Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

I will try to be briefer than two days ago. First, I would like to thank the 38 Members for speaking on the Bill. This is an important debate about improvements to a key national institution – the Elected Presidency. The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about the broad principles that underlie the need for the Elected Presidency, the provisions to ensure multiracial representation in the Presidency, and why the Elected Presidency remains the most workable and effective solution for Singapore.

Let me address the specific matters raised by Members, which can be grouped into two main sets of issues. First, the two core custodial functions of the Elected Presidency: first, safeguarding of past Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service; and second, representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency.

Let me begin with the first issue.

Mdm Speaker, I am heartened that all the speakers have expressed the need for safeguards to our Reserves and the integrity of the Public Service, as a legacy for our future generations. Let us lay to rest the notion that these safeguards are meant to stymie a new government coming into power. The safeguards will only do so if that government, indeed any government, even the current one, intends to use the Reserves irresponsibly or erode the integrity of the Public Service. This agreement on the need for safeguards allows us, then, to focus on framing the most appropriate way of providing these safeguards. There is no perfect solution. I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. What we are trying to do is to find the best way of doing so.

The changes proposed in the Bill flow from the recommendations of an independent Constitutional Commission appointed by the Prime Minister in January this year. There was wide consultation by the independent Commission, which conducted its review in a non-partisan, inclusive, transparent, open and comprehensive manner.

Why did I emphasise "independent" Commission and why did the Prime Minister decide to set up an independent Commission? Because he did not want this review to end up being embroiled in partisan to-ing and fro-ing, as we have seen in the last few days. We wanted an objective look at the issues so that we could have the most comprehensive report and to do it openly and transparently. After the Government received the Commission's recommendations, the Government held dialogues as well. This entire process has taken 10 months.

We know from our collective experience and knowledge built up over the past 25 years that the Elected Presidency is an important and complex institution, and that we should only move after having carefully considered the options.

Mdm Speaker, in contrast, the second day into the debate, the WP sprung a new proposal upon the Members of the House. Their proposal for an Upper House – composed of elected Senators – is a fundamental change to our institutions of government. It is also a marked departure from what the WP has advocated in the past since the inception of the Elected Presidency – different from their manifesto at the recent GE in September last year, and different again from their submission to the Constitutional Commission in March this year. No mention of a Senate, let alone an elected one.

What is most extraordinary is that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, one of the WP's NCMPs, who had spoken at length in this debate yesterday supporting an elected Upper House, just in December last year, had argued strongly – and I must say, quite persuasively – against just such a bicameral system. He takes quite a different interpretation on that today. This was also just barely two months before the Constitutional Commission was formed.

The WP was invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission. Unfortunately, they chose not to do so. The WP was the only one of the 20 invited contributors that declined the invitation. I was speaking to MP Mr Christopher de Souza, and he said that the Eurasian Association had many views and concerns, and they found that it was a very useful process to discuss with the Constitutional Commission. They went away not completely agreeing with everything, but understanding what the concerns and considerations were, much, much better.

The Commission, nevertheless, considered all the 107 written submissions it had received, including that of the WP. The problem is, of course, that the WP's current proposal is very different from what they had submitted to the Commission. The WP has now, less than 36 hours ago, in fact, about 30 hours ago, put their proposal before this House – I must say – in a non-transparent, non-consultative way, literally keeping things close to their chests, and asked this House to consider it. Even so, we endeavoured very hard to find out more of this proposal.

Unfortunately, it is apparent from the tentative way that the WP Members have attempted to respond to questions about the most basic and important features of their proposal that this proposal has not been well-thought through. The proposal has the benefit of brevity but, unfortunately, not of clarity. We saw WP Members go back and forth on whether the Senate's power was limited only to delay, or whether it actually held a veto; we saw them flip-flop on what eligibility criteria the Senators must satisfy; and we saw them hem and haw over how those Senators are to be elected into office.

Mdm Speaker, governing is a complex and serious issue, and no responsible party should deal with an important issue, such as changes to key national institutions, in a cavalier manner. It is not something you can just be brazen about and dismiss by saying, "Oh, do not be bogged down by the details". However, the lack of a well-thought through proposal with a clear plan has not stopped the WP from going even further, calling for a referendum – in fact, almost insisting on one – on their proposal. They even put forward a draft referendum question for the House to consider, when they are not even clear what exactly it is that they are proposing.

