Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 36.
“Yes, Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party Members would like our dissent specifically recorded.”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker. The Workers' Party Members would like our dissent specifically recorded.”
“Madam, just to clarify once again: what the Minister just said is not correct. We do not agree to an election process for the President.”
“And the Minister talked about the fact that I am a lawyer and I can understand why clients may want to have confidential communications. But the fact also remains that clients can choose to waive the confidentiality if they find that there is a purpose in publishing it. So, I am just asking for more illumination on why we are counting from President Wee Kim Wee. The third point which the Minister made was refuting what I had said was perception of Singaporeans, including myself, that the sudden announcement to count the coming election for President as reserved is in view of what happened at the elections in 2011. I thank him for his sermon on how the Government always thinks long term but I would like to put this question which I have received from my residents which I did put in November, but I do not think I received an answer to it, and that is if the Government is not passing these laws for short-term purposes, why does the Government not agree to defer these changes for one Presidential election? Since the Minister said it is not a short-term purpose, why not? I do not recall an answer to that. The last clarification I would like to ask the Minister is in his opening speech earlier, I think he mentioned that both sides of the House agreed in November that there should be a difference between Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. I am not sure what he actually meant by that. From what I recall, our position has been that the Head of State, we believe, if you want him to be a unifying figure, making him go through elections is inconsistent with that. I do not think that our Members went on to suggest how the campaign rules of Presidential elections could be refined because we do not believe that the President should go through an election.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications for the Minister. The first clarification concerns the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates running for President. I do not think the Minister has addressed my point directly and that is that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill that was passed in November specifically asked Parliament to make these definitions: to define the definition of profit after tax, and also shareholders' equity. The Bill in last November also required Parliament to prescribe what amounts to an insolvency event. But what we find in the Bill today is that Parliament is passing this job on to the Minister to do and the purported guidelines in section 5C(2) and (3) are too general. They just talked about the Minister having to have regard to the general law, to accounting standards but these definitions are not before the House today. So, I would like the Minister to comment on whether he agrees with me that, actually, Parliament is not doing what the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has asked us to do with regard to these definitions for private sector candidates. The second clarification concerns the counting of reserved elections. I think in Parliament in November, the Government has already accused me of the things that Minister Chan Chun Sing has just repeated and I have also answered that in November to say that I am not accusing the Government or the Prime Minister of not telling the truth or that the AGC's advice was not given. My point was simply that people find it hard to understand why Wee Kim Wee counts as the first Elected President. And if the advice from the AGC is such, it would be helpful if the Government could consent to publishing it so that people can understand or try to understand the reasoning. That was the point being made.”
“More importantly, if one refers back to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill passed in November, it was provided in the new Article 19(6) that it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify how the PEC is to determine the value of shareholders' equity and profit after tax, and it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify what constitutes an insolvency event. Since the Constitution entrusts these specific matters to the Legislature to deal with, it is not right for Parliament to simply delegate this responsibility to the Minister to do so. Parliament should not abdicate its responsibility and give a blank cheque to the Government to draw up these definitions. Madam, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. We will later call for our dissent to be specifically recorded.”
“I realise that this decision to count from President Wee was not a matter of getting legal advice to interpret any existing laws. If one looks at this Bill and the Schedule, the Government is asking Parliament to simply make it the law that President Wee is the first one to be counted. Why not count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong? Is it because if President Ong was the first one to be counted, we would have to go through this year's elections as an open election and risk the contest by Chinese or Indian candidates who may not be to the Government's liking? Is the decision to count from President Wee not an arbitrary and deliberate decision of the Government to achieve a desired outcome? Next, eligibility criteria for private sector candidates. Clause 3 also introduces a new section 5C which deals with the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates from the private sector. Section 5C touches on the definitions of shareholders' equity, profit after tax and insolvency events. These definitions are needed due to the new requirement for candidates to have run companies of shareholders' equity of at least $500 million which have been profitable. But what does section 5C provide? Basically, nothing but to say that Parliament is delegating its legislative authority to the Minister to make regulations. Madam, as a general principle, Parliament can delegate its legislative power to a Minister to make rules, and regularly does so for matters of a technical or more operational nature. But what disturbs me is that these definitions are not just technical or operational. These definitions would determine who gets to run for President.”
