Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Yes, please. [Copies of the exhibits were distributed to hon Members]

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Oh, is it a speech, Madam?

The clarification is coming.

Yes, that is a valid point. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, please put forward your clarification.

Okay. I will, Madam. Thanks. The contradiction is the unelected CPA having the swing vote to decide between the Elected President and Parliament. So, Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister this: i the President needs to be elected to have this democratic mandate to say "no" to Parliament, which is your view, what mandate does the CPA have to influence legislature and say "yes" or "no" to an Elected President and to Parliament?

Pardon?

So, the Member would agree with that?

Assoc Prof Goh, do you want to answer that?

Could the Minister repeat that?

So, the Member's post, one reading his post, one can understand from that that he agrees to an Upper House, as long as it is not complex?

Right.

The Member just said he was talking about the Upper House because it is complex.

Assoc Prof Goh, let the answers stand on the record.

Yes.

Let people judge for themselves.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Madam, it is always a pleasure to meet the Minister in such contexts. I have several clarifications for the Minister. First, I am flattered that he has spent so much time to try to cross-examine the WP on details which he said, "don't gel" and so on.

But one of the things which I think he and also the Government have not addressed, which we have put forth as one of the weaknesses that the Government proposal or existing process is, is the current expectation of the Government for the President to play the dual role of being a custodian as well as being a Head of State. The Minister has acknowledged there are inherent tensions, and the Constitutional Commission had also received evidence and thought it necessary to record that.

So, our proposal really for the abolition of the Elected President and the restoration of the ceremonial role of the President would protect the President from having this potential need to confront the Government and now even confront an expanded and stronger CPA. I do not hear any convincing reason from the Government so far and neither from the Minister about how you can ensure that this does not happen, that the President is not faced with a confrontational situation.

Next, the Minister mentioned that it is not kosher for anyone to suggest that the President would behave dishonourably. But it is quite clear from the Hansard that this was a possibility that even PAP senior Ministers had thought to be likely, and I quoted Mr Ong Pang Boon yesterday on how he perceived the scheme to be. So, does the Minister not think that this is actually a reasonable concern?

Third, I do not understand this point about Mr SR Nathan. Yes, we gave our tribute to Mr Nathan as a man. We are not talking about the design of the system and what potential problems it could have. The two are quite distinct.

Madam, I would just like to make a comment that while we are flattered with all this attention given to our proposal, I think Singaporeans overnight are reeling from the announcement that "There is this hiatus-triggered mechanism being proposed in the Constitution which is least intrusive. And the next election is going to be reserved for a Malay candidate". How does this sudden announcement help to unify the country and so on? Should not the Government be concentrating more on persuading Singaporeans of the merits of their proposal rather than to spend all their time attacking us? I do not know who is politicising the process and how the public interest is being served by this.

I do not plead.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Please keep clarifications short. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Looking at the Hansard ‒ it is not going to be short. It cannot be— I mean, a clarification will follow.

Is it pertinent to any specific clarification you are seeking?

Yes, of course.

If it is a very long one —

It would not be long.

Just a pertinent one.

All right. On 5 October 1990, then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that what essentially was happening was that the Government was creating a mixed Senate: six appointed Senators forming the Council, and one elected Senator that would be the Elected President. And he said this about the elected Upper House: "In essence, there is no difference between our proposal and the suggestion that there should be an Upper House to supervise or comment on Bills debated in this House. We think this scheme is more workable because when you have a Senate, and let us assume it is an elected Senate, firstly, you have the problem of finding a sufficient number of people to stand for elections to the Senate. We need about 20 to 30 people to make it effective. Secondly, how do we ensure that people who are elected into the Senate have the qualities that we are looking for? There is no control." He said this.

So, the Minister seems to be genuinely shocked by our proposal and says that it is ridiculously and fundamentally flawed. But how does this square with then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh's view that a CPA plus the Elected President, forming a team, comprises the Senate?

Do not just look at the Hansard. You can also look at the previous White Papers and they tell you and show you that the Government considered the question of a Senate, an Upper House, very carefully. Having considered it, they dismissed it. But the Government's approach to a Senate was very different from the approach that you are proposing, which, fundamentally, is unworkable. And I have explained various reasons why your proposal is fundamentally unworkable, and my shock and astonishment arise from the nature of the proposal as fleshed out yesterday, clarification after clarification.

The Government has explained that an elected Upper House is inherently unworkable and has explained it many times why. So, look at then-Deputy Prime Minister's statements in context. He pointed out that in the end, we settled on one person to be elected and explained —

Can the Member please address that? Switch off whatever it is.

— and explained why. Then, we also have the CPA. And there is a good reason why they are not elected. But he likened the process, that it will give you an effect like an Upper House but without the attendant difficulties and inherent problems. And if you want to know what the inherent problems are, go read the White Paper.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the hon Minister for Law for his comments. I have four points of clarification.

Firstly, yesterday, the Minister for Law said to me, "What would you do if there were too few people, if less than eight wanted to run for the Senate?" So, the Minister for Law seemed concerned that there would not be enough people who want to come forward. May I please finish —

Is this a clarification on what I just said or is it a clarification on what I said yesterday?

Mr Leon Perera, you have to keep your clarification to what the Minister just said this afternoon.

Yes. My point is actually what seems to be a contradiction between what the Minister said yesterday and what he just said. Can I proceed with that, Madam?

Yes.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his elaborate reply to my earlier clarification. But I would like to ask the question again because the Minister has not given me the answer yes or no.

Just put the question, Mr Faisal Manap.

I just want to know does the Minister agree that the Constitutional Commission is taking a more prudent approach in dealing with the inherent tension by asking to do away with the Elected Presidency. I just want to have a simple answer, "yes" or "no".

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mdm Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I rise to express my support for the proposed changes outlined in the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Teo had given detailed speeches which outlined the importance of these amendments. This is in contrast to the WP's suggestion to set up a Senate and have a referendum. Could this suggestion and essential issue not be put forth earlier so that it can be discussed, because this issue is important to the people and not something trivial?

This is especially so with regard to the in-depth and minor details relating to the appointment of Senators, which is quite important, particularly in addressing multiracialism when these Senators are appointed.

The Government's continuous efforts to create an inclusive community for all races in Singapore are highly commended. Our society is a cultural melting pot that has embraced racial harmony for decades. It is convenient to get complacent and believe that we need not work as hard as before to maintain the status quo.

I appreciate the spirit behind this Constitutional (Amendment) Bill. It is a testament to how much the Government values inclusivity and racial diversity as principles that have to be upheld.

Having spoken to a number of residents and grassroots volunteers, I do not doubt that they welcome the spirit behind this Bill. Some have also said they are glad to note that the Prime Minister has said that he is not being pressured by any group to make the changes but had done it for the long-term benefits to our multiracial society.

I have two main points to make. Firstly, strengthening our Reserves' defence, that is, the President should always be chosen based on meritocracy; and there should be flexibility in choosing the goalkeeper and enhancing the defensive line. Secondly, grooming minority candidates and a call to action. Allow me to elaborate now.

I believe that it is crucial that a President should be chosen on his or her own merits. It is vital not to allow racial issues to cloud our judgement. It is imperative that candidates who meet the race requirement must also meet all the other requirements. There must be no compromises or any give and take on this matter.

Singaporeans must be assured that, ultimately, we are getting the best candidate to represent the nation, regardless of race. This policy has served our country well and we should stick to it. After all, the office holder is no longer just a ceremonial leader.

The candidate is supposed to be the Head of State. He/she is a symbol of respectability, integrity and the face and voice of all Singaporeans. But as we are aware, on top of the ceremonial role, the President is given the two custodial responsibilities over Past Reserves and over key appointments to protect the integrity of the Public Service.

Hence, the person who assumes office through an election has to be someone with sound business exposure and a deep understanding of economic issues. The President, as an institution, will play an important role to ensure that the government of the day displays wisdom when it comes to spending the Reserves.

There has been feedback from the public about how the bar or threshold has been set too high for candidates, that a person's firm must have a minimum of $500 million in shareholders' equity, which means that only the most senior executives of large, complex companies are eligible, further reducing the available pool of talent.

But it is important that the apparent misunderstanding here has to be cleared up. As mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Teo yesterday, this $500 million criterion is not an exclusion criterion and one does not need to be the most senior executive in a large company.

Therefore, even a chief financial officer could qualify as a candidate, for instance, as he/she would understand numbers, good governance and what it takes to safeguard national Reserves.

It is important that we clarify all these qualifying criteria to avoid any unintentional exclusion of suitable talent.

Under this track, a candidate will qualify if he satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he has held an office of a comparable nature to those held under the automatic track that has given him the necessary experience and ability for the office of the President.

Another point I want to add is: what if a candidate from a big corporation is elected as President but, after a period of time, if a malfeasance is uncovered which happened during his watch as the chairman or whatever position he held in the corporation, would there be a process where the Elected President can be removed?

We have seen how misdeeds are sometimes uncovered years after a person has left an organisation or company, or perhaps due to a whistleblower in that organisation.

I support the changes made to the Bill whereby the President should be obliged to consult the Council before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on Singapore's Reserves and all matters regarding key public appointments. I also support the changes to augment the Council with two additional members, one appointed by the President and the other by the Prime Minister.

The Council currently comprises six members with two members appointed by the President and two by the Prime Minister, one member on the advice of Chief Justice and one member on the advice of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

If I can use a soccer analogy, with these changes, we will have a talented goalkeeper able to handle the changes in the game and the skills of the opposing team's forwards, but now this will also be rebalanced by having two additional defenders.

This will be akin to having a set of players who are not only skilful in ball handling but also strong team players. Each one understands their role well, each one can read a game well, be fully alert to what is going in front of the goalmouth and anticipate what is going to happen. Only one goalkeeper, not eight or nine goalkeepers.

With clockwork precision, they can coordinate their moves to get into positions at the right time and place with one common objective, namely, to thwart the opposing team's forwards from getting near the penalty area, let alone attempting to score a goal. What this means is that our Reserves will be guarded and key public appointments will be done smoothly.

My second point is that I support the changes to the Bill to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency via a hiatus-triggered safeguard mechanism without undermining meritocracy.

I am sure that Singaporeans or the Malay/Muslim community have a pool of good candidates. I am also confident that this pool will become bigger in the future since many Malays are doing well academically, received Government scholarships and are currently enjoying success in many fields.

However, one of my concerns is that there may not be sufficient minority candidates when needed. I see it as a call to action and, maybe, Singaporeans and the Malay/Muslim community have to take action to further enhance the talent pool or capability of future minority candidates and encourage them to step forward.

We already have a good process in place to identify and nurture people for high office in the Government. Over time, these changes to the Bill could be seen as a call to action within Singapore and within the ethnic communities to provide and groom talents or individuals from the minority races to gain relevant experience from their careers and when they are in influential positions within the corporate world, whether in the private or non-private sectors.

This should ensure that over the years, we build up a wide talent pool of people from various minorities that are adequate and who have also reaped the required experiences to meet the future prerequisites of a multiracial elected Presidency.

With this in mind, I hope that companies and organisations can work harder hand in hand, to be more inclusive and ensure more comprehensive representation on their management boards and in leadership positions.

This is also beneficial to employees within the company who are of a minority group, as there would be someone who is more sensitive to their needs who could take better care of their welfare in the company. Key Government-linked companies (GLCs) and the Civil Service are already taking the lead to some extent, and it is hoped that the private sector will emulate this.

Similar to the Elected Presidency, any individual must meet the requirements of the job and there must be some effort to ensure we have individuals from the minority groups but would still be in line with the principles of meritocracy and multi-culturalism.

Singapore has built up a good Reserve, and so there is a need for an institution outside of Parliament to check on the spending of Reserves and restrain spending where necessary.

The EP is not alone in the decision-making process. He has the CPA, who are people eminently qualified to guide him in making his decisions. All said, it is pertinent for the public to note that the EP's role is not to provide checks and balances on anything and everything, just as how candidates in the previous elections have misled voters into believing so.

Do not let the election of an EP to be an excuse in a GE for voters to elect any party and their candidates to Parliament. These are separate bodies, each with its own responsibilities.

I wish to conclude that within today's social environment, issues of race and religion are gaining more prominence. When insensitively managed, they can lead to distrust and division among the people.

When the differences are too vast and destructive, social unrest, which may lead to civil war, happens. In the United States, racial tensions between the police and the public are being reported more frequently than before and, in many cases, they have led to deaths of innocent policemen and civilians. It is the same too in Europe. The hype created by the mainstream media and social media only serves to reinforce and magnify the misgivings among ethnic communities. In parts of Europe and the United States, innocent Muslims are targeted for attacks and discrimination due to lack of empathy and stereotyping. Social division is one of the main culprits that lead to alienation.

Consequently, acts of violence and terrorism stem from perpetrators who seek to gain acceptance from a malicious group that takes advantage of the discontent of these people.

Riots, violent crimes, mass exodus of refugees and many other significant social issues are often a result of conflicts among different ethnic groups. While these may seem unimaginable in peaceful, harmonious Singapore, we cannot guarantee that it would not lead to an earthquake when the fissures start to surface.

It is hoped that these latest changes can step up the efforts to create a society in which all Singaporeans know that they will not be marginalised or shut out, that they truly have a place to call Singapore their home and their own country.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Thank you, Madam, for letting me share my views on the topic. Madam, the WP had yesterday sprung an idea of a two-House or bicameral system on us. They have suggested the formation of an eight-member Senate. It has left me asking who are the eight members and who are to be elected? What is the shortlisting process that is going to take place? What is the racial combination and what are the qualification and eligibility criteria? Until today, I am not clear about this. It remains nebulous and, certainly, the details are not finalised.

Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim says it is really no change from the existing CPA. But Member Daniel Goh stated in his Facebook post and also later commented on "Mothership" that two Houses will be too complicated and wants to keep it simple. He feels that two Houses would be better suited for larger countries, those with federal systems, such as the United States and also Australia, or those democracies that are exiting from autocracy, for example, the United Kingdom (UK), where the powerful lords need to be appeased.

He feels that there will be more politicking and a higher chance for gridlock. Well, if he has changed his world view, it certainly has not gotten across to me.

Member Mr Low Thia Khiang also says that it is just a preliminary proposal with no details. It leaves me wondering who is going to tidy it up, clean it up, and do what they have to do. Well, let us ask them: is it right, is it fair to call for a national referendum like this?

I am concerned, Madam, with no concrete details, a lack of time for assimilation, understanding, research, and weighted consideration, it might end up worse than Brexit.

Hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim stated, and I quote: "The appointed Presidency will elevate the office". I would ask the Member to review this because with the four Elected Presidents we have had the last few decades, they actually exemplify way above this. In fact, with the Elected Presidency platform, I feel that the office is elevated to its highest level, making its value even much higher. Eligible candidates are putting themselves up for scrutiny and testing by having Singaporeans vote for them.

