Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not permit me to deal with all the points raised by the First Deputy Prime Minister or with the various undesirable and undemocratic provisions in the Bill before the House. Suffice it to say that though we in the Workers' Party agree that our national reserves and integrity of the public service should be safeguarded, we do not agree with the two-key safeguard mechanism that is proposed in the White Paper and the Amendment before the House. We are particularly against placing too much power in the hands of one person, that is, the Elected President. We consider it most unwise and highly dangerous, as abuse of power is always possible and even likely. As has been said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that the checks and balances in the present system of government are inadequate. That is only partly true. I would like to point out, that although Government is all-powerful, and has ridden roughshod over the people for all these 30 years, nevertheless it is not really true that there are no checks at all on Government's power. In parliamentary democracies, certain checks on the Executive may be exercised by the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the parliamentary Opposition, and sometimes even the Backbenchers in the ruling Party itself. But in Singapore, the PAP has undermined these checks by its violations of the norms of parliamentary democracy, and has either completely neutralised them, or even turned them into tools of the Executive. For instance:-
(1) The Court is usually the final arbiter of disputes concerning the use of power by Government, as can be seen in the United States and European countries. But in Singapore, recent amendments to the ISA, as stressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister, have effectively blocked off whatever checks the Court may have on such use or abuse of ministerial power of arbitrary arrest. The decision of the Minister is "final" and cannot be called to question in Court. Now the First Deputy Prime Minister says that the Elected President will do the checking. But that is only an argument to justify why Government wishes to have the Elected President. (2) The Civil Service is normally supposed to be neutral and non-partisan. Civil servants carry out orders according to law, and they serve as some form of check on Government if they refuse to carry out orders that are not in accordance with law. But after so many years of continuous PAP rule, sometimes, Sir, it is difficult to distinguish the PAP from the Government, and the Government from the PAP. The check therefore exists no longer. (3) An effective Opposition is often a very good check on Government's arbitrariness and wrongdoings. The PAP itself, when it was still in the Opposition in the late 1950s, exposed Chew Swee Kee's corruption and brought about the downfall of the Lim Yew Hock government in 1959. The Barisan Sosialis too, when it was an effective Opposition in the early 1960s, forced the PAP to tread carefully in pushing its merger proposals at the time. But since 1963 and the suppression of the Barisan Sosialis, the PAP has run riot with its one-party Parliament until 1981. Today the Opposition, with only two members, is too weak to offer any check on Government power. (4) In other countries, Backbenchers of the ruling party sometimes rebel against unpopular measures introduced by government. In Singapore, this was also done in 1961 which led to a split in the PAP. But the PAP soon amended the Constitution to cause MPs to vacate their parliamentary seats if they are no longer members of the party, and thus subject them to very strict control. Nevertheless, I can see that some PAP Backbenchers are fairly vocal in their criticism of Bills they disagree strongly with. They may still put up some check on the Government's power in some other ways. Sir, these are examples to show that there are certain checks on Government power. But as I have said, today in Singapore these checks have all been undermined or suppressed. Parliament has not been given a chance to function like parliaments in other countries. No wonder Prof Tommy Koh, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, has suggested that there should be constitutional changes to make Parliament more representative and democratic. From what I have said, it is clear that we do not need to amend the Constitution in order to provide for an Elected President so that he may check on the powers of Government. There are sufficient checks if Government would only allow these checks to work. All that the Government needs to do is to adhere strictly to the norms of parliamentary democracy, stop its suppression of the Opposition, allow it to have reasonable access to TV, radio and the press as in other countries, curb the arbitrary powers of its Ministers and allow the Court to be the final arbiter in disputes and appeals in political cases. These measures would serve as a better safeguard than a one-man Elected President. There is no need for a change of the parliamentary system for the time being. Nevertheless, if we must have a two-key safeguard mechanism, it would be more prudent to let the second key be held, not by one person, but by a broad-based committee, consisting of non-partisan, apolitical, honourable and trustworthy persons, or by some form of ombudsman which could be agreed upon. Let me also say a few words on the financial reserves. I would say that it is both unreasonable and undemocratic not to allow an elected government to use some of the country's reserves (not the CPF which is sacrosanct) to provide for welfare services for the people. After all, the financial reserves have been accumulated by the people over the years. They belong to the people, not to any political party that has been elected to office, and a small part of these reserves could, and should, be spent in a reasonable manner according to need for the benefit of the people. Such expenditure should under no circumstances be blocked by an Elected President. Reserves should not be kept for investment overseas. Thus, it can be seen that the rationale for the Elected President proposal given by Government in the White Paper is not all that convincing. Government probably knows that. Nevertheless, it has put forward the Elected President proposal which will no doubt be passed by Parliament. The First Deputy Prime Minister has explained the philosophy and rationale behind the Bill. I will also do that, and try to explain the reasons why the Elected President proposal has been put forward. So what are the real reasons behind the Elected President proposal? To find out, Sir, why the Elected President proposal has been put forward, we must begin with the Prime Minister's announcement some years back of his intention to step down from office in favour of a