Chan Chun Sing
Singapore
“Since 2002, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has worked with the autonomous universities (AUs) to establish arrangements that minimise disruption to National Servicemen (NSmen) who are pursuing full-time studies up to the undergraduate level, while meeting the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) operational and training needs.”
“Secondments help to build up the range of competencies and work experiences of public officers to strengthen their longer-term employment relevance and resilience. The Public Service Division's guideline to agencies is to support public officers even while they are on secondment.”
“The priority of our National Servicemen must be their military duties and operational training, to meet the Singapore Armed Forces's (SAF's) operational requirements.”
“In January 2026, I had informed this House that the Government had convened an independent committee to conduct a review of the political salary framework that was laid out in 2012. The Committee has completed the review and submitted its recommendations to the Government in April.”
“All countries seek to develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and the United States-Indonesia Major Defence Cooperation Partnership is one such example.”
“Since the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was established in 2014, over 1,500 men and women have completed training and served as SAFVC Volunteers (SVs). Presently, there are about 1,100 in-service SVs, comprising 52% male and 48% female. About seven in 10 of our in-service SVs are new Citizens or Permanent Residents.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,624 lines we hold for Chan Chun Sing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 44 of 53.
“The challenge is who can execute the plan well, who can execute the plan faster, and who can adapt when conditions change. Last, but not least, tripartism. Partnership. We work together. We solve the problems together. We will get there better than anyone else. How fast we sail, how good we are able to ride the waves depends on our teamwork, depends on how well we can read the waves of change over and beyond how well the boat is designed, or how well the plan is. What about the jobs for tomorrow? NTUC will not come to this Budget and ask MOM for more money per se. MOM, MOE and MOF have been very supportive. Over and beyond money, what the Labour Movement wants to work with our IHLs and our businesses on are as follows. One, we want to strengthen the job placement system for everyone. We want to challenge ourselves, that among NTUC, WSG, the Economic Development Board and all other Government agencies, including our partners in the Singapore National Employers Federation, to form that national database at the backend. It does not matter which career centre you go to, we will integrate the backend. We are even prepared to work with private agencies like LinkedIn to ensure that we do our placement well and do it faster. But placement is only for today's job, putting today's employed into today's job. Most importantly, we have to prepare to help tomorrow's unemployed into tomorrow's job, and that we have to do well to overcome the potential structural unemployment. This is the reason why NTUC is raising $200 million, on top of what we have in our NTUC Education and Training Fund, to work with our IHLs on national modules, stackable modules, and just-in-time modules. This will require a national effort. We need to do much better and we can do much better.”
“That is a trimaran sailboat. I found this to be a simple way to remember the seven CFE strategies or, as Minister Heng Swee Keat called them, the seven mutually reinforcing strategies. The two sails are our engines to propel the boat forward. One of them is SkillsFuture − how good our workers can be. But SkillsFuture cannot be alone, we need the equivalent on the business side − the EnterpriseFuture as the other sail. These are our two enabling strategies. NTUC, as the apex organisation, will mobilise our workers, work with IHLs, MOM, MOE to make sure that we train up a new generation of workers ready for tomorrow. And I hope that the Singapore Business Federation and the other trade associations will similarly perform the role for businesses, so that not only will we have a SkillsFuture programme, we will couple that with an EnterpriseFuture programme. The three skiffs that make up the trimaran are essentially our three core strategies to make ourselves a more balanced, a more diversified economy. The first, how to use our advantage in urban planning and city development as a marketable strategy to sell skillsets and relevant expertise to the rest of the world? How do we use internationalisation to broaden our markets to transcend our geography and finite resource limitations? How do we use digital to again transcend our geography, create new resources and create new competitive advantages for ourselves? But the thing that ties these all together is simply this − our ability to implement our ITMs well, because they cover 80% of our sectors. And we know that implementation is key. Estonia also has a digital strategy. The challenge is not who comes up with a better plan.”
“Let me come to how we earn a living. In NTUC, we have three priorities for this year − jobs, jobs and jobs. Jobs for those people who are displaced today, and jobs for those people who might be displaced tomorrow. But let us be frank with ourselves. Grants and subsidies alone will not create jobs, especially sustainable jobs. Grants and subsidies, as Minister Iswaran said yesterday, enable and help, but the crux must come from our businesses, our access to markets and our innovation. How good our businesses are depend on the following: how innovative we are; how bold we dare to venture beyond Singapore; how good our workers are to keep pace with the demand for the new skills; how good our regulatory environment is to groom and enable new businesses. When we look at our Budget, this is what we see. MTI, MOM, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and many other agencies are all focused precisely on all these four basic fundamental issues to support our businesses: enable innovation, enable internationalisation, enable SkillsFuture and enable a more progressive regulatory environment for startup businesses. So, the businesses are not alone in this. The workers must come on board. Government agencies must come on board. And this is where it leads me to CFE. Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask for your permission to show a simple slide.”
“Some countries lose their footing, get into a downward spiral ‒ a death spiral, if you like ‒ and never recovered. Our job is to keep ourselves on a steady path, making sure that we address the short-term pains whilst establishing the conditions for our long-term success. It is never either/or; it is always both. Because if you have managed an economy before, you will know that no one can take a cynical attitude towards whether you can time it to go up or down. No one. Next, I would like you all to focus on what this Budget has in terms of what is new. But I would like to remind all of us that it is not just what is new that is important. It is also what is ongoing. Every policy has a long tail. Every time we make a commitment to spend on a policy, it has a long tail, which means that there are future commitments that we need to adhere to, to keep our words to our people. Every time we have a long tail, it eats into what, in budgetary terms, we call the "white space" for the future, which means that the more we commit upfront with a long tail, the less degree of flexibility we have going forward to meet contingencies and to seize opportunities. Some of the tails do not just wind down. Some of the tails, paradoxically, creep up. So, it is not a small feat for a government, any government of any particular point in time, to make a commitment. While Minister Heng Swee Keat has announced various things that have changed, we must all bear in mind that many things are still ongoing: Workfare, U-Save rebates, the commitment that we have done for SkillsFuture, and so forth. So, it is not just the new things that are important. It is also what has been going on and will continue to go on that define this Budget. And I hope we see that in proper context.”