Member Mr Low also said, and I quote: "People are feeling uneasy about this change." Well, that is not the feeling that I have gotten from the ground. Through dialogues, focus group discussions and interactions with the community, including the minority community, they are appreciative if such a weighted consideration is being given to this. They are given a voice and really, they have come up with some very good suggestions, I have to say. In Malay, Madam.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal Manap spoke about the "community's suspicion". To me, there will always be a small group who does not agree. But if we are really sincere and believe that what we do is for Singapore's benefit, we must implement it and do it as best as we can.

At the moment, I am also unclear whether Mr Faisal Manap is agreeable to the reserved election that was allocated for the Malay minority community next year.

(In English): Ms Sylvia Lim also said, and I quote: "This Bill is like a nightmare coming back to haunt us." Well, I say a nightmare can be recurrent if certain issues are still on our minds. As we have heard, the Elected Presidency scheme is evolving and being refined further. Changes are coming. That is why it is still on our minds until we consolidate this Bill and certainly our stand.

Madam, I will focus on the multiracial representation of the Elected Presidency. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a nation with a plural society that is unique. The way we manage national issues is also unique.

The proposal for an Elected Presidency has given us a platform to reflect about our journey together as a society and as a Malay/Muslim community.

The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore has become more progressive, attained many achievements and succeeded in various fields in a meritocratic country. Our meritocratic system has given opportunities for all races.

Optimally, minorities should be elected in an open election. This can become a reality because Singapore, over the years, has introduced racial integration policies in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and our schools. Now, these policies have become part of our lives and no longer seem strange or conspicuous. In fact, we do not feel any unease towards such policies.

Singapore's GRC system also has some criteria for minorities. But there is a huge difference between what will become a reality and what may become a reality. Therefore, do we want to fight over an issue that will have an impact on Singapore's shared future?

Singapore's minorities, including the Malay/Muslims, are grateful for the review regarding the election of a President from a minority group. This is an issue close to our hearts and is also a sensitive and difficult one. But it is our principle to consult and discuss openly about such issues in Singapore, especially since our community has become more mature.

It is true that for 46 years, Singapore has not had a Malay President since Encik Yusof Ishak. So, we should be heartened that this was considered, especially with the announcement that next year's election will be reserved for Malays. The Government shows concern for the feelings of our minorities. This is crucial in a plural society. If previously we were able to have a President from every race on a rotational basis, with this new system, this cannot be guaranteed any longer.

Let us explore the issues of the Elected Presidency scheme closely.

Firstly, with this Elected Presidency, all races can contest. This is fair and meritocratic.

Secondly, in the Elected Presidency, there are stringent criteria to ensure the eligibility of all candidates. Yes, all candidates. This is also fair. This has been scrutinised and there are candidates among our Malays who can fulfil these criteria.

Thirdly, the recommended period of five terms is a very long time, that is, about 25 years. And if there are no Presidents from the minority groups within these 25 years, only then will this new proposal take effect. This is also fair, in my view, but let us pause and reflect on the other issues.

Do the people still vote along racial lines? Is there a difference in the mindset of the Pioneer Generation and those who are older, compared to the younger generation? Being "race blind" requires a high level of maturity, progressiveness and a deep understanding of race relations in Singapore, which are quite sensitive.

Does having reserved elections for minorities make the issue of race more conspicuous? These are the issues where we must consider and think about its explanations.

In the Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) survey in 2016, Singaporeans are found to be comfortable interacting and living together with the other communities and other races. But when the time comes to vote, they are more inclined to elect a President and Prime Minister from their own race. The same results were also seen in this survey three years ago, that is, in 2013. Hence, we can see that this view has not shifted significantly even though three years have passed. Due to that, without any guarantee that we can become "race blind" or "colour blind", this new proposal is important and has been presented.

What about the issue of tokenism that was highlighted by certain sectors? This issue must be managed with a good and well-crafted clarification. The younger generation in Singapore are used to values like meritocracy and fairness. Surely, they want the President to be elected fairly and impartially, from their point of view. This issue should not just be understood by the Malay/Muslim community but, in fact, all Singaporeans, in general, must also understand it correctly. This is to prevent any suspicion from emerging in the interaction between the different races.

Will the proposed method question the capability of minorities? This is surely a sensitive issue.

My view is that minorities should not feel unimportant or insignificant when, in fact, we have received good benefits in terms of the economy and our shared identity.

Minorities should also be able to give and take, so that our majority community will be comfortable living together with them each day in Singapore. Essentially, if the Presidential candidate carries out these responsibilities fairly and is a person of high calibre and is able to fulfil the same criteria as the other candidates, the issue of tokenism should not surface at all.

Another issue, Madam, is with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that Singapore signed in 2015 and will ratify in 2017, whereby this matter was also highlighted. We must understand the meaning and the real issue behind the words, "political rights of all races".

If you study this closely, it does not contradict and, in fact, provides opportunities for minorities. This scheme does not prevent anyone, including minorities, from taking part. In fact, it invites minorities to come forward.

The proposal that was made by this committee promotes, looks after, gives consideration to and does not belittle our minorities. It does not contradict at all with our values of multiracialism and multiculturalism in Singapore.

Today's global situation, Madam, should make all of us think about how the state of racial harmony, which we have cultivated all this while, can easily unravel. Global trends have churned up race-based politics that exploit populist and unhealthy sentiments seen in many countries.

Therefore, I urge everyone to take the time to understand and study carefully the background to this scheme. It is a difficult issue but it is important for our shared future in Singapore.

In contemplating about this Bill, I also thought that female Presidential candidates can be categorised under their own race. So, if we see this from a wider perspective, this proposal is also related to qualified women from all races in Singapore.

This is important. If we look at, for instance, the United States (US) – a First World and progressive nation – 240 years have passed but they have never had a female President until the present time, whereby Hillary Clinton is a candidate.

Before I end my speech, I have a query that I hope can be clarified. In mixed marriages, which are more common nowadays, the children born from this union will grow up and may one day become our Presidential candidate. How will we categorise them? Under which race? Because they may be placed under the "double-barrelled race" category.

What if both their parents are new immigrants who have become new citizens? What will be stated as their category of race? This is something for us and the next generation of leaders to think about and consider.

Moving forward, our minorities should look at this issue seriously in order to groom suitable candidates who have these characteristics, that is, being respected, loved, qualified and capable.

The President is a symbol of our nation, Madam. Make the right choice. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Firstly, I would like to speak on the aspect of the Bill which addresses the issue of representation of minorities.

As a Eurasian myself, I am proud to be part of a unique group of our community which is incredibly diverse and rich in our cultural heritage. We are literally living and breathing DNA fusions. Although we are routinely categorised as "Others", I have never felt excluded nor discriminated against.

Hence, initially, I did not think it was necessary to set aside an election for members of a racial group from which there has not been a President for five terms. After all, the racial group of a qualified candidate should be irrelevant in our meritocratic and race-blind society. However, the reality is that we are not quite a race-blind society, as the CNA-IPS survey had found. A significant proportion of Singaporeans would still prefer a President to be of their own race.

However, I am heartened to note that despite this, most Singaporeans will accept a Prime Minister or President of another race. The survey found that those who are younger and more highly educated are more accepting of leaders of different races. This, indeed, bodes well for our future.

This Bill highlights the reality of the racial issues our society faces. It is important to acknowledge the need to be more inclusive of our minorities and ensure that they feel that they are also an integral part of our community.

We have not had a Malay President or even a Malay candidate since the Elected Presidency commenced in 1991. Our only Malay President, the late Mr Yusof Ishak, was appointed after our Independence. I am, therefore, very happy to note that our next Elected President will be from the Malay community.

The importance of symbolism that any qualified citizen, regardless of race, language or religion, can be Singapore's Head of State is worth upholding.

As the criteria for qualified candidates for the elected President are so stringent, we can be assured that meritocracy will not be undermined. By placing the onus on members of our minority groups to step forward and stand for election, we are encouraging them to take a more proactive role in our Elected Presidency. An Elected President, compared to an appointed one, has a stronger mandate to represent his people. Each of us has a responsibility to be representatives for our racial groups and our nation.

I would like to suggest that going forward, we consider a separate fourth racial category for Eurasians, for the purpose of the Elected Presidency. I am not making this suggestion in response to the divisive anonymous article posted on the States Times Review website, which made false allegations pertaining to the election chances of Eurasians compared to Indians. Rather, I strongly believe that we Eurasians, being culturally distinct as Asians, with European ancestry and heritage, have a unique perspective to contribute to the office of the Elected Presidency. Our fusion backgrounds influence our attitudes, mindsets and interactions with our community. As the embodiment of East-West unions, we are also living testimonies of interracial, cultural and religious harmony and unity. By bringing something different to the table, we can help enrich the office of the Elected Presidency. Hence, I hope it would be ideal to ensure reserved elections for a Eurasian Elected President.

Secondly, in a similar vein, may I suggest that amendments be made to ensure that the composition of the CPA includes at least a member of each major racial group and at least one woman. The CPA plays a critical role in advising the Elected President on financial Reserves and key appointments. Members of different racial groups and women will offer a diversity of perspectives, which will enrich and inform the discussions of the Advisers and the President. Today, we have the breadth and depth of talent in each of our racial groups and among our women to support this criterion. I hope my suggestion will push the search to unearth and persuade qualified Singaporeans to accept the appointments to the CPA.

Lastly, we must be mindful that some Singaporeans would not be able to differentiate much between an election for the President and the GE, despite the public education efforts to highlight the different responsibilities of the President and elected Members of Parliament (MPs).

The Commission has made its recommendations on campaign methods and how to prevent misinformation, such as setting out-of-bound markers during rallies. I support the government's decision to take more time to study the recommendations carefully before instituting new measures. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Singapore today is a country with a rich diversity that we value, respect and celebrate. We see this in our surroundings, where we can find a mosque within the vicinity of a Chinese home or a church close to Muslim homes. It is even more amazing to a visitor to find a mosque beside a temple. We see this as our children go to school in traditional costumes to celebrate Racial Harmony Day and learn about the virtues of strength in diversity. We feel this inclusiveness when we get invited to open houses during Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Hari Raya or even to weddings of friends of different races.

Indeed, we are becoming more socially diverse. The proportion of inter-ethnic marriages has almost doubled from a decade ago. Last year, 21.5% of marriages were inter-ethnic marriages. We have new citizens and immigrants setting up home in Singapore, enriching our diversity.

We have benefited from the peace and prosperity from our racial and religious harmony and made our diversity work for us. Our interpretation of multi-racialism, has thus far, forged strong bonds among Singaporeans, and also engendered trust between the people and the Government. Indeed, it is only with this peace and this trust between the people and the Government that we can have an open discussion on amending the Constitution on the Elected Presidency.

There are three major pillars upon which we have built our multiracial and multi-religious social compact and earned us our peace and harmony. These pillars need to be continually tended to, strengthened or even modified while keeping an eye on achieving the objectives of a workable and peaceful multiracial and multi-religious society.

The first of these three pillars is our policies around building an inclusive society which is both multiracial and multi-religious. Our policies have long been the cornerstones to preserve this sense of inclusiveness of all races, in order to build a sense of equity within the community and political system.

Policies that have steered us towards this sense of inclusiveness are reflected over the years.

In 1965, when we became an independent nation, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew made a promise to Singaporeans to build a multiracial nation. He said, and I quote, "We are going to be a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set an example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture, religion."

To assuage the minorities, particularly the Malays who became a minority overnight, this commitment towards the inclusion of all Singaporeans has been worded in our Constitution under Article 152(1). It states that, "It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore", with special recognition for the position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.

In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established to examine all legislation to ensure that they are not disadvantageous to any racial or religious community as compared to other such communities.

Since 1988, our society's multiracialism has been safeguarded in our Parliamentary system through the GRC system, where at least one of the MPs must belong to one of the minority racial communities.

The Ethnic Integration Policy, which was introduced in March 1989, aims to ensure a balanced racial mix in every neighbourhood and block which approximates the general population. This has promoted racial integration and harmony in HDB estates. It is how many of us grew up smelling and learning to love one another's cooking, going to school together, visiting one another's homes during festivals and familiarising ourselves with the significant occasions at the void deck, be it weddings, birthday celebrations, even funerals – allowing each to celebrate or grieve.

Therefore, the amendment to the Elected Presidency is, to me, a continuation of the policy enhancement that we need from time to time to preserve this need to build an inclusive multiracial society.

Who we elect as President must be representative of who we are and what we stand for as Singaporeans. With the Elected Presidency, the principle of meritocracy applies – we must elect the best person for the job.

However, our value system is not singularly about meritocracy; in as much as competence is key, it is also a matter of principle, that our elected president is a person of integrity. These two principles, meritocracy and integrity, translate to competence and honesty, both necessary elements to the character of the Elected President, for the custodial role.

However, the Elected President also plays a symbolic role as the Head of State representing the multiracial society of Singapore and, at the same time, he or she must be able to connect with all Singaporeans. Ideally, since the Elected Presidency was first enacted in 1990, an Elected President of each ethnic group would have been represented and elected, but unfortunately this has not been the case.

Everyone has quoted the CNA-IPS survey on race relations, which was published recently in August 2016. The survey notes that while the majority of respondents of all races would accept someone from a minority race as President, given a choice, most would prefer someone of the same race as them to become the nation's Prime Minister or President. I do not believe that this is from a sense of deep prejudice or bigotry than a sense of comfort and convenience to choose someone similar to yourself.

This is apparent when, based on the same findings, 59% of Chinese would still say yes to a Malay President, while 75% of Malays would still say "yes" to an Indian President. In an ideal scenario, people will vote independent of racial lines, but the fact is that racial preference is primordial and a natural inclination. It exists today everywhere, it exists in Singapore, and it exists also in the US where ethnic-based campaign counts much in their elections. Therefore, in Singapore, too, if left unchecked, the current rules will more probably than not, elect a President of the majority race for a long time to come.

Indeed, just because we have learnt to live with our differences and can cherish them, does not mean the differences do not matter or the differences have disappeared.

So, I am glad that one of the proposed changes that will be introduced to the Elected Presidency is to have a reserved Presidential Election for a racial group. This will assuage the minorities, particularly. I have heard support from my community for this in the town hall dialogues I conducted. Actually, every time Presidential candidates are announced in every election in the past, I would be accosted by my community with remarks of disappointment because a Malay candidate is not contesting. Of course, it goes away months later, but it never fails to crop up again and again when a Presidential Election arrives again.

Now, these grouses seem a minor matter. Just a small unhappiness. It goes away. The Prime Minister cited last week's massive demonstration in Jakarta, which ended in violence. It was triggered by off-hand comments as part of a contest for high political office. What was allegedly said in that comment had religious connotations and was perceived as an insult to believers. One sentence, just one sentence was enough to enrage many people. Political actors allegedly took advantage of the situation to fuel sentiments further.

