SAFEGUARDING ACCUMULATED RESERVES (Motion)

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan raised her hand.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Dr Lee. Mr Rai.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity and allowing this motion to stand on the Order Paper. Sir, I beg to move,

That this House endorses the Principles for Determining and Safeguarding the Accumulated Reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1999) [presented to Parliament on 2nd July 1999].

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and the Minister for Finance yesterday, I was in two minds about whether I should proceed with the motion. Some Backbenchers felt that I should not proceed. I have considered the position and I am going to proceed with this motion.

Sir, the Principles laid down in the White Paper were arrived at after consultation with the President and the Government. It is reassuring to note that if any issues arise and are not addressed in the Principles, the parties will resolve in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Constitution. I repeat the words "spirit and intent of the Constitution". This is in keeping with the spirit of conciliation and consensus we are trying to build in this young republic. It is a part of our Shared Values as well.

On the importance of the Principles, I can do no better than to quote the President's letter. I quote: "will make for greater certainty and clarity in approaching matters affecting the reserves". Here again the key words are certainty and clarity.

The White Paper will serve as a public record of the convention, and convention forms an important branch of constitutional law.

Sir, the White Paper will become an important reference point in future. May I have your permission to quote from the document itself:

"The constitutional practice embodied in these Principles is open to future evolution and refinement by future Presidents and Governments. This is necessary as over time the Government will make new transactions and policies, and the Principles will need to be extended or adapted to deal with these presently unforeseen situations."

By endorsing this motion, we would be giving the Principles sanctity of a resolution which I think this White Paper rightly deserves. It will gain public confidence and it will have the approval of the highest forum of the land, that is, this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Elected Presidency is a new institution. It will take some time to shape. We must give the institution a chance to develop. We must not get ourselves unduly concerned if there are minor differences as to the methods of achieving the Principles enshrined in this White Paper as well as in the Constitution.

As a practising lawyer and a student of constitutional law, let me share with this House my belief in the Constitution. In our Constitution, the President is still the titular head of state. He is elected by the people but he has no executive power. He acts on the advice of the Cabinet but he is given extra powers to protect the reserves as well as the integrity of the civil service. He has veto power dealing with religious harmony and ISA. If there is a hung parliament, as it happens in India, he plays an important constitutional role in appointing the Prime Minister. Let us pray and hope that we do not have a hung parliament in Singapore.

The President does not have the power to initiate policies. This still remains in the domain of the government of the day which derives its legitimacy from the mandate it obtains from the electorate at General Election where political parties offer their policies to the electorate.

The President does no such thing. The Presidential candidate does not go before the country with any political platform. Mr S. R. Nathan has not gone to the country with any political platform. He asks the country to give him the mandate to discharge his constitutional responsibilities. And I repeat the words "constitutional responsibilities" which I have defined earlier. This distinction must be appreciated. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are accountable to this Parliament. The President does not have to do so.

I want to make this clear because some people think that the power base has changed. It has not. Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot run away that the President is the Head of State. He symbolises our nationhood. We owe our loyalty to him. He bestows honour to our citizens. He is patron to many charities and art groups. In short, he is a symbol of power. It is therefore of utmost importance that the powers bestowed on him should be respected. His standing must never be undermined. He is not the ruling Party's President or Opposition's President. He is our President, the entire country, and we must bear this in mind at all times.

Sir, the idea of Elected Presidency came from the mind of the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He has given his thinking during the Straits Times interview recently. Members have read it. I do not have to repeat it. His younger colleagues accepted the principle of Elected Presidency and worked for it. It became an electoral issue in 1988 and the PAP won the battle against the Opposition's call to curtail the power. We have had a lengthy debate on the Elected Presidency. Two White Papers were published. Public hearings took place in the Select Committee where there was an exchange of ideas. And I think some of the ideas from the representors were in fact incorporated in the Bill.

Because of the nature of the office, in my submission before the Select Committee, I had pleaded that the Presidency should be above party politics and I am glad all political parties have done so. While the Cabinet and other MPs are entitled to support the Presidential candidates, political parties must never get involved in the campaign for the Presidential Election. Otherwise the President will be beholden. Sir, I have a terrible dislike of the word "beholden".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's address to the press has given rise to public concern about the constitutional mechanism to safeguard our reserves. We must address and answer this question.

The Constitution is not a writ in stone. It is a living document that requires changes, interpretation and even amendments from time to time to meet the requirements of the country. If the Constitution has to be amended, so be it. We should debate it in public and see if it could be accepted.

The Elected President and the Government have both worked in a very harmonious manner. It must be so. I remember vividly the Prime Minister, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said that the Government was prepared to have its wings clipped. There was no clamour to change the system. The Prime Minister did on his own initiative for the good of the country. The Prime Minister said, and I quote:

"Bear in mind that in introducing this Bill, the present Government is in fact clipping its own wings. Once the Constitutional amendment is effected, this Government will have some of its powers checked. The new Prime Minister will need to seek the concurrence of the President in certain key areas of Government."

The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out his position. However, the power base did not change, and in fairness to the Prime Minister he did tell the House, and I quote again:

"Let me stress here, however, that the Bill does not transfer the power of government to the Elected President, nor vest in him absolute veto power. Firstly, even though the President is elected by the people, he is not the Head of Government. He is the Head of State. He is not the Chief Executive of the country. The Prime Minister is. The initiative and responsibility of governing Singapore stays with the Prime Minister."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, Ministers and civil servants must at all times try to help the President by giving him the necessary information. If the President and his Council of Advisers are not given the necessary information, then the President is hampered from making his decision. This will do no good to the country. The President must have the right to call for papers and summon officers when the need arises.

To assist the President, I am proposing to the Government that a high ranking officer be appointed by the President to assist him. This high ranking officer should have his own officials to assist him. We can call him Secretary to the President. I leave it to the draftsman to think of a name.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to know that the President has no problem in safeguarding the integrity of the civil service. This is very comforting. I take pride in this because without an honest and dedicated civil service we will never succeed in building a peaceful and prosperous Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another concern in the President's address was the need for a good and honest government. Many of us, especially those who are young, take it for granted that there will always be honest government. We have maintained a high standard of integrity and honesty. It is to the credit of the founding fathers who paid a premium on a clean government. Some younger Members may not remember the clown and corrupt Ministers we used to have in this House. They do not even know who Chew Swee Kee is. It is important that whichever party forms the government, we must maintain this high standard.

It is no use having the constitutional protection in the Presidency if we do not have an honest and open government. It is in this spirit that we must institutionalise the process and I urge all political parties in Singapore to make it as a part of their political platform and culture.

Corruption here is indeed almost non-existent. Whenever corruption charges are before the courts, the courts take a serious view. Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members travel from time to time to other countries. We can see how the customs and immigration officials conduct their work. In some countries, they ask for baksheesh as if it was their birth right. Corruption is indeed almost non-existent here. It is part of a political culture.

Sir, I want hon. Members to consider this aspect rather than the earlier aspect more closely. We are a country without natural resources except our people and our system of government. We must institutionalise this virtue of honest Government in every sphere of our life.

Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted.

Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution. We must custom-make our Constitution.

Sir, in two weeks' time, the President will leave the office. I want hon. Members to join me in thanking him for having discharged his responsibility with dignity and honour. He has won the hearts of the people. The House will join me in wishing him the best in the days to come. Mr President, you have made us proud.

I ask hon. Members to support the motion which I have moved and which has the support of my colleague, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to the motion, but before I speak on the amendment, I have a few words to say on the motion itself.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am objecting to the amendment.

Mr Speaker: On what grounds, Mr Rai?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Could I have the floor, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You can object to the amendment later, unless you are saying it is a question of principle.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Point of order and clarification as well, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Speaker: What is your objection, Mr Rai?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: May I have the floor, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong. I want a ruling from you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam's amendment is before the House. Under Standing Order No. 35, an amendment may be proposed to the motion if it is relevant thereto. The question now is whether the amendment is relevant to your motion or not, Mr Rai.

Erskine May is very clear on this matter. It states that the object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question. This latter purpose may be effected by moving to omit all or most of the words of the question after the first word "That" and to substitute an alternative proposition which must however be relevant to the subject of the question.

Looking at Mr Jeyaretnam's amendment, I find that the words in his amendment are relevant to the subject under discussion and that, being the case, I rule that Mr Jeyaretnam's amendment is in order. You may proceed, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you for your ruling, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I hope you will give me another five minutes stolen by Mr Rai.

