Debate on President's Address

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

The President and many Members of this House have spoken about the bracing challenges that we face in the future – terrorism, our economy, maintaining our social cohesion, among other things. Indeed, it is a daunting list. But as Members have emphasised, we have every reason to be confident that we can overcome them – one by one, together.

The question is: how do we do that? How can we build a stronger Singapore? How can we progress together? For Singapore to succeed, what must we do? One fundamental requirement, beyond individual policies, was what the President said at the end of his speech – we need good policies, but we also need good politics.

Members would have read the Addenda to the President's Address. These comprehensive documents lay out the agenda for this term of Government. The business of Government is to govern. Voters elect us to develop policies, to implement them, and to make things happen.

They want policies which respond to people's needs, like enhancing social safety nets, making housing more affordable and accessible, improving public transport, and managing the growth of foreign workers. They want to see policies that will enable our people to achieve their aspirations, for themselves and for their children: investing in education at all levels, for example, the SkillsFuture; implementing major projects which transform Singapore, like Changi Airport – building T4, putting up Project Jewel, planning for T5 – or Jurong Lake District or the Southern Waterfront City. One by one, brick by brick, building a better Singapore.

That is what this Government has done for many years. And this is what my Government will do in this term. We will fulfil our promises. But in order to have these good policies done, we also must have good politics, because the two go hand-in-hand. Good politics make sure that we will elect governments who will develop good policies, who will expand our common space and strengthen our society for the future. If we have good politics, then we have the best chance of having our system continuing to work for us, instead of against us, over the long haul.

If we are only concerned over the next five or 10 years, we do not have to make any changes in terms of politics because the system is working now and will continue to do so for the next 10 years, maybe a bit longer. The actors are in place. We are familiar with one another. We know where the leaders are, we know the response function – you press this button, this will happen; you pull that lever, something else happens. We know how to make it work today.

But if we are thinking beyond this term and this team, about a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet, and a new population, different electorate, then we will need to keep Singapore able to work well with them in charge and with them being the team that leads Singapore. Then, it is prudent for us to consider what possible adjustments may become necessary now, in good time.

It is not an urgent task that you must do today instead of tomorrow. But it is this generation's responsibility to make sure that our political institutions and system continue to work well, well beyond the term of this team, and work well for future generations.

In theory, to get your politics right should not be such a very difficult problem for most countries because there is some sense of identity and unity, and leaders and your followers of different political persuasions should be able to come together and work for the common good. It makes sense to work together; it is a lot of trouble if you are at odds with one another. But if we look around the world, in fact, it is not such a simple matter.

There are some countries which face division and gridlock, and the government is paralysed, like the US. The executive and the legislative branches are controlled by different parties. The government is stalemated on issues ranging from gun control to trade policy. Democrats run the Administration; the President is Democrat. Congress is led by Republicans. The two do not see eye-to-eye and are unable to compromise. Three years ago in 2013, the Federal Government had to shut down for 16 days because Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not agree to pass a Budget. And last year they nearly had to shut down again.

In President Obama's recent State of the Union address, this was the theme he took up right at the end of his speech – the most important thing which he felt he had not been able to achieve – to get American politics to work. He described how the founding fathers of the US – Washington, Jefferson, Madison – had distributed power between states and the branches of government. That means between the federal government and the different states; between the executive and the legislature and the judiciary; checks and balances. And they expected people to argue over matters as they themselves did, but eventually to find common ground and be able to work something out. But now, the basic bonds of trust between the major parties, between the Democrats and the Republicans, have totally broken down. There is rancour and suspicion, no willingness to compromise. The system desperately needs to be fixed but no Congressman, no Senator, not even the President, is able on their own, to put it right. That is the US, the most powerful country in the world.

Other countries too have seen their national consensus fray. Many European countries were governed by stable, centralist coalitions. Sometimes, you have a centre-right coalition that will govern for a time. The mood changes, the country's priorities shift, a different balance emerges, and you have a centre-left coalition, perhaps even some of the same parties continue in the new coalition. You shift from one to the other within limits, never out of control. But now, the economy has broken, the immigration and refugee crisis is presenting them with an insoluble problem and deep disenchantment has set in. Extreme left and right groups are gaining ground. In every country, the regular political parties are losing support, never mind whether you are left-wing or right-wing. It is the extreme parties, the ones who just say, "To hell with it. I am unhappy with the world. Vote for me and I will show two fingers to the world." They are the ones who are getting support.

In Greece, it is called Syriza. They are now in government and having to make decisions which their supporters do not like at all. In Spain, they have Podemos. They have just had elections and Podemos won a significant number of seats. Now they are having a lot of difficulty forming a new government – in Germany, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), an anti-immigration party; in France, the National Front; in Britain, UKIP – pushing anti-immigrant, anti-EU, anti-globalisation platforms. Just expressing angst and anger, not propounding compromises and solutions. They are reflecting public unhappiness, but they are also riling up the public, offering no coherent policies of viable alternatives.

