Debated in Parliament on 22 Nov 2023.
Order for Second Reading read.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, the Bill before the House amends the Constitution to create frameworks for the President and Ministers to take on international appointments in their private capacities if the national interest so requires.
Let me first set out the background relating to the amendments for the President.
Under the Constitution, the President is the Head of State. As the Head of State, the President performs a vital symbolic and unifying role. He symbolises our sovereignty at home and abroad, and is an important part of our international diplomacy.
In performing these roles, Presidents have, from time to time, taken on additional appointments in their official capacities. This is done on the advice and with the support of the Cabinet.
For example, domestically, Presidents have served as university chancellors and patrons of charitable or other organisations, lending the prestige of the highest office of the land to worthy causes that unify Singaporeans.
Internationally, Presidents can take on appointments in their official capacity in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest. For example, Dr Tony Tan was inducted as a member of the Honorary Senate of the Foundation Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in 2012 during his tenure as President.
Such appointments reflect the high international standing of the individuals who have served as our President.
In deciding whether to advise the President to take on an appointment in his official capacity, Cabinet applies the following principles:
(a) domestic appointments must be in furtherance of the President’s symbolic and unifying role;
(b) international appointments must be in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest;
(c) the President’s public life must be carried out in a manner that is compatible with his status and role as the Head of State – he is apolitical and cannot become involved in issues or events that might generate political controversy;
(d) in addition, the appointment must not undermine or be incompatible with the President’s discretionary functions under the Constitution, including his custodial functions as the Elected President;
(e) the appointment must not contravene Article 19A(1) of the Constitution, which among other things, prohibits the President from being actively engaged in commercial enterprises.
The Cabinet will continue to apply these principles in deciding whether to advise and support the President to take on domestic and international appointments in his official capacity.
Today, President Tharman is the Chancellor of the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, and patron of numerous organisations like the Singapore Red Cross, Singapore International Foundation, Philanthropy Asia Alliance and the Singapore University of Social Sciences.
President Tharman is also currently holding the following international positions in his official capacity as President, with the advice and support of the Cabinet, and these are:
One, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty (G30). This oversees the governance and directions of the G30, which is a grouping of eminent thought leaders in economic policymaking, academia and the financial industry.
Two, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). This is an advisory board. It helps shape the strategic directions of the WEF without directly overseeing the running of the organisation.
Three, Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW). This is an independent Commission that was convened to examine and make recommendations to the United Nations (UN) and other international forums on how to improve the way societies govern, use and value water for the common good.
Four, Co-chair of the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) Advisory Board. This provides intellectual guidance and advice on the overall vision, direction and messages of the UN HDR.
These are appointments that President Tharman held when he was Senior Minister and before assuming his current office. Cabinet has considered the matter and agreed that it is in the national interest for him to continue holding these appointments as President currently in his official capacity.
And for the information of the House, the President does not receive any remuneration or other benefits from these appointments.
The Government’s original intention was for President Tharman to continue to serve in these international appointments in his official capacity. But after reviewing the matter carefully, we were advised by the Attorney-General that this arrangement was not ideal. Let me explain why this is so.
The four international bodies mentioned earlier want their distinguished appointees to carry on with their official roles, and to bring with them their official status and reputations, such as President Tharman’s former status as Senior Minister and now as Head of State. These international organisations want their distinguished appointees to carry with them their official statuses, but they also want their appointees to contribute independently to achieve the aims of the respective bodies.
To illustrate, the WEF Board of Trustees includes the deputy prime minister of Canada, the heads of the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and leaders of major private organisations. But these Trustees are expected to give their views independent of the governments or organisations they head, so as to shape the strategic directions of the WEF in keeping with its goals of serving the interests of the global community.
Similarly, the G30’s Board of Trustees includes current and former heads of central banks around the world, but they are expected to contribute independently of these central banks. Likewise, the UNHDR Advisory Board and the GCEW expect their members to contribute independently, in the global interest.
If the President were to serve in these international bodies purely in his official capacity, then he would be limited to representing the official Singapore position in everything he says. That would not be in keeping with the requirements of these organisations, nor would it be in the interest of Singapore for our President to be so limited, as it restricts our ability to shape global conversations and initiatives.
From Singapore’s perspective, there is value to have the President represented on these international bodies. It enables us to be plugged into global conversations and to understand and help shape the thinking that takes place in these important and influential international bodies. But for this to happen, the President must be able to function credibly in these international bodies, by lending his expertise to advance the agenda on broader issues of concern to these organisations.
So, we are presented with a novel issue: should the President now be allowed to contribute independently in his private capacity when he takes on these international appointments? That is what this issue is about.
Cabinet considered this carefully and we concluded that the President should be allowed to do so to contribute to these international appointments in his independent and private capacity as this is beneficial for Singapore. These are reputable international bodies with global reach, and with eminent persons serving on their respective boards. The President’s continued involvement in these organisations is in Singapore’s national interest.
To be clear, when we say that the President serves in his “private capacity”, it does not mean that he is doing this outside of his work duties. These international appointments are core to the President’s international diplomacy role. As Head of State, they are, in fact, how we project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world. But allowing the President to serve in his private capacity allows him to act independently in achieving the aims of the international bodies, subject, of course, to the necessary safeguards of our national interest.
Such an arrangement would then enable the President to take on appointments that help to expand Singapore’s influence and network, while acting independently on these international bodies.
The Attorney-General, however, advised that such an arrangement is currently not clearly provided for by the Constitution. And that is why constitutional amendments are needed to enable the President to take on roles where he acts independently in his private capacity.
The provisions in this amendment Bill will put in place a proper framework under which these and future appointments are governed. The framework would not just apply to this President and this Government, but also to future Presidents and future Governments.
In developing the framework, Cabinet had regard to the following broad considerations.
One, the framework would only apply to appointments in international organisations. It would not apply in the domestic context. In the domestic context, the current position will continue to apply, and the President will not have an independent role outside of the specific discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution.