Mr Speaker: I am sorry. You still have 30 minutes from the time you started.

Mr Jeyaretnam: From now?

Mr Speaker: From the time you started.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, I have a few words to say on the motion and that is, first of all, I must express the amazement I felt when I received the notice from the Clerk that Mr Shriniwas Rai was moving this motion. If any motion is to be moved, I would have thought it would have come from one of the Ministers of the Government. They are the party to this agreement, not Mr Shriniwas Rai, and he is not a Minister of the Government, unless he thinks he is a member of the Government already.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is a very uncalled-for remark. I am not part of the Government and I do not aspire to be part of the Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So I was surprised to see that it comes from a Nominated Member of Parliament. Be that as it may, it is my proposition here that this agreement has lost all its validity now.

Mr Ong assumed the post of President in 1993 and just three months before he leaves his office, an agreement is presented, setting out what should be the pattern of behaviour between the Government and the President. One would have thought that as soon as the President has been appointed the first thing to have done would be to come to an understanding on how the institution was going to be worked, but, no. What is more surprising is that it comes after the Government would appear to have made known to Mr Ong that it would not support his re-election. We were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that it was in February of this year that Mr Ong mentioned to him that he might seek re-election. And then, apparently, the Cabinet immediately got into a huddle about it, called for the medical reports and then informed him that the Cabinet could not support his re-election as President. What is the purpose of having this agreement when there was going to be another new President? Should you not wait until the new President takes office and then have the agreement? So I do not see that there is any purpose in debating this agreement at the moment.

Thirdly, there is the Constitution which sets out clearly, I should have thought, the powers of the President and that, according to the President, was not being strictly observed. So what guarantee is there that this agreement will be strictly abided by? I think it is a waste of time at the moment debating this agreement.

But I have something more serious. The question that I am going to raise before this House is whether the PAP, when it instituted this office of an Elected President to have executive powers over the Government, was serious or whether it was all a show. I am going to explain why I ask this question. The question that has to be answered is: was all this just a show, a pretence, a game of make-believe or did the Government seriously intend to do what it said it was proposing to do? What was the promise that was made in July 1988 to the people of Singapore in the White Paper? There was great publicity given to it, although there was not enough public debate, and the analogy of the second key was used that the President would have the second key; the Government cannot open the safe unless the President himself joins in and opens the safe for them. It was said that if the Government wanted to spend any past reserves, it must obtain the concurrence of the Elected President. This was to be a precondition, according to the PAP.

And what is more? The White Paper went on to say, in grand words, "The legitimacy and moral authority of the President can only be derived from the will of the people as expressed in an election." He must have the moral authority and that moral authority must come from the will of the people as expressed in an election. And then the White Paper continues, "The President will have the discretion to withhold concurrence to decisions of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the spending of reserves and assets. For a Cabinet decision to be valid, the second key must be used." And what is important is that the White Paper sets out, "The President shall be entitled at his request to any information on matters requiring his assent. All public officers [mark these words] will be placed under a legal duty to inform the President whenever assets or reserves are to be used or pledged." So this is what the PAP Government was telling the people, "We are an honest, good Government. We are now providing you with a second safeguard. He is going to safeguard your reserves."

When the Bill was presented in Parliament, the mover of the Bill, our present Prime Minister, then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said again that "The President will have the right to veto budgets if they draw down past reserves." Bear in mind that these words have been quoted by Dr Lee yesterday. Bear in mind that in introducing this Bill, the present Government was saying it was, in fact, "clipping its own wings". "Clipping its own wings" means that it is depriving the Government from doing something which it previously had the power to do. There is something else to it where he says, "This Government will have some of its powers checked." And he says in the Third Reading, "I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am subjecting my Government to these new checks and balances." In other words, he said he would accept the authority of the President over these matters and he would be subject to his decisions. That was the promise and the people were told "we are honest men, we are men of integrity". The Government would not wait for any loss to occur and was taking all sufficient safeguards because Parliament was not competent at the moment. And why was Parliament not competent? It was simply because Parliament was deprived of an effective opposition. It is very heartening when, at last, the Senior Minister has come to the realisation about the role of an opposition in Parliament. He has said what we have been saying all along, that if you want a check on Government, then vote in the opposition. And we hope the electorate will remember that. Have the opposition in. So that was the promise of the PAP when they introduced the office.

But what is the reality? We now hear from the President in his press conference that it was not exactly what the PAP had promised. The President was, one could see, very restrained when he spoke to the press. He pulled his punches. But despite all that, it was quite clear to anyone reading between the lines that the President was disillusioned with what was promised and the reality. He spoke of a long list of problems. I am not going to go into all what he said because I do not have the time.

Yesterday, we heard from the Minister, and no less than the architect of this office, and the Prime Minister replying to the President. I am not here to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. The President was accused of not setting out facts accurately. They did not exactly call him a liar but they said he was not setting out the facts accurately. May I tell the Government that if you think this matter should be cleared once and for all, then it should not just be brought before the House in a debate. You should have a committee to look into it and to report on the situation that existed between the President and the Government. And I am commending to the Government that if they are really serious, they appoint a Parliamentary committee consisting of the three opposition MPs and three backbenchers from the Government to consider the difficulties that the President said that he had experienced. Now that the President is leaving his office, he can be summoned by that committee to answer questions and to explain everything. And so can the Government Ministers be summoned by the committee. If you are serious, that is the only step open to you.

But we do not have to accept everything that the President has said. The Senior Minister - I am sorry he has left the House as soon as I started to speak, I wish he had stayed on - attempts to explain and I see he has, in his explanations revealed the intention of the PAP, knowingly or unknowingly. He has revealed the truth. He says, "There are a lot of misconceptions." I do not know there were a lot of misconceptions. But if there were misconceptions, who is responsible for those misconceptions? If you say something and the listener or the reader understands it in a different meaning, then it is obvious that you have not made yourself clear. But I thought that the Government had made it clear. But he says, "There are misconceptions." Then who is responsible, if not the PAP Government? He says, "No executive power was granted to the President." Are we playing with words, Mr Speaker, Sir? Here was the Prime Minister saying in this House, with this office we are "clipping our wings". We are subjecting ourselves to the President's powers." I asked the Senior Minister yesterday that when the President chooses to exercise his veto, is he not using his executive power? The Senior Minister evaded that question and said, "I am not here to argue as to whether it is executive or not." So are we playing with words?

Then he said, "It was never intended that the President's office should be an independent office to check on the Government." Has he not read or heard what Mr Goh Chok Tong said when he was moving the Bill? He said, "We are providing an independent body to check. You have this second key held by an independent person." What was Mr Lee doing when Mr Goh said these things in Parliament? Was he not in Parliament then when Mr Goh said that the Government would be "clipping its wings"? He says, "I would never had used those words. It was not intended that the Government's wings should be clipped." Then why did he not correct it then? He was the architect. If he was the architect and he sees the workman putting a brick which should not be put, he should have said, "No, no, that brick is out of place. I did not want that brick there." But nothing was said and the people were allowed to think that the Government was really giving the President the executive power.

As I said, we do not just have the President's outburst. We have Mr Lee revealing what he thought were the powers that were being given to the President which was what the PAP intended. But that was not what the PAP said they were giving to the President. So, the question is: was all this a show, a show in front of the public not meant to be carried out, but just a showcase, a pretext? Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a lot of pretence. We pretend that we have a national press when we do not have any national press. We have a PAP press. I do not want to go on but there are so many other things which are a pretence in Singapore.

This episode has attracted attention not only in Singapore but outside Singapore. It has drawn into question the honesty and integrity of this Government. What did it mean to do when it brought this office into being? Did they intend to carry out or was it simply a wayang and the Government continued as it had done previously? Was there any directive to the civil service after the office was instituted that they should provide the President with all information he needed because the White Paper said that that would be the duty of the Ministers and the civil servants.