“To recap, during the November debate, the Prime Minister told the House for the first time that the Government had received advice from AGC on how to apply the hiatus-triggered mechanism for reserved elections, that is, which President's term to count from. We were told that the advice was that counting should begin from President Wee Kim Wee, who was the first President to exercise the powers of an Elected President. This advice was surprising and illogical to many Singaporeans, given that President Wee Kim Wee was never elected to office. When I asked Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean then whether the Government would publish the AGC's advice for Singaporeans to better understand the reasoning, the Government appeared reluctant to do so and even asked me whether I was suggesting that the Prime Minister was not being truthful. There has been a lot of public reaction to the announcement that this year's Presidential election would be reserved for Malay candidates. After the last Presidential elections six years ago, Singaporeans are right to be sceptical about the Government's motives now. In 2011, Dr Tony Tan was the Government's preferred choice but had to fight off three other candidates, scrapping through to victory with a mere 35.2% of the popular vote and a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. For the next Presidential election, we hear a sudden announcement by the Government that it would be reserved for Malay candidates based on reasoning which is totally unconvincing. How many people really believe that the Presidential election this year is reserved for Malays to ensure minority representation and why now? Madam, three months have passed since that debate. I have been reflecting on the decision to use President Wee as a reference point.”
“Mdm Speaker, in November last year, Parliament debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which provided for the Presidency to continue to be an elected office and for Presidential elections to be reserved for ethnic communities. The Workers' Party rejects both these concepts and thus opposed the Bill then. As this Bill today seeks to entrench these further, we oppose this Bill. Lest we be misunderstood or misconstrued, I should state once again that we wish to see multiracial representation in the office of our Head of State. However, such multi-racial representation should be achieved not by way of reserved elections but by the former system of appointing Presidents. We have canvassed our arguments during the debate on the Constitution amendments and we do not intend to rehash them today. Let me move specifically to two aspects of this Bill which are very problematic. First, how to count reserved elections and, secondly, the eligibility criteria of candidates from the private sector. First, how to count reserved elections. Clause 3 introduces a new section 5A that to determine whether an election is reserved under Article 19B of the Constitution, one has to refer to the new Schedule. The Schedule sets out a table showing President Wee Kim Wee as the first President to be counted. Together with the subsequent presidential terms of President Ong Teng Cheong, two terms of President SR Nathan and one term of President Tony Tan, these formed five terms where a non-Malay President was in office. Thus, the Government reaches the conclusion that this year's Presidential election will be reserved for Malays. Madam, this is a conclusion that has left Singaporeans bewildered and suspicious.”
“Mdm Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to follow up on what the Minister was saying about salaries being unpaid by employers who are in some financial problems. We are seeing some of those from our residents these days. They have noticed that for those employers who have their fair share of foreign workers as well as local, the foreign workers, ironically, have a sort of a safety milestone in the sense that when the employer decides to cancel their work pass, I think MOM will have to make sure that the employer pays them what is due to them, in terms of salaries and all that. The shedding of foreign workers could come at an earlier stage whereas the local workers may continue to work in the firm. Some of our residents are seeing that this payment of the foreign workers, their full packages and so on when their Work Permits are cancelled, this could be something risky for them as local employees will continue while the company's situation deteriorates. I believe the Minister did mention he is alive to the situation. So, I would like to ask him whether the Ministry is reviewing this framework to, for example, have a mechanism in place that where you see an employer starting to cancel passes of foreign workers and so on, that the company is still able to make their payments to the local workers who remain with the company.”
“Thank you, Madam. Madam, I think the Minister would also note that there is an Article 35(5) where it is specifically provided that, "Nothing that is done by the AG shall be invalid by reason only that he has attained the age at which it is required by this Article to vacate his office." So, there is an indication in the Constitution about the importance of the age, and some of the officeholders that the Minister mentioned earlier − I think they were sitting AGs appointed before the cut-off, save for Chao Hick Tin, which case, I think, was never adjudicated. So, my question is whether the Government would, in good faith, to clarify this matter, apply to Court for an interpretation to see whether the Government's view is correct.”
“Madam, I am still not satisfied with the Minister's answer. May I just ask —””
“Madam, I have a different view of the Article, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that this could be a reading of Article 35(4), and my view is this. Article 35(4) provides that the AG may be appointed for a specific period of time and it also says that, subject to his being removed, he shall vacate his office at the expiration of the period but subject as aforesaid, meaning subject to the removal clause, he should otherwise hold office until the age of 60 years. Furthermore, the proviso to Article 35(4) states that "The President has a discretion if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister to permit an AG who has attained the age of 60 years to remain in office." So, my point is that the Article does not seem to contemplate the appointment of a new AG who is more than 60 years old to assume the post.”
