must be updated from time to time to reflect our current economic context.
Finally, I would like to make two suggestions. First, I suggest that the Government conduct more public education on the Elected Presidency. As noted in the Constitutional Commission report, \"only 42% of the respondents were able to correctly identify the proper ambit of the President's role\". This is perhaps not surprising, considering that a voter who voted in the first Presidential Election in 1993 only had the chance to elect a President again in 2011. During this 18-year gap, he could have voted in five GEs. I believe this could have contributed to the lack of awareness of the Elected Presidency system. More worrying, it could give rise to the electorate being misled by candidates who make promises that are not within the constitutional authority of the President.
Second, I suggest that the Government strengthen the rules governing how Presidential election campaigns are conducted. The last Presidential election in 2011 showed us that it is necessary to prevent misinformation concerning the proper role of the President and the function of the office. It is dangerous for Presidential candidates to make promises or even take positions that are incompatible with the office of the President. This would create expectations that, once elected, the promises would be fulfilled whereas, in fact, it is not constitutionally permitted.
Mdm Speaker, yesterday, Members of the WP said that they would be elaborating on their proposal on having an eight-member Senate. Today, after hearing them for the entire day, we have yet to hear any details from them. This is a major proposal to have a second House in our country. I hope that Members can have more details on their proposal. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mdm Speaker, since the recommendations made by the Constitutional Commission on proposed changes to the Elected Presidency were announced, there had been much talk about the motivation behind all the proposals. The flurry of questions and discussions continued not only in this House but both online and offline. The questions were varied. Was it designed for specific individuals who could become the potential candidates? Was it made to reduce the net pool of individuals who could qualify or was it about multiracialism and politics?
From this, I see three aspects that are worth deliberating: leadership, race and politics.
First, on leadership. In all processes where selection of leaders is concerned, we generally need a set of criteria as a starting basis of comparison for consistency and fairness. To be relevant with time and context, I agree and support that the qualifying criteria must be reviewed on a periodic basis, especially this case in point pertaining to the post that belongs to the highest office in Singapore.
Based on the recommended criteria, the initial impression was that the stringent criteria would have restricted the eligible candidates to individuals who have experience as CEOs and also senior management in the private or public sector. Would this then mean that other outstanding professionals not in top management be unlikely Presidential candidates in the future? To answer this, it is important for us to understand that, as citizens, how do we see our President's role and the appropriate balance between the ceremonial and custodial roles?
For the custodial role, it is without doubt that material knowledge of broad economic and financial fundamentals is necessary. However, this role does not need to be solely performed by the President. After all, the President is not responsible for governing or passing Bills pertaining to Budgets. Like the CEOs and top management in many companies, they lead and work with the support of expertise from various cross-functional teams. In this instance, the CPA similarly advises on the exercise of the President's custodial and discretionary powers.
Should we be prepared to encompass broader diversity and have a President who is not from top posts of the private or public sector, there are some questions we have to ask ourselves. First, do we need to review the selection and appointment process of the CPA, for example, supplement the CPA with an expert team focused just on the economy and financials of the country's wealth management, or having the CPA that is solely appointed by the President? Two, if the custodial role of guarding our nation's Reserve is a critical mandate, should the President have the final right to veto against any decision made by the Government if it is substantiated to be detrimental to Singapore? Three, by changing the criteria, it may provide the possibility for more potential candidates to be contenders. Is this just a formality or will it truly enable and inspire more capable candidates to step forward and serve?
The stringent criteria recommended are necessary to ensure that we have the best qualified individual with critical capabilities to make central decisions when crises arise and safeguard our past Reserves for future generation. As our country progresses, there will be circumstances from time to time where one role may take dominance over the other, and vice versa. In order to achieve a right balance between both roles, and the diversity and inclusiveness of different individuals who can potentially be our Head of State, we can consider broadening the criteria over time and supplementing it by reviewing the process and selection of the CPA.
Next, on race. For Singapore to achieve and enjoy the social harmony where people today exist in a multicultural and multiracial society; it did not come easy and certainly it was not an unplanned miracle. Every step was cautiously designed from our housing quota, bilingual education system to interfaith and racial harmony events. All efforts were taken to strengthen and evolve the culture that we want entrenched in our nationhood. But in order to achieve a race-blind state, whether as a nation and as individuals, we need to embrace the race identity beyond a definition and make true connections. As mentioned by several Members in this House over the past few days, deep-rooted connections that reflect our attitudes towards different cultures and races, the human touch of readiness to support fellow Singaporeans and the ability to imbue the different cultures as one common identity that resonates with all Singaporeans are exactly what we need.
Most would say they do not look at race and simply want the best man or woman to stand for election as the President. However, surveys and history have shown that human beings have an affinity to find and settle with environments or even communities that provide them with most familiarity to their own belief or even values. This, in itself, has an added layer of complexity, especially if there are new faces of potential candidates whom we are unfamiliar with. How best then do we assess them or even judge?
The Head of State is not just a symbolic figure, but a person whom the citizens respect, can assimilate to and can unify the nation as one. Most would believe that we uphold the values of meritocracy regardless of race, language or religion. The challenge will be if five terms down the road, we still find ourselves in a situation where a reserved election has to be held, then Singaporeans have to seriously consider whether we have indeed evolved as a country and have been multiracial in our roots and identity. To note, Singapore by then will be close to 80 years since our nation's Independence. If multiracialism is what we pride ourselves high on, it should have been second nature to us. Elections by then should be one where any capable man or woman, regardless of their race, will feel confident and comfortable to step forward and vie for the highest office on this land. By then, the term \"reserved election\" would be unnecessary.
In my opinion, we must first acknowledge that these individuals who stand for elections are there due to their own merits instead of fulfilling a quota or even as a symbolic figure. Failure to differentiate their merits from their race and acknowledging it as a prerequisite in standing for election, would be, in my opinion, a retrograde step in forging a multiracial society.
And lastly, on politics. Unlike some countries, Singapore's Presidential candidates do not enter an election campaign representing any party and effectively should not run a campaign with a list of promises to be delivered after being elected. Understanding and accepting this as the design of the President's role is important because it directly relates to the expectations of the electorate. Among the two roles that the President is accountable for, he or she must be equally qualified to deliver both the ceremonial and custodial roles.
Over the years, it seemed that the associations with which people had drawn among the former Presidents, past potential candidates and even the political parties had become more intertwined. This was a result of most candidates being known public figures, that is representing a Party, or they are individuals who have extensive track records in the public sector. The number of \"new\" or unknown contestants were few and far between. There is no issue of past or present politicians that I see coming forth to contest for the higher office if they meet the qualifying criteria. But as a citizen, we are always mindful if the individual will have the moral integrity to stand up for decisions done in the interest of the country and be apolitical in their new role.
The likelihood of a former public figure or individuals with prior knowledge from the public institutions to stand for elections is higher. We cannot deny that. The need to encourage them to serve as compared to a private individual, will be much easier. The concern is not about having a former public figure to run for the office. Rather, it is the need for this individual to: (a) understand their role as one being different from what they used to contribute when in governance; (b) establish their role in a needful manner and consciously demonstrate independence of thoughts with the nation's interest as top priority; and (c) to demonstrate the ability to reconcile differences in opinions and work through solutions with the Government to ensure that all the key proposition is in preserving wealth for the future generations of Singapore.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I support the need to update the qualifying criteria, making it more stringent and keeping it relevant with the changing times. For other intangible measures or even indicators of whether we have progressed as a nation in terms of multiracialism and encouraging individuals from diversified backgrounds to step forward and contest in elections, these efforts can only be meaningful and enhanced over time with the participation of our citizens. Amendments to the Constitution are not one-off discussions but rather a constant work in progress that should bring us forward as a nation, one that gives soul and substance to this Constitution. Ultimately, the President is one whom we want to deliver his or her responsibilities as is a human that touches and connects with the lives of every Singaporean. And with this, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I shall deliver my speech first in English and later in Malay.
Let me express my personal views on the Elected Presidency. I was one of those who actually did not believe that Elected Presidency is the way to go for Singapore. I have always believed an appointed President would suffice the need to play the dual role as a symbol and unifier for all Singaporeans as well as a custodian to our national Reserves. However, I changed my position, considering a possible scenario when the President could be at loggerheads with the government of the day on the use of our national Reserves. Thus, a President who is elected by the people shall have the mandate and moral authority to exercise his discretion without doubt and without fear.
With so much debated, I shall only focus on two changes that have been suggested by the Commission and supported by the Government through its White Paper, namely, first, the eligibility criteria for private sector service requirement and, secondly, the five-term hiatus provision for the minorities.
First, let me touch on the eligibility criteria for the private sector service requirement where numerous changes have been suggested by the Commission. Two significant changes which I would like to highlight are: only the most senior executive, however named, can be allowed as a candidate; and minimum shareholders' equity of S$500 million.
While I can see the rationale behind this eligibility criterion to presume that only the most senior executive, say, an executive chairman or a CEO and others alike, takes the primary leadership position and thus making all critical and important decisions, I also do believe that there are other senior executives in high-ranking positions who are also making and taking charge of such similar critical and important decision-making. Examples are the chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO) and senior executive vice presidents.
Good leadership of any organisation is never always about the most senior executive taking decision unilaterally. But and however, it is always collective decision-making that prevails to be the best stewardship in action. In this case, the most senior executive of any good organisation has to depend on the work and advice of his close second ranked executives, be it a CFO or COO, and others alike. They are the also the ones that assume similar critical roles and thus making important decision within the organisation.
Henceforth, I urge that we re-consider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the CFO and COO, to be considered, too, within this \"most senior executive\" framework. And more importantly, I would even go beyond to say that the second ranked executive CFO will probably have better knowledge in making informed judgements when it comes to financial matters, which is very much related to the custodial role of the Elected Presidency.
Let me now go on to the next criterion, that is, the minimum shareholders' equity requirement of S$500 million. With all being said through the statistics, I am not convinced if such a criterion can guarantee a candidate to be a good President. Making this notion into action may assume that the person who has not met the criterion may probably not be able to make a good President. I believe we can all agree that this is not what the criterion is meant to be. The criterion may even be seen as a disadvantage to individuals in some specific industries. While it is a \"nice-to-have\" criterion, I am certain there are equally capable men and women out there who can be considered for the Presidency without having to meet the criterion. For a fact, I know of some individuals who will not be able to meet the criterion, but I am convinced that they have the mettle to be considered for the Elected Presidency.
Let us devise a criterion which truly measure one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his or her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society. While many \"hard\" criteria have been suggested for eligibility, I believe there are more that we should consider, especially those \"soft\" ones.
I will now move on to the five-term hiatus provision. A multiracial Singapore should not only be said and written but, more importantly, it must be seen and exercised. This was nicely explained by both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in their earlier speeches. As a member coming from a minority community, I would like to express my appreciation to the Commission for having included this in ensuring that a member from the minority community will always have a place in the highest office in Singapore.
However, though I am more upbeat and positive with regard to this provision, please allow me to express my concerns. Like always, there are always two sides to a coin. Likewise, for this case, I hope not that the provision be construed as a tokenism. After a long journey of 50 years in nation-building with meritocracy as our underpinning principle, such provisions can always be seen as one.
Assurance from senior officers of our Government is important to bring this message across. Henceforth, I look forward to such sharing and engagement so as to ensure that we are embarking on this journey as a nation that cares deeply about our multi-racial fabric, bringing a balanced dimension in our journey towards nation-building in the years to come. As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision. Mdm Speaker, I shall proceed with the next part in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker and my hon Parliamentary colleagues, I would like to wish you good afternoon.
The Presidential elections which will be held next year, that is, 2017, will very likely mark a historic occasion for our nation, if the Bill on the Elected Presidency that is being debated in Parliament is passed. For the first time, a provision for a five-term hiatus, which was suggested by the Constitutional Commission, and also supported by the Government, will commence at the next Presidential Election, as proposed by the Prime Minister yesterday.
As the Prime Minister also said, the Presidential Election next year will be reserved for Malays, after 46 years without someone from the Malay community assuming the office of the President. Is this something good and should be celebrated by us? Or is this something bad and we should feel concerned or suspicious?
We can look at any issue from two perspectives, either from a healthy viewpoint or otherwise. Taking a positive perspective, I feel that this is a very encouraging step, especially since we would like to fulfil and realise the principle of multiracialism that we have always accepted in our country.
This principle of multiracialism that we have always treasured since having Independence for 50 years is not something that we should merely say and write about but, more than that, it is something that should be implemented and practised, similar to the objective of the provision of the five-term hiatus. Does this mean that a President from the minority group, including Malays, can only assume the office of the Elected President once every five terms?
The answer is definitely no. Each candidate from the minority group, be it from the Malay, Indian and also Eurasian community, will all have the chance and can participate and contest in every Presidential election. If elected, this provision will only be reconsidered, if there are no Presidents from the minority group in the next five terms.
What is important is that each candidate must fulfil the established conditions if he or she would like to contest in the Elected Presidential elections. Through that, the principle of meritocracy can be achieved together with the principle of multiracialism, which we all treasure.
Therefore, let us take this opportunity together with an open mind and positively. I would like to urge all those who are qualified and can fulfil the established criteria, please – come and step forward, both the men as well as the women, and put yourself up as the candidate for the upcoming Elected President elections.