I do not have much more time, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am going to suggest to the Government that it can still redeem itself. It can recover some of the credibility that it has lost and it can only do that if it now goes before the people again and explain to them why this has arisen. I say that, in all decency, this Government should resign and I mean it. It has been shown up to have instituted something which it had no intention to allow to work. It is a confidence trick, nothing short of it. If the Government feels that it is not necessary for the whole Government to resign, then I am sorry the Prime Minister should resign. It was he who promised the people in Parliament what the office would be. He should resign and go to the people. Let us not forget, as I keep saying in this House again and again that it is the people that matter. So we have got to satisfy the people. At the moment, there is a lot of mumbling going on outside this House. There is a perception that the PAP did not want Mr Ong Teng Cheong to continue because they found it difficult to get along with him. So there is a perception which has been lodged with me several times that Mr Nathan is just the Cabinet's man. Of course, we know it. It was revealed to us. It was the Cabinet who chose him.

What about the words that Mr Goh used when he asked the House to pass the amendment? May I repeat again:

"The President must have, and be seen to have, the legitimacy and moral authority derived from the will of the people [not from the will of the Cabinet, but from the will of people]."

Does Mr Nathan have the will of the people?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: He was elected by the people!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does Mr Nathan have the will of the people? We posed this question in a press release but, of course, the Straits Times, true to its tradition of being a servile follower of the Government, does not publish the press release. So I say, Mr Speaker, as we said in this press release, let us stop all this pretence. Let us be honest. Let us go back to the people and explain to them why this has happened. Let the people make the judgment. And I say quite seriously that the installation of Mr Nathan should be postponed and that an Acting President should be appointed until the people are told everything and the matter is resolved to their satisfaction, so that Singaporeans may say honestly and proudly that we have a President that we elected into office, not that we have a President who has been foisted on us by the Cabinet. We have no choice and yet the PAP said, "(its President) must be elected by the people." But after saying it, they went out of their way to see that people will not vote anyone of their choice. So let us stop all this humbug, all this pretence. Let us, as I said, be honest now with ourselves and with the people.

The couplet in Shakespeare comes to my mind:

'To thine ownself be true

Then it must follow as day follows night

Thou canst not be false to anyone'

And I tell the PAP Government, be true to yourself. What did you intend when you presented the Bill to change the whole structure of the Government? There is a fundamental change. We, may I say, Mr President, the Workers' Party oppose ---

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, not Mr President!

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, who are you addressing?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, we opposed the Bill. We said that the President should not have executive power. It should rest with Parliament to control the Government. And now, as I said, we seem to have found support from a quarter which we never expected and that is the Senior Minister. Now he says it is Parliament with an Opposition. So, let us reform ourselves. Let us scrap this office of executive President. Let us take steps to see that there is growth of an effective Opposition, so that the Opposition can play its role. If you are honest with yourselves, and you are honest in your determination to do your duty for this country, you will do it.

Sir, I beg to move my amendment:

To delete all words following "That this House" and there to insert -

"regrets that the Government blocked the President's efforts to exercise the powers granted to him under the constitution to safeguard the Accumulated Reserves of the people and deplores the conduct of the Ministers of Government and the civil servants who failed to give the President any co-operation to enable him to discharge his functions."

Mr Speaker: The Question before this House is the amendment moved by Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." I shall now call on Members who wish to speak on the amendment.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against the amendment proposed by the Non-Constituency Member, Mr J B Jeyaretnam.

Sir, many tributes have been paid to President Ong and his devotion to duty, especially in the midst of grief. Many who watched the National Day Parade have remarked on the courage etched on the face of the President, his serenity and composure showing a fine President and a true Singaporean. All Singaporeans owe an enormous debt to our first elected President. That is why I am particularly dismayed and saddened that at the end of his term in office, we in this House have to consider an amendment in the name of the Non-Constituency Member that seeks to bring out all the disapproving and unhelpful elements in an otherwise impeccable Presidential term.

The Non-Constituency Member has had many opportunities yesterday to clarify his doubts, and he took advantage of them. He asked questions of the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, and they were answered, though perhaps not in the way he had hoped or expected. Yet, at this time, when we should be considering the positive aspects of the first elected Presidency, we are asked to make deprecatory remarks about the relationship between the President and the Government. Sir, I believe we should reject this amendment and proceed with the original motion standing in the name of the Nominated Member, Mr Rai.

The Non-Constituency Member repeated matters that were comprehensively dealt with in the Ministerial Statements. Whilst not wishing to prolong discussion on them, may I just draw on the main points of the two Ministerial Statements yesterday to rebut the Non-Constituency Member's observations that there needs to be a committee of inquiry. First of all, there was no attempt to block the President's efforts to exercise his custodial powers. And that in the one incident referred to regarding the CPF Board, the issue was one of accounting standards and of correctly interpreting the Budget figures, and this is also the case with the meaning of the net investment income vis-a-vis the past reserves.

Second, and more broadly, both the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance have reiterated that the Government, ie, the Ministers and the civil service, treated the President with great respect and answered all his queries. There is no failure to give the President the cooperation to enable him to perform his functions. There is nothing to regret or deplore in the relationship between the President and the Government. I believe that Members have all heard the accounts given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance yesterday, and that we are satisfied with the explanations given. There is no need for a committee of inquiry. It is demeaning to the process of government. There is no case for it. The matter has been adequately resolved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should reject this amendment and consider the very positive effects that have emerged from the first Presidency. The White Paper that has the status of a constitutional convention is a significant document. It shows a close working relationship between the President and the Government, for it is a convention that is reached by consultation and consensus. This does not suggest, as the Non-Constituency Member suggests, a confrontational relationship between the two institutions.

Sir, we, in Singapore, have adopted a unique form of government, of two elected institutions - the President and Parliament. We have also laid down in our Constitution that the President generally shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. The executive powers reside with the Cabinet, which in turn comprises Ministers who are all Members of this House and answerable to it. The principle of parliamentary government remains paramount. This is so whether the President is elected or not, and we are not playing with words. The President is very much like a passenger in a car with his hand hovering over the handbrake in case the driver does something rash. When the car is travelling well, there is no need for the passenger to worry about the driver. It is only when the driver becomes rash or reckless that the passenger would need to have his hand over the handbrake in case there is any unintended danger.

The President, as a custodian, has veto powers on the use of past reserves and the appointment of senior public officials conferred on him. The relationship between the President and the Government is regulated both by the written Constitution and by constitutional conventions. That is clearly correct. The use of constitutional conventions allows the President and the Government to evolve and keep in touch with the growth of ideas. Indeed, it keeps the Constitution up to date. Such a convention makes the Constitution a living constitution.

For this reason, Sir, I ask that the amendment moved by the Non-Constituency Member be speedily and decisively rejected. 5.15 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion moved by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party.

In 1990, the PAP Government amended the Constitution to institute the office of Elected President in what was supposed to be a move to "clip the wings" of the Government. Yet, in 1994, the PAP Government again amended the Constitution, and this time, it was to clip the wings of the President. Under the amended Constitution, the President's consent is not required for defence expenditure. Even if he knows it, he has no power to veto it and to make it public. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) no longer comes under the supervision of the President. There were also some other amendments. As a result, the original intention of having the President to safeguard the national reserves is thus diminished. Although it was said that the Elected President was holding a "second key", the PAP Government changed the lock!

It has become apparent to us that it is not the President but the Council of Presidential Advisers who is having the veto power. More than half of the members of the Council of Presidential Advisers were appointed by the Government, and in the event of a tie in the votes, the Chairman of the Council has the last say. Even if the President vetoes the advice of the Council, Parliament can also overturn the President's decision by a two-thirds majority. Under the current circumstances of a PAP dominated Parliament, the Elected President is actually a nominal post. Can he effectively safeguard our national reserves and our security? No. From our experience of the way the first Elected President operated, we can see that this system is not functioning effectively at all. There is no transparency in the workings between the Government and the President. It is only after the first Elected President is about to step down that we see problems exist between the President and the Government. It has already become a thing of the past, and only then do the people know about it.

Secondly, the Elected President is actually nominated by the Government. The word "elected" is a misnomer. Even if people were to vote, they can only vote for those whom the Government had certified to be eligible. The public's participation in the whole process is subject to what the Government has provided for them. This system of pre-qualification is ineffective. It has resulted in people who are eligible refusing to offer themselves for nomination, while those who are willing and ready to stand for election fail to qualify under the rules set by the Government. As a result, the candidate endorsed and nominated by the Government just walks in and is returned unopposed. The so-called "election" and "participation of the people" have become just a means to legitimatize the institution.

