Goh Chok Tong
Singapore
“This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode: "The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame...”
“They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them.”
“The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt. PROPERTY AGENTS' COMMISSION RATES 2.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2008, what is the takeup rate for the interim rental housing scheme that is provided to those without homes; (b) what are the reasons given for rejections under this scheme; (c) whether the rental rates were affordable; and (d) how many applicants had rejected the rental…”
“MAS is working with relevant government agencies and stakeholders to study the issue carefully, and to consider the various proposals that have been raised, including the feasibility of introducing a no-fault regime.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on (i) the use of sustainable alternative materials in the construction industry and (ii) the cost of construction materials in view of increasing inflation rates and rising oil prices; and (b) how will the high material and labour cost impact on…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,367 lines we hold for Goh Chok Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 28.
“He explained that having being President for eight years, he would find it awkward to now ask the people to vote him in as President. He said that he loved his work and enjoyed the opportunities for meeting all kinds of people, but he just could not reconcile himself with the need to campaign for votes. He added that at his age, another term of six years is a long time. We then talked about how he would adjust to life after the Presidency. He said that he would continue working to keep his mind and body active. He would rent an apartment in town, turn it into his office, and go there every working day to write his memoirs. He would also invite friends over for lunch as he did when he was President. He then showed me the small computer which he was learning to use. I was amazed that he was learning to manipulate a computer at his age. Mr Speaker, Sir, Wee Kim Wee started life as a humble clerk, and rose to become President of the Republic. Tomorrow, he will be retiring. Singaporeans will long remember him and Mrs Wee with deep affection and respect. With retirement, President Wee's career comes full circle. Mr Wee will again be an ordinary citizen. He will answer his own telephone, be his own clerk, and type his own memoirs. He will have a wealth of experience to write about, many stories to recount, and numerous relatives, friends, associates and acquaintances to recall. But we may not get to read his memoirs. I understand that they are not for publication, but are intended to be his family heirloom. This tribute is not complete without a special word for the First Lady. Like her husband, she took her public role seriously and discharged it with warmth, grace and cheerfulness. Not many people know that Mrs Wee has suffered from severe arthritis for many years.”
“Occasionally, he sent Ministers politely couched notes offering his views and concerns on certain matters based on his own personal experience and observations, or feedback which he had received. President Wee has done a wonderful job. He will be remembered for his friendliness, grace and dignity and as a President who is close to the people. He is the common man with the qualities and temperament of a Head of State, who having achieved the highest position in the land, remains the simple man. On 30th November 1991, the Constitutional amendments which conferred on the President safeguard roles with respect to reserves and integrity of the public service came into effect. The Council of Presidential Advisors was appointed. Under a transitional provision, President Wee Kim Wee exercised all the new powers of the President. This made President Wee's second term of office unique. During it, he has exercised his functions under both the old and the new constitutional arrangements. I am grateful to President Wee for helping to phase in the implementation of these new Constitutional provisions. It has enabled us to test this novel and complex Constitutional provisions and to identify areas which need modifications and adjustments. Because of President Wee's experience, and because he has been such a successful President, he was the Government's first choice to be Singapore's first Elected President. I saw him personally in January to invite him to stand for election as President when his current term expired. He told me that he was already making plans for his retirement. I explained to him why he would be the best person to be the first Elected President. He asked for time to think over. He asked to see me about a month later. He declined the Government's invitation.”
“President Wee's simplicity reflects his humble background. His father was a clerk who became blind at the age of 45 and died when Wee Kim Wee was only eight. The family survived by rearing poultry in the compound of a benefactor. When Wee Kim Wee was only 15 years old, he stopped school to work and ease the family's financial burden. He started as a clerk in the circulation department of the Straits Times. Through ability and diligence, he progressed from clerk to reporter in the Straits Times, from correspondent to manager in United Press Association and, eventually, to Editorial Manager in the Straits Times. Two years before he was due to retire, he was appointed Singapore's High Commissioner to Malaysia. Later, he became Ambassador to Japan and the Republic of Korea, and also Chairman of SBC. During his eight years in office as President, President Wee's dedication to duty was exemplary. In 1989, he underwent two operations, one for cancer of the rectum and the other for a prostate problem. I visited him in hospital. He was cheerful. He said that he had had a good innings, and that if it was time for him to go, it was time to go. Happily he recovered, and resumed his heavy schedule. President Wee has gained the admiration, respect and affection of Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, language and religion. Apart from the official functions, there were other facets of his work which he did not want publicised. For example, he quietly visited welfare homes and charitable organisations, and supported their activities and functions. He encouraged them and boosted their morale. He also regularly invited public-spirited Singaporeans for lunch or tea at the Istana.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to pay tribute to President Wee Kim Wee for his outstanding service to Singapore. On 30th August 1985, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in this House when he moved the motion on the election of Mr Wee Kim Wee as President of the Republic of Singapore: `What Singapore needs in a President is a man of integrity and dignity. He (Mr Wee) is without affectations. His easy manner and his understanding of people will make a good Head of State.' I did not know President Wee personally until he became President. Mr S. Rajaratnam proposed him. He was one of several names considered. I supported his nomination. I trusted the judgment of Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Ministers who knew him well. President Wee is exactly what Mr Lee described - a man of integrity and dignity, without affectations, and who genuinely loves people. As Prime Minister, I have called on President Wee regularly to brief him on the Government's agenda and priorities, and to keep in touch. Though the President reads all Cabinet papers, I felt it useful to let him know my thinking face to face. My calls usually lasted for about an hour. Through these calls and other occasions, I got to know him as a person and as a friend. I learnt that he strongly disliked people who put on airs, people who look down on others less successful than themselves. He was concerned that many better-off Singaporeans were measuring a person's worth by the make of his car and the size of his house. He urged me to try and reverse this unhealthy trend. Some people change when they acquire wealth, power or fame. They become embarrassed by their humble origins, or look down on others they have left behind. But not President Wee. He remains very much the common man.”
