Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  If the two concepts are the same, then do not throw away the old pair of shoes so quickly. I think the old pair of shoes would be more comfortable and we can keep on improving it.

I seek a clarification on what Ms Sylvia Lim said. I think in the manifesto last year, the WP said, "Power of Parliament, as the people's representative, should be unfettered".

In March this year, to the Constitutional Commission, the WP said, "Parliamentary safeguards requiring its supermajority vote in Parliament before past Reserves can be used by the Government."

Today, it is an elected Senate which will overrule Parliament. Is that not a change? Can Ms Lim please clarify?

Madam, as I said earlier in response to Minister Ong, the fundamentals are still the same. We do not believe in the Elected Presidency. We believe that Parliament should have the final say over the safeguarding of the past Reserves. And since the Minister quoted from our submission to the Commission, I can read to Members what we said.

We said that, "We agree that large Reserves built up in the past should be safeguarded, but we believe the Elected President is not the right mechanism for this. For all the years prior to the introduction of the Elected President, there has not been a need for additional safeguards. We are, however, open to additional Parliamentary safeguards over the Reserves, such as requiring a supermajority in Parliament, before past Reserves can be used by the Government." The framework is still similar.

It is a simple question. Please answer it if you can – a clarification, really. Is it not different from what you said in March? Supermajority in Parliament to use Reserves, as opposed to having an elected Senate with 16 people contesting and eight people being elected. It looks to me different. If you say it is the same, so be it.

A point of clarification with Minister Ong.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Ong said that the Senate does not differ very much from the Elected Presidency. In fact, they are quite different. Under the Elected Presidency, decisions are made by one person, plus eight other unelected CPA members. We feel that such important decisions should not be left to just one Elected President and eight appointed advisers who are not elected by the people. However, the Senate is elected by the people. We are willing to leave our destiny to the collective wisdom of these senators who are elected by the people.

He also quoted what Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said about old shoes, that if shoes are old and worn, it would be more comfortable. Just have them mended, do not throw them away. However, I would like to remind everyone that if you continue to wear broken shoes, you risk slip and fall. The soles could get slippery and it is better not to continue wearing them for too long.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  I think we have said all of these before, this CPA is not elected and does not have executive powers. As I have explained just now, what we are worried about is "What if". If something happens, we will need a wise Elected President to prevent an irresponsible Parliament or government from squandering our Reserves.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  I agree that we should play on the safe side, just in case something happens. But can the Senate not play the same role?

Mr Ong Ye Kung (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  The Senate, as I have already said, will entail another GE. In addition, we need to conduct a referendum to ask the people whether they need to have such a system. Is this what our country really needs? Is this what our people need? Will this become another centre of power? There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

There are two unique and important roles which our Elected President currently plays under the present system. One, the President is a Head of State as well as a symbol of the unity of the country. Two, the President has a custodial role in safeguarding our financial Reserves and the integrity of our Public Service. The WP believes that the office of the Elected President should be abolished and the Presidency be reverted to its former ceremonial position.

Though we understand that many Singaporeans desire that this right of election should not be taken away from them, it does not remove the fact that it is difficult for an Elected President to concentrate on being a Head of State and be a unifying force for Singapore and Singaporeans while having a separate custodial role in respect of our country's Reserves.

The Constitutional Commission of 2016 led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon reflected on seven principles that have informed the evolution of the Elected Presidency. It accepted that, I quote, "There is an undeniable tension" between some of the principles reviewed". I quote, "especially those pertaining to the President's historical role and the custodial role that was subsequently grafted on." Please allow me to quote certain paragraphs of the Constitutional Commission here on the seven principles as I feel that they are important and have been aptly described.

"First, the President's historical role as a symbol of the country's unity is premised on the President being non-partisan. However, in discharging the custodial role, the President faces the prospect of having to confront the Government of the day – a task which might appear to be at odds with a non-partisan unifying role. Further, the prospect of having to stand up to the Government necessitates an electoral mandate, in order to endow the President with the requisite legitimacy to do so. This requires that candidates to undergo an intensely political and potentially divisive election process. It may fairly be asked whether a person who emerges victorious after a sharply contested election can convincingly lay claim to being the nation's symbol of unity. Finally, in terms of the President's eligibility criteria, the maximisation of his symbolic and unifying role suggests a premium on inclusivity, in particular, with respect to matters, such as minority representation, as well as the ability to relate to and connect with the general populace. In contrast, however, the custodial role entails a significant degree of exclusivity, particularly in relation to the requirement that the candidate possesses demonstrable experience in high office, in matters of policy and/or financial and technical expertise."

The Commission heard submissions and proposals from many Singaporeans. After deliberation, the Commission found it difficult to overcome, I quote "the strains rooted in the unavoidable tension between the President's historical and custodial roles" and recommended that the Government may wish to consider unbundling the custodial role from the symbolic role of the President and have the custodial role be performed by an appointed body of experts operating like a second chamber of Parliament but with no veto or blocking power.

The WP studied the Constitutional Commission's report and we agree with the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to have a separate body to exercise the custodial role. The main difference is that we think that this body must be elected by the people directly, not merely appointed by any persons.