Therefore, the Workers' Party feels that if we want to effectively safeguard the people's assets and the security of the country, we should have more opposition Members in Parliament so that the Government will be checked when it does anything against the interest of the people, they have to face the challenge of opposition and the prospect of losing parliamentary seats in elections.

Sir, on 12th August 1988, when the then First Deputy Prime Minister was speaking on the amendment, he said, and I quote:

"A weak and/or opportunistic Government together with a weak opportunistic President, and both belonging to the same party. Under that scenario, I think it is hopeless."

Those were the words of the Prime Minister. In fact, what the people have to worry about is not a scenario in which there is an opposition party taking over the Government. What we really need to worry is that you have a dominant PAP Government and a PAP approved Elected President but have no effective opposition having the ability to serve as a mechanism to exercise checks and balances on the Government. Under the circumstances, there may come a day when the PAP Government squanders away all the reserves of the nation and then Singapore really is "hopeless", as the PM had said.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I think it is unfair of Prof. Chin Tet Yung to say that Mr Jeyaretnam has been making deprecatory remarks about the President. The Opposition has got nothing against Mr Ong personally. If you look at the amendment made by Mr Jeyaretnam, he regrets that the Government blocks the President's effort to ---

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung rose ---

Mr Speaker: On what point are you rising?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: I am objecting to his saying that I have been asking the House to make deprecatory remarks about the President. That is not what I said. What I said was that we are asked to make deprecatory remarks about the relationship between the President and the Government.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What I am going to say is that the Opposition has got nothing against Mr Ong personally. Prof. Chin tries to draw a scenario where the Opposition is objecting to Mr Ong personally. We have got nothing to that effect.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Prof. Chin wants to make a clarification.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: There is no such implication in anything that I have said. If Mr Chiam had listened clearly, he would have heard the sentence that we are asked to make deprecatory remarks about the relationship between the President and the Government. I said nothing about the Opposition, if he can recall.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think Mr Jeyaretnam in his reply later on will surely have something to say about the remarks made by Prof. Chin.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam has no right of reply. Mr Chiam, you may continue.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Opposition in the 1988 general election opposed the introduction of the Elected President. It had good reasons to do so. It persisted that the institution of the Elected President was installed so that it could be used against the Opposition should the Opposition be elected into power. I can see that some of the younger Members are smiling in this House. They think that the Opposition cannot get into power, but the Senior Minister and the older PAP Members think otherwise.

In 1981, Anson was lost. Then in the 1984 general elections, not only two seats fell to the Opposition but, more importantly, there was a 12.3% swing of the votes to the Opposition. That massive swing of the pendulum towards the Opposition shocked and angered the Senior Minister, who was then the Prime Minister. Those Members who watched television at 3.00 on the morning after the polling was over in 1984 would remember the grim face of the Senior Minister. That election result shocked him. He knew that if the pendulum swing continued at that rate, the PAP shall be out of office in another two or three general elections. He took the 12.3% swing of the votes to the Opposition seriously. He knew that if nothing was done, the Opposition shall come into power in 10 or 15 years' time. I believe it was the shock of the big swing of the votes to the Opposition in 1984 that got the Senior Minister to moot the idea of the GRCs and the Elected President, purportedly to preserve national wealth.

Members know what happened after that. The election laws were drastically changed to prevent further PAP loss at the polls. The Constitution was amended to bring in the institution of the Elected President to protect and preserve the national wealth.

Now that the institution of the Elected President is in place, the Opposition has to make efforts to make sure that the Government abides by the Constitution, and not to ride roughshod over the Presidency. This can easily happen since the Elected President is very much alone. Whereas on the other side, we have an all-powerful, overwhelming Government which could be quite intimidating to the lone elected President.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong, the current President, dared to speak up. Many have asked: how come he dares to do so? For the answer, we must look at the man himself. He was a die-hard politician. He has been toughened at the hustings. He was also a trade union man, and not an armchair one at that. I have read that he had led an industrial action once. So he was no pushover. He had guts. He had courage. I believe that it was this nature of Mr Ong which compelled him to speak up to voice his dissatisfaction of the way the Government treated the office of the Elected President. We in the Opposition support Mr Ong's press conference of 16th July. We are happy that he dared to speak out, criticise the Government, and voice his dissatisfaction with the way the Government treated the office of the Presidency.

The Elected President has two important custodial powers. One is to oversee new appointments, and the other is to protect the reserves that have been accumulated by previous governments. We in the Opposition shall assist the Elected President to carry out his duties. We shall speak up in Parliament if there is any hint that the Government attempts to block the President's effort to exercise those powers.

I support the amended motion.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, do I have the right to reply to the Member now or do I wait till I conclude?

Mr Speaker: You have to reply at the end of the motion. Do you want to speak on the amendment?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Yes, I am opposing the amendment. I am prepared to speak at the end of the motion, if I am allowed to.

Mr Speaker: Yes, you have a right of reply at the end of the motion. But I am asking whether you are speaking on the amendment.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Does that mean you do not have the right?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: It is for the House to decide whether I have the right or not.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The House has already decided that you have the right.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you. Mr Jeyaretnam has cast aspersion on the office of the Presidency. The President has discharged his constitutional responsibility ---

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. What is your point. Are you seeking a clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, a clarification.

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I am not giving way.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The previous speaker has said that I never cast aspersions and now Mr Rai comes on and says that I cast aspersions.

Mr Speaker: All right, you have made your point. You will continue, Mr Rai.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at pains explaining to the House earlier the nature of the office of the Presidency. The President is never an Executive President. Leave the Constitution alone. Do not go to the Hansard because the Hansard is not the Constitution. But I will go to the Hansard since Mr Jeyaretnam has quoted from the Hansard and I will give him his piece. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill on 4th October 1990, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:

"Objective of the Bill:

The Bill provides for an Elected President to safeguard the reserve and integrity of the public services. Specifically, the President will have:

(a) the right to veto the annual budgets of the Government, statutory boards and key Government companies, if they draw down reserves accumulated during the terms of previous governments;

(b) the right to veto key public service appointments; and

(c) safeguard roles with respect to the Internal Security Act, the proposed Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, and CPIB."

I will go further. What the Prime Minister said is worth listening to. He said:

"We are singularly lucky that able and honest men were in charge of Singapore for the last 31 years. They have not abused their powers. They have worked the parliamentary system very well. And because they have worked the system very well, this has caused some people to conclude that there is nothing wrong with the present system and that we should therefore leave things alone - do not make any modifications to the Constitution or to the system. But in my view, the marvellous working of our parliamentary system is due less to the merits of the system than to the integrity and quality of the people working it. And while honest men are still in charge, it is prudent for us to institute a system of checks and balances in our political system, instead of banking on good fortune to throw up good governments for the next 30 years."

Mr Low Thia Khiang: There are "checks and balances". That is what he said.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Yes, the checks and balances are there. But he was saying something more. Sir, the other thing I am saddened is this: Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer and he knows that. Mr S.R. Nathan has been constitutionally elected by the people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: By the people.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Because he has offered himself for election and nobody comes forward to challenge him. Are you saying that he is not elected by the people themselves?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Take a writ in the High Court and I will argue against it, and I will not charge him any cost, if I win. Mr Jeyaretnam, let us be ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I urge the two Members not to indulge in a personal discussion, and make their remarks to the Chair.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He got carried away.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr S.R. Nathan's choice is not just the Cabinet's choice. He is qualified for the job because he was a former Permanent Secretary. And may I declare my interest, Sir. Mr S.R. Nathan is a member of SINDA. I have worked with him in SINDA. I was at the Nomination Centre this morning to endorse him. I spoke about him in May this year when the motion on Singapore 21was being debated and I paid tribute to the man who, because of his ability, has transformed one community organisation. And let me quote from Prof. Tommy Koh who had issued a statement to the public at large. He says:

"Ambassador Nathan has the intellectual ability and moral courage to discharge his constitutional duties as President. Of his intellectual powers there can be no doubt."

I was hoping that Mr Jeyaretnam will never bring up the office of the Presidency again, but since he has decided, he wants us to postpone the installation. Let us not shut out the Constitution. Let us accept this fact. He has been elected, and I use the word "elected" by the people. As I said, he should assume office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Prof. Chin that the office of Presidency should go by convention. And that is why I brought up this White Paper today to have the approval of this House to give it the sanctity of a resolution of this House.