“Sir, there is no problem whatsoever, if we can have a practical solution. As far as I know, I do not think there is any allegation of fraudulent practices. There is a practical problem, because if you have a GRC with four candidates on one side, another four candidates on the other side, altogether there will be eight candidates, and eight election agents may have to follow in the bus for each GRC contested. But, in principle, there should be no objection. If you want to check, we have no worry whatsoever, because we run a clean system. I would put this to the Elections Office to see whether they can accommodate Mr Chiam's request. But I would suggest that we study the amendment to the Presidential Elections Act where, for the coming Presidential election, we intend to decentralise the counting of votes. When counting is decentralised, the practical problem, which I thought there may be, would not arise. As for rally sites, the matter is determined by the Police. They have to take into account the safety of the people and candidates attending the rallies. If you have rallies in car parks near HDB estates, projectiles and missiles may be thrown from upstairs down at the speakers at the rally site. And also there may be traffic problems and other inconveniences caused to residents. In fact, the Police is quite concerned over the behaviour of certain parties in the last two or three elections. The crowd was boisterous, cars were banged and vans were being rocked by some opposition supporters. I understand that the Police is, in fact, considering that, in future elections, rallies should be held in areas which are further away from housing sites, for example, in athletic centres and in open fields so that inconveniences will not be caused to residents.”
“He or she will have to fight for his or her place in Parliament, based on excellence and competence, on the strength of character, commitment, dedication, his or her willingness to serve the community. That is the approach which I would take. NMP, yes, we can use that as a device to bring in more women. But again we must locate the right person, and that person will have to get her friends to nominate her into Parliament. Then it is up to Parliament to decide whether that person is of sufficient quality to be appointed by Parliament. For NMP, we can control the quality. I will not support the suggestion that we bring in women through requiring GRCs to have a woman as a candidate.”
“Because schools, too, conduct remedial classes for their students. In fact, that is the best place to do so. I agree with Dr Soin on that. But despite that, many parents still send their children for tuition classes. These private tuition classes can be very expensive. If we do not organise these tuition classes outside the school for the poorer parents, I think the poorer parents will lose out. Because on their own too, they are looking for ways to advance the interest of their children, sending them to classes organised by RCs, or even engaging tutors and paying them quite a hefty sum. These community self-help organisations, therefore, play a role in supplementing the effort by the Ministry of Education and by the schools in conducting remedial classes for students who require further assistance. On women in politics and more women in Parliament, personally I would like to see at least eight women in Parliament. Why eight? That is a convenient 10% of Parliament. If we can do more than that, I would be very happy. Dr Soin has suggested two ways for us to bring in more women into Parliament. One is to modify the GRC scheme. Have a requirement that the GRC must include a woman. I do not think that is a very good idea because we want people of quality in Parliament. I do not think we want them to be in just because they are women. In you insist on tagging a woman to the GRC, it could well be that if you cannot find the right person to contest, you just have to grab any woman to be in the GRC because without a woman, the other candidates cannot contest in the GRC. That is one point. I think a more important point is that there should be no discrimination against anyone coming into Parliament.”
“In other words, CPIB is not satisfied that the man is in the clear totally. So it cannot issue a letter. It is unfortunate that the man suffers a stigma. But the best way not to suffer a stigma is not to be corrupt. It is as simple as that. As for Dr Soin's question on ethnic-based tuition classes, first, let me say that the three self-help organisations are not conducting tuition classes on the basis of ethnicity. They came about in a very natural and practical way. The Malay community wanted to help members of their own community, and the way for them to do so is to reach out to their members emotionally, which means the Malay leaders must do what they could to help the Malay under-performers. So we started off with MENDAKI. MENDAKI has proven to be successful and, of course, the Indian community wanted to follow. Surely, we cannot say that the Indian community should not follow. For the same reason that MENDAKI has succeeded, SINDA is succeeding. The Indian leaders are able to reach out emotionally to the Indian under-performers. They are now conducting classes successfully. People are enroling. Once we have the Indian and the Malay communities doing tuition classes for their own communities, surely, the Chinese under-class would expect the Chinese leaders in the community to do likewise. So they also started to form their own self-help organisation, CDAC. These are organised, therefore, along community lines, but they are not ethnic-based organisations in the sense of promoting other interests related to the ethnic group. It is a way to reach out to people who need help in a most practical and efficient manner. I support this approach. I think it is the right approach. The results show that this approach is correct. Yes, they duplicate the MOE's remedial classes.”
“If the MP concerned is unable to explain how he had acquired these assets, or why he had not declared them, he will be charged for corruption. 1.00 pm As for Mr Chia's remarks on the CPIB showing more compassion, it is a matter which CPIB has got to judge for itself how it can handle its investigation. I understand that the CPIB is, in fact, quite compassionate in the way it handles cases. The Director of CPIB assured me that, wherever he could, he would allow, for example, appointments which the person might have made to be carried out so that they would not clash with the interview required of him by CPIB. If he has to see a doctor he would be permitted to do so. So there is a soft touch in handling this. But, nevertheless, a firm hand must be there. Because if you show too much compassion and people think that we have a very soft CPIB, then, of course, corruption will again rear its ugly head. The CPIB has got to be very discreet. It is discreet in its inquiry. Sometimes, people are inquired into and nothing is found against them. Mr Chia's point is that that particular person may suffer a stigma. If that person thinks that he has not done anything wrong, he can apply to the Director of CPIB, who may consider, on request, writing to this particular person who has been investigated, informing him of the result of the investigation. That is provided that CPIB is sure that the man is in the clear. But very often the CPIB cannot issue such a letter because whilst a person cannot be charged in court because evidence is lacking, nevertheless, there could be reasons for that. Witnesses might not have been cooperative and maybe there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in court, or witnesses might not be available for interview, or there could be other reasons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chia Shi Teck asked whether the number of corrupt cases in the public service has gone down and how many cases were investigated and so on. I do not have the statistics with me. If Mr Chia wants to know more precisely the trend of corrupt cases in public office, I would suggest he ask a Question and I can give him a specific answer. I would, however, want to reiterate a very important point, a very basic point, ie, I intend to uphold the highest standard of honesty and integrity in Singapore. When the Senior Minister took over the Government in 1959, he inherited from the colonial government a corrupt society. The civil service was corrupt. I understand that at that time if you wanted to apply for a SIT flat, you had to pay for it. SIT was the Singapore Improvement Trust, the forerunner of today's HDB. And if you wanted to get a driving licence when you could not drive properly, you could also buy what was called a "kopi" licence. If you installed electrical wiring in your home and you wanted to have it passed, again you had to pay for it. I am very fortunate. I inherited from Mr Lee Kuan Yew a corrupt free society and I have every intention to make sure that Singapore remains corrupt free. I will not let standards drop. And everybody should know that corruption in any form will not be tolerated. I expect all Ministers, all MPs and all public officers to set good examples for others to follow. All PAP MPs declare to me their family assets and all Ministers, including the Prime Minister, declare to the President their family assets. This is for their protection. If there is any allegation against any MP or Minister of assets wrongfully or corruptly gained, the CPIB will investigate.”