Seemingly small things can and do snowball, too, especially when they cut into primordial instincts about race and religion over time. That is why, it is good that we address this seemingly small issue on ethnic representation of the Elected President – because it is a matter touching on race or religion – before it accumulates over time and snowballs with other issues into an avalanche.

The right policies on their own, though, will not guarantee racial and religious harmony – it is no silver bullet. Clearly, however, the wrong policies will destroy this harmony. One policy of the Sri Lankan government in 1944 making Sinhalese the sole official language, excluded Tamil-speaking minorities from the civil service and limited entry into universities.

Other policies came in succession and continued marginalising Tamil-speaking minorities. The burning down of the Jaffna Library in 1981 was probably the ultimate trigger of 26 years of "bombs, bullets, carnage and suffering" from the civil war.

Mdm Speaker, while we have come a long way from the tumultuous times when there was strife between communities, we cannot take for granted the peaceful co-existence that we have today. Even as the Government moves to assuage the care and concern it has for minority communities by introducing new laws or modifying them, both the minorities and the dominant community have crucial roles to play to forge the trust and harmony that the Government seeks to build through an inclusive society.

Inclusivity is a two-way street. Inclusivity would not be successful had the minorities not been responsive. Minorities had participated actively in and continuously built our common spaces; even as minorities, we seek to preserve our identity and culture. Sometimes, integration involves everyone making sacrifices of what is important because it mattered to others. This proactive effort at integration by the minorities makes a crucial second pillar for our harmony.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The harmonious multiracial and multi-religious life that we enjoy and experience together all this while was built on three main pillars.

The first pillar is the good policies of the Government, which has all along continually ensured that all citizens and all races feel a sense of togetherness and inclusiveness, in order to create and cultivate a sense of equality in society and its political system. This includes:

(a) On the day of Singapore's Independence, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged to build a multiracial nation based on equality. This commitment is further strengthened in our country's Constitution in Article 152(1), which states the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the minorities in Singapore.

(b) In 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established.

(c) The GRC scheme was created in 1988 so that there will be a minority candidate in the slate of election candidates in order to avoid race-based politics.

(d) A year later, the Ethnic Integration Policy was established to ensure that there is a racial balance among the residents in each public housing estate.

The amendment to the Constitution to ensure that a candidate from each race can become an Elected President is another adjustment that was made this time round to change a situation that has not been conducive for someone from the minority group to become President. This has been well-received by the Malays, who also want a candidate from our community – someone who is qualified, capable and trustworthy. I welcome it, too.

Nonetheless, no matter how much the Government shows concern and takes care of the minority communities' welfare, both parties – be it the minorities or the dominant group – play an important role to cultivate and strengthen trust and foster mutual respect towards each other so that we can continue to enjoy this harmony.

At the same time, we should also agree that the integration process is essential for harmony. I am pleased that, as a minority, the Malay/Muslim community has always done its best to integrate with society in general in Singapore. Without depending on any welfare system, they have been able to enjoy modern life with other citizens based on meritocracy, while at the same time, still managing to preserve their identity as Malay/Muslims. This is the second pillar of our harmony.

In any process of integration, minorities will always want to see and sense the sincerity of the majority or dominant group in the effort to create an inclusive society; and this is no different in Singapore. It is the genuine acceptance of minorities that will create a sense of togetherness. This will form the third pillar of racial harmony in our country and I will elaborate further in English.

(In English): In many countries, where there is a dominant majority and significant minorities, we see a whole spectrum of how multiracialism is lived. This ranges from the negative, such as with oppression and rejection, to simply ignoring them to let them live any way they want; to the positive, integrating and embracing them as full-fledged members of the community. There are also societies that force minorities into assimilation. We are our own working model of a multiracial society and the most important part of which is to instil the sense of belonging of our minorities.

The sense of belonging of our minorities is crucial in ensuring that Singapore remains resilient against any force that threatens to tear our society apart. As minorities adjust to integrate, they continuously sense whether the majority is embracing the "inclusive society".

It is no different for Singapore. The warm embrace of the majority and, consequently, a sense of belonging by the minorities, makes the final third foundation for our multi-racial society to live in harmony. On the contrary, in countries which instead play up racial and religious differences by the dominant community, we see unhappiness within the minority community festering and, in certain cases, exploited.

Everyone here would be familiar with the Iraq conflict and the pronouncement of territories of the Islamic Caliphate by ISIS. But what is more interesting is that individuals from minority groups from countries so far away have also joined this war. The Soufan Group estimates 27,000 foreign fighters at the end of 2015. Why that many? I heard former US Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jane Lute, said, "They came from everywhere because they belonged to nowhere". There is at least a battalion of Uighur and Chechen fighters within ISIS. BBC reported, "It's the general colonial attitude of the Han Chinese officials to Uighurs that generate huge resentment."

In the end, there were violent clashes between the Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese in Xinjiang, China, such as that in 2014 as a result of the radicalisation of the Uighurs. In Chechnya, what started out as a nationalist uprising in Russia's north Caucasus region in the 1990s was met by a brutal clampdown which, in turn, spawned a violent Islamist movement. Chechnyan and Uighur militants spilled their fight into Syria hoping they can feel they belong and can call it home.

Thus, today, we see that the rejection or sense of rejection of a minority group in the community, or the use of force to make them conform to the majority, has not only caused a loss in the sense of belonging but often resulted in dire consequences, with some of the oppressed turning towards violence and terrorism.

Even Singapore is not immune to the growing threat of terrorism. The Government has arrested a dozen Singaporeans, most of whom were self-radicalised. Several intended to go to the Middle East to join ISIS, and a few were planning to mount attacks in Singapore.

The threat is real, and our best measure in tackling terrorism is to strengthen the sense of belonging of the minorities and, in today's context, of the Muslims and Malays in Singapore. We need this sense of belonging and an inclusive society to be pervasive even while the Muslim communities fortify their strength within to repel this threat. It is this sense of belonging that motivates Muslim leaders in Singapore to stand ready to come forward to defuse conflicts, and not exploit them nor goad the community to extremism or terrorism. In no small measure, too, it is this sense of belonging that the community has responded to reject extremism and terrorism.

Mdm Speaker, I am grateful that we in Singapore, continue to tend to our racial harmony with great care and concern. The amendment of the Constitution to ensure all ethnic groups a chance at becoming an Elected President will be remembered as a prudent foresight of the Government and a great generosity of the majority. In the passing of this amendment, I see a continued effort at acknowledging the aspirations, quiet aspirations, of my community and all the minorities, and thus, see a commitment to our multiracial and multi-religious compact. My community and I appreciate this.

At the end of the day, racial inclusiveness and harmony is up to us – you and me. Our diversity will only become our strength, if we consciously ensure that the generosity to be inclusive are ingrained into the fabric of our society. It has to be embodied in our thoughts and actions. This responsibility cannot rest on the Government alone, nor can it be just a top-down approach.

Everyone needs to play a part in this to integrate, to embrace, to understand and adapt. This sense of inclusiveness in Singapore is unique, and we need to continue working hard to preserve this.

Yesterday, the Americans voted. I do not know what the outcome is yet. But I saw an article in The New York Times by Imbolo Mbue, who is the author of the novel "Behold the Dreamers". She migrated from Cameroon and became an US citizen years ago. And she wrote, "I've seen the best of America during my time here. When I was considering dropping out of graduate school because of financial constraints, an American professor helped me get a scholarship so I could complete my master's degree. Twice, I had an American co-worker give me hand-me-downs because I couldn't afford to buy clothes. An American employer once said to me, at a time when I was questioning who I was, 'You are a breath of fresh air'. Being black, female and an immigrant – and for a good portion of my life here, low-income, too – I've weathered my share of prejudice. But the empathy Americans have shown me far outweighs the unkindness. That is why on Election Day, I'll be voting for empathy."

Yesterday, too, I felt a poignant moment when the Prime Minister said, "As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim observed yesterday, this would be our first Malay Elected President after more than 46 years, since our first President Encik Yusof Ishak." And the Prime Minister finished with, "I look forward to this." There was spontaneous applause from my colleagues – Chinese and minorities alike. I felt generosity. I felt empathy. That is why, for this amendment Bill, I, too, am voting for empathy. [Applause.]

Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mdm Speaker, yesterday saw a robust debate on the Government's Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the WP's proposal for an elected Senate. But what we saw from the PAP was a point-scoring exercise, focusing on technical aspects of our proposal, as well as casting misleading aspersions like, this will lead to a politicised Senate, rather than addressing the fundamental system design issue that this proposal raises.

I would like to return to those fundamentals of what we ought to be debating. Fundamentally, the Government has not made its case on this Bill – a politicised election for President undermining the President's unifying role. That is the crux of the issue. And no, it is not something we should simply accept because it has been there for 25 years.

And what is the case for giving the unelected CPA so much power, as my colleagues have argued extensively? This creates a President who is supposed to be a checker, who is prone to be check-mated by an unelected Council with both parties interacting in a black box. Arguing that the President need only to persuade four members of the CPA to support him is neither here nor there. Why should he or she have to?

It seems that the PAP is afraid that it is more likely that their preferred candidate would lose in the Presidential Elections, rather than their preferred candidates in the GEs. And so, the Elected President now needs to be further checked by an unelected body. If in the future, the CPA does not return the kinds of decisions that the PAP likes, will you introduce a fourth body to check the CPA?

Mdm Speaker, the Presidency, and I concur with Members who have talked about the importance of the Presidency, is the one precious unifying symbol of our national unity, above party politics. As a National Serviceman, I pledged my allegiance, as did many Members here, to the President and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, proudly. When we elect this office, inevitably, it becomes a proxy GE.

I voted in the 1992 and 2011 Presidential Elections. There was a palpable sense that many Singaporeans wanted to elect a non-establishment candidate to provide an alternative voice and to balance a one-party dominant system. That explains why the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow obtained 41.3% of the vote – the national vote, mind you – although he was relatively unknown and hardly campaigned at all. What is the PAP's strategy for managing this politicisation of the Presidency? So far, no one has explained it.

Is there anything wrong with a Presidential Election that is tinged with partisanship? Yes. The Constitutional Commission, the Menon Commission, recognised this. They had the courage to do so and suggested that we cast our eyes back to the time when Presidents were not elected. And I quote from their report, "The President would retain his symbolic and ceremonial role of the Head of State as it had been at independence and hold an appointed office. Parliament would abide by the convention by rotating the office among the different ethnic groups."

Madam, they are right. Yet, the Government has rejected the Menon Commission's advice on this hugely important issue, which is the nub of this debate.

It wants to retain Presidential Elections, but introduce changed eligibility and racial criteria. Why? Because we are told we had no Malay President for a long time, which is true. Because we are told we need to clarify the powers of the CPA. Because we are told we need to update the eligibility criteria to make them less lax because times have changed. Many of these concerns seem to stem from the experience of the last Presidential Elections in 2011.

But here is the thing: why did the Government not moot these changes soon after that 2011 Presidential Election, if that is the case? Why was this not part of the National Conversation in 2012? Why did the Government not talk about these planned changes in GE2015? Why introduce these changes now, without a referendum?

Singaporeans cannot be said to have consented to these changes at the last GE because they did not know about them. The idea of a referendum is the elephant in the room and, whenever it is raised, so far, the best response I have heard is: "Well, a referendum should be reserved for something that is a really big issue, a really big deal." To me, this is a really big deal.

Madam, this is gravely troubling. What aspect of our Constitution will the Government, with its supermajority in this House, choose to amend without a referendum right after GE2020? The one-person, one-vote system itself?

The Government has pointed out that we have not had a Malay President since 1970s, and we agree this is a concern. So, here is my question: why did the Government not urge a Malay candidate to run for one of the Presidential Elections between 1992 and now, as my colleague Mr Faisal Manap has argued yesterday?

The PAP has controlled all of the levers of political power since 1992. What was the PAP doing all this time on this issue? Under the WP's proposal for an appointed President, we would have had a Malay President a long time before now. In fact, we would have had multiracial Presidents in succession as we did in the past. No need to reserve elections.

Madam, on reserved elections, it opens up a Pandora's box of racialised, divisive politics, and where will it end? The Prime Minister is also a hugely symbolic office, possibly even more so than the Presidency as far as many Singaporeans are concerned because the Prime Minister is featured in the media on practically a daily basis, unlike the President. Should we reserve the office of the Prime Minister for some races?

Rather than focusing on the ethnicity of the President, I suspect many ethnic minority Singaporeans would rather that the Government address concerns like the possible existence of labour market discrimination facing some members of these communities – a matter that has yet to be definitively studied, quantified and debated, but was recently discussed in this House. Or helping minority Singaporeans who struggle to sell their flats due to HDB's ethnic quotas.

Madam, reserved elections risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may entrench the notion that Singaporean minorities need mandates to be elected because they are unelectable. A new generation of Singaporeans may grow up internalising this view. Is this what we want for Singapore? Does this help in the forging of genuine multiracialism?

I hope that no one inside or outside this Chamber twists the Workers' Party position as meaning that we oppose a Malay President. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for updating the paid-up capital requirements, this Bill replaces a $100 million threshold for automatic inclusion with a $500 million one. There is a deliberative track, yes, but the bar for automatic inclusion is now raised. What is the basis for this? Why $500 million, and not $400 million or $600 million? Did the PAP designers of this system have in mind limiting automatic eligibility to some arbitrarily defined number of candidates because the pool cannot be too big? By the way, this is one of those technical details that I think some Members have referred to.

The Government has said that the number of eligible candidates would not decrease versus the number in 1992. This is a misleading statement to make. The number of eligible candidates has decreased from the number in 2016. Why can the pool not be too big? To exclude some individuals?

Taken all together, Mdm Speaker, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government is making these changes to prevent an alternative, non-establishment sanctioned candidate from becoming the next President of Singapore.

Madam, there is a better solution to protecting the Reserves and the Public Service. We have proposed an elected Senate which would have the clout to stand up to the Executive and say no when necessary. The PAP seems determined to oppose this proposal for the sake of opposing, trying and probing to find any detail to attack with: there would not be enough candidates; too many candidates; too elitist.

But let us think, the Menon Commission suggested, and I quote, "the unbundling of the President's custodial role and its devolution to a specialist body". Our proposal for a Senate builds on their suggestion but extends it in the following ways.

Why not let the public be the judge of this Council's wisdom by electing them? Why does it need to be unelected? Let them form a Senate. Let the public see them exercise their collective wisdom by deliberating publicly. Where matters are sensitive for certain Reserves matters, for example, let them discuss in camera.

Let these wise men and women have the staffing and resources to really form an independent fact-based opinion about whether any executive request for Reserves drawdown really makes sense for the economy and for the country.

Let the Senate engage public finance consultants and economists where necessary. Or let them engage non-partisan full-time staff like other legislatures have, who do not report to either party, like the Congressional Budget Office in the US or the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, to provide independent research to inform these Reserves drawdown decisions independently from the civil servants who report to the Executive.