“If our forefathers had done otherwise ‒ to spend first before the term of Government even earned its keep ‒ we can forget about that $1 out of every $5 that we are depending on for our Budget now. So, we would rather err on the side of caution, and this is the reason why our forefathers had put in place this system, and this is the reason why this generation will also continue to uphold this system. Then, there are suggestions that we are ignoring the pains, the short-term pains of the economy. Is that so? If this is so, why did Minister Heng Swee Keat announce targeted measures to help specific sectors like the offshore and marine sector, like the $700 million that we push into the construction sector? If this is so, why do we spend all the money that we spend for that increase in the U-Save rebates to make sure that even though prices may increase on average, we will take care of the lower income first? If we adopt such a cynical attitude to budgeting, will we have done this? Just as one of my friends' feedback last night, if, indeed, this is a cynical Government, then we should not be giving anything at all. No, this is not a cynical Government and it will be wrong for us to impute our own perverse motive on the Government. It is targeted to help precisely because we feel the pain for our people. Managing an economy is not like turning the thermostat in the air-conditioned room, that when you want it to go up, you just turn it down; when you want it to go down, you just turn it up. If this Government is not concerned with the short term, and if the economy goes down south, who can guarantee that in two years' time, when we want to turn it up, that it will go up? We do not have to look too far. The competition across the world is intense.”
“So, this is the context that we are in ‒ $1 in every $5 that we spend today comes from our NII ‒ the four biggest buckets of our revenue stream, three of which are not entirely within our control. That is the backdrop for this Budget. Some have commented that we are running a surplus. I think Minister Heng has explained. Is this a real surplus? Even after accounting for NII, we have less than $2 billion budgeted for. The question is this: will we realise this $2 billion surplus? And I hope Mr Leon Perera is right. I will be very happy if we are right and you are right. But what if we are wrong? What if the economy turns soft and we do not realise the full amount that we have budgeted for NII but, instead, we need more money to help fellow Singaporeans if the economy turns further south? How much can we afford and how much more do we have? One programme, like Workfare Income Supplement, costs us $600 million to $700 million. So, if the revenue comes down and the needs go up, I am not so confident that that $1.9 billion surplus that we have budgeted for will necessarily come true. But like I said, I hope we are right, I hope you are right. But what if we are wrong? There are some comments by some Members in the House to say that this Budget is a political Budget, that we spend less so that we can time the political cycle. Guess what? Our system is designed such that every term of Government has to earn its keep. At the start of every term of Government, People's Action Party or otherwise, the Government must earn its keep. We precisely design the system such that no Government will come in and promise to spend before it has earned its keep. This is unlike other countries. This is the reason why we have been able to get $1 out of every $5 to support our Budget.”
“Out of that $70 billion, $14 billion comes from our Net Investment Income (NII), which means that for every five dollars we spend, one dollar comes from the savings, or the income from our savings, to be more precise. We are, if you like, living on the income of our savings: $1 out of every $5 that we are spending in this Budget comes from the income from our Reserves. But I do not know if Members have also noticed something that is even more significant. I have been observing this for the last few years. The top four revenue streams of our Budget are NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax. This year, the number one income stream, out of these four, is NII. This was not the position a few years ago. NII has become the revenue stream that gives us the most to do for our Budget. And if we think a bit deeper, these top four buckets of revenue stream ‒ NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax ‒ out of these four, how many of them are really under our control? NII depends on the status of the world economy. Corporate tax and income tax will be similarly cyclical, according to the world economy. Even GST, to a lesser extent, will be cyclical. So, the question that we should all pause and think for a while is this: is this a sustainable position, going forward, for our country? The top four revenue streams of our Budget, of which three are not entirely within our control, even if we do not take into account the competition that we have to face from other cities like Hongkong in how we set our corporate and income tax rates. I always joke with some friends that our corporate tax rate and income tax rate are not set independently by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has to watch like a hawk what our competitors are doing.”
“Mdm Speaker, since Minister Heng Swee Keat announced the Budget, we have heard many feedback from the public and also Members of this House. While a few have expressed concerns with our Budget status, most were concerned with our individual status. Common questions and comments heard were these: how much do I get? How much more do I have to pay? Why the price increase for carbon, diesel or water? For businesses, their reactions have also been largely similar: how much would I get? How much more must I pay? Will there be more immediate pain relief? Even amongst some civil servants, they were surprised, "Wow, you mean my Ministry's budget is going to be rebased, which means a cut of 2%?" But what are the core issues for this Budget? While we can all appreciate the concerns with our individual positions, this Budget must surely be more than these. Our Budget is also, if not more importantly, about our collective future and that of our country, beyond what it means to us individually. And the core questions that we have to come back to and focus on in this Budget are as follows: how do we earn a living for ourselves and our country? And how do we take care of one another? These are the two core issues that we must return to: how do we earn a living for ourselves and for our country, and how do we take care of one another? Many have asked and commented: if the Budget can be a bit more generous; if our Government can spend a bit more. I can understand these wishes. But let us take a look at our Budget position carefully. This year, we have a Budget of about $70 billion.”