“Mr Chiam, if you meant it as a compliment, I accept it. The question is whether you would state categorically that you support the scheme. Would you say so, Mr Chiam?”
“Yes. The new accounts may be one million and I hope there will be one million new accounts to take advantage of this. So by your reckoning, we are locking up $500 million because we have one million accounts. But you can take it out after six months if you are not working. Is that not a good deal?”
“Right. It is not $7 million but $700 million. But the $700 million will comprise two components, $200 million from the Government and $500 million which belong to the people. Most of them would have this amount put into their CPF accounts anyway because they are working Singaporeans. So there is nothing extra which you need to put in. You may be referring to the one million CPF accounts which may be opened to take advantage of this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment, we have some one million active CPF accounts and we think that all these active accounts will benefit from the CPF Top-up Scheme. But my own estimation is that we should be able to bring in another million into this scheme, because if you have the funds it would be silly if you do not use the funds to help your parents to take advantage of this Top-up Scheme. The $200 million is based conservatively on the one million accounts, but I believe that we will be disbursing more than $200 million. I do hope that as many Singaporeans as possible would take advantage of this scheme and I hope to see, if possible, closer to 2 million CPF account holders benefiting from this scheme. But if Mr Chiam wishes to opt out, then of courseit is his right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a conceptual share. When you put in $500 into your CPF account, conceptually you own a share. It is your $500. You cannot sell it. But you can use that to buy Singapore Telecom shares or shares of other statutory boards when they are turned into companies. Then, of course, it is up to you. If you want to sell them to the rich, so be it. But then you will benefit from the capital appreciation. If you sell them below the price you paid, which I do not think will happen, unless of course the economy collapses and then it is the fault of Singaporeans, the choice is up to the individual. So if you want to sell it to the rich, it is your right to do so. But I would advise you to keep it for as long as possible because this place is going to succeed and the shares which you hold are going to go up in value. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“The HDB Upgrading Programme will benefit HDB owners living in older housing estates by increasing the capital value of their flats. The sale of HDB shophouses to tenants will benefit the hardworking families who provide us with convenient shopping close to our homes. The Edusave programme will benefit all eligible students in schools. When Edusave is fully operational, every eligible student can expect to receive $4,000 during his 10 years in school. The CPF Top-up Scheme will benefit every Singaporean over 21, rich, middle class or poor. Like Edusave, every citizen gets the same absolute dollar amount. But in relative terms, the benefits mean more to the less well-off. Of the four components, the CPF Top-up Scheme has the most promise of reinforcing the virtuous cycle of effort, economic growth and wealth creation. It can go on for as long as Singaporeans work hard and Singapore Inc. enjoys strong budgetary surpluses. We intend to top up your CPF periodically, not every year, but when Singapore Inc. has the surpluses to do so. Nearly all Singaporeans already own their homes. We should now work to give every Singaporean a tangible share in the Singapore economy. This share will appreciate in value provided we work hard and we do well. Every Singaporean has a stake in the Singapore economy and every Singaporean has a stake in Singapore's success. The CPF Top-up Scheme will bring this home forcefully to every citizen. [Applause].”
“We can do this provided we keep taxes low and growth high. We therefore must eschew soft-headed welfare policies and confine Government spending to essentials. This is your surest guarantee that the GST rate will not increase above 3% after five years. There will be more opportunities for Singaporeans to acquire shares in Singapore Inc. when we convert other statutory boards into public companies and list them on the Stock Exchange. Singapore Telecom, PUB and PSA are part of the infrastructure of the Singapore economy. Their performance reflects the Singapore economy's performance. If they are run well, the Singapore economy will grow. Conversely, when the Singapore economy grows, they will be profitable. Singaporeans with shares in these companies literally own a piece of the Singapore economy. They will have a direct stake in Singapore's success. Their shares will appreciate so long as the Singapore economy continues to grow. This way, we increase the assets of Singaporeans - through capital appreciation of their blue-chip shares. But the CPF Top-up Scheme is not a handout. That is why we require you to put in $500 in your CPF account to buy a share in Singapore Inc. The $500 is evidence of your contribution to the Singapore economy. It can be present contribution, it can also be contribution from your past savings. The CPF Top-up Scheme is only one component of the Government's assets enlargement programme. The other components are HDB upgrading, sale of tenanted HDB shops and Edusave. Each of these components has its unique features, but all of them will benefit lower income Singaporeans more than the upper income Singaporeans. They redistribute wealth. They will help Singaporeans to level up.”
“And if you are over 55 years and working, you can withdraw the sum after three years. The rule says that you can withdraw once every three years after 55. And if you are not working for six months, that is, unemployed for six months prior to the date of withdrawal, you can take it out after six months. In other words, a retiree who puts in $500 and does not wish to buy Singapore Telecom shares can withdraw $700 after six months, not 30 years, as Mr Chiam has said. This is a hefty 40% return after six months. We intend to credit this $200 automatically if a person has contributed $500 into his CPF account between 1st March and 31st August. It is automatic credit. But we should not force anyone to accept the $200, if he does not want it. So I am going to ask CPF to print opt-out forms and place them at convenient places in Potong Pasir, Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central. I do not know about Hougang. Did the MP there support the scheme? If he did, then I would not place any forms there. Let us see how many Potong Pasir residents and SDP supporters will opt out. The $200 top-up this year will not be a one-off exercise. So long as Singapore Inc. shows healthy profits and the Government accumulates strong budget surpluses, we will top up from time to time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Its job is to manage the Singapore economy in such a way that it turns in a profit every year. The profit is economic growth. Part of it shows up as the budget surplus. As employees of Singapore Inc., Singaporeans are paid in accordance with their ability, performance and contribution. But they are equal shareholders. This is the crucial difference between employees of Singapore Inc. and employees of other companies. They have equal shares of the company. For Singapore Inc. to succeed, all its employees and shareholders must, in turn, be committed to work for its success. The Board of Directors must also provide dynamic leadership and sound judgement to lead Singapore Inc. from strength to strength. The CPF Top-up Scheme is a way to realise this idea. If you put $500 into your CPF account between 1st March and 31st August this year, we will, in effect, issue you a share scrip stating that you own one share of Singapore Inc. Your share will entitle you to an immediate dividend of $200 this year. This is 40% return on your capital. It will entitle you to purchase several hundred Singapore Telecom shares at a discount later this year. The total discount will be substantial, and the capital gain hefty, not immediately but over a few years. Mr Chiam See Tong says that the CPF Top-up Scheme has a catch. The Government puts in $200 to lock up your $500 for 30 years. As usual, he distorts and exaggerates. The fact is that the $700, that is, $500 plus $200, can be withdrawn after 1st September subject to the CPF rules of withdrawal. You can use the $700 to buy shares, properties, or gold. You can withdraw it at 55 years. If you are 54 years old, you can withdraw the $700 in a year's time, not 30 years.”