Two, any international appointment for the President to act in his private capacity must be justified by the national interest. Importantly, our own policy matters must remain the responsibility and prerogative of the Cabinet. Any appointment must therefore be supported by the Cabinet in the first place. If need be, Cabinet must be able to intervene to advise the President on how he acts in these appointments.
Three, at the same time, the President should have a say in deciding whether to take on such appointments. He should be able to decline such appointments if, for example, he considers them to be incompatible with his constitutional functions. And any appointment must be on the public record, in the interests of transparency and accountability.
Sir, these are the considerations behind the new Article 22Q. Article 22Q(1) will enable current and future Presidents to accept international appointments in their private capacities, subject to three conditions.
First, the President cannot contravene the disabilities imposed by Article 19A(1), which include a prohibition on active engagement in commercial enterprises.
Second, the Cabinet must assess and advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept the appointment. In making this assessment, Cabinet would be guided by similar principles as those I set out earlier.
Third, the President, acting in his discretion, must concur with the advice of the Cabinet.
The President cannot accept an international appointment in his private capacity outside of the framework set out in this Article.
Article 22Q(2) will enable the Cabinet to advise the President on his execution of such a role so that it is in our national interest, including ensuring that it does not undermine the President’s status as constitutional Head of State or contradict the President’s powers under the Constitution. The President must act in accordance with any such advice.
As a general rule, the Cabinet will advise the President against commenting on domestic politics, laws and policies; making any commitments on behalf of the Government or Singapore, whether formally or informally; and retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment. Subject to any advice by the Cabinet, the President may act independently in his private capacity.
Article 22Q(3) goes on to require the President to relinquish an international appointment if so advised by the Cabinet.
And finally, Article 22Q(4) requires the acceptance or the relinquishment of an international appointment to be published in the Gazette. This Gazette notice will include the term dates of the appointment.
Conceptually, the new Article 22Q will be a specific and defined extension of the President’s international role as the Head of State. It is not part of the Elected President’s custodial powers. The President is therefore not required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers and is not subject to any time limit in deciding whether to take up an international appointment under the Article.
I should also mention that, out of an abundance of caution, we have backdated the new Article 22Q to 14 September, when President Tharman assumed office. But, in fact, we do not need this backdating. Because, as I mentioned earlier, President Tharman currently holds his appointments in an official capacity, on the advice and support of the Cabinet, as provided for in the Constitution.
Should the Bill be passed by Parliament, Cabinet intends to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to continue in his existing international roles in his private capacity, and this will take effect on a forward-looking basis.
Sir, I move now to the position for Ministers.
Today, Ministers take on external appointments in their official capacity in connection with their responsibilities. For example, when Singapore was a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Prof S Jayakumar, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, served as the President of the Council.
The Code of Conduct for Ministers also permits Ministers to take on external appointments in their private capacities if the Prime Minister considers it to be in the national interest and grants permission.
Currently, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean sits on the TotalEnergies’ International Advisory Committee. This appointment was approved by the Prime Minister and was published in the Gazette. Senior Minister Teo donates the honorarium he receives from TotalEnergies to charity.
There are no general legal impediments to Ministers taking on external appointments today. However, as we are putting a legal framework in place for the President to take on international appointments in his private capacity, we will also create a legal framework for Ministers. This is found in the new Article 33A.
The framework is similar to Article 22Q, except that Ministers must obtain the permission of the Prime Minister and are subject to his instructions.
As a general rule, Ministers taking on international appointments in their private capacities will be instructed against breaching collective Cabinet responsibility; against making any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore, whether formally or informally; and against retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment.
The new Article 33A will supersede the relevant portions of the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister intends to give permission to Senior Minister Teo to continue with his TotalEnergies appointment under the new framework.
I should add that the new Article 33A does not apply to the Prime Minister. Previous and current Prime Ministers have not undertaken any such international appointments, and we do not expect future Prime Ministers to do so. Hence, the provision in the new Article 33A only applies to Ministers.
In conclusion, Sir, the Bill provides a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, if required by the national interest.
The proposed additions of Articles 22Q and 33A in the Constitution seek to ensure that we safeguard the dignity and status of the roles of the President and Ministers in Singapore, while enabling them to make significant contributions in international bodies and shape global thinking, if these contributions are in the interest of Singapore. In this way, we can make the most of the expertise, experience and personal standing of the individuals we elect to office, so as to advance Singapore’s interests and reinforce our value to the world. Sir, I beg to move.
*Question proposed.*
Ms Denise Phua.
Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable Singapore's President and Cabinet Ministers to assume roles in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity, when it serves the national interest. I will now present three compelling reasons to support this Bill, and then raise four common concerns, to which I seek the Deputy Prime Minister's response.
Three reasons to support the Bill: one, enhanced international influence. First, granting the President and Cabinet Ministers the opportunity to take on external roles, albeit in their personal and private capacity, can boost Singapore's visibility and status internationally.
Singapore, as a small nation state, is often recognised for its effective governance and economic and social development. Our leaders can offer essential insights for achieving progress and stability, beneficial to global policy-thinking and global policy-making.
Foreign and international organisations present an excellent platform for small nation states, like Singapore, to actively participate in shaping global policies, which may in turn affect Singapore positively. And this was what the Deputy Prime Minister said about plugging into global conversations.
However, not every international organisation is formal or has the resources to appoint leaders in their official state roles. Therefore, our collective support for our senior leaders to join these organisations, when it aligns with national interests, is crucial and strategic.
For example, President Tharman's significant contributions to entities, such as the IMF, the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and so on, have positively impacted our nation's reputation. President Tharman's continued involvement will offer valuable perspectives on global policymaking, which is especially beneficial for Singapore during these challenging economic and geopolitical times.
During the last presidential election, there was widespread opinion that it would be a loss if Mr Tharman's ascent to the presidency hindered his international contributions. But President Tharman is not the only one whose insights are valued globally. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for example, has also frequently represented Singapore globally, enhancing our country's visibility, influence and reputation on the world stage. And so have other public office holders; we heard about Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, for instance.
