Hansard, Monday, 6 February 2017

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Manpower how the Ministry can improve the process by which workers, including foreign workers, can be protected against errant employers who do not insure them or compensate them for injuries and/or owe them their salaries.

2 Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from 2012 to 2017, how many employers have been prosecuted in the Labour Court for respectively failing to compensate injured workers or insure them adequately; (b) what is being done to reduce the incidence of errant employers who ignore Labour Court orders and default on compensation for injured workers; and (c) how does the Ministry assist low-wage local and migrant workers who cannot afford further legal action to recover their unpaid wages.

Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received about 9,000 salary-related claims involving some 4,500 employers in 2016. So, 9,000 claims and 4,500 employers. Through mediation by MOM and adjudication by the Labour Court, we have been able to resolve more than 95% of these claims.

The remaining 5% of the salary-related claims were unresolved because one of the employers has appealed the Labour Court order and the case is now with the High Court, eight are still in business but have yet to comply with their orders, while a vast majority − 199 out of 208 employers − had either ceased operations or faced impending business closure due to financial difficulties. Therefore, out of the 208 employers, 199 either have closed down or are going to close down soon. We are left with only nine employers, one of whom is appealing against the Labour Court order and eight have yet to comply with the orders. All these companies have been debarred from hiring foreign workers until they comply with the Labour Court orders. The debarment also applies to culpable directors even if they were to start new companies.

We are also investigating those employers who are still in business because non-payment of salary is an offence under the Employment Act. While it is not our intention to criminalise every non-payment of salary, especially if it is the result of a business failure, we do prosecute serious or repeated cases for deterrence.

In the last three years, 158 employers have been prosecuted and convicted for salary-related offences. Such offences carry a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 per charge, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

Let me now turn to work injury cases. In 2016, over 99.9% of the approximately 16,000 injured workers had their cases successfully resolved. However, five out of about 16,000 cases did not because their employers had failed to purchase work injury compensation insurance and were unable to pay due to financial difficulties. MOM takes such offences seriously and prosecutes such employers under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and debars the companies and individual directors from hiring foreign workers, until they compensate their workers. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. In the last five years, 14 employers have been prosecuted for non-insurance and non-compensation or work injury.

Madam, in most of the unresolved cases of unpaid salary or work injury compensation, the chance of workers recovering payments from their employers is slim. This is not because the employers could just ignore and refuse to pay up, but because they are mostly in deep financial difficulties, as I have explained earlier.

For cases where there is still some hope of enforcing the orders for unpaid salary or work injury compensation, the workers are required to apply for the Writ of Seizure and Sale through the State Courts. This is the same process that applies to all unpaid Civil Court orders, including those made by the State Courts. In other words, the Labour Court orders are not less enforceable, compared to those issued or made by the State Courts. All civil claims have to go through the same process.

For those who need help, MOM assists the workers by advising them on the process and preparing the necessary documents. Eligible low-wage local workers may seek legal assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau, whereas foreign workers may approach the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC). Workers can also apply to the State Courts Registrar to waive or defer the costs of enforcing the order or to recover these costs from the sales proceeds. Meanwhile, foreign workers with valid salary claims are also allowed to change employers. More than 2,200 of such requests were granted in the past three years.

Mdm Speaker, while we are relieved that the vast majority of unpaid salary, or 95%, and work injury cases, or 99.9%, are successfully resolved, we are, however, concerned with workers who are unable to recover their claims because their employers no longer have the financial means to pay. We will continue to strengthen our support for them.

Currently, foreign workers can already receive financial relief from MWC. Likewise, for local low-wage workers, as announced in this House in August last year, those with unresolved salary claims will be able to receive short-term relief from the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) when it comes into operation in April this year. As for workers with more serious injury, if they fail to receive their work injury compensation and are in financial difficulties, we will continue to assist them through the Workers' Fund managed by MOM.

On the part of the workers, I urge them to bring their cases to MOM as early as possible. This will greatly improve the chances of successfully resolving their claims before the employers reach dire financial straits.

Ms Denise Phua.

I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer and that he has got most of the ground covered. Just a couple of supplementary questions.

First, for the upstream actions by MOM, is there a more certain way by which the Ministry can assure and ensure that the insurance coverage is for both local and foreign employees? As it is, I think there seems to be a gap somewhere, where some of the employers did not have their workers covered and, therefore, some of the issues arose.

The second question is downstream. Looking at the comprehensive slew of measures that the Minister has described, I am not sure if many people know about them and so, is there a way by which MOM can facilitate and publicise a lot more on the actions that can be taken, especially for workers who are from foreign lands and who may not be clued in and where the language might be an issue? I think there needs to be a lot more work to be done in communicating the slew of measures that the Minister had mentioned. For example, I think the Minister is familiar with the cases that were mentioned about the Bangladeshi workers who had been told to —

Ms Phua, please keep your supplementary questions short.

They have been told to go and seize the assets of the errant employers. So, I would appreciate if the Minister could consider publicising the slew of measures a lot more.

Can I just remind Members to keep your supplementary questions short? There is no need to add long preambles to supplementary questions, please. Minister, your reply, please.

Mdm Speaker, on the issue of insurance coverage for work injury, I want to assure the House that the compliance rate is high. And that is the reason why 99.9% of the cases had no problems. Out of the 16,000 cases, only five cases had problems.

Having said that, we do take such non-compliance seriously. That is why for every single case of non-compliance and non-payment, even for the first-time offender, MOM would prosecute the employer. We do need to send a very clear message.

Of course, some may wonder why MOM cannot ensure 100% coverage. Our challenge is that when a company purchases WICA coverage for its employees, the insurance policy does not go by name. It is a group insurance. Along the way, during the year, there are workers who leave the company and workers who join the company. As a result, the responsibility of making sure that workers are covered has to rest with the employer. It is impossible for MOM to comb through every WICA policy and to cross-check with the movement of staff, and so on.

Having said that, we want to assure this House that the compliance rate is high. For the five cases, all of the five employers have been or are being prosecuted.

I also want to assure the House that we take every of these five cases very seriously. For the information of this House, these five cases involve four foreign workers and one local worker. For the four foreign workers, we continue to pursue the cases, and one employer has just paid up and another case is now with the State Courts. We are also helping the workers to find employment in Singapore and, at the same time, continue to find ways to resolve their outstanding claims. In the case of the local worker, we have started actions to enforce the payment.

We are keeping track of these five cases to make sure that we derive the best outcome possible.

In the case of the foreign workers mentioned by the Member, the media reports may have created a few misperceptions. First, the media reports said that the employers could just ignore and refuse to pay. I want to assure this House that no employer can afford to ignore and refuse to pay. As far as MOM is concerned, if I assess that this employer has the ability to pay, we will pursue it to the fullest. I do not have to wait for the workers to enforce the order from the State Courts. As MOM, I am already able to prosecute the employers because non-payment of salary, in itself, is an offence. So, I want to assure this House, please do not go away with the impression that any employer out there can afford to refuse and ignore the Labour Court orders. I assure Members that this has never been the case and we will make sure it will never happen in the future.

Second, in this particular case, we did try very hard to help the worker. The issue is that this worker has outstanding salary for 11 months. The employer stopped paying him in October 2015 and it took him 11 months to come to MOM. By the time he came to MOM, the company was already in serious trouble. Notwithstanding this, there were 10 workers involved. The employer made an offer − paid each and every one of them $2,000 as a partial payment and, through the MWC, we offered to pay an ex-gratia payment of another $1,000. Every worker affected is guaranteed of at least $3,000; that is, $2,000 of partial payment from the employer and $1,000 from MWC. The rest of it, the employer promised that he would pay up in instalments, through best effort. Nine out of the 10 workers accepted this because they were realistic; they know the situation the company is in and they accepted it. At least two of them are now still working in Singapore with new employers.