The President and the CPA do not currently have these resources. All the current President and, as far as I can see, the future President, have to go on, it would seem, are his regular lunch meetings with the Prime Minister.

Most importantly, let this Senate, under the Official Secrets Act, have access to the data they need to do their job – the kind of data that the late President Ong Teng Cheong requested.

Rules of non-partisanship would apply to Senatorial elections as per current Presidential Elections. But can we guarantee not the slightest taint of partisanship will creep into Senatorial elections? And much has been made of this by Members on the other side of the House.

No. We cannot guarantee this, but the PAP cannot guarantee that the same will not happen for Presidential Elections, as the Presidential Elections in 2011 showed, even by the admission of many leading figures in the PAP. What our system would deliver is a President seen to be above partisanship, and that is important for Singapore. That is important for Singapore. Madam, please allow me to speak briefly in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government has said that Singapore has not had a Malay President since 1970. Why did the Government not urge Malay candidates to contest in the Presidential Elections between 1992 until now?

I suspect that the minority races in Singapore are more concerned with everyday issues, for instance, the possibility of facing discrimination at work or difficulties that may be encountered when selling their flats due to the ethnic quota imposed by HDB, rather than the debate on the race of the Singapore President.

The WP's suggestion to revert to the system of an Appointed President is a valid suggestion, because through this system of an Appointed President, Parliament can ensure that every race is given a chance to be appointed as President, as we have done before. Parliament can also ensure that the Appointed President is someone who has integrity and is respected by all Singaporeans. There is no need for us to elect a President through an election that is reserved only for candidates from a certain race.

I hope that the WP's views will not be twisted by anyone, and portrayed to mean that the WP's will not support a Malay President. We will not accept such an allegation because anyone who makes such an allegation would be using the issue of race for political ends.

The fact is, we felt that a Malay who has integrity and is respected should have been appointed as President before this.

(In English): Let me now say a few words about the NCMP scheme. The hon Member, Mr Cedric Foo, told me after my maiden speech in this Chamber that my presence here as an NCMP was effectively a gift from the PAP, that it proved the PAP's commitment to political diversity. If indeed it is a gift, it is a Trojan horse. Every NCMP in history, other than Ms Sylvia Lim, my party Chairman, has gone on to lose the next GE they contested. The PAP knows this.

NCMPs cannot use public facilities or draw on the People's Association's (PA) lavish resources to fund grassroots activities in the wards they contested, as my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, observed.

The NCMP scheme allows the PAP to ask voters to vote out all Opposition from elected Parliamentary seats and leave only NCMPs. The likely effect of this is to cap Opposition presence in this Chamber at 12, but more importantly, much more importantly, if this scheme is fully exploited by the Ruling Party and fully embraced by voters in the way that the PAP hopes, it would be 12 unelectable Opposition MPs, and that is a crucial difference.

Such NCMPs would not play the balancing role that a healthy democracy needs. If the Opposition is no more than token, unelectable NCMPs, the ruling party need never fear losing in any elected seat. It can then do what it likes, never mind what the people think. It can steamroll alternative voices, it can amend the Constitution willy-nilly, it can force Singapore into a never-ending dependence on only one party for generations to come, like a computer with no back-up. This is good for the PAP. But is this good for Singapore?

I am sure some hon Members of this House will say later that if the NCMP scheme is so bad, why did you accept the NCMP position? Because this is not a choice between rejecting an NCMP seat and accepting it with gratitude and praise to the Ruling Party, as the PAP would have us believe. Because I decided, rightly or wrongly, that being in Parliament and arguing for what I believe is right, outweighed the risk of damage to our politics from accepting this NCMP position. Whether that was the right call to make, whether I am indeed contributing positively by being here, is best left to others to judge.

The PAP will say that the WP would not have accepted NCMP seats unless it benefited the WP. By the same token, we should conclude that the PAP would not have offered NCMP seats unless it benefited the PAP.

What if the Ruling Party fails in the future? This is not an academic question. This is not a trivial question. This is not an unimportant question. This is a crucial question. What if we wind up with an erratic Prime Minister of the PAP one day in the future and there is no credible, rational and electable Opposition ready to provide an alternative government or even an effective check? Some countries are in this position today.

What if we get another mismatch between population and infrastructure, such as what happened during the decade of the 2000s, when our trains, hospitals and housing stock were severely stressed and Singaporeans suffered, necessitating policy reversals after the GE of 2011 to repair the damage? Would those policy corrections have happened if the Ruling Party faced no risk of losing even a single seat in a GE? I do not think so.

Is this the legacy we want to leave for Singapore? A politically imbalanced one party-dominant system that buys international respectability with a token, unelectable Opposition of only NCMPs?

Rather than focus on the NCMP scheme as the solution to Singaporeans' desire for alternative voices, we should enhance our existing Parliamentary democracy to make it truly contestable. Delink the PA from the Ruling Party. Reform the regulation of the media to allow for regulated but free competition in broadsheet newspapers, television and radio. Set electoral boundaries transparently and consultatively. Educate every voter aggressively from the classroom onwards that their votes are, in fact, secret. Many voters still do not believe this.

Madam, I would like to conclude with a single, very simple question to the Government. With this amendment to the NCMP scheme, is it your goal that your party wins 100% of elected seats in Parliament? This is not a question about whether the people will ultimately determine the outcome of elections, and not the Government and not the PAP. I know they will and I do not need to be told that. It is a question about your goal as a Ruling Party for the next GE. And it is a "yes" or "no" question.

Mr Darryl David.

Mdm Speaker, a Bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution does not happen very often. And as expected, we have had many issues here being debated in the House over the past few days.

This has brought up some intriguing debates. We have heard debates involving references to shoes and when shoes should be changed, when shoes should be used. We have had certain Members talked about Senate and Senators, which, in my opinion, has raised a lot more questions than the solutions that it proposes to solve, and it also had the "R" word, "referendum", being bandied about in a far too casual and cavalier manner, in my opinion. No doubt, this has led to some strident and vigorous debate in this Chamber.

But I would like now to shift the focus a little bit back to, not so much what has been debated in this Chamber, but also what has been debated and discussed outside the Chamber – in the streets, among the people – based on my interaction with my residents and also with my constituents and some feedback that I have got from the ground with regard to the issues raised in this Bill.

And that is the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for the Presidential candidates and also the proposed changes that ensure all ethnic groups have the opportunity to be elected President from time to time. I think that most of us will agree that if the elected President has custodial powers, as meant to be the second key to our country's Reserves, then we need to ensure that whoever is elected to the Office has the right combination of the appropriate skillsets, experience and gravitas to take on the mantle of that role.

There will never be a list of specific eligibility criteria that everyone will agree on. However, I believe that the overall recommendation to change the eligibility criteria for candidates from the private sector is timely and appropriate, especially when we consider how the economic and business environment has changed in the last two decades.

I have also noted the Government's point that these changes are by no means permanent and will be reviewed from time to time.

As such, I am supportive of the proposed changes to the criteria and would thus like to spend a little more time discussing the issue of ensuring representation across the different ethnic groups.

Since Encik Yusof Ishak became our first President more than 50 years ago, the President's Office has been occupied and represented by distinguished individuals from different ethnic groups. In that regard, the notion of having presidents from different ethnic groups in Singapore's context is not new.

What is new, however, is that this Bill, for the first time, will enshrine in our Constitution that Singapore is guaranteed to have an Elected President from a particular ethnic group from time to time. This will be done via a proposed "closed-election" system reserved for that particular ethnic group, should there be no president from that group after a certain period.

Madam, multiracialism has always been one of the core pillars of Singapore since we achieved our Independence. Yet, while the various races have the freedom to celebrate their religion and culture, the Government has always been mindful of the need to maintain racial harmony, and rightfully so.

Many of our policies today are deliberately designed to prevent the formation of racial enclaves and to create common social spaces and a common community experience so that the different races can understand one another better.

The closure of ethnic-based schools and the introduction of a common curriculum allow primary school children to mix freely and to be comfortable with members of a different race. The ethnic-based public housing quota ensures that the resident composition of each block of flats within each housing estate is an approximate representation of ethnic composition based on the national average. The formation of the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC) further reinforces the importance of us standing united as one country regardless of race and religion.

These policies have worked well for us over the years. If I may reference Minister Masagos, the statistics that were published by SingStats indicate that the number of interracial marriages is on the rise, from approximately 7.6% of all total marriages in 1990, to about 21.5% of all marriages in 2015. That is one in every five marriages.

However, while these are positive signs and we continue to make progress, we also have to acknowledge that race and ethnicity are still deep and visceral concepts, and they not only shape our own identities, but also how we feel towards others.

In a series of landmark studies on implicit bias, Harvard social psychologist Mahzarin Banaji and her colleagues found that people are influenced by their implicit biases towards races. These biases exist at the subconscious level, often affecting our decisions and interactions with others without us being consciously aware of their existence.

The much-quoted CNA-IPS survey of Singaporeans conducted earlier this year supports this. More than 85% of respondents indicated a preference for national leaders from their own ethnic group. This indicates that the issue of race and ethnic identity is deeply ascribed, and many people still feel a strong sense of affinity to their own ethnic group.

Also, each respective ethnic group surveyed had different preferences and attitudes with regard to national leaders of different ethnicities, depending on which ethnic group that leader would hypothetically come from.

Many of the other Members of this House have made reference in their speeches to other data and surveys that indicate that racial bias does exist in Singapore. Indeed, my own experience with residents on the ground in the heartlands has also led me to believe that this is so.

But based on this, I feel that while Singaporeans might be accepting of other ethnic groups in terms of their cultures and traditions and that we all live in peace and harmony, this harmony and tolerance might not translate to truly "race-blind" political elections. This is a sobering reality that we have to face and acknowledge that race continues to be a significant factor in our sociopolitical sphere. So, while we have our ideals, we also have to live in reality.

Mdm Speaker, I feel that while meritocracy is a cornerstone of our society, the other "M" – multiracialism – is also a key foundational pillar of our social fabric. While I believe in equality of all races and equal opportunity for all, I also believe that certain measures must be in place to ensure that our multiracialism is not compromised.

The President is a symbol of our society, and he or she should epitomise the values and philosophy of Singapore. Going for many years without an Elected President from a particular ethnic group is certainly not desirable and does not reflect the multiracial and multicultural spirit of our country.

A circuit breaker "closed-election" that ensures that an eligible and qualified president from a particular ethnic group is elected from time to time is not merely tokenism or "affirmative action"; neither is it a compromise on the values of equality and meritocracy.

Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the core Singaporean values of multiracialism and meritocracy can and should coexist with each other. The sociopolitical challenges that Singapore faces are unique, and that is why we need to create a unique political system that suits our needs.

Madam, I mentioned Encik Yusof Ishak earlier in my speech and since Encik Yusof passed on in 1970, we have not had a Malay President, in 46 years. In the course of my lifetime, and many of my generation, and the generation that has come after me, we have never known a Malay President.

I am heartened, however, that should this Bill get passed, and should an eligible candidate step forward that next year, this will change and I can then put my hand on heart and say that I am proud to have known a Malay Singaporean as my Elected President in my lifetime and it is something that not just me, or my generation but all Singaporeans should be proud of come 2017. And with that Madam, I end my speech in support of the Bill.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

Mdm Speaker, I will speak in English, followed by Mandarin and English, so that we have time to change.

This Bill is one of great importance to our nation, not only because of the powers vested in the Presidency, but also because it involves the process of selection and the system's inherent justice.

Allow me to begin with a personal anecdote from my childhood. The year was 1971 and I was five years old. I vaguely remember that time the President had just passed away and there were programmes on our black-and-white television about him and his work because I was young and really did not know what a President really means. But what struck my impressionable mind was how he must have been an important person, so much so that his passing had a huge impact on everyone around me and, of course, that moment, there was no regular TV for a young boy like me.

But this has informed my impression of the Office of the President to this day. While the President does not mete out policies nor is he supposed to have political affiliations, he or she does more than a ceremonial role. As noted by the Prime Minister and also in the White Paper, I quote: "Very importantly, the President is also a symbol of the unity of the country." In essence, the President serves to unite and bring people together. What does unity mean? How is unity achieved?

Let me refer to our National pledge here, "…In order to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, We must be united as one people, 'regardless of race, language or religion'", three aspects of which the late Mr S Rajaratnam has identified as possible divisive factors to our national fabric. And how do we achieve this? We do this through a system that is "based on justice and equality".

This brings me to the Bill's amendment of reserving the Elected Presidency for a racial group if it is not represented for five terms. Naturally, we would want to see different races being successful across all strata of society. I would personally be most proud to have a President, or a Prime Minister for that matter, who is of a different race as myself.

It would send a signal to both Singaporeans and the world that our society has a system that embraces individuals, regardless of race, language or religion; that we are proud to have them as our leaders and role models to uphold our values and Constitution.

Yet, while racial representation is valued, how we achieve it is equally important. So, my question is: does the proposed mechanism in the amendment Bill honour the vision of justice and equality that we aspire towards?

There has been cynicism, criticism that such a provision is indicative of tokenism. Would these sentiments put doubt and even undermine the role of the President as a unifying symbol? Is the rationale behind this provision because we feel that Singaporeans will vote strictly according to racial lines? If so, then having this provision may not eradicate the problem but, in fact, indicates that there is a lot of work to be done to achieve our vision.

I have spoken to a number of young Malay Singaporeans and, while most agreed that they would welcome and be proud to have a Malay President, they questioned the process of the selection. Is it possible, in a democracy, to pre-select the race of the President before any campaign or contestation has even begun? Do we, in trying to be inclusive, come across as quite exclusive and, sometimes, maybe even a bit discriminatory?

I do not know if I can adequately speak about the minority races' aspirations or apprehensions on this issue. But as a member of the Chinese majority, I feel that I can speak about my concerns instead.

Our current population is predominantly Chinese and, therefore, how Chinese Singaporeans vote will have an undeniable influence on the final results. So, can we Chinese Singaporeans look beyond race to make an informed choice for our votes? Do we know enough about what happens in communities other than our own? Do we interact enough with other races meaningfully? Or do we keep to our own, assuming that our well-being implies the well-being of others who are not like us?

Are we aware that our majority status inherently creates an imbalance that privileges us where resources and opportunities are concerned? Or do we imagine that since our society is a meritocratic one, then all, regardless of race, will enjoy the same starting point in life?

Does our language-based media expose us to news about other communities? I read the Chinese newspapers and I can say that little is written about other communities. I watch our local Chinese television and you would think, given what is on screen, that Singapore is made up largely of Chinese people, with minority races making silent cameo appearances on television series.