In many Asian countries, whom you vote for depends on your race, depends on your religion. In some countries, it depends on what caste you belong to. It is not policies; it is not integrity but "Is he my guy? Does he have the same caste name as me? Then, I know whether I can trust whether he will look after me." These are fundamental divides, divides which countries have tried to close but which remain deep and have sometimes even deepened decades after independence.

You may say, "Well, that is the problem of democracy", but even countries which do not have elections also have not such an easy time. You take China. It is a major challenge for the Chinese government, for President Xi Jinping, to keep his system clean, to keep his officials accountable and to keep his government with authority and legitimacy. Chinese officials visit Singapore. Invariably, they ask to see our Meet-the-People Sessions. They come, they sit in, they watch our Members of Parliaments and Ministers take cases and they are deeply impressed at how the system works. They go back and try to do the same. It is not the same. What is the fundamental difference?

In Singapore, Members and Ministers are taking cases for their voters. The person sitting in front of you votes for or against you come election time. In China, the officials may have a good heart and want to do good for their population, but they do not owe their positions to the votes of the people they are in charge of.

The moral of the story is there is no perfect model anywhere in the world, much less one in which we can import wholesale and apply in Singapore. If we look at other people's political problems, we do not feel any "schadenfreude", any sense of superiority or rejoicing. In fact, we say, "There but for the grace of God go I", because what happens elsewhere can easily happen in Singapore too, if either we blindly copy other people's practices which do not work here, or we find our own way but take a wrong turn. We can end up in such a situation also.

It does not mean we do nothing. It does not mean we learn nothing. It means we have to keep evolving our system carefully, step by step, making sure that our Government works and the politics in Singapore serve our people's interests. We have to find our own way forward.

What kind of political system do we want in Singapore? I would list five "desiderata", desirable things.

First, it must enable us to have a high-quality government – accountable, honest, competent, and effective. You have to be responsive to the people, able to look beyond the short term and keep us safe and successful. Because as a small country with no luxury of resources, with no domestic hinterland, excellence and integrity have been and always must be a crucial competitive advantage for Singapore. An excellent, honest government. It is something which we have, which we can do, which others can see; not so easy for others to duplicate.

I will put this quite bluntly; if we had not had a first-class government in Singapore, led by exceptional leaders who are able to foresee problems, head them off, seize opportunities, reap dividends for Singapore and mobilise people to work with them and to support policies – sometimes tough ones – we would not have Singapore today. So, we cannot ever afford to be paralysed, gridlocked or become dysfunctional like some other countries. For America, you can live with it. You go down, you go up. It is an aircraft carrier. For Singapore, you go down, you are finished. You do not come back up again.

Secondly, the political system has to be open and contestable. What do I mean? There has to be free and fair elections, and it must not be forbiddingly expensive for people to stand and contest elections. In fact, that is one of the greatest things we have done to keep our system open, to make sure that we keep money out of politics, and it does not cost a lot of money to contest elections.

So, if you take last year's General Elections. All of the parties together, added up, during the national General Elections, they spent all of $7 million, less than $3 per voter. The Straits Times calculated it at $2.89. You compare that with the cost of the US elections. In 2012, when they last had their Presidential election together with Congressional elections, it cost them US$7 billion. Not cost the government to run it; cost the candidates to raise it and to spend it; US$7 billion divided by about 350 million Americans. That is US$20 per American. That you may say is American-class, one of its own. But look at the money politics that you see in many countries, including in our region. The sums which are spoken about, which are necessary for elections, openly, not a secret, not even illegal or embarrassing. But it is a reality. It is an insoluble problem and ours must never become like that.

Thirdly, our political system must foster accountability so that the government is always kept on its toes and will always be motivated to look after the interests of Singaporeans. Parliament here must be a serious forum where big issues are discussed and decided – defence, economy, choices to tax and spend, and plans for the future. The Government's actions have to be scrutinised and debated in Parliament. If a Member of Parliament – whether it is an Opposition Member or a Government Member – argues a case against the Government's proposal, then either the Government has to be able to rebut it and explain convincingly what it is doing and why, or if the Member makes a good case, then you have to acknowledge that, and policies have to be changed. That is what Members have seen happen in this House, not just with Opposition Members but with Government Members or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) as well.

On the other side, if a Member makes a good proposal and advocates convincingly for it and persuades the Government, then I think the Government should support it, back it with resources and help to make it happen – as also has happened with PAP Members and Nominated Members, who have, from time to time, moved private Member's Bills and other times, have persuaded the Government that the bee in the bonnet is a justified bee in the bonnet and we should do what they are buzzing us loudly to carry out.

Every government must take Parliament seriously. And I think we take Parliament seriously in Singapore on both sides of the House. It is a place where you have debates, where big issues have to come to be decided. You can agree or disagree, and vigorously; and you ought to disagree, if you have strong views. But you must take it seriously; it is not a place where you throw chairs, swing handbags or pour water on one another; or a place where you exchange clever put-downs but really avoid the serious issues concerning the Government and the future of the country.

So, our Parliament may not be as entertaining on television as many other parliaments which you watch on the news at night, but I think, in terms of quality and seriousness of purpose, we have it and we should keep it.