“We want to strengthen the virtuous cycle of effort, growth and wealth creation through the CPF Top-up Scheme. This is the rationale for the scheme. We intend to make Singaporeans owners of the Singapore economy through ownership of blue-chip shares. We intend to build up their assets through regular declaration of dividends and capital appreciation of their shares. The Government is the trustee of Singaporeans' collective wealth and guardian of their future. The reserves that we have built up belong to all Singaporeans, not to a few people in the Government. But it is the Government's job as trustee to protect the reserves and safeguard Singaporeans' future against contingencies. Unfortunately, some Singaporeans fail to see how these reserves directly benefit them. They do not understand that it is because of the reserves that the Singapore dollar is strong and, therefore, the value of their CPF savings is safeguarded and preserved. They do not see how the reserves give investors confidence in the Singapore economy. They do not believe that, despite the rosy prospects for the economy, we may one day run into an unexpected prolonged recession and then the reserves will prove very handy. So they are sceptical when the Government builds up more reserves, and such an attitude has been encouraged by the Opposition. We hope to change this attitude through the CPF Top-up Scheme. This is how it works. Imagine that we incorporate a company called Singapore Incorporated, or Singapore Inc., to own and run Singapore. All Singaporeans are employees of Singapore Inc. But they are also shareholders. Each has one share. In other words, Singaporeans, both you and I, work for and own Singapore Inc. The Government is the Board of Directors of Singapore Inc.”
“Mr Chiam and his SDP colleagues are doing this to win votes. If they succeed in pushing the politics of envy, Singapore will go down the drain. The middle class will envy the rich, the upper class. The poor will envy everyone else. The well-off, instead of helping others to succeed, will react by developing a me-first mentality, and seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of society. Our society will be torn apart. The virtuous cycle that we have so carefully built up over the years will turn vicious. People will seek to knock down the system of meritocracy, instead of using it to raise themselves, to climb the ladder, to do better, to go higher. They will demand more welfare programmes, more handouts. This will mean raising taxes. Higher taxes will discourage everyone from working his best. Companies will go elsewhere where taxes are lower. Investments will fall, so will economic growth. Incomes will stagnate. As people become poorer, they will demand still more assistance from the state. The state will have to raise taxes again. A vicious cycle sets in - welfare programmes, more taxes, slower economic growth, demand for even more subsidies, and so on. We should admire and emulate those with ability and wealth, not envy or hate successful people. Without natural resources, our wealth is all man-made. The able do more than their share in creating wealth and generating surpluses for the country. If they are squeezed, or levelled down, the surpluses will quickly disappear. We will have no more budget surpluses to worry about, and no more resources to help the less able and the poor. We cannot allow the "red eye" disease to infect Singapore. That will be the end of Singapore.”
“They pay some taxes, but much less than the benefits they receive from the system. They work hard to improve themselves. There is economic growth, employment and wealth leading to more growth, higher wages. We are in a virtuous cycle. In a free market economy underpinned by meritocracy, the distribution of incomes cannot be completely equal. The able and more hardworking will earn more than those less able and less hardworking. Someone will always be at the bottom of the income ladder. This cannot be helped. Even in Communist countries, like China and the former Soviet Union, people at the top earn many times more than those at the bottom. In addition, the top people in these countries enjoy generous benefits in kind, like free housing and first-class medical care. This can amount to many times the cash salary. If you take them into account, the ratio of top and bottom incomes is much higher. The question for us is whether the lowest 20% live in abject poverty, or are only poor in comparison with others. If it is absolute poverty, we must eradicate it. No Singaporean should live below subsistence level. Indeed, hardly any Singaporean does. But we cannot eliminate relative poverty. There will always be the bottom 20%, no matter what we do. I have no quarrel with the SDP, or anyone else, who argues that we should do more for the poor. That is exactly what the PAP has been doing all these years, is doing, and will continue to do. But I totally oppose the way the SDP seeks to agitate Singaporeans through the politics of envy. The SDP deliberately exaggerates the gap between the better-off and the rest. It paints a distorted picture of Singapore society, to arouse jealousy and class resentment. It offers no solutions to improve things, to solve problems.”
“But the truth is we do subsidize productive social programmes heavily - housing, education, and health. On average, a typical Singaporean living in a 3-room flat will receive direct subsidies amounting to about $70,000 during his lifetime. Housing - about $35,000; education - about $25,000 for 10 years of primary and secondary education; health - about $10,000, assuming normal rate of C class utilisation - a total of $70,000. The income tax he pays over his working life, say, he has a monthly income of $1,500, for 40 years, is about $20,000. With GST and the various rebates, he will not have to pay income tax. Even if he spends his entire income of $1,500 a month on goods and services which attract GST, his maximum GST per year at 3% is $540. Over 40 years, this comes to $21,600 - less than one-third of the direct subsidies he can expect to receive. This ignores the many indirect benefits of being a Singaporean, for example, security, law and order and the large investments in the infrastructure of Singapore. Who pays for his subsidies? Mostly the more successful Singaporeans. They pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. For example, in 1991, the top 10% taxpayers paid 76% of the total personal income tax collected. Even with the revised income tax rates, higher earners will be the major payers of tax, both income tax and GST. They have more money to spend, they will spend more, and so they will pay more GST. This system has worked well. It has served us very well. The able strive, become successful and well-off. They pay more taxes, but not so much as to force them to emigrate, under-perform, or find creative ways to avoid paying taxes. They have the incentive to create more wealth. The less able are helped along to improve themselves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget is indeed a landmark budget. This is so not because of its plethora of incentives, rebates, offsets, goodies. But because it sets new directions in three major areas. It lays the foundation for a fundamental reform of our tax system, from a narrower - based income tax to a broader - based GST. It introduces significant incentives for our businessmen to invest outside Singapore, in particular, in the region. It puts in place a new mechanism to reinforce support for good policies - the CPF Top-up Scheme to help Singaporeans own a stake of the economy. The Finance Minister has explained the need for tax reform and the GST in his Budget speech. You have heard the arguments for adding an international wing to our domestic economic wing. I want to explain the philosophy behind the CPF Top-up Scheme. The Government's primary duty is to build the right conditions for Singaporeans to create wealth for themselves. These conditions include security, law and order, political stability, social discipline, a level playing field, the free market, meritocracy and reward in accordance with a person's ability, performance and contribution. Within this framework, how wealthy a person becomes depends on himself. If he has the ability and puts in the effort, he will do well. If he has exceptional ability, entrepreneurial spirit and good business sense, he can become extremely wealthy. In short, the more successful Singaporeans will end up better off than the less successful Singaporeans. This does not mean that the less successful Singaporeans are ignored. We will help them, and their children, to do better. We oppose welfare programmes and soft-headed solutions to hard problems.”