Therefore, supporting this Bill is strategic and will offer Singapore the opportunity to punch above its weight, influencing global thinking and policymaking.
The second reason for supporting this Bill is the establishment of a framework, the creation of a formal framework, to prevent potential abuse. In the case of the President, clause 2 in Article 22Q of the Bill spells out the conditions under which the President can accept and hold office in a foreign or international organisation, in his private capacity. The Cabinet must advise the President that the appointment is in Singapore's national interest; and also against saying or doing anything against Singapore, in performing that role.
Clause 3 similarly inserts provisions to apply the same framework to Ministers and empowers the Prime Minister to approve such appointments. The new provisions of both the clauses create a formal framework to ensure greater transparency, accountability and governance when the President and Cabinet Ministers perform non-local roles in their private capacities. And these are much welcomed steps.
Third, this Bill encourages a shift in mindset from individual success to significance for our senior public leaders and nation alike.
Already, the Government has an existing practice of encouraging senior public servants to engage in non-commercial roles in their private capacity, fostering civic engagement and volunteerism. Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), for example, a large charity for the intellectually challenged, has Permanent Secretary Augustin Lee as Chairman. Where I volunteer, in the autism charities, Deputy Permanent Secretary Poon Hong Yuen provides invaluable insights on our Boards. There are many others.
So, when senior public office holders, such as Presidents and Ministers, contribute beyond their formal roles, and extend their expertise and experience globally, they too move the needle, from individual success to significance, benefiting wider communities and nations.
I will next touch on four common concerns that are raised when the public, for example, read about this Bill.
One, the first concern relates to the potential impact on the President and Cabinet Ministers' official duties. Some people worry that engaging in international roles in their private capacity may divert their attention from the elected and appointed responsibilities of the President and Ministers.
The Deputy Prime Minister has shared some background to why this is happening and mentioned about international diplomacy in the President's role in such a case, but exactly what is the tipping point when one's overseas engagements are perceived as excessive? Therefore, guidelines from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will be necessary to strike a suitable balance between the public and private roles of the President and the Ministers.
The second concern is how the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers will determine the potential benefits of these roles to the country. While it is an honour to be invited to key positions in foreign organisations, not all roles may serve Singapore's interests. Therefore, an objective assessment approach should be adopted to weigh the tangible benefits and drawbacks. What is the meaning of "serving national interest"? What are some examples of what might be beneficial or not quite beneficial to the nation? Some clarity in decision-making criteria and assessment weightage would be appreciated from the Deputy Prime Minister.
The third concern is advising the Prime Minister under a similar situation. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about how current and past Prime Ministers do not have roles beyond their official duties in foreign and international organisations. But when such a situation happens, how would we move forward in this?
For example, if the Prime Minister himself is invited to hold office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity, what will happen? The Bill currently outlines advice mechanisms for the President and Cabinet Ministers, but lacks clarity regarding the Prime Minister's situation. It will be useful for the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify that.
And lastly, on security administrative support. Although it is stated that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure, it may not be so, in reality. There is, hence, a fourth concern pertaining to the need for at least basic security and administrative support, even as one tries to distinguish between official and private engagements for the President and Cabinet Ministers.
In cases involving national interest spaces like the economy, security, human development and healthcare, the Government's provision of such support should be considered. There will be times when it is essential to help ensure the organised conduct of the businesses, to ensure that the status of the President and Cabinet Ministers are at least retained for the image of Singapore.
Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that the benefits of this Bill outweigh the concerns. Hence, while operational challenges may arise, and notwithstanding my seeking clarification for some of the concerns that I have raised, I am confident that they can be addressed through transparency, accountability and a commitment to serving the public interest. And therefore, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Speaker, this constitutional amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities, if it serves the national interest. The PMO asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore's international standing and help to advance our national interest.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, Co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR), Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity.
Internationally, it is a common practice for political office holders to resign from their private positions before being sworn into office. Recently, Mr David Cameron resigned from various business and charitable positions, including as president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, when he made a comeback to government, saying, "I have one job – to be foreign secretary and work with the prime minister for the UK to be as secure and prosperous as possible in a difficult and dangerous world."
Conversely, there are many examples of former politicians who are now leading high profile international bodies, but only started serving in these organisations after their political tenure in their home countries. Examples include Mr Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was a former prime minister of Portugal, and Mr Charles Michel, who became the President of the European Council after stepping down as the Belgian prime minister.
The presence of currently serving Senior Public Officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union Ombudsman called on the then-European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi to resign from the G30, the same organisation whose Board of Trustees President Tharman is now Chairing. She said, "Mr Draghi's membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised". Adding that, "For the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes mal-administration on its part."
The PMO stated that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations. Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first? Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted?
Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President's involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitments for these roles?
Prior to his election, Mr Tharman articulated his vision for the presidency, emphasising the need for a different character to the Presidency in Singapore's next phase of development. He underscored the role of the President in checking the governance system, fostering unity and evolving Singapore's norms and culture. During his inauguration, he committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities. His plans include promoting interaction between different communities, ensuring cultural vibrancy and fostering inclusivity through active community participation, civil society and support for the arts and sports.
These are substantial commitments that will demand a significant investment of the President's time and effort. All of us – including the President – have only 24 hours each day. Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties to his constituents – who are the people of Singapore. Surely, the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention.
The President also draws a salary of $1.57 million a year. If we include his entertainment allowance, the salaries of his personal staff and other expenses, the total budgeted expenditure of the President's office in the current financial year is over $12 million. This is a substantial amount of taxpayer money. It is only reasonable for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates all his time and energy in his official capacity to meeting his promises to the people.
The Government may argue that the President serves Singapore by accepting these key positions in international organisations. However, we must note that the proposed Article 22Q specifies that he will act in his “private capacity”, not in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution.