Is this a problem? Our Chinese majority has yet to raise this issue with a concerted voice. Maybe, most think that it is not of concern. But I believe otherwise. The fact that we need to amend the Elected Presidency Bill to ensure minority representation says a lot about how far the majority is from real engagement with minority races. And by real engagement, I am not talking about superficial exchanges, such as eating thosai or mee rebus, or wearing other races' traditional outfits on Racial Harmony Day.

In fact, such a provision may exacerbate the issue, in that it provides a convenient argument for the majority to say this special provision already allows for a Malay, Indian or Eurasian President, negating the need to really reach out, understand, appreciate and support the best candidate, regardless of race, language or religion. In some ways, this provision may placate the minorities, only to reassure the majority and, above all, may even sometimes feel patronising.

In layman's terms, what we are possibly saying to the minority races is this: we have made provisions for you. So, let us move on and allow some of these people, and maybe even allow some of these people to say, "do not complain and do not be so ungrateful." For the longest time, we, as a society, have not addressed this issue adequately, deeply, honestly and meaningfully. We are able to do so because, in Singapore, there is hardly any hate crime or physical attacks because of race.

However, other forms of racism can still rear their ugly heads. Comments such as Little India being dark because there are too many Indians there and racial discrimination in the rental and job markets, where the phrase "Mandarin speakers only" seems to be code for "non-Chinese need not apply". Such actions reveal the cracks existent in our social fabric. It is worse when those who voice their discontentment regarding such actions are said to be "too sensitive" or "overreacting" by members of the majority race.

According to a survey on race relations commissioned by CNA-IPS, nearly two in three Singaporeans surveyed have heard racist comments being made, and about half the time, it was by workplace colleagues and friends. Faced with such comments, 65% of respondents said they ignored the person's comments. This is in spite of the fact that 84% said they would get upset if they heard racist comments about any race; 62% said it was never acceptable to make jokes about another race in the company of friends; and 67% said it was never acceptable to call a racial group terms like dirty, lazy or money-minded.

I will now proceed in Mandarin. It is sort of related to what I said just now.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This debate on the Elected Presidency has caused me much confusion. Again, this time, we are focusing on the minorities.

Frankly speaking, as a member of the majority community, I feel some anxiety mixed with a bit of shame. I will be proud that we can elect a respectable minority candidate. It demonstrates the success of our multiracialism and our meritocracy system. However, it also satisfies our sense of ego. Look, what a fair society Singapore is, and how progressive we are!

I know that the minorities have reacted differently to this proposal. I have discussed with some minority people and the response I get is that, should a minority candidate become the President, the community would be very proud.

But how do we achieve this outcome? As proposed by this amendment Bill, when a member from any racial group has not occupied the President's office after five continuous terms, the next Presidential election will be reserved for a candidate from that racial group. This arrangement is rather controversial.

By proposing this amendment, the Government is reminding us that many people vote along racial lines. If that is the case, we must then ask ourselves, how far are we from our vision of seeking a common ground among differences?

We clearly know that under the "one man, one vote" system, if we vote along the racial lines, then the majority community can easily decide the outcome of the election. That is to say that the majority, which is the Chinese community that I belong to, is key to this debate.

This brings me to my point of feeling a sense of shame. This is my personal reflection mostly. As a member of the majority race, do I have a deep understanding of the minorities? Is my interaction with the minorities deep enough, both economically and culturally? Is eating mee rebus in the morning and thosai in the afternoon enough? Is showing off a few Malay words, such as "terima kasih", enough?

As the majority, do we realise that, compared to the minorities, our starting point is different? Because we are the majority, we are privileged in terms of resources and opportunities. So, as a member of the majority, do we join in when we hear people of our own community making fun of the minorities? Or do we stand up when we see minorities being treated unfairly at the workplace? Do we realise that it is putting up fences when we see phrases like, "can speak Mandarin" in employment or rental advertisements?

Hence, it is not the minorities who should feel uneasy about this proposal. The proposal reminds us to ponder what we have contributed to our multiracial society as the majority. Is it enough just to settle problems in our own community?

You can see this mindset from our Chinese media. The Chinese newspapers seldom report news about the minorities. If we look at our television dramas, you may think that people living in Singapore are all Chinese. Occasionally, you will see minorities in shows but they only serve as a decoration. Should we not feel ashamed of this bias? Perhaps we should reflect more on our mindset as the majority, instead of focusing on the plight of the minorities.

We know that our hearts are biased. To have the same heart is not easy. We need tolerance. We must be accommodating and broad-minded. Our mind should not be filled with anxiety, misunderstanding and ignorance.

(In English): My intention, Mdm Speaker, is not to sway this debate into a discussion on racial politics. However, race is very much at the core of the issue here with regard to the Elected Presidency Bill. It is not a special provision. Ultimately, it is not a special provision for a minority President or Prime Minister that we need. What we need is better, inclusive and genuine engagement across racial and ethnic lines. To me, "regardless of race, language and religion" means that, in a society, we need to consider and care for people of other races and religious beliefs, people who speak a different language from us, perhaps more so than our own race, language and beliefs.

I would also like to speak about another important criteria of the Elected President, that is, he or she should be someone whom we believe has his or her heart in the right place, someone who will act for the good of the nation, for the people.

So, while we argue that the President needs to have strong financial knowledge and advice to decide when to employ our Reserves in difficult times, he or she will also need the moral courage and integrity to make sometimes difficult important decisions. These same qualities will inform the President's decision to support or veto the appointment of key officeholders. It is, therefore, the President's value system that is critical here.

In view of this, I would, therefore, like to remind the House of this: yes, it may be important for the Presidential nominee to have qualifications, such as having being a chief executive officer (CEO) of a company of more than S$500 million of shareholders' equity or having been in senior positions in the Public Service. But, ultimately, it is the nominee's value system and moral strength that will guide him or her to make responsible, independent decisions for the nation.

And this leads me to another suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider. As articulated very fluently by my fellow Nominated Parliamentarian Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, we are faced with a complex world rife with standoffs and contestations among people, the government, interest groups and so on.

There were indications in the 2011 Presidential Election that Singaporeans yearn for alternative possibilities to deal with such difficult situations. Some had hoped that the Elected President could provide such an alternative institution for arbitration or maybe for mediation, something akin to what Prof Tommy Koh and President Tony Tan have suggested: an ombudsman. Could this ombudsman, a role of mediation and negotiation, and one built on trust, reside in the Office of the President, given that it possesses a unifying symbol for the nation?

And lastly, as I heard my fellow Parliamentarian, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who had proposed that maybe we should now debate and revisit the role of the Nominated MPs (NMPs) and see how they can help in being a good check and balance instrument in our Parliamentary and legislative process.

The Elected President is a symbol of unity, not just in good and peaceful times, but also in difficult ones. It is in crises that the true mantle of the President is tested, where his or her moral integrity and independence is counted upon to make necessary decisions. We must, therefore, ensure that the President is elected based on a fair system, one that embraces the values of equality and justice that we seek to uphold, regardless of race, language or religion; regardless or class, gender or sexual orientation.

Let me end by reading a monologue in a radio play, "A Malayan Language", written in 1957 by the late Mr S Rajaratnam.

"What does it matter that we are Malays, Chinese, Indians or Eurasians – or Eskimo or Patagonians? What matter if our skins are this or that shade? Remember that beneath the skin we are brothers. We are fellow Malayans. That is why I am here before you, to preach to you the gospel of brotherhood. That is why my party has fought bitterly against those who preach communalism, against those vile men whose insane ambitions has led them to exploit fears and hatreds."

With that, I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mdm Speaker, allow me to begin in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When our Prime Minister Lee spoke about the review of the Elected Presidency, I voiced my concern about the proposal to have a process to ensure that there is representation from the minority groups.

In my maiden Parliamentary speech, I said that although we want to see representation from our Malay community, we would like our Malay representative to be selected because he or she is the best person, and not just because he or she is a Malay. We do not want the selection to be merely a symbolic one.

During the discussions at various dialogue sessions on the changes to the Elected Presidency, I was able to see a variety of views from the community regarding this matter. I also heard some concerns from our Malay/Muslim community. Some said that they were worried about being given special treatment in this matter which is not in line with our system of meritocracy. Some said that many Malays may not qualify and may not fulfil the established criteria. Some said that we should see Malays in various careers and fields, and not just for the office of the President.

I think that these discussions have definitely created awareness about important issues related to our lives within a plural society. We have not yet reached the ideal state where everything is perfect. Nonetheless, we must not lose hope. We must continue to make the effort and have constructive discussions so that we can continue to improve this situation.

Yesterday, when the Prime Minister announced that the upcoming Presidential Elections will be reserved for Malays, there was a feeling of joy in our community. This shows that the community welcomes this change.

For me, this is just a step towards the effort to emphasise the importance of our identity as a multiracial society. The Malay community is part of our plural society. Having an Elected President who is Malay is an important signal to the country and to the whole world.

We should not just stop here. Certainly, we have to think about the positive steps that can be taken to improve our community's quality of life and strengthen interracial relations. The Malay/Muslim community should continue to work hard so that we can produce future generations that are of a high calibre and are able to compete. We have already seen progress year after year. I am confident that if we strengthen our resolve and efforts, we will continue to see more of our Malays becoming leaders in various fields and who will play a leading role in this country.

(In English): When the matter of the review of the Elected Presidency was first raised by the Prime Minister earlier this year, I was apprehensive. In particular, I had concerns with the issue of ensuring minority representation in the office of the Elected President. I was concerned about the sentiments towards the minorities if we took what is perceived as "affirmative action". I was worried about the impact on the Malay community especially. In his speech, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim explained the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community. I can relate to this and it truly reflects the sentiments on the ground.

I had expressed in my maiden speech in Parliament that the Malay community would not want a Malay to be President just because of his or her race. The Elected President should be there because he or she is the best for the job.

Following the Prime Minister's announcement, an independent Constitutional Commission conducted a thorough review which culminated in a 153-page report, excluding the annexes. This report not only gave me an insight to the diversity of views on the matter, but also a better understanding of the role of the Elected President in Singapore.

In the wake of the Government's White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission report, I engaged in numerous discussions with many Singaporeans on the issue; in my personal capacity and as a Member of Parliament. I would like to share and reflect on my observations at these discussions, more specifically, on the sentiments regarding race representation in the Elected President system. I made three main observations.

Firstly, there are clearly many different views on the matter. But I saw a common thread in these different views – everyone agrees that it is important to preserve multiracialism in Singapore. Secondly, the desire for a representative from one's community to sit in the highest office of the land is real. It may be unspoken at times, but it is real. Thirdly, the discussion on this aspect of the Elected Presidency has awakened an awareness about the actual state of affairs in Singapore. We are not race-blind yet.

With regard to my first point, in the discussions, some felt that the proposal to ensure a reserved election for a certain race ran against the grain of our Singaporean values. It appears to contradict our commitment to meritocracy and is seen to be a regressive step in building a multiracial, race-blind nation. People can decide regardless of race or religion, they say. Some felt that such a step would be counter-productive for the minorities as their capabilities would be called into question and this would be unhealthy for the country as a whole. I would add that those who held these views included members from the minority communities.

On the other hand, others felt that this is a pragmatic step forward. We could see from examples around the world that managing racial differences is not an easy matter with no easy solution. In Singapore, too, there were challenging times but over the years, there has been much peace and understanding among the different racial groups. So, many lauded the deliberate efforts the Government had taken over time to manage racial differences and encourage racial integration in Singapore. Many understood the need to take certain steps to maintain our multiracial identity. The step to ensure racial representation in the office of the Elected President is one such deliberate effort.

What is heartening for me is that at the core of these arguments, is a great desire to see Singapore embrace its multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious identity. There was a firm acknowledgment of our commitment to make Singapore a place for all races. I think this is worth reflecting on and would be a galvanising force to rally people to decide on what is best for Singapore.

So, what is the best for Singapore? We could choose to let nature take its course and let the various communities in Singapore evolve. Or we could be proactive to address the elephant in the room. Is there an issue, one may ask? I believe there is.

As I mentioned, my second observation is that there is a keen desire to see a representative from one's community to become President. It is symbolic but very important. Sure, not everyone in the community feels this way. However, I believe many Malays do. At every single dialogue session I have had with members from the Malay community, participants would express their desire to see a Malay President in office. When the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next Presidential Election would be reserved for the Malay community, there was a buzz of excitement among many in the community.

At this juncture, I note that in the debate in this House so far, there appears to be a general agreement in this House regarding the importance of the symbolic role of the President. There also appears to be an acceptance that it is important for someone or some entity to play a custodial role to safeguard our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service. There is also a general agreement that there needs to be a direct mandate from the people, via an election to perform this custodial role. So, the issue is: how do we do it? And again, the key question is: what is best for Singapore?

I started out by saying I was apprehensive when announcements about the review of the Elected President system was made. Despite my earlier reservations, I am fully supportive of this Bill. I set out my reasons.

I have come to appreciate that there is a need to make changes to the current Elected President system. In particular, I believe there is an important need to address the issue of minority representation in the office of the President. I believe that the changes put forth address these needs and promote multiracialism by introducing a concept of racial representation in the Elected President's office. I would, therefore, like to ask the Opposition whether they would actually support a reserved election for Malay candidates when it is put forth in the next Election.

The proposed Bill reflects minimum intervention and does no more than necessary to achieve the aim of ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency. The hiatus-triggered mechanism allows for a natural sunset which means that it would recede in significance over time and, hopefully, one day, ceases to be necessary. In addition, all candidates are required to satisfy the same eligibility criteria and this ensures that our commitment to meritocracy is not compromised.

I note the importance of the custodial role of the Elected President. The position of the Elected President in Singapore is, indeed, unique. This role has served Singapore well in shaping the politics in this nation. Other models, in particular, the proposal for a senate brings with it other complications, including potential for a gridlock down the road as well as further politicisation with an increased number of people who are, effectively, as what Dr Janil Puthucheary called "custodial presidents". The proposal put forth must be one wherein the implications have been fully thought through. I am not certain that the senate is a healthy introduction to the Singapore political system, especially when the mechanics and the impact of the same are not completely clear.

Lastly, I believe that the tension between the symbolic role and the custodial role of the Elected President can be addressed, especially if the candidate is clear about his duties and role. The candidates must demonstrate to the electorate his or her ability to balance these roles. And our past Elected Presidents have demonstrated that the balance is possible. Further, any concerns of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with through honing the rules governing election campaigns.

I would like to end off with a reflection on my third observation – the awareness that we are not there yet; we are not race-blind. I heard Mr Kok Heng Leun's passionate speech and I really feel him. Now that we know that we are not race-blind, what do we do about it? I feel that this discussion on minority representation for the Elected Presidency system has created an openness to talk about what used to be perceived as a sensitive topic like race. It made us a bit uncomfortable to think about the current state of affairs but it has pushed us to think about issues a little bit more.