Ultimately, of course, the Government is accountable not just to Parliament, but also to the electorate. If it performs well, then it gets the support of voters again, and it can continue in office. If it performs poorly, there is an electoral price to pay. Then, either the Government mends its ways and regains its support, or the electorate can vote it out and another party, another team, will have to take its place and try to do better. So, we must have a system where the Government does not, over time, become complacent, go soft or even worse, become corrupt.

Fourthly, our political system must uphold a multiracial society. Multiracialism is fundamental to our identity as a nation because we have three major races in Singapore, we have all the world's major religions in Singapore. Race and religion will always be fundamental tectonic fault lines for us. If we ever split along one of these fault lines, that would be the end of us.

Therefore, our political system must encourage multiracial and secular politics, not racial or religious politics. It has got to encourage political parties to seek broad-based, multiracial consensus and pursue moderate policies in the interests of all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. It has to discourage parties from forming along racial or religious lines or championing the interests of one race or religion over others, whether it be a majority or minority group in our society. Minority Singaporeans must have the confidence that they will not ever be marginalised, or shut out, or discriminated against. Every Singaporean must have the confidence that he has a place in Singapore.

Fifth, our system needs to incorporate stabilisers. The Government has to be responsive to the will of the people, but at the same time, we also have to have safeguards, in case the country is swept off course by a transient public mood, or an erratic government, which can happen. By the time you change your mind and realise it is unwise, it is too late to come back. So, you need stabilisers to make sure that you respond to the mood, but you do not get carried too far and capsize the boat.

Most political systems have such stabilisers built in. They have an Upper House like the Senate in the US, the House of Lords in the UK, or especially in big countries, you have a division of powers between the city and regional governments and a national federal government on the other. So, no single point can cause the whole system to fail. You clear the Lower House, you must go pass the Upper House. Elections may be different times, may have different rules. You persuade one region to do something, but it is a big country and other regions have to go along. You have to get the consensus, take some time, sleep it over, think carefully and perhaps think the better of it.

We are too small to have either an Upper House or to have a regional set of governments. The most we can do are Town Councils. Useful, but not really a regional government. We have overlaid on top of them Mayors. We call them Mayors, but actually if you compare them with the Mayor of London or the Mayor of New York, it is what they call, 小巫见大巫. It is a small personality, same title, but is quite a different entity indeed.

We may be small but we still need stabilisers, and we especially need stabilisers in two areas: (a) protecting our reserves and (b) safeguarding the integrity of the public service. Why do I say this? Because these are two critical elements that give us safety, security, assurance and resources for the future.

It has taken us decades to build up our foreign Reserves. They are our oil in the ground. If we do not have a second key, and you happen to have a generous or profligate government, then one government can spend it all and bring you back to zero. Elections will become auctions, where the parties compete to be more generous than the other, offering what it can do to voters by raiding the bank.

This happens in countries much richer than us. Look at Australia. Ten years ago, under a basically conservative government, they built up significant amounts of reserves or surpluses. They set up a pension fund for the future and said, "This is our sovereign wealth fund and this is to make sure that in future, you will be provided for with state pensions" and so on. But then came elections and both parties, whether in government or out of government, because of the dynamics of the situation, they have no choice. One side offers something, the other side offers more, and back and forth. It is an auction. Today, the funds for the future have disappeared. The country is in deficit. The commodities boom is over. The budget cannot be settled. They have to cut back spending. It is extremely contentious. They are back where they were. All within 10 years. It can happen to Australia with all that wealth and resources. Think what can happen if it is Singapore.

That is money. What about people? The whole of our excellence in Government, the competence and the performance of the country depends on the integrity and the ability of the individuals in the key posts in the public service – judges, central bankers, the Accountant-General, the Commissioner of Police, the people who head our Statutory Boards, who sit on our key Statutory Boards, the people who manage our Reserves.

Once corrupt persons get into key positions, it will be the end. It is not only the end because they take money and help themselves because we can stop that and put them in jail. It is the end because they subvert and corrupt the system and make it impossible to root out the cancer which then becomes entrenched throughout the system. The system is permanently broken.

Look at other countries. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia used to lament publicly about the problem he had with what he called the "judicial mafia". He does not mean the mafia on the streets. He means judges whom he could not trust for their integrity because they had become corrupt and had become part of the problem. If you look at other countries where the police are in cahoots with the crooks, and if you have a problem, you are not sure whether you should go to the police station or run away from the police station. Or you look at countries where those responsible for safeguarding state assets instead raid the bank. As the Malay proverb goes, "Pagar makan padi". You are the hedge but you are eating the rice which you are supposed to protect.

To prevent this, or at least to make this harder, this system needs a second key. The challenge for us is how to ensure this second key strengthens and stabilises our system of Government.