Let us together prove to our fellow countrymen, that the Malays, as a minority community, are capable and have candidates who are as qualified as the other communities. After 50 years of separation from our neighbouring country, and throughout that period, we have been self-reliant and became a part of Singapore's modernity through meritocracy, and thus I am confident that there are those among us who have progressed and become successful in in their respective fields.
Do not hesitate. Put yourself forward if you are capable. Turn yourself into someone who will be the pride of our community. Prove that our community has progressed and is able to come up with an excellent candidate.
In conclusion, although this provision will be implemented only for the Malay minority group this time round, I am certain that the Malay community has qualified candidates. Therefore, let us use this opportunity in a positive manner. I will now deliver the rest of my speech in English.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, summarisng my speech, I would like to highlight the following three points. First, that we reconsider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the COO and CFO, to be considered too, within this \"most senior executive\" framework. Let us device a criterion which truly measures one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his/her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society.
As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision and call upon capable Malay individuals who qualify and meet the requirements as set forth in the eligibility criteria, to step forward and respond to the next Presidential Election.
With all being said, I am of the opinion that we deal and discuss too much quantitatively on the Elected Presidency. Notwithstanding the need to suffice the custodial role, I fear that we have forgotten to stress the importance and salient characteristics of a President as a symbolic figure of the nation as well as a unifier across all Singaporeans. Getting a candidate truly to meet these should be the primary driving force – a President representing the heart and soul of our nation, whom we all can depend on, cutting across all sorts of divides. Majulah Singapura.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill which seeks to make amendments to the Constitution on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency. I will be speaking on the following areas: the role of the President, the eligibility criteria, the reserved election and the CPA.
On the role of the President, the changes need to be appropriately understood. I think we had quite a lot of discussions on the role of the President but it is still important to stress and make sure that we Singaporeans understand and appreciate with clarity the role that the Elected President will discharge. Effectively, the proposed amendments on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency outline what the President can and cannot do, and the measures to ensure safeguards, given the custodial powers that will be vested in the hands of a single individual.
There are really three important roles that are expected of the President and they are distinct roles which call for different skills. The President needs to be someone that every Singaporean can relate to – a symbol of national unity, and I think many have spoken of this – and of the need to fully represent the view of Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion.
As the Head of State, the President, although having no policymaking role, performs constitutional and official duties, and functions as a Head of State.
The custodial power that the President holds is the holder of the \"second key\" to safeguard two specific areas: our nation's financial assets as well as the integrity of our Public Service. Effectively, we are asking for someone who has the strength of character and also of competence. With the understanding of the scope of the role of the President, we must agree that the responsibilities are significant and, therefore, require a person to have the appropriate skills.
There are some who argue that perhaps, the role of the President, given that he does not have policymaking authority, is insignificant and may not even be required. And we should not be too hasty to come to this conclusion because Singapore – I think we need to remind ourselves – we have no natural resources and our financial Reserves are our key assets. Having a \"second key\" ensures appropriate measures to safeguard decisions to draw down on the Reserves.
Singapore's economy and success, as well as our social stability, depend on our financial stability and resilience. Given this importance, we do need stringent eligibility criteria to ensure competent decision-making. I do, however, think that – both during the last three days of debate, as well as outside of this House – since the Commission's report, there has been a lot of discussions around the custodial functions and duties. In doing so, to some extent, the qualification criteria that were set out in the Constitution on the character of the candidate have not been given as much attention.
I would just like to remind everyone that clause 19(20)(e) of our Constitution outlines that the Presidential Elections Committee, before issuing certificate of eligibility, is to assess that the candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. That does not go away. That is also an equally important part. The eligibility criteria must lend weight to both the character and competence of the candidates. Having someone financially competent and equipped with the executive management skills does not guarantee integrity and the ability of the individual to represent Singapore in interactions with other world leaders.
While many will agree on the need for high standards and the quality of the candidates, and the concerns that perhaps the criteria being too stringent might limit the pool of individuals that can qualify, but I would like to remind everyone that, given the significance of the role of the Elected President and what he or she will play, we do need stringent criteria.
To illustrate the point, all of us trust our general practitioner (GP) as our doctors or family doctors, but would we let our loved ones go for a surgery and having our GP do that surgery? I think the answer would be no. Not that we do not trust our GP, we do. But there are specific skills that are still required and, therefore, the need for the stringent criteria, both of character and of technical competence, that are required. There have been a lot of insinuations of why the criteria has gone up. Why is there a need? I think we all have to look at the importance of the role and also the relevance of where Singapore is today.
Let me now touch on the reserved elections. When this recommendation was made, I asked myself the question why we have a need for this, given the progress we have made as a multiracial society and the proclamation in our Pledge that says, \"regardless of race, language or religion\". Many of us hold this very dear. So, the very recommendation is highlighting the need for provisions to be made for race. This seems contrary to the very core of our principles as a nation. I pondered on this for some time and it brought me back to a speech that Mr Lee Kuan Yew made in this very House. He referred us to Mr Rajaratnam and our Pledge.
He said, \"Was it ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to keep trying.\" He reminded us also, \"We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everyone as equal. It is not reality; it is not practical. It will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle. So, this was an aspiration.\"
When I read this and I thought about it again, I realised that the racial harmony that we treasure in Singapore did not just happen. The progress that we have made in the last 50 years was because, as a country, as a society, we have been deliberately interventionist to make this happen.
As a society, Singapore has been unconventional in pursuing this aspiration to ensure inclusiveness. Our housing policy has enabled us to remove racial enclaves and to promote integration. We continue to strive to ensure that there is opportunity for education and progress for all Singaporeans, regardless of our race or our social circumstances. Race is an uncomfortable topic for us to speak about. We do, however, need to be able to speak about how we can ensure that the highest office in this country is inclusive and that no racial group in a multiracial Singapore feels that they are not able to achieve it.
It is in this spirit that the amendments are made to ensure representation of the main communities of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian in Singapore for the Office of the President.
The proposed amendment in clause 9 of the Bill with the new Article 19B provides a framework that seeks to balance the need for multiracialism with our meritocratic ideals. What it states is: \"A candidate to qualify for a reserved election would need to meet the constitutionally prescribed eligibility criteria which include character, proven experience and competence. If during the reserved election, there is no qualified candidate from that racial group, the election will then be opened to candidates from all races.\"
It is important to note that a reserved election will not be required if the election produces Presidents of different races. It is only if no persons belonging to one of the main racial communities has held the office of President for a five-term hiatus, which translates to 30 years, that there will be a reserved election for that racial group. Thirty years. And in the last 46 years, we have not seen a Malay candidate.
This approach, while it is not comfortable and I do not think it is ideal, it is important because it is a balanced approach to ensure that we maintain our principles of both meritocracy and multiracialism.
Let me just touch on this point. As I reviewed the amendment and so on – this is not so much related to race – I could not help but ask this question: what about women? I will be very clear. I am not advocating for provisions in the Constitution to be made for women representation, but we must, however, recognise that women do make up 51% of Singapore's population.
Women are not a minority in Singapore and there is a pipeline of women, from both the public and commercial sectors, of character and integrity who do qualify and will qualify, even with the new eligibility criteria. Why then have we not seen women candidates step forward? We do have to ask ourselves what we are missing if we do not tap on this base of female talent and how we can attract women to run for President.
Let me now touch on my final point on the CPA.
The Bill outlines amendments to strengthen the role, composition of the Council, as well as the framework for the Council's provision of advice to the President on related matters. And it does oblige the President to consult the Council before exercising any discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution, subject to the exceptions specified, where consultation is optional.
We should note that the CPA's role is only relevant when the President disagrees with the Government. What this implies is that the Council plays the role as a \"check\" on the President's ability to check on the Government. Feedback from many is that this runs counter to having an Elected President and the concept of the role being the holder of the \"second key\".
I would like us to take a step back on this, because I asked myself this question: why check on the checker? But I think there is one important point that we all feel we may have in this discussion fail to realise, that no one leader operates alone. Leaders still need the advice of people of good knowledge and competence as well, and that is the role the Council plays. But then I ask myself: if that Council has the ability to check it in such a way that it could create either a gridlock or to counter and just make it difficult for the President, then what happens?
So, then I looked at the composition of the Council and the recommendations by the Commission, in terms of increasing the number. Not to go into the technicality of the timing, the appointment of the Council or the number, but a very fundamental question came to my mind: \"Why do we make the President do that?\" And then I realised, if the President is not able to even convince half of eight people of why he or she would veto that decision, then I think it is worth taking that forward and having the President's decision on his veto to be put forward for Parliament to take a vote on.
That is what the Commission and the composition and the changes have recommended. One of the things that the proposed amendments also did include was the calibration on the threshold which Parliament may override against the degree of CPA's support for the President's decision. I think this was also another area that the Commission had recommended, which the Bill will also put into place.
What this proposed amendment is striving to achieve is to enable a system of safeguards while preventing a risk of a constitutional gridlock and ensuring that the Government can continue to do what it legitimately should be able to do in the best interests of Singapore.
From the debates we have had during the last three days in this House, we all recognise that this is, indeed, a complex balance to achieve, but with this check of the elected President and the counter-checks of the CPA, I do ask that we must be cautious that the system is agile enough to work for the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans when it is most needed, because we cannot afford a system of gridlock as well. Because when those decisions have to be made and when that time comes, there needs to be that ability for us to also be able to move forward.
Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill, and I hope that all of us, regardless of some of the concerns that we have, will go forward to make sure that these changes will allow us to ensure that Singapore and our future will be taken into really serious consideration because the role that the President has, will have a very important impact on us. Not now, but in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for 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 Deputy 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 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy 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) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): I will try to be briefer than two days ago. First, I would like to thank the 38 Members for speaking on the Bill. This is an important debate about improvements to a key national institution – the Elected Presidency. The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about the broad principles that underlie the need for the Elected Presidency, the provisions to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency, and why the Elected Presidency remains the most workable and effective solution for Singapore.
Let me address the specific matters raised by Members, which can be grouped into two main sets of issues. First, the two core custodial functions of the Elected Presidency: first, safeguarding of past Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service; and second, representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency.
Let me begin with the first issue.
Mdm Speaker, I am heartened that all the speakers have expressed the need for safeguards to our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service, as a legacy for our future generations. Let us lay to rest the notion that these safeguards are meant to stymie a new government coming into power. The safeguards will only do so if that government, indeed any government, even the current one, intends to use the Reserves irresponsibly or erode the integrity of the Public Service. This agreement on the need for safeguards allows us, then, to focus on framing the most appropriate way of providing these safeguards. There is no perfect solution. I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. What we are trying to do is to find the best way of doing so.
The changes proposed in the Bill flow from the recommendations of an independent Constitutional Commission appointed by the Prime Minister in January this year. There was wide consultation by the independent Commission, which conducted its review in a non-partisan, inclusive, transparent, open and comprehensive manner.
Why did I emphasise \"independent\" Commission and why did the Prime Minister decide to set up an independent Commission? Because he did not want this review to end up being embroiled in partisan to-ing and fro-ing, as we have seen in the last few days. We wanted an objective look at the issues so that we could have the most comprehensive report and to do it openly and transparently. After the Government received the Commission's recommendations, the Government held dialogues as well. This entire process has taken 10 months.
We know from our collective experience and knowledge built up over the past 25 years that the Elected Presidency is an important and complex institution, and that we should only move after having carefully considered the options.
Mdm Speaker, in contrast, the second day into the debate, the WP sprung a new proposal upon the Members of the House. Their proposal for an Upper House – composed of elected Senators – is a fundamental change to our institutions of government. It is also a marked departure from what the WP has advocated in the past since the inception of the Elected Presidency – different from their manifesto at the recent GE in September last year, and different again from their submission to the Constitutional Commission in March this year. No mention of a Senate, let alone an elected one.
What is most extraordinary is that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, one of the WP's NCMPs, who had spoken at length in this debate yesterday supporting an elected Upper House, just in December last year, had argued strongly – and I must say, quite persuasively – against just such a bicameral system. He takes quite a different interpretation on that today. This was also just barely two months before the Constitutional Commission was formed.
The WP was invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission. Unfortunately, they chose not to do so. The WP was the only one of the 20 invited contributors that declined the invitation. I was speaking to MP Mr Christopher de Souza, and he said that the Eurasian Association had many views and concerns, and they found that it was a very useful process to discuss with the Constitutional Commission. They went away not completely agreeing with everything, but understanding what the concerns and considerations were, much, much better.
The Commission, nevertheless, considered all the 107 written submissions it had received, including that of the WP. The problem is, of course, that the WP's current proposal is very different from what they had submitted to the Commission. The WP has now, less than 36 hours ago, in fact, about 30 hours ago, put their proposal before this House – I must say – in a non-transparent, non-consultative way, literally keeping things close to their chests, and asked this House to consider it. Even so, we endeavoured very hard to find out more of this proposal.
Unfortunately, it is apparent from the tentative way that the WP Members have attempted to respond to questions about the most basic and important features of their proposal that this proposal has not been well-thought through. The proposal has the benefit of brevity but, unfortunately, not of clarity. We saw WP Members go back and forth on whether the Senate's power was limited only to delay, or whether it actually held a veto; we saw them flip-flop on what eligibility criteria the Senators must satisfy; and we saw them hem and haw over how those Senators are to be elected into office.