“The Council works behind the scene and leaves the implementing agencies to execute the programmes. Because of this, it takes a low profile. I shall ask the Chairman, Mr Lim, to consider ways to raise this profile so that young Singaporeans can identify with it. I hope young Singaporeans can contribute ideas as well as dedicate themselves to Singapore's future prosperity and progress. It is their future really. ALLOCATION OF HDB FLATS (Concessions to families affected by rent de-control) 11. Mr Loh Meng See asked the Minister for National Development whether concessions will be given to families living in shop-houses in the City Area affected by rent de-control to be allocated Housing and Development Board flats early.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sentiment of Mr Chia Shi Teck behind this question. Our youths are a precious asset and their needs and aspirations should be specially catered for. It was for this reason that, as Deputy Prime Minister, I set up an Advisory Council on Youth in 1988. The Council was asked to identify the needs, interests and aspirations of youths, review Government's policies and programmes affecting youths, and to recommend new programmes to enable our youths to maximise their potential and contribute towards nation building. The Council was chaired by BG Lee Hsien Loong and included many young Singaporeans. It published its Report in February 1989. The Member may wish to read it. Amongst other things, the Council studied the need for the Ministry of Youth and Sports. It observed: 'Singapore does not really need a Ministry of Youth as we do not need an agency to undertake administrative functions. We need one to set directions and coordinate. A National Youth Council is recommended to assume these functions.' The Advisory Council's recommendation not to have a separate Ministry of Youth and Sports remains valid. Youths' needs are diverse covering education, training, employment, housing, health, the arts, sports and recreation. At present, their needs are effectively met by the various functional Ministries. The National Youth Council was set up in 1989. The Council's current Chairman is the Minister of State for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang. Youth organisations and Government agencies providing services for youths are represented on the Council. The Council identifies and plans programmes to meet the needs of youths in education, training, employment opportunities, sports and recreation. It also coordinates youth exchanges with other countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Opposition MP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, can come up with a superior idea, we will certainly consider it. But his proposal is far from superior.”
“Sir, the matter has been looked into some years ago. That is how we ended up with the concept of the NCMP and also Nominated MPs. There is no need to have another electoral reform committee to look into it. The GRC is also an innovation to take into account the unique situation of Singapore, and there is no need whatsoever for us to have another committee to look into electoral reforms. We are clear that proportional representation is the wrong system for Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not need to give 40% of the seats to the Opposition just because they won 40% of the votes in order for their views to be articulated in Parliament. One person from such a party will be sufficient to articulate all the views that need to be articulated over here. How would the proposal of half the number of seats based on the first-past-the-postm system and the other half of the seats based on proportional representation be superior to the system that we have, which is to elect a government in an election? The whole idea of having an election is for the people to decide decisively on a party to form the government. And under our system we make provision for those voters who do not see their candidates returned in Parliament to have a certain number of seats so that their views could be articulated over here. He has now shifted ground from the suggestion of a proportional representation to half-half, but this still does not solve the problem of parties being organised along racial lines, along religious lines, to win the other half of the seats. By compromising his proposal, he is in fact recognising that his proposal is a weak one.”
“It does not make sense that we have to republish all the registers for the new amalgamated constituencies. All we need to do is just to use the current registers of those constituencies which have been amalgamated as the register for the newly-created constituency. The same should apply for existing constituencies where there is no change to the boundaries, eg, where it is decided to have four MPs instead of three in a GRC. The amendment before the Committee is to meet this point. It provides that where a new constituency is created by amalgamating the whole of two or more constituencies, the existing registers of voters for those constituencies will be taken as the register for the new constituency. This will also be the case for any existing constituency whose boundary has not changed. This applies to both single-member constituencies and GRCs. The amendment also gives the discretion to the Minister to direct otherwise. This is in case the registers are not current and should be updated. This is consistent with the provision in section 10 giving the discretion to the Minister. Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Sir, I have earlier explained that, following the provisions of the Constitutional amendments on the Elected President, we have to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act so that a GRC can return either three or four MPs each. A new GRC for three or four MPs can be created in several other ways. First, parts of two or more constituencies can be carved up and joined to create a new constituency. In that case, the boundaries of several constituencies will obviously be affected. It is clear in such a case that there will be a need for a new register of voters. This is because the names of voters in the newly created constituency will be found in various parts of other registers. Another situation could be where the entire of two or more single-member constituencies are joined up to form a new GRC constituency. A third scenario is where an existing GRC (without any change to its boundary) is joined up with another single-member constituency. In the second and third situations, since it is the whole of the constituencies which are being merged, and since there is no splitting up of any constituency, their existing registers of voters would be unaffected and can still be used. However, section 10 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, read with section 8, would require new registers of electors to be created even for the second and third situations which I described. This requirement is really not necessary. To illustrate: suppose all the registers of electors had been revised in December 1993. Suppose we then decide to have general elections in the first quarter of 1994. Suppose some new constituencies are created purely by the amalgamation of the whole of two or more existing constituencies.”