Mdm Speaker, we do not need to repeat the post-Brexit referendum confusion, where the British were left with no clear plan and lacked the execution ability to carry out what they had persuaded the voters to vote for.

The WP has also failed to articulate clear or consistent reasons for why they say their proposal is better than the EP. Just 11 months ago, one of the key Members arguing for it these two days in this very Chamber had publicly argued the opposite. Their proposal gives an unelected Senate Elections Committee the ability to bar eligible candidates from even participating in the Senate elections. This exclusion is done in an entirely non-transparent, unaccountable and potentially arbitrary manner. It multiplies the difficulties associated with finding a suitable candidate for the Presidency by eight. Also unresolved are innumerable operational issues with the proposal. For example, how is gridlock in the Senate resolved?

Mdm Speaker, what is troubling also is that Members of the WP have, during this debate, attempted to draw support for their proposal by representing that the Commission recommended such a structure. This paints an incorrect picture of the Commission's report and its actual recommendations.

Let us go to the Commission's report itself. In paragraph 7.47 of the report, the Commission stated, with regard to the proposal to unbundle the custodial and symbolic functions, and I quote, "The Commission considers that this is a proposal that the Government may wish to consider if and when it is appropriate and timely to undertake a more fundamental change to the Presidency". And again, at paragraph 7.53, I quote, "The Commission has set out its thoughts on this issue only for the Government's consideration and, if the Government deems it fit and profitable, further debate. The Commission does so only as a group of citizens".

Mdm Speaker, this was certainly not a recommendation made by the Commission, much less a main or major recommendation. It was a suggestion that the Commission made for the Government's consideration based on some of the submissions it had received. Furthermore, what the members of the Commission had actually described for consideration was an appointed council of experts with no veto powers. This is fundamentally different from the WP's proposal, which is an Upper House of elected senators, something which, I think, in the words of one of the WP's Members, was apparently a minor difference. It is a fundamental and major difference.

Instead, Mdm Speaker, the Commission's main recommendations focused squarely on enhancing and improving the existing institution of the Elected Presidency. It dealt with the revision of the eligibility criteria, the strengthening of the CPA, and the hiatus-triggered mechanism to ensure multiracial representation. The Government, in most part, has accepted these recommendations. Where we have not done so, we have stated quite clearly, in the White Paper, where and why.

If the WP wants to advocate and campaign for the idea of an elected Senate, they can and should do so. But they should do so in an open, transparent and fully consultative way. Do not spring it on people. They can start by putting out a proper proposal. It is not a novel idea – a bicameral system. Some countries have a bicameral system. And one should examine its merits and pitfalls objectively – a pity that it was not submitted to the Constitutional Commission. We should study its merits and pitfalls, for example, the very issues that Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had so eloquently put forth less than a year ago. It is very well-written.

The WP can then campaign on that proposal at the next GE, and, if they succeed, they can see to it that it comes to pass. In fact, if it is a good proposal, we will be prepared to consider it, too. Why would we want to consider something that is good for Singapore and not accept it just because it comes from somewhere else? If it is better than the Elected Presidency that we have constructed today, we will be prepared to accept it. But I do not think it is. What they cannot do is to pull a half-formed proposal out of a hat and press for a referendum on the issue. Madam, I do worry if this ad hoc-ism is symptomatic of the way they would wish to run our country and the public institutions they are responsible for.

Let me now turn to the substantive matters at hand – the changes that the Government is making to improve the present system – the Bill that is before this House.

These recommendations are in accord with the recommendations of the Commission, and have been arrived at after thorough consideration, through the open, consultative process over 10 months, that I had described earlier.

The changes to the eligibility criteria bring the 1991 figures up to date. The changes to the CPA framework harmonise it to make it function more smoothly and uniformly. I will come to this a little more later. The changes for minority representation introduce a new mechanism to ensure multiracial representation from time to time.