Sir, I do not want to prolong the agony of this House. Let us reject this amendment. It does not deserve the consideration of this House. Mr Chiam has said some good words about the system, but still I do not agree with him and my good friend, Mr Low, here. I would urge my NMP colleagues and the entire Members of the ruling Party to reject this, and I will reply to other Members at a later stage, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Question before the House is the amendment moved by Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I call for a division.

Mr Speaker: The Member has called for a division. Does it have the support of five Members in the House?

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong rose.

Mr Speaker: There being less than five Members, a division is not permitted.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to preface my speech by stating my view that President Ong is a good President. In spite of his illness which he and his late wife suffered, he discharged his duties well. I would also like to put on record my wholehearted endorsement of Mr S. R. Nathan's candidature for the Elected Presidency. In my capacity as Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, I have come to know and to work closely with Mr Nathan in his capacity as Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. I have the highest regard for his integrity and sound judgement, and have not the slightest doubt that, if necessary, Mr Nathan as President will exercise his custodial powers responsibly and will by no means be a yes-man of the Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.35 pm

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Let me now come to the motion which I fully support.

The White Paper carefully lays out for the first time the definition of what constitutes past reserves, how budget surpluses are treated, what should be done in a transition year and the frequency and type of information to be given to the President. It is a meticulously written document. I applaud the effort that went into producing the paper.

I also fully endorse the objective of the White Paper which is to enable the President and Government to have a harmonious working relationship. The clarity and transparency achieved by the White Paper go a long way towards removing some ambiguities where reserves are concerned. My only reservation is that the White Paper should have gone further in its clarification. It is a good first step but it is not enough. I am rather puzzled as to why there is such an easy escape clause. So long as the President and the Government agree that the Principles apply, they apply. But in the event that one party notifies the other that it does not wish to abide by the Principles, they no longer apply.

Allow me to give a concrete example as an illustration. Suppose that in future the government of the day decides to sell a piece of state land. The White Paper states that the value of the state land is its fair market value, in other words, the highest acceptable bid by tender, and that all of this amount is considered to be past reserves. Suppose it is boom time and property prices have doubled. The fair market value at the time of transaction is $20 million but the Government returns only $10 million to past reserves, retaining $10 million as current reserves, giving the reason that the fair market value is not the value at the time of transaction but at the time they assumed office, which was $10 million. And hence only $10 million is considered to be past reserves. In other words, the government of the day decides not to abide by the White Paper and that it then unilaterally informs the President of the day that this is the case and proceeds to return only $10 million and not $20 million to past reserves.

What recourse does the President have to prevent the Government from doing so? Since the Principles are only in operation when both sides agree, it would appear that apart from publicising the disagreement and applying public pressure, there is very little else that the President can do. After all, it is not a dispute regarding the use of past reserves. It is a dispute regarding the definition of past reserves.

This simple example illustrates the point that the disagreement over what constitutes past reserves can have serious consequences for the size of past reserves, particularly where the treatment of state land is concerned. In my view, therefore, steps should be taken to prevent the occurrence of such a scenario in future where the government of the day can merely by formally notifying the President not abide by the Principles in the White Paper. This is too easy. It should be made more difficult for either party if they wish to do so. I therefore believe that these Principles should eventually be part of the Constitution sometime in the future. It should not be done so now, because to cast them in stone now would introduce too much rigidity, while an element of flexibility is needed at this early stage of the office of the Elected Presidency. The Principles should first be tested out and refined, and then at some later stage, be incorporated in the Constitution. But I do believe that we should not stop at the Constitutional convention that we have now, but, at some later stage that these Principles should be enshrined in law.

The Prime Minister and Dr Richard Hu clarified many of the other queries which I had. Dr Hu has stated that by accounting convention, net investment income is regarded as current reserves and hence it is not described in the White Paper. I was initially going to argue that the President's staff should be increased. But the Prime Minister has clarified yesterday that the President's Office should function much like the Prime Minister's Office, which only has a few staff, and therefore the President and his staff have the right to query public servants in the course of his carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, regardless of whether it is safeguarding reserves, safeguarding key public appointments, in conjunction with Internal Security Act or corruption investigations. If this is indeed the case, then I think that it is not necessary to increase the President's staff so long as they can function much like that of the Prime Minister's Office. I therefore hope that future Presidents and their staff will not experience any more unpleasant encounters.

In conclusion, I agree that a harmonious working relationship between the President and the Government is in the best interest of the country. It is therefore in support of this objective that the White Paper was published and hence I believe that it is a commendable move. I fully support the motion.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.

I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Shriniwas Rai. Although most of the issues have been clarified yesterday, I wish to emphasise a number of points and implications in the White Paper.

First, I think the clarification yesterday has given a lot of Singaporeans a sense of clarity and a sense of comfort over some of the issues that have disturbed some Singaporeans prior to this. And the other thing that is more important, despite the very uncomfortable issues that were presented to Singaporeans, we did handle the issues without really hurting the Presidency, the Government or the personalities involved. I think that is a good thing that has happened out of it. I wish to raise a number of points. One is that I would like to see the White Paper as one of the more notable contributions of the Elected Presidency. Through his experience and clarifying some of his problems, I think we are now better able to clarify many of the technical issues related to the Principles for determining and safeguarding our accumulated reserves. And therefore there is a good outcome out of all these. The differences on this matter have brought about a positive and concrete outcome in terms of the White Paper. The provision therefore provides for a more effective channel of communication to deal with the matter. While the clarification had been necessary, it was no doubt uncomfortable and I think the White Paper today can serve as a better platform for future Elected Presidents and the Government to deal with many of the problems that can be expected to evolve over time as we continue to strengthen the institution of both the Government and the Presidency.

Next, as we now move towards instituting a new President, the White Paper can also serve to facilitate the smooth transition of office for the next Elected Presidency. Every Elected President by sheer qualification will be a man of strong character and can be expected to exercise his own judgement on the power that is bestowed on him. However, being an elected process, despite the stringent qualification, there is no guarantee that the new President will abide and keep to the conventions agreed between the Government and the previous President. We have seen how, in my view, completely unsuitable Singaporeans made comical attempts to contest for the Elected Presidency. Perhaps I would like to suggest that we find a way to get the new President to, amongst other things, as his first duty, confirm his desire to abide by the terms of the convention; or perhaps at some future date, consider translating the White Paper into a stronger legislative process.

On the whole, I think we have had a very good outcome of all these discussions. And I hope one day we can look back and say that one of the more solid contributions of the first Elected Presidency has been the White Paper which I am quite sure will in the long run strengthen not only the institution of Elected Presidency but the Government.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the swearing-in ceremony on 1st September 1993, President Ong Teng Cheong gave the assurance that he would do his best to unite the people of Singapore to jointly build up a prosperous, gracious and compassionate society to make Singapore a wonderful country. He also vowed to carry out his duties fearlessly, selflessly and without bias or prejudice, to protect the interest of the people of Singapore, to reach out to fellow citizens from all walks of life, to understand their aspirations, and at the same time maintain a good working relationship with the Prime Minister, the Government, so as to create a rational system of checks and balances on the political system of Singapore, thereby enhancing the political stability of Singapore and ensuring that Singapore has a government of high standing that will continue to work for the well-being of the people.

During the past six years, President Ong encountered many difficulties. However, he lived up to the expectation of the people, and earnestly practised what he advocated to undertake the heavy responsibilities and accomplish the very high target that he had set for himself. This has enabled Singaporeans from all stations of life to stay united amidst the recent Asian financial crisis to tide over the crisis and emerge even stronger to march into the next century.

Based on the working experience and knowledge accumulated during his term of office, President Ong also collaborated with the Government in formulating the principles to safeguard our national reserves in the form of a White Paper which is the subject matter of our debate today. As the Prime Minister has said yesterday, President Ong has proved that this "second key" system of safeguarding our national reserves and key appointments in the civil service is indeed feasible.

It is even more commendable that President Ong has impartially and selflessly revealed some of the problems encountered by him in the execution of his duties, just before he steps down, to enable the people to openly discuss the issues and have a better understanding of the real object and working of our Elected President system. As Senior Minister Lee said yesterday, this debate is useful as part of the education for our people. More importantly, this will enable the Government to take stock of the views and reactions of the people on this system after it has been in operation for six years.

