Hansard, 1988-08-11

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 4th to 5th August, 1988. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh) - from 4th to 6th August, 1988. Maj. Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee) - from 4th to 10th August and from 14th August to 1st Septmber, 1988. Dr Lee Boon Yang (Jalan Besar), Minister of State, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Home Affairs - from 6th to 12th August, 1988. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat), Speaker - on 12th August, 1988. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 17th September to 8th October, 1988. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill before the House is to establish a body to be known as the Singapore Academy of Law which will bring together Judges, practising lawyers, members of the Legal Service, lecturers in the NUS Faculty of Law as well as law students. Through this body, it is hoped that a collegiate spirit in the legal fraternity can evolve. Since the enactment of the Legal Profession Act more than 20 years ago, we have witnessed different stages of development in the legal profession in Singapore, in particular the vast increase in the number of lawyers. In 1958, there were 152 advocates and solicitors; in 1968, 284; in 1978, 713; and in August this year, 1,536. In addition, we have 148 Legal Officers in the Legal Service, and 51 academic staff in the Faculty of Law. This year, 204 young men and women graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Laws out of a total of 810 undergraduates in the Law Faculty, most of whom will graduate and become practising lawyers soon. However, quantitative increases alone cannot be adequate to serve the needs of our people. A small country like ours must continuously strive for excellence in all fields, in particular those related to the provision of professional services. The legal profession provides one such valuable and essential service. As our people become increasingly sophisticated and conscious of their legal rights as well as obligations, we can expect our legal profession to attain greater heights and standards in competence, in learning and professional conduct. It is time therefore to take a giant step forward. Each of the three main components of the legal profession at present has some sort of an association or a club - members of the Bar, the Legal Service and the academics in the University. But what is lacking is a single body which brings all of them together. There is now no forum, for instance, for the effective sharing of ideas and exchange of views. This inevitably leads to criticisms that the University is not producing enough practice-oriented lawyers, that the practitioners are not contributing significantly or interested in basic or continuing legal education, or that the Legal Service is not sufficiently attuned to the real world of legal practice. Sir, the study of law and the practice of law are commonly regarded as two completely different areas. This situation should not be the case. Unlike the Law Society which is an association exclusively for practising advocates and solicitors, membership of the proposed Academy will be extended to all legal officers, law teachers and advocates and solicitors. In the United Kingdom, every barrister must be a member of one of the four Inns of Court - Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple and Gray's Inn. The Inns are essentially guilds of lawyers. The Inns have always been responsible for the education of Bar students. A barrister's Inn is his professional home throughout his career. He can lunch and dine with his fellow members in the Inn Hall, use the Inn library, and join in the social life of the Inn. Each Inn is governed by Masters of the Bench, or "Benchers", consisting of senior members of the Bar. The Bench itself elects members of the Inn to fill vacancies and a Bencher normally holds office for life. The Bill before the House today seeks to establish an institution similar to the Inns of Court in the United Kingdom with, of course, adaptations for our own particular circumstances. It has therefore been decided to take this important step forward in proposing the establishment of the Singapore Academy of Law. The primary objective is to assist the legal profession in its efforts to improve qualitatively and to achieve the highest standards of professional competence and conduct. The Academy, Sir, will be an independent body, substantially funded at the initial stages by Government funds, and eventually moving towards financial independence. There will be four cate- gories of members; Fellows, Ordinary members, Honorary members and Associate members. All advocates and solicitors and legal officers will be members. The governing body called the Senate will comprise, amongst others, the Chief Justice as its President and all the Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General, the President of the Law Society and the Dean of the Faculty of Law. The Senate, under the leadership of the Chief Justice, will chart the way ahead and set the pace for the development of the Academy. To ensure that members have a central and conducive place to meet, the Academy will be set up, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, in the City Hall wing of the Supreme Court. There will also be a library, dining and other facilities for Judges, members of the Bar, Legal Officers and academics to meet in an informal atmosphere. Most of these facilities will be available even after office hours. Law students could become Associate members and, subsequently, Ordinary members. It is hoped that this will help immerse the young lawyers-to-be in the world of legal practice and foster a collegiate spirit in the training of lawyers. Eminent judges, academics and others may be elected as Honorary Fellows or Honorary or Associate members. This may preserve and foster interest in the learning and practice of and continuing education in the law by conducting seminars and lectures. Sir, the Singapore Academy of Law holds great potential for the future of our legal profession. It will consolidate the individual strengths of the three main components of the profession, enhance cross-fertilization of ideas and promote cooperative efforts towards attainment of common objectives. With dedication, cooperation and enthusiasm of all concerned, the legal profession can move into a different and higher dimension. As I said, a major step has been taken. It now depends on all members of the different branches of the legal fraternity to work together to achieve the objectives of this Singapore Academy of Law so that a sense of tradition and inculcation of values so important to the legal fraternity can be attained. The Bill has been circulated to the Law Society before its introduction and some of their suggestions have been taken into consideration in the drafting of the Bill. They have welcomed the objectives of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.10 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I hope the establishment of the Singapore Academy of Law will fill the void which is perceived to exist in the legal profession. At the moment, the legal profession has a professional body in the Law Society. The Law Society, however, functions on a shoestring budget depending upon contributions from its own members. It makes do with a tiny rented space behind the Supreme Court. It has no common room for its members. There is no library. It has no place for the holding of lectures, seminars, talks and practical exercises. It has not even a place where members can meet for social and intellectual interaction. In other words, it has very little facilities. I am happy to see that these facilities are promised in clause 4(2) of the Bill. The profession has for more than 100 years demonstrated that it has the necessary knowledge of the law and legal scholarship. If recent history is anything to go by, Mr Speaker, Sir, the profession would appear to be weak in professional ethical standards. In the United Kingdom, such standards are instilled and propagated by the Inns of Court for barristers and by the Law Society for solicitors. Hopefully, with the establishment of the Academy, the functions of which according to clause 4(1)(a) is: "(a) to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Singapore", this deficiency will be filled. I have, however, three points which I would like the Minister to clarify. Firstly, in clause 5, on the composition of the Senate, the President of the Law Society will be a member but not his predecessors, whereas former Attorney-Generals as well as former Deans of the Law Faculty are eligible for membership of the Senate. Why is there this distinction? If it is thought that some former Presidents of the Law Society do not qualify, then such disqualification could be spelt out, as indeed Judges who were removed are disqualified from membership of the Senate under clause 5(4). Secondly, Ordinary membership of the Academy for advocates and solicitors and Legal Officers is automatic and mandatory by virtue of clause 14 of the Act without election, admission or appointment by the Senate. The only time he ceases to be an Ordinary member is when he is disqualified under clause 16 or 18 of the Act which implies certain professional misconduct and carries a stigma. Perhaps a provision should be made for an Ordinary member who does not wish to be a member of the Academy to resign. At the moment, as drafted in the Bill, he cannot. Being an Ordinary member is not totally honorary. It carries certain duties and liabilities. For example, payment of a subscription, the amount of which is not determined at the moment. Lastly, Sir, clause 25 of the Bill effectively prevents any decision of the Senate from being challenged in court. I do not think this is a desirable provision. What is going to happen if the Senate by a majority takes a decision that is considered by the legal profession to be totally perverse? What is the reason for granting the Senate this immunity to the legal process? Subject to these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill, and if I may touch on the comments that he has raised. First, his question on clause 5 as to why former Presidents of the Law Society are not automatically members. The reason is quite simple. The intention is to keep the size of the Senate manageable and small. For that reason there is a cut-off date, even for former Judges and former Deans of the Law Faculty. As far as the presidency of the Law Society is concerned, there are just so many of the former Presidents that the drafters thought it fit to include just the incumbent President. Secondly, Sir, I understand from the Attorney-General that the Law Society has no objections to this particular clause. So they are quite happy with this. Secondly, Sir, his question concerning the provision on immunity for suits. Here again, the draftsmen in incorporating the provisions have, in fact, borne in mind the practice and procedure in the United Kingdom and I understand that this is in keeping with the practice in the United Kingdom where Benchers of the Inns of Court are granted immunity from suits at the instance of students or members of the Inns. So we are just following the practice which pertains there. The final question is on automatic membership. For the Academy to start off on a proper footing, it is necessary that all advocates and solicitors - and here I should point out that it is advocates and solicitors whether or not they possess a practising certificate - are automatically members. If that were not so, then it will be self-defeating because it will not embrace all members of the profession. I think the Member does have a point when he says that there may be some valid instances and situations where one can conceive of a person being allowed to opt out of membership or to have his membership kept in abeyance. This is something that I will have to reconsider and refer the matter to both the drafters as well as the Senate when it is constituted. It can be taken up subsequently and reviewed in the course of the actual operation of the Academy of Law.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.20 am The Second Minister for Law (Prof. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is being introduced at the request of the Judiciary. It seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Act to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of the Supreme Court in bankruptcy to enable him to hear bankruptcy proceedings in Chambers, subject to any rules made under the Act which reserves certain categories of matters for open court hearing before Judges. Currently, under the Bankruptcy Act, the jurisdiction of the Registrar is limited to the hearing and determination of unopposed or ex parte applications which are not required to be made in open court. Since the bulk of bankruptcy proceedings are required under the Bankruptcy Rules to be in open court, they fall to be heard and determined by Judges. The amendment in this Bill is necessary to alleviate the present workload of the Judges. The main amendment in the Bill is the amendment to section 90 of the Act (clause 8). It provides that, subject to any rules made under the Act, the Registrar shall have the powers and jurisdiction of the court under the Act. The amendments in clauses 3, 5 and 9 are consequential upon the amendment to section 90 of the Act. Clauses 4 and 6 amend sections 18(7) and 33(1) of the Act, respectively, so that applications referred to in those sections need not be made and heard in open court. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.24 am The Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore is a major air junction with links to many countries. We serve a total of 48 airlines with flights to 100 cities in 52 countries. According to readers of the magazine Business Traveller, our Changi Airport is the best airport in the world. The Business Traveller is an international travel magazine with readership in some 50 countries. Our national airline, Singapore Airlines, is also considered the best airline in the world. Sir, our workers in Singapore have done us proud. It is important for us as a major participant in the civil aviation industry that our legislation should enable us to keep pace with the latest international conventions. This Bill illustrates the Government's approach of planning for the future in order to stay at the forefront of the civil aviation industry. The Carriage by Air Bill is to give effect in Singapore to the Warsaw Convention which relates to international carriage by air and the Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol. Both the Convention and the amended Convention have been acceded to by Singapore. The Conventions already have the force of law in Singapore by virtue of section 5 of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43). This allows us to receive into Singapore the law in the United Kingdom relating to carriage by air. Although this particular arrangement has served us well, it is now appropriate for us to incorporate the Conventions into our own legislation in preparation for the future. This will enable us to meet future developments in the international civil aviation industry expeditiously. With the introduction of the Carriage by Air Bill, the United Kingdom law relating to carriage by air will cease to apply in Singapore. However, except for the change in the instruments giving effect to the Conventions, there will be no substantive change in the legal status of the Conventions in Singapore. I shall now highlight some of the provisions of the Bill. These are features that are common to legislations in many other countries. Clause 3 provides that the Warsaw Convention and the amended Convention shall have the force of law in Singapore. Clause 6 provides for the application of the limits on liabilities in our courts. In particular, it allows our courts to reduce the damages awarded where the claimant has also commenced other related proceedings in Singapore or elsewhere. Clause 6 also empowers the Minister to prescribe the amount in Singapore dollars that is equivalent to the sums expressed in gold francs in the Conventions. Clause 10 enables the Minister to exclude aircraft used for military purposes from the provisions of the amended Convention. Finally, Clause 12 enables the Minister to apply the amended Convention to carriage by air which is not governed by that Convention. Question proposed.

