Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill

Thank you, Speaker. Let me start by clarifying that my citation of Article 9 on due process, as well as Article 11 on retroactivity, was to say that I actually did not believe, and I quote myself, "that there was any incoherence between the Bill itself and the Constitution". So, let me first put that on the record.

But, if I heard Mr de Souza correctly, he suggests that one impetus for this Bill is that it was to accommodate, potentially, the concerns of these international organisations, about the independence of our potential representatives were we to send them there. Perhaps I should ask the question: what does it say about us as a nation, as a sovereign nation, if we are amending the highest law of the land, just so that we can potentially appease the desires of international organisations?

If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. So, when you get invited to these organisations, they speak well of Singapore, they speak well of the person who has been invited. The door is ajar, Singapore's interests can be presented by way of osmosis and the whole ecosystem, in the boardroom or the committee room, you get a sense of each continent's political difficulties and economic difficulties. So, why say no?

We are not pandering to the requests of international organisations. The fact that people who I have mentioned – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister Teo, other esteemed Cabinet Ministers and Senior Minister Tharman – continue to be sought after, after years in Government, speaks well that they are relevant.

But they want not just the official line. If there is room to share from their own experience and their own wealth of knowledge, what they have been through, how they think things can pan out, not just for Singapore, but for the world and for the region, why veto that? Why shut that out? How can that be construed as us pandering to international organisations when it is a feather in the cap to actually be invited in the first place? And then set down rules as to what can or cannot be done, so that the international organisations know the rules of engagement and so do we, both on His Excellency's Head of State side and on Cabinet side.

So, I turned it on its head and say we are not pandering. We should be honoured and humbled, and accept, as far as possible, subject to national interests.

Yes, because I would like to develop further the issue about official capacity and private capacity. I am totally in support of the WP's position, explained by Member Gerald Giam. We are in support of the official capacity if our Ministers perform the international appointments in their official capacities.

But I want to make one clarification with the Deputy Prime Minister. Our Ministers have, in the past, been always taking up all these international appointments. Is it the first time, through this Bill, that we are differentiating official capacity and private capacity? I would like to raise this clarification first.

Mr Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to wrap up and, in the process, clarify the issues that have been raised. I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the amendment. In fact, many of the questions from Members, if you had listened carefully to my opening remarks, were already addressed in my opening remarks. But nevertheless, let me go through some of these points again.

First, on why this does not apply to the Prime Minister. We have got the President, we have got Ministers, but why not the Prime Minister? In my opening remarks, I said we do not intend, the Government does not intend for either the current or future Prime Ministers to serve in international organisations. So, this is not relevant to the Prime Minister.

Second, what is the status of President Tharman's current appointments? The present status are the four appointments which I have highlighted just now. They are appointments in the official capacity and they are not unconstitutional. They are made in accordance with the advice and support of the Cabinet. These are not full-time appointments; these are not executive appointments. They are roles as Board of Trustees, advisory roles; so, it is quite different from some of the examples that Mr Giam had cited earlier too.

Third, on the issue of backdating, I had addressed that too. But let me go through that again. Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law.

And so, if you backdate, then the ones who had relied on existing law may well be prejudiced. But this is not the case here. No one is prejudiced under this backdating. But in any case, setting aside the principle of it as I had highlighted just now, we are doing this out of an abundance of caution. We will not use this provision, and the approval of the President's appointment will be done on a prospective basis.

Let me now go through the rest of my remarks on the additional queries and issues that have been raised.

There were several Members who asked how the Government would assess invitations for the President or Ministers to participate in these international bodies.

The framework that we are setting out makes it clear that the President or the Minister, can only hold a foreign or international role in their private capacities, if it is in the national interest to do so. The critical phrase is "national interest".

Then, you might ask, what do we mean by "national interest"? In general, the President or Minister's participation should be helpful in advancing Singapore's standing and interests on the international stage. There should be benefits, be it direct or indirect, to Singapore as a whole or the Government agency which oversees the sector that the organisation operates in.

There might also be clear outcomes we want to help progress through these arrangements. For example, the President or the Minister's participation could help advance views that are aligned to Singapore's outlook and approach on issues to help shape the global agenda in areas that are critical to Singapore.

These benefits could also take the form of staying plugged into global discussions on topics salient to Singapore or generating mindshare for Singapore among influential thought leaders and networks. So, that is what we would say broadly is in the national interest.

But what I want to reiterate, and it is important and a substantive point to reiterate here, undertaking this role in a private capacity does not mean that the President or the Minister is somehow doing some extra-curricular activity, something that is outside of his work duties. That is not the case.