President Ong has announced his decision not to seek re-election. This is indeed a great pity. However, we should respect his decision. We must record our affirmation and appreciation for the great contributions he has made to the country and the people. Therefore, I am very glad to learn that the Government will be giving a farewell party to President Ong on 30th August to pay tribute to the great contributions he has made to the country and the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, President Ong once said, "Having a good government is far better than having a good President to check on the bad government." These sincere words and earnest wishes truly bring out President Ong's love for the country and the people, and his noble sentiments. As a matter of fact, the people of Singapore can be said to be extremely lucky to have not only a good Government, but also a good President. I believe it is the common prayer of all the people of Singapore that we continue to have a good Government and a good President. However, from the long-term point of view, this is not something to be taken for granted. Apart from the wise choice of the voters, we must also endeavour to fine-tune the Elected President system through extensive practice and exploration, so that this system will give full play to its fullest effect when necessary.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the business community in Singapore, let me take this opportunity to offer our heartfelt congratulations to Mr Nathan who was returned as the second Elected President of the Republic of Singapore this afternoon. I firmly believe that he will be a well-respected and popular President, like President Ong.

When the Government instituted this office of an Elected President, its intention must surely be that the Elected President would no longer be having just a ceremonial function. The President has also the custodial power to safeguard our national reserves and maintain the integrity of our civil service. In view of this, the responsibility of the Elected President is indeed very heavy and important. Such a heavy responsibility will be put to test only when our nation faces a very serious internal or external crisis, or a severe economic crisis which requires the Government to draw on the reserves, or when an important decision has to be made on some key appointments in the civil service. As such, we have to be prepared for the worse, and fine-tune our Elected President system based on the most fundamental interest of our country so that we would be able to deal with any sudden crisis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the views expressed by the media and the public, it is apparent that our people are very concerned with our present Elected President system. Some people would like to know how the Government views the difficulties encountered by President Ong in the execution of his duties, and whether the Government is determined to seek a long-tem solution to the problems, or to give the President more resources to exercise the powers vested in him by the Constitution. Is the Government happy with the way the election for the first and the second Elected Presidents was conducted? What is the people's reaction to the nomination of the second Elected President? If, in future, candidates for the presidential elections have to be proposed and endorsed continuously by the Government before they can be considered eligible to stand or worthy of support, then will this not run contrary to the original intention of the Elected President system?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, based on the working experience over the past six years, President Ong and the Government have entered into a convention and formulated a set of principles to safeguard the national reserves and this is published in the form of a White Paper for the people of Singapore to read. This is very encouraging. However, because the Government originally had no intention to move a motion in Parliament for the contents of the White Paper to be debated, it has caused some Singaporeans to be skeptical over the feasibility and sustainability of these principles. The people of Singapore want to know in the event of an Elected President having to face a strong but free-spending and persistent government in the future, under the present mechanism, can this set of principles be solely relied upon to stop the government from squandering away our reserves?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, had already given a very detailed explanation on the problems encountered by the Government and President Ong during the past six years. However, from the long-term point of view, it is apparent to us that there are still a lot of worrying and complicated issues which need to be resolved. In view of this, I support the motion standing in the name of Nominated MP Mr Rai to give this House the opportunity to further discuss the issues, and give a clear explanation to the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I sincerely hope that through this round of frank and sincere discussion, and with the joint efforts and mutual cooperation between the next Elected President and the Government, our unique Elected President system will make further progress, thereby laying a solid and effective foundation for our political development, and for the long-term benefit of our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, everything in this world is continuously changing and developing. Our unique Elected President system is no exception. It is, after all, just a six year-old little boy. It needs to be carefully looked after and nurtured by his parents. He also needs regular medical examinations, takes the medicine and receives medical treatment whenever he is sick. Only then, can he grow up to be strong and healthy. Therefore, I suggest that the Government should reach out to the people and collect feedback from the people on how to perfect this Elected President system, and make this a "World Class Political Project".

In other words, if there is a need to amend the Constitution again to perfect this system, the Government should go ahead and do it without any hesitation.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the debate on this motion takes place amidst the context of considerable controversy and the incoming President. There are factual differences between what President Ong said in his press conference and the Ministerial Statements given yesterday by the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, and the Prime Minister. The Opposition have been quite opportunistic in seizing the comments by President Ong to their own advantage. I myself find I cannot comment on these factual differences. They are not in my knowledge.

I wish, in this sense, to avoid the question of personalities. At most, I think all of us would join in thanking President Ong for the service he has given to the country and to welcome the incoming President, Mr S R Nathan. And I would like to place my thanks to President Ong alongside the thanks of many, many Singaporeans and my well wishes to President-designate Mr S R Nathan among the well-wishers of many people.

Beyond this, I wish to focus on the Presidency as an institution because Presidents come and go, but for the present and future, for our children, the principles set out in the White Paper before us and of the Constitution are what would endure. There has been great debate in various media about whether this Presidency we now have is executive, or custodial. And many other terms have been bandied about by me as well as other people. We know for a fact that the President is now elected. But these other terms are not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not call it "executive", "custodial", or "largely ceremonial". None of these is there in the Constitution. These are words, analogies that different people have used differently to try to simplify for the public the very complex issues and laws in the Constitution.

Let me go through some of these quite briefly in this House. In classic constitutional theory, there is a separation between only three arms of the state - the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. In these three-fold divisions, the President is clearly part of the Executive. He acts in this classic model. The President, while being the Head of State and part of the Executive, does not hold powers or discretionary initiative. The running of the Government is indeed with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet once they have been appointed to the office. The President or the monarch - in the case of England, it is the Queen - reigns but does not rule. It is almost all ceremonial. This is what Singapore used to have before the creation of the present presidential system.

What do we now have? As I said, in our Constitution, if you look at it carefully, there is no use of the word "custodial", "ceremonial", or "executive". On the other hand, there is no term like "executive President". The definition of the words "Elected President" is not even there. It is just simply the definition of the word "President", which is the person elected to that office. The main provisions of the President are found in Part V of the Constitution and this is the same Part, under the title of the "Government", where we find the provisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. None of these is to say therefore that the President is the Head of Government or the CEO. I tend to agree with the Prime Minister in this sense. All things done by Government are done in the name of the President, eg, in giving the Presidential Address. But it is clearly the agenda set by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

In Article 21(1) of the Constitution, it is clear that the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. But, here, the word "advice" is not simply a nice suggestion you give to a friend. The word "advice" here is a polite way of saying "instruction of the Cabinet". How then is the present system of the President different from the old form? The President today differs from what we had before in that he can exercise his discretion and make up his own mind on a limited set of matters. These matters are set out in Article 21(2). There are various shorthand ways of saying what these powers are. Some people say that this is the second key, custodial. Generally, people say the Elected President acts as a check on the use of reserves and on key appointments. These short forms are not sufficient to a full understanding of what the President can or cannot rightfully do.

The NMP, Mr Shriniwas Rai, earlier mentioned - correct me if I am wrong - that the President can veto on the Internal Security Act or the Maintenance of Religious Harmony orders. Well, he has a role in it. But look carefully, and I quote Article 22(I) that the President can only act on orders on religious harmony if first, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony disagrees with the Government. If the Presidential Council agrees with the Government, the President cannot veto. This is what I mean that we are dealing with very complex issues which in the end we must try to simplify to be understood by the people who elect the President. These short forms are not exact. They never would be. But we can, through various exercises such as this, try to educate our people and ourselves in trying to understand these concepts.

Similarly, when we say the President guards the reserves, it is clearly not all the reserves. Those not accumulated by the present Government are protected. Those accumulated by the present Government can be used at their discretion and are not subject to the Elected President's veto. More importantly, it must be seen that the President does not exercise this function absolutely or alone. There is a role for the Council of Presidential Advisers as well as other balancing institutions or pillars such as I have mentioned, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. In exercising discretionary powers, the President is not an absolute ruler. He is independent but he is neither wilful nor singular. The President can disagree with the Prime Minister but there is no guarantee that the President will always prevail in case of such a disagreement. The role of the Council of Presidential Advisers is critical. It is said so in Article 21(3) of the Constitution that the President shall consult the Council of Presidential Advisers, and he may do so in other circumstances set out in Article 21(4). If the Council of Presidential Advisers agrees with him, the President can carry the issue. If the Council does not agree with the Elected President, then the Prime Minister can override if two-thirds of Parliament supports the Prime Minister. This is clearly seen in Article 22(2) as regards certain appointments.