younger generation of leaders, and some time later, his understandable concern that the huge reserves, accumulated over the years, should not be squandered away. The question in his mind must have been: Could he trust the younger generation leaders to continue his stance and follow policies that would protect the reserves and not erode into them? I presume that he could, but there were probably also doubts. However, I believe that what had alarmed the Prime Minister most, and probably given him some sleepless nights, was the fact that he could see, as other PAP leaders also could, soon after the PAP's defeat in the Anson by-election in October 1981, that the Singapore voters, especially those young ones, were beginning to see the need for Opposition MPs, and more of them in Parliament, and what was more important, that electoral support for the PAP was beginning to decline. The alarm soon developed into fear when it lost 13% of popular votes in the 1984 election. PAP votes dropped from 76% in 1980 to 63% in 1984. In the post-election press conference, the Prime Minister, both angry and fearful, threatened to change the one-man-one-vote system altogether. Subsequently, every effort was made to spruce up the PAP's image, enlarge and strengthen its organisation, and change some of its unpopular policies. However, in spite of all its efforts, the PAP's popular votes did not go up in the 1988 elections. Instead, they went down another 1% from 63% to 62%. Some people estimate that the drop was probably 3% to 4%, as more seats were contested in 1988 than in 1984. Anyway, a trend was beginning to emerge. PAP leaders saw the danger clearly. They could see that, if the trend should continue, and the PAP lost more votes in the next election, in 1992 or 1993, then the continued rule of the PAP would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. The PAP is therefore confronted with a most important and urgent task. It is to break the downward trend and stop a further decline in electoral support for the PAP. Only then would the PAP be able to remain in office and continue to rule in Singapore. That means, of course, the Opposition must be prevented from getting a firm grip on the reins of Government come what may. But how is that to be done? In the past, the way to keep the PAP in power, and the Opposition out, was to put the Communist label on effective political opponents and detain them under the ISA. Recently, the Government could still use the so-called Marxist plot as an excuse to suppress some of those who were opposed to the PAP. But the Communist scare story is wearing thin. Very few people buy it nowadays. A new way has to be found - a way to make it extremely difficult, and well-nigh impossible, for an Opposition party to form the Government, or if it succeeded in doing so, to make its stay in office short and uncertain. And the way to be adopted, of course, has to be institutionalised so that PAP's interest would be protected for a long, long time. For the PAP leaders, the Elected President with wide veto powers would seem to be the best answer. Hence, the White Paper, first in 1988 and again in 1990, and the Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill today before the House. Of course, the first prerequisite is that the Elected President must remain in PAP hands, or at least in the hands of its most loyal supporters. Otherwise the whole scheme would backfire to the disadvantage of the PAP. Qualification requirements as presidential candidates must therefore be strictly exclusive. Political opponents would have to be excluded in order to ensure that the Presidential election is an exclusive one-party PAP affair. Like the British raj in colonial days, the Elected President is vested with wide powers to veto all spending of reserves, all borrowings as well as all the appointments of key posts in the State. The Elected President is then in a position to use veto powers to manipulate the political situation to the exclusive advantage of the PAP. The Opposition presently is weak and disorganised. The PAP has nothing much to fear for the time being. But then there is no way to find out whether or not the voting trend unfavourable to the PAP will continue. So the PAP has to prepare for all contingencies. If the PAP should form the Government, then there would be no need for the Elected President to exercise any of those veto powers. He would merely sit pretty in masterly inactivity and watch over the situation to see that all goes well. But if an Opposition party should form the Government, then conflicts would develop quickly. The Elected President's withholding of concurrence to the annual budget would certainly cause a total paralysis of the day-to-day administration of government. The newly-elected Opposition government would be unable to carry out its policies and live up to its promises made to the people. If the government cannot get funds from the reserves and cannot raise loans, then it will be forced to raise taxes. This must inevitably lead to loss of popular support for the Opposition government. Indeed, with his other powers under the Constitution, the Elected President may even be able to manoeuvre events or create situations that will cause the Government to resign. That was how the Whitlam Government was dismissed from office in Australia more than 10 years ago, and also the Benazir Bhutto government in Pakistan recently. Thus, we see the hidden powers of the Elected President that could be used to destabilise an elected Opposition government and even dismiss it from office. The Prime Minister has said and I quote, "They say an Elected President will block an opposition party that comes in. Quite right. Absolutely right." He let the cat out of the bag. Proof from the very horse's mouth itself. A PAP Elected President will make it well-nigh impossible for an Opposition party to form a government and continue in office for any length of time. The six-year term of a PAP Elected President ensures that the five-year term Opposition government is in no position to cause it much trouble unless it can win another election for another term of five years. The Elected President's wide veto powers over the key appointments in the civil service will deprive an Opposition government from appointing the right people in the right place according to its political philosophy. That would facilitate destabilisation of an apposition government. All in all, it can be seen that the Elected President is meant not so much to be a watchdog or custodian of our nation's reserves and assets, but as a watchdog over the electoral fortunes of the PAP and its continued rule in Singapore. Those who support the Elected President proposal will have nothing to lose and everything to gain, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. But those who oppose the undemocratic and callous policies of