Sir, the Carriage by Air Bill is to give effect in Singapore through the provisions of international conventions relating to carriage by air. The introduction of this Bill is in keeping with our position as a leading international air hub. Sir, the civil aviation industry is very important for Singapore's growth as a global city. In 1987 Changi Airport recorded its highest passenger and air freight volumes: 11.2 million passengers and 418,000 tonnes of cargo since it began operation in 1981. The peformance for the first half of this year has been just as encouraging with passenger and air cargo traffic increasing by 13% and 23% respectively. I am told that for 1988 passenger traffic is likely to exceed 12 million passengers and cargo volume more than half a million tonnes of freight. Sir, Changi Airport has in no small way made Singapore's role as an air hub possible. Its reputation as one of the best airports in the world has been around for some years. In 1984, barely three years after it began operation, Changi was ranked the second Best Airport by Business Traveller magazine readers. Now, only four years later, it has made it to the top. Moreover, in 1986, in the first ever global awards for the world's air cargo industry, Changi was again named Best Airport for Air Cargo. Sir, I wish to congratulate the Minister, his Ministry officials, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and each and every member of the staff of Changi Airport for this achievement. It is indeed a well-deserved honour. It is indeed the best present that they can give to Singapore on our 23rd birthday. My GPC members and I visited the airport last year, and again last week. We were very impressed by what we saw - the efficiency, the attention to details, the dedication and the single-minded commitment to make Changi the best airport in the world, and this they have done. Sir, Singapore practises an open-sky aviation policy. Our liberal aviation policy is well-known. In spite of the protectionistic practices in the aviation industry, Singapore has managed to survive and thrive. The Ministry of Communications and Information and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have throughout the years been meeting with officials of other countries to negotiate for increased frequency of flights and capacity to Singapore and countries beyond. Only four days ago, on 7th August, the 100th direct air link between Changi Airport and its latest destination, Pulau Langkawi, was established. Sir, the Bill introduced today is indeed timely and appropriate. The GPC on Communications and Information fully supports the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Yeo Ning Hong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.38 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The National Wages Council has recommended that our wage system should be reformed to make it more flexible and responsive to changing circumstances. The basic concept is that a variable payment should be introduced into our wage structure. Instead of paying out all the wage increases as a rigid increase to basic pay, part of it should be paid out as a variable payment. The variable payment can be built up with economic growth or cut back during a recession. Alternatively, companies may pay their workers an agreed share of the profits as a variable bonus. Such wage flexibility will enhance the viability of our companies and the job security of our workers. Many employers and unions have proceeded in earnest to reform the wage systems of their respective companies. My Ministry has in the meantime reviewed, in consultation with the NTUC and the employers' organisations, the relevant provisions of the Employment Act. These provisions concern the payment of annual wage supplement (AWS), bonus and annual wage increases and are contained in sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Act. These sections were introduced in 1972 following the recommendations of the then newly set-up NWC. The bonuses prevailing for existing companies then were converted and frozen into the AWS. The AWS was made non-negotiable and subject to a maximum of 3 months pay. New companies were allowed to pay up to one month of AWS, or what is commonly known as the 13th month payment. Unions and management could, in addition, negotiate for wage increases based on the yearly recommendations of the NWC. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Act so as to facilitate wage reform. The new section 48 will allow the retention of existing wage systems including AWS at current levels until the employers and the employees or their trade unions agree to reform their wage systems. They may repackage the existing AWS if they wish. For companies which have never paid AWS before, they will be allowed to pay AWS up to one month's wages. For these companies, any payment above the one month AWS should be in the variable form such as bonuses. As in the existing Act, when companies are facing exceptionally poor business results, employers may negotiate with their unions for a lower quantum of AWS or for no AWS to be paid. The new section 48 will also allow the introduction of a new variable payment, a basic feature of flexible wage systems. Employers and trade unions can negotiate for a bonus or other forms of variable payment based on trading results or productivity improvement or other criteria mutually agreed upon by the parties concerned. They may set their own upper limit to the variable payment if they wish as the Act will not stipulate an upper limit. The new section 49 is a re-enactment of the existing provisions. It enables the Minister to make recommendations for wage adjustment based on the NWC guidelines. The wage adjustment can be upwards during a period of economic growth or downwards during a recession. These guidelines will form the basis for negotiation between employers and employees or their trade unions. The new section 50 defines items used in the other sections. As in the existing Act, it also allows either the employer or the trade union to refer wage disputes to the Industrial Arbitration Court for arbitration. Except for the provisions to allow repackaging of the AWS and the introduction of a variable payment, the new sections 48, 49 and 50 contain the same elements as in the existing Act. The amendments state them more clearly, simplify the old clauses and remove provisions that are no longer relevant. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will provide the legal basis for flexible wage systems. It will facilitate wage reform. The driving force for reform must, however, come from both employers and employees, who in their own best interests, should recognize the considerable benefits to be gained from a flexible wage system. I am glad to report that substantial progress has been made. Todate, 356 (or 38%) out of the 946 establishments monitored by my Ministry have implemented flexible wage systems in one form or another. Others are in various stages of study or negotiation. I have on many occasions urged employers and unions to implement wage reform so that our wage system can be more responsive to changing economic situations. With these amendments to the Employment Act, I would like once again to urge employers, unions and workers to work together closely and harmoniously to bring about a flexible wage system which can see us through both good and bad times. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill has been discussed within the NTUC, among employers and by the GPC on Labour before it was introduced in this House. The process of consultation and discussion was confidential so the public at large did not know what views were expressed and how the original draft Bill was changed and altered. But it is a very important process. The Government has frequently adopted this approach before presenting Bills to Parliament. At least I know that where labour legislation is concerned, the Ministry of Labour normally seeks the views of the NTUC prior to raising the matter in Parliament and I assume that similar discussions took place with employer groups. So by the time a Bill is introduced in Parliament, Government has had the benefit of the views of people who may be affected by them or from people with the expertise on the subject. In the case of this present Bill, the consultation process took about a year. Consequently, the original draft has been altered and the Bill is a balance between the views of unions and employers. The main objective of the Bill is to facilitate wage reform. When the NWC Sub-Committee on Wage Reform presented its report in November 1986, unions asked for the Employment Act to be amended to allow negotiations on variable payments based on trading results or productivity because the previous provision in the Employment Act was considered to be rather restrictive and our unions did not want to run foul of the law and wanted the law to spell out very clearly that they are entitled to negotiate with the employers for variable payments based on trading results or productivity. With the new section 48(2) it is very clear that unions and management can negotiate for variable payments without infringing the law. The original draft of the Bill contained a provision to place an upper limit on the amount of variable payment that may be paid. The unions felt that specifying a maximum would be against the spirit of flexibility that wage reform aims to achieve. I am glad that the Minister for Labour is persuaded by this view and has removed the original provision of a cap on variable payments from the Bill. I know that some employers had wanted this cap to remain but in his wisdom the Minister for Labour has concurred with the workers. Changing our wage system is not an easy task. Workers must not feel that hard-won gains could be wiped out overnight. In this respect, the annual wage supplements that have been agreed to in collective agreements are protected by this Bill. This is particularly important to workers who are receiving more than one month annual wage supplements, eg, those workers in the banking industry or the insurance industry. These workers will continue to be paid the same amount of annual wage supplements unless they reach a new agreement with their employers. On this issue of annual wage supplement, the current provision of a 13th month payment has been forced since 1972 and is still in force, that is to say, any new agreement cannot specify more than one month annual wage supplement. In the discussions on this subject, some employers had wanted the annual wage supplement also made variable. But here, I think the arguments in favour of retaining the 13th month payment has been taken heed of by the Minister because at the end of the year most workers depend on this 13th month payment to pay for various expenses such as children's education, school textbooks, school fees, and also for festival expenses. So the provision remains the same. This issue of the annual wage supplement highlights the fact that wage reform cannot be done overnight. Employers cannot simply turn the annual wage supplement into a variable payment. Negotiations have to take place between unions and workers. Of course, by this, I refer to annual wage supplements of more than one month. Only when it is mutually agreed by both parties, can the annual wage supplement be converted into a variable payment. In the course of negotiations, there will certainly be differences of view and differences in preferences on the form of flexibility. Over the past month or so, we have dealt with one important issue - what sort of wage adjustment can workers look forward to from year to year? Is it only 2% service increment? How should this be treated in a booming economy and a tight labour market? I believe that we have reached a proper understanding of the two main concerns. From the employers' viewpoint, wage pressures in a booming economy and tight labour market should not cause wage levels to be pushed up to uncompetitive levels. This is the main concern of employers. From the workers' viewpoint, wage increases should be an equitable distribution of the wealth generated to meet their aspirations for a better quality of life. There is general agreement, I believe, that we can meet both points of view by paying part of the wage increases as a wage adjustment, an adjustment to basic wages, and part of it as a variable payment. Since the economy is performing very strongly this year, we can give workers a reasonable adjustment to basic wages and a better bonus at the end of the year. Indeed, we have this opportunity to take a big step forward in implementing a flexi-wage system generally in the economy, if all companies follow this principle. Whilst there has been good progress in wage reform and more than 300 companies have already implemented wage reforms, I think we still have a long way to go. I share the Minister's concern that we should continue to press on with wage reform so that we are all prepared, not only those companies with wage reforms or flexi-wages in place but also all companies in Singapore are prepared for any possible future recession.