As Mr Murali had mentioned in his speech, there is much to be discussed about our religious practices, our common spaces. We should ride this wave and be open to engage in these discussions. And as Dr Tan Wu Meng had also said, we must be willing to take positive steps in our daily lives to connect with people from different races and religions. We should reflect on how we interact with our neighbours and friends who are different from us. How can we improve the existing interactions? How can we be more inclusive and be good examples to our children and grandchildren? We should continue to take positive steps to work towards our vision of being race-blind. I believe that with the continued effort, we can and will make Singapore a place where the people remain united regardless of race or religion. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Madam, as stated by my fellow MPs of WP, we agree with the Constitutional Commission and the Government that this Parliament should be the centre of power in our democracy.

The Constitutional Commission observed that in the two-key mechanism, Singapore can ill afford an impasse on matters touching on the use of national Reserves or where appointment to key Public Service positions are concerned. The Commission concluded that it is critical that the Government retains the ability to function effectively in this area. We also agree that the Reserves need to be safeguarded and the body safeguarding the use of the Reserves has to be given a mandate by the people to say no to the Government.

The office of the Elected Presidency, instituted in1991, as described by the Law Minister in 2011, sounds imprisoned by the Cabinet. The Minister said in his speech in 2011, "that the President must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties, and he cannot act or speak publicly on issues of the day except as advised by the Cabinet".

In other words, the Elected President cannot play Jailhouse Rock when the Government prefers Beethoven. And to remind the President that he does not have absolute veto powers, the Government established an appointed body, the CPA, to check on him. So, why is this Government telling the people they need to elect a President in order to give him specific powers to say no to the Government when he can never act alone in exercising his veto powers? The Presidential veto does not carry any weight without the support of the CPA.

With the passing of this amendment Bill, the Elected President will have to share power with an enlarged CPA in the discharge of his custodial and key appointment roles. The CPA, although only an appointed body, is bestowed with considerable powers to challenge and delay the decision of the President.

This Bill also imposes a general duty on the President to consult the CPA before exercising his discretion in respect of all fiscal matters touching on the Reserves and all matters relating to key Public Service appointments. Without the support of the CPA, the President can hardly veto anything. The CPA, with its expanded role and size, now functions like an Upper House to ensure the President does not act contrary to the will of the Cabinet, since the President has limited say in the composition of the Council. The introduction of staggered term appointments by dividing the members of CPA into three divisions has little to do in ensuring continuity of the Council. Rather, it has the effect of ensuring stability in the decision-making process, as the composition of the all-powerful CPA cannot be altered by the President in one term.

A founding father of the USA adopted staggered terms in the Senate for a number of reasons. And one of them is that the majority party in the Senate may change every two years, thus bringing fresh ideas and policies over time. However, the same effect will not happen for the CPA as all the eight members are not elected but appointed under specific conditions. The Prime Minister and President can appoint three members to the CPA each, evenly spread over three staggered terms, the remaining two of the tie-breaker appointments will come from the Chief Justice and Chairman of the Public Service Commission respectively.

Singapore will elect its fourth President in 2017. The President will not be able to appoint his first member to the CPA until 2020. If this President were to serve two terms or 12 years, he can only appoint up to a maximum of three members. This is the absolute influence the President is going to get in the eight-member CPA even if he serves for life. The circle of influence in the CPA is very important. Whenever the President decides to disagree with the Government on certain matters, the CPA has the power to turn the Elected Presidency into a lame duck institution over time if it chooses to disagree with the President each time he uses his veto powers.

Check and balance under a political framework must be legitimised and mandated by the people. We cannot have a popularly elected President and then subject his influence and power to be checked by an appointed body at the same time. Such a system will polarise the society and politicise the CPA over time. We do not need to look into the future to see this happening. We already have Government-appointed grassroots advisers in Aljunied and Hougang to check and co-share the influence and powers of Elected MPs. Estate upgrading projects funded by HDB can stall unless the appointed grassroots advisers support the initiative. The political divide in our estate is telling and not healthy. If I may quote what the Prime Minister said yesterday about giving a non-elected President custodial powers, "Who are they to say no. We are elected, you are not. We represent the people's will, please approve what we propose".

The CPA, like grassroots advisers, is not elected but wield considerable influence and power. In fact, the CPA was described to be on equal footing with the President in the analogy by Mr Goh Chok Tong in 1990. He said, "The six members of the CPA are like appointed Senators while the President is like an elected Senator."

Madam, it is important to let the people know that when they are voting for a President with custodial powers, they are not voting for a standalone person but the vehicle mechanism comprising the CPA, which may render the Elected President powerless in the process.

The Elected Presidency, together with the proposed amendment tabled today, has the propensity to turn our democracy into a dysfunctional one in the future. For example, if there were to be a change in government by a simple majority, the incoming administration would not be able to make changes to the key appointments in the Public Service or tap on the Reserves to save jobs without the concurrence of the President whose candidacy was most likely derived from the automatic track, as history had shown, and the all-powerful CPA whose members were all appointed by the previous administration. A veto by the President and the concurrence by the CPA are enough to stop any Supply Bill or key appointment dead in its track, even though the incoming administration has the mandate of the people to run the country.

Similarly, if an outsider President were to take office and decide to stop the incumbent administration from introducing populist measures to buy voters' support or to appoint its own people to the Public Service to move its own agenda, the CPA can send the veto back to the Government to trigger an override by the Parliament. In both scenarios, the power of the CPA and the resultant political unrest cannot be understated. It is irresponsible of us to kick this can down the road, too.

Madam, as far as I can remember, the appointed Presidency has served Singapore very well. Most of the appointed Presidents that graced the office of the Head of State from 1965 to 1991 were apolitical and were not conflicted in any way to represent the citizens of Singapore regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation. Most important of all, they had proven to be enduring symbols of unity.

When the Elected Presidency came into existence, the issue of a candidate's political affiliation becomes even more acute, as the President is supposed to act as a check on the Government on specific matters. The late Mr Ong Teng Cheong became the first Elected President of Singapore in 1993. Mr Ong was the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the People's Action Party prior to participating in the election. Mr Ong ran against a very reluctant candidate, the late Mr Chua Kim Yeow, who did not put up any poster, distribute any pamphlets or hold a single rally. In short, the late Mr Chua did not do any campaigning for votes. He gave only two 10-minute television broadcasts. It was reported that he did not even want to give an interview but relented eventually.

The result of the first Presidential Election was totally unexpected. Mr Chua got a very respectable 41.31% of the total votes cast. For a reluctant candidate to do so well against an eminent opponent from the Ruling Party with absolutely no campaigning at all is a shocker to say the least. The Presidential Election of 2011 provided the affirmation on the type of candidates Singaporeans would prefer to check on the Government. The leading candidate, coincidentally the Chairman of the People's Action Party and Deputy Prime Minister at one time, came within a hair's breadth away from losing the Presidential Election in the four-way contest. The nation was so divided that President Tony Tan was elected on a mandate of 35.2% of the valid votes, beating Dr Tan Cheng Bock by a margin of 0.35%. This a razor-thin margin unheard of even in the history of our Parliamentary election. When a constituency came that close to changing hand in a parliamentary election, it will usually disappear from the electoral map. But you cannot make Singapore disappear. So, the next thing, I guess, for this Government is to raise the bar and make some candidates disappear.

I understand the Minister has said that the changes are not targeted at any individual, but I am sure the Minister would agree that the changes will narrow down the pool of eligible presidential candidates going forward. While the amendment in this Bill will raise the bar for other candidates, it will continue to ensure an endless supply of candidates from the ruling elite, a source of candidacy where voters had made their disapproval known, not once but twice, in as many Presidential elections.

Custodial powers aside, did the two contested Presidential elections entrench the notion that the Elected President is supposed to be a unifying symbol of the nation after all? It certainly did not feel that way. From the result of the election, it was easy to see that the people of Singapore value something more intangible than whether a presidential candidate is a CEO of a $500-million company or an ex-Minister. They value political independence and for good reason, because this democracy is overrun by one party for the longest time.

I agree that the Elected Presidency did not change the symbolic role of the President, but it is highly politicised as a result of the dual roles the President is expected to play. The system has inherent flaws and the Commission has picked it up as well. And this reality will continue as long as the Elected President is expected to perform his custodial function and symbolic role at the same time.

Madam, the Constitutional Commission went beyond the terms of reference to suggest the unbundling of the custodial and symbolic roles of the President to facilitate a return to the appointed Presidency. One can only surmise that the Commission is acutely aware that an Elected President will always be conflicted in some ways going down this road.

The WP does not see the need to have an Elected President. We call upon this Government to do away with the Elected Presidency and revert to an appointed President. The WP recognises the importance to safeguard past Reserves and proposes to have a Senate body elected by the people solely for the custodial function as intended for the Elected President, as explained by my Parliamentary colleagues earlier.

The wide-ranging amendments in this Bill, such as the tightening of the qualifying criteria for Elected Presidency, the expanded role of the CPA and on the reserved election for minorities, to name a few, bear the hallmarks of an experiment gone awry for the Government.

Madam, how many walkover Presidential Elections do we want to have before we acknowledge that the system is not working? How many reluctant candidates does this Government intend to field, just to give the electorate a semblance of contest, before we may end up with a reluctant President? And if this Government wants to narrow down the field to a sole candidate, where is the legitimacy to real power?

Race has never been an issue for the highest office of our land until the Elected Presidency came along. This is a fact. Is this not an experiment gone wrong? Is the Elected Presidency the best platform to safeguard the Reserves or merely a veiled attempt by the PAP to safeguard its control over all levels of government at the same time? Only a national referendum can provide the answer. My wife showed me a message yesterday. It was a simple question. It says, "Why are we asked to elect a President when the Government has decided who we should vote?" This rhetorical question came from a young student. Madam, I do not support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.30 pm until 4.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Madam, I am thankful for this opportunity to address the House. Before I go into the substance of my speech, I would like to seek a clarification.

In the proposed amendment to the Constitution, I note that the intention is to enlarge the President's veto powers, with the President acting on the advice of the Council. If the President exercises his veto vote contrary to the Council's advice, the Government may trigger the overruling mechanism, presumably because the President must take the advice of the Council seriously.

However, should the President assent despite the Council recommending a veto, the Bill still becomes law. Should not the same rationale apply and the Bill be then sent back to Parliament for further deliberation and debate? After all, the Bill is about empowering the President to exercise his veto powers. So, I hope that the Government will look into this clarification.

Secondly, I now move to the substance of what I would like to say. Madam, I support the enhancement in the criteria for the selection of the President. However, I join a few of my hon Members in requesting that we look into other criteria as well, not just financial expertise but also other factors that show the heart of the President. Could we formalise the criterion to show community involvement so that our financial gurus also are persons with heart whom we can confidently vote into Parliament?

I support the enhancement on the veto powers and I support the entrenchment of minority representation in this very important office of our land. There are two ways to look at minority representation in this office. Either we look at it as an institutionalisation of a racial divide or the respect for differences, regardless of race or religion.

I used to look at anything that we do that highlights differences in race as the institutionalisation of racial differences. For that, for many years, I had reservations and I could not in good conscience support a lot of initiatives. But I am coming to realise that when we talk about minority representation, it is a recognition of differences and when we institutionalise that in the Office of the President, we are respecting the differences. This is not new to have the rotation of different races in the Office of President. Switzerland has it. New Zealand has it. And I do not know why Singapore cannot have it.

For the longest of time, I had prided myself as being colour blind. After all, I grew up in a kampong. I have Malay friends, Eurasian friends and Indian friends. We grew up together, played together, worked together, and I have always proudly said I was colour blind. I did not realise that my kind of colour blindness is blindness and that if we had enough people like me with this type of colour blindness, we will ultimately destroy our society.

I did not like to talk about race; I did not like to talk about religion; and I always said we are all the same, and we are. But just because we do not talk about it does not mean that difficulties do not exist. And so, for years, I shied away from talking about race and religion. But just because talking about something hurts does not mean we do not talk about it. If it exists, it exists. If we got to do something about it, we do something about it and we do it before it is too late.

So, I support the amendments to the Presidential Office and I say that, beyond that, we go beyond, we go beyond what we want to do today and to the people-level relations. We look at how we relate to one another and we talk to one another and relate to one another as equals, with respect. I hope that Singaporeans will not politicise race and religion. We have too much at stake and, so, beyond the political debate within this House, let us be one people.

Madam, this is my call to Singaporeans. I decided to speak because I could not take discussions, whether within or without this House, that attempt to turn race into stature, into anything that gives a person a better standing. Talking about race and religion hurts but we got to talk about it and we got to face it squarely and, if we do not have a better solution, let us do what we have with what we can now. Madam, I will speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am a Singapore Citizen. My forefathers came from China to Singapore and the South Seas. We have sunk our roots here. My skin colour is yellow. I grew up in a kampong; I played with many friends, went to school with them, and went to work with them. I have never thought of their skin colours, because I never thought that we were from different races. I only thought that we were all Singaporeans. Very often, I would proudly tell everybody that we are all Singaporeans.

I did not like to talk about race and religion. However, not wanting to talk about race and religion does not mean that problems do not exist. In this society, we have seen many problems but I always denied them. I am beginning to feel afraid; I am afraid that our society may not be as perfect as I thought; I am afraid that my thoughts have neglected other fellow citizens' challenges and the problems they face. Growing up in a multiracial society and being a Chinese, I could not appreciate my fellow citizens' difficulties. I can only say that all are equal, but is it true? We can say that, but can we do it? We all have our own thoughts.

The Government is now introducing this Constitutional amendment regarding minority candidates in the Elected Presidency for us to debate on. In the beginning, I did not wish to participate in the debate because I did not want to talk about racial issues. But having heard the debate for three days, I feel it is not right to remain silent.

From the beginning of our nation-building, our Pioneers have worked together regardless of race and religion. We have experienced many racial and religious riots or disputes. True, for many years, we have enjoyed a peaceful society, but what we worry is that because there is no storm, we forget that the undercurrent is still there. Though we cannot see it, it has tremendous power. This is my illusion. I thought what is unseen does not exist.

The Government announced that once the Constitutional amendment is passed, we will have an Elected President from the minorities from time to time. I support this amendment because I believe this can further strengthen our society, as well as the mutual respect and tolerance among the different races.

In addition, among ourselves, we should also look after and understand one another. Everyone has been in a situation where he is a minority, sometimes in the workplace, sometimes it is when others are all good friends but we are alone without friends. We have all experienced that feeling – a not so nice feeling.

So I hope that as Chinese, we can understand the challenges, loneliness and aspirations of our minority fellow citizens; I hope that we can support our minority President; I hope that we will not use race and religion for our own self-interest to stir up problems; I hope that Singapore will always be one nation and one people; I hope we can always say that we are Singapore Citizens, regardless of race, language and religion, united as one.

Only by doing this can Singapore survive and continue to be successful; only by doing this can our children enjoy a peaceful, prosperous and equal society, generation after generation.