Mdm Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, the Elected Presidency is not a perfect system. But what we are doing in this House is institution-building. We are trying to improve our institutions and strengthen them for the Singapore of the future. It is part of an overall effort to build stabilisers in the system so that whether you are a Town Councillor, an MP, a President or a Prime Minister, you are governed by a set of laws and are held accountable to them. Each person understands his or her role, and carries them out diligently and faithfully for the good of the country. The important point when we consider voting later this evening is that the WP has really not come up with a workable and better alternative to the system that we have, and the improvements that we are proposing.

The President continues to be the foremost symbol of our national unity. We acknowledge that there may be potential tension between the President's historical and custodial roles. We have always said so. It is not something that we have ducked. We have said so and acknowledged it. But as we have explained in the White Paper, and again in this House ‒ the Prime Minister and myself ‒ and as the Constitutional Commission itself noted, all our elected Presidents have been able to perform the two roles with distinction. And not a single Member from either side of this House has refuted this point.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon. It is quite common in other countries, such as the US and France, for an elected Executive President to concurrently be the Head of State. While there is potential tension between an electoral process and the President's unifying role in these countries, the President continues to play this role in these countries which are long-standing democracies. In these cases, the President is an Executive President, not just a President with safeguard powers. The Executive Presidents in these countries have wide-ranging and extensive powers. In our case, our President is not an Executive President with wide-ranging powers. He is a President with symbolic and custodial roles. He is not elected on a party platform and I believe that if we have wisdom, particularly among our voters, we should be able to elect good Presidents and to handle this.

Madam, with the introduction of elections for the Elected Presidency, eligibility criteria were put in place to ensure that candidates standing for elections have a certain baseline of experience and skills for the Presidential role.

The Commission considered the imposition of criteria as a "necessity". These are the words of the Commission. Many Members have spoken on this, including Miss Cheryl Chan, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, and agreed with the need for stringent criteria.

Yet, some Members, while accepting the need for eligibility criteria, asked whether the revised criteria were aimed at limiting the pool of candidates to certain groups. The WP said in response to the Commission's report that the "real risk" is that "you have a PAP Government with an Elected President which is from the establishment – both squandering away the national Reserves".

Mdm Speaker, what is the WP saying? That the past Elected Presidents have been unable to act independently or carry out their duties properly? I have seen first-hand how our Elected Presidents have carried out their roles. These are men of integrity, men who have principles and are prepared to stand by them and act on them. Has the WP itself not acknowledged, in this very House, the independence of mind of the late President Ong or the way that the late President Nathan had always treated them with courtesy, fairness and consideration?

So, let us not unfairly run down the system and particularly cast aspersions on honourable men in an attempt to try to score political points.

I also note that the WP, while seemingly critical of eligibility criteria, also accepts the need for eligibility criteria in its elected senate proposal. Mr Leon Perera said yesterday and confirmed today that the eligibility criteria for its elected senate proposal are the same as those for elected Presidents. Yesterday, he promised to give details in his main speech and he put his hands up several times, but we have not heard from him today on further details.

Madam, the WP is effectively also restricting its senate to a limited group of people. But the serious problem here lies with their proposed Senate Elections Committee (SEC), which is tasked to shortlist 16 candidates from a pool of qualified applicants. Now, the SEC is not an elected body. It is an appointed one.

As Dr Janil Puthucheary pointed out, unlike the current inclusionary model where the PEC certifies the eligibility of any applicant who meets the qualifying criteria, the WP's model is exclusionary in that the SEC sets a cut-off at 16 candidates. The WP has not provided any details as to how the SEC will draw the line between the 16th and the 17th, and other candidates. So far, it has said that this line is drawn at the discretion of the SEC, and Mr Pritam Singh yesterday emphasised that the exercise of such discretion should be non-justiciable.

The system, as proposed by the WP, is far from transparent. I bring up some of these issues because, if you want to criticise our present system, you need to offer something that works better. And I bring it up to show how difficult it is to design a system and make it better than the one that we have today.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the raised eligibility criteria and how they might impact the pool of qualified candidates. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked about the differences between a chief executive of a $100 million paid-up capital company and that of a company with a $500 million shareholders' equity.

Madam, the quantitative threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity for candidates from private sector companies was proposed by the Commission after studying the matter carefully. This took into consideration the need for a President to have the requisite experience and ability to make "large and complex financial decisions on an urgent basis" and the "diverse strategic and operational considerations" that bear upon such decisions.