This particular claimant rejected the partial offer by the employer. He wanted to recover the full sum, which comes to about $7,500. As a result, he declined the offer by the employer. We are now in the process of helping him to file the claim and enforce the Labour Court order, knowing that the chance of recovery is very slim. The company has already ceased operations.

I want to assure the House that we do take every case very seriously. What the workers can do, the best thing the workers can do to help themselves, is to come to us early. Eleven months is too long to wait because by the time the employer has stopped paying you for 11 months, there is a high chance that the company is in deep financial difficulty. By and large, most workers will come to MOM after two to three months. As a result, we were able to resolve 95% of them.

I also agree with Ms Denise Phua's point that we should step up more in terms of educating the employer, the workers and members of public that in Singapore, we do take the welfare of our workers − whether foreign or local − very seriously. Salary is hard-earned money. Compensation for work injury is very important because when the worker is injured, it may affect his ability to work. To not pay him the compensation is unacceptable.

I want to assure this House that we will continue to strengthen the system. Yes, I think the system today, by and large, is working well; 95% percent for unpaid salary and 99.9% for work injury, but I can assure this House that we will come up with more measures to link them up with MWC.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Can I seek a clarification from the Minister? For the cases where the businesses ceased operations and majority of them ceased operations, will the owners or the directors be allowed to start new businesses or take up directorships in other businesses while they continue to not pay the salaries that were owed to the workers that were approved by the Labour Court?

Mdm Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the debarment we impose on the companies also applies to culpable directors. What is meant by "culpable directors"? This refers to directors who deserve blame for not paying salary, regardless of whether it is due to negligence, intentional or otherwise. In other words, if you are a director of a company and you have contributed to the non-payment of salary, the debarment applies to this director as well. So, this director can go on to open and start a new company, the debarment will follow him to the new company until he pays up the outstanding salary to the ex-employees.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to follow up on what the Minister was saying about salaries being unpaid by employers who are in some financial problems. We are seeing some of those from our residents these days. They have noticed that for those employers who have their fair share of foreign workers as well as local, the foreign workers, ironically, have a sort of a safety milestone in the sense that when the employer decides to cancel their work pass, I think MOM will have to make sure that the employer pays them what is due to them, in terms of salaries and all that.

The shedding of foreign workers could come at an earlier stage whereas the local workers may continue to work in the firm. Some of our residents are seeing that this payment of the foreign workers, their full packages and so on when their Work Permits are cancelled, this could be something risky for them as local employees will continue while the company's situation deteriorates.

I believe the Minister did mention he is alive to the situation. So, I would like to ask him whether the Ministry is reviewing this framework to, for example, have a mechanism in place that where you see an employer starting to cancel passes of foreign workers and so on, that the company is still able to make their payments to the local workers who remain with the company.

Mdm Speaker, I think it is not quite possible for MOM to be able to assess the financial health of an organisation or a company to assess whether the company is able to continue paying salaries. What MOM does is this – we always encourage our workers, "The moment your employers stop paying you any salary, please come to us as early as you can". This is our message and that remains our message.

Ms Lim may wish to advise her residents that anytime their employers stop paying them their salary, they can come to MOM straightaway. They do not have to wait for two or three months. The moment it is overdue, you have the right to exercise that option. That is the best way.

Mr Louis Ng.

Mdm Speaker, just one quick supplementary. Moving forward, will MOM consider requiring all companies which employ Work Permit holders to place a security bond or a deposit with MOM, which can specifically be used when companies ignore the Labour Court orders for compensation to the workers?

Mdm Speaker, currently, employers of foreign workers already have to place a security bond of $5,000 per worker. Last year, 115 foreign workers were owed salaries, unpaid and unresolved. Of that number, 28 of them were Work Permit holders with security bonds. We managed to get the security bond insurer to offer $2,000 to pay each of the workers. So, what Member Louis Ng mentioned is effectively already in practice today.

3 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any plans to assist flat owners who are unable to sell their HDB flat due to the quota imposed under the Ethnic Integration Policy.

4 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to review and introduce greater flexibility on the Ethnic Integration Policy for HDB flats in light of the sluggish property market where some home owners are finding it even more difficult to sell their flats.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?

Yes, please.

Madam, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989 to ensure a balanced mix of ethnic groups living in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, so as to promote racial harmony and strengthen social cohesion. These objectives are still relevant today.

Most flat sellers, from our experience, are still able to secure buyers from eligible ethnic groups, given the large volume of resale transactions annually. In the current property market, flat sellers may need to plan ahead and give themselves more time to secure a buyer. Nevertheless, HDB has and will continue to exercise flexibility for households of mixed parentage or marriages, or where there are exceptional circumstances.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

I have been told by my residents that when they bought the flat from HDB, they paid the same price as the other owners. Now that they are trying to sell it, because of the EIP, they have to sell it at a lower price and they are unable to fetch a fair market value for their flats due to this policy. So, would the Ministry of National Development (MND) consider giving them a grant to top up the difference between the fair market value and the actual sale price that they sell the flat for because they are selling at a loss compared to when they bought the property at the time from HDB?

Madam, when buyers bought the flat, the EIP policy was already made clear and the flat was valued with that policy in mind, to begin with. If they were to sell the flat today, it is with the same policy. Nothing has changed. I think it is easy to point at the EIP as the cause for a lower sale price but there may be many other reasons. Even in today's current market situation, there are people who are not subject to EIP limits but are selling their flats at somewhat lower prices because of the general property market conditions. It is probably premature or not fair to point the finger at the EIP per se but recognise that the property market conditions are the way they are. And buyers, therefore, need to plan ahead and think very carefully about these decisions.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I fully appreciate the intent of the EIP and I support it. But would it be possible, looking at the property market at this moment, to consider reviewing the EIP, not just to look at EIP for each individual block but reviewing the EIP to look at it as EIP for that cluster of blocks? Because if we are talking about integration, it is not just integration of races within a block, but the neighbourhood.

Madam, I appreciate what the Member has said, that the EIP policy is important and it is something that has worked well in our context. I would say it is still relevant today, perhaps even more relevant, given what we see around the world, even in mature countries where ethnic tensions can come up quite easily.

Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, we have already exercised flexibility on EIP appeals. Over the years, from 2014 to 2016, we received about 1,500 appeal cases and about four-fifths of them were rejected, which means that one-fifth were successful. This was, in fact, a question raised by one of the Members of the House which we had addressed and clarified. I cannot get into the specifics of which and why some cases are successful and others are not. Each case is unique and we look at it case by case.

But for many of the cases that we have turned down, we have found that, in fact, if you look at the resale transactions, there were transactions from buyers of that particular ethnic group. So, it is not fair to say that there are no buyers from that particular ethnic group and, therefore, I cannot sell, because the resale market transactions do indicate that buyers from that ethnic group are, indeed, making resale transactions. We will continue this approach. I think that EIP remains, but we exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.

5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current range of waiting time for enrolment in childcare centres; (b) whether there is a shortage of childcare teachers currently and, if so, what is the Ministry doing to increase the number of childcare teachers; and (c) whether a comprehensive study has been done on the needs of childcare centres and how their capacity can be maximised.

Mdm Speaker, since 2012, the number of childcare places has increased significantly by over 40% across Singapore to over 130,000. Many childcare centres now have available vacancies to enrol children at short notice. However, for few housing estates with high childcare demand, parents may still experience waiting times that range from a few weeks to a few months. In particular, parents may have to wait longer if they prefer a specific centre due to its location, operator or other reasons. A fair proportion of the children in the queues for the more popular centres are already enrolled in some other centres.