“Supplementary question for the Minister. My concern is actually regarding specifically section 35(4) of the Constitution. I would like the Minister's comments on whether he feels that there is any issue with regard to the age of the new appointee.”
“Madam, a supplementary question for the Minister. I kind of expected that answer, but the reason I am highlighting it is because, as the Minister mentioned, the TDSR formula is actually focused on income and does not take into account the assets that the potential borrower may have. We are seeing residents of ours in this current economic climate who have seen a drop in their income. They do believe that with the assets that they have, if there can be some relaxation where they can get a loan from a financial institution, they will be able to manage their overall indebtedness. Of course, in their view, the bank would be secured with their asset but they feel that they have other resources to manage such a loan. They need to manage their current liquidity challenges. I think this is a problem that MAS could look into. We also have situations where retirees who are reasonably rich are unable to get any loans at all because they have no income. So, perhaps, MAS should review this because I think there is some ground concern and some people are having a hard time now.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth or anything of that nature. What I was saying was that there is public interest to read the advice. So, I am just asking whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice. That is all. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of anything at all.”
“Madam, that was not my question actually. My question was whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers because there is public interest in that advice. Is there something that is controversial or confidential that it cannot be published? And the second part of that was, under clause 32, it says that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count. So, is the Government going to present a Bill on that?”
“So, am I right then that the Government will actually come back to the House to present what the Attorney-General's Chambers has advised for us to debate on it?”
“Madam, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first concerns what the Bill is proposing regarding the role of the CPA and whether there is actually any change or not. The Deputy Prime Minister referred briefly to my speech, but I would like him to confirm whether I am actually correct on this point. My point was that in clause 3, the entrenchment provisions, it is now intended under the Bill that the CPA is another gateway with whose concurrence a Bill that amends the role or powers of the President could be presented to Parliament. Under the existing framework, which is enacted but not in operation, the CPA does not have this role as a gateway. In other words, the existing mechanism which is enacted but not in operation has only the President or a referendum as the gateway. But now, in this proposed clause 3, the CPA is an alternative gateway. So, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether I am right on this point. Secondly, Madam, regarding the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister that the next Presidential election is going to be reserved for Malay candidates, I have received, of course, feedback also from residents on this point, and there was an expression of surprise. And I think the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice on how to count the terms. So, I am asking if the Government is prepared to publish that advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers. And the second point is, under clause 32 of this Bill, it is stated that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count when the first reserved election would be. It is under clause 32.”
“We are not talking about the design of the system and what potential problems it could have. The two are quite distinct. Madam, I would just like to make a comment that while we are flattered with all this attention given to our proposal, I think Singaporeans overnight are reeling from the announcement that "There is this hiatus-triggered mechanism being proposed in the Constitution which is least intrusive. And the next election is going to be reserved for a Malay candidate". How does this sudden announcement help to unify the country and so on? Should not the Government be concentrating more on persuading Singaporeans of the merits of their proposal rather than to spend all their time attacking us? I do not know who is politicising the process and how the public interest is being served by this.”
“Madam, it is always a pleasure to meet the Minister in such contexts. I have several clarifications for the Minister. First, I am flattered that he has spent so much time to try to cross-examine the WP on details which he said, "don't gel" and so on. But one of the things which I think he and also the Government have not addressed, which we have put forth as one of the weaknesses that the Government proposal or existing process is, is the current expectation of the Government for the President to play the dual role of being a custodian as well as being a Head of State. The Minister has acknowledged there are inherent tensions, and the Constitutional Commission had also received evidence and thought it necessary to record that. So, our proposal really for the abolition of the Elected President and the restoration of the ceremonial role of the President would protect the President from having this potential need to confront the Government and now even confront an expanded and stronger CPA. I do not hear any convincing reason from the Government so far and neither from the Minister about how you can ensure that this does not happen, that the President is not faced with a confrontational situation. Next, the Minister mentioned that it is not kosher for anyone to suggest that the President would behave dishonourably. But it is quite clear from the Hansard that this was a possibility that even PAP senior Ministers had thought to be likely, and I quoted Mr Ong Pang Boon yesterday on how he perceived the scheme to be. So, does the Minister not think that this is actually a reasonable concern? Third, I do not understand this point about Mr SR Nathan. Yes, we gave our tribute to Mr Nathan as a man.”