Mdm Speaker, governing is a complex and serious issue, and no responsible party should deal with an important issue, such as changes to key national institutions, in a cavalier manner. It is not something you can just be brazen about and dismiss by saying, \"Oh, do not be bogged down by the details\". However, the lack of a well-thought through proposal with a clear plan has not stopped the WP from going even further, calling for a referendum – in fact, almost insisting on one – on their proposal. They even put forward a draft referendum question for the House to consider, when they are not even clear what exactly it is that they are proposing.
Mdm Speaker, we do not need to repeat the post-Brexit referendum confusion, where the British were left with no clear plan and lacked the execution ability to carry out what they had persuaded the voters to vote for.
The WP has also failed to articulate clear or consistent reasons for why they say their proposal is better than the EP. Just 11 months ago, one of the key Members arguing for it these two days in this very Chamber had publicly argued the opposite. Their proposal gives an unelected Senate Elections Committee the ability to bar eligible candidates from even participating in the Senate elections. This exclusion is done in an entirely non-transparent, unaccountable and potentially arbitrary manner. It multiplies the difficulties associated with finding a suitable candidate for the Presidency by eight. Also unresolved are innumerable operational issues with the proposal. For example, how is gridlock in the Senate resolved?
Mdm Speaker, what is troubling also is that Members of the WP have, during this debate, attempted to draw support for their proposal by representing that the Commission recommended such a structure. This paints an incorrect picture of the Commission's report and its actual recommendations.
Let us go to the Commission's report itself. In paragraph 7.47 of the report, the Commission stated, with regard to the proposal to unbundle the custodial and symbolic functions, and I quote, \"The Commission considers that this is a proposal that the Government may wish to consider if and when it is appropriate and timely to undertake a more fundamental change to the Presidency\". And again, at paragraph 7.53, I quote, \"The Commission has set out its thoughts on this issue only for the Government's consideration and, if the Government deems it fit and profitable, further debate. The Commission does so only as a group of citizens\".
Mdm Speaker, this was certainly not a recommendation made by the Commission, much less a main or major recommendation. It was a suggestion that the Commission made for the Government's consideration based on some of the submissions it had received. Furthermore, what the members of the Commission had actually described for consideration was an appointed council of experts with no veto powers. This is fundamentally different from the WP's proposal, which is an Upper House of elected senators, something which, I think, in the words of one of the WP's Members, was apparently a minor difference. It is a fundamental and major difference.
Instead, Mdm Speaker, the Commission's main recommendations focused squarely on enhancing and improving the existing institution of the Elected Presidency. It dealt with the revision of the eligibility criteria, the strengthening of the CPA, and the hiatus-triggered mechanism to ensure multiracial representation. The Government, in most part, has accepted these recommendations. Where we have not done so, we have stated quite clearly, in the White Paper, where and why.
If the WP wants to advocate and campaign for the idea of an elected Senate, they can and should do so. But they should do so in an open, transparent and fully consultative way. Do not spring it on people. They can start by putting out a proper proposal. It is not a novel idea – a bicameral system. Some countries have a bicameral system. And one should examine its merits and pitfalls objectively – a pity that it was not submitted to the Constitutional Commission. We should study its merits and pitfalls, for example, the very issues that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had so eloquently put forth less than a year ago. It is very well-written.
The WP can then campaign on that proposal at the next GE, and, if they succeed, they can see to it that it comes to pass. In fact, if it is a good proposal, we will be prepared to consider it, too. Why would we want to consider something that is good for Singapore and not accept it just because it comes from somewhere else? If it is better than the Elected Presidency that we have constructed today, we will be prepared to accept it. But I do not think it is. What they cannot do is to pull a half-formed proposal out of a hat and press for a referendum on the issue. Madam, I do worry if this ad hoc-ism is symptomatic of the way they would wish to run our country and the public institutions they are responsible for.
Let me now turn to the substantive matters at hand – the changes that the Government is making to improve the present system – the Bill that is before this House.
These recommendations are in accord with the recommendations of the Commission, and have been arrived at after thorough consideration, through the open, consultative process over 10 months, that I had described earlier.
The changes to the eligibility criteria bring the 1991 figures up to date. The changes to the CPA framework harmonise it to make it function more smoothly and uniformly. I will come to this a little more later. The changes for minority representation introduce a new mechanism to ensure multiracial representation from time to time.
Mdm Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, the Elected Presidency is not a perfect system. But what we are doing in this House is institution-building. We are trying to improve our institutions and strengthen them for the Singapore of the future. It is part of an overall effort to build stabilisers in the system so that whether you are a Town Councillor, an MP, a President or a Prime Minister, you are governed by a set of laws and are held accountable to them. Each person understands his or her role, and carries them out diligently and faithfully for the good of the country. The important point when we consider voting later this evening is that the WP has really not come up with a workable and better alternative to the system that we have, and the improvements that we are proposing.
The President continues to be the foremost symbol of our national unity. We acknowledge that there may be potential tension between the President's historical and custodial roles. We have always said so. It is not something that we have ducked. We have said so and acknowledged it. But as we have explained in the White Paper, and again in this House ‒ the Prime Minister and myself ‒ and as the Constitutional Commission itself noted, all our elected Presidents have been able to perform the two roles with distinction. And not a single Member from either side of this House has refuted this point.
Furthermore, it is not uncommon. It is quite common in other countries, such as the US and France, for an elected Executive President to concurrently be the Head of State. While there is potential tension between an electoral process and the President's unifying role in these countries, the President continues to play this role in these countries which are long-standing democracies. In these cases, the President is an Executive President, not just a President with safeguard powers. The Executive Presidents in these countries have wide-ranging and extensive powers. In our case, our President is not an Executive President with wide-ranging powers. He is a President with symbolic and custodial roles. He is not elected on a party platform and I believe that if we have wisdom, particularly among our voters, we should be able to elect good Presidents and to handle this.
Madam, with the introduction of elections for the Elected Presidency, eligibility criteria were put in place to ensure that candidates standing for elections have a certain baseline of experience and skills for the Presidential role.
The Commission considered the imposition of criteria as a \"necessity\". These are the words of the Commission. Many Members have spoken on this, including Miss Cheryl Chan, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, and agreed with the need for stringent criteria.
Yet, some Members, while accepting the need for eligibility criteria, asked whether the revised criteria were aimed at limiting the pool of candidates to certain groups. The WP said in response to the Commission's report that the \"real risk\" is that \"you have a PAP Government with an Elected President which is from the establishment – both squandering away the national Reserves\".
Mdm Speaker, what is the WP saying? That the past Elected Presidents have been unable to act independently or carry out their duties properly? I have seen first-hand how our Elected Presidents have carried out their roles. These are men of integrity, men who have principles and are prepared to stand by them and act on them. Has the WP itself not acknowledged, in this very House, the independence of mind of the late President Ong or the way that the late President Nathan had always treated them with courtesy, fairness and consideration?
So, let us not unfairly run down the system and particularly cast aspersions on honourable men in an attempt to try to score political points.
I also note that the WP, while seemingly critical of eligibility criteria, also accepts the need for eligibility criteria in its elected senate proposal. Mr Leon Perera said yesterday and confirmed today that the eligibility criteria for its elected senate proposal are the same as those for elected Presidents. Yesterday, he promised to give details in his main speech and he put his hands up several times, but we have not heard from him today on further details.
Madam, the WP is effectively also restricting its senate to a limited group of people. But the serious problem here lies with their proposed Senate Elections Committee (SEC), which is tasked to shortlist 16 candidates from a pool of qualified applicants. Now, the SEC is not an elected body. It is an appointed one.
As Dr Janil Puthucheary pointed out, unlike the current inclusionary model where the PEC certifies the eligibility of any applicant who meets the qualifying criteria, the WP's model is exclusionary in that the SEC sets a cut-off at 16 candidates. The WP has not provided any details as to how the SEC will draw the line between the 16th and the 17th, and other candidates. So far, it has said that this line is drawn at the discretion of the SEC, and Mr Pritam Singh yesterday emphasised that the exercise of such discretion should be non-justiciable.
The system, as proposed by the WP, is far from transparent. I bring up some of these issues because, if you want to criticise our present system, you need to offer something that works better. And I bring it up to show how difficult it is to design a system and make it better than the one that we have today.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the raised eligibility criteria and how they might impact the pool of qualified candidates. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked about the differences between a chief executive of a $100 million paid-up capital company and that of a company with a $500 million shareholders' equity.
Madam, the quantitative threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity for candidates from private sector companies was proposed by the Commission after studying the matter carefully. This took into consideration the need for a President to have the requisite experience and ability to make \"large and complex financial decisions on an urgent basis\" and the \"diverse strategic and operational considerations\" that bear upon such decisions.
The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation to increase the quantitative threshold. And as explained in the White Paper, the President may have to scrutinise huge potential drawdowns, possibly within short periods of time, and to effectively discharge responsibilities of such a scale and magnitude, the President must have the confidence that comes with familiarity with making decisions involving large sums of money.
As I have already mentioned in my opening speech, there are significantly more companies today that would meet the revised threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity than the 158 companies in 1993, which would have met the $100 million paid-up capital threshold. There will continue to be qualified minority candidates, from both the public and private sectors. I do not have a precise figure. A precise figure is not available – companies do not make public the information on the racial background of their officers.
But if we agree, as I think we do, that we must be uncompromising on the criteria and that we cannot lower the bar for any community, we should focus on growing the pool of eligible candidates. Every community should aspire towards producing leaders that may one day represent the nation in her highest office and to encourage those leaders to come forward to serve in that office. The pool will grow over time as our country progresses.
Are the criteria too focused on financial acumen? I think Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked this question. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Zaqy Mohamad spoke about the financial aspects of these eligibility criteria. Madam, the criteria are to ensure that the candidates running for office have the knowledge, competence and judgement to make decisions on financial matters of significant magnitude or scale, as well as on key appointments to the Public Service. These are criteria that we are able to state in an objective way. We can codify them.
However, other criteria, such as integrity and good character, are also crucial. We can write them down, but how do you measure them? They are required of a Presidential candidate, as provided for under the existing Article 19(2)(e). This is, of course, not exhaustive of all the \"intangible\" qualities we desire in a President, such as public-spiritedness, compassion and empathy. These are key and critical qualities. But it is very difficult to legislate for all these \"intangibles\". It is our people who will ultimately have to be the judge of whether a candidate has what it takes, especially where these important intangibles are concerned, to be the President when our people exercise their vote.
Now, the CPA. Some Members, like Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, have asked about the CPA's functions and raised queries about an unelected body playing a role in the system of checks and balances. Others, like Mr Louis Ng, asked if the extension of the Parliamentary overruling mechanism would dilute the President's powers.
Mdm Speaker, I must emphasise that there are no changes to how the President's veto powers, the moderating effect of the CPA's advice or the Parliamentary overruling mechanism operate in respect of the President's custodial powers over Reserves and appointments, and I went to some trouble to prepare a slide two days ago to explain this. This was Handout 3, one of the simpler slides.
The changes merely adopt a uniform approach towards the President's obligation to consult the CPA on financial and appointment-related matters, as well as extend the overruling mechanism in a uniform way to these areas. Today, the President is obliged to do this in some areas but not in others. There is some inconsistency there. So, we are making it uniform. But the President's powers and the mechanism remain the same. As I have explained, the overruling mechanism already applies in two areas, namely, Supply Bills and key appointments. The approach taken is to harmonise the approach towards Parliamentary overruling by subjecting the rest of his core custodial powers to the same overruling framework. In short, what is being proposed simply ensures uniformity in the President's obligation to consult the CPA, and the availability of Parliamentary overruling, insofar as his core custodial powers are concerned. There is no change in the way the mechanism operates.
As for the weight given to the CPA's recommendations, I have already explained in my opening speech that the CPA's role is to provide its advice to the President. It is the President who decides whether to veto a Government proposal, and not the CPA. The CPA has no veto powers, neither over what the President does nor what the Government proposes. The CPA provides its advice.
The WP has suggested that the Bill elevates the unelected CPA to an \"alternative centre of power\". They create a spectre of this very powerful CPA vetoing and blocking everything. It is just simply not true. If you read the White Paper, if you listen to my speech and if you look at the diagram, you will know that it is not true.
Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh have referred to the CPA as a \"third key\" and questioned its moral authority. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Leon Perera said that the CPA can \"checkmate\" or \"block\" the President. Mr Low Thia Khiang even went so far as to suggest that the CPA's power exceeds that of the elected President, or even the Government itself, and said that, at critical moments, the CPA can block the Government from drawing on Past Reserves and making key appointments.
Madam, as I have said, this is entirely untrue. The WP MPs fundamentally misunderstood the role the CPA plays under the Constitution, despite the fact that it is written down and thoroughly explained yesterday in a diagram.
In fact, they are misleading this House. It is not a third centre of power. It is unable to single-handedly block a Government proposal. This has been the same for the past 25 years and remains unchanged under the Bill. When the President agrees, the CPA's view has no weight. The CPA's role is only relevant when the President vetoes a proposal from the Government. In such cases, where the President has exercised his veto, but the CPA agrees with the Government's proposal, the CPA's agreement serves to moderate the weight of the President's veto – but only by referring the issue to Parliament. The Parliament – as the \"most important deliberative body in the country\" – has the opportunity to take a look, or a \"second look\", at the matter, and can decide by a two-thirds majority to proceed with the proposal.