To further reduce waiting times, we will continue to inject more childcare capacity in housing estates with high demand. This includes the four recently announced large centres in Punggol, Sengkang and Bukit Panjang. Future HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) housing developments have also been planned with larger childcare centres to meet the needs of our young families.

Over the past few years, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been working closely with operators and training agencies on various initiatives to attract, retain and also develop our educators. For example, the polytechnics have increased student intake for early childhood diploma courses by more than 70% last year, from 380 to 675 places. Last October, ECDA launched a comprehensive Early Childhood Manpower Plan to provide more professional development opportunities for early childhood educators, a more supportive working environment and greater respect and recognition for educators.

To understand and address ground challenges, ECDA conducts very regular consultations with the sector, including townhall sessions, surveys and centre visits. For example, the Early Childhood Manpower Plan was developed in consultation with key sector partners, such as unions, industry associations and operators. ECDA will continue to work closely and collaboratively with the sector.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mdm Speaker, I have four supplementary questions. The reason I raise this question is because almost every other week, I receive feedback from residents requesting for help.

My first question is: are there any plans to review the salary of teachers? It seems that from the operators, they told me there is a shortage of teachers. And when I talk to the teachers, they said there is a disparity in the salary between childcare teachers and the school teachers, although they are both degree holders.

Second, would there be any more new mega childcare centres in Yishun, because the one that we have, I understand, is fully subscribed?

Third, will the Ministry work with HDB to have bigger childcare centres for new BTOs, because in every new BTO, the childcare capacity is only about 100, which is insufficient?

The last question is, will the Ministry work with HDB to have the childcare centre in a new BTO to be in operation when they hand over the keys, because there is always a delay? After a few months, then the childcare centre is in operation.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Perhaps, let me just give a perspective about waiting time for children to be enrolled in childcare centres. We do acknowledge that in certain estates, there is high demand and a bit of mismatch, but perhaps just let me give context as well. For example, in hotspot areas, such as Punggol and Sengkang, it ranges from a few weeks to a few months.

There are a range of factors that affect waiting time. For example, centre vacancy, demand in estates and parents' preferences for particular centres also matter a great deal, or manpower requirements. We have about 13,800 children currently registered on the wait list, requesting for a childcare place by February 2017. About 40% of them are currently enrolled in a childcare centre but whose parents indicated preference for another centre. And then, the rest are first-timers. But for first-timers themselves as well, some may also be queuing ahead of time and not necessarily having an immediate childcare need.

This is just to provide context. When we say that there is a waiting list, there are a range of reasons as well. But specifically, we do know that in high-demand areas, there are certain concerns.

One of the areas that the Member had raised is with regard to salary. Salary is one factor in terms of attracting people into the sector. ECDA regularly undertakes manpower surveys to help operators better understand the wage levels and human resource practices across the sector. The findings are shared, so that we can encourage operators to keep up with human resource practices and to make sure that they remain competitive.

We understand that salaries have shifted upwards, led by the Anchor Operators (AOPs). That is something that we are working on with the AOPs. But it is uneven across the sector. Salaries for entry-level diploma trained teachers are also comparable to other sectors and competitive. We do recognise that salaries do play an important part and we should endeavour to see how best to raise that where possible.

It is not just salaries alone. Beyond salaries, there are also a range of initiatives to recognise and develop the teachers. For example, the Skills Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education spells out the career pathways, specific skills and competencies required for various job roles and, therefore, encouraging competency-based career development for educators. Also, the Professional Development Programme and the ECDA Fellows Scheme select competent preschool teachers and exemplary leaders respectively to contribute to the centres or sector and recognise their work through awards and allowances.

There are a range of measures that we are putting in place through the Manpower Plan to try to level up and make sure that the sector is attractive, so that we can draw more people into the sector.

In terms of some of the other questions, whether there are more mega centres, we are building five large childcare centres in Jurong West, Punggol, Sengkang, Woodlands and Yishun. This was announced last year at the Committee of Supply 2015. This is to provide accessible, affordable and quality childcare services. They will add about 1,900 new places. Each centre can take 300 to 500 children. Four large childcare centres in Punggol, Yishun, Sengkang and Woodlands have started operations. The remaining centre in Jurong West will commence operations in the first quarter of 2017. We are adding four more new large childcare centres announced last month as part of our overall efforts to meet the needs of young families. They will be in Punggol, Sengkang and Bukit Panjang, and they will add about 2,700 new places in these estates and are expected to open by the end of 2018.

We continue to work very closely with stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier, to review the demand and provide the spaces where possible. Going forward, what we are doing is to work very closely with HDB. We will be revisiting the planning norms to make sure that HDB estates, as they emerge, especially with a younger profile, the demand for childcare places can be met by increasing the number of places.

The other question, which is a pertinent one, because I experienced it myself as well, is that when the HDB flats are ready, can the childcare centres be ready at the same time? I recognise that point. That is a very fair consideration. That is also something that we are working closely with HDB on, to try to minimise that gap between when the flats and centres are ready. But as Members also realise, for flats, when they are ready, actually the people are streaming in over a fairly long period of time, perhaps up to six to nine months. We do recognise that we should try to get it ready as far as possible, so that when the families come in, the childcare centres or the kindergartens can be operational as soon as possible.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

I would just like to clarify, earlier the Minister mentioned that his Ministry is increasing the capacity of training in the polytechnics for early childhood educators. I wonder if the Ministry has a dedicated policy to also expand the capacity in privately-run operations, whether it is the SEED Institute, KLC International Institute and the other institutes that train early childhood educators. Will we be also expanding their capacity, so that the pipeline of teachers coming into the industry will be ensured?

Mdm Speaker, the manpower situation is something that we are monitoring closely. We do have very direct levers with our institutions of education. With regard to the polytechnics, we are increasing the capacity. With the private institutions, we are discussing with them on the various measures and we will continue to collaborate with them where possible. If we are able to increase the capacity, we will be more than happy to see that happen.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mdm Speaker, I think the Minister did not answer my question: is there any new mega childcare centre in Yishun coming up? Because the one that the Minister mentioned, yes, it is in operation and it is over-subscribed, long queue.

Mdm Speaker, as I mentioned, we are reviewing the various demand in the respective areas. Yishun will be one area that we are looking at. It is not just in terms of mega childcare centres but it is also in terms of the range of the other childcare centres that are part of the overall landscape. We do urge the advisors to also support us when we do put forward requirements for use of space for some of these childcare centres to be built. When we are ready, we will be more than happy to let Members know in advance of time.

6 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current status of the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) in childcare centres and preschools; (b) whether more support can be given to parents who have to make alternative arrangements when their children are unable to attend school; and (c) how effective has the Ministry been in tackling challenges faced by parents who have insufficient childcare leave, whose children contracted HFMD more than once in a year, or who are unable to seek childcare support from family members.

Mdm Speaker, the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) is a generally mild disease which is endemic in Singapore. Preventive measures are in place to minimise the transmission of HFMD in preschools. It is a regulatory requirement for preschools to conform to the Ministry of Health's (MOH) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious diseases. I would want to repeat that while it is endemic, it is generally a mild disease. Guidelines include conducting daily health and temperature checks upon arrival, ensuring appropriate hand-washing by staff and children, and having an unwell child rest at the designated sickbay while waiting for the parent or an authorised person to bring the child home.

Centres with two or more suspected or confirmed HFMD cases are required to report the cases to the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and to MOH. Centres are also required to implement enhanced measures to manage the outbreak of HFMD and are encouraged to conduct self-assessments on health and hygiene.

Centres that experience a high number of sustained cases over a period of time may be required to close. We understand that this would cause inconvenience to parents. However, it is a useful step to break the cycle of transmission of the disease. Over the past three years, there have not been more than five centre closures every year. Additionally, there have not been local cases in preschools with severe complications due to HFMD.