The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation to increase the quantitative threshold. And as explained in the White Paper, the President may have to scrutinise huge potential drawdowns, possibly within short periods of time, and to effectively discharge responsibilities of such a scale and magnitude, the President must have the confidence that comes with familiarity with making decisions involving large sums of money.

As I have already mentioned in my opening speech, there are significantly more companies today that would meet the revised threshold of $500 million shareholders' equity than the 158 companies in 1993, which would have met the $100 million paid-up capital threshold. There will continue to be qualified minority candidates, from both the public and private sectors. I do not have a precise figure. A precise figure is not available – companies do not make public the information on the racial background of their officers.

But if we agree, as I think we do, that we must be uncompromising on the criteria and that we cannot lower the bar for any community, we should focus on growing the pool of eligible candidates. Every community should aspire towards producing leaders that may one day represent the nation in her highest office and to encourage those leaders to come forward to serve in that office. The pool will grow over time as our country progresses.

Are the criteria too focused on financial acumen? I think Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked this question. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Zaqy Mohamad spoke about the financial aspects of these eligibility criteria. Madam, the criteria are to ensure that the candidates running for office have the knowledge, competence and judgement to make decisions on financial matters of significant magnitude or scale, as well as on key appointments to the Public Service. These are criteria that we are able to state in an objective way. We can codify them.

However, other criteria, such as integrity and good character, are also crucial. We can write them down, but how do you measure them? They are required of a Presidential candidate, as provided for under the existing Article 19(2)(e). This is, of course, not exhaustive of all the "intangible" qualities we desire in a President, such as public-spiritedness, compassion and empathy. These are key and critical qualities. But it is very difficult to legislate for all these "intangibles". It is our people who will ultimately have to be the judge of whether a candidate has what it takes, especially where these important intangibles are concerned, to be the President when our people exercise their vote.

Now, the CPA. Some Members, like Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, have asked about the CPA's functions and raised queries about an unelected body playing a role in the system of checks and balances. Others, like Mr Louis Ng, asked if the extension of the Parliamentary overruling mechanism would dilute the President's powers.

Mdm Speaker, I must emphasise that there are no changes to how the President's veto powers, the moderating effect of the CPA's advice or the Parliamentary overruling mechanism operate in respect of the President's custodial powers over Reserves and appointments, and I went to some trouble to prepare a slide two days ago to explain this. This was Handout 3, one of the simpler slides.

The changes merely adopt a uniform approach towards the President's obligation to consult the CPA on financial and appointment-related matters, as well as extend the overruling mechanism in a uniform way to these areas. Today, the President is obliged to do this in some areas but not in others. There is some inconsistency there. So, we are making it uniform. But the President's powers and the mechanism remain the same. As I have explained, the overruling mechanism already applies in two areas, namely, Supply Bills and key appointments. The approach taken is to harmonise the approach towards Parliamentary overruling by subjecting the rest of his core custodial powers to the same overruling framework. In short, what is being proposed simply ensures uniformity in the President's obligation to consult the CPA, and the availability of Parliamentary overruling, insofar as his core custodial powers are concerned. There is no change in the way the mechanism operates.

As for the weight given to the CPA's recommendations, I have already explained in my opening speech that the CPA's role is to provide its advice to the President. It is the President who decides whether to veto a Government proposal, and not the CPA. The CPA has no veto powers, neither over what the President does nor what the Government proposes. The CPA provides its advice.

The WP has suggested that the Bill elevates the unelected CPA to an "alternative centre of power". They create a spectre of this very powerful CPA vetoing and blocking everything. It is just simply not true. If you read the White Paper, if you listen to my speech and if you look at the diagram, you will know that it is not true.

Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh have referred to the CPA as a "third key" and questioned its moral authority. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Leon Perera said that the CPA can "checkmate" or "block" the President. Mr Low Thia Khiang even went so far as to suggest that the CPA's power exceeds that of the elected President, or even the Government itself, and said that, at critical moments, the CPA can block the Government from drawing on Past Reserves and making key appointments.

Madam, as I have said, this is entirely untrue. The WP MPs fundamentally misunderstood the role the CPA plays under the Constitution, despite the fact that it is written down and thoroughly explained yesterday in a diagram.