The custodial role of the President requires that he be prepared to confront the Government if necessary. He can only do so if he has gone through a national election, competed in the hustings to be elected above other candidates and received the elected mandate of the people. The Constitutional Commission said that the election will likely be politicised and divisive. To contest in such an election to be the Head of State will require one to be partisan in some ways, even if it should not be along party lines like for Parliamentary elections. Being partisan may not sit comfortably with the notion of a unifier of the entire country which the President is supposed to be, even if an election may not be divisive.

The strict eligibility criteria which are said to be necessary for the President's custodial role are not similar to the traits that may make a candidate a good Head of State and unifier of the country. The strict eligibility criteria ensure that only a very exclusive group of people are eligible. They will be made even stricter under the proposed amendments being debated and become even more exclusive and narrow such that only a very small group of people with a very exclusive profile may qualify.

In contrast, as a unifier, the President must have, in the words of the Commission, "a premium on inclusivity". I feel that this must surely include the ability to relate to Singaporeans from all walks of life, races, ages and classes.

By combining the roles and having the strict eligibility criteria, we have restricted the eligible persons to a very exclusive group: some past political officeholders or senior public servants or chairman or CEO of a company with a minimum average value in shareholders' equity of at least $500 million.

In my view, we have unnecessarily limited ourselves here. Good political leaders of the world have come from very diverse backgrounds. There must be people from different walks of life who can be a good Singaporean Head of State and unifier of our people, without being a CEO of a company with a large shareholders' equity or who have not been in politics previously. Surely, it is very possible that we can have someone who come from a charity or voluntary welfare organisation background, or someone who is an educationist, doctor or even a journalist, but who may not have the financial management experience required under this system. President Sheares was a doctor. President Wee Kim Wee was a journalist. Under our present rules, they would never have qualified.

Yes, admittedly, our Elected President system with its two distinct roles, is unique. But are we not selling ourselves short in the process when we force the two elements to co-exist? The Commission clearly thinks that it is better to split these roles. This was the second time since Independence that the Government has convened a Commission. Is this not a very good time to consider this recommendation from the Commission?

Next, on the proposed minority requirements in the amendment Bill, I am concerned that these requirements can be construed as patronising and unmeritocratic. They may encourage unhealthy stereotyping of racial perceptions. I also fear that by having the statutory assurance of a reservation for a certain minority after five terms, people may unintentionally and unwittingly be encouraged to vote along racial lines.

What we should be doing is always to encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate. I fear that any minority requirement will not encourage people to think beyond the race of the candidate but may achieve the opposite result. I believe that this provision is unnecessary as Singaporeans will rise to the occasion to choose their Head of State based on the person's character and achievements, regardless of race, language and religion.

The Government, in its White Paper on the Review on Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency, rejected the Commission's proposal to unbundle the President's symbolic and custodial roles and assigning the custodial role to an appointed body of experts. The Government said that the second key should be held by an elected body with direct mandate from Singaporeans. The Government also said that the body of experts, as proposed by the Commission, would not be able to veto as it lacks the democratic mandate and this would impair the efficacy and rigour of the second key.

The WP's response is that we can still have such a body as proposed by the Commission but that, as this body is supposed to perform a check on Parliament, it should have the popular mandate of the people and be directly elected.

The WP is, therefore, proposing that the Senate be established as the Upper House of the Legislature. The Senate shall, essentially, take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency. Sir, this will allow the custodian role to be taken away from the President and free the President to perform the role of Head of State and be the symbol of unity for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Sir, the Government accepts in its White Paper that there is an inherent tension between an electoral process and a President who discharges a unifying, symbolic function but believes that it can be mitigated, even if not entirely eliminated. The Government did not elaborate in its White Paper on how it intends to do so. May the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify how the Government intends to do this?

The Commission touched on their concerns on how Presidential Elections can be divisive and recommended that the election rules be improved upon, including the understanding of candidates on the roles of the Elected President. The Commission also touched on the need for greater public education to have a better understanding of the role of the President.

The Government's response is that the risk of Presidential Elections being politicised can be dealt with to some extent through the rules governing election campaigns.

I expect that the Government would probably have rightly considered such changes before it tabled the present amendment Bill. Will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what would be the proposed changes to the rules for future Presidential Elections? It is important that we should also know this now as we should consider critically all the proposed changes, both in this Bill as well as other changes that the Government intends to introduce.

I now move to the topic on NCMP. The Constitution of Singapore was amended in 2010 to provide for a minimum of nine Opposition MPs via the NCMP scheme. If there are fewer than nine Opposition Members elected in a GE, the NCMPs would be selected in priority among the best losers from the Opposition, depending on the percentage of votes obtained, until there were nine Opposition Members.

This Bill now seeks to increase from a maximum of nine to 12 NCMPs. The WP's position on NCMPs was enunciated at the Debate on the President's Address at the beginning of the 13th Parliament in January this year and our position has not changed. The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected Members with the full mandate of the people.

The introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and the consistent gerrymandering at every GE with the redrawing of electoral boundaries compelled the WP to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats. We believe that if GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary.

Our WP Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. Essentially, an NCMP is not the elected Member of any constituency.

As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party without any elected Member will be placed at a distinct disadvantage. We have seen from recent elections that a political party which is not able to show a track record of having run a Town Council gives room for scaremongering to make voters less certain about whether to vote for its candidates.