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main purpose of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1988 is to facilitate the implementation of a flexible wage system. It lays down the procedure for payment of the variable annual bonus and annual wage supplement to our workers. Clearly, the Bill provides us with a framework to be used by unions and employers in their wage negotiations. In recent years, as Singapore went through the recession, the pattern of our wage negotiations have undergone some changes following recommendations by NWC. These changes were to enable employers to make quick adjustments whenever a severe financial difficulty arises, in order that our workers' jobs are not affected. Thus, instead of large service increments tied directly to the basic salary, we now have a wage system of three components: service increments at a lower rate, a variable component based on profits or productivity, and the annual wage supplement, or AWS. The 1988 Employment (Amendment) Bill gives a clear picture of these changes. It would certainly facilitate negotiations between employers and employees on the implementation of a flexible wage system, as the Bill also eliminates several ambiguities that existed in the present Act. I am glad that in drafting this Bill, the Ministry of Labour observed this fundamental point. I believe both sides, employers and the trade unions, have been consulted beforehand and all their views have been duly considered. Tripartite involvement has become a characteristic of our system of good industrial relations. Consensus between the Government, employers and the unions has ensured our stability and progress. During the recession years, the unions had swiftly and courageously adjusted by accepting wage restraint. The time has now come for employers to adjust to our rather strong economic performance and tight labour market. We have just accepted wage reform as a means to more flexible wage system. Many employers have adjusted their companies' salary scales, but there are still others who have deliberately delayed such adjustments. It is hoped that the Ministry of Labour would urge these procrastinating employers to be more positive in their attitude; they must show confidence in the leadership of the unions by implementing fair and appropriate salary adjustments. Only with cooperation and mutual trust between unions and employers can the good relations between them be maintained and agreement achieved, quickly and amicably, in negotiations on the implementation of a flexible wage system. This Bill is a document that should be adhered to, in the best and most judicious manner possible, by both parties, employers as well as unions. I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. For several months past, many people have been asking for this amendment and I am very happy that the Minister has now brought up this Amendment Bill. A just, comprehensive and timely employment law is very important. Today, in Singapore, we are having economic prosperity and industrial stability. It is because all along we have a very fair and reasonable Employment Act, and the Government has also been adopting a very flexible policy about amendments to the relevant law, so that our industrial relationship has now entered a stage of maturity. So now the employers and the employees can negotiate about salary and bonus in relation to business condition and productivity. This is very reasonable. The old law restricts the quantum of bonus. The new legislation promotes wage reform and flexibility through negotiation in relation to a company's performance and workers' productivity. I believe all our unions would support this legislation. But here I would like to ask the Minister and officers of the Labour Ministry to note one thing, that is, wage flexibility should not mean that during a recession only the workers are asked to get less wages and tighten their belts, but when the companies have recovered and are making good profit the employers need not necessarily or,indeed, would usually be rather unwilling to adjust the wages and pay more to their workers. So I hope the officers in the Ministry of Labour and the employers would pay attention to this so that when the companies are in good position, they could be more magnanimous in negotiating with the workers and be able to pay the workers more fairly. Having said so, here I would like to express my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Much has already been said and reported in the media regarding the implementation of this year's NWC guidelines and wage reform. There appears to be a better understanding now between employers and unions on how to proceed. I wish merely to make the following comments. Firstly, as some Members have mentioned, we must maintain the momentum of wage reform towards more flexible wage systems. The concept of flexi-wage is sound and has been accepted by employers, unions and the Government. The ability to adjust wages and bonuses according to the economic situation will make our companies more viable and help to preserve jobs during a recession. Those companies which have yet to reform their wage systems should do so without further delay. We should not be discouraged by initial teething problems in the wage reform process. Secondly, in implementing flexible wage systems, we need to be flexible in our approach. Different models may suit different companies and industries. The basic concept is to build up a flexible component in our wage structure. If initial models or formulas are found to be too rigid or unrealistic, they may have to be reviewed. Thirdly, the concept of flexi-wage is to try and keep basic wages relatively stable and adjust as far as possible through the variable component such as bonuses. Workers should look at the total wage package for the year and not just the monthly salary. Fourthly, companies that have concluded flexi-wage pacts with their unions should keep their employees informed of the performance of their companies. They should also, wherever possible, give some preliminary indications of the variable bonuses that their employees are likely to receive at the end of the year based on the performance so far. In this way, workers will be assured that their wage increases as a whole will not be lagging behind those of other companies. Fifthly, our workers have accepted two years of wage restraint to help the economy to recover. Now that the economy is doing well, they deserve a fair share of the economic rewards. However, we should avoid building in excessive increases in basic pay which cannot be sustained in the long run. We must guard against a wage spiral because of a tight labour market affecting certain types of workers in some sectors. The implementation of the NWC guidelines will depend on the performance of the industry and the company concerned. Finally, there must be good sense and goodwill all round during wage negotiations this year. There must be mutual trust and confidence to preserve our excellent industrial relations climate.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment read a Third time and passed.

12.01 pm

As insufficient notice of the Motion has been given, the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present are required before the Motion may be moved. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the Motion be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Sir, three amendments are proposed to the Standing Orders. The first amendment refers to Standing Order No. 1, paragraph (3), where it is proposed that the Speaker be given flexibility and discretion to appoint a time other than 11.00 am for the commencement of a sitting. There may be occasions when Parliament wishes to sit at a time other than 11.00 am. But the current Standing Order does not permit a change of time unless a resolution is moved in the House during a parliamentary sitting. But when Parliament does not sit and it wishes to convene at a time other than 11.00 am, there is no discretion for you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to fix a time other than 11.00 am. Hence this amendment. The second amendment is needed because of the recent amendment to the Constitution which provides for two Deputy Speakers. So consequential amendments are therefore required to the relevant paragraphs of Standing Order Nos. 8, 16, 51 and 95, arising from the provision of two Deputy Speakers in the Constitution. Sir, the third amendment is on Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which presently states in the first line that: 'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.' This Standing Order will pose difficulty to Members from GRCs which will be formed after the next general elections. The GRC will have three Members of Parliament. But if the Standing Order remains, it will be difficult for Members to distinguish one Member of the GRC from another. Hence it is proposed that Members of GRC be allowed to be called by name. And to be consistent, it is also proposed that Members from single-member constituencies also be allowed to be addressed by name. Sir, we know that the present Standing Order of not allowing Members to be referred to by name is to guard against personal references or any appearance of personality in a debate. I submit that while this is a good tradition originating from Westminster, we need not rigidly follow it as we need to change Standing Orders according to changing circumstances. Standing Orders are meant to serve the needs of the House and not meant to restrict our actions unnecessarily. Therefore, it is proposed that Members who are returned to Parliament after the next general elections be allowed to refer to other Members by name. Of course, Sir, when this liberty is given, all Members are expected to observe proper decorum and not abuse this practice by making fun of a Member's name. If the situation gets out of hand and the debate becomes personal, Sir, I am sure you will most likely restrain the Member concerned. Here, if I may also suggest that when referring to a Member by name, it will be indeed polite to prefix it with the word "Mr" or "hon Mr" before the name. For example, when referring to the Member for Toa Payoh, we could refer to him as "Mr Eric Cheong" or "the hon. Mr Eric Cheong".

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to speak on the amendment to Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which says: 'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.' This is to be amended to: 'A Member, other than a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, shall be referred to by the Constituency he represents or the name he was returned to Parliament.' Sir, I believe this amendment has come four years late. If you remember, in 1984, there was already an amendment to the Constitution to introduce non-constituency Members of Parliament. If one was appointed in 1984, how else would we address him in Parliament other than by his name? Therefore, I think in the Remarks, it is necessary to say that this amendment applies not only to Group Representation Constituency Members but also to non-constituency Members of Parliament.

Are you supporting?

Sir, I am not supporting this amendment. I regret that there is such an amendment although I admit that there is a need for it. Because this is consequent on the amendment to the Constitution to introduce Group Representation Constituencies. This shows that when you amended the law or the Constitution, you have forgotten the consequences of that amendment. And this amendment to the Standing Orders is one of the unforeseen consequences. So I do not believe that Members of the House intended to amend this Standing Order, but as it is we have to do it. Therefore, I beg to differ with the Leader of the House that Westminster has this practice of calling a Member by reference to his constituency and not his name. That is the reason that he gave. And also it is not because one Member can make fun of the name of another Member. I think there is a more important reason. The essence of democracy is, of course, representation. All of us are here by virtue of our representation of a group of people comprising one or more constituencies. So we are not here by virtue of our own individual self. That is the reason why Members are addressed as representatives of their constituencies, for example, the Member for Kaki Bukit, the Member for Chong Boon, or whatever. He is here by virtue of the fact that he has been elected by the majority of the people in his constituency to be in Parliament. That is the reason why we address a Member of Parliament not by his personal name but by the name of his constituency, as a Member of Parliament for that constituency. So if we are amend- ing this Standing Order for the reasons given, we would have eroded a very important tradition, an important practice. When we address MPs by their individual name, it would appear that we are here by virtue of our own individual self. There would be no indication that we are here as a result of our election as representatives from a particular constituencies. I would really regret that. I think we should find a way out to indicate that we are representatives of certain constituencies and not by virtue of our own individual self. The Leader has indicated how we should address another Member. I think this is important. I would suggest that in addition to just addressing "Mr", we should also use the additional prefix "honourable", such as the hon. Mr Chandra Das, or whatever. If we set a precedent here, then members of the public would know how to address Members of Parliament. Because in correspondence and in other forms of communication, there is a standard form of address. I am not saying that I wish to be addressed as "honourable". It is not so much the status that I am concerned, but I think that as we are representatives of the people, the form of address given is to show the respect given. We are not here by virtue of our own individual self, so I think the honour should be given to our voters. Our voters voted us and I think they respected us. I think they want us to have a proper form of address. So perhaps I would urge the House to agree that we call each other, (other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries) by using the additional prefix of "the honourable Mr So-and-So".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I shall have the pleasure of addressing the Member for Potong Pasir as the honourable Mr Chiam See Tong in the near future. Sir, we are not honourable Members just because we address one another as "honourable". We must earn that designation for the hard work that we put in for our constituents, for the respect that we gain in pursuit of our work as Members of Parliament. But I have a question for clarification by the Member for Potong Pasir. As I listened to his speech, I was drawn to the conclusion that he is now a supporter of the provisions for non-constituency MPs and for GRCs. Am I correct, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is typical of the hon. Member for Whampoa. I think he loves to pick on me. Sir, he is completely out of order. We are debating on the amendment to the Standing Orders. I do not think we are touching on the issue of non-constituency MPs. Maybe at another time I will answer him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought he drew the House's attention to the fact that had there been non-constituency MPs admitted to this House after the 1984 general elections, we would have had to introduce such an amendment earlier. But you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the fault lay with the Member for Potong Pasir. He would not let us have one non-constituency MP from his party.

Sir, I do not have much to add other than to thank Members for their contribution. And to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, I think if he would like to continue, if he has the opportunity, to be called "the hon. Member for Potong Pasir", he still could, because under the amendment for a single constituency Member he could, still be called by the name of the Constituency to which he was returned. Of course, if other Members would like to be addressed by their names, it could also be done. I have said in my speech that it is only polite to prefix it with "Mr" or "Honourable Minister" or "Honourable Mr" depending on the choice of Members individually.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe the Leader of the House has addressed the point that I brought up. I think we should get an indication from the House now. I think this is the opportune time to find out whether or not Members themselves, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, want to be addressed as "Honourable Mr", or do they just want "Mr", or they do not mind being called "Honourable Mr" or "Mr". I think if we have an indication, it would serve as a guide to members of the public in future when they address Members of Parliament.