In today's Parliament, I would dare say that if the Prime Minister wants the two-thirds majority, he would get it. That is the standing of the Prime Minister in today's Parliament. But this is not always vouchsafe for the future. It is possible that the future Prime Minister would have a majority but not a two-thirds majority. And so we must see that the President's powers in the Council of Presidential Advisers and Parliament sit in a very intricate balance that may well change over time according to certain numbers. The President, in that sense, can win in some circumstances but the point today is that the President can act, even without the concurrence of the Council of Presidential Advisers. He may act but, ultimately, be defeated. But in acting, he would raise issues, an alarm bell would have been raised and a controversy would have begun. It is therefore a question of judgement and discretion on the part of the President whether to act alone and risk defeat or whether to only act when the Council of Presidential Advisers is with him.

This is a new and unique institution. The Prime Minister and Elected President Ong had, in their own ways, pointed to teething problems. We have to accept this as part of the price for embarking on a bold constitutional adventure to create a new system of Government. The White Paper is therefore very important in this context. It seeks to record the present President's agreement on ways to smooth over these problems. The Member of Parliament, Dr Tan Cheng Bock in 1988 in a debate in this House on 12th August 1988 [Hansard, Vol. 53, Cols. 578 to 579] put it correctly on the issues that the White Paper now touches on. Let me quote:

"I shall now touch on financial assets and reserves. The definition of "assets" is indeed very wide and may in practice mean every cent and every square centimetre of Government land in Singapore. Singaporeans want to know if this means that every parcel of land sale must be approved by the President. Must the sale of HDB properties have his assent? Will the sale of every HDB unit or every block or every defined estate have his assent? What about resale?."

We have therefore to thank President Ong for trying with the Prime Minister to make some of these matters clearer. I dare say if we had somehow managed to do the White Paper before President Ong came to office, half the controversies that President Ong alluded in this press conference would have been avoided. Of course, this could not have been done. But now, having the White Paper, I think it helps the next President. We are trying to clarify and we will come to a position of clarity. I think the White Paper also does a very good service in setting out some ideas about the Net Investment Income (NII). Commonsense tells us that capital, the reserves and return on capital are different. Many businessmen will agree that NII can be used by the present Government. The Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, says that this might be defined to protect some part of the NII in the next year. Of course, this can be done, perhaps to take care of inflation or rise in replacement costs of certain assets. But the essential principle is that the NII is part of income, return on investment and not past reserves.

Similarly, I think that there is a point to say that the valuation of assets should be at the point of transaction of sale or alienation rather than to try to sit down at any one point in time and take stock of everything in Singapore. This is not easy to do and actually it is not much sense in doing it because the value of property changes according to use and the rules you allow a property to be used for. It is sensible and workable therefore in what the White Paper recommends.

But while the White Paper is a step forward, it is not the only thing we need to do. We need to make the system work in practice. Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister told us that there is no need for parallel government under the President's office. I agree. People want less government and less red tape, not more. They do not want another bureau, another bureaucracy. But people do want transparency and accountability and they do see the President as an important additional element in ensuring transparency and accountability, in addition to the direct accountability of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

The Constitutional duty of the civil service set out in Article 22F is to reply to the request of information by the President. This should be reinforced in the mindset of our civil servants in case it is ever forgotten. It is not just a nice thing you should do because the President is a nice guy. It is part of the burden of their office and the obligation to defend the Constitution. I would venture to say that while the civil service must observe their constitutional duties and while there is no need for a parallel government, there may be some need for additional staff and resources for the Elected President. Perhaps, this question should be left to the next President to decide within a reasonable mandate.

Let me next turn to the nature of this White Paper. This White Paper is not binding on either this House or the next President. This is despite the suggestion in paragraph 10 of the White Paper itself that it should be so unless the next President disagrees. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's point in Parliament yesterday bears repeating. What we say in this White Paper or in Parliament are not of the same effect as the words in the actual Constitution. Therefore, the White Paper is of limited use. We must understand this. It can be open to questions by the next President or indeed it can be subject to judicial interpretation under Article 100 of the Constitution if matters should be brought to the tribunal.

To make the system work, another point must be that the President should be entrenched sometime in the next term. By this, I mean that, as it stands presently, this House, under the leadership of the Prime Minister or another leader, could amend the Constitution and limit the powers of the President without the President's approval. Only if it is entrenched can the President be assured that his powers will not be nibbled away. I think this matter is not a light matter because once we are doing that, we are locking ourselves into such a position. But I think it must be seriously looked at and considered over the next term of the President and I am glad the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he would look seriously at this question. Only then can we have an assurance that the President is an institution that is strongly established and accepted by all. This White Paper and the other measures I have suggested are necessary to make it work. But perhaps they themselves are not sufficient. Institutions are necessary but never enough. We do need a President with moral courage. I can do no better on this part than to quote from then Deputy Prime Minister's Goh Chok Tong's speech in this House on 5th October 1990 [Hansard, Vol. 53, Col. 560]. He said,

"We are actually looking for people with competence. They must be competent people before they can stand for election. Secondly, they must be trustworthy. Thirdly, they must have sound judgement.

They must have the moral courage because the President may come from the same party as the Prime Minister. But if he disagrees with the Prime Minister on the use of reserves for wasteful welfare programmes, then the Elected President must have the moral courage to tell the Prime Minister that he is not going to spend the reserves."

We do need men of such moral courage to fill that office. We also need a Prime Minister who is committed to making this very new and unique system work, as Prime Minister Goh has said that he is committed to doing so.

The Elected President is supposed to check if we ever had, God forbid, a so-called bad government or rogue government. Of course, it need not be a rogue government. There can be reasonable disagreements between reasonable people. But while we are planning for a scenario of a rogue government or disagreement, it is ironic that to make the presidency work in the first place, it must be put into operation by a good government and by a good President. Only when both these two important officers are concerned with the future of Singapore and the future of institutions will this new and unique system be strongly embedded in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans and the way our system works.

With these comments, I will support the motion.

The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first let me thank Mr Rai for moving the motion for the House to endorse the principles for determining and safeguarding the accumulated reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper and also to the other Members for speaking in support of the principles.

I think this motion has taken the debate in several directions. I have no wish to clarify or explain all the issues that have been raised. Many of the issues have been addressed yesterday. I just want to make a few key points after listening to the debate so far. First, because of the perceptions and the confusion through the use of the terms like "executive President", etc, the Government decided to clarify the role of the Elected President and his specific roles in the two areas - protection of past reserves and key civil service appointments. This clarification, in my mind, is not intended to diminish the role of the Elected President. It is because of this confusion that we thought it necessary to re-establish or to re-visit the objectives in setting up the elected President.

I think Mr Simon Tay has gone through at great length the role of the President. So I have no wish to go through the same ground. But just to highlight to Members that by introducing the elected President, we have made a very major change in the way future governments will run Singapore, whether future governments come from the PAP or come from the Opposition parties. And this change is that all future governments will find that they have to run the government on a balanced budget, because at every stage of their term of office, they can only make use of current reserves. Without the elected President mechanism, the government could use past reserves without it being clearly made known to the public. But with this mechanism now in place, future PAP governments or future Opposition party government, if there is one, will find it incumbent to run the government on a balanced budget. Any time any government wants to use the old reserves, they have to seek the President's agreement to unlock the past reserves. So this is a fairly significant change to the way future governments should be run.

Secondly, there is a lot of talk about the need for good and honest government. I endorse that entirely. But Members may not realise that, in fact, the elected President mechanism is also important even if there is good and honest government. You do not need a bad and dishonest government to dig into old reserves. This elected President mechanism is not about corruption. It is about using past reserves. So it is to protect ourselves against a government that is honest, not corrupt at all, but wants to spend old reserves for well-meaning and even well-supported policies. With the elected President mechanism in place, if such a government wants to spend on programmes, however well-meaning, honest or well-supported, a red flag will be flashed. The President will have to come into play. The President has to agree that such a programme is in the interest of Singapore. And as the Senior Minister has explained, this is a hurdle so that Singaporeans are alerted. Because we are a small country with limited resources, we have decided to set aside past reserves. And if we are now going to spend on programmes using the past reserves, let that be a transparent fact.

The objective of the elected President is not just to guard against dishonest government. In fact, it is equally effective against a good, well-meaning but profligate government. So we do not need to have a rogue or a bad government for the elected President to be effective.