The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected Members from alternative parties and, if Singaporeans buy their story, it will only help to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than NCMPs alone to check the Government. It is the fear of losing elected seats that will enable Singaporeans to check the PAP Government and to compel the ruling party to take the people seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I speak briefly in Mandarin?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill is seeking to increase the number of NCMPs from a maximum of nine to 12.

The WP has always objected to the NCMP scheme since its inception in 1984. We believe that Parliament should consist of fully elected MPs with the full mandate of the people.

The PAP Government amended the Constitution and the rules governing Parliamentary elections. It introduced the GRCs system, making it more difficult for Opposition party members to be elected into Parliament. It has been redrawing the electoral boundaries at every GE. The WP is compelled to consider after each election whether to accept NCMP seats.

If GRCs were abolished, the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary. We believe that under a fair and healthy democratic system, and if the system is running well, there will surely be Opposition party members being elected into Parliament to represent the voters. Thus, Parliamentary debates can then represent diverse views, and more balanced decisions can be made.

Our Secretary-General, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has likened NCMPs to duckweeds, which float on the water surface and do not sink roots. As NCMPs may not gain direct ground experience in the running of the Town Council, an Opposition party with only NCMPs and no elected MP will be placed at a distinct disadvantage.

Therefore, if we only have NCMPs in Parliament but not elected Opposition MPs, the Opposition will never have the opportunity to accumulate the relevant experiences in running a Town Council. This will be unhealthy for the future of Singapore politics.

The PAP is hoping that a system with more NCMPs will distract the electorate from the need to vote in elected MPs from alternative parties. This is to entrench the Parliament supermajority of the PAP. We need more than just NCMPs to check the Government. We need a good political system whereby a check-and-balance mechanism on the Government can be implemented through a fair and competitive election process.

When the voters vote for Opposition candidates and the Opposition candidates successfully become fully elected MPs, they will then be able to enter Parliament with the full mandate of the voters and can then be said to truly represent the constituencies which voted them into Parliament. An NCMP does not represent any constituency. The point is that it is the fear of losing elected seats in GEs that compels the PAP to take the pleas of the people seriously.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment with regard to NCMPs.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in English. I have a very general question for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding this Bill. There are many changes that have been introduced under this Bill. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House which of the proposed changes are now being tabled because of something that has gone wrong in the past and thereby necessitating the changes required under this Bill? If there are any such instances, will the Deputy Prime Minister elaborate on the circumstances which took place?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I oppose the proposed amendment to the provisions in the Constitution for NCMPs. I also oppose the other amendments in this Bill relating to the Elected President scheme and the CPA.

The WP calls for a referendum on the Elected Presidency. Let the people decide whether the Presidency should remain an elected office in the manner under the present law or as proposed by the WP ‒ the Senate proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I heard the Member say that he supports the proposal for a Senate. As I understood earlier from Mr Pritam Singh, there will be 16 candidates − the criteria would be like, I suppose, a Senate election committee which will act like the PEC and operate like the PEC. So, does that mean that the criteria would be the same as for the current Elected Presidents?

I thank the Minister for the clarification. The criteria would be similar to the present criteria.

Similar? Is there a difference? Can you tell me what are the differences?

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, we have looked at the framework, the details, we probably will have to finetune them.

Can I take it that the details have not been worked out?

We have talked about the details, and, yes, not fully worked out.

Can you tell us, to the extent that you have worked out, what has been explained in this Parliament today?

Yes, we have explained.

So, what you have talked about is what you have explained so far?

There will be Members of Parliament who will be speaking on some of the details later.

I have had Mr Pritam Singh explain and Mr Dennis Tan explain. I have asked a simple question − fundamental to all of this is the criteria. So, I have you on record, Mr Low, as saying that you have thought of some, and some other criteria and details will have to be worked out further.

Second, I have you on record as saying that whatever you have worked out, has been set out. I would like to ask Mr Dennis Tan, if there is any other detail on the selection criteria, please let us know. I would also like a clarification. You said that it is similar − the criteria for the Senators would be similar to the criteria for the Presidents. Can you tell me to what extent will they be different?

The details are similar. We are going to, we have – the details will be similar to the current PEC. The criteria in the Bill.

Criteria for the candidates will be similar to those for the Elected Presidents. To what extent? "Similar" means?

It will be similar to the criteria for the current CPA.

What criteria does the current CPA have? And to what extent would it be similar to the current CPA?

Okay. Yes, I would like to make a clarification with regard to that particular question on eligibility criteria. I intend to touch on that in my speech which is scheduled either later today or tomorrow. But, in essence, I think what was meant earlier by saying it is "similar" is that the eligibility criteria would revolve around similar qualities – that is, the ability ‒ because essentially, it is the custodial role that we are proposing be transferred from an Elected President to an Elected Senate. So, the kinds of qualities that would be needed to fulfil that role would be inherently similar in nature, meaning to say, exposure to managing finances, exposure to exercising managerial discretion over human resource, decision-making, and so on and so forth. I think similar, but not exactly the same.

How that works is that in our proposal, the Senate Elections Committee would operate in a similar manner to the PEC but with different mechanics. It would consider applicants who would like to run for the office of Senator. It would review those applications with those eligibility criteria in mind, that is, financial management capability, human resources and so on, criteria that one needs to play a custodial role and it would rank the 16 most suitable and most eligible candidates to go on to the ballot and, from that, the senatorial election would then elect eight candidates from a ballot of 16. I was intending to clarify that later on.