“Grassroots organisations (GROs) help the People's Association achieve its mission of building cohesive communities. Amongst its many community building activities, GROs help organise various community service programmes, such as those that help seniors remain active in the community and support needy families. To help fund some of these activities, GROs raised about $27 million in sponsorships and donations and $7 million from community trade fairs in financial year (FY) 2015/2016. In FY2015/2016, GROs also gave out $10 million in direct financial help such as welfare assistance, scholarships and bursaries. This complements Government assistance programmes for residents who need a bit more help.”
“For the Financial Year (FY) 2015/2016, the total expenditure for Grassroots Organisations (GROs) was $206 million. The percentage breakdown of this expenditure is:”
“Mdm President, I was about to — [Laughter.] Mdm Speaker, Mdm Speaker. Sorry, my bad. Mdm Speaker, just on the record, I was about to hand this to the Workers' Party. The exact quote was this, "My second question", from Mr Leon Perera, "My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times. What are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risk of politicising the unifying office of the President" and it goes on "no doubt the politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we have but there is a good reason to believe in future Presidential elections, if let us say, there are 10 candidates and let us say the winner gets 5% of the vote and let us say the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the office of the President could be politicised." So, it goes on. And Mr Teo Chee Hean's reply was and I quote, "Turning to the risk of politicisation and a possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is that 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 the rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit, and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there." I quote from Mr Teo Chee Hean.”
“Mdm President [Laughter.] Madam, I think today is not the occasion for us to go through this again. I think we can all check the Hansard as to what was said between you and the rest of the debate. Today, we are here to put in place the nuts and bolts on how we can get an Elected President, see it working.”
“Okay, I understand. So, the Member wants to appoint a President and a Senate, but as we have gone through in November, that would also have the same risk of politicisation, maybe eight times over. But we are not to go there today but what we can agree I think on both sides of the House is, as the Member has mentioned, to the extent possible, we want a mechanism, an election process that allows us to have a unifying figure and a custodial figure and that is why we have proposed the slight adjustment to the campaigning methods today and I think we can agree on that.”
“Okay. So, then let me ask this: but you would agree with me that we want a depoliticised President to the extent that our efforts can? Because your line of questioning during November was that we tried our best to have a President that can act as a unifying figure for our country. Is that correct? Do you share that perspective that we would like a President that can unify us and be depoliticised to the extent possible?”
“So, can I have it on record that you are now proposing that we have an Appointed President and a Senate? Is that correct? That is correct, right? Okay.”
“I thank Mr Leon Perera for his clarifications. I am just a bit puzzled. The Member said that the November speeches were in support of the Appointed President. Is that what he mentioned just now? I thought the November debate was about the Senate. How does the Appointed President and Senate proposals work?”
“And I believe that the people in the committees are wise enough to know how to make that judgement call, considering all the factors that the Member has mentioned.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I respond to the two queries from Mr Pritam Singh. First, on the issue of citizenship, I think I will repeat my point here. Every Singaporean, regardless of whether new citizens or old citizens, make the same pledge of allegiance to this country. They have the privileges of being a Singaporean. They have also the responsibilities of being a Singaporean. As to whether they can best represent and unite Singaporeans, I think it is best left to the judgement of the Singaporean electorate. And I think Singaporeans are wise and discerning, so I do not think we need to overly prescribe this. The question about how the Community Committee works, I think we have established precedent because this is how we have assessed the eligibility of the Malay candidates and the Indian and the Other Minority candidates for the Parliamentary elections in the past. And that has served us well and the same mechanism will continue to work. On the issue of language, I would say that the Community Committee and the respective sub-committees will need to assess the person holistically. Yes, language will be one of the criteria. But we are also keenly aware that all of us, regardless of our race, language or religion, may practise our religions slightly differently, may live our lifestyles differently. But the key is this: do the respective Chinese, Malay and Indian sub-committees consider the person belonging to their community, as a package, holistically? That is the key point. As to how committees work, I would not want to prescribe their roles, and it will not be my remit to comment on how they should go about doing their function. But the philosophy has never changed. The philosophy is that, as a package, do you believe that this person belongs to your community?”
“And the Government has taken seriously the feedback from this House and the members of the public to see how we can depoliticise the Presidency. Because his role is to serve as a stabiliser, his role is to serve the custodial functions for this country in terms of its Reserves and key appointments. His role is to unite this country.”
“So, unless she is going back to challenge and casting doubt on the Prime Minister's integrity, the Prime Minister has stated on record in this House that it has taken advice from the Attorney-General. We take the Prime Minister for it and it is the Prime Minister's prerogative as to whether he wishes to release the advice as the Member has said. On the third point about the claim that this is a sudden announcement, I would just make two points: one, we have had this debate for a very long time, for more than one year. The process was transparent. We set up the Constitutional Commission. We invited the Workers' Party and members of the public to present. The Workers' Party's position was that it would not appear before the Constitutional Commission to present its views, but it will come to this House. Last year, the Workers' Party came to this House with a proposal for a Senate. We have debated that and we have made our own conclusions and we have moved on from there. So, I do not think this is a sudden movement. The second response to the third point that the Member mentioned, Deputy Prime Minister Teo has also shared with this House why we are making the movement now. As what the Constitutional Commission says, if there is a reason for us to act, then it is the onus of this Government to act in the best interest of this country decisively. That is why we have decided to do it in this term of Government. On the fourth point about the bipartisan support for us to try to depoliticise this, I would just refer Ms Lim to the Hansard, to the speeches made by Mr Leon Perera and I can show them to the Member afterwards which, in so many words, agreed with us that we want a Presidency that is depoliticised. And we should find ways to do so.”