In fact, they are misleading this House. It is not a third centre of power. It is unable to single-handedly block a Government proposal. This has been the same for the past 25 years and remains unchanged under the Bill. When the President agrees, the CPA's view has no weight. The CPA's role is only relevant when the President vetoes a proposal from the Government. In such cases, where the President has exercised his veto, but the CPA agrees with the Government's proposal, the CPA's agreement serves to moderate the weight of the President's veto – but only by referring the issue to Parliament. The Parliament – as the "most important deliberative body in the country" – has the opportunity to take a look, or a "second look", at the matter, and can decide by a two-thirds majority to proceed with the proposal.

So, ultimately, whether the Government makes a decision with the President's concurrence, the President disagrees with the Government's decision, or Parliament overrules the President's disagreement, it is always an elected institution that makes the decision.

At this juncture, I should address the points raised by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh on the standing and independence of the CPA. I found it very disappointing that Assoc Prof Goh repeatedly suggested yesterday that the CPA is a politicised body, while providing no substantiation for such a serious claim. Lowering the dignity of the CPA's role and standing in this manner is entirely uncalled for.

Mdm Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Government when I say that the CPA members are eminent members of our society who have done much good work throughout their terms of CPA office. The CPA members are highly distinguished, competent and experienced persons who have given willingly of themselves to Public Service and their record of service and integrity speak for themselves. They have always acted independently of their appointing authorities, and advised the President based on what, in their judgment, is in the best interests of Singapore. The changes that we have proposed further strengthen the CPA and enhance its ability to play its enlarged role. We have added two members to the CPA as well so that the President can benefit from a wider range of views.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the disclosure of the President's and the CPA's grounds in a situation where the President exercises his veto. He referred to Articles 5A, 5B and 5C. These actually reflect the broader framework set out in the new Articles 37ID, 37IE and 37IF, which deal with the disclosure of the President's and CPA's reasons in the general context of the President's veto powers.

As stated in the White Paper, the proposed approach seeks to strike a suitable balance between enhancing the CPA's and the President's accountability for matters involving vetoes on the one hand and protecting potentially sensitive and confidential information on the other. The three-stage approach I have set out in my opening speech gives form to this approach.

I now turn to the second issue: whether we should ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. Does race matter?

Mdm Speaker, many Members have supported the need to ensure the representation of the various racial communities in the Elected Presidency. The issue is how we achieve this representation. Singapore has made significant progress in building a multiracial society. It is difficult to do. Countries have fallen apart even when they have lived in harmony for decades, even a century or two. We are only 50 years old. We are in a better situation than most countries and have managed to avoid the toxic racial debates and tensions that we see elsewhere precisely because the Government has always taken an honest, preemptive, open and active approach to fostering multiracialism. We did not leave this to chance.

As Mr Edwin Tong mentioned yesterday, we see this in HDB's Ethnic Integration Policy and in the ethnic-based self-help groups, such as MENDAKI and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA). We also see this in the GRC scheme, which has ensured multiracial representation in Parliament. When we introduced the GRC scheme, there were similar concerns expressed about how we make sure that there is adequate racial representation.

And, if I may add as a footnote, I think Mr Leon Perera fully understands why we have an Ethnic Integration Policy and how it has helped to avoid concentration of races and to make sure that we live together in harmony in all our housing estates, and yet he chose to raise it in a very political way in his speech just now.

Mdm Speaker, as a result of these policies, we have expanded the common space, facilitated racial integration and ensured that our politics remain above race and religion. Contrast this with the approach that France has taken, which Dr Tan Wu Meng alluded to in his speech on Monday. In principle, the approach that France takes espouses a "colour-blind" approach to race relations. But, in effect, what has happened is that it has masked the stark differences in socioeconomic opportunities and outcomes between the races, which has, in turn, led to racial tension and strife.

I was in France recently, about a month-and-a-half ago, and had a deep discussion with my French counterparts and interlocutors on radicalisation. Senior French officials, scholars and those who were doing community work acknowledge that there are deep fissures in their society. They are trying to grapple with it. But they run up against their long-held belief that the issue of race would go away if one simply does not acknowledge race and racial differences. But the issue has not gone away. Racial differences have been accentuated and become worse over time.