So, ultimately, whether the Government makes a decision with the President's concurrence, the President disagrees with the Government's decision, or Parliament overrules the President's disagreement, it is always an elected institution that makes the decision.
At this juncture, I should address the points raised by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh on the standing and independence of the CPA. I found it very disappointing that Assoc Prof Goh repeatedly suggested yesterday that the CPA is a politicised body, while providing no substantiation for such a serious claim. Lowering the dignity of the CPA's role and standing in this manner is entirely uncalled for.
Mdm Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Government when I say that the CPA members are eminent members of our society who have done much good work throughout their terms of CPA office. The CPA members are highly distinguished, competent and experienced persons who have given willingly of themselves to Public Service and their record of service and integrity speak for themselves. They have always acted independently of their appointing authorities, and advised the President based on what, in their judgment, is in the best interests of Singapore. The changes that we have proposed further strengthen the CPA and enhance its ability to play its enlarged role. We have added two members to the CPA as well so that the President can benefit from a wider range of views.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the disclosure of the President's and the CPA's grounds in a situation where the President exercises his veto. He referred to Articles 5A, 5B and 5C. These actually reflect the broader framework set out in the new Articles 37ID, 37IE and 37IF, which deal with the disclosure of the President's and CPA's reasons in the general context of the President's veto powers.
As stated in the White Paper, the proposed approach seeks to strike a suitable balance between enhancing the CPA's and the President's accountability for matters involving vetoes on the one hand and protecting potentially sensitive and confidential information on the other. The three-stage approach I have set out in my opening speech gives form to this approach.
I now turn to the second issue: whether we should ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. Does race matter?
Mdm Speaker, many Members have supported the need to ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. The issue is how we achieve this representation. Singapore has made significant progress in building a multiracial society. It is difficult to do. Countries have fallen apart even when they have lived in harmony for decades, even a century or two. We are only 50 years old. We are in a better situation than most countries and have managed to avoid the toxic racial debates and tensions that we see elsewhere precisely because the Government has always taken an honest, preemptive, open and active approach to fostering multiracialism. We did not leave this to chance.
As Mr Edwin Tong mentioned yesterday, we see this in HDB's Ethnic Integration Policy and in the ethnic-based self-help groups, such as MENDAKI and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA). We also see this in the GRC scheme, which has ensured multiracial representation in Parliament. When we introduced the GRC scheme, there were similar concerns expressed about how we make sure that there is adequate racial representation.
And, if I may add as a footnote, I think Mr Leon Perera fully understands why we have an Ethnic Integration Policy and how it has helped to avoid concentration of races and to make sure that we live together in harmony in all our housing estates, and yet he chose to raise it in a very political way in his speech just now.
Mdm Speaker, as a result of these policies, we have expanded the common space, facilitated racial integration and ensured that our politics remain above race and religion. Contrast this with the approach that France has taken, which Dr Tan Wu Meng alluded to in his speech on Monday. In principle, the approach that France takes espouses a \"colour-blind\" approach to race relations. But, in effect, what has happened is that it has masked the stark differences in socioeconomic opportunities and outcomes between the races, which has, in turn, led to racial tension and strife.
I was in France recently, about a month-and-a-half ago, and had a deep discussion with my French counterparts and interlocutors on radicalisation. Senior French officials, scholars and those who were doing community work acknowledge that there are deep fissures in their society. They are trying to grapple with it. But they run up against their long-held belief that the issue of race would go away if one simply does not acknowledge race and racial differences. But the issue has not gone away. Racial differences have been accentuated and become worse over time.
Mdm Speaker, we have come a long way. But achieving a society where individuals make decisions independent of racial considerations will take time, as the recent CNA-IPS survey suggests. Race is likely to have an effect in elections that are moderately close. That is why we have introduced the hiatus safeguard mechanism recommended by the Constitutional Commission. It addresses present realities, while encouraging us to strive to achieve our goals and aspirations. Is it perfect? No. Does it have some drawbacks? Yes. Does it help us to achieve our aim of having multiracial representation in the Presidency from time to time? Yes. Does it do it in a way which is self-extinguishing if we reach a point where we are race-blind? Yes. I think the Commission has applied its mind and come up with a good solution for our times.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether a gap of five terms was too long for the hiatus safeguard mechanism. The Commission had proposed five terms as they felt it would strike a right balance between ensuring minority representation while not being too invasive or prescriptive. A gap that is too short, in effect, would create a rotation among races, which could impede our progress towards the ideal of a society where race is no longer a significant issue and the Government agrees. I think some of the most passionate and best speeches we have heard in the last few days have been on this subject of race and ethnicity. Several Members of Parliament – Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, on the first day, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, and others – spoke from the heart – and Ms Chia Yong Yong just now as well, from deep in the heart. Mr Kok Heng Leun, too. And I think this is an advance on the way that we interact with one another, the way we look at one another and at ourselves. We hope that with this process we will become a better country, a more integrated country, and a more multiracial, truly multiracial, country.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether a separate, fourth category for Eurasians could be established for the safeguard mechanism. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef spoke about mixed-race marriages. The model that the Constitutional Commission has proposed, and the mechanics we have adopted in the Bill, closely follow the framework for racial classification in the GRC system. The framework has worked well. Committees will be established to certify whether a person belongs to the Chinese community, Malay community or Indian and other minority communities. The mechanics of these will be dealt with in the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act. Any person who does not fall within one of the three racial groupings may still contest in open elections.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether we should ensure the representation of the major racial communities in the CPA. The Commission considered this but did not find this necessary. It highlighted that the primary role of the CPA is to provide expert advice to the President in the exercise of his discretionary powers. Unlike the President, the CPA is not intended to discharge a symbolic role as an expression of our national identity the way the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction between the Presidency and the CPA, which justifies the need to ensure racial diversity in the former but not the latter. The Government agrees with the Commission.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the lack of representation of women in the office of President. Madam, if we look at some of the sizeable companies and key public sector offices, the pool of women who qualify is not insignificant. So, rather than legislate female representation in the office of President, we should identify, support and encourage qualified female candidates to run for presidency.
Before I conclude on this segment, may I say that I was also very moved when the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next election for the presidency would be a reserved election for Malays and I will explain to you why later on.
Let me now address the questions raised by Members on the NCMP scheme.
Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about the changes to the NCMP scheme and asked how granting NCMPs full voting rights would relate to the role and responsibility of the elected Members.
Madam, the NCMP scheme ensures that there will always be Opposition voices in Parliament. A floor of nine today, a floor of 12 in the future – not a cap, Mr Perera. The NCMPs secured the highest votes among the candidates who did not win the seat they contested. They have contributed their views to debates in Parliament, and we want to give more weight to these opposition voices in Parliament by giving them a vote in those additional areas where they currently do not have a vote. However, this does not diminish or detract from the vital role and responsibilities that we, as elected Members, have to serve the needs of our constituents. This is a vital, important and critical role and duty that we have.
Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera repeated the WP's contention that the scheme distracts and dissuades voters from voting in Opposition MPs. Madam, the Worker's Party has taken up its full quota of NCMP seats and it has even positioned candidates from specific constituencies to be NCMPs in preference to other candidates. This shows that being an NCMP offers advantages, not least of which are public exposure and Parliamentary experience. Ms Sylvia Lim herself has been a beneficiary of this and has said so.
Mdm Speaker, Mr Leon Perera has said that we would not have introduced the NCMP scheme for the benefit of the Opposition alone. Surely, the PAP benefits from it, too. Well, the Government has found the presence of NCMPs in Parliament useful. All the three NCMPs have made their views heard during the debate over the past three days. But it benefits the PAP in a way that is different from what Mr Perera implies. Let me explain.
It helps the PAP in two ways. First, and this point has also been made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, it exposes PAP MPs to the types of arguments that Opposition MPs – how you take a situation, how you turn it to your political advantage and to score political points, how you twist, how you turn, how you argue. He wanted our PAP Members to have this experience in this House, not just during GEs, but every time this House sat. And I think we have had ample demonstrations of this throughout the terms of Parliament that we have had. And also, teach our PAP Members, to give them the experience of how to respond clearly and calmly.
Second, and equally importantly, it allows the Government to engage the Opposition, unlike \"phantoms in the night\" that turn up only at GEs, make claims, not engage, and then disappear again. Here, policy alternatives have to be put up, scrutinised, examined and discussed. Just as the Opposition questions and examines the policies that the Government puts up, the Government examines the policies and the proposals that the Opposition puts up, just as we have seen over the past few days with the WP's proposal for the elected senate. You cannot make this proposal and disappear. You may try to retreat into rousing rhetoric, but you have to answer the questions in detail. We are looking not for rousing rhetoric, but practical policy, practical programmes, and also how one can execute these things, and where the resources are going to come from. We can do this in Parliament, engage the Opposition on these things, rather than fighting with shadows who appear and disappear in the night. Ultimately, Singapore and Singaporeans will benefit from such debate and the diversity of views.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. There has been vigorous debate over the past three days on eligibility criteria, representation of communities in the office of President and other specific details.It is important that we stand back and end by bringing the focus back to the key principles underlying the EP.
First, the President is the key symbol of our multiracial nation. The importance of this symbolism is something that has touched my life since my young days as a schoolboy. I remember, as a schoolboy in the National Cadet Corps (NCC), saluting President Yusof Ishak and marching proudly past him in the rain at the National Day Parade on the Padang. I still recall his funeral procession 46 years ago and the crowds that lined the streets to bid farewell to him.
I remember receiving my commission as a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officer, and the President's Scholarship from the hand of President Benjamin Sheares, and then later serving as an Aide-de-Camp (ADC) to him and also attending at his funeral. After President Sheares' passing, I continued to serve proudly as an ADC to President Devan Nair. I have also experienced the additional custodial powers of the President.
As a Naval officer, I received my appointment as the Chief of Navy from President Wee Kim Wee in June 1991, shortly after the new provisions for Elected Presidency came into force. The Chief of Navy is one of those appointments that require the President's concurrence.
And I have served in Cabinet, when Presidents Ong Teng Cheong, SR Nathan and Tony Tan carried out their Presidential duties, including the additional custodial roles of the office. They did so with dignity and grace, reaching out to all communities and doing us proud internationally. They exercised their custodial powers with integrity, circumspectly, and with independence of mind.
Mdm Speaker, in my own lifetime, I have seen how our Presidents, collectively, have stood for our values as a multiracial society, as a unifying symbol of a united, harmonious Singapore. I want my children, my grandchildren and the children of every community in Singapore to see in their own lifetimes the rich ethnic diversity that is Singapore reflected in the Presidency. The changes that we are making to provide for ethnic representation will ensure that they do so.
Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans had no Reserves to protect. They lived by the sweat of their brow, and worried about how the vagaries of life might throw them and our country on hard times. They saved, scrimped and steadily built up our Reserves, so that by the mid-1980s, we actually had Reserves and had something to protect. Before that, we did not, which is why we did not need to have a President to safeguard and protect the reserves. This is what they have bequeathed to us.
The Elected Presidency has helped to safeguard these Reserves accumulated by previous generations. It is our duty to make sure that the system continues to do the same for future generations. That we leave the generations to come with the Reserves that will help us survive and bounce back in a crisis; not empty coffers or a debt to repay because we have failed to put in safeguards when we could.
Mdm Speaker, today, we enjoy racial harmony. Our Reserves are strong and healthy. Our Public Service is honest and able. These are not things that come about on their own. They require both good people and good systems in place. Let us, then, Members from both sides of this House, do the responsible thing today, by putting in place the safeguards that will help ensure that we continue to have good governance, and a harmonious and stable future for those who will come after us.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move and I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill. [Applause.]
","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\" – [Ms Grace Fu]. (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":"Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Mdm Speaker, I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the three questions that I asked in my speech yesterday.
One is: I would like to know why after 25 years of inception of the EP has the Government decided to propose a reserved Presidential election for the minorities. This is referring to President Tony Tan's message to Parliament which mentioned that, \"It was not a coincidence that the first four Presidents of Singapore represented the main four communities in Singapore\". Hence, based on this explanation, I believe that the reserved —
Mdm Speaker:\tNo speech please, Mr Faisal Manap. Just ask the question, please.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tMadam, I am just repeating my questions from yesterday.
Mdm Speaker:\tJust put forward your questions.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: My second question is: I did ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Malay individuals would be eligible for the next Presidential election and how many of them are from the public sector as well as how many from private sector.
My last question is: the very basis of having a reserved Presidential election for the minority communities is to address the issue of feelings and perceptions of minorities not able to access the Office of the President. On this very basis, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will consider forming a committee or a commission to address the feelings and perceptions of the Malay community on the issue of fairness and equality?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Madam, why now? The Member would recall – when did we introduce the GRC scheme? Was it in 1988? Yes. Not long before the Elected Presidency. There were some discussion and controversy after that also. But today, the GRC system is well accepted. In fact, Mr Fasial Manap is here because he is part of the GRC team, too. I think it is well-accepted, and minority MPs and NCMPs are accepted as colleagues. But it has enabled a stable system and a system which encourages racial relations to pull together, rather than to pull apart. That has helped.