“If he thinks there will be a backlash because of the change in have more GRCs, surely he and Dr Lee Siew-Choh should welcome our stupid move, is it not? Because it must be the height of absurdity for me to miscalculate or misjudge the electorate. I think he does not believe that we have made a mistake in our judgment. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Amendment of Section 20 of the principal Act is section 20. amended by inserting, immediately after subsection (2), the following subsection: "(3) Where a new electoral division is created under section 8 by the amalgamation of the whole of two or more existing electoral divisions, or where there is no change in the boundary of any electoral division specified in a notification under section 8(1), section 10 shall not apply to that electoral division unless the Minister otherwise directs; and the certified registers of electors in operation for those existing electoral divisions which have been amalgamated to form any new electoral division shall be deemed to be the register of electors in operation for that new electoral division at the next general election.".". - [The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence]. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Hence, the need to change the upper limit of the number of MPs to be returned by GRCs from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is essentially a consequential Bill. It follows on the passing of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, 1991 on 3rd January. That Bill, apart from providing for the election of the President, also provided for GRCs to return either three or four MPs each. As I explained during the Second Reading debate on 4th October, 1990, this GRC provision is to facilitate a constituency which has grown between general elections to be served by an additional MP, if necessary, instead of breaking up the GRC. Parliament, in enacting the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, has approved this particular amendment. Consequently, we need to make similar amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act. The amendment will give the Electoral Boundary Review Committee flexibility when it reviews electoral boundaries. This would minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them. The Bill also seeks to change the upper limit of the number of MPs to be returned by all GRCS from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs. At present, the number of MPs to be returned by GRCs cannot exceed one-half of the total number of MPs to be returned at a general election. Since some GRCs will now have four MPs each, clause 3, sub-clause (c) of the Bill proposes that the maximum number of MPs to be returned by GRCs be increased from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs. This is because it takes only two GRCs to have four MPs each to breach the upper limit of one-half, assuming that there is no change in the number of elected MPs. At present, 39 out of 81 elected MPs are returned by 13 GRCs.”
“When you have a good government and a good President, then there is a safeguard for the system, a safeguard which will ensure that a high standard of government can be maintained. If you have a bad government and a good President, that is only half a safeguard. If you have a bad government and a bad President, I think everything is gone for the country. So my advice is: settle for the best, both in Government as well as in the Presidency. [Applause.]”
“They have made very useful contributions to a very important Bill, one which will secure our system, one which will make our system works much better in the future. But we should not run away with the conclusion that because we now have an Elected President, who functions like a goalkeeper, we can now be freer with our vote in electing a government. The Elected President can only prevent the reserves from being drawn down and can only prevent a bad government from appointing wrong people to important jobs. But there are many ways to bankrupt a country. A bad government can have, for example, a wrong foreign policy which antagonizes our neighbours and causes Singapore to lose respect among the international community of nations. A bad government can begin to run down your defences, and diminish the importance of the SAF in securing Singapore's future. A bad government can spend funds, which should be rightly spent on education, on an necessary welfare programmes which will weaken the very pillars of our society. There are many ways in which a country can go wrong if we have a bad government. So do not go away with the impression that now that we have the Elected President in position, we can be freer with our votes, it does not matter, just return any government and the Elected President there will function as a safety net. That is the wrong approach. For our system to work, the voter must again exercise wisdom in casting his vote. He must cast it in a manner that will return the best party to form the government and in a manner that will ensure the best man is returned when there is a Presidential election.”
“Far from turning the clock back, he will realise that his presence in Parliament is the result of the Government turning the clock forward, because under the old system, he would not have been in Parliament. We have changed the rules so that he is in Parliament even though he was not elected. That is one contradiction in his speech. Another contradiction is when he wants the PEC members to declare whether they are members of any political party. I sense that he would want the PEC to be non-political, that means, no nominations, no nominees from political parties. But as he argued that we should expand the number of PEC members from the present number to 11, the truth came out. He wanted to include the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party in it. He also wanted to put in the SDP and the PAP, but I am sure he would rather keep out those two. But that is the contradiction. He wants to depoliticize the PEC in the first place and, in the next breath, he argues for the inclusion of Secretary-Generals of political parties. I need not go into other examples. The important point is that the opposition parties have not come up with a better alternative to the system that we have. They have agreed that there should be a check and balance to the system but there is no viable alternative to the one which we have proposed before this House. The other smaller points I can leave them to time, that means, work the system and, in the light of experience, we can change the provisions to accommodate further viewpoints and further changes, as necessary. I just want to conclude by thanking Members once again for their contributions. I am gratified by the scale of participation and by the depth of analysis shown by Members as well as those who had appeared before the Select Committee.”
“For example, he asked: how does the PEC intend to satisfy itself that a Presidential candidate is of good character? Do we need him to be issued him with a good conduct certificate? This administrative arrangement we can leave to the PEC. When the PEC is formed, I am sure it will work out its own rules and work out its own method of evaluating candidates. He argued that there is no need for political parties to campaign on behalf of the Elected President. The Select Committee has gone through this point - whether we should or should not allow parties to campaign. We think they should because, although the President's position is an important one and although the public thinks it should be non-political, we have got to be clear that the President's position is in fact a political one. The President is elected to oversee two areas of government. It is a political position. We can require him to sever his links with the political party but that position requires a man of political experience, and ability, to judge matters politically. If there is a good candidate, and the parties are going to campaign for him, I do not think we should disallow them from doing so. And because we now require him to delink his ties with his particular political party, he owes no obligation to whoever wants to campaign for him. But parties, like citizens, should be allowed to campaign for the Elected President. Dr Lee's speech reveals nothing unusual. It is his usual tirade against the PAP. It is a political speech, but full of contradictions. If I may just point out one or two contradictions. One, he argued that the Government is turning the clock back in pre-qualifying candidates and in reducing the number of people who can be eligible to become candidates.”
“Dr Koh Lam Son suggested that the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisors should be appointed by the Presidential Elections Committee. The PEC is structured to perform a very specific role and, that is, to vet candidates for election as a President. I do not think we want to widen that role to include nomination of Chairmanship for the CPA. The CPA is already so structured that it is balanced. The Elected President nominates two, the Prime Minister nominates two, and the Chairman, PSC nominates one. Let us try out the system of five members for the CPA and, if need be, we will have a grace period of four years to revise this composition. Mr Goh Choon Kang made a point that the grace period should be confined to the remaining period of President Wee Kim Wee's term. I think the President's term allows us time to work the system. But it is wiser for us to extend the period of working the system to the time when we have an Elected President. Because when you have a President who is elected, further problems could be thrown up and we lose nothing by extending it by another two years. In other words, stretch the grace period to four years instead of limiting it to two or three years. I am all in favour of moving cautiously, as you can see from the way I have taken this Bill through Parliament, and I would argue for a longer period of four years so that the technical provisions can be dealt with. Otherwise, once we invoke that Article on referendum where provisions have to be changed, it becomes quite messy for us to change the provisions. Dr Vasoo raised a number of points which he wanted an answer but I am not sure whether we want to go into the details of the points he raised, because in working the system, if we need to revise the rules, we can do so.”