“Madam, two supplementary questions. My request for MND to inform the Member is at the start when you are calling for projects. I do appreciate the Minister of State's confirmation that when the project has been more or less fleshed out by the CCC, the Ministry will inform us, but I am asking about the point of calling for projects, because I think we also have feedback that we can share with the Ministry as well. Could the Minister of State confirm that the Ministry would also let the Member of Parliament know when the Ministry is calling for projects when the resources are available? The second question is, in the recent answer, I think to Member Chong Kee Hiong, in March this year, it was mentioned that the Ministry is aware that there are at least 20 estates that are more than 30 years old that have not benefited from the EUP. I believe, some of these estates are within Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), some areas in Hwan estate, Hillside, Kovan and so on. Would the Ministry put this on their agenda and not forget the EUP and see whether there are resources available to allocate to it?”
“Madam, supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Is the Minister of State able to tell us or project how much budget would be available in the coming years, which was in my Parliamentary Question (PQ), the next three years? The second supplementary question is: do I take it that there is no fixed schedule every year to call for EUP and, therefore, it just depends on when the Ministry feels it has the resources to do so? The third question is: I understand from prior correspondence with the Ministry that the calling of the EUP projects will be through the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC). Could I ask whether the Ministry is also able to let the Member of Parliament of the area know that EUP projects are being called, so that we can try to work with the CCC in some way?”
“The question actually is about policy. The case which I encountered actually is an illustration of doubts about what the policy is. Is it possible for taxi drivers to have their licences revoked just based on one outstanding case? I do not need to talk about that case. But, in general, just one outstanding case and a case which has not been settled in the Court of law. Is it possible?”
“Yes, Madam, I am quite disturbed because I am not refuting the Government's response, but it is just that in the case which I came across, it was not put to the taxi driver that he has accumulated points. It was just put to him that he has an outstanding case against him.”
“How does LTA assess whether the complaint —”
“Sorry, Madam. Yes, just to clarify again, my question really is premised upon seeking to understand what avenues the taxi driver has to put out his case before LTA makes that decision. Of course, you mentioned this demerit points system and all that —”
“Madam, a supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, but she mentioned that because now there is an appeal route to the Minister, LTA is reviewing the facts of the case. My question was: at the first instance when they decide to revoke that licence, what protection do taxi drivers have against frivolous complaints being made against them? It is a general question not related to that particular case, but a question of policy.”
“Madam, I am basing it also on a previous answer by the Government, but this is, of course, an outdated answer. In 1982, when the decision to revoke taxi drivers' licences was vested in the Registrar of Vehicles (ROV) at the time, the then Minister Ong Teng Cheong, said at that time that the Registrar's decision would be based on evidence adduced from both the complainant and the driver. So, I wanted to understand more about the process. As in the driver's version of events, is that directly communicated or submitted directly to LTA at the first instance, or how does that come about? What does LTA consider from the driver?”
“Madam, supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure in her answer whether she actually touched on what due process the taxi driver has to make representations before his TDVL is revoked by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Is there any direct communication between the driver and LTA, which is the authority that actually has the power to revoke the licence? Secondly, I have come across at least one case where the reason given by LTA for the revocation of licence is that he has an outstanding case. Now, from what I know of the facts, the taxi driver disputes the complaint from the passenger. So, the question, of course, will be what protection does the taxi driver have if frivolous or unjust complaints are made against him? And how does LTA assess the credibility of such a matter and give the taxi driver due hearing before the revocation decision?”