When the President serves in this capacity, he is contributing to his national responsibilities, and he is undertaking his presidential duties. As Mr Christopher de Souza correctly said, the presidential office is not a President for domestic or international, it is a President serving both domestic and international interests. A key role of the President is as Singapore's top diplomat. International dimensions are part and parcel of the President's role and how he contributes to Singapore. So, this is not a trade-off, as though doing this is outside of his presidential duties; they are integral to his presidential duties.

Another misunderstanding from what I have heard so far is a confusion between private views and private interests. A lot of the comments suggest that when the President serves in his private capacity, he is serving in his private interests. That is not the case.

We are allowing him, when he serves under this new clause, to serve in a way that allows him to contribute his private views, subject to safeguards, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. Safeguards are not so much that we control what he says, but we say that he is not able to comment on domestic policies and politics. That is the safeguard.

Beyond that, we allow him to contribute independently to these organisations in his private capacity. But when he does so, he does so in the national interest. So, he is not serving in his private interests, he is serving in the national interest.

So, I hope that clarifies what this envisages, this provision allows the President and Ministers to do.

Approving an appointment, when the Cabinet agrees to the President or to a Minister undertaking these assignments, we are doing this for the national interest. We are doing this so that the President can project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world, fulfilling his presidential duties.

Approving an appointment in its private capacity is a way for us to facilitate the President acting independently to achieve the aims of the organisations, subject to the necessary safeguards of our national interest.

You could say – and I think, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked just now – this is the first time we are doing this. Yes, it is for the President. Previously, Ministers have served in organisations with the approval of the Prime Minister and when they did so, they did so in their private capacity. There was no legal impediment for Ministers to do so, but now, we are dealing with a novel situation where it comes to the President.

The President had in the past served in international organisations in his official capacity before. And the Government could very well, as an alternative to what we are discussing today, have said, "Maybe we should just allow the President to continue holding the international appointments in his official capacity. After all, had been done before, Dr Tan had served so why not continue to do so with President Tharman?"

And, indeed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this was our thinking. And we only came to the realisation after President Tharman's election, as we were deliberating over the matter. We could have said we will continue with this arrangement, let him serve in his official capacity. In fact, we might even have given him latitude to express some independent views while contributing to these organisations. We could have done that.

We asked the Attorney-General’s Chamber (AGC). AGC said this is not expressly prohibited by law and if we had taken this approach, people would be none the wiser. The Opposition would not even have objected to it, I assume, from what I gathered from Mr Gerald Giam just now. But is it correct? Is it correct?

Our conclusion was that this will not be ideal for us, for Singapore; and neither will it be ideal for the international organisations.

Why? Because the nature and parameters of the President's involvement would be unclear. Is he speaking for Singapore or is he speaking for himself? He will essentially be operating in a new, novel and grey zone.

And that is why the Government decided it is far better to be upfront, transparent and direct about this matter instead of operating in an area with some ambiguity. We come to Parliament, pass a proper and principled framework and work within this framework going forward. That is the proper thing to do.

So, when I heard some of the speeches from Opposition Members and their opposition to this Bill, with phrases suggesting that this is not proper, that somehow it is unconstitutional and that this is some violation of established principles – this is completely unfounded. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us not use this technical language to camouflage political grandstanding. Let us come back to the substance of what this is about. Ultimately, this is about Singapore, or as Mr Leong Mun Wai would say, "This is for country, for people".

So, we have to ask ourselves the substance of these provisions. Do they further the interests of Singapore? Do they bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans? That is what the substance of it is. And from the Government's point of view, the provisions are very clear. This will enable our little red dot to shine brightly on the international stage. It is a plus for Singapore.

On that basis, if that is the case, how about resourcing support for the President when he undertakes these international roles in his private capacity or for that matter when a Minister does so? Based on the explanation I said just now, precisely because when the President serves, he is not serving in his private interest, he is serving in the national interest.

Therefore, the resourcing support is no different from how the Government supports the President when he undertakes an official trip. This will just be a working trip. He contributes his private views to these organisations, but he is going on these trips on the basis of national interest, not for his private business.

In the President’s case, this will include staff support to review the materials, provide briefs for the meetings he attends, as well as funding for the travel costs of President and his delegation as and when there are international meetings. In other words, this is like a working trip; no different from any other working trips the President or the Minister undertakes in the national interest.

In fact, while some of the international organisations, the ones I cited, would be willing to pay for the President's cost, we think it is proper that the Government foots the Bill because when we do this, when the President goes on these trips, as I said, it is on the advice of the Cabinet and it is in the national interest that he holds these national appointments.

So, remember, private views are not the same as private interests.

This Bill allows him to express private views but still serve in the national interest, doing duties that are integral and part and parcel of presidential duties.