Ms K Thanaletchimi.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on a topic of my interest and also a topic that is close to my heart.

First and foremost, I am exceptionally encouraged that the current leadership and the government of the day are placing great efforts to address the issue of the future. It is vital that the Government attempt to address not only the current issues that the Republic is grappling with but also the issues that the nation may face in the near future.

A nine-member Constitutional Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister earlier this year in February to review three aspects of the Elected Presidency. Upon the release of the Commission's report, the Government has subsequently in September issued a White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission's report.

The changes to the Elected Presidency are essential and timely to ensure that the existing political system in Singapore continues to serve the needs of the nation. As an ethnic minority, I acknowledge that the racial and religious differences as well as their influence on voting preferences continue to exist in our society. In other words, we cannot deny the fact that each of us is different because of the diverse cultures while we embrace ourselves as a multi-ethnic nation. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the political system continues to serve and meet the necessities of the diverse population, ensuring that no minority groups are left behind, so as to build an inclusive society.

A study from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) shows that the general public is uncertain about several aspects of the Elected Presidency reforms. Although the data shows that there was an increasing awareness by the public since June 2016 to October 2016, about 37% of those polled are still not following the issue. Moreover, a large number, about one in five, recorded "unsure" on most of the agree/disagree questions conducted by Blackbox Research Pte Ltd for IPS. This shows that a substantial number of the general public are unclear of the proposed changes for the various aspects of the Elected Presidency.

In addition, I have also engaged with and heard the many diverse views of my fellow healthcare members.

While I acknowledge that we need to review the aspects of the current Elected Presidency to serve our nation, it is essential to address and clarify some of the ground feelings on this issue. In view of time constraint, I shall highlight four concerns that I feel that the public needs a more in-depth explanation.

Firstly, some felt that there needs to be more clarity on the criterion on "most Senior Executive". There are usually two arms in a company, namely, the Executive arm and Oversight arm. The Executive arm is led by the chief executive officer and the Oversight arm is led by the chairman of the board of directors. Both have important leadership functions and there needs to be clarification of which role is viewed as the most senior. Moreover, how are the criteria on "most Senior Executive" addressed with regard to a group of companies? For example, a Singapore holding company's CEO may be the most senior, but the company only holds $500 million in investment. The situation may end up in a dormant company's CEO qualifying for the Elected President's criteria. Also, a regional CEO may or may not qualify under the current rules.

Secondly, we observe a growing number of interracial marriages in Singapore and the Government has also implemented a double-barrelled race identity since 1 January 2011 for Singaporean children born to parents of different races. Hence, in the case of "Chinese-Indian" or "Indian-Chinese", how do we determine the race and whether they would qualify as a minority? Are the considerations too subjective if the following factors are the ones taken into account:

(a) how the candidate perceives himself or herself in terms of ethnicity?

(b) whether the community perceives him or her as part of the community?

These are the two questions that I have experienced. If the issue of ethnicity and ethnic identity is largely a subjective one, would using the "Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others" (CMIO) model still be relevant in today's context?

Thirdly, the recommendations include raising the threshold for private sector candidates from senior executives of companies with $100 million in paid-up capital to $500 million in shareholders' equity. I am concerned on the ability of a minority to meet this qualification. With this new recommendation, it may seem that the candidates from the minorities will come from the Public Service, which is not so healthy. We need to ensure that the system is all-encompassing and provides equal and fair opportunities for all qualified individuals.

In order to ensure the right person with not only the right qualifications and aptitude for the job stands for election but can we also put in place condition that one must be born in Singapore or has lived in Singapore for a period of time or have assets in Singapore to be eligible to stand for election? This condition will not only provide assurance to the voters but gives greater credibility that our highest officeholder has a deep affiliation and stake in Singapore. This condition is important as we see ourselves in a new world of globalisation where Singaporeans are increasingly more mobile and have stakes in various levels in various countries.

On the CPA, to vary consequential support for a Parliamentary override based on the differing decision of perhaps only one CPA member may result in more fractious discussions within the CPA and between the CPA and the President. Will the Commission's recommendation accord an unelected CPA member a disproportionate amount of influence? If the Commission's recommendation to accord "greater weight" to the CPA is to be incorporated into the Constitution, will the democratically elected President truly wield "real power" or only when he has the agreement and unwavering support of his appointed advisers? Should the political bodies/figures be allowed to endorse presidential candidates? If they are to be truly non-partisan, would not allowing them to be endorsed defeat the essence of non-partisan spirit? Hypothetically, what if we have a coalition government? Will this model of Elected Presidency and CPA still work?

The above questions and clarifications are raised to address the concerns of many Singaporeans of various walks of life. They speak in simplicity but the thinking behind is profound and deep-seated. It is essential for all issues to be raised and made transparent for the good of the society at large, especially the voters, who will decide on the next President next year. Madam, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the proposed amendments to the Elected Presidency Bill. It has been an intense three days of debate. Members have discussed in detail amendments to this Bill.

Of all the proposed amendments, I feel that the most important is ensuring minority representation in the Presidency. Multiracialism is our defining value. It is at the core of our existence. We chose independence in 1965 because we chose to be a multiracial society, where all races feel that we are a part of this country. Since then, our policies, such as our education and housing policies, have always been guided by this key principle. We are Malay Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans but, most importantly, we are all Singaporeans.

It is easy to take the unique situation we have today for granted. But we must all constantly remind ourselves that this peace and harmony that we enjoy did not come by chance. This is something we should treasure and we should do everything we can to preserve this core value.

Mdm Speaker, the importance of having minority representation in the Presidency may have been overlooked since much focus has been placed on the President's custodial and protective functions. The Elected President is our Head of State. He is also the symbol of the unity of our country and the personification of our multiracial state. As such, it is important that he represents all races and his office is also an office for all races.

Our last Malay President was our first President, Mr Yusof Ishak who held this highest office from 1965 to 1970. In other words, it has been 46 years since we last had a President from the Malay race. It is a long time, considering that our nation celebrated its 50th birthday last year.

If we agree that the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state, then the proposed amendment to ensure minority representation in the Presidency is a timely and long overdue move that I strongly support.

Mdm Speaker, even as this proposed amendment is an important and necessary step in ensuring that all racial groups are represented in the Presidency, I hope that one day, this mechanism will no longer be needed, that from time to time, representatives from different races will be voted into office. When that happens, the need for "reserved elections" will no longer be needed. But until that day comes, I support the move to put in the safeguard mechanism.

Mdm Speaker, many Members in this Chamber have spoken about other amendments to strengthen the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates. If we agree that our Elected President must have the necessary qualifications, experience and knowledge to exercise his or her responsibilities effectively, then there should be no dispute that the eligibility criteria for all Presidential candidates must be updated from time to time to reflect our current economic context.

Finally, I would like to make two suggestions. First, I suggest that the Government conduct more public education on the Elected Presidency. As noted in the Constitutional Commission report, "only 42% of the respondents were able to correctly identify the proper ambit of the President's role". This is perhaps not surprising, considering that a voter who voted in the first Presidential Election in 1993 only had the chance to elect a President again in 2011. During this 18-year gap, he could have voted in five GEs. I believe this could have contributed to the lack of awareness of the Elected Presidency system. More worrying, it could give rise to the electorate being misled by candidates who make promises that are not within the constitutional authority of the President.

Second, I suggest that the Government strengthen the rules governing how Presidential election campaigns are conducted. The last Presidential election in 2011 showed us that it is necessary to prevent misinformation concerning the proper role of the President and the function of the office. It is dangerous for Presidential candidates to make promises or even take positions that are incompatible with the office of the President. This would create expectations that, once elected, the promises would be fulfilled whereas, in fact, it is not constitutionally permitted.

Mdm Speaker, yesterday, Members of the WP said that they would be elaborating on their proposal on having an eight-member Senate. Today, after hearing them for the entire day, we have yet to hear any details from them. This is a major proposal to have a second House in our country. I hope that Members can have more details on their proposal. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Mdm Speaker, since the recommendations made by the Constitutional Commission on proposed changes to the Elected Presidency were announced, there had been much talk about the motivation behind all the proposals. The flurry of questions and discussions continued not only in this House but both online and offline. The questions were varied. Was it designed for specific individuals who could become the potential candidates? Was it made to reduce the net pool of individuals who could qualify or was it about multiracialism and politics?

From this, I see three aspects that are worth deliberating: leadership, race and politics.

First, on leadership. In all processes where selection of leaders is concerned, we generally need a set of criteria as a starting basis of comparison for consistency and fairness. To be relevant with time and context, I agree and support that the qualifying criteria must be reviewed on a periodic basis, especially this case in point pertaining to the post that belongs to the highest office in Singapore.

Based on the recommended criteria, the initial impression was that the stringent criteria would have restricted the eligible candidates to individuals who have experience as CEOs and also senior management in the private or public sector. Would this then mean that other outstanding professionals not in top management be unlikely Presidential candidates in the future? To answer this, it is important for us to understand that, as citizens, how do we see our President's role and the appropriate balance between the ceremonial and custodial roles?

For the custodial role, it is without doubt that material knowledge of broad economic and financial fundamentals is necessary. However, this role does not need to be solely performed by the President. After all, the President is not responsible for governing or passing Bills pertaining to Budgets. Like the CEOs and top management in many companies, they lead and work with the support of expertise from various cross-functional teams. In this instance, the CPA similarly advises on the exercise of the President's custodial and discretionary powers.

Should we be prepared to encompass broader diversity and have a President who is not from top posts of the private or public sector, there are some questions we have to ask ourselves. First, do we need to review the selection and appointment process of the CPA, for example, supplement the CPA with an expert team focused just on the economy and financials of the country's wealth management, or having the CPA that is solely appointed by the President? Two, if the custodial role of guarding our nation's Reserve is a critical mandate, should the President have the final right to veto against any decision made by the Government if it is substantiated to be detrimental to Singapore? Three, by changing the criteria, it may provide the possibility for more potential candidates to be contenders. Is this just a formality or will it truly enable and inspire more capable candidates to step forward and serve?

The stringent criteria recommended are necessary to ensure that we have the best qualified individual with critical capabilities to make central decisions when crises arise and safeguard our past Reserves for future generation. As our country progresses, there will be circumstances from time to time where one role may take dominance over the other, and vice versa. In order to achieve a right balance between both roles, and the diversity and inclusiveness of different individuals who can potentially be our Head of State, we can consider broadening the criteria over time and supplementing it by reviewing the process and selection of the CPA.

Next, on race. For Singapore to achieve and enjoy the social harmony where people today exist in a multicultural and multiracial society; it did not come easy and certainly it was not an unplanned miracle. Every step was cautiously designed from our housing quota, bilingual education system to interfaith and racial harmony events. All efforts were taken to strengthen and evolve the culture that we want entrenched in our nationhood. But in order to achieve a race-blind state, whether as a nation and as individuals, we need to embrace the race identity beyond a definition and make true connections. As mentioned by several Members in this House over the past few days, deep-rooted connections that reflect our attitudes towards different cultures and races, the human touch of readiness to support fellow Singaporeans and the ability to imbue the different cultures as one common identity that resonates with all Singaporeans are exactly what we need.

Most would say they do not look at race and simply want the best man or woman to stand for election as the President. However, surveys and history have shown that human beings have an affinity to find and settle with environments or even communities that provide them with most familiarity to their own belief or even values. This, in itself, has an added layer of complexity, especially if there are new faces of potential candidates whom we are unfamiliar with. How best then do we assess them or even judge?

The Head of State is not just a symbolic figure, but a person whom the citizens respect, can assimilate to and can unify the nation as one. Most would believe that we uphold the values of meritocracy regardless of race, language or religion. The challenge will be if five terms down the road, we still find ourselves in a situation where a reserved election has to be held, then Singaporeans have to seriously consider whether we have indeed evolved as a country and have been multiracial in our roots and identity. To note, Singapore by then will be close to 80 years since our nation's Independence. If multiracialism is what we pride ourselves high on, it should have been second nature to us. Elections by then should be one where any capable man or woman, regardless of their race, will feel confident and comfortable to step forward and vie for the highest office on this land. By then, the term "reserved election" would be unnecessary.

In my opinion, we must first acknowledge that these individuals who stand for elections are there due to their own merits instead of fulfilling a quota or even as a symbolic figure. Failure to differentiate their merits from their race and acknowledging it as a prerequisite in standing for election, would be, in my opinion, a retrograde step in forging a multiracial society.

And lastly, on politics. Unlike some countries, Singapore's Presidential candidates do not enter an election campaign representing any party and effectively should not run a campaign with a list of promises to be delivered after being elected. Understanding and accepting this as the design of the President's role is important because it directly relates to the expectations of the electorate. Among the two roles that the President is accountable for, he or she must be equally qualified to deliver both the ceremonial and custodial roles.

Over the years, it seemed that the associations with which people had drawn among the former Presidents, past potential candidates and even the political parties had become more intertwined. This was a result of most candidates being known public figures, that is representing a Party, or they are individuals who have extensive track records in the public sector. The number of "new" or unknown contestants were few and far between. There is no issue of past or present politicians that I see coming forth to contest for the higher office if they meet the qualifying criteria. But as a citizen, we are always mindful if the individual will have the moral integrity to stand up for decisions done in the interest of the country and be apolitical in their new role.

The likelihood of a former public figure or individuals with prior knowledge from the public institutions to stand for elections is higher. We cannot deny that. The need to encourage them to serve as compared to a private individual, will be much easier. The concern is not about having a former public figure to run for the office. Rather, it is the need for this individual to: (a) understand their role as one being different from what they used to contribute when in governance; (b) establish their role in a needful manner and consciously demonstrate independence of thoughts with the nation's interest as top priority; and (c) to demonstrate the ability to reconcile differences in opinions and work through solutions with the Government to ensure that all the key proposition is in preserving wealth for the future generations of Singapore.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I support the need to update the qualifying criteria, making it more stringent and keeping it relevant with the changing times. For other intangible measures or even indicators of whether we have progressed as a nation in terms of multiracialism and encouraging individuals from diversified backgrounds to step forward and contest in elections, these efforts can only be meaningful and enhanced over time with the participation of our citizens. Amendments to the Constitution are not one-off discussions but rather a constant work in progress that should bring us forward as a nation, one that gives soul and substance to this Constitution. Ultimately, the President is one whom we want to deliver his or her responsibilities as is a human that touches and connects with the lives of every Singaporean. And with this, I support the Bill.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

Mdm Speaker, I shall deliver my speech first in English and later in Malay.

Let me express my personal views on the Elected Presidency. I was one of those who actually did not believe that Elected Presidency is the way to go for Singapore. I have always believed an appointed President would suffice the need to play the dual role as a symbol and unifier for all Singaporeans as well as a custodian to our national Reserves. However, I changed my position, considering a possible scenario when the President could be at loggerheads with the government of the day on the use of our national Reserves. Thus, a President who is elected by the people shall have the mandate and moral authority to exercise his discretion without doubt and without fear.