“Madam, just to follow up. I understand the Minister cannot comment on the merits and I am not asking about the merits at all. In fact, the first question which I asked I think still merits an answer in the sense that this decision by the Judge to expunge the evidence about how the transcripts travelled from the house to the Cabinet, I am now asking whether the Government, during the case, made the request for the evidence to be suppressed or did the Judge do it on his own volition. I do not think that touches on the merits. I am just asking, procedurally, what happened. Did the Government make that request or did the Judge decide it on his own accord? The last question about why the transcripts were perused at MHA, I do not think that is a question for the Court to decide at all because it is just a fact that the family was asked to go to MHA to peruse the transcripts. So, I am just asking why was that the case? Is there a reason for it? I am not saying that there is anything wrong; I am just asking for a clarification as to why if the transcripts have to be kept at the Cabinet Secretary, they were made available to the family at MHA. It is just an enquiry. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Again, Madam, I am in no position to comment as to what were the reasons behind the various things that the Member asked. Clearly, I would believe that the Judiciary and the Government have given the best possible evidence in order for them to come to the best decision possible. As to the process by which the transcripts had been shown to the family, again, I think there must be some reason for doing so. At the end of the day, I think this is something which the Government would try its very best to make sure that we can get the best solution possible.”
“I am not asking about the merits of this; I am just asking whether the Judge expunged this evidence at the application of the Government or did the Judge do this on his own accord without the Government making that request? The last question is: the transcripts, according to what we understand, is supposed to be kept by the Cabinet Secretary. I read from the judgment that the family was asked to look at the transcripts at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Is there a reason for this? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the four supplementary questions. I will be very candid – I cannot go into the judgment, because, as the Member knows, there is an appeal before the Court of law, so we would have to leave it as that. Why did it take so long? I suppose the Judges have to examine all the evidence. Was it rushed? I do not think so. I think our Judiciary works very carefully to make sure that we come up with the best possible judgment. Whether the Judge did this or not, again, I cannot comment because it is basically the prerogative of the Judiciary to decide on the best course of action. As to why the transcripts were read at MHA and all that, again, as I said earlier, because there is an appeal, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment at this point.”
“Yes, Madam, I am aware of that and I do not intend to ask any questions concerning the merits of the case on either side, but just to clarify some chronology of events and some undisputed facts. Madam, I have four supplementary questions in relation to this. Originally, I filed the question with Ministry of Law. So, I can understand if Minister Yaacob may not be comfortable, but I have to ask the question to the Government. First, Madam, the case was filed in September 2015 and, as at the time I filed my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which was in late September this year, the judgment had not yet been released. So, my question is whether the Minister is able to explain why the case took so long before the judgment came out, bearing in mind that it is an originating summons, which means that there are no witnesses coming to testify, but it is just a document interpretation. Usually, these cases are over in just a few months, at most, six months. So, why did it take so long? Secondly, in terms of the timing of the release of the judgment, as I had mentioned earlier, coincidentally or otherwise, it was released after I had filed my PQ. When I looked at the judgment originally released, it did contain some typographical errors in names, dates and so on. Does the Government know whether the judgment was rushed out? The third question is: I understand that there is a pending application now on the evidence before the Court as to how the transcripts were taken from the Lee family house to be in the hands of the Cabinet. I understand that the Judge did not want these details to be recorded because he felt that it would be distracting.”
“Madam, as I said earlier in response to Minister Ong, the fundamentals are still the same. We do not believe in the Elected Presidency. We believe that Parliament should have the final say over the safeguarding of the past Reserves. And since the Minister quoted from our submission to the Commission, I can read to Members what we said. We said that, "We agree that large Reserves built up in the past should be safeguarded, but we believe the Elected President is not the right mechanism for this. For all the years prior to the introduction of the Elected President, there has not been a need for additional safeguards. We are, however, open to additional Parliamentary safeguards over the Reserves, such as requiring a supermajority in Parliament, before past Reserves can be used by the Government." The framework is still similar.”
“Madam, clarification on what the Minister said earlier about how the WP position has evolved. Actually, if we look at our positions from the 1980s to date, the fundamentals are still the same, as in: one, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and we believe that it should be abolished – that position has not changed; and two, we have always agreed that there should be additional safeguards on our past Reserves, and that safeguard should vest in Parliament. That also has not changed. But we have noticed the Government appointing the Constitutional Commission to look into this matter, and we do have great respect for the work that was done by the Constitutional Commission to take into account how society has evolved over the years and the expectations of the people as well. So, in that regard, the proposal that we have today about having an elected Senate, Members will recall that we said that there should be a second chamber in the legislature. And in any case, if the matter is not agreed to by the Senate, it will come back to Parliament to be passed by a supermajority. So, in that sense, the fundamentals are the same, it is just that we have taken into account the Commission's work and we believe that it is prudent and wise to refine our position in keeping with public expectations that there should be some oversight over some of these matters, but the fundamentals have not changed. We do not agree with the Elected Presidency. We do believe that the safeguards should vest in Parliament; these fundamentals are still there.”