Will they, the candidates, need to, for example, have run companies of the size as set out currently in the requirements?

It would be part of the criteria to be considered, and that would be an advantage in the selection process. So, the more relevant experience that you have, the more eligible you will be.

But there must be some basic criteria. And can I take it that the basic criteria must be similar to the current Elected President's qualification criteria?

The basic qualities would be similar because what we are talking about is the custodial role being transferred.

I am not taking about the qualities. I am talking about the criteria − criteria lead to qualities. Can you answer that point? Today, you know that there is a set of objective criteria. Would you require the same criteria for the Senators? So that they can exercise, and we presume to have similar qualities?

The criteria would be similar but what would not be similar ─

I have heard this word "similar" several times. To what extent will they be different?

They would be different in the sense that we would not have a hard and fast threshold of cut-off to say that regardless of the applicants who apply for this role ─

Thank you, but that is similar to the deliberative track today that we have, because that is also not a hard and fast rule. So, in all senses, if I may understand it, what you are proposing for the Senate is like what is being proposed for the Elected Presidency. Several objective criteria which are the same and some deliberative process, right?

Essentially, yes.

Essentially, yes. And the reason for that is because it is still playing a custodial role, it is not playing the role of reviewing legislation. So, it is transferring the custodial role from an Elected President to a Senate.

And what happens if less than eight people qualify or stand?

I think the current Presidential Election system that you have proposed would also face a similar objection. What if nobody comes forward to run for the Elected Presidency under your system? We are confident that there will be sufficient candidates to come forward for this system. I think that the conundrum that the Minister posed would be equally faced by many and, in fact, possibly by all types of electoral systems.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to debate about today's Bill without reflecting upon the political upheavals that democracies older than our own are experiencing right now.

Both the US and the UK are going through an unprecedented public display of disunity at the government as well as the ground level. In Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, far-right parties are gaining in political traction with the electorate with uncomfortable ease, and racist and xenophobic political agendas have become normalised.

It is not just about the state of the political candidates but the state of the electorate that is causing great anxiety around the world. Few leaders at the top expected that there would come a day when so many voters on the ground would become so disillusioned with the prospects of political reform that they were willing to overturn political norms, values and behaviours that everyone once assumed were foundational for their democracy.

So, there has been much soul-searching in those democracies about what could have caused such profoundly wide divides to open up between leaders and their people and what could have been fixed earlier to prevent this situation.

It is in such extraordinary times when the world's attention becomes focused on the rigour and resilience of each country's political institutions. Will the system fall apart or will the centre hold?

In each of these democracies now, a generation of young people are holding their breath to see whether their system's fail-safes – the precious checks and balances a generation before them had designed during peaceful times – will kick in and do its work to protect the future of all that they hold dear.

We are one of the world's youngest democracies. Barely over half a century old, we still have much to learn and we are presently still living in our season of peace.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe this is now our time to fix things. And perhaps each one of us here in this House was somehow made for such a time as this.

Given the backdrop of current global events, I am reminded that there is no better time than now for our own politicians to meet across partisan divides to look – to really look – at the state of our own union, to build our own system's circuit breakers, to fight for the checks and balances we most believe in. And to do all that not for short-term political gain but for long-term national preservation.

Do you know what stands out to me most about the role of the Elected President? It is that he is given the responsibility to stand as a non-partisan symbol of national unity.

The Government's White Paper explains that "This crucial role as a unifying symbol of the nation is unique to the President's office. No other public office is intended to be a personification of the State and a symbol of the nation's unity in the way that the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction in principle between the Presidency and other public offices…He embodies the nation itself."

When I read those words, I hear them as a voter. I take them absolutely to heart. Because that is the kind of President I want. And that is the kind of President we will need. Because in times to come, we will appreciate having a Unifier-in-Chief, especially in a world where internal hostilities and growing divisions are becoming more the norm than not.

But the question here is: if unifying the country is such a significant and distinctive responsibility of the President, then are the Constitutional amendments built to favour candidates with that sort of particular strength and inclination – or not?

Presently, the discussion of this particular unifying role of the President is centred purely on multiracial representation. And I have no quarrel with the Government's decision to go for a reserved election option to ensure that the Presidency is accessible to all the major races in Singapore. I accept the Government's argument that as long as there is a real possibility that 10%-20% of the voting population may still be swung by factors of race, we have to be realistic and put in the least intrusive short-term mechanism possible to guarantee some level of multi-racial representation. Meanwhile, I also accept that we all must share in the long-term responsibility of helping one another reach that ultimate destination where such an artificial safeguard would no longer be needed. We can go beyond community self-help groups and work towards a multiracial story of lifting one another's communities together.

But I share the perspective of many young Singaporeans, that a President's ability to unify a country is not really about his race. Young people will tell you frankly that they could not care less about the colour of the President's skin as much as they care about the complexion of his politics. Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland "yes man"-sounding candidate from their own race any day.

Some political scientists have argued that the political dysfunctions we are witnessing right now in America have less to do with race and more to do with class divides, partisan politics and a divisive electoral process. And the reminder I will take from the US presidential election is that racism is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed simply by minority representation in the highest office of the land. Representation is important and useful but even two terms of having a powerful, competent, charismatic African-American as President of the US could not do enough to defuse the racial tensions that continue to divide their country. Some analysts even feel that Obama's presidency inadvertently provoked more open expressions of racism than ever before.