the PAP will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Let the people decide in a national referendum. The Amendment Bill for the safeguarding of reserves and the integrity of the civil service proposes radical changes to the Constitution and the present Westminster parliamentary system of Government that has been practised in Singapore over the past 30 years. With such radical changes, it is obvious that the people will have to be consulted. The PAP claims that it has more or less done that, and has been given a mandate in the 1988 elections to carry out such radical and sweeping changes to the Constitution. That is not true. The PAP has never been given a mandate on the matter. In the 1988 elections, the White Paper on the Elected President proposal was only one of the many issues brought before the people. And in the 1988 elections, the PAP obtained only 62% of the total votes cast, less than two-thirds and, what is more important, 1% less than in 1984. Moreover, the 1988 White Paper is now outdated. Additional powers have been given to the Elected President in the 1990 White Paper. The Constitution Amendment Bill had not been published, and the voters had not been asked specifically to give an unequivocal answer of Yes or No to the Elected President proposal. In a general election, voters vote for candidates from various parties so that the party with the most candidates elected form the Government. Voters do not vote on any particular or specific issue in an election. The proposed changes to the Constitution, as listed in the 1990 White Paper and in the Amendment Bill, are changes in the power structure and in the parliamentary system of Government, as has already been stressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. These changes will affect not only the future of the people but also the future of their children and their children's children. The Elected President proposal will, therefore, need to be placed before the people to be fully debated so that they may decide and vote on it in a democratic, free and fair national referendum. It must not be imposed on the people through a two-thirds parliamentary majority vote today. Neither should the Government try to pass it off by saying that the PAP does not believe in ruling by referendum. We have to remind the PAP that when the Constitution which gave Singapore full internal self-government was negotiated and agreed upon with the British in 1957, it was negotiated and agreed upon by all the political parties then in Singapore, namely, the Labour Front, the Liberal Socialists and the PAP itself. That is, all the people in Singapore were represented in the negotiations through the political parties they supported. Today, the PAP represents only 62% of popular votes. Other political parties representing 38% of popular votes have not been consulted at all. In other words, a parliamentary vote of all Government MPs put together represents at best 62% of the people of Singapore, not the true wishes of all the people. The only way to find out the true wishes of all the people of Singapore is to hold a national referendum. The White Paper stresses, "The will of the people will prevail.". This can only be realised when the Elected President proposal is placed before the people for their approval or rejection in a democratic national referendum. The Prime Minister also said in 1984, "First, a White Paper, then a proper debate, and then a referendum, and many other things besides.". The Government should now live up to its promises to the people, solemnly said, solemnly made. Let the people have the referendum. Let me also summarise, Sir. Some undesirable and undemocratic amendments to the Constitution are proposed. There are certain checks on Government's powers in the present parliamentary system, but these checks have been undermined by the PAP Government. There is, therefore, no need to amend the Constitu- tion to provide for an Elected President. Government needs only to practise genuine parliamentary democracy as in other democratic countries and the checks will be in place and working well. The real reason behind the Bill is the fact that, since its defeat in the Anson by-election in October 1981, a discernible trend of falling electoral support for the PAP has emerged. The PAP leadership fears that if this trend should continue, then PAP rule over Singapore might not last beyond the next election or two. The PAP has said that the one-man-one-vote could be unpredictable, and that "freak" election results are possible. Therefore, the PAP leadership believes that changes to the Constitution and the parliamentary system of Government are necessary if continued PAP rule is to be assured. Hence the proposal for Elected President. Ostensibly to safeguard our financial reserves and the integrity of the civil service, a PAP Elected President, chosen from an exclusive PAP club, and not easily removed by Parliament, would be able to exercise his wide veto powers to destabilise any Opposition government and so protect PAP interests. With an Elected President, the PAP will no longer need to fear that the Opposition will become entrenched as an Opposition government for any length of time. Thus, the PAP hopes to have a firm grip on the Government and be able to continue to rule Singapore for years and years to come. As the Prime Minister will be stepping down in November this year, the Elected President proposal would also appear to have been specially tailor-made to instal him as the first Elected President after the incumbent President steps down. Other PAP leaders would become Elected Presidents also after him. Everyone will have an opportunity. Hence, the Ministers' support for the Bill, though the Elected President takes away much of their powers. The Elected President proposal, however, has many controversial and undemocratic provisions. The radical changes to the Constitution and to the existing parliamentary system of Government, if adopted, will have far-reaching effects on the politi- cal life and future of our people. It is, therefore, imperative that every person in Singapore be given an opportunity to express his or her views on the matter in a free and fair manner. The PAP Government has no mandate from the people to carry out such sweeping changes to our system of Government, and amending the Constitution with a parliamentary two-thirds majority alone is unrepresentative of the true wishes of the people. The only way to find out the true wishes of the people is to let the people decide in a democratic national referendum, in which a simple straightforward question is posed to the people requiring a simple answer of Yes or No. So let the Government hold a national referendum on the question of the Elected President proposal as the Prime Minister, the First Deputy Prime Minister and others, at one time, had promised.