Sir, this is not provided for in the Standing Orders and let this evolve in practice.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next item, which is a motion to be moved by the Member for Kebun Baru, relates to the White Paper which was presented at the last Parliament sitting. This White Paper which proposes some Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services is an important subject, and I therefore would like to seek your consent, Sir, and the general assent of this House to move, That the proceedings on item 6 be exempted from the Time limits for speeches laid down in paragraph (8)(a) of Standing Order No. 44.

I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of Hon. Members for the motion to be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on item 6 be exempted from the Time limits for speeches laid down in paragraph (8)(a) of Standing Order No. 44."

As insufficient notice of the motion has been given, the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of hon. Members present are required before the motion may be moved. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent. 12.20 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House supports the principles set out in the White Paper "Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services" which was presented to Parliament as Paper Cmd. 10 of 1988 as the basis for preparing a Bill for an elected President. Sir, let me first define the terms of the motion. I am asking this House to support the principles for a popularly elected President. The President so elected by popular vote will act as a custodian of our financial assets and serve to protect the integrity of our public Services. The support that I am asking this House to give is for the principles outlined in the White Paper to form the basis for drafting a Bill for a popularly elected President. All Bills, as we know, must go through due Parliamentary processes. So when the proposed Bill on an elected President is ready, it has first to be introduced by the Government, read a Second time, when this House will debate on it, and amended as deemed necessary by the House before it goes through a Third Reading, and becomes law. Sir, the proposal for a popularly elected President is a major constitutional change. It is therefore necessary for the proposal to be thoroughly discussed and debated. The Government has not rushed through this proposal. It has taken its time since the idea was mooted publicly in 1984, before presenting this White Paper. In other words, the concept of a popularly elected President to protect our financial assets was made public before the 1984 General Elections. Notwithstanding this, the Government has taken the step to present a White Paper for public discussion. The people of Singapore now has the opportunity, once again, to give their views on the subject. Indeed, many people have done so by writing to the newspapers, by voicing their views to the Feedback Unit, and also at constituency-level discussions. Today we have a further opportunity to debate on the concept in this House. I have no doubt that pertinent points will be noted by the Government in the drafting of the Bill. First, what is the objective of the Bill? The objective is to build into our system a checking mechanism to protect our financial assets and the integrity of our public services. Our assets are our national wealth. It has been built up from scratch. Today our foreign reserves alone amount to about $31 billion. Add to it what we have in other funds and the assets of Government-owned companies, and we have a lot more. To me, what is most important is that the wealth of the nation is also the wealth of the people. It is your money. It is my money. It is hard-earned money. Almost all of us have CPF funds. Apart from financing our housing needs and hospitalization expenses, it is also our retirement fund. When we all reach the age of 55 yrears, we look forward to receiving our CPF savings to see us through our senior years. The Government is holding our CPF money in trust. We want to be sure that Government is able to pay us our CPF savings in hard currency, in valuable money, when we reach 55 years, and not in devalued currency. It is like putting money in a savings bank. We want to be sure that the bank is soundly run by honest people, by capable people. How can we be sure that the Government can pay us when we retire? As of March 1988, our total CPF savings amount to about $31 billion. That is the money of all our workers, of all our people, $31 billion. Our official foreign reserves are also just above $31 billion, about $31.4 billion as of March 1988. So every dollar we have in the CPF is backed by a dollar in foreign reserves, and these foreign reserves are our real assets. So should we not protect our foreign reserves? The answer is obviously yes. We want to make sure that every dollar we have in our CPF savings is worth a dollar and no less. So we must protect our foreign reserves. Government is therefore proposing that the President acts as a check. He is our warning system. He sounds the alarm when he feels that the government is proposing to spend our reserves unwisely. To do this effectively, he should have a mandate. The mandate should come from the people. We can only exercise our right to vote and choose our government every four or five years. In between general elections, we give the government the mandate to govern and to act on our behalf. So it is good to have the President check on our behalf the actions of the government in respect of our foreign reserves. When the President is directly elected by the people, he has a responsibility to the people. It is his duty to act as a custodian of our foreign reserves. He cannot be removed by Members of Parliament. MPs cannot vote him out if he is carrying out his duties to protect our reserves. This, I feel, is a necessary check. Otherwise giving the President custodial powers can be circumvented by MPs voting him out in Parliament. We do not want this. Some people ask: does it mean that we do not trust the government which is elected by the people? Some go on to ask: does it mean we do not trust future Prime Ministers? I do not think that by having a President to block any unwise move amounts to distrust of all future Prime Ministers. It is like the operation of community organizations such as the CCCs and the RCs. There is a treasurer in the committee, but he alone cannot give effect to a cheque. He signs the cheque, but someone else in the committee must also sign. Does it mean that we do not trust the treasurer? No. We want someone else to sign so as to protect the money of the organization and it is a system of checks and balances. Every well-run company adopts the same practice. Not only does the accountant or financial controller sign the cheque, but someone else must also sign the cheque before the bank will clear it. It is a practice to protect the company from embezzlement. It is not that the company does not trust the people it employs, in particular the accountant or the financial controller. Again, it is a system of checks and balances. So as we have this checking mechanism in community organizations which deal with probably a few thousand dollars at most and we also have the same system in well-run companies dealing with millions of dollars, should we not have the President doing the same thing for our reserves, because there is much more money at stake, $31 billions just as far as the foreign reserves are concerned? I believe all of us want a checking mechanism. Even the opposition parties are in favour of a checking mechanism, if I read the reports in the press correctly. They may not agree that giving the President custodial powers is the best way. I think they agree that it is one workable method. If they have better ideas, it is for them to put them forward. They have had four years to think about this issue. If they have any better ideas, they should be able to present them now. Some people question the need to limit the number of people who qualify for standing for election as President to someone with previous ministerial or high executive experience. In fact, the Member for Potong Pasir is reported to have said that he thinks everyone should be entitled to stand for the Presidency. I beg to disagree with him. When companies carefully screen their candidates for senior positions, should we not do the same when we select someone to keep a check on billions of dollars? I think it is only right that we pick capable people, experienced in public affairs, able to see the overall national interest. He should be one who is wise and decisive. Some say the proposal in the White Paper gives the President executive powers. I do not think so. All that the President can do is to block the spending, tell us about it and if the government disagrees with the President, the case can be put to the people. A referendum will be held and we let the people decide. After all, finally the power comes from the people it should be the people, who decide. In the case of key appointments in the public service, I agree that we should ensure that the best people get appointed. It is for the Prime Minister to propose and for the President to concur or disagree. If the President disagrees, he himself cannot propose someone else. The President can- not nominate somebody else for appointment to the public service. It is still for the Prime Minister to propose a different name. In the United States, the President is the Chief Executive. The United States President nominates people to key offices of State. But the United States legislature acts as a check. They hold congressional hearings to assess the suitability of the President's nominee. Does it mean that they do not trust their popularly elected President? No. It is a system of checks and balances. If the US Congress or Senate disapproves the nomination, the President has to put up another nominee. So in their system, since the Chief Executive of government is the President, it is for the President to propose and the second mechanism does not imply that the US President has less powers or that the US does not trust the President they elect. In our system, the Prime Minister is the Chief Executive of State. He puts up the nomination. We have the President to check on the quality of the nominees. If the President concurs, a second opinion is given, is that not good for us to have this checking mechanism? Sir, Government has made its proposal after much internal discussions. The issue is now for further public discussion. I support the principles and urge this House to support it. Question proposed. 12.33 pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the announcement of the White Paper it has aroused a lot of talks and discussions among the people both inside and outside Singapore. A major Japanese newspaper a few days ago also commented on this editorializing the importance of letting the President to have greater powers to safeguard the national assets and reserves. The paper made a comparison of the set-up with a corporation, which I feel is very apt, describing Prime Minister Lee as the head person who started the corporation. Now that he is handing over the business to the younger generation, he himself now becomes the President of the corporation. What is important and of concern is the future of the corporation, ie, the reserves accumulated over the past years, whether the assets will be squandered away by any future directors. That is the reason for the President of this corporation to be given this power to safeguard and curb the ability of squandering by any future directors. That is an analogy. It would be very ideal to have an elected President with the qualifications of Prime Minister Lee, because this will give the people a sense of security, feeling sure that there will be stability, at least in the coming 5-10 years. At the moment, the proposal for an elected President with powers given by the Constitution to safeguard the national reserves and to maintain the integrity of the public service is an added guarantee and safeguard for our future. Those who are watchful of Singapore would have noticed that our political leadership has now entered into the final stage of transition. That is the most important stage in the political life of Singapore. In the past 30 years, up to now, it is the most important stage in the political transition. The older generation of founders in the political leadership has now completed the work and is handing over their tasks and responsibilities to the younger generation. This is a preparatory measure paving the way for a future Singapore. To a newly emerging country, institutionalization is a very important stage in the transition process because in a young country many things are not yet established in the right tracks. Many systems have not been institutionalized. Therefore, to have some important features like political system institutionalized is very important. In many third world countries, because of lack of safeguard of institutionalizing politics and government, the administration in those countries used to rise up and fall down according to the personality. The recent rioting in Burma is a very clear example. I don't mean that such things can also happen in Singapore. But, in order not to let a country fall or rise with a personality, I hope this will not happen to Singapore, such a proposed safeguard is very necessary and impor- tant. We are still very young. We have been independent only for 23 years. There are many things which have not been institutionalized. Therefore, for the long term interest of Singapore, we have to gradually institutionalize certain good points and systems favourable for our peace and stability for our future in order to avoid any unfavourable factors or influences affecting and stability from arising. Recently, we had passed a GRC Bill which is an example of institutionalizing our multi-racial politics in a system of multi-racial parliamentary representation. So, the elected President's proposal at this juncture is also another timely measure. At the moment, our Constitution does not have any provision preventing any government squandering away our reserves and there is no provision to safeguard our civil service to maintain their integrity, neutrality and fair dealings. Therefore, the White Paper proposals are to institutionalize these safeguards. There are people who ask: since we