“Mdm Speaker, Ms Sylvia Lim's first point on eligibility criteria. What Parliament is doing and asking the Minister to do is to make sure that whatever prevailing accountancy rules that are being practised are adhered to. That surely is better than what we here, being not in the profession, were to make a set of rules and then have it updated. I think the accountants among us, the people in the financial industry among us, will know that the conventions, rules and practices in the industry evolve. We are setting ourselves, benchmarking ourselves to these high standards that are agreed to by the professional bodies. That, I think, is an even better and stronger set of measures than us setting something in place and having to update it as regularly as what the accounting professions might be capable of. On the second point about the reserved election, I am glad that Ms Lim has confirmed that she is not casting any aspirations on Prime Minister Lee's integrity and if that is the case then the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean, have explained in November why the counting starts from the second term of President Wee Kim Wee's term. That is because President Wee Kim Wee was the first President to exercise the powers under the new Elected Presidency Act. On the second related point, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether clients can choose to waive the advice and I think I have answered her, which is that, as a lawyer, the Member would know that there will be circumstances where you can choose to release the advice and you can choose not to release the advice and what we have done is no different.”
“The Members of the GRC team who are elected to serve their respective GRCs are expected to serve all their residents, regardless of race, language or religion.”
“Third, constitutionally, there is no such thing as a First Lady position. There is only the President. If I may refer Members to the Hansard, in 2001, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in answering a question by Mr JB Jeyaretnam, had stated that "The First Lady is not a position enshrined in the Singapore Constitution. It is a courtesy term that has been customarily used for the wife of the President, including previous Presidents, before the Elected Presidency was created." Fourth, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the GRC system. Mdm Speaker, I beg your indulgence. This is totally unrelated to the Bill today but, since it was raised, I will deal with it. When Mr Goh Chok Tong moved the Motion to explain the GRC system to this House, it was done with a very clear intent to achieve two purposes. One, it was to ensure that this House has sufficient minority Members in the House as a system. Today, we have about one-third of our House with minority Members. That is more than what you would expect proportionally from adding up the percentage of Malays, Indians and Other Minorities. So, that was the first purpose ‒ to make sure that this House has sufficient minority represented. And, over the years, we have achieved this by leaning forward and having more than the minimum that we are expected to have. The second reason for the GRC system was to make sure that none of the parties will campaign on issues on a race/religion platform, that we will all, regardless of party lines, campaign on the basis that we are all Singaporeans, that we will not use race, language or religion for political reasons. These were the two very clear reasons why we established the GRC system in this House.”
“You will know that when you get advice, you do not freely publicise your advice and you may have various reasons why you do not publicise all your advice. And as a lawyer, I think Ms Sylvia Lim will know this better than me. So, I think we should not impute motives on this Government or the Prime Minister. On Ms Lim's second point, the proposed amendments state that the Minister must have regard to, to the extent that they are applicable, the prevailing accounting standards and the general law relating to the insolvency of companies. These are standards set by professionals. The Minister does not have unbridled power. And if you think about it, is this not even better than the Minister setting the rules by himself? We are adhering to the prevailing accounting standards set by the professional bodies and not by someone else outside the profession. So, if you ask me, I think this is an even stronger system than that proposed for the Minister to decide. To give clarity and certainty, we will provide administrative guidelines to the applicants. Mr Pritam Singh made several points. First, on language proficiency and other criteria, Mr Singh spoke about how it is up to the Community Committee to look at the prospective candidate holistically, and not home in on one factor. This is not new; it has worked well in the GRC context. Second, as to whether the President has to be born in Singapore, we should be careful in differentiating between new citizens and those who are born in Singapore. All citizens pledge allegiance to Singapore. They are entitled to exercise their rights and are expected to live up to their responsibilities. The question of whether a new citizen is accepted as a unifying symbol of Singapore is one that should be left to the electorate to decide.”
“At the same debate, Deputy Prime Minister Teo had confirmed to Ms Lim that the advice referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech was, indeed, AGC's advice, and invited Ms Lim to challenge it judicially if she thought that it was not correct advice. Ms Lim then suggested that there might be something controversial or confidential that the Government was unwilling to publish. The Government is confident of the advice rendered by the Attorney-General. We proceeded on that basis during the debates on the constitutional changes in this House. Prime Minister Lee explained to all why we needed the hiatus-triggered mechanism, and we passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. We are here today to put the nuts and bolts in place for a decision made clear by the Prime Minister during the debates in November. And we will not go through this again. Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about being bewildered. I have also gone round to solicit feedback from the public. I am rather bewildered that Ms Lim is bewildered, because I did not receive the sentiments that Ms Lim said she got. The feedback that I have received has not been like that. And if I may just make two points. Ms Lim once again questioned the Attorney-General's advice. I am a bit bewildered by this. I would like to clarify: (a) is Ms Lim suggesting that the Attorney-General did not give the Government the appropriate advice? Or (b) that the Prime Minister has not been truthful with the Attorney-General's advice? If it is the first, then I think Ms Lim, as suggested by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, can challenge this in the Courts. But if it is the second, then I am afraid it is a very serious issue to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Prime Minister. Ms Lim is a lawyer; I am not a lawyer.”
“First, he asked about the Prime Minister's appointment of the members of the Community Committee upon the nomination of the PCMR. The intention under the new section 8E is for the PCMR to nominate one person for the position of Chairman and five for each of the sub-committees, and the Prime Minister will appoint them to the Community Committee accordingly. This mirrors the approach taken with regard to the nomination of the Chairman and Members of the Malay Community Committee and the Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee by the PCMR and their appointment by the President, as set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Second, Mr Vikram Nair sought a clarification that the "other minority communities" provision is not intended to be a catch-all for people who do not fit into other categories by ethnicity, but is intended to be only for those who are part of the established minority communities in Singapore. He also asked about which groups may fall into the category of such communities at this point in time. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean provided an answer to this in the debates on the Constitutional Amendments last November. He made clear then that the "other minority communities" refer to groups that have some degree of history, permanence and established presence in Singapore, such as the Eurasian community. Ms Sylvia Lim made two points. First, she asked, as she did last November during the debate on the changes to the Constitution, about the advice from AGC to the Government on the counting of terms.”