We have evolved our system of politics over the years and it has served us well. Our political and constitutional history is quite different from that of most other newly-independent countries, countries which were colonies and became independent after the war, in Asia, Africa and particularly in Southeast Asia. Most newly-independent countries start life anew, with a brand new fresh-minted Constitution. But when we became independent, we did not do that. We decided to retain and tweak our existing Constitutional arrangements that had worked for Singapore when we were part of Malaysia, and that had been working before that, when we were a self-governing state before we joined Malaysia. Mr Lee Kuan Yew felt that it was better for us to evolve our model gradually, learning from experience, rather than to strive for some unworkable perfection. Mr Lee said that his best teacher of the difference between political reality and constitutional theory was the Tunku. Once, he wrote, I think this is in his memoirs, Mr Lee was in the Tunku's office and admiring a beautiful leather-bound green-covered volume. It was the Pakistani Constitution and was presented to the Tunku by Ayub Khan, who was at one time President of Pakistan. Mr Lee admired the book and the Tunku told him, "You know, Kuan Yew, they make very good constitutions. They have many brilliant lawyers. With every leader, they have to make a new one."

When we became independent, we cobbled together the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which is what we have today. Where did it come from? Part of the provisions from Singapore's State Constitution, part of the provisions from Malaysia's Federal Constitution which we adopted and incorporated, plus amendments which we made after Separation, for example, amendments to safeguard our sovereignty and to ensure that any decision to give up our sovereignty would have to be put to a referendum of all the voters in Singapore and not decided by the Legislature.

It is "rojak". It is a messy document and such a messy document that in 1970, Mr Lee asked the British High Commissioner to get British Constitutional law experts to polish it up. And it came back polished and shiny. Mr Lee thought that the British experts had done a first-rate job. The idea was you look at the American Constitution. It has lasted 200 something years and over these 200 something years, it has only had 20 plus amendments. So, you worship it. You get it precisely right, beautiful form of words, every school child knows it and that is what is going to guide the country for the next several hundred years.

But, in the end, Mr Lee decided not to take that approach. He did not take in the brand-new versions drafted by the British experts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) because he concluded that the experts had not understood the context, nor why we had made certain basic decisions. He explained this to the House in 1984, when he moved the Constitutional Amendments to create the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme. He used Thomas Jefferson's analogy of a suit. He said, "From my experience, Constitutions have to be custom-made, tailored to suit the peculiarities of the person wearing the suit". He changes the metaphor here but I think you will forgive him this mixed metaphor. He said "Perhaps, like shoes, the older they are, the better they fit. Stretch them, soften them, resole them, repair them. They are always better than a brand new pair of shoes".

He said, "Our people have got used to and understand the present system. It takes a long time. Any fundamental change takes a long time. But most important of all, the Constitution works. Many countries have tried and gone through several Constitutions since Independence. They have not brought stability or legitimacy. I believe it is better to stretch and ease an old shoe when we know that the different shape and fit of a younger generation requires a change."

Like many of Mr Lee's speeches, this speech made in 1984 in the old Parliament House is still worth reading more than 30 years later. The Sunday Times published an excerpt. I encourage you to read it, and I urge Members to read the full version in the Hansard. Apart from talking about Singapore politics, he gave a tour of the horizon of how historically other countries – Britain, France, America – have each got their own histories and how the system evolved for them and how difficult it was.

He talked about France, and how as a young man in 1956, after attending a constitution conference in London, he took a side trip to Paris on the way home, and the taxi driver took him around, showed him the sights and brought him to the National Assembly. This was 1956, it was a democracy and the politicians could not agree. The taxi driver pointed at the National Assembly and said to him, "wala, wala, wala" [the hon Member pointed a finger to his head and made circles with his finger], and he said that was an education for a young politician to the reality of politics.

Unfortunately, Hansard did not quite catch the nuance of this expression and the Hansard, I just recently noticed, transcribed it as "voilà" three times, and as a result of which, it makes no sense. You will therefore not find this in The Sunday Times because The Sunday Times could not make sense of it and edited it out. But it is a most vivid example of how things can go wrong in politics. It was a highly civilised nation, but the system did not work. In the end, General de Gaulle had to come back out of retirement and changed the rules. He took very stern measures and created the Fifth Republic. But even de Gaulle must die and till today, the French, they also, like other countries, have political problems. Today, in the newspapers, if you read The Straits Times, Paris is in upheaval, because there are strikes. Who is on strike? Taxi drivers, air traffic controllers and for good measure, civil servants are on strike.

I think we have to understand the difference between the theory and the practice, and what looks good on paper and what we need really, truly in real life to do. This is not "masak-masak".

The approach which we have taken has been to evolve our political system as we go along. Mr Lee did this and we continue to do this. Learning from experience, stretching and easing the old shoe, and adapting it to our needs and dealing with problems as new problems emerge, as we understand the difficulties and weaknesses. For example, we inherited the first-past-the-post parliamentary system, modelled on the British House of Commons in Westminster. We have kept the first-past-the-post system. That is why here we sit opposite one another – the Government and, in principle, the Opposition on the other side. We do not sit in a semi-circle, the way the Americans sit in a semi-circle, or the way the European legislatures sit in a semi-circle. It is a parliamentary system, first-past-the-post. You are in opposition to each other. We kept that system but subsequently, we introduced new institutions – Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament, Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and the institution of an Elected President. Each institution with a purpose, each one in line with our principles. Let me say something about them.