We had the Elected Presidency in 1991; that was when it was introduced. We could have done it then, it was considered but we decided to wait and see what the outcome would be. And you can see, after 25 years, it is not so easy to achieve such an outcome if you just leave things on their own. So, rather than wait and leave it for the future, the Prime Minister fought strongly that this is something that we ought to do now, before feelings or misunderstandings arise in the future.
How many Malays are eligible? I think I answered that question. I said there are minority candidates. I do not know how many there are in the private sector. I know there are in the public sector. Because in the private sector, they do not generally declare race for their officeholders, unless Mr Faisal Manap is suggesting that this is something that they do.
For the feelings and perceptions, Mdm Speaker, this is something which we do on an ongoing basis, every day. Every day, we tend to these issues of race and religion, not just once in a while or when there is a committee. We tend to it every day. And I hope that Mr Faisal Manap does as well. In this context, Madam, maybe I should ask Mr Faisal Manap whether he and the WP welcome and support the reserved election for a Malay candidate in the next Presidential Election. Just a straight answer.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Faisal Manap, do you wish to respond?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tMadam, as I mentioned just now, on the very basis of addressing the issue of feelings and perceptions of minoritiy candidates, that is why the reason of having a —
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm, can the Member answer my question rather than going into another speech.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tMadam, I am answering the question, so please allow me to answer. Madam, I believe it was mentioned that the very purpose of having a reserved Presidential election is to address the perceptions and feelings of minorities. I believe that this particular issue of addressing such feelings can also be settled through the option of having an appointed Presidency, with the inclusion of the rotational system.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tMdm Speaker, I seem to detect some reluctance on the part of Mr Faisal Manap to answer my question definitively. So, perhaps, I will give the Member another opportunity to answer the question and then we can assess whether he is reluctant to do so.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tMadam, my answer just now was very clear.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tJust very clearly, so do you support or not the reserved election for the next Presidential Election? I did not hear your answer, I am sorry.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap:\tI stand by my answer.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Madam, sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Madam, just four clarifying questions to the hon Deputy Prime Minister. My first question is in relation to the idea of taking this Bill to a referendum. It appears to be that this is a Constitutional amendment. It was not made clear to the electorate before the GE. So, it was not a campaign issue and yet the Government does not wish to take this to a referendum. So, my question is: is it the view of the Government that any kind of Constitutional amendment need not be put to a referendum, need not be campaigned on during a GE, and it can still be done without a referendum? If that is not the position of the Government, what types of issues would be brought up for referendum? That is my first question.
My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times: what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past Executive Presidents that we have, but there is good reason to believe that in future Presidential elections, if, let us say, there are 10 candidates and the winner gets 5% of the votes or the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government's strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.
My third question is in relation to staffing and resources for the President and the CPA under this Bill. In other countries, similar kinds of bodies have full-time staff, independent staff, public finance specialists, economists and researchers, and they have budgets to engage such specialists. Will the Government make available resources and budgets and staffing to the President or the CPA to help them to make the decisions that they make, and to have an independent source of research from what the Government provides?
And my last question was the question that I ended off my speech with, which is, in relation to the NCMP provisions within this Bill. If these provisions are passed, is it really the goal of the Government to take back 100% of elected seats and leave the Opposition only as NCMPs? I know that it is ultimately up to the Singaporean people, but my question is: is this the goal of the Ruling Party in the next election?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: On the issue of referendum, I think it was Mr Leon Perera who suggested a referendum. And I would not be very trigger-happy on a referendum, unless there are fundamental issues involved. In this case, I think the WP has made a mountain out of a molehill. I explained just now that, for example, on the CPA's powers, the WP has gone out and said that we have created new powers for the CPA which are even bigger than those of the Elected President and the Government. This is entirely untrue.
So, if the basic structure of the system has not changed and we are making increments to it, I think it is a matter of judgement whether it is absolutely necessary to go for a referendum or not. But I would leave the WP to decide, when they have developed fully the idea of an elected senate, whether they would want to try and request for a referendum. I leave it up to you. But I suggest that there is a more straightforward way of doing it. It is to make that part of your platform for the next GE. Campaign on it. If you win, implement it.
Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit, and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.
On the staffing of the CPA, I would say that the President and the CPA, if they do need staffing and resources, the Government will certainly consider providing. Our purpose is to have these institutions operate well and to do their functions well.
On the NCMPs, we go into an election with the intention of fighting for every vote and winning every seat. But there is a floor of nine and subsequently, 12 NCMP Opposition voices in Parliament, regardless of the outcome. A floor, not a cap, Mr Perera. And this will always guarantee Opposition voices in Parliament.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first concerns what the Bill is proposing regarding the role of the CPA and whether there is actually any change or not. The Deputy Prime Minister referred briefly to my speech, but I would like him to confirm whether I am actually correct on this point. My point was that in clause 3, the entrenchment provisions, it is now intended under the Bill that the CPA is another gateway with whose concurrence a Bill that amends the role or powers of the President could be presented to Parliament.
Under the existing framework, which is enacted but not in operation, the CPA does not have this role as a gateway. In other words, the existing mechanism which is enacted but not in operation has only the President or a referendum as the gateway. But now, in this proposed clause 3, the CPA is an alternative gateway. So, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether I am right on this point.
Secondly, Madam, regarding the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister that the next Presidential election is going to be reserved for Malay candidates, I have received, of course, feedback also from residents on this point, and there was an expression of surprise. And I think the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice on how to count the terms. So, I am asking if the Government is prepared to publish that advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers.
And the second point is, under clause 32 of this Bill, it is stated that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count when the first reserved election would be. It is under clause 32. So, am I right then that the Government will actually come back to the House to present what the Attorney-General's Chambers has advised for us to debate on it?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Ms Sylvia Lim is correct in that on the entrenchment provisions, we had made some changes to the way the entrenchment provisions operate. That is correct. But it is still true that the CPA has no veto. So, the CPA cannot veto the President and cannot veto the Government. So, that is still true with regard to the entrenchment provisions. But with regard to the safeguards on the Reserves and the safeguards on appointments, there is no change in the powers.
I explained extensively in my speech, although it was rather late in the speech, about an hour plus into the speech, the entrenchment provisions. I provided the charts as well to explain that. I am glad that Ms Lim looked at it carefully. That is indeed so. And the purpose of doing so, as I explained, is to have the correct balance between rigidity and adaptability of our Constitutional system.
Ms Lim and the WP have expressed, from time to time, serious concerns about gridlock. And, in fact, if you have serious concerns about gridlock, then you should welcome and support these changes.
On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge it judicially.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tMadam, that was not my question actually. My question was whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers because there is public interest in that advice. Is there something that is controversial or confidential that it cannot be published? And the second part of that was, under clause 32, it says that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count. So, is the Government going to present a Bill on that?
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tMdm Speaker, I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. It is in the Hansard. Is the Member saying that the Prime Minister has falsely told the House that this was the advice he received from the Attorney-General's Chambers? And yes, we will be passing a law, the Presidential Elections Act to state so, that these are the designated races, and so forth.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tMdm Speaker, I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth or anything of that nature. What I was saying was that there is public interest to read the advice. So, I am just asking whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice. That is all. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of anything at all.
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tMdm Speaker, the advice is quite straightforward. It is not normal – Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer herself – not the usual thing that is done to publish a lawyer's advice, because that is something which is provided to the Prime Minister. But I would ask the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister has stated so, I think there is no doubt about it.
Mdm Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs, which is 60 Members.
Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After a slight pause – (proc text)]
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied):\tMadam, I suppose we ring the division bells and lock the doors?
Mdm Speaker: The bells are supposed to be ringing. It is being heard outside, but not inside the Chamber, so we are activating another way. We tried ringing the bells many, many times, I assure Members, even as recent as just this morning, this afternoon, but it is one of those problems with technology. Always. Always. Please ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats, and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their arm rests start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Take a division. You may now begin to vote.
Mdm Speaker: Please check your names on the display panels to see that you have voted.
There are 77 \"Ayes\", six \"Noes\", and zero \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 22 – (proc text)]
The Chairman:\tClause 22. Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I have explained the rationale for the amendment to the clause in my opening speech.
*The amendment reads as follows:
\"In page 33: after line 30, to insert –
\"(3) Despite clause (1) –
(a) a refusal by the President to approve a budget, revised budget or supplementary budget of an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule; and
(b) a decision by the President to disapprove under Article 22B(7) or 22D(6) a proposed transaction by an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule,
cannot be overruled unless the chairman of the entity or the chairman of the board of directors of the entity (as the case may be) has made a request to the Cabinet for a resolution under clause (1) to be moved with respect to the refusal or the decision.\".
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Consequential amendments* to be made will be made.
*The amendments read as follows:
(i) In page 33, line 31: to renumber clause (3) as clause (4).
(ii) In page 34, line 7: to renumber clause (4) as clause (5).
[(proc text) Clauses 23 to 35 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported with amendments. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mdm Speaker:\tThird Reading, what day?
Mr Teo Chee Hean:\tNow, Madam. I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mdm Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a division is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected MPs, which is 60 Members.
Clerk, ring the division bells. It is a little bit faint, but you can hear the bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker:\tTake a division. Members may now start to vote.
Mdm Speaker: Please check your names on the display panels. Before I proceed to read the results, Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
There are 77 \"Ayes\", six \"Noes\", and zero \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Credit Bureau Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The stability of our financial system lies in sound lending practices, so that financial institutions lend to individuals and corporates who are creditworthy and able to repay their loans over time. Credit bureaus serve the purpose of providing borrowers' information to help financial institutions assess the creditworthiness of their potential clients. Also, the reliability of the banks' credit rating systems is enhanced by the availability of more complete credit information.
With these objectives in mind, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had in 2001 encouraged the industry to consider establishing a consumer credit bureau to facilitate comprehensive credit risk assessment of their customers. In 2002, the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS), together with several private sector partners, set up the Credit Bureau (Singapore) Pte Ltd (CBS), Singapore's first consumer credit bureau.
CBS was recognised by MAS and subjected to confidentiality undertakings to safeguard banking data. In 2009, MAS recognised a second credit bureau operated by DP Credit Bureau Pte Ltd (DPCB). Both credit bureaus collate consumer credit information from MAS-regulated financial institutions, such as banks, finance companies and credit card companies, and share the information with all members to facilitate their credit assessments and loan underwriting decisions. Today, the two credit bureaus hold the credit information of more than five million individuals, on more than 98% of all credit facilities offered to individuals.
As credit bureaus collect larger amounts of and more detailed borrower information, it would be prudent to subject them to closer supervision by MAS. The current regulatory regime is inadequate as it only allows MAS to recognise or revoke the recognition of credit bureaus. MAS does not have any other powers to exercise effective supervision over credit bureaus. Moving forward, the Credit Bureau Bill 2016 will enable MAS to license and supervise credit bureaus to fulfil two objectives.
First, to help ensure that they take adequate measures to safeguard the confidentiality, security and integrity of sensitive borrower information. Second, to better ensure the credit bureaus operate soundly in a way that protects consumer interests.
The Bill has been modelled after similar regimes in other countries, such as Australia and the US. MAS has also consulted extensively with the industry and the public over the last 18 months on the policy changes and the draft Bill. We received a total of 32 submissions, have studied the feedback received and incorporated it into the Bill where appropriate.
Mdm Speaker, I will now go through the three key areas of the Bill.
First, the Bill will empower MAS to license credit bureaus and subject them to corporate governance and operational requirements. To promote good corporate governance, only fit and proper persons can be appointed to senior management positions in a licensed credit bureau. In addition, MAS will have powers to approve controlling shareholdings as well as the appointment and removal of directors and chief executives of licensed credit bureaus.
Licensed credit bureaus are also required to meet operational standards, which are specified in the Bill and subsidiary legislations, such as Regulations and Notices. These include having robust controls in credit reporting processes, accurate and complete credit data specifications, secure information technology systems, and sound business continuity management, amongst others. In addition, MAS will be empowered to inspect and investigate licensed credit bureaus and assume control of them, should they come under duress or distress.
Second, the Bill will empower MAS to require licensed credit bureaus and their approved members to safeguard the confidentiality, security and integrity of customer credit information. This will provide greater assurance that the credit data provided by licensed credit bureaus and used by approved members to process consumer credit applications are accurate.
To achieve this, licensed credit bureaus and their approved members will be required to put in place adequate controls to safeguard against data loss and unauthorised access to data. To help ensure that the credit information is accurate and complete, the Bill will require approved members to submit accurate and complete data to the licensed credit bureau in a timely manner and at regular intervals. MAS will have powers to investigate and sanction approved members of licensed credit bureaus for credit reporting breaches.
There are existing requirements under the Banking Act to restrict disclosure of confidential customer information to credit bureaus and their members for purposes other than for credit assessment. These will continue to apply.
Third, the Bill requires licensed credit bureaus and their approved members to protect consumers' rights to access, review and rectify the customer information held by the credit bureaus.
Licensed credit bureaus will be required to offer various channels for consumers to access their credit reports. This will facilitate easy access and review of credit records by customers, provide them with a consolidated view of their credit positions and credit standing as viewed by their creditors and allow consumers to dispute any inaccurate or incomplete data. Where disputes are raised, the Bill requires licensed credit bureaus and their approved members to conduct prompt investigations and rectify the erroneous records in a timely manner.