Mdm Speaker, we have come a long way. But achieving a society where individuals make decisions independent of racial considerations will take time, as the recent CNA-IPS survey suggests. Race is likely to have an effect in elections that are moderately close. That is why we have introduced the hiatus safeguard mechanism recommended by the Constitutional Commission. It addresses present realities, while encouraging us to strive to achieve our goals and aspirations. Is it perfect? No. Does it have some drawbacks? Yes. Does it help us to achieve our aim of having multiracial representation in the Presidency from time to time? Yes. Does it do it in a way which is self-extinguishing if we reach a point where we are race-blind? Yes. I think the Commission has applied its mind and come up with a good solution for our times.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether a gap of five terms was too long for the hiatus safeguard mechanism. The Commission had proposed five terms as they felt it would strike a right balance between ensuring minority representation while not being too invasive or prescriptive. A gap that is too short, in effect, would create a rotation among races, which could impede our progress towards the ideal of a society where race is no longer a significant issue and the Government agrees. I think some of the most passionate and best speeches we have heard in the last few days have been on this subject of race and ethnicity. Several Members of Parliament – Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, on the first day, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, and others – spoke from the heart – and Ms Chia Yong Yong just now as well, from deep in the heart. Mr Kok Heng Leun, too. And I think this is an advance on the way that we interact with one another, the way we look at one another and at ourselves. We hope that with this process we will become a better country, a more integrated country, and a more multiracial, truly multiracial, country.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether a separate, fourth category for Eurasians could be established for the safeguard mechanism. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef spoke about mixed-race marriages. The model that the Constitutional Commission has proposed, and the mechanics we have adopted in the Bill, closely follow the framework for racial classification in the GRC system. The framework has worked well. Committees will be established to certify whether a person belongs to the Chinese community, Malay community or Indian and other minority communities. The mechanics of these will be dealt with in the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act. Any person who does not fall within one of the three racial groupings may still contest in open elections.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether we should ensure the representation of the major racial communities in the CPA. The Commission considered this but did not find this necessary. It highlighted that the primary role of the CPA is to provide expert advice to the President in the exercise of his discretionary powers. Unlike the President, the CPA is not intended to discharge a symbolic role as an expression of our national identity the way the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction between the Presidency and the CPA, which justifies the need to ensure racial diversity in the former but not the latter. The Government agrees with the Commission.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the lack of representation of women in the office of President. Madam, if we look at some of the sizeable companies and key public sector offices, the pool of women who qualify is not insignificant. So, rather than legislate female representation in the office of President, we should identify, support and encourage qualified female candidates to run for presidency.

Before I conclude on this segment, may I say that I was also very moved when the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the next election for the presidency would be a reserved election for Malays and I will explain to you why later on.

Let me now address the questions raised by Members on the NCMP scheme.

Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about the changes to the NCMP scheme and asked how granting NCMPs full voting rights would relate to the role and responsibility of the elected Members.

Madam, the NCMP scheme ensures that there will always be Opposition voices in Parliament. A floor of nine today, a floor of 12 in the future – not a cap, Mr Perera. The NCMPs secured the highest votes among the candidates who did not win the seat they contested. They have contributed their views to debates in Parliament, and we want to give more weight to these opposition voices in Parliament by giving them a vote in those additional areas where they currently do not have a vote. However, this does not diminish or detract from the vital role and responsibilities that we, as elected Members, have to serve the needs of our constituents. This is a vital, important and critical role and duty that we have.

Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera repeated the WP's contention that the scheme distracts and dissuades voters from voting in Opposition MPs. Madam, the Worker's Party has taken up its full quota of NCMP seats and it has even positioned candidates from specific constituencies to be NCMPs in preference to other candidates. This shows that being an NCMP offers advantages, not least of which are public exposure and Parliamentary experience. Ms Sylvia Lim herself has been a beneficiary of this and has said so.

Mdm Speaker, Mr Leon Perera has said that we would not have introduced the NCMP scheme for the benefit of the Opposition alone. Surely, the PAP benefits from it, too. Well, the Government has found the presence of NCMPs in Parliament useful. All the three NCMPs have made their views heard during the debate over the past three days. But it benefits the PAP in a way that is different from what Mr Perera implies. Let me explain.