To support working parents in caring for their young children, the Government has enhanced child and infant care leave provisions over the years. Each working parent with children below the age of seven has six days of childcare leave per year, or a total of 12 days of childcare leave for every couple. Each parent is also entitled to six days of unpaid infant care leave per year during the child's first two years. These childcare and infant care leave provisions are in addition to the parents' annual leave provisions. We also recognise that grandparents and relatives, too, can play an important role in supporting working parents by providing alternative care for their young children.

Companies, too, have an important role to play in supporting their employees to manage their work and family responsibilities. The proportion of firms providing ad hoc flexible work arrangements rose from 70% in 2015 to over three-quarters at 77% in 2016. These firms employ 82% of all employees, and this is up from 76% in 2015. This is an encouraging development and we want to encourage employers to continue on that trend.

Employers who wish to implement flexible work arrangements can tap on various resources, such as the WorkPro Work-Life Grant. The tripartite partners also published the Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements to help employers, supervisors and employees implement flexible work arrangements. We want to see this continue to grow. We urge parents to tap on these flexible work arrangements and enhanced leave provisions to better manage their work and parenthood responsibilities in caring for their children.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

I thank the Minister for his elaborate answer. I have one clarification which is, in many of the other services industry, you have services such as home care services whereby physiotherapists go to people's home to provide care. Will ECDA be exploring the option of having a list of potential nannies or care-givers who can be deployed to homes in the event that the parents have exhausted their leave or are unable to take leave to be at home with their child? Because many a times, because of work reason or other reasons, they have already exhausted what available resource they have, and having such external resource may be the only other means for them to care for the children when they contracted HFMD.

Mdm Speaker, generally, MOH's advice is for such children to remain at home during the time that the centre is closed and this is to ensure that they do not transmit HFMD to other children whom they come into contact with.

Apart from taking leave and arranging for flexible work to care for the children, we do encourage parents to explore grandparents, relatives, friends, domestic helpers, fellow parents to pool together efforts to care for the children. We understand the inconvenience affected parents face should a centre close for 10 days, for example. However, we do seek their understanding that this is a necessary step to break the cycle of transmission of the disease to other children and other families.

But more directly to the Member's question on whether we plan to provide such services, I think that is beyond the remit of ECDA to do so. Right now, as far as we can see, it is an inconvenience but I think parents, by and large, try to manage where they can. We do urge parents to explore the various possibilities. One of the key measures we mentioned is for companies to take a much more expansive approach in terms of their flexible work arrangements, and we are encouraged that that will continue to develop.

We also encourage parents to look at informal arrangements amongst themselves because when a particular childcare centre has some of these closure requirements, the parents could pool efforts among themselves to try to share the responsibilities.

So, there is a range of different possibilities available. But in terms of taking a very specific step for ECDA to provide for such care services, I would suggest that the Member's question is with regard to students affected by HFMD, but there are also other illnesses that children contract from time to time, and parents do sometimes face inconvenience. I do not think it is possible for ECDA to provide that service. I guess if there is a very genuine demand, whether there will be companies or others or private sector sort of solutions that will emerge from that, then, that is something that might occur. As of now, as far as we can see, while there are inconveniences, parents try to manage within that range of possibilities that are available to them.

7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many incidents of drivers going against the flow of traffic have there been in the last three years; (b) how many accidents have occurred due to this problem; (c) how does the Ministry assess the quality and clarity of its road signs; and (d) how does the Ministry decide if and when signs have to be installed or improved.

8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA engages experts in behavioural and vision sciences to contribute their expertise in the design of road signs and junctions so as to minimise the risk of drivers inadvertently going against the flow of traffic.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Yes, please.

The Traffic Police does not generally track and categorise accidents by the cause of vehicles going against the flow of traffic. However, for fatal accidents specifically, their data show that three have occurred in the past three years as a result of this behaviour.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes reference from international standards in the design and installation of road signs and markings. In addition, LTA engages independent specialist road safety engineers to review the clarity and effectiveness of our road signs and markings for new roads and undertakes regular safety audits of existing roads. Drivers should be extra careful and slow down if they are not familiar with the roads.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Second Minister for his answer. Some of my residents have mentioned that when the number of traffic signs adds up and as the junction has more turnings, it gets more complicated, especially for older residents. Would the Ministry consider studying further how drivers of different ages, different experience levels, react to cluttered traffic junctions and road signs, both in the day time and at night?

Mdm Speaker, on a yearly basis, LTA reviews up to 24 roads based on accident trends that occur each year. On top of that, we also take into account public feedback and review specific roads that residents may have issues with, to lend better clarity and ease of use. If I may offer to the Member, perhaps, we can take this offline, and if specific areas require review, LTA will gladly do so.

9 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of motorists driving against the flow of traffic, whether the maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment and a fine for causing death by a rash act should be reviewed.

Madam, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is conducting a review of penalties under the Road Traffic Act in order to take a tougher stance against irresponsible motorists. The review will also consider the adequacy of the penalties for driving dangerously against the flow of traffic. This review was announced on 1 December last year and MHA will make an announcement when the review is completed.

10 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether families of death row inmates can be provided with at least three weeks' notice before the sentence is carried out to allow them sufficient time to come to terms with the sentence and make necessary arrangements; (b) what processes are in place to help such families deal with the trauma of the loss of their loved ones; and (c) whether family members of death row inmates can be allowed to have physical contact during the last few visits after the date of execution has been set.

Madam, after being notified of the date on which the sentence would be carried out, the inmate's family is allowed to visit the inmate more frequently and for an extended period of time at each visit. The Singapore Prison Service facilitates requests from the inmate and his family as much as possible, while ensuring the safety and security of inmates and their families. Physical contact has not been allowed for reasons connected with safety.

There will be a period of time between conviction and the carrying out of the sentence to allow the full legal process to be completed, including any clemency petition. Throughout the inmates' stay in prison, families visit the inmates and also communicate with them. Inmates are also notified at every stage of the legal and clemency process. Counsellors are attached to each family to support them during the period leading up to and after the carrying out of the sentence.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. The reason for asking for a longer notice period is to give the families sufficient time to make the necessary preparations, as well as for the grief process. At the moment, they will be informed on Monday, and usually Tuesdays to Thursdays are when the extended visits are allowed. So, I am asking whether it could be extended a bit more so that they would have more time to deal with that process.

The second supplementary question is that I understand that some death row inmates' family members would be grateful for just one opportunity to be able to have that physical contact. In fact, the Government has made an exception once to permit one death row inmate's mother's physical contact, to hold the hands of her son. So, would the Ministry consider granting this possibility during the last visits, if the family members and the death row inmates so desire?

Madam, I thank the Member for the questions. The Singapore Prison Service considers various factors in determining how far in advance to inform the inmate's next-of-kin. Often, this includes the time needed for his next-of-kin and family to travel to Singapore if they live overseas.

I would like to assure the Member that the Singapore Prison Service carefully considers the time required for the next-of-kin to travel to Singapore. But as I have said in my reply earlier, between conviction and the actual carrying out of the sentence, there is a certain duration of time. Throughout that duration, families and next-of-kin are given opportunities to communicate and to visit the inmates.

On the question of whether physical contact will be allowed, I have said earlier that the practice has been no, because of operational security and the safety of visitors. But we will always assess requests from families and next-of-kin as they are provided.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I just want to clarify. So, yes, if the family members do ask for the opportunity for physical contact, the Singapore Prison Service would consider. So, they could put up an application or ask for it.

Secondly, I would also like to say that it is that period of knowing when the sentence would come, that one week is actually quite a stressful and traumatic period. So, this is the period that we need to give them a bit more time and space to handle the process.