Then there were questions of possible conflicts of interest. These could arise, for example, if the foreign or international organisations were to take positions that are different from the Government or if a President or Minister were to take steps that are detrimental to the nation’s interest.

But such potential conflicts of interest or questions of conflict will be considered in deciding whether or not to support an appointment in the first place. Clearly, it would not be in Singapore’s national interest to support appointments that place the President or a Minister in conflict with their official functions.

And furthermore, as I explained in my opening remarks, the President and Ministers will not be able to make any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore in the course of such engagements in international bodies.

If the questions of conflict do arise later on in the course of an appointment, the individual can take steps to remove the conflict, for example, by recusing himself or herself from a particular decision that would conflict with their official duties.

The Cabinet can also advise the President accordingly. The Prime Minister can likewise instruct a Minister.

If there are serious questions of conflict that cannot be resolved, the President or the Minister would have to relinquish the appointment. If necessary, Cabinet would advise the President to do so, and the Prime Minister would instruct a Minister.

And if the President, as I think, Mr Dennis Tan says, intentionally refuses to follow the Cabinet's advice, then that would be grounds for removal and there are procedures set out for such removals.

On the issue of remuneration, I confirm that that the President and Ministers may not retain any remuneration or benefits in connection with appointments in their private capacity.

The President has not received any such remuneration or other benefits, like an honorarium from the international bodies that he is represented on currently. And should he be offered such benefits, the President is expected to decline it or to donate the sum to charity. This is already the current arrangement for Ministers, and it will continue to be so under the new framework.

Again, Cabinet will advise the President, and the Prime Minister will instruct Ministers, to this effect.

Then, there were some questions about bandwidth. This is having accepted that the President's roles cover both domestic and international, but I suppose there will be questions asked about emphasis and bandwidth and how you spend the time. These are legitimate questions.

And so, in assessing invitations to the President, the Cabinet will consider, among other things, the commitments expected by this international role. Cabinet will also consider the meeting load and travel demands, and whether these are reasonable. So, this will ensure that the President’s holding of these roles remains to Singapore’s benefit and will not, in any way, affect his ability to exercise the rest of his constitutional duties. The Prime Minister will likewise do the same for roles involving Ministers.

At the end of the day, it would not be in the national interest for the President or a Minister to take on external appointments that affect their ability to perform their official duties. All assessments made by Cabinet will carefully weigh any potential bandwidth concerns against the potential benefit the appointments will bring.

So, Sir, at the end of the day, I think we have to come back to the substance and merits of what this amendment Bill is about. Do we want the President to take on these international roles in his independent and private capacity, when it is in the national interest? And if so, do we want to put in place a proper legal and governing framework for such an arrangement rather than to pretend, fudge the issue and just operate in this ambiguous, grey zone without being upfront?

The Government’s position is very clear. We want to have a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, where required by the national interest.

And we want to do so sooner rather than later. We have identified the issue, it came up, we looked at it and we settled on a solution which is being proposed in this House. The sooner we get this done, the sooner the President can embark on his engagements under a clear constitutional framework. There is nothing to be gained by delay.

Up to now, out of an abundance of caution, I should say, President Tharman has not attended any formal meetings of the four international bodies that he has been appointed to since 14 September and prior to this reading in Parliament. That is out of an abundance of caution because he has been appointed in an official basis, but he has decided not to attend any formal meetings.

Should Parliament pass this amendment Bill, then the new framework will be in place and President Tharman will be able to attend future meetings under this new governing arrangement. And, indeed, there are upcoming meetings, including the G30 Winter Plenary in New York next week.

Sir, this Government will always take a sensible, rather than a dogmatic or ideological, approach to the Constitution. We know that the Constitution is a living document. It should not be amended frivolously, but it also cannot stay static. It has to evolve as our needs change over the years.

And indeed, it was Cabinet that assessed the need to move this constitutional amendment. We agreed that it would be a positive and necessary structural change and would increase the ability of individuals to contribute to Singapore while ensuring the relevant safeguards and ensuring greater accountability.

Sir, as a small and open economy, Singapore has always recognised the importance of staying engaged with the international community. Our survival depends on us being able to respond to the changing global landscape and to deliver value to the world.

Opportunities to take up office in respected international institutions where we can actively contribute to shaping global norms – these do not come by all the time. It is not as though these institutions will say, "Look, any Singaporean also can come and serve in my organisation."

But the few occasions when these invitations come by, I think we should treasure them. They are invaluable for Singapore. And this is indeed how we have built strong relationships with other countries, while safeguarding our interests and ensuring that our voices are heard on the global stage.