So, fixing representation issues in the highest office of the land must be always accompanied by fixing representation issues in the lower offices of the land as well. It matters that we address how many women get a seat at the table in corporate boardrooms as much as Cabinet positions. It matters that we address how many minorities ascend the ranks in our armed forces. It matters that we address how many children from less-privileged families and less prestigious schools actually emerge victorious in leadership positions all across the sectors. And it matters because, as a globalised city-state, we will always struggle with high income inequality. So, I do worry more about the effects of polarised elitism than racism on our democracy, especially because the former enflames and exacerbates the latter.

Again, there is a lesson to be learnt from the US. Rising inequality is most extreme in America. In 1979, the top 1% in the US earned 9% of its income; today they earn almost 25%. In 2010, more than 90% of the country's income gains went to the top 1%.

As the elite and less-elite become further and further removed from each other's lived realities, it becomes difficult to build the mutual understanding and wide-reaching consensus needed for effective democracy to happen. Pollsters discovered that out of the many demographic fault lines exposed by the current US elections, few divisions went deeper than that of educational attainment. Those with the most schooling clearly back one candidate. And those with the least number of years of education clearly back the other.

When elite group-think settles in at the leadership level and an empathy gap grows between an elite political class and an economically and politically frustrated middle to working class electorate, a dangerous vulnerability in the democratic system is created. It is a vulnerability that can be hijacked at the right time by an opportunistic populist politician unafraid of riding upon a racist or xenophobic agenda.

And what we see happening elsewhere can all too easily happen right here.

To be a unifying symbol, the future President of Singapore cannot just wear the right skin tone. He or she must have the political courage and moral gumption to navigate the divides of class and partisan politics. It is those divides that intersect with and exacerbate racial issues. In times to come, it is across those divides where we will most need a bold non-partisan voice of national unity to step out to be that bridge. He or she is de facto Diplomat-in-Chief not just to the world but within our homeland as well. He or she must be the centre of calm that can hold a space for not just the different races, but the elites and non-elites, powerful and powerless and establishment and anti-establishment as well.

As an NMP, I cannot vote on Constitutional amendments. But I will still bring three requests today to the table.

My first request concerns the eligibility criteria. I am still hesitant to support the new stricter set of eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency. I fully understand the need to always update the criteria for the times. And it is not that I think the new criteria are wholly unreasonable. It is just that I am unsure whether having such criteria now will help us sieve in more good candidates or sieve out more promising ones. I am unsure whether stricter private sector criteria will end up slanting our Presidency towards more public sector candidates, especially in the case of minority candidates. And I am unsure whether if we keep setting the bar higher and higher for who gets to run for President, one of the unplanned outcomes would be a further widening of an empathy gap between an ever more elite leadership and an ever less elite electorate. How drastic is the difference between CEOs who lead $500 million organisations and CEOs who lead $100 million or $300 million organisations in terms of their intellectual competency, financial proficiency, moral courage and diplomatic sensitivity? Given how small our country is, are we running the risk of arbitrarily cutting off potentially great presidential candidates?

I hear the Government's reasoning that "quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country's economic situation does not itself remain static." And I agree. But qualitative thresholds are not fixed in perpetuity either. A country's emotional, socio-political and cultural situation does not remain static either and is equally demanding of nuanced understanding.

So, why do we not have more holistic eligibility criteria that also specifically demand a candidate display a minimal level of sophisticated understanding about the state of our nation? Should we not require candidates hoping to become the symbol of national unity to possess at least a bullet point or two on their resume in some actual ground experience in bringing communities together across socio-political divisions?

I know my request might sound strange but, if unifying is such a significant and unique responsibility of the President, then would it not be worthwhile attempting to word out some criteria more explicitly along those lines?

I would hope that in designing our criteria for a future President, we do not word it such that we only get applications from brilliant technocrats with the right degrees, right organisations and the right positions. All that is impressive, and it is good and necessary, but a person can have all that, carry out the custodial duties of guarding the national Reserves with immense technical expertise and still fall short in that other equally demanding, equally important duty of embodying and unifying a nation. The latter duty demands no less rigour than the former.

I request that we consider relooking the strictness of criteria, especially if we start to see either a recurring pattern of uncontested elections due to lack of eligible private sector candidates or a recurring pattern of elections dominated only by public sector candidates. Because I believe those patterns will reveal the onset of a dysfunction in our democracy. A string of uncontested elections or even elections with homogeneous establishment candidates harms our democracy as it only feeds into a dangerous narrative of a "rigged system" that entrenches either cynicism or apathy among the electorate. And already, we are seeing that scenario play out in the current US elections where opportunistic candidates readily ride on that narrative and exploit the sentiment to gain popularity. Especially in the case of uncontested elections, the lack of a victory won by actual votes will forever cast a shade of doubt on the authority of even the most worthy and capable of candidates.

My second request is on staying open to alternative solutions to depoliticise the Presidential Elections.

The 2011 Presidential Elections was surprisingly divisive and there is no reason to assume that future Presidential Elections will not take on a similar tone. We cannot hold an election for a politically neutral office and be surprised when politics intrudes because the medium is the message. Elections are quintessentially political and tend to attract politicised candidates who want to play the game. Only the rarest of qualified candidates from the private sector, without prior political party affiliation or political experience, will be willing to subject themselves to politicking.