I thank the Member for his feedback.

11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what is the impact on Singapore's economy in the wake of the challenging global trade situation including the US' intention to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the threat of a trade war between the US and China and increasing calls for protectionism by many developed countries.

12 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) whether the Ministry has a strategy to deal with the potential impact on Singapore's trade from the decision by the new US administration to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

13 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether the Government will continue to pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with like-minded countries; and (b) what is the Government's assessment of the efficacy of TPP without the participation of the US.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11, 12 and 13 together?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, we are witnessing a rise in anti-globalisation sentiments in Europe and the US. If protectionist approaches become the norm or a trade war among major economies ensues, then global trade will be adversely affected, with knock-on effects on economic growth worldwide.

Small and open economies like Singapore are especially vulnerable. Protectionist barriers to trade would curtail Singapore's ability to tap on demand in export markets or serve as an intermediary for global trade flows. This would have an adverse impact on our economy, of which two-thirds of our gross domestic product (GDP) is driven by external demand.

On the other hand, our external linkages can also make us more resilient in facing these headwinds. Over the years, we have carefully built up our regional and global connectivity with multiple regions across the world. We have also developed an efficient, stable, pro-business environment, with effective and consistent business and investment frameworks. This allows us to tap on the growth opportunities in Asia and elsewhere, for mutual benefit with like-minded partners. Amidst the current rise of anti-trade sentiments, Singapore will stay the course to remain open and connected, to be an attractive global city that welcomes the best companies, talent and investments.

We remain firmly committed to pursuing a rules-based global trading system and achieving greater regional integration. We will do our part to ensure that markets remain open, so that companies in Singapore can continue to scale up and internationalise.

The agreement that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) parties negotiated was one of several such pathways to achieve stronger trade linkages that will promote growth opportunities and job creation in the member countries. With the US' withdrawal, the TPP agreement, as signed, cannot come into effect. This is a setback for the global trade liberalising agenda but need not be the ultimate outcome. Each TPP partner will now have to carefully study the new balance of benefits without the US' participation and consider the value of an agreement among the remaining 11 partners. In addition to consulting with other TPP partners to find a mutually beneficial pathway forward, Singapore is also actively engaged in other regional integration initiatives, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).

Mdm Speaker, we will also continue to work with like-minded partners at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as advocates of a rules-based multilateral trading system. On the bilateral front, Singapore has an existing network of 21 free trade agreements (FTAs) in force, including with the eight TPP countries and the US. These speak to our deep ties with key trading partners and will help us stay connected as the environment evolves. We will also actively pursue other forms of economic cooperation initiatives, including industrial parks and other projects in the region, to create more opportunities for our companies to collaborate and grow.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. Could the Minister give an update on the progress of RCEP and the proposal for the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific? I understand that the last round of negotiation of RCEP was held in Tianjin back in October 2016. What would be the next step?

RCEP is progressing a bit slowly. We were planning to complete it within a reasonable timeframe of about three to four years. It is going to take us a bit longer. The reason is because we are trying to put together the FTAs that ASEAN has with the various dialogue partners. So, the problem or challenge is not within ASEAN because we already have FTAs with our corresponding dialogue partners. The challenge is with the dialogue partners not having FTAs among themselves. For example, between China and India, they do not have an FTA. So, they are coming together for the first time. One can imagine, with two huge economies starting from scratch, that is a huge challenge.

On the FTA for the Asia Pacific, this is a process that is only beginning to take place. The original idea was to have several pathways, one of which was TPP, the second is RCEP, and then we will merge the various pathways to form the FTA for the Asia Pacific. Now, with the setback in the TPP, we have to find other pathways to reach our ultimate objective of an FTA for the Asia Pacific.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that TPP is actually an agreement that is way ahead of its time. I think that could be one of the reasons for the obstacles that we are seeing now. I am also aware that a TPP agreement is no longer possible in its current form, but what about the TPP model? Is Singapore pursuing the TPP model with other like-minded countries? For instance, Australia and Japan actually ratified the agreement after it was made clear that the US' new administration would no longer go ahead. Is there a possibility that we can pursue the TPP model with these countries?

The TPP initiative put together three separate objectives. One is market access, which is the typical objective of an FTA. The second objective is to put in place rules that are more relevant to commerce in the 21st century, and I think this is what is very innovative about TPP. The third is, of course, the geo-strategic objective of putting economies across the Pacific and integrate them together.

So, I agree with the Member that TPP was a very ambitious undertaking and it took us nearly six years to cobble it together. First, to find a balance of benefits that people can live with in providing market access but, more importantly, to sit down and set out the rules for commerce in the 21st century ‒ rules for intellectual property, environment, labour, e-commerce, and many of these rules. Third, of course, is the strategic objective of putting economies across the Pacific and integrate them.

So, to find a new set of countries with similar ambitions is not easy. Whether we can proceed with TPP-11, as I mentioned, depends on the assessment of the benefits that the 11 countries will now have to calculate without the US as the major market. TPP was negotiated with market access of all the countries but, of course, with the US as a major market for which many countries want additional market access. Now, with that market access no longer available, the set of benefits will change for each country. So, everyone will have to make their new calculations.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one question and it relates to a Channel NewsAsia article that appeared after Prime Minister Lee's meeting with the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. The headline was "Singapore to amend legislation to bring TPP into effect by next year".

Can I just clarify, for the TPP-11 countries, is there any timeline for them to come to an agreement whether they want to proceed with an agreement which takes the shape or form of the TPP or not?

The original agreement was that we will all try and get our ratification process done within two years of the signing of the Agreement, which was 5 or 6 February last year. So, that was the original target. It is in line with that original target that we said that we would be among the first few countries that would ratify the TPP in line with the other countries.

And now, with the US' withdrawal, countries would have to recalculate. One possible pathway is for countries, the TPP-11, to continue their ratification process and wait until the US is ready or changes its mind, then they will join. That is one possible pathway. The second is, of course, to have a bilateral agreement with the US, as the US now wishes to embark on more bilateral agreements rather than plurilateral agreements. The third is, of course, the option of a TPP-11. So, it depends on the perspective of individual countries.

For some of the TPP countries, for example, Singapore and Australia, we already have bilateral FTA agreements with US, so the TPP is incremental and gives us an incremental market access. Our main bilateral trade in goods and services and investments are covered by the bilateral FTAs that we have. So, every country will have to reassess its situation.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Madam, my follow-up question is on bilateral trade agreements. Given that multilateral trade agreements are so difficult to stitch and ratify with many varying political interests, political cycles and not to mention, the long-drawn process, would the Ministry now take a different strategy or perhaps a separate strategy to pursue more bilateral trade agreements with countries, especially those economies that could be potentially our new markets, like South America, Latin America and Africa, for example? Would there be a separate track or effort to do that as well?

We have always taken both bilateral, plurilateral as well as multilateral positions, especially with WTO. On bilateral, we have, as I mentioned just now, 21 FTAs, and these cover all our major trading partners. We have one current bilateral FTA that we are negotiating with Sri Lanka. We continue to do bilateral FTAs and to pursue new markets.

We also work on plurilateral tracks, for example, the RCEP. In the ASEAN+1 FTA with the six dialogue partners, we are trying to cobble these together into a bigger plurilateral FTA called the RCEP so as to try and harmonise the rules and try to make it less of a "spaghetti bowl" of FTAs, to make the processes more business-friendly to our companies. So, we take all three approaches, as well as work actively with WTO for multilateral tracks, particularly in trade facilitations.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, in light of the US' withdrawal from the TPP, what is the impact to workers and unions in Singapore?

Mdm Speaker, as I mentioned just now, what we forgo in not continuing with the TPP is the incremental benefits that we would have achieved in the TPP over-and-above the existing benefits that we have with the bilateral FTAs with the nine other countries within the TPP group.