have good leaders and our Government is running well, why should we take upon the trouble to create this kind of new institution? It is true that for the past 30 years Singapore has maintained clean government with integrity and an efficient civil service that has accumulated $30 billion reserves. It is only because of our good Government and leadership. But can we ensure that this condition will always be maintained in future? We know that our national reserves and assets mainly come from the savings of our people. The reserves are closely linked up with our CPF and it is also closely linked up with the efficiency of our various ministries in the civil service and our efficient administration and the Government's good policies. If one day unfortunately there is a bad government appearing just like the Marcos era in the Philippines where there was nepotism and employment of close relatives and friends and cronies to important posts, that is to say, when one person has attained a high and powerful position even his cronies become very important officials and so on. In the end the whole country was in a turmoil and national coffers become empty. Sri Lanka after independence has this painful experience where the Government had to curry favour with and give lots of subsidies and so on to the people. So, now the country has depleted its reserves and is heavily in debt. Even the British system of civil service inherited by it is degenerating because of nepotism. All these are examples which we should learn lessons from. So we should not allow Singapore to fall into the same trap because our survival depends on our efficiency and that is a distinguishing point. We could compete with other countries and our reserves are the only asset and the important factor and safeguard that have prevented us from failure but have seen us through the last world-wide depression. We do not have natural resoures. We have to use money to buy everything from foreign countries. If there is no safeguard in the Constitution for these two things, the reserves and the civil service, it will be very perilous for us. Maybe the elected President is a safeguard. But it is not an absolute safeguard. We may have a good President but if we happen to have a bad government then the bad government even if it does not need to make use of the reserves but every year there is a deficit in the financial position, what will become the result of it? In the end the Government will have to borrow or to raise loans or by some other means to pay up the debts. When the pressure increases, it may be tempted to resort to the use of national reserves. Before there is any safeguard, I think it would be better for us to elect a good government. If one day Singaporeans become lazy and only want to enjoy life and do not want to be diligent and work for things they want but look only for enjoyment of easy life and getting things the easy way without paying for their price. In other words, our value concepts have changed, leading to a Government wanting to make use of the national reserves to please the people for their temporary satisfaction. Even with this safeguard of elected President, with his power written in the Constitution, the national reserves will still be squandered away, because the Govrnment can go through a refrendum to circumvent the President's objection. Therefore, I feel that in the final analysis, the safeguard lies in the people themselves, in their electing a good government. So it depends on their sense of judgment based on the value concept of the people, on their maintaining the good value concepts that have been passed down to them so that they may choose a good government. In other words, to safeguard their hard-earned reserves and to maintain efficient civil service, the people should continue to elect a capable and honest government every time. We should not think that because of this safeguard of an elected President, then we could rest and feel safe. I think the elected President could be a kind of preventive measure. In other words, he can only prevent things from happening and not a kind of a measure to just take care of something when it has happened. Even so, I believe that if our people could continue to maintain their good qualities and be vigilant against the corrosive thoughts of taking an easy life, if they could keep on with their good value concepts and good living habits, and do not fall into the traps of some opportunist politicians' enticement fancying to enjoy easy subsidised life without paying any price. That is the best way to safeguard our future. Sir, finally, on the proposition, the question of whether the new proposal should be put to a referendum, I feel that it is not necessary, because about this amendment proposal we all can accept that it is a very important proposal with deep and far reaching influence and consequences. I believe the Government would not be proposing this Bill in a hurry and pass it in Parliament hurriedly. On the contrary, I feel the Government will give the people sufficient time to discuss it. One of the methods is that we know that this year would be a year of general election, we can put forward the elected President proposal as an issue for the general election instead of a referendum on it so that the people will have adequate time and all the political parties will also have sufficient time to discuss it. Then at the general election, the people can vote on it. If the Government receives the majority support of the people, it will also prove that the people support this amendment to the Constitution. Then we need not have another voting by the people to decide on this proposal. This would be killing two birds with one stone, saving time and saving effort. Sir, I support this motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, this White Paper is a landmark document which will alter the nature and functions of the office of the President of Singapore. I see this move as a solution to some problems that we have with our existing Constitution, and not due to any unhappiness over the existing role of the President. The problem, as the White Paper puts it, is that, left as it is, there is a danger of misuse of our reserves as well as a drop in the standards and integrity of our public service. This is because presently our Constitution does not contain any checks on the Government in respect of these two crucial matters. I agree and recognize that these are problems that require quick attention. It is indeed commendable that the present Government takes the initiative to reveal an apparent loophole in our Constitution which it could have exploited for its own benefit. Sir, the proposed solution must be viewed in the light of this good intention. Besides the proposed adoption of an elected President and Vice-President, the White Paper points out that the Government has considered various alternative solutions to the problems. To recapitulate, some possible solutions include: (a) Creating of an upper legislative body; (b) Reposing the power of veto in a separate body; (c) Requiring decisions on financial assets to go through a referendum. Sir, whichever solution we choose depends on how we set our fundamental considerations. What are these considerations? The White Paper has listed the following key considerations: (a) The Parliamentary system should be preserved; (b) The safeguard mechanism must ensure quick action; (c) The person must have moral authority; (d) The person must have ministerial or high executive or administrative experience; and (e) The Presidential candidates must be assessed and selected by an impartial body, comprising three or five persons. Sir, I agree with the first consideration because we should not tamper with our present Parliamentary system unnecessarily. We should preserve our present Parliamentary system. I also recognize the importance of the second consideration, as any solution which unduly delays the execution of government decisions will not only reduce efficiency but will also lead to an ineffective government. However, Sir, I find the last three considerations are only applicable if we have already decided that an elected President is the only solution. They would not be applicable when we are considering other solutions, for example, having a Council purely for the protection of reserves. Therefore, there are only two real considerations out of the list of five. Unless there are other considerations, these two considerations, that is, the preservation of the Parliamentary system and ensuring quick action, do not appear to rule out, in my opinion, other alternative solutions other than those the Government has considered. Sir, the status quo can be an example. There is no change to the Parliamentary system and neither is there any observable delay in the execution of Government's decisions. The same applies to the solution of having a Council with the power to veto any government's misuse of the reserves. The referendum route will present considerable delays, not to mention costs. Having an upper legislative body will not only cause delays but also change our present Parliamentary system. Sir, we may not appear to be suffering from the problems which are outlined in the White Paper now because we are currently enjoying a good government. However, there could potentially be problems should an irresponsible government, by default, assume power. To suggest that such problems may take place presupposes that the electorate could make a mistake of voting in a bad government. If this presupposition is correct, it would appear that there is no guarantee that the same electorate can vote in a better President to check on the government. Perhaps what we are saying is that the chances of them voting in both a bad government and a bad President is less than the chance of just voting in a bad government. Sir, we can reduce the chance of a double tragedy by phasing out the timing of their respective elections by having a different electoral system for the election of the President and Vice-President. Sir, the White Paper has suggested several ways of ensuring that the elected President can effectively check on the government's actions by stipulating various quality control measures on the selection of President, such as stringent background tests and pre-selection by an impartial body. This brings me to the other possible solution which is to have a Council for the Protection of Reserves. We could have that impartial body sitting as a Council and thus obviate the need to create the office an elected President. Sir, given the assumption that the electorate may one day vote in an irresponsible government (with an overwhelming majority), the issue before the House appears to be choosing the most appropriate solution to this potential problem. And the solutions narrow down to two: (i) having an elected President in the manner proposed in the White Paper, or (ii) having a Council for the Protection of Reserves. I suppose, in our truly Singaporean cautious style, we are deciding to have both an elected President as well as a Committee for the Protection of Reserves. Sir, whilst I support the proposal to protect our national reserves, I feel that its enforceability must also be carefully planned for. For example, the President and his Committee must have access to information and have a means of monitoring them. To make the proposed solution effective, the financial assets and reserves of the State must be clearly defined so that there is sufficient leeway for the government to manage while at the same time there are meaningful accounts or reports for the President and his Committee to check on. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, besides amending the role of the President, the White Paper proposes the creation of the office of Vice-President. This proposal warrants close examination. It is proposed that the Vice-President may continue to serve as a Minister or as an MP after election to the office. I have reservations about the validity of this arrangement. From the views which I have gathered from various quarters, it is generally felt that the Vice-President must be the running mate of the President. The White Paper proposes that the Vice-President needs to exercise the functions and duties of the President for any period during which the President is unable to do so owing to illness, absence from Singapore, or any other cause. Sir, therefore, if he continues to serve as a Cabinet Minister or as an MP, then I believe there is a conflict of interest. This complication may well impair his ability to effectively perform his custodial functions vested in him as the Vice-President. Moreover, Sir, what will be his standing, as he is wearing two hats - one as a Minister of the Cabinet or an MP and the other as Vice-President? This is one of the difficulties we may have to live with if we accept the proposal in the White Paper. Sir, in order for the proposed Presidential system to be effective, we will need a Vice-President with the quality stipulated in the White Paper, in particular he must be free from any conflict of interest apart from having unquestioned moral authority. What will happen if he is sympathetic to the cause of the Prime Minister? Let me paint you a simple but maybe realistic scenario. Assuming that the President and the Prime Minister cannot see eye to eye, and the President has blocked many Bills put forward to him for assent. The Prime Minister maybe could send the President on overseas tours or on long leave and push through Bills through the Vice-President during his absence. The White Paper, I believe, has not addressed this possibility and thus does not make any provision to guard against this situation. Therefore, Sir, I am of the opinion that the Vice-President should be, like the President, a non-partisan appointment. Both of them should be elected as a team on the same ticket in order to prevent any possible abuse of the system. Sir, the people I have spoken to have expressed their fear that the elected President could turn out to be more powerful than the Prime Minister. The reason is very simple. The President has the mandate of the whole country whereas the Prime Minister is appointed by the majority of the MPs. Therefore, this is a potentially contentious point in an event of a confrontation. If the wish of the President is allowed to prevail, then the consideration of the preservation of the Parliamentary system would be called into question.