I cannot emphasise how much Singapore has gained because our top officials are regularly tapped on by international bodies and foreign governments. And this was the case from our founding generation of leaders. Dr Goh Keng Swee, for example, was tapped on by the Chinese government in 1985 to advise them on the setting up of the Special Economic Zones in China. He was then Deputy Chairman of both the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and GIC. While he was Deputy Prime Minister, he was also tapped on by the Sri Lankan government to advise them on the restructuring of the economy.

The Chinese and Sri Lankan government did not ask Dr Goh because they wanted him to act in the interest of the Singapore Government in China or Sri Lanka, obviously. They asked him because they knew his record as the architect of Singapore's economy and hope that he would be able to help them.

The Prime Minister then Mr Lee Kuan Yew readily agreed to Dr Goh playing these roles because they brought credit to Singapore. They underlined our usefulness to the world and projected our influence abroad.

Likewise, these international bodies are not asking President Tharman to continue playing a role in their organisations because they want him to represent Singapore's views or the views of the Singapore Government. They are asking him because they know his record in the Singapore Government and hope he would be able to give sound advice on global issues. And Cabinet has readily agreed to President continuing in these roles because they bring credit to Singapore, underline our usefulness to the world and project our influence abroad effectively.

And so, we are amending the Constitution so that the President can act independently to bring value to the organisations he operates in, while serving our national interest, because he is the Head of State, and this is why it is novel. Previously, it was okay for Ministers, but now we are dealing with the President. It is a new situation and because he is the Head of State, we have put in place a framework to ensure his participation in these international bodies does not affect in any way his constitutional responsibilities to Singaporeans or the discharge of his custodial duties.

The President will not be directly representing Singapore's official positions in these bodies or commenting on any of Singapore's domestic or foreign policies abroad. And when there is any danger of him being put in a difficult position or in conflict with national interest, the Cabinet will advise him not to take part or even to withdraw from the body.

Sir, this Bill recognises and supports the Government's commitment to always look out for opportunities to further advance Singapore's interests, in this case, through facilitating arrangements to tap on deserving individuals' experiences and personal standing.

And it also reflects how this Government works – to deal with issues squarely to be upfront and transparent and to act in a way that is consistent with sound legal and governance principles.

So, I will ask the WP and the PSP, having heard my explanations to reconsider your positions. There is no need to oppose for the sake of opposition. There is no need to oppose something that will clearly advance Singapore's interests and bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans.

In some ways, Singapore is at the stage of our development where our national interests are becoming more closely intertwined with global interests. So, we need to find ways to achieve this intertwining, and this Bill is one of the ways to achieve this. So, let us all, hopefully everyone in this House will agree, give your support for the Bill, do our part to strengthen Singapore's voice on the international stage, to add to our participation in influential global forums and to ensure that this little red dot continues to shine brightly in a dark and troubled world. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for answering my question clearly that, in the past, when the Ministers have taken up international appointments, they would have also taken up appointments in their private capacity. I have two more clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister.

One, is the current position taken up by Senior Minister Teo in TotalEnergies in his private capacity?

Two, if, in the past, Ministers had been taking up positions in their private capacity and so, now for the President, the Cabinet is being advised by the AGC that there are some issues. I think to be a responsible Opposition, we still want to understand what are the issues that the AGC has raised? Is it pertaining to the fact that: one, that the Cabinet does not have complete control over the President's appointments and that is why we need this Bill? Or is it because there are certain appointments, just like what the WP and us are saying, where he can perform his role in his official capacity, that should be no problem. But if certain appointments require a private capacity, what are those appointments? Is the AGC's position along those lines? Can I seek the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarification, please?

Sir, the answer to the first question is yes. Senior Minister Teo or, for that matter, the many examples I cited before him – Dr Goh Keng Swee and other Ministers – were acting in their private capacity in these international organisations. And that is because they were authorised to do so by the Prime Minister. There is no legal impediment for the Prime Minister to so authorise Ministers to act in their private capacity, subject to safeguards and principles, which I have just described. And so, this has been happening not just with Senior Minister Teo, but even way back with Dr Goh and many other examples.

Then, you say, why can you not do it for the President? And as I have explained, the Prime Minister cannot authorise the President to do likewise. The AGC has advised this is an area that the Constitution does not clearly provide for. And that is why we debated, and we thought about it. One option, as I described just now, was for us to, rather than authorise the President to act in his private capacity, allow the President to serve in his official capacity, but with some latitude to express his private views. And AGC said that is not clearly, expressly prohibited. But it is not ideal.

That was what I tried to explain in my speech – not ideal. It leads us into new grey and ambiguous areas because no one will know whether what the President says is reflecting his personal views or the Singapore Government's views, official views, what is it? And we prefer not to operate like that in such an ambiguous manner. We prefer to be upfront. We prefer to be transparent. And we prefer to do this in a principled manner, with a clear governing framework, hence the amendments before this House.