I think as far as the workers are concerned, what is more important for them is to understand the environment that we are facing, the headwinds, and work together with the Government, employers and companies to deal with these headwinds. The approach that we have taken through our Industry Transformation Maps, through the 23 sectoral plans, these are concrete ways in which all three parties can work together and still continue to provide good jobs for our workers.

Mr Leon Perera.

Madam, just one supplementary question: does the withdrawal of the US from TPP set back any prospect of reviving the Doha Round of WTO negotiations? How does the Minister assess any prospect of advancing the Doha Round in the current context?

We are making modest headway through the Doha process by taking subsets of the Doha agenda and seeing whether we can proceed successfully on the subsets. For example, in 2013, we got together and agreed on the trade facilitation agreements, and I think we are quite close to ratifying it. We should be able to ratify it by this year. Similarly, we are taking other subset agendas to try to see if we can cobble it into an agreement. So, that continues. What the US brings to WTO in terms of leadership, I think that has yet to be demonstrated.

14 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry conducts regular spot checks for works which undermine the capacity of the public drainage system to deal with floods; (b) whether there is an effective system that triggers early warnings about flood threats that particular works can pose; and (c) whether the penalties to deal with errant contractors are on par with the severity of the potential damage from the resultant flooding.

15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of recent flash floods across the island and global climate change, whether the Ministry will work with other agencies to reduce incidents of flash floods in key areas of Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, can I take Question Nos 14 and 15 together, please?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Over the past few decades, we are observing upward trends in rainfall intensities and frequency of heavy rain events. This, coupled with growing urbanisation which increases stormwater run-off, has made flood management more challenging.

To reduce flood risk, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) adopts a holistic "source-pathway-receptor" approach that addresses flood protection, not just through drains and canals, that is, the pathway; but also in areas generating stormwater run-off, that is, the source; and areas where floods may occur, that is, the receptor.

First, the pathways. Since 2011, PUB has raised drainage design standards for new developments and redevelopments, which would increase their drainage systems' capacity by up to 50%. PUB has also been carrying out improvement works to progressively increase the capacity of existing drains and canals and rehabilitate older drains. In the last three years, drainage improvement works at 192 locations have been completed and there are ongoing projects at 90 other locations.

Given land scarcity, we cannot rely solely on more and bigger drains to mitigate floods. As such, PUB also requires developers to implement "source" solutions to better manage storm-water discharges from developments. These include on-site detention measures for larger developments. In addition, PUB also requires "receptor" solutions, such as higher platform levels, crest protection and flood barriers, especially for critical installations. These help to protect developments when floods occur.

Keeping our drains free flowing is the joint responsibility of all stakeholders, be they public agencies, private developers and contractors, and members of the public. PUB works closely with the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) Department of Public Cleanliness to regularly remove debris, litter and leaves from the drains. It also encourages the public to keep our environment litter-free and give feedback on drain conditions.

In reply to Mr Ang Wei Neng's question, PUB does indeed work with the major development agencies to get their contractors to conduct checks on the public drains near their construction sites to ensure that the drains are free of debris. This is supplemented by PUB's audit checks on approved drainage works on site. During critical stages, such as drainage diversion works and decommissioning of existing drains, more frequent checks are carried out. PUB also leverages on technology, for example, closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, to facilitate the monitoring of work sites.

Mr Ang mentioned the recent flash floods, of which one recent occurrence is at Upper Thomson Road. PUB has investigated and found out that it was due to unauthorised work, which affected our public drainage system. PUB takes a serious view of such unauthorised works and will not hesitate to take action against errant parties under the Sewerage and Drainage Act. Any person found guilty may be fined up to $50,000 for unauthorised works affecting the public drainage system and up to $20,000 for unauthorised alteration or interference to the public drainage system. Such penalties and reputational damage, as well as being liable for civil penalties if they cause third-party damage, have been sufficient and effective in the past, and PUB will continue to review the amounts from time to time.

While PUB continues with efforts to reduce flood risks, we should be realistic to note that it is not possible to eliminate floods altogether. Localised conditions, exceptionally heavy downpour, tides and errant behaviour all contribute to flash floods now and then. As such, our focus is also to help members of the public better manage floods when they occur. To this end, PUB has put in place monitoring and alert systems to keep the public updated, through a network of water level sensors and CCTVs. Members of the public can subscribe to receive SMS alerts from selected water level sensors via PUB's website. These sensors are placed in flood-prone areas and hotspots, and could provide the public with early information on the rising water levels in drains in selected flood-prone areas.

In the event of a flash flood, PUB works closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Police to monitor road conditions and provide real-time updates on PUB's Facebook and Twitter pages and via radio broadcast, as well as LTA's Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS) on the roads.

Our stormwater management strategies have served us well. Despite increased urbanisation and more variable weather, flood-prone areas have been reduced from 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to 30.5 hectares today. PUB will continue its efforts to reduce flood-prone areas and ensure the proper functioning of the drainage system. However, measures, such as drain upgrading, canals and centralised detention tanks, take time to implement and may not be able to cope with all extremities in rainfall.

As such, I urge all parties to play a part in ensuring that our drains are free-flowing, and to appreciate the importance of source and receptor requirements in their developments. Finally, we need to work together to manage floods when they occur through better and more extensive alerts. Through concerted efforts, we can minimise flood risks and better manage flood events.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. The Minister mentioned about improvements to pathways in 90 locations. Recently, there were floods in Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar, besides Upper Thomson. So, are Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar part of the 90 locations? That is the first clarification.

The second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that for the flood at Upper Thomson, PUB had concluded that the errant contractor diverted the drainage and caused the flood. So, has PUB taken action to prosecute the contractor?

For the Paya Lebar flood on 24 December 2016, it was caused by intense rain which overwhelmed the upstream section of the Geylang River, thereby causing low-lying areas to flood. Drainage improvement works have been ongoing in Geylang River. The expected completion of the drainage upgrading works is in the third-quarter of 2018. The flood protection to Paya Lebar areas will be enhanced then.

On the action against the contractor, we are taking steps right now to put up the charges. We will be investigating and putting up the charges when we are ready.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister specifically about unauthorised works, as he mentioned increasing urbanisation. What is the danger that some of these unauthorised works and the impact that they have on the drainage system will not be discovered until way into the future?

The flash flood at Upper Thomson Road on 24 December 2016 was due to localised constriction at a temporary diversion drain built by the contractor, Sato Kogyo, and this affected the public drainage system. The temporary diversion constructed by the contractor within the worksite was under-sized. More importantly, it did not inform PUB before commencement of works. The public drainage system across Upper Thomson Road was also found to be altered by the contractor without PUB's approval. PUB, therefore, will be taking action against the contractor.

16 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) whether there are sufficient places for autistic students awaiting entry into special needs institutions; (b) what is the current average waiting time; and (c) what are the plans to make available more educational opportunities and support for students with autism.

Mdm Speaker, in recent years, we are seeing an increase in the number of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), resulting in an increase in demand for Special Education (SPED) school places for these children. Many of these children with ASD attend different SPED schools, including those that serve students with other disabilities.

Overall, there are sufficient places in our SPED schools. But some parents have a preference to place their child with ASD into a SPED school of their choice and, in particular, an ASD-specific school. The waiting time for admission into these schools can range from three months to more than a year, depending on the school's capacity and the relative demand, as well as student factors, such as the complexity of the particular child's needs and the availability of the right mix of staff to support his or her needs. Where there is a waitlist, MOE has, upon request, facilitated placement into an alternative SPED school which is appropriate for the child's specific disability profile.