The first-past-the-post parliamentary system tends to produce clear election outcomes. You either win decisively or lose decisively, and especially in Singapore where every constituency is more or less the same composition and the same mood as every other constituency, all the more you tend to have a national swing and it goes across the board and so you end up with a clear majority in the House.

After Independence, after Separation, the Barisan Sosialis Opposition walked out of Parliament in 1965. From then, Parliament was composed entirely of PAP Members. In the next four General Elections, the PAP won all the seats and as well as all the by-elections in between, the PAP won all of them. This enabled the Government to govern decisively and effectively in the vital first years of our nationhood. It lasted from 1965 until 1981 when the first Opposition Member, J B Jeyaretnam, was elected to Parliament. It had been, by then, 16 years since Separation. A new generation of voters was coming of age. A new team of Members of Parliament and Ministers was preparing to take over. Mr Lee and his senior colleagues watched what happened in the House after Mr Jeyaretnam came in. After some time, they concluded, to their surprise, that despite all the to-ing and fro-ing and unpleasantness, it was good for the Government and good for the Singapore system that we have Opposition voices in Parliament because the Opposition could express opposing views, could question and criticise the Government and could make Ministers justify their actions. The Opposition provided Mr Lee and his team the "foil" or a backdrop against which they could set out their ideas more clearly, in contrast to what was being presented on the other side. Right against wrong, good ideas against better ones. Through the debate in Parliament, helped Mr Lee and his team get their message across and aid public understanding.

So, Mr Lee proposed the NCMP scheme in 1984. The NCMP scheme made sure that whatever the election outcome, there would always be a certain minimum number at least, of Opposition Members in Parliament. At first, this minimum was three Opposition Members – either elected or not elected NCMPs, or some combination. Over time, we gradually increased it and we have brought it now to nine.

The design of the NCMP scheme is unique but the concept of a parliament with members who have been elected in different ways is not at all unusual. Many countries do that. Look at New Zealand, look at Taiwan. They have Mixed Member Proportional Representation systems.

Some Members are elected from constituencies; others are chosen from party lists – in other words, the proportional representation system. How many you take off the party lists depends on the proportion of the total vote that your party got.

One reason that New Zealanders do this is because they want to ensure that there is Maori representation in parliament. Such a system, where you top up beyond what the first-past-the-post system gives you, will help to moderate the extreme outcomes of a first-past-the-post system. And that is why we did the NCMP system.

We did not do the proportional representation way because we felt that it would be bad for Singapore. It would result in political parties that are based on race or religion. It would encourage political leaders to champion the demands of their particular segment against the broader interests of Singapore. It would divide us, rather than bring us together, because to win in a proportional representation system, you have got to have your base. What is your base? It can be Christians, it can be Buddhists, it can be Muslims, it can be Indians. It can be a special interest group, maybe on gender issues. What is your interest? Your interest will consolidate that base, take a hard position, demand as much as you can for your group. Then, you increase the percentage. You do not have to win seats, you just get a higher percentage, and you will get seats in Parliament. You do not have to win constituencies. I think if you do that, you end up split, polarised and severely weakened.

Instead, we created the NCMP scheme. NCMPs are Opposition candidates who had the best results but did not quite win their seats. In fact, some NCMPs have higher percentage, if you look at it on a personal basis, than other people, Members elected in GRCs. If you just count their chunk of the GRC and how many votes they got and the percentage, the NCMP may have got more than the person from a GRC. But the point is, he did well, he is one of the best losers and they come in, ensuring that Opposition voices are always represented in Parliament.

They have at least as much right to be in Parliament as Members who are elected on a party list under a proportional representation system. In fact, arguably more, because on a party list under a proportional representation, no voter specifically chose you. Your party boss puts you on the list in position number two or three or 20 and there is a cut-off, and you happen to make the cut.

Here, to be an NCMP, the voters in a constituency in which you contested have to have a sufficiently high regard of you to give you one of the highest votes amongst all losing candidates before you can come in. So, you have got people who are really, truly, personally voting for you. I think that gives legitimacy as well as objectivity to the system. It depends on electoral contest and not just on the say-so of the party they belong to or the party bosses of the party they belong to.

We introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984. In 1990, we introduced the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme to bring into Parliament diverse voices from civil society. So, now if you take elected Opposition Members, NCMPs plus NMPs, altogether about 20% of Members in the House will, at all times, not be Government Members. So, there is diversity, there is debate, and I think there is value.

The NCMP scheme is a good one which has achieved its purpose. In the last 30 years, other than the very first time in 1984 when there were special circumstances, Opposition parties have always taken up the NCMP seats offered to them. For example, Ms Sylvia Lim was first elected as an NCMP in 2006 and she acquitted herself in Parliament, impressed voters and became a Member of Parliament elected in Aljunied GRC in 2011.