The Bill further requires licensed credit bureaus to provide individual consumers with free copies of their credit reports, within 30 days of approval or rejection of any credit application. This will enhance the ability of consumers to review their credit records and help reduce instances of consumers being denied credit due to inaccurate credit data.
A sound, stable and fair credit reporting system supports prudent and sustainable consumer lending practices. The Credit Bureau Act will help strengthen the credit reporting industry and align our regulatory regime with international best practices while maintaining adequate safeguards for consumers. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, the \"buy now, pay later\" concept is becoming increasingly prevalent in today's society. From education to buying a house and furnishing it, to travelling, it is almost a norm now to go cashless. With online purchasing and services offering consumers a flexible array of options, having a credit card to make payments safely online is almost a must. Not only are cashless or prepaid transactions more convenient, when used wisely, it can help one to save money. For example, instead of spending thousands a year on rental while trying to save up for a dream home, one can quickly own a home by taking out a loan and buying on credit. It also means that more money can be availed for investments.
However, with so many banks and financial institutions, and a large number of others from travel operators, furniture outlets and so on, offering loans and collecting customer credit information, it is important that a good database is built on each individual who seeks to use the \"buy now, pay later\" schemes. This will help these institutions and others offering delayed payment options to safeguard their interest. It is also a way for consumers to learn to be prudent in their spending and there are checks in place when a limit is hit. While most people are generally prudent with their expenses, there are some who are callous with their finances and they end up trying to consume more than they can chew. The result: legal summonses with a view to being made a bankrupt.
But as the data is being collected and collated, we need to ensure that the credit bureaus have safeguards in place to ensure that the individual's personal data are not being compromised. Data breaches are becoming more widespread, and hacking techniques are growing in sophistication. However, with the introduction of the Credit Bureau Bill, I note that MAS will be able to oversee credit bureaus' management of customer credit information, with the objective of safeguarding confidentiality, security and integrity of the information. This is a welcomed move that will give consumers the assurance that their data would be in safe hands.
I hope that MAS will pay close attention, especially to the security systems that licensed credit bureaus (LCBs) are using to manage customer information. And, from the experience of \"insiders\", these bureaus should also ensure that staff who have access to sensitive information are properly screened before they are employed and, even after employment, they are monitored to avoid the leaks that we see peppering the news in the US. It should be made mandatory that these institutions review and update their systems periodically in accordance with current trends and developments in technology. Where lapses are detected, MAS should impose fines to keep the bureaus on their toes.
I also note that the Bill will allow consumers the right to access, review and rectify credit records. One of the main reasons for poor financial management is the lack of access to comprehensive credit reports. We tend to spend more freely when no physical cash exchanges hands. Without keeping prudent records, one's spending can easily snowball and spiral out of control. In 2015, the Credit Bureau Singapore (CBS) reported that more than 101,493 credit card holders defaulted on their debt. Many of them would roll over the debts to the next month. Some would rack up such large debts that they would take out additional loans to pay off the debts, and it then turns into a vicious cycle.
So, what happened? Was there a time lag between the time someone credits a mischief with his multiple credit cards before the data is fed to a bureau monitoring system?
The CBS offers as a promotion, free credit reports to consumers who have a credit facility with its 30-member banks and financial institutions, from April this year. Credit reports are essential to good money management as they help to keep track of credit payment history compiled from different credit providers and, in turn, empowering consumers to manage their spending more responsibly. A comprehensive report will also enable credit providers to make wiser lending decisions. The lack of comprehensive credit details and poor judgement on the part of credit bureaus have often led to indebted people being allowed to fall into a bottomless pit of borrowing and owing credit.
I hope MAS will also closely scrutinise the people who are appointed to the board of these LCBs so that sensitive information does not fall into the hands of the wrong people. It is also important that the members of LCBs are not open to all and sundry, and we end up with compromising sensitive information to the wrong people.
Enabling consumers to access their credit report whenever they wish to, and to monitor and rectify credit information is a good move. With increasing incidences of identity theft, this is crucial in helping consumers exercise personal responsibility of their transaction records. The LCBs' credit monitoring system also sends email notifications when key changes are detected on the credit file. This means that the consumer can easily detect fraudulent attempts to take credit in his or her name.
On a related note, it is also important for LCBs to have a second authentication system to protect the data. A data leak is potentially damaging and embarrassing for all users of the system.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to remind all Singaporeans to be mindful of their spending habits. A credit monitoring system is useful, but one should not be over-reliant on it. There are blind spots as the system does not monitor loans from unlicensed credit bureaus, credit lenders, friends, relatives, colleagues and so forth. The \"buy now, pay later\" concept is not an excuse to live beyond one's means. When making the purchase, it is important to realistically evaluate how one is going to save in order to pay off the loans in the near future. Good planning skills and foresight are important to ensure that one does not eventually become enslaved by debt.
Furthermore, please take loans from legitimate credit bureaus. Illegal moneylenders may resort to violence and other extreme means to seek repayments and, as their interest rates are not being policed, they are free to set it above however high they wish it to be. With MAS handling the licensing of credit bureaus, this will hopefully help consumers identify the safe, legal credit bureaus for their financial needs. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the objectives behind the Bill. I take the opportunity to highlight and seek clarification on the following three areas of the Bill.
First, the Bill draws a distinction between members and approved members of an LCB. Under section 30(2) of the Bill, an LCB is only permitted to disclose customer information received from any of its members to an approved member. Section 29(1) and the First Schedule of the Bill contemplate that the following are deemed approved members of the LCB namely, banks, merchant banks, finance companies and credit card issuers. This corresponds to the categories of persons who are authorised to receive customer credit information from credit bureaus under the Third Schedule of the Banking Act. Under section 29(3) and (4) of the Bill, LCB members who are not deemed approved members have to apply to MAS through the LCB to be approved as approved members of the LCB.
Could the Minister please clarify the circumstances in which approvals will be provided? In this regard, I wish to specifically highlight that licensed moneylenders and other entities in the business of providing consumer credit, such as hire-purchase companies, pawnbrokers and other vendor credit companies, are not deemed as approved members under the Bill and, therefore, would not have access to customer credit information held by the LCBs without the customer's written consent.
On the other hand, there has been at least one incident in the past where MAS has approved a licensed moneylender on an ad hoc basis to have access to customer information provided by credit bureaus. Is it therefore contemplated that such entities are at liberty to be approved members of LCB? If so, what are MAS' considerations in considering such applications and deciding whether to grant approval to be an approved member of the LCB?
I further note that section 16 of the Bill contemplates that third parties may obtain credit reports with the written consent of the data subject. This will allow parties, such as prospective employers, clubs and associations and so on, to procure credit reports from applicants before considering them for admission. Indeed, I note that the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore (CRA) requires applicants for special employee licences under the Casino Control Act to allow the CRA access to the applicant's reports from the credit bureaus.
In many of these instances, the applicant would be providing his written consent out of necessity of the situation. He or she would not have any real control over the use of the confidential information provided by the LCB to the third parties. Even though, in theory, he may have some options under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), these are not transactions between equals. For this reason, would the Minister please consider protecting the confidentiality of this information, along similar lines provided for in section 33 of the Bill dealing with the duty of the approved members protecting the confidentiality of customer information obtained from the LCB?
Second, I note that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has set up a Money Lenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) regime in March this year, involving all licensed moneylenders as contributing members of MLCB. MLCB is run by DP Information Group, which also operates one of the two LCBs. However, MLCB only contains customer credit information in respect of loans taken with licensed moneylenders while the LCB regime only deals with credit information from banks and other financial institutions.
I am concerned that with the separate credit bureau regimes for moneylenders on one hand, and banks and other financial institutions on the other hand, there would be no overall visibility of the credit assessment of an individual. Having two separate regimes would not serve the purpose of assessing the overall credit worthiness of borrowers and to help borrowers avoid borrowing beyond their means. There is also no reason why MLCB and their members should not be subject to the same duties and responsibilities as LCBs and their members relating to customer information and maintaining the security and integrity of data, as set out in Parts 3 and 6 of the Bill.
Even though as disclosed by the hon Minister in this House on 18 February 2014, bank lending accounts for about 98% of household credit granted by commercial entities, it does not make the objective of assessing credit worthiness of the remaining 2% and protecting the customer information of the same any less important, especially if you were to consider the number of the people involved.
In these circumstances, may I please ask the reasons for keeping the MLCB regime separate from LCB? I stress again that the issues of protecting customer information and maintaining the security and integrity of data must surely be as important for MLCB as it is for LCB.
Moving to my third point, I support the objectives of the Bill to protect customer interest by affording customers the right to access, review and rectify their credit records vis-à-vis the LCB and approved members. Sections 18 and 35 of the Bill allows the customer to request that the LCB and the approved member correct an error of omission in any data that has been processed by the LCB or is in the possession and control of the approved members. The LCB or approved member has then to conduct and complete an investigation to ascertain the integrity of the data and must correct the data unless it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a correction should not be made. MAS further highlighted in its response to feedback from public consultation that LCBs and members should institute appropriate processes to verify the disputed data against relevant documentary information.
Having regard to the objectives of the Bill to protect customer interest in this area, it is noteworthy that the Bill is silent as to whether: (a) the customers have any recourse if the LCB or the approved member refuses to make a correction; and (b) the investigation findings of the LCB or approved member is available to the consumer and subject to review.
In Australia, sections 20(u) and 21(w) of the Australian Privacy Act requires a credit reporting body or credit provider that refuses a credit information correction request to, within a reasonable period, give the individual written notice that the correction has not been made and set out the reasons for not correcting the information and explain how the individual may complain about that decision.
Section 23B(4) of the Australian Privacy Act also provides for an escalation mechanism, where an individual dissatisfied with the decision may first complain to the credit reporting body or the credit provider itself and, thereafter, make a further complaint to an external dispute resolution provider, such as the credit ombudsman service or the information commissioner.
While the Bill does not contain similar provisions, I note that section 22 of the PDPA provides for correction of personal data, and section 28 provides for the Personal Data Protection Commissioner to review a refusal to correct data. I further note that the provisions of the Bill are in addition to the PDPA and the definition of \"personal data\" in the latter Act is broad enough to include data, as defined in this Bill.
In the circumstances, could the Minister please confirm that despite sections 18 and 35 of the Bill requiring the LCBs to investigate correction requests, consumers would not have access to such investigation findings and their only recourse against the LCB's refusal to correct the data is to apply to the Personal Data Protection Commissioner to review under section 28 of the PDPA.
To conclude, notwithstanding my concerns in the three areas, namely, the regulatory framework vis-à-vis licensed moneylenders, treatment of confidential information at the hands of third parties and dealing with data disputes, I agree that formal supervision of credit bureaus and their members is needed to safeguard consumer credit information. I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill is timely, both considering the shift in the global context and in our domestic landscape.
Globally, most large international markets have moved towards the regulation of credit bureaus. After the scare of the 2008 Financial Crisis, jurisdictions quickly shifted towards stricter controls to close the loopholes allowing for unethical practices by credit bureaus. We quickly learnt that these malpractices were a major factor contributing to the crisis, and that governments need to act fast to prevent future crises of this scale.
It is timely for Singapore to keep in line with international standards and practices, alongside countries like the US, Japan and Hong Kong, and for us to develop a compatible regulatory regime, especially as international financial markets become increasingly globalised. Domestically, we have also moved towards an era of stronger privacy laws. The PDPA was a game changer for Singapore, and I am eager that we continue this trend to strengthen consumer rights.
The rapidly evolving nature of this market also means that more and more data is being collected, much of it highly sensitive and private information, and much of it unbeknownst to consumers. In a recent report, it was worrying that nine out of 10 credit applicants have never seen their own credit reports, even as they apply for new loans or new credit cards. They were not even aware that free credit reports were available to them. To be honest, I did not know as well.
As more young borrowers want to gain access to credit, they should be empowered to keep track of what their credit information is saying about their financial health. I am encouraged that section 16 of this Bill addresses this head-on. In this light, I strongly agree with the move for MAS to enact formal supervision over credit bureaus, closely monitoring their activities and how they safeguard sensitive data belonging to consumers.
Madam, while I see the immediate benefits of this Bill, I hope to ask a few questions on whether or not it considers Singapore's credit rating industry in the long term.
Currently, as the Minister mentioned, there are only two credit bureaus, the Credit Bureau Singapore (CBS) and the DP Credit Bureau (DPCB), in Singapore, and it is only these two which will be licensed under the new regulations. Has MAS considered whether new entrants into this industry will benefit Singapore's economy and, if so, can the Minister share their plans to register new credit bureaus?
In addition, out of these two credit bureaus, it seems that only CBS currently has access to comprehensive data from lenders, as banks are only required to supply data to CBS and not DPCB. Can the Minister confirm this?
As we seem to have a virtual monopoly and unfair advantage in the industry, has MAS been monitoring what effect this has? Without a level-playing field for industry players, like every industry, there will be a lack of innovation. Especially in our rapidly evolving market, where new payment solutions are springing up, credit bureaus also need to be on their feet, seeking out new sources of data, adjusting their analytical tools and algorithms to ensure they provide a holistic view of a person's creditworthiness.
It would seem that a lack of competition will lead to a lack of incentives to innovate, resulting in an environment where credit bureaus are allowed to be complacent.