We must more closely examine how these private roles, separate from official duties, genuinely advance Singapore's national interests. How will the Government ensure that the President, when acting in his private capacity, follows the Cabinet's advice about what to say or do in his role, since many of these organisations hold their meetings behind closed doors in foreign countries?
The Deputy Prime Minister said just now that international organisations would want our President to continue in his official role. They also want their appointees to contribute independently. But if the Cabinet can instruct the President what to say or not to say, how is that contributing independently?
Invoking the "national interest" cannot grant the Government unrestricted authority to pursue its every desire. There are varying degrees of national interest. Is there any objective test that the Cabinet will employ to assess the degree of national interest of the President taking up foreign or international roles?
Mr Speaker, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to enhance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. However, Singaporeans justifiably expect him to wholeheartedly dedicate his time and energy to fulfil his national responsibilities. Allowing the President to take up external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties. For this reason, the Workers' Party (WP) will vote against this Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Speaker, Sir, we are certainly feeling proud as a Singaporean when our then-Senior Minister Tharman was invited and appointed to serve at prestigious international organisations. He was appointed to Chair the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance. He also Chaired the Board of Trustees at the G30 and so on.
The jobs of our President and Ministers, who are also Members of Parliament (MPs) with constituency duties, are demanding. While it may be beneficial for our national interest to have them appointed in foreign and international organisations and champion for Singapore, the concern is whether the demands of these appointments will have a negative impact on their ability to fulfil their local ones.
One of Singapore's greatest challenges is our small pool of top local citizen talent which the Public Service, political and private sectors need to compete for. Perhaps, one of the intents of this Bill is to overcome the constraints.
Will the Government limit the numbers and type of appointments Ministers can take on in their private capacities? We can understand that foreign and international organisations have their reasons for inviting the Ministers or the President. If they should take these on, they might have to let go of other appointments to ensure that they have the time and energy to fulfil their main responsibilities as Ministers and MPs.
How would the Cabinet screen, vet and make recommendations for appropriate invitations to be approved? We must also put in place mechanics to prevent conflict of interest for the President and Ministers with such appointments. I am in full support of the Bill because for Singapore, one of the smallest nations in the world, having our Ministers or President on select, curated international organisations, will allow us to put our views across and have a say in how certain future international rules will be designed. It is easy for the international arena to ignore tiny nations like us. We need to have a presence wherever possible.
Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we are debating amendments to the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacity.
This Bill also appears to address, urgently, the circumstances of the President since his inauguration on 14 September 2023. President Tharman is extremely respected by and popular among Singaporeans. He has brought honour to Singapore with his international achievements. Personally, I have great respect for him, and it was my honour to have worked with him briefly in the mid-1980s when I was an Investment Officer at GIC and he was an Economist at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
So, the objections that I will raise in this speech have nothing to do with President Tharman personally or his international appointments specifically. Rather, they arise from this Bill's violation of established legal principles and principles of sound governance, which I will move on now to elaborate on.
Mr Speaker, the first question I like to raise is: are the President's international appointments currently unconstitutional? Currently, under Article 19A of the Constitution, the President is not allowed to hold any other office created or recognised by this Constitution, actively engage in any commercial enterprise, be a member of any political party or be a Member of Parliament.
The Constitution is silent on whether the President can take up foreign or international appointments. But President Tharman has been holding such appointments when he was a Minister, before he was elected as the President. Other Ministers have also held international appointments over the years without question, despite the Constitution also being silent on this matter. The most notable example was Mr Lee Kuan Yew who sat on the JP Morgan International Council while he was Minister Mentor.
So, why is it so pressing to rush through these constitutional amendments now and create this framework for the President and Cabinet Ministers to take up international appointments? Is it simply because no other past President had held international appointments in their private capacity while in office? If so, then the Government should explain why there was no rush to create such a framework when a Minister took up foreign or international appointments for the first time many years ago.
The second question the Government has to clarify is: why is it necessary for these constitutional amendments to be rushed through Parliament and backdated? The Constitution is the bedrock of our nation and any changes to it should be made with prudent consideration, transparency and in the best interest of only the nation.
The constitutional amendments that we are debating today were brought to this House for First Reading less than three weeks ago and Parliament has been recalled today specifically to approve this fait accompli.
Parliament is also being asked to backdate these proposed constitutional amendments to 14 September 2023, the date of President Tharman's inauguration, through clause 1(2) of this Bill. The retrospective amendment of any law should not be taken lightly.
The speed with which these constitutional amendments are being enacted, as well as the fact that they are being backdated, have created unnecessary unease among Singaporeans. A segment of Singaporeans now perceives that the Constitution is being specially amended to enable President Tharman to continue serving in international organisations despite taking up his new office as President of Singapore.
Some other Singaporeans believe that the Government is establishing this framework to control what the President can or cannot say internationally under the new Article 22Q, clause 2. Either way, this has tarnished the elected presidency. Many Singaporeans wonder, if any other person had been elected President, would the Government have enacted these constitutional amendments?
Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes the framework proposed in this Bill by the Government to govern the performance of foreign and international roles by the President and Ministers is not sufficient. It is a universally recognised principle of good governance that situations of conflict of interest should be avoided as much as possible, in order to maintain the integrity of public institutions. While such situations cannot be totally eliminated, the Constitution should certainly not be amended to enable such situations to arise.
The public/private capacity divide itself is controversial. If the President or Minister is truly acting in his private capacity, why then would the national interest be involved? It is not easy, or might even be impossible, to ensure that one capacity does not lead to advantage in the other.
If the Constitution can be amended to enable the President and Ministers to take up foreign or international appointments of an executive nature, as opposed to mere ceremonial roles, an important question would arise – where does the buck stop? What more is permissible or impermissible or what principles or guidelines would such decisions be based on?
Therefore, PSP is of the view that it is better for the President and Ministers to devote themselves entirely to their public offices in Singapore.