“The Constitutional Commission suggested that we adapt the mechanism for determining a prospective candidate's community from the Parliamentary Elections Act, and the mechanism in the Parliamentary Elections Act does not require the Community Committee to release grounds. This has worked well over the years and we see no need to disturb this. Second, Mr Louis Ng suggested that the PEC should set out its reasons for rejecting a candidate. Indeed, the Constitutional Commission said that "it would be desirable for the PEC to give reasons when it rejects applications for Certificates of Eligibility", as this will "provide a measure of transparency and accountability to the process." However, the Commission did not think that the PEC should publicise its reasons for rejecting an application, because that could discourage persons from stepping forward to run for office, for fear of the embarrassment of being rejected in their application for a Certificate of Eligibility and then having the reasons for the rejection made public. The Commission suggested that "a more measured solution would be to require the PEC to furnish to the unsuccessful applicant its reasons for denying the Certificate of Eligibility, and to leave the applicant to decide for himself or herself whether he or she wishes to make those reasons public." The Government broadly agreed with this suggestion in the White Paper; the PEC should set out its grounds when it rejects a prospective candidate's application, but not publicise it. As this is governed by subsidiary legislation, we will proceed to amend the relevant regulations after this Bill is passed. Mr Vikram Nair made two points in his speech.”
“First, the Government agrees that the Community Committee has to be diverse and each sub-committee has to be representative of the community it represents. The five members who belong to the Chinese community are to be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) after consulting such organisations of the Chinese community as the Council sees fit. This will ensure that the views of the Chinese community will be taken into account in the nomination process. Second, the Government also agrees with Mr Thomas Chua that qualified persons must not face difficulties with applications for community certificates simply because they are of mixed parentage. If a citizen whose parents belong to two different communities decides to run and decides to apply for a community certificate, the relevant community sub-committee should adopt an inclusive attitude towards his application. I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng for the two suggestions he made in his speech. First, I agree with Mr Ng that the process should be as transparent as possible. All these are set out in regulations. We are amending this Bill first before setting out the necessary regulations governing how the PEC and the Community Committee will conduct their meetings. The regulations will also set out the process for applying for the certificates and the information to be furnished by the prospective candidates. However, we will not be making the Community Committee release grounds as to why it decides to accept or not accept the community declaration of a prospective candidate.”
“Madam, first, I would like to thank all the Members for speaking up on this Bill. As I emphasised at the start of my speech, this Bill makes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act that operationalise the changes that were made to the Constitution in November last year. The principles underlying the changes were passed by the House last year, and the debate on those changes have passed. This is not the place to reignite those debates. And I hope that the debate would take place on the changes in the Bill today. With that, let me deal with the specific matters raised by the Members. These can be grouped into two broad sets of issues. The first set of issues relates to the Community Committee provisions. The second set of issues relates to the election processes. If I have time, I will cover some of the queries on the campaigning method and the timing of the election. Let me begin with the first set of issues: the Community Committee. First, let me thank Ms Rahayu Mahzam for making the points that it is important for us to make efforts to maintain our multiracial and multicultural identity, and that we need to always take care of the rights of minorities. We will continue to work hard to ensure that each Singaporean feels cherished in our society, regardless of which community they are from. Ms Rahayu also had a question on whether an applicant can request for a further invitation to submit a community declaration upon rejection. As the proposed new section 8H(9) points out, the invitation comes from the Community Committee and is unsolicited. An applicant cannot request for an invitation. I also thank Mr Thomas Chua for raising two points in his speech relating to the Community Committee.”
“The time taken, along with the range of people that were consulted in the process, signals the Government's intent in refining the system and ensuring that the office of President is held by a person with the necessary qualities and experience to exercise the powers and duties of the highest office in the country; that the office of the President continues to reflect the multiracial nature of Singapore; and that this office continues to be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“All sides of this House support that the campaigning for the Presidential election should not be politicised and should be different from the campaigning during the General Election. In order to clearly differentiate these two elections, the Government will no longer designate any rally site during Presidential elections. Nevertheless, if candidates still wish to hold rallies, they must apply to the Police for a permit. The Government will increase the television campaigning time during the elections. Candidates can also use social media to reach the voters. Just as before, they can also hold indoor sessions to engage specific groups of voters. In the past, the Polling Day of the Presidential elections typically fell in the last week of August. Campaigning was conducted in August, coinciding with National Day and the National Day celebrations. The Government feels that these two should happen separately. To prevent the clash of timings, this year's Polling Day will be in September. Our laws allow us to do this and our Government institutions are also able to handle this transition period smoothly. (In English): Mdm Speaker, the amendments I have described today are either consequential to the constitutional amendments made in November, or to improve the processes during elections. We are drawing closer to our first reserved elections for our President. The changes to the system have taken more than a year to be discussed and fleshed out since they were first publicly mooted.”
“This step is taken so that the Presidential election campaign will take place outside the period of National Day celebrations. I hope that eligible Malay candidates will step forward to contest to become a Head of State that can unite our people and provide inspiration to all of us. As a young nation, we must be bold enough to constantly adapt our institutions according to our needs. This is the spirit of our Pioneer Generation and that same spirit must always be present in future generations. I will now continue my speech in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last November, Parliament passed the Constitution Amendment Bill after three days of intense debate. Since then, the Government has received feedback from various sectors of society. Many Singaporeans are very concerned about how we balance meritocracy and multiracialism. The Government is heartened to see that the Chinese community, as the majority race, has exercised maturity and showed support for the change. It demonstrated that our Chinese community uphold the values of multiracialism and inclusiveness. These values are very important to Singapore. I would like to thank the Chinese community and the community leaders for playing a critical role in this issue. It is obviously not easy. Singapore is a young nation and our institutions and systems must be adaptable and flexible according to our needs. We should follow the example of our forefathers and do this for the future generations. The Government agrees with the Constitutional Commission's view that the campaign for Presidential elections must be in line with the unifying role of the President.”