Children diagnosed with ASD have diverse needs and may require more specialised and intensive intervention to support their learning. To cater to these needs, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is working with various volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) to expand the overall capacity of the ASD-specific schools. We are also working closely with the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and SPED schools to recruit more teachers and allied professionals. MOE, together with NCSS, will continue to closely monitor SPED school places, infrastructure, quality, as well as staffing levels to ensure the timely placement of students with moderate to severe ASD needs.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mdm Speaker, two points for clarification. First, I would like to ask the Minister of State if there is a specific planning ratio of students with ASD to the number of places in the schools. Second, how are the manpower planning programmes put in place, because we do understand that it is difficult to recruit, train and hire the correct and qualified people to staff these places?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. With respect to both issues, the needs of the children are very diverse and the label "ASD" is insufficient to adequately describe the complexity of the needs these children may have, from the mild to the moderate to the severe, as well as the co-existence of other challenges, other diseases and other disabilities that the child may have at the same time.

So, there is no fixed planning ratio that you can apply across the whole spectrum of diseases, needs, children and disability profile. The different schools have developed different expertise in particular needs, particular profiles, particular disabilities and particular diseases. They have their own norms to cater to the functional outcomes of executing their curricular plans and serving the needs of their children. This also applies to the manpower planning issue. As we can imagine, the two are very closely related.

There is a difficulty in hiring and identifying staff that have the appropriate aptitude and skills, as well as the enthusiasm for this type of work. But we are confident that we will be able to do so, going into the future.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Just a quick question for the Minister of State. Earlier, in his initial reply, he mentioned that the Ministry has seen an increase in the number of students across the autism spectrum. Does the Minister of State have a sense of those numbers? What are the numbers currently?

Mdm Speaker, I do not have the exact numbers in front of me. If the Member would like to file a question for that, I would certainly have them ready for him. The increase in ASD is a phenomenon that is being noticed around the world in all types of communities. We are no different.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mdm Speaker, I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister of State. Quite a number of residents that I meet during our house visits do feedback that there is a shortage of such places, particularly in the western part of Singapore. I urge the Minister of State that in coming up with new centres, to consider building them in the west.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the feedback and I appreciate the difficulty that some parents may have, especially if they have to travel a significant distance. The issue for the SPED schools and the children that they serve is that the expertise is quite profile-specific. For some of the children with certain types of profiles of disease and disability, their numbers are not large and so, the centres which have the expertise are effectively serving the entire nation. Going forward, in planning, we will look at the skills-mix as well as the staffing mix of all the SPED schools to see what we can do to optimise the delivery of these services for these children.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

I would like to ask the Minister of State this: if we look at Pathlight School, for example, they have a very successful model of helping children with autism and other specific special needs. Would the Ministry consider working closely with Pathlight School to set up more schools, where the Ministry would put in a lot more support in terms of funding and manpower resource?

Mdm Speaker, indeed, we do work closely with Pathlight and all the SPED schools to learn the best practices from their approach, to customising curriculum to providing specific intervention and support for the children. Certainly, while the total capacity within the SPED schools is more than sufficient to cater to the children, we do have to pay some attention to the skills and facilities to ensure that each child will have a place appropriate to their profile of needs and challenges. That is part of the panel that is looking at the implementation of compulsory education for special needs children, going forward.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

The Minister of State mentioned about the increased capacity in due course. Does the Minister of State have a timeline and what sort of waiting time could parents expect? Also, does the Ministry have a sense of how many are on the waitlist and who do not have a place in school? I know some on the waitlist actually have places somewhere else. There are also those on the waitlist who are not in school. Do we have a sense of that?

I do not have the exact numbers for the Member's last part of the question, Mdm Speaker. I would reassure him on the point he made that there is a place available within the SPED space. A large part of the issue for the waiting lists currently is the choice the parents have and assert, with respect to which of the SPED schools they would like to place their children in.

In terms of total capacity, the spaces are there, the facilities are there. But it is really looking forward towards the timeline of the implementation of compulsory education for special needs children and ensuring that we have the skill ability and the manpower ability across the various schools to make sure that each child has an appropriate place and, hopefully, to reduce the anxiety that some parents may have about finding a particular place in a particular school, when there are several schools that can manage that child's needs.

Mr Leon Perera.

Just one question. In relation to the skills shortages that we have discussed, is the Government looking into the possibility of establishing in Singapore a basic degree course in special needs education? Based on my understanding, there is a Master's degree course and an Advanced Degree course, but not a basic degree course in special needs education.

Mdm Speaker, the National Institute of Education (NIE) does conduct a basic diploma in special education, and then, going on to a Master's as well. We do have some ability to do some training here in Singapore, but we also do tap on the skills and training available overseas or returning Singaporeans for people who want to come and work in special education. So, there is a good mix of backgrounds and skills within the educators and professionals that serve in the special education space.

17 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry reviews the criteria used by individual primary schools to determine whether students are allowed to take up Higher Mother Tongue to ensure that reasonable consideration is given to students' interest in the subject instead of it being a purely results-driven process.

Mdm Speaker, we are encouraged and heartened that parents and students see the value of learning the Mother Tongue language. This is a positive sign for a strong bilingual foundation.

The Higher Mother Tongue curriculum is designed to stretch students who have a keen ability and strong interest in the language. In their consideration of Higher Mother Tongue, schools take into consideration both the interest and the ability of the students. This is because Higher Mother Tongue means additional curriculum time and heavier learning load. The subject can be overwhelming to students who are not interested or not ready to take up the subject. In addition, schools are also guided by the learning profiles of the students and the schools are very mindful of the interest and the overall well-being of the child.

In addition, the Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reminds our schools of the considerations that should guide their offer of various subjects to their students. We also provide close guidance and work closely with schools that need additional support in this area.

Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Supplementary questions. Firstly, what are the guidelines or criteria for the schools for students who wish to take up Higher Chinese? What is the weightage like? How much weightage is given to a student's interest and family support, for example, and the other consideration of the results of the various subjects?

Secondly, what is MOE's policy on students wanting to opt for Higher Chinese? Do they encourage students to do so and, if so, are there schemes to guide schools to encourage students who are qualified to take up Higher Chinese?

I want to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. First off, let me give some context to Higher Chinese language (HCL). The HCL curriculum was developed at the lower primary levels to support the needs of our Special Assistance Plan (SAP) primary schools, of which we have 15 currently. They admit students who are inclined towards learning Chinese at a higher level. Since the HCL curriculum is available, some other non-SAP primary schools have also offered it to students with stronger aptitude and interest in the language.

Allow me to reiterate that the two key criteria are strong interest and keen ability in taking up HCL. We all know learning language is not just for conversing or writing. It is also culturally-driven. So, it is important that the student has a strong affinity and interest in that subject, so that we can nurture the joy of learning in the children and sustain their interest in the HCL even after they leave school.

To this end, we are heartened by the enthusiasm that parents and students have shown for the HCL. We want to assure the Member and the House that our schools are deeply committed to the teaching and learning of Higher Mother Tongue languages. We do so because it is not just mastering a higher level of Chinese, but also deepening bilingualism, which is an integral part of our national identity and cultural heritage.

Another point that I would like to reassure the Member and the House is that our schools strive to cater to students of different learning capabilities and also home languages, depending on whether they speak English or Mandarin at home. Students are able to take their Mother Tongue at the level which best suits their ability. The Member may ask why is that important. This differentiated approach is very important because it allows the school to customise the level of support for the child's learning. When the learning is pitched at their level and ability, the students can learn the Mother Tongue language to as high a level as they can, and are also given adequate opportunities and support. This is important so that we can help to nurture the children's learning of the Mother Tongue and sustain their interest in this language, even beyond school.

Mr Low Thia Khiang.