As for these other international or foreign appointments, PSP is confident that there are other Singaporean talents suited for them.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we need a more complete explanation from the Government as to why it has rushed to pass this Constitutional amendment and backdate them to President Tharman's inauguration. If President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are not unconstitutional, then it is perplexing why the amendments need to be backdated or even made at all, given that Cabinet Ministers have taken up such appointments over the years without such a framework and without any question of their legality and constitutionality.
If there is a possibility that President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are unconstitutional, then what this House is doing today creates a worrying precedent. This House is being asked to change the highest law in the land and backdate the change to enable a specific individual to remain within legal boundaries.
On the other hand, some Singaporeans believe that the Government has pushed through these amendments to strengthen its control over what the President says and does abroad.
From the feedback we have gathered, there is confusion on the ground and Singaporeans need a full explanation from the Government. Mr Speaker, the PSP does not support the Bill. For country, for people.
Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Speaker, our Parliament has to decide today whether to allow the Government’s amendment of the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacities.
Under the proposed Article 22Q which is being introduced by this amendment Bill, the President may accept and hold an office in a foreign and international organisation in his private capacity if, and only if, the President is not disabled by Article 19A(1) from performing the functions of that office; the Cabinet advises the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office; and the President, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Cabinet.
The PMO said in a statement that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations, and I quote: "Accepting such positions can enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest..."
It has already been reported in The Straits Times that if the Bill is passed, it would allow President Tharman to continue with his roles in the WEF and G30. We are told that President Tharman currently holds several international appointments, including being chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, a member of the WEF’s Board of Trustees, Co-chair of the GCEW, and Co-chair of the Advisory Board for the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR).
Mr Speaker, it is indisputable that our President’s appointment is a full-time position having a substantial salary, which makes it one of the best-paid elected heads of state in the world.
Mr Speaker, aside from what Deputy Prime Minister said about President Tony Tan serving on the Senate of the Nobel Laureates, I am not aware of any report of any of our past elected presidents holding any concurrent positions in a foreign or international organisations in their private capacity. Certainly, this issue of a president accepting and holding office in a foreign or international organisation in his private capacity has not been brought up for discussion in Parliament until today.
I am also not aware of there being other elected heads of state elsewhere in the world who are allowed to hold any concurrent positions in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities while they are in office.
President Tharman himself noted, when he was a presidential candidate, that the demands of the office have grown in the face of profound global risks and uncertainties. My colleague, the hon Member for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Mr Gerald Giam, has shared with us earlier how President Tharman has articulated his vision for the presidency during his presidential campaign, including the roles he had expected to play and the work he had expected to carry out. Suffice to say, the roles and work he has envisaged are very substantial and will take time and effort. But every person, including all heads of state and our own Head of State, the President, only has 24 hours a day. Whether the President has enough time is just one consideration. Ought the President be allowed to do so is another question altogether.
Mr Speaker, when this Bill was introduced, many Singaporeans I spoke to shared with me and MPs from the WP that they expect our President to concentrate fully on his role as President and they hope our President would not be distracted by the roles he is holding in his private capacity. Indeed, I agree with them. The roles he is holding in international organisations do show that he is held by many with high regard and respect. I can also agree with the Government’s argument that such positions can possibly enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest.
However, the time spent on serving foreign and international organisations, no matter how fruitful they can be for our President and even for Singapore, equates to time not spent on his presidential responsibilities, including the roles he had campaigned on. From the conversations I have had, I think there is a very strong argument for a serving president to concentrate wholeheartedly in his or her presidential responsibilities. In fact, undistracted by other external private responsibilities, our president can be encouraged to serve our country and people more fully, not unlike the way President Tharman has shared in his campaign.
The Government has argued that it has safeguards built into this amendment Bill, for example, under Article 22Q(1), the Cabinet must be able to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office and, under Article 22Q(2), the Cabinet may, from time to time, advise the President against saying something or doing anything in the performance of the functions of any new office that the President is holding privately and the Cabinet may require the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3).
Some safeguards may well be necessary if this Bill is to be passed to expressly allow the President to hold an office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity. But are the proposed safeguards sufficient or ever sufficient? Will the proposed safeguards create other complications or unintended outcomes?
Mr Speaker, while the Cabinet needs to be satisfied that any such appointment must be in the national interest, this does not preclude the possibility that the role that a president is initially allowed to assume in an international organisation may, unforeseeably, later on turn out to require more time and attention, for example, to handle an unexpected international crisis or an important issue affecting the organisation or the community which the organisation serves, which was unforeseeable or not expected at the time of appointment.
Yes, the Cabinet may be able to ask the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3). However, it may also be conceivable to argue that, at a time of crisis for such an international organisation or the community it serves, it may be morally or as a matter of conscience, difficult to step down and walk away from such a position of leadership. If done, it may even affect the standing of our President or our country. But if the President does not walk away and the Cabinet does not require him to relinquish, whether rightly or wrongly, it may still add to the time and responsibilities of the President within this foreign or international organisation which may, in turn, reduce or affect the time or attention he has on his actual role as our President.
Conflicts of interest may happen when one is double-hatting. An example of potential conflicts of interest situation with the President assuming board or leadership positions on foreign or international organisations would be when such organisations were to, after our President’s appointment, hold certain views or may introduce policy reforms or changes in conventions where some such changes may not be completely acceptable to our Government or are inconsistent with our policies; being compelled to not speak up within that organisation, or even to resign at that point in time, may not look impressive to our international friends.
What are the remedies when an actual case of conflict of interest were to happen? Beyond Article 22Q(2) providing for the Cabinet to advise the President against saying or doing anything in his capacity as appointment holder of such a foreign or international organisation, the Cabinet can ask the President to relinquish the external position he is holding pursuant to Article 22Q(3) and, under this provision, he must so relinquish, when asked. However, beyond relinquishing, the Bill, significantly, does not provide for how the President can be held accountable when such a situation happens. In comparison, the Ministerial Code provides that a breach of the Code can result in a Minister’s removal from office. Also, what would be the recourse under the law if a President were to disagree with the Cabinet and does not step down for whatever reasons he may have?
Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill allows the President to hold appointments in foreign or international organisations in his private capacity. The Bill is silent on whether time and expenses incurred in the course of attending to the President’s duties in the foreign or international organisations in his private capacity would be strictly regarded as private and personal, since the appointments were made in his private capacity.
Will taxpayers have to foot the bill for the travel and accommodation expenses of the President and that of his support staff and even the security detail from the Istana? What about the salaries of these civil servants? The Bill, as it stands, does not expressly allow taxpayers’ monies to be spent in the examples I have mentioned, especially as these appointments are held in a private capacity.
The Bill is also silent on the right of the President to accept remuneration from the foreign or international organisation. Will such remuneration be allowed?
Will the President, in his private capacity, have to take a leave of absence when attending to meetings of such foreign or international organisations in his private capacity? Indeed, my questions above are also for the amendments in the proposed Article 33A pertaining to Ministers holding appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity.
I would be grateful for the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarifications on the above as they relate to the use of taxpayers’ monies and the proper conduct of Government officials.
Mr Speaker, in closing, our President, as our Head of State, should focus fully on his official Presidential duties and responsibilities for which he has been elected to do. Allowing the President to take up appointments with foreign or international organisations in his private capacity could detract from his official Presidential duties. The WP will, therefore, vote against this Bill.
Mr Don Wee.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the invitations to our President and Ministers to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations are testament to the good regard in which Singapore is held. I agree that having our men and women on the seats of these bodies will be highly beneficial to Singapore in providing the opportunity to present our perspectives, shape discourse and advance our national interests. Having a seat at the table makes a difference to Singapore.
If we cast our eyes overseas, there are example of ministers from other countries who are part of international organisations. For example, Canada's deputy prime minister and minister of finance, Ms Chrystia Freeland, and Rwanda's minister of information communication technology and innovation, Ms Paula Ingabire, are members of WEF's Board of Trustees.
As a small island state with no natural resources, Singapore has thrived due to its people's capabilities and their connectivities with our global partners. We need to continue to promote Singapore well.
Indeed, the appointments of our leaders to such institutions will enhance Singapore's visibility and international standing, which include intangible qualities which have tangible and significant impact on our development and progress as a nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have one concern. How would the offices of the President and Ministers manage potential conflict of interest which may arise due to the appointment in their personal capacities? Parliament should have more clarity on this issue.
How can we be assured that all input by our President and Ministers at these bodies will be in our national interest? What happens if they put forth views not representative of, or even contrary to, the Government at these meetings? How do we separate the stances of the private individuals from the office they hold?
(In English): In addition, what would be the criteria set by the Cabinet for the organisations to be deemed acceptable? Will there be any control over the type and number of organisations that the President and Ministers may participate in? What are the guidelines that determine which roles may be approved? How will the Government ensure that these individuals will not take on too many roles which may have a detrimental impact on their ability to fulfil the requirements of their main jobs?
I would also like to ask how different are these international roles from the non-executive ones, such as patrons, which our President and Ministers undertake concurrently? For example, President Tharman is the Patron of the Digital for Life Movement.
Other questions which arise are about to whom or which office will be paid the fees and honorariums from the organisations and the billing of expenses, such as travel, security detail and accommodation, if any.
Despite these concerns, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill in view of the benefits and glory such appointments will bring to Singapore.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendments to allow the President and Ministers to privately take on foreign and international roles in the national interest raises numerous concerns, most of which my Workers' Party (WP) colleagues Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan have articulated.
I will focus my remarks on clause 1.2 of the Bill, notably, the retrospective dating of stipulations to September 2023.
I appreciate that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has indicated earlier that the backdating was not necessary per se but introduced it out of an abundance of caution. If so, for me, this is even more worrisome, for reasons that would become evident over the course of my speech.
Retrospective applications of the law, sometimes referred to as retrospective or ex post facto laws, involve backdating the legal status of actions undertaken prior to the enactment of the law. Legislative retrospectivity may affect previously established legal relationships and rights and may attach new legal consequences to earlier decisions made by parties that did not anticipate these consequences under prior law.
Ex post facto laws are, indeed, permissible in Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as ours because of the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
Yet even legislative sovereignty must be located within the legal order where the rule of law remains absolute. Whether one subscribes to a thicker or thinner conception of the rule of law, the general principle that laws should be prospective, open and clear is not contested. This is for good reason.
If we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then we erode the very stability of the rule of law. These are consequences not just for the institution of the rule of law. Retroactive laws compromise both efficiency as well as equity. You can also, in the words of our own Court of Appeal, "undermine expectations".
Retroactivity becomes especially thorny when applied to matters involving the Constitution. Constitutions are meant to embody deep, fundamental principles that form the legal basis for the governance of sovereign countries. Indeed, in many jurisdictions worldwide, constitutions or Bill of rights form the very basis for prohibitions on retroactive legislation. This includes Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines and Russia.
Even in countries when the constitution does not explicitly prohibit ex post facto laws, they are almost always circumscribed, especially for criminal law.
Retroactive legislation enacted elsewhere has also been challenged on constitutional grounds, often at the very highest levels.
In the last session of Parliament, this House was very careful about enshrining specific provisions and rights into the Constitution precisely because of the notion that matters of policy that may not be sufficiently enduring should not garner constitutional amendments. It stands that we wish to be very careful about introducing retroactive clauses into any constitutional amendments because doing so would open up avenues for other future changes that could likewise be dated retroactively.
Based on a search in Hansard for the term "deemed to have come into operation", I was able to identify only a handful of other instances of Bills where retroactive applicability was hardcoded into the language of the Bill.
One is the Republic of Singapore Independence Act (RSIA), which was raised for First and Second Readings only in December 1965 but commenced on Singapore Day, 9 August, for obvious reasons. Since the RSIA has constitutional significance, this clearly justifies its retroactive application.