Order. It is 1.00 pm. The Sitting is suspended until 2.00 o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, another point I would like to address is the much more controversial but commanding less attention so far and it refers to the issue of key appointments in the civil service. From discussions I have had, many people have expressed their concern about the proposed safeguards to ensure meritocracy and integrity of the civil service. The proposed requirement to obtain the President's concurrence in respect to key appointments would hold civil servants beholden to the President. This could lead to the possibility of split loyalty amongst them. Sir, the White Paper proposes a whole list of key appointments for which the President's concurrence has to be sought. It is generally felt that this list is too extensive. Many of these appointments could be omitted without compromising the effectiveness of the President in preserving the integrity of the civil service. I am of the opinion that the Chairmen and members of the various statutory boards and Government-linked companies should not be included in this list. The present system has already built in the necessary safeguards to prevent the statutory boards and companies from squandering their funds and assets. I can understand why this has been introduced. The specific statutory boards listed out in the White Paper are those statutory boards which have accumulated reasonable amounts of surpluses over the years. But none of the statutory boards has so far spent its money. In any case, the Minister for Finance can direct that these surpluses be easily transferred back to the Consolidated Revenue. Sir, I think the system has sufficient built-in checks and balances on the operation of statutory boards and Government-linked companies. The President's concurrence on the selection of all key appointment holders listed in the White Paper, in my opinion, is unnecessary. This list, if it is necessary, could be reduced to include maybe the Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judges, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Chairman of the proposed Armed Forces Services Commission. The principle is, therefore, to provide a minimum number of checks on the system while preserving the integrity of the parliamentary system of government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the feedback from my constituents as well as from my GPC resource panel members ranges from cautious acceptance to cynical resignation. The case for a device to protect our reserves is water-tight. However, excessive checks and balances in the system would undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of our parliamentary system.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support the proposal of an elected President. But I would remind everyone that when we discuss this, we should concentrate on discussing the merits and demerits of the system and not on the potential candidate for the post. To put it more clearly, we should not think that because the Prime Minister is the best candidate for this post, therefore, we must accept this system of an elected President. We must judge the matter according to the long-term interest and future of the country. A system is not to be established just for a short time but it is a plan for a very long time. The proposal of an elected President is to further institutionalize our political system, in order to ensure gradually in future a political system will not base on personality. The system should not rise or fall accordingly to the rise and flat of personality ( ). The Prime Minister and the first generation leadership have maintained three principles of good government, ie, integrity, prudent financial management, and the appointment of public service based on meritocracy. So far, although the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have great and unfettered powers, including powers to use of the reserves and to appoint key persons to the public service, but they have not abused their powers. Because of their just and selfless character and foresightedness, we have accumulated $30 billion reserves and established a clean and efficient public service. But nobody can ensure that future governments will have the same kind of quality. Under our parliamentary system, one or more political parties having majority of one seat in Parliament may form the government. If it is an irresponsible government caring only for short-term political benefits, it will easily squander away accumulated reserves from the past generation, and the practice by the politicians of nepotism or supporters from same political parties in public service appointments. Therefore, the proposed elected President system is to provide added safeguard for safekeeping the reserves and to ensure the integrity of the public service. This is a farsighted proposal. It deserves for the support of all. As regards the President's power in safeguarding the reserves which consist mainly of the savings of the people in the form of CPF. This has much to do with the interests of the people themselves. Our people accept this proposal, because having two keys to the reserves will always be safer and better than having just one key. A cheque signed by two persons will always be more prudent and safer than by only one person. Our people understand this. Moreover, from the view point of Eastern concept of values, to the people, since the large sum of assets and reserves were accumulated by the older generation, the older generation will have a right to and a say in the use of these "old assets" ( ) by the next generation. In fact, a good government should always be able to economize expenditure and generate new revenue and avoid deficit budgeting. It should achieve a balanced budget every year, better still a surplus budget, so that it will not be necessary to make use of the "old assets" or to borrow from abroad or to print money to pass the days. There are different opinions to the second function of the elected President's - his right to veto the appointments to certain key public service positions for the sake of preserving its integrity. The intention is good, but the scope of his power may be too wide. The White Paper says that certain key appointments should have the concurrence of the President. Such posts include, under section 45, paragraph (b), the eight categories of appointments ranging from the Chief Justice down to SBC's board members. In future, this may create problems. First, it may cause a conflict between the President and the Prime Minister over the appointees. Next, it may weaken the power of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Thirdly, it may cause the diversion of object of loyalty by the civil servant and statutory board employees. It is a difficult task to discover the right person, assess him and appoint him to the right post. And because different people have different opinions and ways, the elected President may have different opinion from the Prime Minister in exercising his power in this area. The proposal is based on the assumption that there may be bad government in future. However, we should not rule out the other possibility in future of having an obstinate and egoistic President who will always go against the Cabinet and will not agree to the key appointments in public service. When there is such a conflict, then the Government will have to call for a referendum asking people to decide even over such appointment as SBC board member, I feel that it is really creating mountains out of molehills. It is not necessary. So the elected President's power in this area should concentrate on certain very key appointments such as (1) the Chief Justice and the other Supreme Court Judges; (2) Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission; and (3) Chairman and members of the proposed Armed Forces Services Commission. This will ensure judiciary independence and fair appointment and promotion in the civil and military services. I feel that other statutory boards such as PSA, PUB, CAAS and even SBC, the appointment of their key personnel and civil servants need not get the concurrence of the elected President. However, for statutory boards which have functions like a Central Bank such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Currency Board and also the CPF Board and Government Investment Company which have direct relationship with the reserves and assets, perhaps the President should have a say in the appointment of their key officers, ie, Chairmen and members of the Boards. As regards the request by the Member for Potong Pasir on the 6th August that the question of an elected President should be put to a vote by the people in the next general elections if there is no referendum and the Bill for these constitutional amendments should not be passed before the general elections, I urge the government to agree to his request. Let the people have a say in this proposal. But I propose that the Opposition parties should play their part also by fielding candidates in all the constituencies and make the elected President proposal as an issue to be voted on by the voters. Otherwise, they would have deprived voters of the non-contested constituencies the chance to express their view on this proposal. Those professionals who think that this proposal should go through a referendum, I believe among them are those who are also interested in politics, they should take part in the next general elections as independents and contest against the PAP on this issue in order to let the people to decide. They must practise what they preach. I agree with the Member for Braddell Heights that there is no absolute guarantee or safeguard in any system. The elected President is only one kind of safeguard and not an absolute guarantee. So the ultimate decision rests on the quality and value of the people. If the people cannot insist upon a philosophy of living of self-sufficiency and have lost the spirit of diligence, thrift and progress but bent on touching the $30 billion reserves, then whatever system there is would not be a safeguard preventing our nation from degenerating. On the other hand, if in the course of discussion on this proposal we can reaffirm the importance in nation building of a good government and can arouse the consciousness of the people about their responsibility for the survival of the country, then we will have already achieved the objective of the elected President proposal half-way, namely, by judiciously electing an honest, just, clean and upright government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our present Constitution has served the country and people very well indeed. The Constitution provides for a Cabinet form of government with the Prime Minister as the Chief Executive in charge of running the country. Sir, since 1959 Singapore has been fortunate to have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet second to none in the world. They have exercised their powers firmly but fairly, decisively yet judiciously, and have done so for the good and welfare of the people. That they have served Singaporeans well can be seen in the expression of the people's will and support in every general election since 1959. Sir, the Constitution has also provided for some kind of check and balance in the political system; for example, the Parliament and the Judiciary. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have always been constrained in the exercise of their powers by both Parliament and the Judiciary: by Parliament because it is Parliament where the people's sovereignty resides and where the expression of the people's will is expressed, and by the Judiciary because it is the Courts which arbitrate on the correct interpretation of the laws made by Parliament. Sir, this kind of check and balance which has been enshrined in our Constitution has worked well for the country and people. The smooth functioning of these institutions, the Cabinet, Parliament and Judiciary, have not been impaired in any way and we have benefited from it. This is seen in the political stability, the multi-racial harmony and economic progress we have enjoyed all these years, especially after independence in 1965. Why then is it necessary for Parliament today to debate on the Government's proposal to introduce constitutional amendments to safeguard the financial assets and the integrity of the public services? What is the rationale for the Government's proposal? For a small country with very limited land and no natural resources, the future of the country must be anchored upon certain vital assets which we have accumulated over the years. And the assets must be permanent assets. Other countries have huge masses of land upon which agricultural and animal resources can be produced, and vast gold, oil and other mineral reserves which they can draw on. What have we got? Nothing in the way of natural resources. But we have our national reserves, at least $30 billion. Hence it is vital that we safeguard these national reserves. At the same time, Sir, many countries have bountiful agricultural and mineral resources and yet they have not been able to achieve the same rate of progress as we have. Why not? The answer lies in the utilization of our human resources. In Singapore, we have a meritocracy in which the highest premium is placed on political leadership and the civil service. Both have contributed tremendously to the success of Singapore. Both are assets to be preserved. But political leadership is a decision of the electorate: we get the kind of political leaders we elect. It is up to the people to decide. However, the integrity of the civil service can be entrenched by the government. It is vital that we do so. Hence, Sir, I find myself in agreement with the Government's rationale for wanting to provide constitutional safeguards for our sizeable national reserves and the integrity of the civil service. Sir, I understand fully and agree with the key considerations which have guided the Government in their deliberations as to which form of safeguard mechanism should be introduced. These key considerations are: Firstly, the Parliamentary system should be preserved, that is, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet should keep the initiative to govern the nation. Secondly, the safeguard mechanism must enable quick action, that is, the procedures should enable gravely damaging decisions by the government to be blocked swiftly before it is too late. Thirdly, the person must have moral authority, that is, the official or agency entrusted with the task of exercising such checks must have, and be seen to have, the legitimacy and moral authority to block the government. These are the key considerations I agree with. Sir, these considerations and others were taken into account when the Government decided on which form of safeguard mechanism to adopt. In paragraph 18 of the White Paper it is stated that the Government had considered a number of alternatives, including "an upper legislative body". Sir, what I would like to know is, what are the views of the Government on the various alternatives which they have considered to provide the constitutional safeguards? In particular, why did they reject the other options? Sir, my other Parliamentary colleagues have dealt with various aspects of the proposal relating to an elected President, as contained in the White Paper. For the purpose of this present debate, Sir, I would like to express my reservation concerning the elected President and call upon the Government to reconsider the option of an Upper House. Sir, let me express my views on this question of an Upper House or Senate, which will have limited membership and has the specific function of safe- guarding our national reserves and integrity of the civil service. In my view, it is an option worthy of a second look. Such an Upper House would take into account the key considerations mentioned above. Sir, in my view an Upper House or Senate comprising, say, 10 to 12 members elected by the voters has certain features which should be given their due consideration. Firstly, the country and people will have the valuable services of a group of men and women who will have administrative, management and professional experience at the highest levels of government as well as the public and private sectors. This means that they should possess certain qualifications before they can offer themselves for election. But what you will have, Sir, is a group of men and women with such experience and expertise. Secondly, their concurrence for any government decision affecting the national reserves and integrity of the civil service will have been arrived at following careful deliberations and debate before the public, since debate in an Upper House should be open to the public. The public will then be aware of the manner in which they have arrived at their decision or concurrence with the government decision. Thirdly, there will be a clear division between Parliament and the Senate so that each is independent of the other. No candidate can stand for both Parliamentary and Senatorial elections. Fourthly, disagreement between the government and the Senate can be resolved by Parliament and the Senate without having to resort to a referendum. For example, let us say that two-thirds of the Senate votes are required for concurrence in these two vital areas. Then if the government fails to get the vote, the matter should be referred to Parliament for further debate. After that the matter can be sent up to the Senate once more. If it fails again, then either the government accepts the decision or resign. Then both parliamentary and senatorial elections can be held and the people can then decide for themselves. That is the usual practice in most parliamentary democracies where there are two Houses of Parliament. Fifthly, the will of the people will prevail. Both Parliament and Senate members are elected by the people. They are the people's representatives and they should act in the national interest. Sir, if a Senate is created for the purpose of safeguarding the two vital assets, then the President can continue to play his present constitutional role. As stated, the President would be required to give his assent before Bills become law and such assent will be given on advice. But more importantly, Sir, the President can continue to be above politics. He is the symbol of national unity. And in any situation of national crisis, he can be a stabilizing force. This is a valuable asset which should be also safeguarded in our present Constitution. Sir, I agree with the rationale behind the need for constitutional amendments to safeguard our national