“Madam, I think my colleagues will elaborate.”
“Madam, that is not correct. I never suggested, or we never suggested, that there will be a separate election for each member of the Senate. My colleagues will elaborate later on the mechanism of the elections and I would just like to say that Mr Tong is wrong on this point.”
“Yes, Madam. Just one point. I do not think Mr Tong has understood us correctly when it comes to the election of the Senate. I am not sure why he is saying that every time we have an election for the Senate, we have to go for a referendum. There was no suggestion of that. All we are suggesting is: it should be considered that whether to change the system from the Elected President to an elected Senate, that would call for one referendum. We would, of course, have Senate elections periodically, but that is not the same as having referendums.”
“Thank you, Madam. I would like some clarifications from Mr Tong. He mentioned earlier that the issue of whether to have an Elected President or not had been settled in the 1998 GEs. But does he not agree that more than 20 years have passed since then and, importantly, the Constitutional Commission had actually gone out of its way to note that having seen the office in operation, there now seem to be a tension in these dual roles, and that there may be a need to look at it in the future. So, is Mr Tong proposing that we ignore these findings from the Constitutional Commission? The second question is: he seemed to suggest that asking for a referendum is a waste of time. Does he not agree that the Constitution itself provides for referendums to be called in certain situations? And in fact, the Bill itself, as far as entrenchment framework is concerned, also has a provision for a referendum to be sought? So, is he saying that these provisions are just there for show and the Government has no intention of calling wasteful referendums? The third clarification is: he mentioned that the CPA would not really be a problem for the Elected President because the Elected President nominates a certain number of members to the CPA, and all the Elected President would need to do is to persuade the CPA members he nominated to agree with him. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that the CPA members will do the bidding of their nominator? I mean, is that the point he is making?”
“Sorry, Madam, may I have some clarifications from the Member?”
“Mdm Speaker, the annex that is being distributed to Members seeks to ask Singaporeans to choose between two models in a national referendum. Option A, as advanced by the PAP Government, is where the President is elected and plays dual roles. Option B, which is the model that the WP prefers, is an appointed President without the custodial role which is now vested in an elected Senate. Madam, let me conclude. Many Singaporeans, including our residents, have asked why the Government is rushing such an important matter through Parliament. They noted that Prime Minister Lee had said that there was no urgency, while the Law Minister has gone on record that the changes were not targeted at disbarring any individual from running. If that is the case, surely, there is still time for any change to be carefully considered for implementation in the following Presidential Election in 2023, rather than the one next year. Madam, there have been public discussion and scepticism about the proposed changes. Indeed, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged previously that it would not be easy to convince Singaporeans about the need for these changes. There is an illustration. I came across a post on the Facebook page of Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a former Presidential candidate. The post from a member of the public read as follows, and I quote, "What kind of legacy are we leaving to the next generation when we define our Head of State by his wealth and race, rather than by his character, social contributions and public spiritedness?" Madam, this is, indeed, an important question for all of us to answer. The matter before the House is a grave one and a hasty decision could well prove unwise.”
“The proposed Articles 5A and 5B will enable a Bill affecting the President's role or powers to be presented even if Page: 46 he does not agree and the proposal is not put to a referendum, so long as the CPA agrees to it. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo confirmed yesterday, the new framework will give "legal weight" to the opinion of the CPA regarding entrenchment provisions. This had not been the case before this Bill. This provision will thus strengthen the position of the CPA vis-a-vis the President. How do we justify letting the CPA be the gateway to amendments to our fundamental law, the Constitution, when the CPA is itself unelected? Madam, while we have stated our views, we do not believe that Parliament should arrogate to itself the right to decide such fundamental matters concerning the political system and state power or, as the Prime Minister put it just now, provisions which "determine the direction of the country". It is proper to consult the people directly in a national referendum. We call on the Government to allow the people to make a decision on the nature of the Presidency and how the country's assets should be safeguarded. Madam, we have the liberty of drafting the question that we believe can be considered to be put to a referendum. Madam, may I have your permission to distribute the question to Members?”