In the last term, we had three NCMPs: Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Gerald Giam. They all took up their seats and participated actively in Parliamentary debates. This term, the WP's NCMPs have also taken up their seats. We have Mr Leon Perera, we have Mr Dennis Tan – they made their maiden speeches this week – except for Ms Lee Li Lian who has said that she will not take up her NCMP seat. She is not taking it up not out of any objections of principle but to give it to another WP candidate. Whether that is in the spirit of the scheme, we can debate but we will wait for the Motion which I believe Mr Low will move to discuss the matter further.

The Opposition, of course, would like to have it both ways – take up NCMP seats when they win them, but also protest that an NCMP is a second-class Member of Parliament, in order to persuade voters to cast their votes for them and make them constituency Members of Parliament. In fact, in reality, NCMPs have exactly the same opportunities to question, speak and debate in Parliament that constituency Members have. They can file Parliamentary Questions (PQs), move Motions, speak in all debates, and they can show voters – past and future – what they can do.

There is just one distinction between an NCMP and a constituency Member today. Unlike constituency Members, NCMPs are restricted in what they can vote on in Parliament. There are a few matters which they cannot vote on: constitutional changes, supply bills, money bills, votes of no confidence, and also removing a President from office.

This was how the scheme was designed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew back in 1984, and he had his reasons which he explained in an exchange, because Mr Jeyaretnam was in Parliament and challenged him on this. I suppose this is an example of how Mr Jeyaretnam as the Opposition played a constructive role. Mr Lee was particularly concerned with one scenario: a split in the ruling party leading to a motion of no confidence in the House. He felt that in such a situation, NCMPs should not have a say in determining the Government.

There is a context to this. In 1984, Mr Lee would still have fresh in his mind, the memory of what had happened in 1961, when the extreme left-wing split off from the PAP and formed the Barisan Sosialis, and the PAP hung on in the Legislative Assembly with a one-seat majority. And then one Member of Parliament died and it was levelled – no seat majority. I think Mr Lee must also have been conscious that even in 1984, within the PAP, there was opposition to the pace of leadership renewal, which could have led to a leadership challenge.

The amendments were moved around August 1984. The general election was upcoming and took place in December 1984. It was a crucial General Election because many of the third-generation leaders entered politics in that election – Wong Kan Seng, Yeo Cheow Tong, Mah Bow Tan, Abdullah Tarmugi and myself. There were very strong different views within the PAP on whether this was going too fast, and it was not to be ruled out that there could have been a challenge. Mr Lee felt, in that situation, NCMPs should not have a say.

But after 30 years, in a different phase of our political development, we should re-examine this. I am not saying that we can now rule out the possibility of leadership challenge within the ruling party. We can never rule that out. I have a cohesive team but as Mr Lee said, "It is a real distinct possibility because strong men have strong views and they can collide."

In other countries, it happens regularly. In Australia, in the UK, it is marvellous theatre! Suddenly, you hear news there is going to be a spill. The Australians call it a "spill". A "spill" means somebody has mounted a challenge. The leader then has to call his members in Parliament together to vote. It happens within 24 hours. Ministers take positions, Members of Parliament take positions, furious to-ing and fro-ing. Next thing you know, there is a new Prime Minister, and I am writing a new letter of congratulations. It has happened three or four times within the last five years in Australia. And in Britain, leadership challenges are also dramatic events. Mrs Thatcher was challenged and deposed. Mr Tony Blair left because he knew if he did not leave, somebody would challenge him, and he would be pushed out. So, we cannot rule out it happening in Singapore.

But if we accept that NCMPs have as much of a mandate from voters to be in the House as constituency Members of Parliament and more mandate in the House than party list Members of Parliament would in a proportional representation system, then, even in the case of a vote of no confidence and the other restricted matters which NCMPs are presently not allowed to vote on, I think we can make a case and I will make the case that they should not only be allowed to speak, but to vote.

Therefore, I intend to amend the Constitution during this term to give NCMPs the same voting rights as constituency Members of Parliament. NCMPs should therefore be able to vote even in the case of confidence motions, and all the other presently restricted matters. They will be equal in powers, although not in responsibility and scope, to constituency Members of Parliament because they are non-constituency and they do not have specific voters to look after. But there is no reason at all to perceive NCMPs as second-class.

I will also increase the minimum number of Opposition Members of Parliament, including NCMPs, in this House, from the next General Election. I will increase the number from nine to 12. Given that in any election, at least 30% of voters will vote against the Government, ensuring a minimum of 12 Opposition Members of Parliament in the House of about 100 Members, I feel it is reasonable.

The Opposition often claims that they are unable to put up a stronger showing in Parliament because they have too few Members of Parliament. I think this is an excuse because the Opposition's impact depends on the quality of Opposition Members of Parliament and arguments, far more than on their number. But having more NCMPs will give the Opposition more opportunity to show what they can do. And if, in fact, the NCMPs are capable and effective, the exposure will win them recognition and help them win a constituency the next time.

We will also continue with the NMP scheme. So, together with the NCMPs, 12 plus 9, we will now have at least 21 non-ruling Members of Parliament in the House.