reserves and integrity of the civil service. But I would prefer that Government examine carefully all possible forms of check and balance to be introduced for our parliamentary system. Even before the Bill is drafted, I hope the Government will conduct public hearings on the subject. On the basis of the hearings the Government can then draft the Bill which will then be debated in Parliament, and at that stage I hope it will be referred to a Select Committee. Only after detailed discussions and consultations can consensus be arrived at and hence the issue carefully considered. Sir, this is a matter of utmost national importance and we should not be rushed into making a judgment on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the principle set out in the White Paper on the elected President. The White Paper provides a check and balance system to protect the interest of our nation and our citizens. The risk of losing what we have painstakingly built and acquired through a generation of hard work and sacrifice will be minimized. There will no longer be an automatic licence for the government of the day to dispose of the nation's assets in any manner it chooses. Instead, we would have put into place a mechanism to ensure that our reserves are called upon only under excruciating circumstances. The measure proposed is simple yet effective. It is similar to the system we have for our safe deposit accounts. The bank holds a key and the depositor another. Both keys must be used before valuables can be released. This safeguards the bank and the depositor. Sir, I have heard it asked - since there is no immediate or foreseeable threat of misuse of our financial assets, why the need to have this system in place now? This question is irrelevant because if we perceive a weakness in our current system, we should correct it regardless of whether a problem exists at the moment. Suppose we ignore it and at some point an irresponsible government is elected into power, it would be too late, would it not, for us to take any action then. Look at the example of the Philippines under the Marcos government. See how the country was forced into bankruptcy and had to incur massive debts because of the excesses of the government. There is no certainty that whoever governs Singapore in the future, be it the PAP or otherwise, will not be careless with the use of our nation's assets. The PAP Government has always responded positively to the need for checks in our system. For example, it made provisions for non-constituency MPs to be in Parliament in line with the people's desire for a check and balance system. However, the Opposition cannot play an effective role where the nation's funds are concerned because there can only be one group with a majority in Parliament. The Opposition can always be outvoted even if it wants to check the government in the proper use of its funds. Those who are opposed to this system had claimed that here is another attempt by the PAP to cling on to power. This, Sir, cannot be further from the truth because if the PAP wants to cling on to power, it should not propose such a system in the first place. This system restricts its power. The PAP should simply encourage the continuation of the existing system. What about the person to fill the post of the President? Sir, I am satisfied that the White Paper has sufficiently broad provisions to allow the very best among our people to take on this role. If in the first instance, the people decide to have the Prime Minister as the President, this is well and good. It demonstrates the people's confidence in him and the fact that he has a useful role to play and can continue to work for the benefit of the people. Whoever the President may be is a matter for the people of Singapore to decide. It always will be. Finally, Sir, I have two questions which I would like the First Deputy Prime Minister to answer. First, if a candidate is elected President, can he remain as a member of a political party? This has not been clearly stated in the White Paper. The second question is the issue raised by the Member for Chong Boon and, that is, whether there would be a conflict of interest in the case of the elected Vice-President who is also a Minister, an MP or a member of a political party, when he acts on behalf of the President in relation to the areas where his concurrence is required.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the names of the Members for Kebun Baru and Braddell Heights, and that is on the White Paper on Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services presented to Parliament as Paper Cmd. 10 of 1988. Sir, my GPC has studied the proposed amendments with great concern and seriousness. We have unanimously agreed to support the White Paper. With your permission, Sir, I shall deal with these proposed amendments, first in general and then in detail. Other Members of my GPC will also speak on it. In General We agree with the principles behind the proposal to introduce an elected non-executive President with certain custodial powers into our existing system of government. (1) It is right that we evolve our own system of government. Sir, as a former British colony, it was natural and convenient, upon gaining independence, to adopt the British parliamentary system with certain modifications. We could not have imported and still cannot successfully import another country's system wholesale into our own country. As far as it is practicable, we may make use of a certain parliamentary practice and procedure, but we must adapt the system according to our own country's needs. We are a sovereign independent nation, mature enough to recognize our needs and respond to them positively, to the extent of altering the status quo wherever and whenever necessary. As an example, Sir, let me recount briefly the time we had to decide how to have our Singapore Dollar pegged after its interchangeability with the Malaysian Ringgit was discontinued. We had nothing in terms of natural resources to back our Dollar then. We therefore took the best step possible by passing the Currency Act of 1967 which was to give backing to our Singapore Dollar with whatever reserves we had. This step was correct and our reserves grew rapidly, that is to say, by nearly three times in less than five years, from $1,068 million in 1965 to $3,098 million in 1970. Things would have turned out differently today if we had not had the foresight to take that momentous step and subsequently attempt to develop Singapore as a financial centre. Sir, today, the fruits of such policies are enjoyed by all. (2) It is consistent with our system of checks and balances. All good systems of government have their own checks and balances. We have some at present which may have been adequate in the past but may not be so in the long run. Although it is a feature of the parliamentary system that the government in power is supreme in legislation, decision-making and public administration, most countries with this system have an upper legislative body. For example, the United Kingdom has its House of Lords and Malaysia and Australia both have an Upper House as well as Federal Governments. But, Sir, because of our small size, it is neither practical nor necessary for us to have a bicameral parliamentary system like those countries. Everybody knows that we have progressed considerably in the past 30 years or so. In the past, our population comprised mainly low-income earners who had little or no education. Today, Sir, the majority of the people of Singapore are in the middle-income bracket with at least a primary school education. From 51 single-member constituencies in 1963 we have now 81 constituencies comprising 13 GRCs (of three members in each group representation constituency) and 42 single-member constituencies. Therefore, we are of the view that an elected non-executive President with custodial powers to act as a check, particularly the two-key safeguard mechanism as set out in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, is a good alternative to an upper legislative body. Here I disagree with the sentiments expressed by my friend, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, when he proposed that there be a Senate or an Upper House, for the reason that I have just stated. (3) It is for protection of national reserves and the integrity of the public services. Sir, national reserves and the integrity of the public services are two of Singapore's most valuable assets. Governments can come and can go every four to five years, but national reserves and the integrity of the public services must always remain for the good of all. Our national reserves are made up mainly of CPF savings of the people of Singapore and they have been slowly and, rightly so, as stated by the Member for Telok Blangah, painstakingly built up over the years and also the surpluses resulting from prudent financial policies of this Government. When the government in power is led by honest, honourable and responsible men, Singaporeans need not be afraid that the government will squander their hard-earned monies and savings. However, Sir, when the government in power is less than honest or less than careful or inapt in appointing key persons in the public services, the results may be disastrous for Singapore. Once corruption is allowed and an inefficient civil service is in control, we lose all that we have built and Singapore is lost forever. So let me recount what happened when the PAP was voted into power in 1959. Its first unpleasant and certainly most painful policy was to impose a 30% pay cut on the civil service. Many suffered from that pay cut. But I think they understood the necessity of such a measure because the Government had made it clear that it could not afford to pay the 30% cost of living allowance (COLA, in short). What could these people do but to accept it. After all, the PAP had the mandate of the people by capturing 43 of the 51 seats it contested in the general elections then. In short, it had to review the overall fiscal policies. Not all governments are as prudent and honest as the PAP Government. The electorate may fall for the political gambits of some other party or parties and without realizing it, they may vote in an irresponsible government. To give an irresponsible government unlimited power over our national reserves would be disastrous. However, with the President holding the second key to the national reserves and to important appointments in the public services the disaster may be averted. Ultimately, this is a question the people of Singapore will have to decide and they will then have to address their minds to the issue. (4) It is for the long-term good of Singapore. My GPC accepts that these proposed amendments to the Constitution are for the long-term good of Singapore. Prevention is always better than cure. We should devise our own security system now when we can, rather than wait until damage is done first. We would like to commend the Government for having the foresight and the initiative to introduce these Constitutional amendments now. Perhaps it is necessary to further explain the need for these amendments to the people as there is no doubt in our minds that the PAP will continue to govern Singapore for many more years to come, and that is, many more good years to come. In the past 30 years or so, the Government has been busy with nation-building. We have come such a long way from slums and squatters to 86% of the people living in public housing estates where 80% of them are the owners through the home-ownership scheme. We have substantial national reserves which many countries with rich natural resources but poor governments would give their eye and teeth for. It was not plain luck which has brought us this far. It is a combination of hard work from a disciplined workforce and an honest and responsible Government elected by the people of Singapore to which we owe our affluence. Sir, a government which has a vision for the future, which looks forward and plans ahead, has satisfied the basic needs of the people of Singapore. One of Singapore's most crucial assets which cannot be over-emphasized, Sir, is her political stability. This is a major consideration for foreign investors on whom we depend for our survival. We must maintain our political stability if we are to keep on attracting investors. Investors, especially those in capital-intensive, high value-added industries, require long-term political stability in order to recoup their capital and make profits on their investments. Investors like those bring in foreign exchange, job opportunities, expertise and technology. Everybody benefits. Here, we would like to express our concern and, more frankly, our fear that everything that has been done is being taken for granted, in particular that the comforts of life today are being taken too lightly by some quarters. Perhaps we should find a way to try to remind ourselves from time to time. However, Sir, political stability cannot be guaranteed. Elections are held every four to five years. The people decide who they wish to govern Singapore. What the Government is doing now is to ensure that future governments, whoever they may be, cannot dip into the national reserves or indirectly influence public spending by appointing their puppets to key positions in statutory boards and government companies, without the concurrence of a President elected by the people of Singapore and ultimately without the direct concurrence of the people of Singapore. This is one way to protect the political stability of Singapore. Put in its simplest form, a government has to spend money to do its job. However, Sir, if a government spends more than the revenue it makes, the country will soon run into debt. Much of our national reserves are CPF savings of the people. If a government squanders the hard-earned savings of the people, it will bring ruin to the people and to the country. And as I have said earlier, what has been built up so painstakingly will be lost forever. In Detail Sir, having given our reasons for supporting the proposed Constitutional amendments in principle, we now proceed to look at them in detail. (1) Provision for a Vice-President This has also been referred to by some of my colleagues on the Backbench. Although, Sir, we agree with the election of a Vice-President together with the President, we have some reservations about the Vice-President continuing in his office as a Minister or as a Member of Parliament. How is this to be reconciled? In other words, will there be any conflict of interest should the Vice-President have to stand in for the President when the latter is away or incapacitated? (2) Political significance Other than custodial powers, the elected President is non-executive. We are of the view that the elected President should remain neutral as far as politics is concerned, although it seems that having a Presidential election will make a political issue out of the office of Presidency. (3) Removal We would like to ask, Sir, by what legal process and on whose initiative is the question of the President's capability or integrity to be referred to the Supreme Court? In our considered opinion, it is good to let the Judiciary have a say in this so that the Government will not be accused of "fixing" a President they are unhappy with. However, the legal process by which the elected President may be removed must be worked out carefully to prevent abuse and to achieve the removal in the most equitable manner possible. After all, Sir, we must not forget that the President was elected by the people of Singapore and their choice, the people's choice, should be respected. (4) Matters for which the President's concurrence must be obtained In essence, we agree with the matters specified in paragraph 45 of the White Paper. However, Sir, we would like to seek clarification on items 45(a)(iii) and (iv). In what matters pertaining to capital assets and surpluses of statutory boards and government companies must the President's concurrence be obtained? Is it in sale, disposal, conversion or any other form of dealing, or is it in acquisition or accumulation or investment? In short, there is no proper specification to paragraph 45(a)(iii) and (iv). While it is good to specify the appointments to key positions in the public services for which the President's concurrence must be obtained, we would like to ask whether there will be provisions to add or amend the list, if necessary, in future, for example, names of statutory boards and government companies may change or new statutory boards and government companies may be formed, the key positions of of which officers should have the President's concurrence. Conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have earlier given our support to the general principles behind the proposed Constitutional amendments. In going into the details of the White Paper, our intention is to highlight areas that require careful consideration especially in the drafting of the actual Constitutional amendments and the necessary legislation thereafter. Having said this, we wish to point out that we are no parliamentary legal draftsmen. If we have repeated to a certain extent what some of my other Backbench colleagues have already brought up, it is because we want to stress the importance of these matters. More importantly, Sir, it clearly manifests the congruence of the various viewpoints on this particular subject. This Government has always carried out its duties honourably and responsibly. I am confident that it will continue to do so for many more years to come. Some people have therefore asked, why the need for change now when we have managed very well in the past? May I, Sir, counter that question by asking, why not now? As an independent nation, we have achieved much to be proud of. So we are mature enough to decide for ourselves what is best for us. We can learn from the mistakes of other countries but we need not look to them for guidance. We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate. After all, ships from all over the world come to Singapore for bunkering, repairs and other services and the captains of those ships know they can rely on our efficiency and good service. A good captain takes measures to keep his ship in a seaworthy state in calm waters. He does not wait for a storm to test the fitness of the ship. In short, a good captain takes all necessary precautions while the going is good and takes as little risks as possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GPC on National Development and Housing supports the White Paper on Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services which was presented to Parliament as Paper Command 10 of 1988.