“AGC has confirmed that this can be done under the current laws. Some Members might ask why the Government cannot simply extend the current President's term to deal with the adjustment to the campaigning period. According to Article 20 of the Constitution, the new President shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he assumes office. We cannot extend President Tan's term beyond six years unless we amend the Constitution. The period during which the acting President shall exercise the functions of the office of President should not exceed one month, from 1 September 2017 to the date of assumption of office by the person declared elected as President. Madam, let me now say a few words in Malay and Mandarin. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past year, we have received a range of useful feedback from the Malay community and other Singaporeans on the amendments to the elected Presidency. I am pleased that society, as a whole, understands the objectives and rationale behind the proposed amendments. We want to maintain and protect our multiracial society because this is what makes Singapore unique. We want to preserve meritocracy because it is a crucial concept to Singapore. Singapore is a country where anyone can fulfil their potential due to their own hard work and abilities, and not because of their ancestry, their connections, their race or their religion. Therefore, this system that we want to establish will carefully balance two factors − meritocracy and multiracialism. The same high standards will be imposed on all candidates regardless of race. The upcoming Presidential election has been reserved for Malay candidates and, should there be a contest, Polling Day will be held in September.”
“The current President's term of office expires on 31 August 2017. In the past, polling day typically fell on the last week of August. In 2011, the writ was issued in the first week of August. Campaigning began after National Day and was conducted during the month-long National Day celebrations. Given the slightly longer time required for the new process and to avoid holding Presidential election campaigns during the National Day celebrations period, we will adjust the timing of the polls for the forthcoming elections. The Government will issue the writ for the election later in August, before President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017 so that if the election is contested, polling day will take place in September instead of August. This resets the clock, so that, in future, Presidential elections campaigning will take place outside of the National Day period, assuming Presidents serve their full six-year terms. We have been advised by the Attorney-General that there can be an interval between the expiry of the incumbent's term and the assumption of office by the new President. If a new President is not elected by the time President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017, Article 22N of the Constitution provides for an acting President until a new President is elected and assumes office. The Constitution provides for the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker, to be the acting President. The acting President, it should be made clear, cannot exercise the functions of the President under Article 22N indefinitely. We have sought the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s (AGC) advice on this proposal to adjust the timing of the polls for the Presidential elections this year.”
“With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the second handout?”
“As Presidential elections are contested on a national level and not on a local constituency level, we will encourage the use of platforms and channels that reach out to voters at a national level. Television enables candidates to have wide national reach, and to broadcast their messages more effectively to the entire nation. At the last Presidential Election 2011, there were individual campaign broadcasts and a televised forum. To help candidates reach out to voters, the Government will increase the amount of television airtime for candidates and study different options to achieve this. Candidates can also use the wide array of social media platforms to reach voters. They can also hold indoor private sessions to engage specific groups of voters. The format of such indoor private sessions is up to the candidates themselves. The Government will no longer designate any rally sites during Presidential elections. This is in line with the Government's and Constitutional Commission's position not to encourage rallies, which, by their nature and format, may be divisive and not congruent with the unifying role of the Elected Presidency. Nevertheless, candidates who wish to hold rallies may still do so. They will have to apply to Police for a permit. Police will assess the application based on public order and security considerations. As there will not be any designated and pre-security assessed rally sites, Police may require slightly more time to evaluate applications to hold rallies. Even though this can be announced closer to the start of the application process, the Government is announcing it early for transparency and prospective candidates' early awareness. My second announcement has to do with the election period for the Presidential elections.”
“" The Commission also said, and I quote: (a) "in contrast, candidates for Presidential elections have no policy agenda to advance"; (b) "the President plays no role in setting the national agenda nor does he make policy decisions as to the course that the nation should chart"; (c) "[t]hose are matters which properly fall within the remit of the elected Government"; (d) "there is little, if any, need for the vigorous contest of ideas that takes place during a Parliamentary election". The Commission considered that rules could be enacted which prescribed a "white list" of approved campaign methods, such as televised speeches, and explicitly stated that it was not clear if the holding of rallies is either necessary or helpful in dealing with divisiveness. The Government agrees with the Commission that there should be a clear distinction in campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. Campaign methods for the Presidential elections must not inflame emotions and must be in keeping with the decorum and dignity of the office of the President, given the important unifying and custodial roles of the President. The possibility of changes to campaign rules was raised at the end of the debate on the constitutional amendment Bill last November. What was clear is that there is support from both sides of this House that campaigning for Singapore's Presidency should be depoliticised and fundamentally different from campaigning during Parliamentary elections. The Government agrees with the Members of this House on our shared goal to differentiate the campaigning methods of the Presidential Elections from that of the General Elections.”
“The time within which an elector has to register as an overseas elector or apply to change the overseas polling station allotted to the elector is being extended to two days after the Writ of Election. This will give overseas voters more time to register or change their allotted polling station. Madam, that covers all the legislative amendments. As I highlighted earlier, I would also like to make two announcements on the Presidential elections. The first is on campaign methods and the second on the date of the Presidential elections. These two areas will not involve amendments to the law or affect this Bill under consideration. First, the Government will take up the broad thrust of the Constitutional Commission's recommendation on election campaign methods. In its report, the Constitutional Commission stated, and I quote, "Presidential candidates should be required to conduct their campaigns with rectitude and dignity as befits the office and comports with the unifying role and purpose of the Presidency." The Government fully agrees with the Commission that campaigning for the Presidential election has to be consistent with the President's position as a symbol of national unity. The Government also agrees with the Commission that there should be a difference in the campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. As the Commission said, a "Parliamentary election is a contest of ideas and policies, where candidates have to communicate their policies to the electorate and persuade voters as to the strengths of their own proposals as well as the weaknesses of those put forward by other candidates. This clash of ideas and policies makes for a lively but inevitably divisive contest.”