In making these changes, I am by no means presuming that the Government will always have a strong majority in the House, although this has been the case for the last 50 years. Nor do I assume that the PAP will always form the Government. That will depend on the performance of the PAP and the verdict of Singapore voters. But regardless of election outcomes, the NCMP scheme ensures a stronger Opposition presence in Parliament, so that if the Government wins overwhelming, nationwide support, it will still have to argue for and defend its policies robustly.

In effect we will be aiding the Opposition, giving their best losers more exposure, very possibly building them up for the next General Election. But I believe that in this phase of our political development, this is good for the Government and good for Singapore. No ruling party or Government should ever be afraid of open argument. The PAP never has been and ultimately, Singapore will benefit from a contest of ideas in the House.

Next, let me talk about Group Representation Constituency (GRCs). We introduced the GRC scheme in 1988 to ensure that we will always have a minimum number of minority race Members in Parliament. This would also encourage all political parties to pursue multiracial politics rather than sectarian politics. Unlike a proportional representation system, which would also have led to minority Members in Parliament, but via racial political parties. With the GRC system, parties and Members of Parliament have to give weight to the interests of minorities. The GRCs have pushed parties to become more multiracial in their approach.

Opposition parties know that they have to win support from the minorities and that they have to field credible Malay and Indian candidates in their teams. They make quite a big effort to go and do that. It puts pressure on us in the PAP, but I think it is the right system. The Opposition parties have to make that effort in order to put up a credible team. They also know that if they play racial politics during elections, then whatever votes they may win from one group will be at the expense of votes which they will lose from the other groups, because in the multiracial team, with a multiracial electorate, you have always to strike that balance and internalise that balance within your team and amongst your voters.

Of course, this has not stopped candidates from being naughty from time to time. In the 1997 General Election, you will remember Tang Liang Hong in Cheng San GRC. He made provocative, chauvinist speeches to appeal to the Chinese majority vote – outrageous statements, but powerful. The PAP exposed him, and the minorities swung solidly against Tang Liang Hong and his WP teammates. They lost.

In the last elections, some Opposition candidates tried the opposite; tried to exploit Islam to collect Malay votes. Some ostentatiously performed prayers in public before election rallies and posted photos of themselves doing so on the social media. But beyond a point, they would have hurt their non-Malay fellow candidates in the GRC teams, and it would have cost them non-Malay votes. In the end, their tactic failed and their teams lost. So, GRCs have kept our politics multiracial.

The GRC scheme also has one bonus, which I think is important and that is, it works together with our system of Town Councils. The constituency Members of Parliament have to run the Town Council. They have to manage Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) collections. They have to receive, spend and account for Government subsidies. They have to maintain the estates to a proper standard. They have to administer rules and fines, and look after substantial sinking funds.

This makes sure that any party which aspires to form the Government of Singapore, first has a chance to demonstrate in a Town Council what it can or cannot do. And if it can do, that is a base from which it can build and persuade Singaporeans. If it cannot do, it is as well that Singaporeans know this early and everybody is under no illusions.

The GRC system is a good one, and I think we should keep it. But there is a question of balance. How many big ones should we have, versus small ones? How many GRCs should we have, versus Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)?

There are pluses and minuses both ways. A bigger GRC benefits from having an anchor Minister take care of their affairs and also benefits from having better economies of scale in running GRC-wide programmes and activities, and in running the Town Council.

But smaller GRCs create a closer connection between Members of Parliament and their residents. On the other hand, SMCs have their place in our system too, because they are not just easier to contest, but also give a Member of Parliament direct responsibility for everything that happens in his constituency.

So, we have to strike the right balance between GRCs, big and small, and between GRCs and SMCs. In the last two elections, we have created smaller GRCs and more SMCs. I think the results have been good. The next General Election is a long way off. I do not want to raise excitement prematurely but I will say now that in due course, when I appoint the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, I will instruct it to reduce the average size of GRCs further, and to create more SMCs.

Let me talk about the institution of the Elected President. In 1990, we passed legislation to make the President an elected office, so that he could act as a stabiliser in our political system. The President would exercise custodial powers over the spending of past Reserves and key appointments in the public service – the two vital areas which I talked about earlier. He would be directly elected by the people in a national election, so as to have the mandate and moral authority to say "no" to the Government, should this become necessary.

We also created a Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) to assist and advise the President in carrying out his duties and exercising his powers. The Elected Presidency as an institution was a major innovation, again with no precedent anywhere else. So, we spent a long time designing it. We published one White Paper. We debated it. We published a second White Paper. After extensive debate, we legislated it, operated it and have amended it over the years.

In addition to exercising custodial powers, the President would also continue to be the Head of State. He has to be above politics. He represents all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. He is a symbol of our sovereignty and of our nation. By design, the President has no executive, policymaking 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. But the President is neither the Government nor is he the Opposition. He is a custodian, a goalkeeper. The Constitution gives him power to block certain actions of the Government, in areas which are specifically carved out for him. But it does not give him the power to initiate policies or generally to champion policies.