With so much debated, I shall only focus on two changes that have been suggested by the Commission and supported by the Government through its White Paper, namely, first, the eligibility criteria for private sector service requirement and, secondly, the five-term hiatus provision for the minorities.

First, let me touch on the eligibility criteria for the private sector service requirement where numerous changes have been suggested by the Commission. Two significant changes which I would like to highlight are: only the most senior executive, however named, can be allowed as a candidate; and minimum shareholders' equity of S$500 million.

While I can see the rationale behind this eligibility criterion to presume that only the most senior executive, say, an executive chairman or a CEO and others alike, takes the primary leadership position and thus making all critical and important decisions, I also do believe that there are other senior executives in high-ranking positions who are also making and taking charge of such similar critical and important decision-making. Examples are the chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO) and senior executive vice presidents.

Good leadership of any organisation is never always about the most senior executive taking decision unilaterally. But and however, it is always collective decision-making that prevails to be the best stewardship in action. In this case, the most senior executive of any good organisation has to depend on the work and advice of his close second ranked executives, be it a CFO or COO, and others alike. They are the also the ones that assume similar critical roles and thus making important decision within the organisation.

Henceforth, I urge that we re-consider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the CFO and COO, to be considered, too, within this "most senior executive" framework. And more importantly, I would even go beyond to say that the second ranked executive CFO will probably have better knowledge in making informed judgements when it comes to financial matters, which is very much related to the custodial role of the Elected Presidency.

Let me now go on to the next criterion, that is, the minimum shareholders' equity requirement of S$500 million. With all being said through the statistics, I am not convinced if such a criterion can guarantee a candidate to be a good President. Making this notion into action may assume that the person who has not met the criterion may probably not be able to make a good President. I believe we can all agree that this is not what the criterion is meant to be. The criterion may even be seen as a disadvantage to individuals in some specific industries. While it is a "nice-to-have" criterion, I am certain there are equally capable men and women out there who can be considered for the Presidency without having to meet the criterion. For a fact, I know of some individuals who will not be able to meet the criterion, but I am convinced that they have the mettle to be considered for the Elected Presidency.

Let us devise a criterion which truly measure one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his or her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society. While many "hard" criteria have been suggested for eligibility, I believe there are more that we should consider, especially those "soft" ones.

I will now move on to the five-term hiatus provision. A multiracial Singapore should not only be said and written but, more importantly, it must be seen and exercised. This was nicely explained by both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in their earlier speeches. As a member coming from a minority community, I would like to express my appreciation to the Commission for having included this in ensuring that a member from the minority community will always have a place in the highest office in Singapore.

However, though I am more upbeat and positive with regard to this provision, please allow me to express my concerns. Like always, there are always two sides to a coin. Likewise, for this case, I hope not that the provision be construed as a tokenism. After a long journey of 50 years in nation-building with meritocracy as our underpinning principle, such provisions can always be seen as one.

Assurance from senior officers of our Government is important to bring this message across. Henceforth, I look forward to such sharing and engagement so as to ensure that we are embarking on this journey as a nation that cares deeply about our multi-racial fabric, bringing a balanced dimension in our journey towards nation-building in the years to come. As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision. Mdm Speaker, I shall proceed with the next part in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker and my hon Parliamentary colleagues, I would like to wish you good afternoon.

The Presidential elections which will be held next year, that is, 2017, will very likely mark a historic occasion for our nation, if the Bill on the Elected Presidency that is being debated in Parliament is passed. For the first time, a provision for a five-term hiatus, which was suggested by the Constitutional Commission, and also supported by the Government, will commence at the next Presidential Election, as proposed by the Prime Minister yesterday.

As the Prime Minister also said, the Presidential Election next year will be reserved for Malays, after 46 years without someone from the Malay community assuming the office of the President. Is this something good and should be celebrated by us? Or is this something bad and we should feel concerned or suspicious?

We can look at any issue from two perspectives, either from a healthy viewpoint or otherwise. Taking a positive perspective, I feel that this is a very encouraging step, especially since we would like to fulfil and realise the principle of multiracialism that we have always accepted in our country.

This principle of multiracialism that we have always treasured since having Independence for 50 years is not something that we should merely say and write about but, more than that, it is something that should be implemented and practised, similar to the objective of the provision of the five-term hiatus. Does this mean that a President from the minority group, including Malays, can only assume the office of the Elected President once every five terms?

The answer is definitely no. Each candidate from the minority group, be it from the Malay, Indian and also Eurasian community, will all have the chance and can participate and contest in every Presidential election. If elected, this provision will only be reconsidered, if there are no Presidents from the minority group in the next five terms.

What is important is that each candidate must fulfil the established conditions if he or she would like to contest in the Elected Presidential elections. Through that, the principle of meritocracy can be achieved together with the principle of multiracialism, which we all treasure.

Therefore, let us take this opportunity together with an open mind and positively. I would like to urge all those who are qualified and can fulfil the established criteria, please – come and step forward, both the men as well as the women, and put yourself up as the candidate for the upcoming Elected President elections.

Let us together prove to our fellow countrymen, that the Malays, as a minority community, are capable and have candidates who are as qualified as the other communities. After 50 years of separation from our neighbouring country, and throughout that period, we have been self-reliant and became a part of Singapore's modernity through meritocracy, and thus I am confident that there are those among us who have progressed and become successful in in their respective fields.

Do not hesitate. Put yourself forward if you are capable. Turn yourself into someone who will be the pride of our community. Prove that our community has progressed and is able to come up with an excellent candidate.

In conclusion, although this provision will be implemented only for the Malay minority group this time round, I am certain that the Malay community has qualified candidates. Therefore, let us use this opportunity in a positive manner. I will now deliver the rest of my speech in English.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, summarisng my speech, I would like to highlight the following three points. First, that we reconsider widening the notion of the most senior executive to include those whom I have mentioned, like the COO and CFO, to be considered too, within this "most senior executive" framework. Let us device a criterion which truly measures one's capability, not just through numbers as proxies, but through his/her exemplary behaviours, accomplishments and involvements in the development for the betterment of the larger Singaporean society.

As a proponent of affirmative action and without compromising our principles of meritocracy, I fully support this provision and call upon capable Malay individuals who qualify and meet the requirements as set forth in the eligibility criteria, to step forward and respond to the next Presidential Election.

With all being said, I am of the opinion that we deal and discuss too much quantitatively on the Elected Presidency. Notwithstanding the need to suffice the custodial role, I fear that we have forgotten to stress the importance and salient characteristics of a President as a symbolic figure of the nation as well as a unifier across all Singaporeans. Getting a candidate truly to meet these should be the primary driving force – a President representing the heart and soul of our nation, whom we all can depend on, cutting across all sorts of divides. Majulah Singapura.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill which seeks to make amendments to the Constitution on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency. I will be speaking on the following areas: the role of the President, the eligibility criteria, the reserved election and the CPA.

On the role of the President, the changes need to be appropriately understood. I think we had quite a lot of discussions on the role of the President but it is still important to stress and make sure that we Singaporeans understand and appreciate with clarity the role that the Elected President will discharge. Effectively, the proposed amendments on specific aspects of the Elected Presidency outline what the President can and cannot do, and the measures to ensure safeguards, given the custodial powers that will be vested in the hands of a single individual.

There are really three important roles that are expected of the President and they are distinct roles which call for different skills. The President needs to be someone that every Singaporean can relate to – a symbol of national unity, and I think many have spoken of this – and of the need to fully represent the view of Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion.

As the Head of State, the President, although having no policymaking role, performs constitutional and official duties, and functions as a Head of State.

The custodial power that the President holds is the holder of the "second key" to safeguard two specific areas: our nation's financial assets as well as the integrity of our Public Service. Effectively, we are asking for someone who has the strength of character and also of competence. With the understanding of the scope of the role of the President, we must agree that the responsibilities are significant and, therefore, require a person to have the appropriate skills.

There are some who argue that perhaps, the role of the President, given that he does not have policymaking authority, is insignificant and may not even be required. And we should not be too hasty to come to this conclusion because Singapore – I think we need to remind ourselves – we have no natural resources and our financial Reserves are our key assets. Having a "second key" ensures appropriate measures to safeguard decisions to draw down on the Reserves.

Singapore's economy and success, as well as our social stability, depend on our financial stability and resilience. Given this importance, we do need stringent eligibility criteria to ensure competent decision-making. I do, however, think that – both during the last three days of debate, as well as outside of this House – since the Commission's report, there has been a lot of discussions around the custodial functions and duties. In doing so, to some extent, the qualification criteria that were set out in the Constitution on the character of the candidate have not been given as much attention.

I would just like to remind everyone that clause 19(20)(e) of our Constitution outlines that the Presidential Elections Committee, before issuing certificate of eligibility, is to assess that the candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. That does not go away. That is also an equally important part. The eligibility criteria must lend weight to both the character and competence of the candidates. Having someone financially competent and equipped with the executive management skills does not guarantee integrity and the ability of the individual to represent Singapore in interactions with other world leaders.

While many will agree on the need for high standards and the quality of the candidates, and the concerns that perhaps the criteria being too stringent might limit the pool of individuals that can qualify, but I would like to remind everyone that, given the significance of the role of the Elected President and what he or she will play, we do need stringent criteria.

To illustrate the point, all of us trust our general practitioner (GP) as our doctors or family doctors, but would we let our loved ones go for a surgery and having our GP do that surgery? I think the answer would be no. Not that we do not trust our GP, we do. But there are specific skills that are still required and, therefore, the need for the stringent criteria, both of character and of technical competence, that are required. There have been a lot of insinuations of why the criteria has gone up. Why is there a need? I think we all have to look at the importance of the role and also the relevance of where Singapore is today.

Let me now touch on the reserved elections. When this recommendation was made, I asked myself the question why we have a need for this, given the progress we have made as a multiracial society and the proclamation in our Pledge that says, "regardless of race, language or religion". Many of us hold this very dear. So, the very recommendation is highlighting the need for provisions to be made for race. This seems contrary to the very core of our principles as a nation. I pondered on this for some time and it brought me back to a speech that Mr Lee Kuan Yew made in this very House. He referred us to Mr Rajaratnam and our Pledge.

He said, "Was it ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to keep trying." He reminded us also, "We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everyone as equal. It is not reality; it is not practical. It will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle. So, this was an aspiration."

When I read this and I thought about it again, I realised that the racial harmony that we treasure in Singapore did not just happen. The progress that we have made in the last 50 years was because, as a country, as a society, we have been deliberately interventionist to make this happen.

As a society, Singapore has been unconventional in pursuing this aspiration to ensure inclusiveness. Our housing policy has enabled us to remove racial enclaves and to promote integration. We continue to strive to ensure that there is opportunity for education and progress for all Singaporeans, regardless of our race or our social circumstances. Race is an uncomfortable topic for us to speak about. We do, however, need to be able to speak about how we can ensure that the highest office in this country is inclusive and that no racial group in a multiracial Singapore feels that they are not able to achieve it.

It is in this spirit that the amendments are made to ensure representation of the main communities of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian in Singapore for the Office of the President.

The proposed amendment in clause 9 of the Bill with the new Article 19B provides a framework that seeks to balance the need for multiracialism with our meritocratic ideals. What it states is: "A candidate to qualify for a reserved election would need to meet the constitutionally prescribed eligibility criteria which include character, proven experience and competence. If during the reserved election, there is no qualified candidate from that racial group, the election will then be opened to candidates from all races."

It is important to note that a reserved election will not be required if the election produces Presidents of different races. It is only if no persons belonging to one of the main racial communities has held the office of President for a five-term hiatus, which translates to 30 years, that there will be a reserved election for that racial group. Thirty years. And in the last 46 years, we have not seen a Malay candidate.

This approach, while it is not comfortable and I do not think it is ideal, it is important because it is a balanced approach to ensure that we maintain our principles of both meritocracy and multiracialism.

Let me just touch on this point. As I reviewed the amendment and so on – this is not so much related to race – I could not help but ask this question: what about women? I will be very clear. I am not advocating for provisions in the Constitution to be made for women representation, but we must, however, recognise that women do make up 51% of Singapore's population.

Women are not a minority in Singapore and there is a pipeline of women, from both the public and commercial sectors, of character and integrity who do qualify and will qualify, even with the new eligibility criteria. Why then have we not seen women candidates step forward? We do have to ask ourselves what we are missing if we do not tap on this base of female talent and how we can attract women to run for President.

Let me now touch on my final point on the CPA.

The Bill outlines amendments to strengthen the role, composition of the Council, as well as the framework for the Council's provision of advice to the President on related matters. And it does oblige the President to consult the Council before exercising any discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution, subject to the exceptions specified, where consultation is optional.

We should note that the CPA's role is only relevant when the President disagrees with the Government. What this implies is that the Council plays the role as a "check" on the President's ability to check on the Government. Feedback from many is that this runs counter to having an Elected President and the concept of the role being the holder of the "second key".

I would like us to take a step back on this, because I asked myself this question: why check on the checker? But I think there is one important point that we all feel we may have in this discussion fail to realise, that no one leader operates alone. Leaders still need the advice of people of good knowledge and competence as well, and that is the role the Council plays. But then I ask myself: if that Council has the ability to check it in such a way that it could create either a gridlock or to counter and just make it difficult for the President, then what happens?

So, then I looked at the composition of the Council and the recommendations by the Commission, in terms of increasing the number. Not to go into the technicality of the timing, the appointment of the Council or the number, but a very fundamental question came to my mind: "Why do we make the President do that?" And then I realised, if the President is not able to even convince half of eight people of why he or she would veto that decision, then I think it is worth taking that forward and having the President's decision on his veto to be put forward for Parliament to take a vote on.

That is what the Commission and the composition and the changes have recommended. One of the things that the proposed amendments also did include was the calibration on the threshold which Parliament may override against the degree of CPA's support for the President's decision. I think this was also another area that the Commission had recommended, which the Bill will also put into place.

What this proposed amendment is striving to achieve is to enable a system of safeguards while preventing a risk of a constitutional gridlock and ensuring that the Government can continue to do what it legitimately should be able to do in the best interests of Singapore.

From the debates we have had during the last three days in this House, we all recognise that this is, indeed, a complex balance to achieve, but with this check of the elected President and the counter-checks of the CPA, I do ask that we must be cautious that the system is agile enough to work for the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans when it is most needed, because we cannot afford a system of gridlock as well. Because when those decisions have to be made and when that time comes, there needs to be that ability for us to also be able to move forward.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill, and I hope that all of us, regardless of some of the concerns that we have, will go forward to make sure that these changes will allow us to ensure that Singapore and our future will be taken into really serious consideration because the role that the President has, will have a very important impact on us. Not now, but in the future.