While Singapore progresses towards the regulation of credit bureaus, I believe that we also need more competition and incentives for innovation to encourage credit bureaus to deliver their service better. Madam, in some ways, credit bureaus deliver a public good, and credit ratings have enormous effects on all players in the economy. Thus, I applaud the Bill for recognising that the Government must do all it can to ensure that the good is delivered with public interest as a priority. Madam, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I believe this Bill, which provides MAS the power to license and supervise credit bureaus that collect customer credit information from banks and other financial institutions, will promote and ensure sustenance of standards for accuracy, fairness and confidentiality of customer information. This can also protect customers against credit bureaus for negligent inclusion of inaccurate information, if any, in their credit reports.
Regulating credit bureaus to the standards of developed countries, such as the US and Australia, is, indeed, a timely move. I am heartened to note that MAS conducted public consultations and some of the feedback has been incorporated into the Bill. Subjecting credit bureaus to formal supervision and annual audits by MAS preserves the integrity of the data collected on customers to determine their creditworthiness to facilitate credit assessment and loan decision. This will also ensure no customers are being evaluated incorrectly on their credit assessment, resulting in adverse outcome for the customers and, in some cases, undue inconvenience, hardship and loss of confidence and reputation.
Madam, while the Bill provides for regulatory safeguards to preserve the interest of their customers, there are still areas of concerns and clarifications required to be addressed. They are the following.
First, under section 17(3b), that is, \"Duty to provide access to data\", Licensed Credit Bureaus (LCBs) are required to provide consumers with copies of the credit reports at no cost within 30 days, as specified by the Authority. Does this refer to a consumer's full credit history? Is there any timeframe involved similar to that of the PDPA requirement on organisations for LCBs to provide consumers' credit information data for the past one year, upon request?
Second, under section 34(1b), that is, \"Duty to maintain security and integrity of data and for members to protect any data received from the LCB by making reasonable security arrangements\", what is considered \"reasonable\"? This can be subjective and may lead to members' own interpretation. Is there any guideline or benchmark set for reasonableness?
Third, under section 56, that is, \"Authority must cease to be in control of LCB's relevant business when the Authority is satisfied…\" What is the recommended maximum timeframe for the Authority to assume control of the LCBs? Will there be closer monitoring of the affected LCBs that were assumed control of by the Authority? Will the public, that is, customers, be notified that the Authority has assumed control and the reasons for having done so? Will the customers' credit information and credit rating data held by the LCBs be protected and secured during this period? What assurance can the customers have on all these matters?
Fourth, are employers permitted to check on the job applicant's or employee's credit information from the LCB without the consent of the individual? Do employers fall under the MAS' \"approved member list\"? If so, are employers required to comply with the standards of safeguarding this information? What if the LCB has provided incorrect credit information of that individual which results in the individual not being able to secure the job or, for that matter, banks rejecting a customer's loan application? Can the affected individual or customer seek damages against the LCB for the harm done to his or her reputation and the loss of income as a result of inaccurate information provided?
A 2015 study released by the Federal Trade Commission found that 23% of customers identified inaccurate information in their credit reports. To what extent are such inaccuracies prevalent in Singapore's credit bureaus? Are customers able to receive a free copy of their credit report from the credit reporting bureaus once a year? This will make it easy for customers to identify and dispute inaccurate information. In the same vein, users of the information for credit, insurance or employment purposes must be responsible for safeguarding the customers' credit information.
Madam, I certainly hope that, for a start, LCBs be monitored for compliance and legislation be periodically reviewed to take stock if it has achieved the intended purpose of raising the standards of the LCBs to safeguard and preserve the confidentiality, security and integrity of the customer credit information, and that LCBs institute sound governance in their operations. With this, I strongly support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act. Let me declare that I am also an employee of a local bank.
The Act itself will enable MAS to regulate the consumer and corporate credit reporting business. The enhanced Act will afford greater confidentiality and security to customers in the protection of their credit information.
I have some concerns and suggestions for the consideration of the Minister.
Firstly, I would like to ask if more supervision can be applied to the format of the credit information collated by the LCBs. If the format is standardised, it will help ensure consistency and minimise confusion among the users. It would be a disservice to consumers and businesses if misunderstandings arise due to different presentations and layouts. While I understand that formats are usually not hardwired into legislation, credit reports are sensitive documents which can have an important impact on families and livelihoods. Hence, consistency and clarity are very important.
Secondly, will there be grading guidelines or standard credit rating models for businesses to use, if such information is available? If different credit rating bureaus use different models of assessments, the conclusions of their credit reports for the same client can be very different. Standardised models help to enhance transparency. Hence, I would like to seek clarification on this aspect.
Mdm Speaker, let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support MAS' decision to prescribe the process and turnaround time for updating credit records. It is important to set consistent guidelines on the update of the credit records, including improvement of financial situation or data rectifications, to ensure the clients can access the credit or loans they need in a timely manner.
Finally, I would like to suggest that credit information, in addition to credit from Singapore banks and financial institutions, should include the credit from the Integrated Resorts (IRs) and the licensed moneylenders. Although we have the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) to which all licensed moneylenders provide information about their loans, it would be better for all loans and credits to be consolidated for a better overview of a client's financial situation.
I support this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have stayed late and spoken on the Bill and their support for its introduction. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in charge of MAS, let me now address their questions.
First, on data security. To better protect sensitive credit data is one of the key objectives of enacting or introducing this Bill. Mr Saktiandi asked if MAS can ensure institutions upgrade their data protection security systems. By formalising MAS' supervision of credit bureaus, the Bill will strengthen data security. LCBs and their approved members will now be subject to MAS' technology risk management notices and guidelines. They are required to do so now once the Bill becomes law.
These set out MAS' requirements and expectations on the IT controls to protect consumer data from unauthorised access or disclosure. One example is that we will require them to use an additional layer of access control through a two-factor authentication. With this new legislation, should there be any gaps in controls, MAS can take the supervisory and enforcement action to get the relevant entity to improve its data security. And this will have to be an ongoing process even after the Bill becomes law.
Further, membership of licensed credit bureaus will be tightly controlled and subject to MAS' approval. I actually was not quite aware of the case raised that a licensed moneylender had access to data. But the idea is that only entities that have a bona fide need for bank credit information and can safeguard the data security competently, such as banks, merchant banks, finance companies and credit card issuers regulated by MAS, may be admitted as approved members.
Hence, in response to Ms Thanaletchimi, employers who wish to screen their employees' credit records must seek their employees' consent to do so. They cannot just obtain those reports merely by becoming approved members of LCBs. To minimise the risk of data security lapses by the new applicants, MAS will assess any new applicant using the same stringent standards expected of regulated financial institutions. So, if licensed moneylenders apply, they will be subject to the regulations and standards expected of financial institutions. Some of these criteria will include robust internal controls on system access as well as security.
As Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, an individual may give consent for an LCB to share his credit records with a third party, such as his employer or a country club. In such cases, the individual will be protected under the PDPA which requires the third party, say, the employer, to comply with the requirements to prevent unauthorised access, collection, use and disclosure of the personal data. The safeguards in the Credit Bureau Bill are not applicable because MAS' regulatory ambit would not extend to such third parties. So, it is relying back on the PDPA.
The second area is on the need for timely, comprehensive and reliable data. Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the concern that someone who racks up credit card bills is unable to pay and then takes out additional loans to pay them off and then snowballing the debt. And he wondered if there was a time lag between his near default and his next credit application. There is no significant time lag. Information at the credit bureaus is updated promptly, monthly.
The current rules allow an individual to take unsecured loans such as through credit card bills, up to 24 months of his monthly salary. And I think that is the issue, and that is why the individual can take a loan to pay off his previous credit card bills because he is allowed up to 24 months. We agree with Mr Saktiandi that we should tighten such practices. Hence, the quantum of unsecured loan will be progressively reduced to 18 months and 12 months in 2017 and 2018 respectively. But just for the record, I am not making an announcement. This has been announced before.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Murali Pillai asked if data from the Integrated Resorts (IRs) and licensed moneylenders should also be included in the LCBSs. I thank them for this suggestion. The answer is yes, if the data is relevant. In terms of data comprehensiveness, the two existing consumer credit bureaus already capture information of more than 98% of all credit facilities offered to consumers. MAS and MinLaw are studying and will be announcing measures to allow for more comprehensive credit bureau data in due course. MAS will also explore with the Casino Regulatory Authority whether information on the type of credit offered by IRs is relevant to the licensed credit bureaus. This can be done independently. Once we have the Act, I think we are able to do so more readily.
I should clarify that the Bill does not apply to MLCB as it will still be regulated by MinLaw under the Moneylenders Act. This approach allows MinLaw to set requirements for members of MLCB that are more suitable for and in line with the existing regulations for moneylenders. And I think it is quite safe to say that MAS does not have some of the expertise to regulate moneylenders.
The Bill also requires LCBs and their approved members to maintain data accuracy and completeness and empowers MAS to take enforcement actions against errant LCBs and their approved members. MAS will also set more detailed expectations on the timeliness of reporting and data accuracy. So, in response to Ms Thanaletchimi, the average data error rates have been very low historically. Over the last five years, it is at less than 0.1% of total records.
There were also a few questions on credit reports. In response to Ms Thanaletchimi, I would like to highlight that the credit report on the borrower shows his comprehensive payment history over the past one year and any defaults over the past three years.
The Bill requires LCBs to seek MAS' approval before making changes to the credit report forms. This will enable MAS to promote consistent reporting formats by LCBs so as to reduce confusion to consumers and lenders, as suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested standardising credit scoring models across all credit bureaus. But as suggested by Mr Louis Ng too, there should also be some competition and a variety of practices which will be conducive to encouraging innovation. So, we have to strike a balance here.
The credit bureaus each use their own proprietary credit scoring methodologies. To standardise them can unnecessarily stifle research and innovation in developing more accurate ways to predict default. Nonetheless, it is important that credit scoring models must be reliable, whichever model you want to use. To that end, MAS will supervise LCBs to check that they back test their models against historical data to ensure that the models are predictive and reliable. But we will not insist that the methodologies must be the same.
Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Thanaletchimi raised a number of consumer protection issues regarding dispute resolution and access to free credit reports. To better protect consumers, the Bill requires LCBs and their approved members to investigate and rectify data errors on a timely basis. MAS will set expectations on proper governance arrangements, including for dispute resolution and turnaround times for this. The Bill empowers MAS to conduct inspections and investigations and take appropriate enforcement actions against errant LCBs or their approved members.
Mr Murali Pillai also asked if consumers could rely on protection under PDPA to correct data errors. To overlapping requirements, PDPA will not apply since the Bill already provides the mechanism for consumers to resolve data errors.
On the issue of free credit reports, MAS also needs to strike a balance between protecting consumers and keeping operating costs manageable and the service viable and to prevent phishing expeditions and frivolous requests for data. So, to protect consumers' interest, the Bill will require LCBs to provide a free copy of a consumer's credit report within 30 days from the date of approval or rejection of a credit facility at the consumer's request. This will allow the consumer to dispute any data error or engage his lender on a credit decision.
The approach also minimises the risk of repeated frivolous requests by consumers for their credit reports. But if a consumer wishes to have a credit report outside of this free 30-day period, he can purchase them any time, at $6 a copy, which is not a huge cost barrier.
Mr Louis Ng suggested allowing more credit bureaus to operate to spur innovation in the market. MAS also has to strike a balance here between protecting competition against the risk of data fragmentation. The latter would lead to inefficiencies, because the lender would have to approach multiple credit bureaus for their credit reports in order to form a comprehensive view of a borrower's credit history across all lenders. Other markets of similar sizes, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, have only one consumer credit bureau.
Mr Louis Ng also asked whether banks are required to contribute comprehensive data to CBS only and not to DP Credit. There is actually no such requirement at all. Banks are free to decide which LCBs they wish to be a member of. Whichever they join, they would contribute data to that credit bureau.
Next, on the governance of LCBs, Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised the need for proper personnel to be appointed to the boards of LCBs. We share this concern. MAS will require LCBs to assess prospective directors and chief executive officers for their fitness and propriety. These assessments will include the financial standing and integrity of the relevant individuals. If they are found to be not fit and proper, MAS may remove the directors and chief executive officers. In an extreme case, where the officers and employees of substantial shareholders of an LCB are found to be not fit and proper, MAS may revoke the licence of the credit bureau. When an LCB faces financial or operational distress, MAS can assume control of the credit bureau to ensure that its credit reporting business continues to operate smoothly.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked if such an assumption of control be subject to any time limit and whether the public will be notified. The objective of MAS assuming control is to restore stable credit reporting operations and avoid any disruption to consumers and businesses. It is difficult to estimate upfront how long this will take because it will depend on various factors, including the cost of the financial and operation requests. But please be reassured that it is not in the interest of MAS to assume control longer than necessary. Our priority is always to put the entity back on a firm footing to restore confidence in the operation of the credit reporting system. And MAS will make public any assumption of control of an LCB via a Government Gazette.
In conclusion, I am glad that many Members support the Credit Bureau Bill. I am confident that with the Bill, we will strengthen Singapore's credit reporting industry so that borrowers and lenders can better manage their finances and risks. But at the same time, MAS has introduced a range of measures over the past few years to promote prudent lending and borrowing behaviour. This covers diverse products, from property loans to motor vehicle loans and unsecured credit.