Another has to do with certain Bills related to pensions. The Pensions Act, enacted in 1956, was retroactively set to commence in 1939. Amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Act were made retroactive from the commencement of the original Act, and the Act to eventually abolish such pensions was likewise rendered operative a little than a year earlier, relative to when it was passed.
This retroactive applicability was to align either with when the principal Act come into operation or with actual practice, when pensions had already been frozen since May 2011. This is, again, justifiable since the nature of pensions is such that they are accrued incrementally. So, the timing of pension applicability matters.
The most recent example is in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. Certain parts of the Act, notably on conducting in-person meetings, were backdated to March that year. Given the limited understanding surrounding a novel and deadly disease, it is reasonable to expect the need to predate policy changes made in the fog of a life-and-death battle.
To be clear, Mr Speaker, there have been other instances where retroactivity was applicable but not hardcoded into the Bill. Section 8D of the Internal Security Act embeds a commencement provision that applies the amendments to proceedings that predate the Act. Amendments to the Singapore Military Forces Act, which affected reservists, were also ante-dated to two years prior, to be consistent with the functions assigned to the then Defence Forces Record Officer. In 1992, proposed changes to the mandatory death penalty for homicide offences were also applied to existing cases.
But, importantly, as far as I can gather, the common thread among these instances is that the case for retroactivity was always heavily justified, based on the importance of implications that could result were the law not applied retroactively – and it has never been applied to any constitutional amendment since 2007.
I believe Members of this House will, therefore, agree with me that all instances where retroactive legislation making is enacted to be sparing and any such cases should be justifiable by the gravity of otherwise not doing so. As suggested earlier, this basic argument should hold with even greater force when we are looking at a constitutional amendment, lest we run afoul of the underlying principles that undergird the rule of law as embodied in the highest law of the land.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is any incoherence between the Bill at hand and our Constitution itself since the right to due process implied by Article 9 of the Constitution pertains to life and liberty, neither of which are threatened with compromise by the proposed amendments, nor does the present Bill appear to be in contravention to Article 11, which offers protection against retrospective criminal laws.
Nevertheless, we are left with an uncomfortable position of asking ourselves whether the stipulations of the proposed constitutional amendments rise to the level of the sort of circumstances spelt out in the prior instances where legislative retroactivity was accommodated.
Sir, in the run-up to the 2020 elections, I expressed concerns in a public debate over how, were the People's Action Party (PAP) not denied a supermajority in Parliament, that would tantamount to handing them a blank cheque. The stipulations in today's Bill only serve to reinforce that fear.
After all, if one deems the matters raised by this Bill as sufficiently serious, why were they not considered for passage previously? After all, the PMO statement on the Bill suggests that invitations to the President or Ministers to take on international roles arise "from time to time".
If so, why was this sort of accommodation not previously drafted into prospective law rather than now, retroactively, and as a constitutional amendment no less? Or has the Government itself treated the matter lightly, taking for granted the fact that, with a supermajority in Parliament, it is able to alter the Constitution at will and, hence, it would simply be a fait accompli to roll out a retroactive amendment?
It would be useful for this House to know when the Government was first made aware of a possible conflict with the Constitution which would necessitate a potential amendment. If it was prior to the most recent presidential election, could our present need to pass a retroactive law have been avoided with a law that was enacted earlier instead of seemingly taking the passage of the constitutional amendment for granted?
And, if so, why was this matter of the President taking on or retaining such extracurricular appointments not clearly identified as an election issue so that the electorate would be able to make more informed voting choices when they cast their vote?
Sir, allow me to close by putting my main point simply.
Does this House regard the use of retroactive lawmaking embodied in this Bill – that we should retrospectively allow the President and Ministers to take on positions in their private capacity should it serve the national interest – as one that is sufficiently grave as to justify bending away from the sound, general principles of prospective lawmaking? Or is it bordering on an abuse of the Parliamentary supermajority to effect constitutional amendments of this nature at will?
For me, it is closer to the latter and, for that reason, I and the WP cannot support the Bill.
Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this proposed amendment Bill.
We may be a small nation, but Singapore has gained international respect and admiration in several areas since our founding. The world today is yet again facing a series of challenges. After recovering from the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 with seeming peace and financial stability, COVID-19 hit. I use "seeming peace" because there were still areas of conflict and, if those were not contained, could have certainly brought global disruptions.
Geopolitical tensions between the United States (US) and China have deepened, although there may seem to be some ray of hope recently, and Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, triggering political and economic fallout.
Regionally, we are seeing the continuing issues in Myanmar. Most recently, we are witnessing the Israel-Hamas war, with ripples through racial and religious communities despite statements that this is neither a racial nor a religious conflict.
Singapore's domestic well-being depends on regional and global well-being. As a country dependent on regional and global peace and prosperity, we cannot look the other way when and where events occur that impact trade, financial systems, peace and global order. This, of course, must also include the ongoing efforts to address the urgent needs concerning climate change and the environment.
The proposed amendments may seem like a couple of sentences. But the potential impact will likely be much more. I refer to potential positive impact on a regional and global scale. And I believe, harnessed wisely, this will, in turn, reap positive impact for us domestically.
Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, put Singapore on the world map despite our small nation status. He was supported by a capable and able strong team, as he often acknowledged. He also made it a practice to bring younger leaders along with him to observe, listen and learn. Many are in the House today. After handing over political leadership, Mr Lee remained highly sought after internationally for his advice, his views and his outlook on a whole range of matters. He also concurrently provided guidance and advice when requested on domestic matters.
Global institutions continue to be dominated by the global powers. Often, this comes down to fundamental dominance by size and funding. Global institutions, though, are also facing the risk of losing relevance. There are many different views why this is the case. Despite this, it would be against our interests to ever feel that we, as a small nation, cannot contribute. It may take time, effort, persuasion, trust, cultivating relationships.
If our leaders are invited to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacities, we should, therefore, encourage this if this is in our national interest.