Sir, I wish to join my colleagues in support of the motion moved by the Member for Kebun Baru. The White Paper clearly spells out the main reasons for an elected President. I strongly agree with the principles set out in the White Paper. To me, it is a far-sighted move on the part of the Government to ensure that there is someone to check a government that is becoming irresponsible in wanting to dip into our reserves. In other words, it provides for an additional lock on our Republic's reserves. Sir, this new move for an elected President opens a new chapter in our political development. It is heartening to note that the basic principle of a democratic system is not sacrificed. The people, ie, all Singaporeans, will be electing a person whom they consider capable and fit to sit on the highest office of the State. I am very sure that Singaporeans are intelligent enough to choose the right person for the job. The Government must be congratulated for vesting this safeguard into a Bill that is coming, and it has been very cautious in making the decision to move in this direction. Whatever it is, Sir, it must be stressed that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will still be running the country. Sir, although this issue has been explained to the people, to the mass media and Government leaders, there are still many people who have doubts about its effectiveness and the workings behind the system. I have had the privilege as a member of the Feedback Unit to listen to them and I shall put forward a few questions for the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, on the whole, most of them accept the reasons behind the move to have an elected President. But many feel that the criteria for a candidate for the post are too stringent. They agree with the category of people eligible for the candidacy as stated in paragraph 18(e) of the White Paper. But they wish that it could include others who have been successful in life, for example, a successful businessman or an outstanding civil servant. In this way, we can cast the net wider. Another area of doubt is with regard to the fundamental considerations in deciding the form of constitutional safeguards in which the Government has considered many alternatives. What are the alternatives available to the Government, and why is this elected Presidency the best alternative of all? Perhaps the Government could explain very simply to the people the reasons for choosing this elected Presidency move. I believe this enlightenment process could help more people in understanding the basic philosophy of the impending elected Presidency Bill. Sir, many people feel that there is a political motive behind this elected Presidency. Some go as far as accusing the Hon. Prime Minister of wanting to remain in power and not trusting the next Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Some people suggest that the post of the President and Vice-President should be above politics. An aspiring candidate must first resign from his political party to prevent any conflict of interest that may subsequently arise. This move allows the President to be neutral in politics as it is now, and at the same time has the authority on the two powers vested in him. If the President is a member of a political party, he can collude with the Government if they happen to come from the same party. Likewise, the President can go on a collision course with the Government if they are from a different party. Sir, candidates wishing to stand for election as President and Vice-President must do so on their credentials and their past services to the nation. However, political parties may support them for the posts. Sir, there have been calls from the people for the Government to hold a referendum on this issue. I hope the Government can make a stand on this and explain the reasons behind its decisions. In conclusion, Sir, I believe that there is still a need for the Government and community leaders to explain to the people and convince them that this concept is in the long-term interests of the nation. We must allow people to give their views on this matter and it must be done thoroughly so that we can build consensus on something that is very important in the political development of Singapore. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will be brief. The White Paper has laid down the rationale for the proposed constitutional amendments. I fully support the principles as laid down in the White Paper. My reasons are two-fold. Firstly, the proposals will provide additional safeguard to the financial assets of all Singaporeans and to the integrity of the civil service. Secondly, the proposals will further enshrine and enhance democracy in Singapore. Sir, with your permission, let me elaborate. Under the system proposed in the White Paper, our national reserves and the CPF savings of each and every Singaporean which is a part of our national reserves receive additional safeguards. Further, our national assets in the major statutory boards will also receive additional safeguards in that the appointment of members of these boards will also have to receive Presidential assent. We have always taken it for granted that our statutory boards will make profits. What if they face a deficit? Let us take, for example, Telecoms. The result will be disastrous. The cost to the consumer will rise. Efficiency will be adversely affected. Our position as an international communications centre will be adversely affected. The business community in Singapore will be affected. So it is right that the key positions in the civil service and in the statutory boards are guarded for two reasons. Firstly, our national assets are invested in many of them; and, secondly, they form a key pillar in our society. Sir, it has also been raised that the proposals will result in an erosion of democracy in Singapore in that too much powers will be placed in the hands of one person, namely, the President. The sceptics believe so. I disagree. I believe that the principles laid down in this White Paper will enhance democracy and it will enhance it three times over. Firstly, we will have an elected Parliament and from an elected Parliament by the people will come the elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Secondly, we will have an elected President and Vice-President. And we should take note that the elections for Parliament and for the President and Vice-President will take place at different times. All these elections will be by the people of Singapore. They will be the ones who will give the mandate to the President and to Parliament. Thirdly, should there be an impasse between the President and the Prime Minister, the final arbiter will again be the electorate. On each occasion, the electorate, ie, the people of Singapore, will have the last say. Sir, based on these principles, I fully support the White Paper.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper enumerates some propositions which are for two principle objectives. One is to safeguard the national reserves and assets accumulated by the earlier Government. The second is to preserve the integrity of the public service through the appointment of clean and honest key personnel to the civil service. These two objectives are lofty ones, important to the long-term interest of Singapore. I think everybody will concur on this point. Put it another way, only when there is safeguard for the integrity of the public service and safeguard for our reserves not to be squandered away can the long-term interest of Singapore be preserved. The vital question is whether the present Constitution and administrative system have the character and property to fulfil these two objectives. It is difficult for most of the people to answer positively to this question. But we can trust the judgment by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers who have 30 years experience in leading Singapore. Their conclusion is enumerated as the proposals in the White Paper, that is to say, the integrity and the soundness of our present system do not entirely depend on the political system itself but to a large extent on the Prime Minister who wields great power over the Government and the integrity and honesty of the Cabinet members. That is to say, if one day there is a corrupt team in charge of government, then in a very short time they will be able to squander away our reserves and destroy our achievements. Knowing the potential risk in our political system, it is our duty now to take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent such events from happening. So the proposals of the White Paper when passed by Parliament will institute safeguards against such happenings. The White Paper proposals empower an elected President to safeguard the integrity of our political system. I believe many people may want to ask under the suggested amendment proposed in the White Paper whether the existing power of the Prime Minister will be greatly restricted by the elected President to the extent that future Prime Ministers may not be able to implement their policies. Let us look at the White Paper about the two proposals. The first proposition is to prevent Government from squandering the reserves accumulated by the earlier governments. Much thought and consideration have gone into its deliberation. Since the restriction is on the use of the reserves accumulated by the earlier government and not on the reserves accumulated by the incumbent government, I conclude that the incumbent government will have the freedom and power to make use of the reserves accumulated by itself. If an incumbent government should want to appease the people by resorting to the use of reserves accumulated by itself during its term of office, then the people could only blame themselves because they have elected that government and should therefore bear the consequences. For analogy, when we see a rich person's son living a luxurious life, spending excessively on comforts of life and luxuries. Although we may not agree with his way of life, if the money he spends comes from the wealth he has created himself while he is still able to preserve the heritage of his parents, then even if we do not agree with his way of living he still has the right to do what he likes. Conversely, should he live beyond his means and resort to the use of his heritage, then his parents had better set up a trust over their property for him. Similarly, we can apply and compare this to the first proposal in the White Paper. There is some similarity in this comparison. The second proposition in the White Paper is about maintaining the integrity of the public services. This proposal is to give the elected President the approving power on the appointments of key positions or personnel to some important public organisations. This is good in case of a corrupt government. However, if the PSC and such organizations with improved system of selection can exercise the function envisaged in the idea and purpose of this proposal to a certain degree, then the need for it will be lessened to such a degree. To carry this argument further, where the appointments to some key positions were blocked by the President, the Prime Minister and his government might find themselves unable to carry out its planned policies. Situations may arise in future where there may be differences of opinion between the Prime Minister and the President. In such a situation where the elected President belongs to a political school, say, the conservative type while the Prime Minister is from another political school, a more radical one. When there are differences of opinion on certain key appointments, with the elected President only approve appointees agreeable to himself, then the Prime Minister may not be able to carry out his political policies and aims although the candidates possess all the high qualities befitting the job. Even if the Prime Minister's plans and policies have got the people's support, his political ideas cannot be realized. So I feel that this point in the White Paper is very important and merits our further consideration. As the proposals of the White Paper will lay the way for and affect the future politi- cal system and the development of our nation involving our interest for a long time to come, they should not be treated lightly. We must give serious consideration and careful attention to the proposals in the White Paper.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Debate be now adjourned.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Debate be now adjourned.

Resumption of debate on what day, Mr Lim?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Three o'clock pm.