“My colleagues will set this out in more detail. Madam, as far as spending the past Reserves and key Civil Service appointments are concerned, the Senate would only have delay powers to refer any proposal back to Parliament for consideration. At that stage, Parliament should consider the reservations of the Senate, and, if thought fit, could still pass the proposal but with a supermajority of, say, three-quarters of MPs. Such a mechanism would see the safeguards on Reserves remaining with Parliament. Next, Madam, I move on to some concerns about the Bill. Madam, the provisions of this Bill show that the Government knows that it is unwise to let one man have too much power. However, the Government seems to be locked into a position that there must be an Elected President, and is devising more ways to check him. However, the Government's chosen method of strengthening the CPA and enlarging its role is fraught with difficulties. The increased clout of the CPA will make it yet another power centre, which is not tenable as it is an unelected body. One clear example is clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 deals with the entrenchment framework, which was summarised in Handout 4 distributed yesterday. Parliament had previously considered and passed the existing Article 5(2A) and Article 5A, but these had not been brought into operation. Those provisions had envisaged that any Bill to amend the Constitution that affected the President's role or powers could not be presented to Parliament unless the President agreed to it, or it had been put to a national referendum and two-thirds of voters agreed to it. Clause 3 of the Bill will now introduce a re-revised entrenchment framework.”
“We also see the merits of the Constitutional Commission's rationale that MPs would benefit from the collective wisdom of a separate body with some expertise. Having considered the Commission's report, the WP believes it is apt to consider creating a second Chamber in the Legislature, which could be called the Senate. Its primary role would be to safeguard the country's past Reserves. Besides past Reserves, we recognise that there is also some public sentiment that it is prudent that a body outside the Government should review the other decisions that the President is currently overseeing, such as approving key Civil Service appointments. We acknowledge that these are important matters, including decisions on whether a corruption investigation should proceed if the Prime Minister objects to it. Madam, we do agree that there are benefits in having another body review such decisions. To ease the transition from the Elected Presidency system, we propose that all the discretionary powers currently vested in the Elected President be vested in the newly-created Senate. After the Senate has worked for some time, the Senate's scope could be reviewed. Under this proposal, the Senate would be elected by the people in a national election, rather than appointed as suggested by the Commission. The election will be of individuals who do not represent any political party. We could start with a Senate of, say, eight individuals. Madam, we see the election of the Senate members as critical, to make the membership process open and not susceptible to political interference. This will also give the Senate the necessary mandate for the important decisions it makes. Candidates for the Senate should possess relevant experience and expertise for the functions expected of the Senate.”
“After considering the matter in detail and receiving submissions and evidence, the Commission felt compelled to point out the inherent problem with the dual role, even though it was going beyond its Terms of Reference to do so. The Commission noted that being a Head of State was a unifying role while being a custodian was a confrontational role; in addition, requiring the President to go through an election necessarily made him a partisan figure. The Commission also noted that the two roles required "different chemistry". The Commission went on to ask the Government to consider unbundling the two roles, so that the President could concentrate on his role as Head of State, while the custodial role be given to another body of persons. We respectfully agree with the Commission's observations. Next, I move on to how the Reserves and other matters may be safeguarded. The WP agrees that the country's Reserves built up during the previous terms of government should be safeguarded. As the past Reserves belong to the people of Singapore, we believe the safeguard should rest with Parliament, as the elected representatives of the people. To this end, we have studied the Constitutional Commission's recommendation that safeguarding of the past Reserves could be vested in a separate body, to be appointed, who have powers of delay. In other words, when the Government wants to spend past Reserves, it would need to send its proposal to this appointed body for review. If the body had reservations about the proposal, it would then send the proposal back to Parliament, which could then pass it with a Page: 45 supermajority vote. Madam, the WP has always acknowledged that the past Reserves are worthy of strong safeguards.”
“In the event of a change of government, the President was likely to be the legacy of the previous administration, who could prevent the new government from being effective, for political reasons. This prospect was not just WP's thinking but the honest misgivings of some senior PAP MPs as well. For instance, during the Parliamentary debate on the 1988 White Paper on the Elected President, Mr Ong Pang Boon, a former Minister, noted as follows, and I quote: "...the intention of the proposal as contained in the White Paper has gone even much further than originally mooted, which was to protect the country's financial Reserves from being raided by a profligate government elected to office. The reserved powers of the elected President now extend beyond financial reserves to cover all assets of the government and key Public Service appointments." "The proposal, as contained in the White Paper, whichever way one looks at it, would ensure the election of a Presidential candidate from the PAP. Should by some freak election results, which the Government claimed to be possible, an Opposition government were elected to office, it would be logical for the PAP President to work to undermine and bring down the Opposition Prime Minister and his government, even if the Opposition wants to act responsibly." Madam, fast forward to today. Today, we have an even clearer picture as to why the President should not be asked to take on the dual role of being Head of State and also safeguarding the Reserves and Public Service at the same time. Such a dual role has an inherent tension that politicises the office of the President. This fact was recognised by the Constitutional Commission to Review Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency.”