It helps the PAP in two ways. First, and this point has also been made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, it exposes PAP MPs to the types of arguments that Opposition MPs – how you take a situation, how you turn it to your political advantage and to score political points, how you twist, how you turn, how you argue. He wanted our PAP Members to have this experience in this House, not just during GEs, but every time this House sat. And I think we have had ample demonstrations of this throughout the terms of Parliament that we have had. And also, teach our PAP Members, to give them the experience of how to respond clearly and calmly.

Second, and equally importantly, it allows the Government to engage the Opposition, unlike "phantoms in the night" that turn up only at GEs, make claims, not engage, and then disappear again. Here, policy alternatives have to be put up, scrutinised, examined and discussed. Just as the Opposition questions and examines the policies that the Government puts up, the Government examines the policies and the proposals that the Opposition puts up, just as we have seen over the past few days with the WP's proposal for the elected senate. You cannot make this proposal and disappear. You may try to retreat into rousing rhetoric, but you have to answer the questions in detail. We are looking not for rousing rhetoric, but practical policy, practical programmes, and also how one can execute these things, and where the resources are going to come from. We can do this in Parliament, engage the Opposition on these things, rather than fighting with shadows who appear and disappear in the night. Ultimately, Singapore and Singaporeans will benefit from such debate and the diversity of views.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. There has been vigorous debate over the past three days on eligibility criteria, representation of communities in the office of President and other specific details.It is important that we stand back and end by bringing the focus back to the key principles underlying the EP.

First, the President is the key symbol of our multiracial nation. The importance of this symbolism is something that has touched my life since my young days as a schoolboy. I remember, as a schoolboy in the National Cadet Corps (NCC), saluting President Yusof Ishak and marching proudly past him in the rain at the National Day Parade on the Padang. I still recall his funeral procession 46 years ago and the crowds that lined the streets to bid farewell to him.

I remember receiving my commission as a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officer, and the President's Scholarship from the hand of President Benjamin Sheares, and then later serving as an Aide-de-Camp (ADC) to him and also attending at his funeral. After President Sheares' passing, I continued to serve proudly as an ADC to President Devan Nair. I have also experienced the additional custodial powers of the President.

As a Naval officer, I received my appointment as the Chief of Navy from President Wee Kim Wee in June 1991, shortly after the new provisions for Elected Presidency came into force. The Chief of Navy is one of those appointments that require the President's concurrence.

And I have served in Cabinet, when Presidents Ong Teng Cheong, SR Nathan and Tony Tan carried out their Presidential duties, including the additional custodial roles of the office. They did so with dignity and grace, reaching out to all communities and doing us proud internationally. They exercised their custodial powers with integrity, circumspectly, and with independence of mind.

Mdm Speaker, in my own lifetime, I have seen how our Presidents, collectively, have stood for our values as a multiracial society, as a unifying symbol of a united, harmonious Singapore. I want my children, my grandchildren and the children of every community in Singapore to see in their own lifetimes the rich ethnic diversity that is Singapore reflected in the Presidency. The changes that we are making to provide for ethnic representation will ensure that they do so.

Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation of Singaporeans had no Reserves to protect. They lived by the sweat of their brow, and worried about how the vagaries of life might throw them and our country on hard times. They saved, scrimped and steadily built up our Reserves, so that by the mid-1980s, we actually had Reserves and had something to protect. Before that, we did not, which is why we did not need to have a President to safeguard and protect the reserves. This is what they have bequeathed to us.

The Elected Presidency has helped to safeguard these Reserves accumulated by previous generations. It is our duty to make sure that the system continues to do the same for future generations. That we leave the generations to come with the Reserves that will help us survive and bounce back in a crisis; not empty coffers or a debt to repay because we have failed to put in safeguards when we could.

Mdm Speaker, today, we enjoy racial harmony. Our Reserves are strong and healthy. Our Public Service is honest and able. These are not things that come about on their own. They require both good people and good systems in place. Let us, then, Members from both sides of this House, do the responsible thing today, by putting in place the safeguards that will help ensure that we continue to have good governance, and a harmonious and stable future for those who will come after us.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move and I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill. [Applause.]