The recent rapid increase in interest rates from a decade of almost zero interest may continue to test the global economic fabric. Stock markets remain volatile and rise and fall in anticipation of whether the US Federal Reserve will increase interest rates. The ability to navigate the global financial uncertainty in the coming years will need the best minds and, of course, sound fiscal policy.
This is all happening at a time when global trade is becoming increasingly protective. We, therefore, need to protect our future interests, both domestically and internationally. And we have been doing so and we must continue to do so.
As our leaders with sharp minds, expertise and experience debate and discuss issues of importance at international forums, we play our part in contributing to global solutions and actions. Participation at international forums will also be a channel where we remain open to learning from others and, perhaps, bringing back lessons that may improve our own policies and practices. I trust our leaders will be bringing along younger leaders to observe, listen and learn.
Our private and people sectors have also contributed on the global stage over the decades. It may be timely to see whether more public, private and people sector collaboration may be beneficial in selected global arenas. As a financial hub, we will have gained much private sector knowledge and expertise and continue to attract a significant amount of funds under management. We have also gained significant experience in establishing and stewarding our Sovereign Wealth Funds.
The Singapore International Foundation (SIF) has been mobilising the people sector in cross-border engagement. Since 1991, SIF has brought together communities in a variety of initiatives with the aim to connect and collaborate for positive change. One programme, the Young Social Entrepreneurs Programme, brings together social entrepreneurs from the region each year to sharpen their socially driven initiatives, undergo mentoring and, eventually, participate in a final pitching session. Social entrepreneurs emerging from this programme have brought positive impact and change to a whole spectrum of communities.
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are currently behind schedule and many are unlikely to achieve the targets set for 2030. If the SDGs are achieved, the world should be in a better place. The SDGs have attracted both public and private funding and have been often used to benchmark philanthropic giving across all levels.
While we may not specifically align our various public and private philanthropic endeavours with the UN SDGs, we are, nevertheless, engaging in many of these goals through many ongoing public programmes and private and people initiatives.
I hope that as our leaders engage at the highest levels, there will be consideration for building a whole-of-society approach to global engagement. Working with young and aspiring leaders and also, in particular, social entrepreneurs, they have much to offer to the Singapore of today and tomorrow.
Allow me, Mr Speaker, to conclude with this well-known quote from Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "For the young, let me tell you the sky has turned brighter. There is a glorious rainbow that beckons those with the spirit of adventure. And there are rich findings at the end of the rainbow. To the young and to the not-so-old, I say, look at that horizon, follow that rainbow, go ride it." I cling onto the few words that say, "not-so-old".
Mr Speaker, Sir, though a non-voting Member of this House on constitutional matters, I strongly encourage and support our leaders, our President and our Ministers, to perform foreign and international roles in our national interests and I thank them, particularly where this is in their private capacities to contribute towards a much-needed better world.
Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to seek clarification on several aspects of the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to allow the President or Ministers to hold and accept office in their "private capacity". The distinction between whether the President or the Minister is acting in the capacity of a Singaporean officeholder or a foreign one is important. This is especially considering the potential for perceptions that they are still acting as officeholders even in a private capacity.
Will it be apparent as to whom the President or Minister represents when wearing these different hats? The potential switching between roles raises concerns about the clarity of representation. The public must be able to discern whether the President or Minister is acting on behalf of Singapore, the foreign organisation or both.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the role of the President and Ministers in foreign organisations must not run counter to our national interests. How do we ensure that individuals holding these roles align with our national priorities? Are there restrictions on the types of organisations that they can serve in?
Is the President and are the Ministers prohibited from serving on foreign bodies, even remotely, if the foreign organisation's agenda poses a conflict of interest? This consideration is paramount in preventing Singapore's officeholders from using privileged information gained from their positions or accidentally disclosing official secrets.
Another key consideration is the connection that exposes them to vulnerabilities that cybercriminals may exploit. In addition, if a Minister had served, for instance, in the Ministry of National Development but is now transferred to another portfolio, is there a moratorium on their service in a foreign organisation that could pose a conflict of interest?
Were there prohibitions in place before the appointment as President? Do the amendments apply to the appointments made before the role of the President was assumed? I ask these questions because if the constitutional amendments are made retrospectively, it would be a practice not commonly observed in legislative amendments.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the potential impact on the President's and the Ministers' abilities to fulfil their duties to the nation. With this amendment, are we confident that they will have sufficient time and bandwidth to execute their roles in both the external organisation and their official capacities? Is there a time limit for serving in these foreign or international organisations? We must prevent a scenario where our leaders become entangled in external commitments to the detriment of their duties to the nation. Should a rule prioritise their national duties?
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask about financial considerations. We must address the issue of remuneration for these external positions. Do they retain the remuneration they receive? Who bears the expenses associated with travel for these appointments? Besides the monetary aspects, it touches upon the very image and perception of the office. How palatable would it be for the President to receive full wages alongside additional remuneration for a secondary appointment?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the net benefit of such engagements holds the potential to significantly enhance Singapore's global standing. Participation in international organisations provides our leaders with an exceptional platform to establish diplomatic connections with influential leaders across diverse nations and sectors. These networks can translate into collaborations and partnerships that ultimately benefit Singapore.
Such appointments also provide the opportunity to showcase their expertise at an international level. This not only elevates their personal standing but further amplifies the influence and reputation of our nation. These international roles often involve addressing pressing global challenges, such as climate change. Our leaders, in such capacities, can contribute to meaningful solutions on a broader and international scale.
In addition, by actively participating in international organisations, our leaders become effective advocates for Singapore's interests on a global stage. This may encompass negotiations on international agreements and influencing global policies in favour of our nation. Hence, achieving a balance among these diverse roles, all the while steadfastly prioritising Singapore's national interests, is critical. In doing so, we would allow for the optimal utilisation of our leaders' skills on both the domestic and international fronts, ultimately contributing to the advancement of Singapore. My clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Leader of the House.
PAPERCUTS