So, it is a very delicate balance. He is elected for a specific purpose. The purpose is specified in the Constitution, and we have to operate by the Constitution, both to be complying with the law and to make sure the system works. For the system to work, both candidates and voters have to understand this. Otherwise, if you have a President who thinks that he is the Government, competing with the Government, you have two power centres in the system. At the very least, you have confusion, you could have an impasse between the two and the democratically elected Government will be undermined. As the Chinese phrase says: 天无二日,国无二君, which means that you have no two suns in the sky, you have no two governments in a country. There are one or two countries which have had two Prime Ministers simultaneously, and it was not a happy experiment.

In the last 25 years, we have accumulated experience operating the institution of an Elected President. We have improved and updated it over time. We have refined how the financial safeguards operate. The details are complex, and we could only get them more correct after operating them and getting experience operating them. We created a Constitutional Tribunal to which the President can refer Constitutional questions which arise for an opinion, especially if there is a disagreement between him and the Government.

We introduced the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework, a new spending rule to enable the Government to tap a stable and sustainable income from our Reserves. In the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, we exercised and put to the test the President's custodial power over Reserves. It was a worldwide crisis. We ourselves watched the indicators with great alarm. We needed to act expeditiously. We needed to make sure we threw all that we had at the problem.

The Government, therefore, sought the President's permission to use past Reserves to fund the Jobs Credit scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. It cost $4.9 billion. We briefed the then-President, President S R Nathan. He consulted the CPA; the CPA supported him and he gave approval.

It was a critical decision, instrumental in saving jobs and enabling us to bounce back quickly from a deep recession. If we had not done that, if we did not have the mechanism, both to lock up the money for ordinary times and to unlock the money during extraordinary times, we could have not have reacted. If we had not locked it up in ordinary times, and we had just helped ourselves from time to time from it for some good purpose or other, come a crisis, you would not have had the kitty. If we had not been able to unlock the kitty in a crisis and spend it when we needed it, we would not have come through the crisis the way we did so smoothly that many people did not even realise that we had gone through a near-death experience. But the system worked.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew would have said, this is now a shoe that we have worn for 25 years. I hesitate to call it an old shoe, but it is 25 years. We have mended and adjusted it from time to time and, generally, it has fitted well. Yet, we need to continue to review and adjust the scheme regularly to keep it functional and in good repair.

The President must remain an elected office. If the President is not elected, he will lack the mandate to wield his custodial powers. I have read various op-eds in the newspapers which say we can go back to the old system; just do away with the Elected President and have Parliament elect the President, do not have a national election.

I think the WP has sometimes espoused this view, too. I think it is most unwise. The President has a role. It is a difficult system to get right, but we have to adjust it and try and get it more right than wrong over a period of time, and not abandon the project altogether and leave ourselves naked and defenceless against all the difficulties which the Elected President enables us to avoid.

But I think it is timely for us to review specific aspects of the Elected President system, and I would like to set out three areas which merit further consideration. Before I do that, I would like to state upfront that the Government has a very good and constructive working relationship with this President, President Tony Tan. We are not proposing this review because of any dissatisfaction with the present working arrangements or any difference of views between the Government and the President. But we are doing this because any adjustments that may be necessary for the future should be made in good time, in order to give us time to think it over in a thoughtful, mature and unpressured way and in order to keep the Presidency a robust and effective institution in our political system. I have shared the Government's thinking with President Tan so he knows what I am going to say today. He has noted it and, in due course, he will formally express his views when we have more definite proposals.

What are the three things which I think we should consider? First, we should review the qualifying criteria for the Elected President. The Elected President is elected to fulfil specific constitutional duties. And to be capable and qualified in carrying out those duties, he needs to have that experience to be able to judge and to make decisions. So, there are qualifying criteria spelt out in the Constitution.

The concept was to peg it at people with senior management competence and experience, because they have to assess and decide on financial proposals which will involve billions of dollars, and they must judge and decide to approve or reject appointments of people into posts which will involve running big organisations, making decisions, investing, managing and spending billions of dollars. The person who is making those decisions must understand what those decisions are, what is involved in that job before he can decide whether a person is fit to do that job or not, and before he decides whether a spending proposal is right or wrong, justified or otherwise.

Therefore, the candidates are required, under the Constitution, to have held key appointments themselves, like Speaker, the Chief Justice, Judges, Ministers, or Permanent Secretaries. That is in the public service. Or, in the private sector, to have held Chairman or CEO posts running large and complex companies, like Singtel, or, at that time, we said, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), because PUB was one entity before we had broken it up.

The principle remains valid, but I think the details may need to be brought up to date. Just based on inflation alone, $100 million in 1990 would be equivalent to $158 million today. But it is much more than inflation, which is at issue, because over 25 years, our economy has grown, Government spending has gone up, Government Reserves have accumulated, the size and the complexity of the organisations which are subject to the second key of the President have grown many-fold.

Apart from the key appointments in the Government, the President also has a second key on organisations like the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings, GIC, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), and JTC. These are big organisations and they have grown much bigger over the last 25 years. I have prepared a table which shows this. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the table to Members?