I think the main benefit of these two days' discussion is the ability for us to clarify the role of the elected President and to better understand how this new mechanism that we have put in place would change the nature of future Budgets and future governments.

Why did the Government put the principles in a White Paper? As explained in the White Paper, the objective of the elected President is clear. How to operationalise it is a lot more complicated, because it is a complex issue. We have to define many terms. We need to come to a common understanding, a common agreement on what these terms are and how to interpret them. Therefore, the White Paper is important to set out these definitions and to spell out the working arrangements between the President and the Government, so that both parties can fulfil their respective roles effectively and smoothly.

Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked why not put out this White Paper at the beginning of Mr Ong's term and not at the end of his term. As explained in the White Paper, many of these principles require time for them to be operationalised, to be documented, formalised and then institutionalised into the White Paper. We would have liked to do it earlier, but it is in the nature of such complex issues that we can only complete it towards the end of the term. And for this, I think we have to thank President Ong for setting the pace and wanting to make sure that the White Paper is completed before the end of his term.

The White Paper is a statement of how we would proceed with the administrative actions to implement the objective of the elected President. So it is not an agreement between President Ong and the Government, as Mr J B Jeyaretnam tried to argue.

A few Members asked about the role of the civil servants. I can only reiterate what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The civil servants have a constitutional role to support and advise the President in his role in the two areas that we are concerned about.

Mr Low, Mr Chiam and Mr J B Jeyaretnam talked about clipping the wings of the Government. In the context which I explained just now, the institution of the elected President would mean that all future governments, whether PAP government or an Opposition party government, would have to operate a balanced budget. If they operate anything other than a balanced budget, they have to go to the President to unlock the past reserves. And if that is not clipping the wings, I do not know what is. It is a very major restraint on the way we run future Budgets and the way we run future governments.

Several Members asked about giving the President more resources. Again, the Prime Minister has explained, that the President can call upon the entire resources of the civil service in executing and implementing his role. He is assisted by his Principal Private Secretary (PPS) who is a civil servant in the Administrative Service of Deputy Secretary Grade. So he is a very senior Administrative Officer and can call upon the entire resources of the civil service. It is the same way the Prime Minister operates through his PPS, the same way the Senior Minister operates through his PPS as well as the Deputy Prime Ministers operate through their PPSs. So we do not see the need for additional staff for the President for him to implement his role effectively.

Let me now turn to how the White Paper would bind future Presidents and future governments. As indicated in the White Paper, these are principles which both the President, his staff and the Government had worked together to establish, and we find it effective and we intend to make this binding on future Presidents and future Governments. At the same time, we know that these principles cannot be cast in stone and therefore there must be a mechanism by which either party can be allowed not to follow the principles if they think these are not applicable. But there is tremendous moral pressure in the example that Dr Lee Tsao Yuan raised. If indeed a government does not want to return the money from a sale of land, using the argument that it will return the money at market value at the start of the term and not at the time of the sale, I think that is clearly in violation of the preservation of the past reserves. And the President will be well within his power to veto that transaction, because that would mean a draw down on past reserves. So I think both the principles as well as the intent and spirit of the Constitution are quite clear. That would be deemed as a draw down on past reserves, and the President would indeed either veto the transaction or gazette and make it known that the Government has drawn down past reserves, in which case the Government would be forced to replenish the past reserves from its current reserves. So there is no ambiguity in that.

Let me just conclude by saying that we have worked hard to establish the principles between the President's Office and the Government. We believe that the principles set out very effectively the common understanding of how we will proceed to implement the safeguarding of the past reserves. It is a complex issue and we are glad that we are able to complete this White Paper on time. The White Paper can indeed be said to be a legacy of President Ong and this White Paper will help future Presidents in performing their constitutional functions.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Sir, can I have a clarification?

Mr Deputy Speaker: What is your clarification?

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: The Minister said that the principles in the White Paper are binding and that if a future government so decides to define fair market value as not at the point of transaction but at the time it took over office, then that is clearly in violation of the definition of past reserves. But as far as I remember in the White Paper, there is a provision to say that so long as either party does not wish to agree to the principles of the White Paper, they can notify the other party in writing and therefore the principles of the White Paper are not binding on that particular government. Could I please ask for clarification of this point?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, the principles will be binding for future Presidents and future governments. And there is, as the Member has described it, an escape clause, that if either the President or future government does not want to follow the principles, they are allowed to say that it is no longer binding. But that does not deviate from the requirement and the spirit of the Constitution, which is protection of our financial assets and protection of our land and buildings, which are deemed as past reserves. State land is deemed as past reserves, and if you sell State land at anything less than market value, you are running down on past reserves, and the elected President will veto that transaction.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Another clarification, please. As far as I understand from the White Paper, and I could be obtuse, supposing you have a future government that informs the President of the day that it disagrees with the definition of the value of State land, in other words, the value of State land at fair market value at the point of transaction, then those principles no longer apply. So it is not a question of using past reserves. Here, it is a question of the definition of the value of State land, which is very clearly stated in the White Paper. Therefore, unless those principles are indeed made binding, then future governments can have the leeway to say that they do not agree with the valuation of State land at fair market value. This is my understanding of the White Paper. I could be wrong. If I am wrong, please clarify.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, the Member's understanding of the binding agreement is correct. But whatever principles you may not agree with in the White Paper, the fact remains that the Constitution says that the President protects past reserves. And what constitutes past reserves? They are net financial assets and State land and buildings. And if the Government says, "No, that past reserve is defined as the value at the time of the change over of government," and the President says, "No, it must be at the point of transaction.", the President will say, "This is my view supported by the Council of Presidential Advisers. I will veto it." The Government will have to either challenge it, if it can. It will be under scrutiny by the public. In that very simple example, the public will quite clearly be on the side of the President to say, "You sell a piece of state land, it must be at the market value at at the point of sale." I do not think there is any confusion to the public who is right in that scenario that she painted.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Rai, can you reply?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I have got two clarifications for the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Why not you put them all in your reply?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: All right. I know Members are eager to end this debate soon and I will do so. I would not take much time.

Sir, I am grateful to the many Members who spoke, ie, those who have supported the motion and even those who have opposed the motion, because they have added to this debate. There is no doubt, as my good friend, Mr Tay Beng Chuan said, that President Ong has endeared and has done the Constitution and the country proud by the way he has discharged his duties. The Elected President is still in its infancy. It will take some time to shape. The Minister has been very assuring and I have no doubt that the Government intends to abide by the principles laid down in the Constitution and the White Paper.

I have two clarifications for the Minister. (1) Should the in-coming President ask for a staff, I hope the Government will consider it favourably. (2) Should there be a dispute between the President and the Government, would it go to the Constitutional Court for a decision?

Sir, the new President has won the admiration of my colleagues, Dr Lee, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and others, and I think Members will join me in wishing him well. He has a heavy responsibility in discharging his duties, but I have no doubt that his vast experience and the mandate he has received from the public will enable him to discharge his duties.

Though he is an intellectual, he is a man of the ground. He has friends from all walks of life. I was surprised when his fruit seller came to the People's Association this afternoon to wish him. He was delighted and talked to him.

I will give another example of the humility of the man. After he was returned unopposed at the Nomination Centre, he went around thanking people. An NTUC official came and told me that he has moved away without meeting one sector, ie, the Indian activity group from the PA. When I whispered this to him, he said, "Yes, I am sorry, let us go." That is the quality of the man. He has finished his tour but he felt that he has left out one group and he must meet them.

Sir, I would ask Members to endorse the motion wholeheartedly. I would also ask the Opposition Members to endorse the motion, even though they have filed an amendment to the motion and spoke in favour of it. This is not a political issue. It concerns the future of the country. It concerns how we are going to rule. The Government has introduced a very unique constitutional mechanism which has no parallel anywhere in the world. I think we owe it to ourselves to evolve the system by assisting. When the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Minister for Finance spoke yesterday, I was relieved by the picture that they have painted because there were some doubts in the minds of some members of the public. This morning I had a chance to speak to some people and they were relieved that they have now been presented with the facts of the issue. Whenever there is any difference between the Government and the President, it is only fair that the public should know it. In this way, we can talk and debate on it.

Sir, I would urge Members to vote for the motion.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the Principles for Determining and Safeguarding the Accumulated Reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1999).