I know the Government is unconvinced that reverting to a Parliament-nominated Presidency is the solution. And I agree because it would be a conflict of interest for Parliament to be tasked to choose the very person whose chief role would be to act as a check on it. Personally, I believe further down the road, it is worth reconsidering what Mr Janadas Devan and Mr Ho Kwon Ping suggested in 2011 about establishing an electoral college instead. The college should be large enough to proportionately represent major stakeholders and interest groups in Singapore. They suggest that the electors could be selected according to processes set by each stakeholder group and the college would finally nominate a few candidates from among those who offer to stand for President. With electoral college as the first sieve and either the Supreme Court or Public Service Commission holding the right of final approval, the system would get a qualified Presidential candidate drawn from a greater diversity of stakeholders.

However, the present reality is that the idea of getting to elect an independent President has already sunk in with the electorate as their democratic right. So, to take that right away now would not go down well either. I do think the next best thing to do, for now, would be to establish clearer rules of engagement for the upcoming 2017 Presidential Elections. I agree with the Commission that shortlisted candidates must be held to a higher standard of understanding about the Constitutional role of the President and to be held publicly accountable for any outrageous claims or policy promises made on the campaign trail that fall well beyond the scope of what a President can do. And I also agree with the Commission's observations that public rallies add to the divisiveness of the electoral process and believe broadcasted presidential debates might be a less politicised way for the people to get to know the quality of their candidate.

Another way to depoliticise the Presidency is to provide other democratic institutions that can take on the more interventionist role that some voters want to shoe-horn into the President's role even though it conflicts with his need to symbolise national unity. So, can the Government consider setting up the institution of an ombudsman to take that up? President Tony Tan himself suggested it on his own campaign trail – an ombudsman who can act as a respectable yet independent representative for the people, who is empowered to investigate the public's complaints against the Government as well as any public allegations about the Government will strengthen the public's trust in our democracy and add a useful layer to our system's checks and balances.

I also believe that the politicisation and misunderstandings we saw in 2011 are a reflection of how much more we could invest into the general political education of our people, especially the next generation of voters. Can we start taking seriously the need to teach basic political concepts as part of civic education for our youths? Introducing young people to the value of a Constitution, the meaning of a vote and the balance of power among the executive, judiciary and legislative branches will go a long way in helping us build up the rigour of our future electorate.

My third and final request is with regards to the role of the people sector. In the last few years, the Government has been pushing for tri-sector, whole-of-society collaboration as the best way to solve wicked problems in a volatile, ambiguous world. Thus, the absence of any reference to the people sector in this Bill really stood out to me.

Going by the eligibility criteria, only experience and expertise in the public or private sector prepare an individual to be a President of Singapore. Even though there is a deliberative track, it would be really difficult and almost impossible to find a leader from our local landscape of voluntary welfare groups, non-profit charities, philanthropic foundations and carts or cultural groups who can say their organisations are of equivalent size and complexity as a $500 million company or a Government agency. Yet, exceptional leaders exist in the people sector with on-ground wisdom and deep experience in community-building.

Beyond the world of corporations and Government agencies, there is another realm of expertise whose day-in and day-out work is all about bringing broken people and broken communities together again. They have listened into the country's most silent sufferings and they have seen where our most profound heartbreaks lie. They have walked beside the faultlines that cut through our nation's communities. And they have stood in the gap together with this country's walking wounded to help them get past anger and bitterness to unite with others again. Without these everyday warriors working on the frontlines of the people sector, you can bet there would be more national disunity than less.

This is not about simplistically asking for people sector leaders to be given an easier shot at running for the Presidency. I accept that the President's custodial role of safeguarding our national Reserves demands a level of financial sophistication and organisational expertise that is likely to be beyond the scope of most people-sector leaders.

But what of that other equally significant ceremonial role of unifying the nation? Would not the people sector's unique strengths and insights be profoundly useful in serving that role?

The people sector may currently be small and not as steeped in power, organisational sophistication and financial resources. But neither should it be seen as a lesser brother to the public and private sectors. It is a vital part of the equation in the total defence of our country and the guardianship of our national unity and it deserves equal respect.

I would hope that the President, in the carriage of his responsibilities as National Unifier-in-Chief would have access to the street-level wisdom and ground-informed insights of the chief unifiers on the ground. I would hope that the people in charge of selecting potential Presidential candidates have that access, too.

Can I request that in the composition of the PEC as well as the CPA, we make a space somehow for leaders from the people sector? Because our sharpest people sector leaders could well be the ground experts you need who can first spot the canaries in our sociocultural coal mines. We should hear out their intuitions.

Ultimately, I am encouraged that this Government is not afraid of refining the Constitution from time to time for the sake of future-proofing our country. Franklin Roosevelt once said that a Constitution should be revered "not because it is old, but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come."

A Constitution must be protected enough to ensure stability from government to government but it must also have enough breathing room to be a living, vital thing, evolving enough such that it remains relevant to the needs of every new generation.

I urge our politicians across both parties to be unafraid to go deeper and wider with those changes so that they can take all of us further into the future. Because we are all in this together, for our children and our children's children.