“In January this year, the Prime Minister reiterated that the President was not another centre of power. Third, that the country's past Reserves should be preserved and strongly safeguarded by an entity that is elected by the people. The issue is who should be the gatekeeper. Madam, I shall touch on the President as the Head of State which, we say, should be his principal and only role. The WP notes that our past system of having appointed Presidents has produced Presidents who are generally held in very high esteem and are greatly respected by the people. Beginning with the appointment of President Yusof Ishak to President Wee Kim Wee, the fact that the President did not campaign and go through elections, in fact, elevated the office to being above politics. His focus on being Head of State was of universal appeal, and, in no way, diminished his stature, compared with our elected Presidents. Today, the WP and many Singaporeans still believe the President should be an appointed office and above politics. To revert to such a system of appointed Presidents is not regressive; in fact, it would naturally take care of any concerns that minority communities would not be represented in the office, as this would automatically be resolved by a system of rotational appointments. Page: 44 Madam, we disagree that the Presidency should be an elected office and should be tasked to safeguard the past reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. We thus oppose this Bill. Our past reasons for objecting to the Elected Presidency have been recorded over the years. Under the scheme designed by the PAP Government, the strict and specific eligibility criteria would likely see the election of a pro-PAP President.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill is evidence of how a nightmare may come back to haunt us. The Elected Presidency was created in the 1990s with the intention of safeguarding our past Reserves from being squandered by a "rogue government". However, the experience with the Elected Presidency has seen the PAP Government coming back to the House to amend the Constitution again and again, as unintended consequences arose. One public episode of tension between the Elected President and the Government surfaced when President Ong Teng Cheong, a former PAP Deputy Prime Minister, held a press conference to highlight his lack of access to information about the assets he was supposed to safeguard. The Presidential Elections in 2011 were also a nightmare for the PAP leadership, with four candidates contesting the elections. I understand that some leaders were kept awake at night at the prospect of one of the other three candidates being elected. Today's Bill presents complicated amendments to try to undo problems created by the Government itself. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spent 90 minutes meticulously taking the House through the changes brought about by this Bill, together with seven pages of meaty handouts, the kind of content ripe for a major law exam. Before I go further, there are three fundamental truths that underpin this debate, which the Workers' Party (WP) would like to acknowledge at the outset. First, that the President's principal role is as Head of State, a unifying figure and symbol of the nation, domestically and to the world. Second, that the President should not be another centre of power. In fact, this was a concern that the WP had articulated since the 1980s when the Elected Presidency was first mooted.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have one clarification for the Prime Minister. During his speech, there was a portion where he spoke about possible alternative stabilisers to the Elected Presidency. He discussed the possibility of an unelected president having custodial powers, and an unelected council. And then I think the last option that he discussed was the possibility of a council being elected. May I ask him to clarify again what is his concern about such a proposal? If I heard him correctly, there will be too many elections or what is the concern?”
“The sight of him on softball pitches surprised and inspired many fans worldwide. Madam, during the recent Paralympic Games, friends of mine who had children with disabilities were abuzz. Their children were glued to their television sets every day and night, rooting for our Paralympic athletes. Some of these parents had introduced sports to their children as therapy. Now, their children were seeing before their very own eyes that, through sporting competition, they, too, could, one day, don the national colours and bring glory to Singapore. It goes without saying that cultivating our para-athletes to sporting excellence takes a whole village and the Government as well. As a country with one of the highest in terms of gross domestic product per capita in the world, we would be poor if our citizens with disabilities were not able to have big dreams or realise their full potential. Madam, our para-athletes have taken Singapore a giant leap forward in our journey towards a truly inclusive society. We thank those who have loved and supported them through their unique journeys. We must continue to press on to make Singapore a home where no one is left behind. [Applause.]”