“Currently, the law provides for a candidate or his counting agent to apply for a recount of votes if the criteria for recount is met, that is, if the difference between the number of votes given to the candidate with the most votes and the number of votes given to any other candidate at the election is 2% or less of the total number of votes cast in Singapore, excluding rejected votes and tendered votes, at the election. With the amendment, the Returning Officer must carry out a recount of the votes if the criterion for recount is met. This will avoid unnecessary delays to the recount process. Clause 15 inserts new sections 36DA and 36DB to deal with the loss or destruction of ballot boxes. If any sealed ballot box containing votes cast at a polling station, whether in Singapore or overseas, is lost or destroyed while it is being transported from a polling station to a counting place, the Returning Officer must, first, abandon the counting of all the votes cast at the affected polling station, and this includes the votes cast at the affected polling station that were not in the lost or destroyed ballot box; and second, re-start the poll for the affected polling station if it will be material to the outcome of the election. The third category of amendments is being made to the Act to align the Act with certain provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls. Clauses 17 and 18 insert new sections dealing with those issues. Clause 24 makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act in relation to the registration of overseas electors. The consequential amendments are mainly to section 13A of that Act.”
“In previous elections, disputes have arisen over whether a mark over a candidate's photo or name should count towards a vote for that individual. The changes will provide clarity in dealing with these situations. Clause 9 inserts a new section 23A to formalise the inclusion of candidates' photographs on ballot papers and to stipulate the conditions that must be satisfied before a candidate's photograph will be included on that ballot paper. Photographs of the candidates on the ballot paper were first introduced in the 2011 Presidential election. This practice has been welcomed by voters, as they were able to more easily identify the candidate they are voting for on the ballot paper. The amendment Bill also sets out certain actions to deal with contingency situations pertaining to ballot boxes. Clause 12 amends section 32A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time for the sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore. The amendments to that section confer a discretion on the Returning Officer to extend the time by another seven days for the overseas ballot boxes to reach Singapore if two conditions are fulfilled. First, the total number of overseas electors is material to the election outcome. Second, the Returning Officer is satisfied that any of the overseas ballot boxes are not likely to reach Singapore within the initial 10-day period. Clause 13 repeals and re-enacts section 32B to remove the requirement for a candidate or his counting agent to apply to the Returning Officer for a recount of votes.”
“Clause 19 amends section 71 to provide that an election can be declared void if the elected candidate made a materially false or misleading statement of fact, or omitted to state a material fact, to PEC. This new ground for avoidance is identical to the ground for removing a President in the new Article 22L(3)(e) of the Constitution. Clause 20 repeals and re-enacts section 73 to further provide that only PEC can apply to void an election on the ground stated in the new section 71(f). This is because the false statement, or the omission of the material fact, is made to PEC, and so it would be the appropriate party to apply to the Election Judge to void an election. Let me now address the second category of amendments. These amendments are being made to improve the election procedures. I will go through the key amendments. The Government is making changes to the design of the ballot paper to improve the process of voting, adjudication and counting. Clause 8 amends section 23 to stipulate that the ballot paper must have a clearly demarcated area for a voter to mark his vote for a candidate. Clause 10 amends section 25 to state that a voter's mark must only be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. This ties in with the amendments to section 33 on how ballot papers are to be adjudicated and counted. Clause 14 amends section 33 to require the Returning Officer to only consider the marks made by voters in the area demarcated on ballot papers for voters to mark their votes. Under the amended section, if a voter makes a mark outside of this area, the Returning Officer must disregard that mark when determining whether the voter has given his vote to any candidate.”
“The first item is a statutory declaration in which the prospective candidate declares that he understands the role of the President as set out in the Constitution. This ensures that the prospective candidate is aware of the constitutional powers of the President, and is also aware of the constitutional limits of the Presidential office. It will serve as a declaration to the electorate that the prospective candidate is aware that he should not be drawn into making statements or promises which exceed the constitutionally-prescribed role of the President. As making a false statutory declaration is an offence, a prospective candidate's submission of the declaration signals that the candidate has studied and understood the responsibilities of the office. The second additional item relates to the community certification process. In a reserved election, a prospective candidate must submit a community certificate stating that he belongs to the community to which the election is reserved. In open elections, a prospective candidate who applied for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit either: (a) a community certificate; or (b) the Community Committee's written decision rejecting the application. A prospective candidate who did not apply for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit: (a) the Community Committee's written notification that his declaration is accepted; as well as (b) a statutory declaration stating that he does not consider himself to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community or the Indian or Other Minority communities.”
“In non-reserved elections or open elections, the Community Committee will refer community declarations to the appropriate sub-committee, except where a declarant does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities. If the sub-committee for a community is satisfied that a declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect. If the sub-committee is not satisfied, the Community Committee can refuse to issue a community certificate, or can invite the declarant to submit another community declaration. In the case of a declarant who does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities, the Community Committee can either accept the community declaration, or invite the person to submit another community declaration. In both instances where the Community Committee may invite the declarant to submit another community declaration, it may only do so once. The approach of the Community Committee and sub-committees, in assessing whether declarants belong to a particular community, should be that of inclusion. The approach should be to welcome and embrace individuals who identify themselves with a particular community. This would apply, for example, in cases where declarants are of mixed-race parentage and have significant links with the communities of both parents. The method of certifying race through community committees has worked well for our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system; it should similarly serve us well in the Presidential elections. Let me now move on to explain the new items that prospective candidates must submit. Clause 6 amends section 9 to add certain items to the nomination papers that a prospective candidate must submit.”