And please, do not despair that our youths do not seem interested in Constitutional issues. Just because they do not express interest now does not mean they do not feel a stake in it later. It is just that most of them only feel it and show it when election season hits.

Our young voters want the same things as our older voters. Good jobs. A decent shot at happiness. Fair treatment regardless of race, language or religion. And they all know their access to those things has plenty to do with the state of our politics.

But at the heart of it, the average young person here – as everywhere in the world – wants to just be able to say this one thing, "You know what? I live in a country where the people in charge actually give a damn about me and my future."

Let us make whatever changes we need to help them say that. Let us please work together to bring down walls, protect the state of our union and find a way for Singapore to be a small but strong and powerful light of unity even in the darkness of a divided world. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the WP rejects this amendment Bill that is being presented and debated on. We would like to state that we stand by our original position we had since the office of the Elected Presidency was instituted, that is, we do not agree with the Elected Presidency and call for the Presidency to be returned to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency.

Sir, I would like to touch on the differences of opinion found in the report of the Constitutional Commission and the Government's White Paper regarding the issue of "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", and the WP's stand on this matter. I would also like to touch on whether it is necessary to have a reserved Presidential Election so that minorities have the chance to become the President.

Sir, one thing that caught my attention, which is located in the report of the Constitutional Commission, was the suggestion that the Government consider reverting the Presidency to its original office, that is, an appointed Presidency. This is an interesting issue because this issue was not contained in the Terms of Reference that the Government gave to the Constitutional Commission to conduct the review. However, the Commission stated that this issue was raised because when they were performing their review, the Commission had the opportunity to focus on and make considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of the Elected Presidency scheme and the matters that are related to the weaknesses of this scheme and how these can be overcome by an alternative system.

I would like to share the main points that were touched on and discussed by the Constitutional Commission when it gave its suggestions to the Government to reconsider the Elected Presidency scheme. The Commission stated that after 25 years since the scheme was first introduced, and with changing situations and over time, it was observed that there was some tension between the two main roles of the Elected Presidency, that is, the historical role or the unifying role, and the custodial role.

The Commission had given at least three clarifications about their observations on this issue of tension. First, the Commission found that the historical role requires a President who is neutral, who is non-partisan, and has a role as the unifier of the nation. On the other hand, the custodial role requires a President who will confront and query the Government, if the situation requires it. This is a responsibility that is rather unsuitable for an office that is supposed to be a symbol of a unifier of the nation.

Secondly, the Commission then stated that there is some irony in the Elected Presidency scheme. This is because the Presidential Election process itself, which will surely have political and divisive elements, contradicts with the role as a unifier of the nation. In other words, these political and divisive elements should not be present in the process of electing a President who will become a unifier of the nation.

Thirdly, the Commission stated that the role of the Elected President is to serve as a check on the Government. But the irony is, this aspect can become an incentive for a candidate to campaign on an anti-government platform. Such a President, who is political in nature, will surely be likely to come head-to-head frequently with the Government. When this situation occurs, it will surely have a negative effect on the role of the President as the unifier of the nation.

Sir, the Government has rejected the proposals put forward by the Constitutional Commission as stated in the Government's White Paper. The Government has presented these arguments. First, the Government accepted that there are tensions between the election process and the role of the Elected President as the unifier of the nation. However, the Government believed that this tension can be mitigated, although not totally removed.

With regard to this argument, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. First, on what basis does the Government believe that this tension can be mitigated and, second, what will the Government do to mitigate this tension?

The Government's second argument is that, although tension can potentially happen between the historical and custodial roles as identified by the Commission, the Government said that all the Elected Presidents so far have performed both roles successfully.

Sir, the answers given by the Government on this matter are not that convincing. Just because something bad did not happen previously, it does not mean that it will not happen in the future. At the same time, all the previous Elected Presidents are individuals who have a direct or indirect relationship with the ruling party before they became President.

However, Sir, imagine the situation during campaigning at the Presidential Elections, whereby some candidates use messages that are political in nature in order to attract votes, as mentioned by the Constitutional Commission. For example, if elected as President, they say that they will become the check and balance against the Government. Such messages are incongruous with the custodial role of the President, which is only concerned with the nation's Reserves and other duties.

The Prime Minister himself has touched on this issue in his speech during the debate on the President's Address at the Opening of the 13th Parliament. I quote his speech in English.

(In English): "By design, the President has no executive, policy-making role and this remains the prerogative of the elected Government commanding the majority in Parliament. But in the last Presidential Election, many people did not understand this. I suspect even now, quite a number of people still do not understand this. Regrettably, during the last Presidential Election, those who did not understand it included some candidates. They campaigned for President as if they were going to form an alternate government".

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I end with this quote. If such an undesirable situation happens, where a politically-inclined Presidential candidate exploits the agenda to "check" on the Government as an incentive to campaign on an anti-government platform, surely, if such a candidate were to be elected, this candidate would highly likely go head-to-head frequently with the government. When this happens, it will certainly hinder the role of the President as the unifier of the nation. I believe when the Commission thought about this matter, it also took into account the situation that happened during the 2011 Presidential Election.

Sir, I will now touch on the custodial role. Although the Commission suggested that this Elected Presidency scheme be unbundled in an effort to stabilise and strengthen the role of a unifier of the nation, the Commission, however, agreed that the custodial role must be retained. But the President should not be playing this role. The Commission suggested that this custodial role be given to an appointed body comprising a panel of experts. The Commission conceptualised this appointed body as a body of experts that will be the second chamber of Parliament, that is, given a process-delaying role, by forcing something to be debated again and requiring the Government to override any objections only with a supermajority.