“Why is it we require these of a medical practitioner when we do not think it necessary for the position of President which, in my view, is a far more important position than being a doctor to patients? On a less important issue, but still coming under this question of pre-qualification, is the one on minimum age. Mr Goh Choon Kang suggests that 45 is too high a minimum age, and it should perhaps be lowered. The question is: should we or should we not have a minimum age? If the answer is yes, then it is a question of judgement what be the minimum age should be. And there must be a minimum age because you cannot go down below 21 or 18. To be an MP, the age is 21. There is a minimum age. So it is purely a question of judgment. The Select Committee believes that 45 is a good age. At that age a person is sufficiently mature, has gained sufficient experience in life, has seen the world and should be able to judge people. One can argue that at 44, you too can have them, but I think 45 is a convenient cut-off point. If you have an exceptional candidate below 45 who is eminently qualified to be a President and he cannot under the rule, I would say that is not a bad thing because that man should, in fact, as a start, stand for elections and become the Prime Minister or a Minister. I think there is no loss to the system. The Elected President's position is an important one but it is a less active role than that of a Prime Minister. If we have a young man or a young lady who can become a President, I think that person too has got the potential to become a Prime Minister. So let him serve through the other route. And when he is above 45, if he chooses to be a President later on, he can still be. Let me deal with the various points raised by Members this afternoon.”
“In other words, the criteria drawn up do not exclude a person like Prof Tommy Koh, which was the argument used by Dr Koh Lam Son that we are so stringent that a person like him would be disqualified. We place great store on financial knowledge and expertise because this is one key area in which we expect the President to exercise judgment. Unless he has knowledge of finances and is able to evaluate reports, he will not be able to perform his job well. So you have got to ensure that Presidential candidates do have the ability, first, to read accounts; secondly, to understand them, to evaluate them and, most importantly, to make a judgment whether to exercise his veto power or to agree with the government of the day should they wish to draw on reserves for certain well-argued cases. Again on these pre-qualifications, I would like to ask Dr Koh Lam Son and also Dr Lee Siew-Choh Ž both of them are doctors Ž whether anyone should be allowed to become a doctor and how long it takes to become a doctor. Compare the position of the President with that of a medical practitioner Ž which is a more demanding position, which is more critical, which affects people's life more? The answer is obvious. The President has a greater impact on Singaporeans' lives than a doctor. To be a doctor, first, you have got to get through your "0" level, "A" level, and then enter a medical school (five years, 1 year housemanship Ž six years altogether) and then you have got to satisfy the Medical Council that you are a person of integrity. There are stringent tests for a person to become a doctor and for him to remain a doctor.”
“Let us assume that the PAP does not practise pre-qualifications and we follow the Workers' Party's method. Do you think we will end up with a workable government, a workable Parliament? If you run through the list of candidates who stood for the Workers' Party, in every election one can find many candidates with very obvious character flaws who should not be standing for elections in the first place. So what is democracy all about? It is not the right to stand for election. It is giving the electorate the right to choose good candidates to Parliament. If you do not give the people a choice, then they are choosing between two bad candidates. But if you pre-qualify them, and you allow good candidates to emerge and be chosen, you can be sure that only good ones will be chosen returned to Parliament. Now, the question is whether the criteria are too stringent or whether we should not lower them to widen the pool, as some Members have argued. I think the present criteria as spelt out are sufficient to draw in good people. They are not so high as to limit the numbers to four or five potential candidates. I think a large number of Singaporeans can meet the criteria. I would not want to mention any name. But Dr Koh Lam Son suggested that Prof Tommy Koh will not be qualified under the criteria. I do not think we should pre-judge the issue. If Prof Tommy Koh chooses to stand for election as a Presidential candidate, I think he can appear before the PEC. He can prove that he has ample experience in dealing with the Law of the Sea, very complicated and complex law with financial provisions, and I think the PEC would, in my view, find him eligible to stand for election as a candidate.”
“Have they succeeded in producing a good government which can deliver a better life for their people? I think the answer is that most of them have not done so, and they have experimented with all forms of democracy. The facts speak for themselves. What we are trying to do here in Singapore is to evolve a Singapore-style of democracy, one that suits our circumstances, one that will be workable for us, one that is practicable and efficient. We have practised this parliamentary form of democracy for many years. Do we change or do we not change the system? We have gone through the arguments and we have argued that if we look down the road, it is better for us to add a further check on the present system. Because given the nature of our electorate, a party is either returned overwhelmingly or it is not. And it is better for us to have another institution which can serve as a check on the Government. We have specified two key areas which we think the Government should be checked by another body. That is one innovation which we are introducing to our system of government. One can even argue that to further strengthen our Parliament, we should pre-qualify all candidates to Parliament. I am not suggesting that we want to do so, but I am suggesting that one can argue a case of pre-qualifying candidates to Parliament. If you want the system to work, and you want to have a two-party system of government, you must have good people standing for elections. You may not realise it. But the PAP practises pre-qualifications of candidates. We screen all our candidates, we put them through medical tests even, and we subject the candidates who are earmarked for high offices to psychological and psychiatric tests. I do not think the Workers' Party does it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I thank Members for their further contribution to the debate today. Many points have been raised by Members, but these points were also debated during the public hearings on the Elected President Bill and also when the Select Committee deliberated on the suggestions raised by members of the public. Obviously, it is not possible to have 100 percent agreement on all points. The Select Committee's Report is a consensual report. In other words, there are some issues where we can still have a difference of opinion. But, in my view, the recommendations are good ones and they have the support of most people who appeared before the Select Committee and also of the Select Committee Members themselves. I sense that the key issue, judging from the debate this afternoon, is whether we should or should not pre-qualify Presidential candidates. I stated my view in my Third Reading speech that the President is an important position. We are not just electing anybody to be the President. He has very important functions and for the scheme to work, we want to pre-qualify candidates so that the voters are given a choice. The argument by Dr Lee Siew-Choh is that in a democracy, you should allow anyone who meets the minimum qualifications to stand for elections. If it were that easy to govern a country, throwing open the doors to all candidates and in the process you have a good government, I am all for it. But I do not think that is the experience of democracies in new nations, in Third World countries. It is invidious for me to name names, but you can just cast your eyes around the world, look at countries which have practised democracies, in particular new countries in Africa, in Asia, in Central America, in South America.”
