Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

My second question is: I did ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Malay individuals would be eligible for the next Presidential election and how many of them are from the public sector as well as how many from private sector.

My last question is: the very basis of having a reserved Presidential election for the minority communities is to address the issue of feelings and perceptions of minorities not able to access the Office of the President. On this very basis, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will consider forming a committee or a commission to address the feelings and perceptions of the Malay community on the issue of fairness and equality?

Madam, why now? The Member would recall – when did we introduce the GRC scheme? Was it in 1988? Yes. Not long before the Elected Presidency. There were some discussion and controversy after that also. But today, the GRC system is well accepted. In fact, Mr Fasial Manap is here because he is part of the GRC team, too. I think it is well-accepted, and minority MPs and NCMPs are accepted as colleagues. But it has enabled a stable system and a system which encourages racial relations to pull together, rather than to pull apart. That has helped.

We had the Elected Presidency in 1991; that was when it was introduced. We could have done it then, it was considered but we decided to wait and see what the outcome would be. And you can see, after 25 years, it is not so easy to achieve such an outcome if you just leave things on their own. So, rather than wait and leave it for the future, the Prime Minister fought strongly that this is something that we ought to do now, before feelings or misunderstandings arise in the future.

How many Malays are eligible? I think I answered that question. I said there are minority candidates. I do not know how many there are in the private sector. I know there are in the public sector. Because in the private sector, they do not generally declare race for their officeholders, unless Mr Faisal Manap is suggesting that this is something that they do.

For the feelings and perceptions, Mdm Speaker, this is something which we do on an ongoing basis, every day. Every day, we tend to these issues of race and religion, not just once in a while or when there is a committee. We tend to it every day. And I hope that Mr Faisal Manap does as well. In this context, Madam, maybe I should ask Mr Faisal Manap whether he and the WP welcome and support the reserved election for a Malay candidate in the next Presidential Election. Just a straight answer.

Madam, I am answering the question, so please allow me to answer. Madam, I believe it was mentioned that the very purpose of having a reserved Presidential election is to address the perceptions and feelings of minorities. I believe that this particular issue of addressing such feelings can also be settled through the option of having an appointed Presidency, with the inclusion of the rotational system.

Madam, my answer just now was very clear.

I stand by my answer.

Madam, just four clarifying questions to the hon Deputy Prime Minister. My first question is in relation to the idea of taking this Bill to a referendum. It appears to be that this is a Constitutional amendment. It was not made clear to the electorate before the GE. So, it was not a campaign issue and yet the Government does not wish to take this to a referendum. So, my question is: is it the view of the Government that any kind of Constitutional amendment need not be put to a referendum, need not be campaigned on during a GE, and it can still be done without a referendum? If that is not the position of the Government, what types of issues would be brought up for referendum? That is my first question.

My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times: what are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risks of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt that politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past Executive Presidents that we have, but there is good reason to believe that in future Presidential elections, if, let us say, there are 10 candidates and the winner gets 5% of the votes or the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the Office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that. To her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential election campaign. So, what would be the Government's strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question.

My third question is in relation to staffing and resources for the President and the CPA under this Bill. In other countries, similar kinds of bodies have full-time staff, independent staff, public finance specialists, economists and researchers, and they have budgets to engage such specialists. Will the Government make available resources and budgets and staffing to the President or the CPA to help them to make the decisions that they make, and to have an independent source of research from what the Government provides?

And my last question was the question that I ended off my speech with, which is, in relation to the NCMP provisions within this Bill. If these provisions are passed, is it really the goal of the Government to take back 100% of elected seats and leave the Opposition only as NCMPs? I know that it is ultimately up to the Singaporean people, but my question is: is this the goal of the Ruling Party in the next election?

On the issue of referendum, I think it was Mr Leon Perera who suggested a referendum. And I would not be very trigger-happy on a referendum, unless there are fundamental issues involved. In this case, I think the WP has made a mountain out of a molehill. I explained just now that, for example, on the CPA's powers, the WP has gone out and said that we have created new powers for the CPA which are even bigger than those of the Elected President and the Government. This is entirely untrue.