Sir, in answering the proposals of the Commission for the custodial role to be given to an appointed body, the Government used the following arguments.

First, the Government believes that the second key must be held by an institution that has obtained the direct mandate from Singaporeans through an election process. This is so that this institution has the moral authority and the mandate to use its veto power against the Government.

Second, the appointed body that is suggested by the Commission can only force something to be debated again and cannot use the veto power to block the Government's initiatives because it does not have the mandate to do so.

Sir, when we look back at the differences of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the matter "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", it is clear that both parties – the Commission and the Government – agree that there is tension when a President performs both the historical and custodial roles.

If we studied the arguments put forth by the Constitutional Commission, it is, firstly, forward-looking, and secondly, it is also preventive in nature, in order to prevent something undesirable from happening. On the other hand, the Government's argument is based on the experience over the past four terms of the Presidency. It is also based on the reason that something can be done when the tension occurs. Nonetheless, the Government did not say how this can be mitigated or overcome.

Sir, the Government constantly adheres to the principle of caution and takes a careful and preventive approach when creating national policies in order to prevent or mitigate the risk of something undesirable from happening. Based on this, I say that the argument used by the Government to reject the proposal of the Commission in this matter is incongruous with the principle and the attitude of the Government that I just mentioned.

One other thing about the difference of opinion between the Government and the Constitutional Commission on the issue of "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office", I would urge everyone to make an honest assessment. The Constitutional Commission, that was set up by the Prime Minister himself and comprising individuals who do not have any political interests, is of the view that the Presidency should revert to an appointed office, with the concern that this can avoid something undesirable from happening in the future, that is, society being divided and political conflict occurs between the President and the Government. On the other hand, the one who wants to retain this Elected Presidency scheme is the ruling political party. So, think about that.

Sir, now I would like to state the WP position on the matter "Whether the Presidency should remain an elected office". In this matter, we are inclined towards the view put forward by the Constitutional Commission, that is, firstly, the Presidency reverts to the office of an appointed President, and secondly, the custodial role is given to a body. However, there is some difference between our proposals and the Commission's proposal about the custodial role. We suggest that this role be given to a chamber or Senate comprising eight individuals who are elected via a national election process. This is because we believe that individuals holding this responsibility should get a mandate from the people so that they are equipped with the moral authority to perform their duty.

Another thing that I would touch on is about the suggestion to have a reserved Presidential Election for minorities so that they have the chance to become President.Sir, I have two questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the Government's plan to have a reserved election only for Malay candidates.

Firstly, why now? After 25 years, since the introduction of the Elected Presidency? Would it not be the best time to give an opportunity to the Malay community to become President during the first Presidential Election in 1992, because after the late Encik Yusof Ishak became first President, the three Presidents after him were from races other than the Malay community? This is based on the message by President Tony Tan that was delivered by Mdm Speaker yesterday, whereby President Tony Tan said that it is not a coincidence and it was arranged this way, that the first four Presidents are from different races. This statement further reinforces the fact that the first Elected President in 1992 should have been reserved for the Malay community if that was the actual intent. But why was it not done?

Second, in answering media queries recently, the Prime Minister said that there are enough Malay candidates to contest for the Elected Presidency. I would like to ask how many Malays who are qualified to contest and, out of this, how many are from the public sector and how many are from the private sector.

Sir, the WP's stand is that when the office of the President reverts to an appointed office, the concern about minorities not having the chance to assume the office of the President can be overcome, by having a system of rotation.

Sir, before I end my speech, I would like to touch on the statement by the Constitutional Commission, which drew my attention towards the issue of perception and minorities. As a multiracial and multi-religious nation that holds fast to the principle of meritocracy, every race, especially minorities, should feel that they are given an equal and fair chance and do not perceive otherwise in every aspect of life in Singapore.

Sir, I have highlighted the issue of equality many times in this Chamber. I have quoted the feelings and perceptions of the Malays, that were expressed in the report, about the issue of equality and I requested for solutions to this issue through the formation of a committee. However, my suggestions have remained just a suggestion.

Sir, the issue of having a halal kitchen in the Republic of Singapore Navy's ships during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates this year has received much attention. I have received many personal messages of thanks and support for highlighting this issue. I was also approached by many individuals when I was out in public, and they gave their views and thanked me. On the issue of having a reserved Presidential Election for Malays, although generally the Malay community accepted it with an open heart, however, at the same time, we hear many comments, that display suspicion and dissatisfaction, among the Malay community. Sir, on the whole, what I said earlier showed that there is still a lingering suspicion about the issue of equality that is buried deep in the hearts of Malay/Muslims in Singapore.

Once again, I would like to request for a committee or, better still, a commission, to be formed to delve into or study ways to alleviate these feelings of angst and unhappiness among the Malay community that are still being heard in relation to this issue of equality, even though our nation has been independent for 51 years.

Sir, finally, the crux of my speech is that the concern about the tensions that can emerge from the friction between the historical and custodial roles can be resolved by reverting the Presidency to an appointed office. If we look back, such concerns did not emerge at all throughout the period when the Presidency was an appointed office.