“I favour giving ourselves more time, to avoid having to go to referendum on procedural and technical provisions. I suggest we give ourselves at least four years for adjustments, modifications and refinements to be made. Let me conclude by putting this Bill in the context of the philosophy which my Cabinet and I have in governing Singapore. I have stated this before, but it is important that I re-state my position. We believe that a good system of Government must have checks and balances. Our present parliamentary system of Government does not provide adequate checks. A political party which holds the majority of seats in Parliament can do practically anything it wishes, provided it acts lawfully. It can take any decision on our reserves and on appointment of key civil service positions. We consider that no Government, present or future, should be allowed to do this without some form of check and balance. I have steered this Bill through this House from start to finish. I have done so because I strongly believe in it. I believe it is necessary to safeguard Singapore's long term future, to prevent it from being ruined or bankrupted by an irresponsible or unscrupulous government. I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am subjecting my Government to these new checks and balances. We are prepared to have our powers audited by a President and a Council of Presidential Advisors for the good of Singapore. I commend this Bill to you as it strengthens our system of Government. Sir, I beg to move.”
“As pointed out in the Report, the Select Committee is "in favour of strengthening the CPA as an important organ of state, helping the President to carry out his functions". I also share the Select Committee's hope that "The CPA will ... develop a continuity and identity of its own. Over time, it should grow in importance, perhaps evolving into a Council of State which several representors favoured." Apart from these three changes, I would also like to draw the attention of Members to paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Committee's Report. This concerns the amendment to the Bill which will allow different provisions to be brought into operation on different dates. The Committee has pointed out that the changes we are making to our Constitution are novel arrangements unparalleled elsewhere in the world. They are unique. They will bring about fundamental changes to law and procedure for Government, the key statutory boards and for the key Government companies. Although many minds have worked out the concepts and later translated them into legal provisions, it will not be possible to anticipate every problem at this stage. No matter how thorough we have been, there will be unforeseen problems in actual implementation. The Select Committee has quite rightly said that we should give ourselves a grace period for making amendments in the light of actual implementation. Such amendments ought not be subject to the strict provisions of a referendum set out in new Article 5(2A). Hence, new Article 5(2A) should be brought into operation only after this period of adjustments and refinements. I agree with this comment. But the Select Committee was probably too optimistic in believing that a period of two years would be enough to iron out all the problems.”
“' The concept of an Elected President with safeguard/veto powers is a major innovation in our constitutional development. I sensed that many people who had reservations on the concept of an Elected President might come on board if we required the President to be seen to act indepedepently, in other words, to resign from political parties before or on nomination day. As delinking the President from his party makes the scheme more acceptable, I am happy to go along with the representors. But we should still allow campaigning by political parties. Political parties should be allowed to support any candidate, whether or not he belongs to that party. This point is stressed in the Report. Otherwise, Presidential candidates will not have the manpower and resources to campaign for their own elections. Another change made by the Select Committee is to require the President to consult the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) when exercising its safeguard role on appointments. Originally, the Bill made it obligatory for the President to consult the CPA when exercising his discretionary powers only in respect of budgets of Government, statutory boards and key Government companies. On all other matters, the President had a choice whether or not to consult the CPA. I consider this change to be important for two reasons. Firstly, no President on his own will have enough knowledge about every individual appointee for key positions. Making it mandatory for him to consult the CPA ensures that he has additional comments, information and advice before he approves or vetoes the appointment. Of course, the final decision still rests with the President. Secondly, this change gives a greater role for the Council of Presidential Advisors.”
“It is fallacious to argue that one cannot live up to this oath just because he continues to be a member of his party. As the Select Committee rightly observes: 'It does not follow that a President who is a member of a political party is incapable of discharging his functions impartially. Every President has to take an oath of office and affirm that he will discharge his duties "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will". He is bound by this oath for the duration of his term of office. If voters believe that a candidate cannot live up to this oath, they should not elect him. A candidate who is likely not to heed the oath and instead pursue partisan political interests will probably do so even if he formally severs his links with his Party.' I do not therefore think that actual party affiliation is so critical that it should disqualify a person becoming the President. The election of the President is about electing a man of integrity, experience and ability who will put national interests above all other interests, including his own, and those of his family and friends and those of his party during his term of office. Why then did I propose amendments to accept the view of the representors? It is to make the proposal more acceptable to the public. As the Report explains on page IX, '... the President must not only be above party politics but be manifestly seen to be so. If he continues to be a member of a political party there may be lingering doubts that the President is still subject to party discipline and is thus constrained to act in accordance with decisions of his party caucus. It may be more re-assuring to the public if the President stood for election in his own right and not on a party platform.”
“I move on to the second major area, and this is whether candidates for the Presidency should resign from their political party. The Bill, as it originally stood, did not have this requirement. Several representors argued before the Committee that the Elected President should sever all links with the political party to which he belonged. As Members know, the Select Committee has accepted that: firstly, a candidate in a Presidential election must cease to be a member of any political party on nomination day; secondly, after he has been elected, he must affirm on oath that he will not allow any past affiliation with any political party to affect the discharge of his duties. Between the two recommendations, the second, ie, taking an oath, is more important in ensuring that the President is objective and impartial in dealing with any government. As for the first, it does not follow that a President cannot discharge his duties impartially, or cannot be regarded as the President of the entire nation, merely because he continues to be a member of his political party. Consider the following points. In the elections, what would be at issue? Surely, it is the candidate's competence and experience for the job as well as his character and reputation, rather than his political affiliation. He either has, or does not have, these qualities. If he has them, being a member of a political party will not prevent him from dutifully discharging his duties. Also, once elected, the President has to take a solemn oath to discharge his duties to the nation as a whole. Note the words "bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic". He is bound by this oath which overrides his own personal interest and that of his party, family or friends.”
“He has to ensure that Singapore does not fall apart through a drop in the high standard of governing. This is not an easy job. He has to keep an eye on the Government in the two key areas entrusted to him, and if he disagrees with the Govern- ment, to withhold consent to specific proposals of the Prime Minister within these two areas. This means he must be at least as experienced and wise as the Prime Minister, if not, more so, and have the moral stature to say 'no' to the Government. The President's moral stature is important. If he lacks the necessary experience and stature, he will not have the moral weight to veto the Prime Minister should he hold a contrary view. This moral standing can come only if the President is a man of substance, tested and known for his integrity, objectivity, competence and judgment. It cannot come simply through winning elections. To give a plausible scenario: if qualified men do not come forward to stand for elections, an unsuitable man may be elected by default. Such a man will not have the moral authority to hold the second key. Having an unsuitable man elected as President is not a figment of the imagination. In my experience, fighting elections over the last 14 years, good candidates generally fight shy of elections as MPs while many unsuitable ones rush in, hoping for a strike. We cannot chance a freak election result in Presidential elections. It defeats the very purpose of having an Elected President if a freak result is possible. Pre-qualifying all Presidential candidates removes the nightmare of freak Presidential election results because the contest would be between qualified people. Whoever is chosen can do the job.”