“The deadline for submission of the community declaration is five days after the date of the Writ of Election, similar to the deadline to apply for the Certificate of Eligibility to the PEC. The Community Committee must decline to accept a community declaration if the declarant did not apply to the PEC for a Certificate of Eligibility. Let me now elaborate on the composition of this new Community Committee. The Community Committee will consist of 16 persons: the Chairman; five members belonging to the Chinese community; five members belonging to the Malay community; and five members belonging to the Indian or Other Minority communities. The Chairman and members of the Community Committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). The PCMR will make its nominations after consulting such organisations of the Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities as the PCMR sees fit. The five members belonging to the Chinese community who are on the Community Committee make up the Chinese Community sub-committee. The same arrangement applies to the Malay and Indian and Other Minority communities' sub-committees. In a reserved election, the Community Committee will accept a community declaration only if the declarant considers himself to belong to the community to which the election is reserved. The Community Committee will then refer the declaration to the sub-committee for that community. If the sub-committee is satisfied that the declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect.”
“All prospective candidates in all elections, regardless of a reserved election or open election, have to submit a community declaration. A declaration is essential even in open elections because the hiatus-triggered model requires that the community of each President to be counted, for the purposes of calculating when the next reserved election is. A person making a community declaration must make one, and only one, of the following four statements as set out in the new section 8F(2)(a)-(d). The four statements are as follows. First, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Chinese community and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Chinese community. Second, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Malay community. Third, that the person considers himself to be a member of the Indian or Other Minority communities and wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that the person belongs to the Indian or Other Minority communities. Fourth, that the person does not consider himself to be a member of the Chinese community, the Malay community, or the Indian or Other Minority communities. The statements require, where the applicant considers himself to be a member of the three main communities, that is, Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities, to state that he wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that he belongs to that particular community. It should be pointed out that, in open elections, a declarant can still run for elections, even if he does not receive a community certificate, if he meets all other eligibility criteria.”
“First, the deadline for applying for a Certificate of Eligibility is extended from the current three days to five days after the date of the Writ of Election. The extension of deadline will give prospective candidates more time to prepare their applications. Second, the PEC must be satisfied that the applicant has met the service requirements under new Article 19(2)(g) of the Constitution before it issues the Certificate of Eligibility. Third, persons who wish to contest in the Presidential elections must submit applications to both the PEC and to the Community Committee. PEC must reject an application for a Certificate of Eligibility if the applicant did not submit a community declaration to the Community Committee. The community declaration is essential to the functioning of the certification process for the reserved election system. I will elaborate on the community declaration next. The community certification process serves two main purposes. First, to determine the community to which every person elected as President belongs, for the purposes of determining whether a future election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. Second, to ensure that, in a reserved election, only persons belonging to the community to which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for election. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the first handout?”
“The Schedule stipulates that Dr Wee Kim Wee and Mr Ong Teng Cheong belong to the Chinese community; Mr SR Nathan, who served two terms, belongs to the Indian community, Dr Tony Tan belongs to the Chinese community. The Prime Minister had, in November, announced this during the Second Reading of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill. The Returning Officer is responsible for updating the Schedule after every election. For this purpose, if a community certificate was issued to a person, that person is considered to belong to the community stated on the community certificate. If no community certificate was issued to the person, the person is considered not to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community, nor the Indian or other minority communities. The new section 5B links the reserved election mechanism in the new Article 19B of the Constitution to writs of election issued under the Act and provides for open elections to be held if a reserved election wholly fails. In an open election, a person does not have to belong to any of the three communities − Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other Minority communities − to qualify to be elected as President. Clause 4 amends section 6(3) to require that nomination day must be at least 10 days after the date of the Writ of Election. This is an increase from the current five days. This provides the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) with more time to assess whether potential candidates should be issued a Certificate of Eligibility. We are also introducing changes to the certification process for the Presidential election. The new Division 2 − consisting of new sections 8 to 8D − relates to the PEC and the application process for a Certificate of Eligibility. The key changes are as follows.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The amendments proposed today to the Presidential Elections Act can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments gives effect to the amendments made by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2016. The second category of amendments improve election procedures during the conduct of Presidential elections. The third category of amendments aligns the Act with provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls. I will also be making two announcements on the Presidential elections at the end of my speech. These announcements do not require amendments to the law. Let me begin with the first category of amendments, the category arising from the constitutional amendments made in November last year. The amendment Bill was passed in November after robust debate, putting in place the framework for the changes to the Elected Presidency. The amendments being proposed here today put in place the nuts and bolts of the framework agreed to in November. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed. The new section 5A provides that the new Schedule, inserted by clause 22, has effect for the purpose of determining whether an election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. The new Schedule sets out the terms of office that are counted and the communities that the Presidents who hold these terms belong to. The first term of office to be counted is the last term of office of President Wee Kim Wee, during which he became the first President to exercise the functions created by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991.”
“Mdm Speaker, there are various priority schemes under the MND schemes. It is just like school volunteers. They all have various reasons for the various GRLs to be recognised. But once they have applied for it, the whole process is computerised. What they are eligible for is also similar to all the other schemes.”
“Mdm Speaker, the answers to all the questions that Mr Png asked are as follows: one, the priority balloting goes with all other priority schemes and they all go into the computer and the computer will churn out the results; two, whether they can buy more than one, take up more than one loan, they adhere to all existing schemes available to all Singaporeans.”