So, if the basic structure of the system has not changed and we are making increments to it, I think it is a matter of judgement whether it is absolutely necessary to go for a referendum or not. But I would leave the WP to decide, when they have developed fully the idea of an elected senate, whether they would want to try and request for a referendum. I leave it up to you. But I suggest that there is a more straightforward way of doing it. It is to make that part of your platform for the next GE. Campaign on it. If you win, implement it.

Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is there. I have addressed it explicitly just now in my answer. But I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests, and what the Commission suggests also, is to look at rules and the way that Presidential Elections are conducted. I think there is merit, and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there.

On the staffing of the CPA, I would say that the President and the CPA, if they do need staffing and resources, the Government will certainly consider providing. Our purpose is to have these institutions operate well and to do their functions well.

On the NCMPs, we go into an election with the intention of fighting for every vote and winning every seat. But there is a floor of nine and subsequently, 12 NCMP Opposition voices in Parliament, regardless of the outcome. A floor, not a cap, Mr Perera. And this will always guarantee Opposition voices in Parliament.

Madam, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first concerns what the Bill is proposing regarding the role of the CPA and whether there is actually any change or not. The Deputy Prime Minister referred briefly to my speech, but I would like him to confirm whether I am actually correct on this point. My point was that in clause 3, the entrenchment provisions, it is now intended under the Bill that the CPA is another gateway with whose concurrence a Bill that amends the role or powers of the President could be presented to Parliament.

Under the existing framework, which is enacted but not in operation, the CPA does not have this role as a gateway. In other words, the existing mechanism which is enacted but not in operation has only the President or a referendum as the gateway. But now, in this proposed clause 3, the CPA is an alternative gateway. So, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether I am right on this point.

Secondly, Madam, regarding the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister that the next Presidential election is going to be reserved for Malay candidates, I have received, of course, feedback also from residents on this point, and there was an expression of surprise. And I think the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice on how to count the terms. So, I am asking if the Government is prepared to publish that advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers.

And the second point is, under clause 32 of this Bill, it is stated that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count when the first reserved election would be. It is under clause 32. So, am I right then that the Government will actually come back to the House to present what the Attorney-General's Chambers has advised for us to debate on it?

Ms Sylvia Lim is correct in that on the entrenchment provisions, we had made some changes to the way the entrenchment provisions operate. That is correct. But it is still true that the CPA has no veto. So, the CPA cannot veto the President and cannot veto the Government. So, that is still true with regard to the entrenchment provisions. But with regard to the safeguards on the Reserves and the safeguards on appointments, there is no change in the powers.

I explained extensively in my speech, although it was rather late in the speech, about an hour plus into the speech, the entrenchment provisions. I provided the charts as well to explain that. I am glad that Ms Lim looked at it carefully. That is indeed so. And the purpose of doing so, as I explained, is to have the correct balance between rigidity and adaptability of our Constitutional system.

Ms Lim and the WP have expressed, from time to time, serious concerns about gridlock. And, in fact, if you have serious concerns about gridlock, then you should welcome and support these changes.

On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge it judicially.

Madam, that was not my question actually. My question was whether the Government is prepared to publish the advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers because there is public interest in that advice. Is there something that is controversial or confidential that it cannot be published? And the second part of that was, under clause 32, it says that Parliament has to pass a law to specify how to count. So, is the Government going to present a Bill on that?

Mdm Speaker, I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. It is in the Hansard. Is the Member saying that the Prime Minister has falsely told the House that this was the advice he received from the Attorney-General's Chambers? And yes, we will be passing a law, the Presidential Elections Act to state so, that these are the designated races, and so forth.

Mdm Speaker, the advice is quite straightforward. It is not normal – Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer herself – not the usual thing that is done to publish a lawyer's advice, because that is something which is provided to the Prime Minister. But I would ask the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister has stated so, I think there is no doubt about it.