However, we are ultimately responsible for our own financial well-being. To better understand how we can manage our finances proactively and use credit responsibly, I encourage Singaporeans to tap on the wealth of information provided by MoneySENSE − a bit of advertisement here. With that, Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","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.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t8.15 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Crew of Singapore-registered Vessels Encountering Difficulties in South China Sea","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport what practical steps and mechanisms does the Government have in place to help owners and crew of Singapore-registered civilian vessels avoid encountering difficulties when sailing over the disputed South China Sea.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The \"practical steps and mechanisms\" for passages by vessels are implemented within the framework of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Freedom of navigation, including navigation by Singapore-registered civilian vessels, is a fundamental element of that framework. This freedom of navigation enables vessels to ply their trade to different parts of the world, including through vital sea lines of communication in the South China Sea.
More recently, ASEAN member states and China have also reaffirmed their commitment to the freedom of navigation and overflight above the South China Sea in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law, including UNCLOS.
To ensure a smooth voyage, all vessels must exercise due care. Vessels are required to carry nautical charts to plan their route and monitor their position throughout the voyage, exercising care to avoid navigational hazards.
Ships owners should also ensure that their vessels are properly maintained and adequately manned by competent crew. To this end, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) ensures that Singapore-registered vessels are seaworthy, and crew onboard are duly certified.
Singapore-registered vessels in situation of distress should contact MPA and the surrounding coastal states for assistance. To date, MPA has not received any reports of interference from Singapore-registered vessels traversing the South China Sea.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Becoming an Autonomous Vehicle-ready Nation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether Singapore is ready to be claimed as an autonomous vehicle-ready nation; (b) if so, whether the regulations and legal framework have been established; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to deal with the recent accident involving an autonomous driving vehicle.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Self-driving technology gives us the opportunity to improve the public transport system in a significant way. For example, we can overcome manpower shortages with self-driving buses. We can also introduce new mobility concepts, such as fleets of self-driving pods, to enhance first-last mile travel. We are testing these and other concepts to better understand the technology and their potential for application in Singapore. Self-driving technology, however, is not yet mature enough for widespread public deployment. Most analysts believe that this day is about 10 to 15 years away. But over the next few years, we will see incremental deployment in limited circumstances and geographies.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has established a regulatory framework to facilitate trials of self-driving vehicles in Singapore. To trial on public roads, self-driving vehicles must demonstrate roadworthiness by passing an overall vehicle safety assessment. All trial participants must have in place insurance covering injury to persons, death and property damage.
We are also studying the regulatory and legal frameworks we would need to have in place for the day when self-driving vehicles are deployed on our roads on an actual-use basis, and no longer for trials and pilots. The trials currently being conducted in One-North and other parts of Singapore will give us a better understanding of these issues. We are also sharing notes with overseas counterparts.
LTA and the Traffic Police are investigating the accident involving nuTonomy's self-driving car. In the meantime, nuTonomy has stopped its trials while it reviews the causes of the accident and how to improve the safety of its trials and rectify any technological shortcomings it may find.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students affected by GCE \"O\" Level Maths Exam Mix-up","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education (Schools) what led to the mix-up of the GCE \"O\" Level examination papers for Mathematics recently and how fairness and objectivity will be ensured in assessing the 70 affected students for their final Mathematics grade.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: In 2016, schools could offer different \"O\" level Mathematics examination papers to Secondary 5 Normal (Academic) (N(A)) students due to a change in syllabus. However, the topics examined under the old and revised syllabi are largely comparable. While the Secondary 4 Express students are the first batch to take the examination under the revised syllabus, the old syllabus is still available for the Secondary 5N(A) students.
On 20 October 2016, 73 Secondary 5N(A) candidates from two schools mistakenly sat for \"O\" level Mathematics Paper 1 under the new syllabus. This error was caused by their schools registering them using the wrong syllabus code. Upon discovering the error, the two schools and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) took immediate steps to ensure that the affected candidates would sit for the correct Paper 2 the following day. This was, indeed, the case the next day.
Schools have processes in place to ensure the accuracy of the examination registration, and both affected schools acknowledged that such an error could have been avoided if checks in the registration processes were more thorough, especially in instances where two different syllabi were offered for the same subject. The two schools have reviewed their processes and tightened checks for future examination registration.
SEAB is working with the two schools and the University of Cambridge International Examinations to ensure that the affected candidates will be fairly assessed in the GCE \"O\" level Mathematics Paper 1 examination. SEAB will take into consideration the circumstances of the incident and various other information, including the candidates' performance in the school’s preliminary examination for Mathematics, their performance in the GCE \"O\" level Mathematics examination and the cohort's performance in the GCE \"O\" level Mathematics examination.
This is a rare and unfortunate incident, and I assure Members that my colleagues are working very conscientiously not just to make sure it does not recur, but also to facilitate a fair assessment for each affected student in this case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Link between Entrepreneurship and Degree of Open Competition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether the Ministry will consider undertaking a study to determine the link between rates of entrepreneurship in specific industries and the degree of open competition in that industry as measured by the market share of the top companies.
Mr S Iswaran: The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) administers and enforces the Competition Act which prohibits anti-competitive conduct. This would facilitate market access by entrepreneurs and ensure a level playing field for all businesses. CCS takes action against anti-competitive agreements and exclusionary conduct by dominant players by removing anti-competitive restrictions that could hinder new businesses.
While market share information can be used as an indicator for the level of competition and entrepreneurship in a market, CCS also takes into consideration other factors, such as the degree of product differentiation, the responsiveness of buyers to price increases, and the price responsiveness of competitors. Besides regulatory aspects, industry-specific characteristics also cause significant variations. For example, the process from ideation to production could take a few years for deep technology sectors, such as medical technology (MedTech) and clean technology (CleanTech), because of significant hardware development, larger capital investment and deeper expertise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Preschool Centres Allowing Staff to Start Work before Passing Pre-employment Medical Screening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for the past three years, how many cases have there been of schools and childcare centres allowing potential teachers or staff to start work before they have passed the pre-employment medical screening; and (b) what actions have been taken against these schools and childcare centres.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Under the Child Care Centres Act and Education Act, new childcare, kindergarten and school staff members are required to obtain medical clearances before they commence work. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) requires childcare centres and kindergartens to register their staff members and declare online that this requirement has been adhered to. ECDA also conducts random checks to verify the declarations.
Over the past three years, one childcare centre was found to have allowed its teacher to work before obtaining the pre-employment medical certification. ECDA issued a warning letter to the centre and put it on a short probationary licence. ECDA also stepped up supervision of the centre to ensure that it had put in place measures to avoid future lapses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hiring of Ex-offenders in Financial Services Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) whether any MAS rules prevent the hiring of any category of ex-offenders for positions in the financial services sector; (b) in how many instances has MAS found any financial institution to be in breach of the \"fit and proper\" guidelines in their recruitment process over the last 10 years; (c) what have been the types of breaches deemed to have occurred in such cases; and (d) whether MAS is alerted if an individual's job application is rejected by a financial institution due to his/her being an ex-offender.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): A critical success factor for the financial industry is the trust that depositors, investors and policyholders place in financial institutions (FIs). The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects employees and representatives of FIs to be fit and proper in order to safeguard the interests of consumers as well as to uphold Singapore’s reputation as a trusted financial centre.
MAS has no rules against the hiring of ex-offenders for positions in the financial industry. MAS has issued guidelines on its expectations and criteria for what it means to be \"fit and proper\". To date, MAS has not found any FIs to be in breach of the due diligence requirements set out in these guidelines.
FIs are responsible for their own hiring decisions and ensuring that the persons they employ are fit and proper. They perform their own due diligence on potential candidates and do not have to inform MAS of candidates that they have hired or rejected. There are two exceptions to this rule. For key positions in FIs, such as chief executive officers (CEOs), board directors and selected senior management roles, FIs are required to seek MAS' approval for their appointments after assessing them to be fit and proper. Secondly, FIs are also required to notify MAS before appointing representatives to conduct financial advisory and capital market activities.
For such positions, MAS does not automatically reject an FI's application just because the candidate is an ex-offender. MAS’ guidelines also make clear that a candidate who fails to meet any particular criterion is not automatically deemed as being not fit and proper. MAS adopts a proportionate approach which takes into consideration the nature and responsibilities of a person in determining the relative emphasis and standard expected of that person. In the case of ex-offenders, MAS would also have regard to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, the time that has elapsed since their conviction, and the duties and responsibilities to be assumed.
Like other financial regulators, MAS has the power to issue prohibition orders (POs) to prevent persons with serious criminal convictions, such as dishonesty, fraud, and criminal breach of trust, from working in the financial advisory, insurance and capital markets industry for a specified period of time. Such actions serve as deterrents and help to uphold high standards of honesty and integrity in the financial sector. Individuals who have been issued POs may still be considered for positions in the financial industry after the expiry of their POs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Lingering in Changi Airport's Departure Lounge","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the recent case of a man who stayed in Changi Airport's departure lounge for 18 days (a) how did the overstayer escape detection for so long; and (b) whether there are measures in place to ensure that this will not recur.
Mr K Shanmugam: On 21 August 2016, a Malaysian, Raejali Buntut, entered the airport transit areas after clearing departure immigration. He checked into Plaza Premium Lounge in Terminal 1 using a valid boarding pass and a Priority Pass card, which allows the card holder access to various airport lounges at Changi Airport. He was due to depart for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at 7.05 am on the same day.
Raejali overslept in the lounge and missed his flight. Instead of informing the airline, which would have assisted to book him onto another flight, he remained in the airport transit areas for 18 days. He visited various transit lounges using his Priority Pass and forged electronic boarding passes. On 7 September 2016, Raejali re-entered the Dnata transit lounge at Terminal 1. Dnata lounge staff became suspicious after seeing his visits to the lounge and alerted the police. He was then arrested.
Police investigations revealed that Raejali had come to Singapore for job interviews. After missing his return flight to Kuala Lumpur, he decided to stay on in the transit lounges as he waited for the result of his job interviews. Raejali was charged in Court for forging boarding passes to cheat the airport lounges and was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment.
This year, about 4.85 million passengers passed through the transit areas every month, or more than 160,000 passengers per day, in Changi Airport. Our security agencies conduct regular patrols and checks on persons and identify those who do not have a valid reason to remain within the transit areas. Every day, on average, about eight passengers are escorted out of the transit areas because they do not have a valid reason to be in the transit areas. These include passengers who arrived in Singapore in the early hours of the morning and choose to stay in the transit areas until public transportation is available, or passengers who have missed their flight.
The Airport Police also partner the airport community to keep a lookout on the ground, and exercise vigilance against suspicious behaviour or objects which may pose a threat to our airport. The airport community including staff working at the transit lounges are trained by our security agencies to detect and report suspicious people and articles so that further checks can be conducted.
The Airport Police have engaged the transit lounge operators, advising them to be vigilant against possible abuses of boarding passes and to promptly report any suspicious cases. The Airport Police are also working with the transit lounge operators to review the process of screening travellers entering the transit lounges.
The Airport Police are also liaising with airlines. Airlines need to assist by alerting when passengers do not turn up for a flight. In this case, it was the vigilance of four airport staff that had led to the detection and arrest of Raejali. Police have also recognised them by commending them with the Public Spiritedness Award on 20 September 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Benefits from Productivity and Innovation Credit and Capability Development Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how many workers have benefited from the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and Capability Development Grant (CDG) over the last three years; and (b) how can the Ministry work towards having productivity gains from public schemes, such as PIC and CDG, be shared equitably with workers.
Mr S Iswaran: The Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and Capability Development Grant (CDG) are aimed at helping Singapore enterprises and workers achieve productivity improvements and build business capabilities. Over the last three years, an average of 80,000 enterprises, employing more than 2.5 million workers, benefited from the PIC scheme annually. Over the same period, an annual average of 700 enterprises, employing more than 150,000 workers, tapped on the CDG.
The Government, industry and the unions have been working together to enable both companies and workers to benefit from productivity improvements. For example, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has partnered various companies on measures that raise their productivity and competitiveness. The resultant productivity gains are then shared with workers in these companies, such as through allowances or payments. As a specific example, the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) administered by the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) co-funds companies to embark on productivity improvement projects. The companies, in turn, are required to share their productivity gains with their workers through higher wages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2079,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Saktiandi supaat(1).pdf","fileName":"Saktiandi supaat(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2080,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Prof Fatimah Lateef","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Fatimah Lateef(1).pdf","fileName":"Fatimah Lateef(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2081,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Prof Fatimah Lateef","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Fatimah Lateef(2).pdf","fileName":"Fatimah Lateef(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2082,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Masagos Zalkifli(1).pdf","fileName":"Masagos Zalkifli(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2083,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leon Perera","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Leon Perera(1).pdf","fileName":"Leon Perera(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2084,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Kok Heng Leun","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Kok Heng Leun(1).pdf","fileName":"Kok Heng Leun(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2085,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf","fileName":"Rahayu Mahzam(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2086,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Chia Yong Yong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Chia Yong Yong(1).pdf","fileName":"Chia Yong Yong(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2087,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Azmoon Ahmad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Azmoon Ahmad(1).pdf","fileName":"Azmoon Ahmad(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2088,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20161109/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}