There were complaints by parents that even when students got over 90 marks for Chinese language and when they are interested and motivated to learn the language, they are not admitted to the Higher Chinese class. What is the explanation by the Ministry?

I want to thank Mr Low for the supplementary question. In the case of St Hilda's Primary School, the cut-off mark was unusually high, as the school sought to ensure a high level of ability in the students who wanted to take HCL. We acknowledge St Hilda's Primary School's good intentions in making sure that the students who want to take HCL are well-suited and are also ready to take on the subject because it also entails extra curriculum time and a heavier study load for the child. With feedback and guidance from MOE, the school has very quickly reviewed its criteria and will be opening another HCL class to cater to the growing desire for HCL.

MOE is very glad that the school is taking positive steps very swiftly to enlarge its pool of HCL students. The broader point is that it really reflects the school's commitment in terms of the teaching and learning of the Mother Tongue language, not just Chinese language but all three Mother Tongue languages. This is why, other than the MOE curriculum, we also have the three Mother Tongue languages promotion committees to supplement the efforts on the ground.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Patents Act (Chapter 221 of 2005 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for Financial Year 2017/2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to regulate the operation of early childhood development centres, to provide for other connected or incidental matters, to repeal the Child Care Centres Act (Chapter 37A of the 2012 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for Financial Year 2017/2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Architects Act (Chapter 12 of the 2000 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for Financial Year 2017/2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Town Councils Act (Chapter 329A of the 2000 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for Financial Year 2017/2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Chan Chun Sing's speech?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) in respect of Minister Chan Chun Sing's speech". – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The amendments proposed today to the Presidential Elections Act can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments gives effect to the amendments made by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2016. The second category of amendments improve election procedures during the conduct of Presidential elections. The third category of amendments aligns the Act with provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls.

I will also be making two announcements on the Presidential elections at the end of my speech. These announcements do not require amendments to the law.

Let me begin with the first category of amendments, the category arising from the constitutional amendments made in November last year. The amendment Bill was passed in November after robust debate, putting in place the framework for the changes to the Elected Presidency. The amendments being proposed here today put in place the nuts and bolts of the framework agreed to in November. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed.

The new section 5A provides that the new Schedule, inserted by clause 22, has effect for the purpose of determining whether an election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. The new Schedule sets out the terms of office that are counted and the communities that the Presidents who hold these terms belong to. The first term of office to be counted is the last term of office of President Wee Kim Wee, during which he became the first President to exercise the functions created by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991. The Schedule stipulates that Dr Wee Kim Wee and Mr Ong Teng Cheong belong to the Chinese community; Mr SR Nathan, who served two terms, belongs to the Indian community, Dr Tony Tan belongs to the Chinese community.

The Prime Minister had, in November, announced this during the Second Reading of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

The Returning Officer is responsible for updating the Schedule after every election. For this purpose, if a community certificate was issued to a person, that person is considered to belong to the community stated on the community certificate. If no community certificate was issued to the person, the person is considered not to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community, nor the Indian or other minority communities.

The new section 5B links the reserved election mechanism in the new Article 19B of the Constitution to writs of election issued under the Act and provides for open elections to be held if a reserved election wholly fails.

In an open election, a person does not have to belong to any of the three communities − Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other Minority communities − to qualify to be elected as President.

Clause 4 amends section 6(3) to require that nomination day must be at least 10 days after the date of the Writ of Election. This is an increase from the current five days. This provides the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) with more time to assess whether potential candidates should be issued a Certificate of Eligibility.

We are also introducing changes to the certification process for the Presidential election. The new Division 2 − consisting of new sections 8 to 8D − relates to the PEC and the application process for a Certificate of Eligibility.

The key changes are as follows. First, the deadline for applying for a Certificate of Eligibility is extended from the current three days to five days after the date of the Writ of Election. The extension of deadline will give prospective candidates more time to prepare their applications. Second, the PEC must be satisfied that the applicant has met the service requirements under new Article 19(2)(g) of the Constitution before it issues the Certificate of Eligibility. Third, persons who wish to contest in the Presidential elections must submit applications to both the PEC and to the Community Committee. PEC must reject an application for a Certificate of Eligibility if the applicant did not submit a community declaration to the Community Committee.

The community declaration is essential to the functioning of the certification process for the reserved election system. I will elaborate on the community declaration next.

The community certification process serves two main purposes. First, to determine the community to which every person elected as President belongs, for the purposes of determining whether a future election is reserved under the new Article 19B(1) of the Constitution. Second, to ensure that, in a reserved election, only persons belonging to the community to which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for election. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the first handout?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

All prospective candidates in all elections, regardless of a reserved election or open election, have to submit a community declaration. A declaration is essential even in open elections because the hiatus-triggered model requires that the community of each President to be counted, for the purposes of calculating when the next reserved election is.

A person making a community declaration must make one, and only one, of the following four statements as set out in the new section 8F(2)(a)-

The statements require, where the applicant considers himself to be a member of the three main communities, that is, Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities, to state that he wishes to apply for a community certificate stating that he belongs to that particular community. It should be pointed out that, in open elections, a declarant can still run for elections, even if he does not receive a community certificate, if he meets all other eligibility criteria.

The deadline for submission of the community declaration is five days after the date of the Writ of Election, similar to the deadline to apply for the Certificate of Eligibility to the PEC.

The Community Committee must decline to accept a community declaration if the declarant did not apply to the PEC for a Certificate of Eligibility.

Let me now elaborate on the composition of this new Community Committee. The Community Committee will consist of 16 persons: the Chairman; five members belonging to the Chinese community; five members belonging to the Malay community; and five members belonging to the Indian or Other Minority communities.

The Chairman and members of the Community Committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). The PCMR will make its nominations after consulting such organisations of the Chinese, Malay, or Indian and Other Minority communities as the PCMR sees fit.

The five members belonging to the Chinese community who are on the Community Committee make up the Chinese Community sub-committee. The same arrangement applies to the Malay and Indian and Other Minority communities' sub-committees.

In a reserved election, the Community Committee will accept a community declaration only if the declarant considers himself to belong to the community to which the election is reserved. The Community Committee will then refer the declaration to the sub-committee for that community. If the sub-committee is satisfied that the declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect.

In non-reserved elections or open elections, the Community Committee will refer community declarations to the appropriate sub-committee, except where a declarant does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities.

If the sub-committee for a community is satisfied that a declarant belongs to that community, the Community Committee will issue the declarant with a community certificate to that effect.

If the sub-committee is not satisfied, the Community Committee can refuse to issue a community certificate, or can invite the declarant to submit another community declaration.

In the case of a declarant who does not consider himself to be a member of any of the three main communities, the Community Committee can either accept the community declaration, or invite the person to submit another community declaration.

In both instances where the Community Committee may invite the declarant to submit another community declaration, it may only do so once.

The approach of the Community Committee and sub-committees, in assessing whether declarants belong to a particular community, should be that of inclusion. The approach should be to welcome and embrace individuals who identify themselves with a particular community. This would apply, for example, in cases where declarants are of mixed-race parentage and have significant links with the communities of both parents.

The method of certifying race through community committees has worked well for our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system; it should similarly serve us well in the Presidential elections.

Let me now move on to explain the new items that prospective candidates must submit. Clause 6 amends section 9 to add certain items to the nomination papers that a prospective candidate must submit.

The first item is a statutory declaration in which the prospective candidate declares that he understands the role of the President as set out in the Constitution. This ensures that the prospective candidate is aware of the constitutional powers of the President, and is also aware of the constitutional limits of the Presidential office. It will serve as a declaration to the electorate that the prospective candidate is aware that he should not be drawn into making statements or promises which exceed the constitutionally-prescribed role of the President. As making a false statutory declaration is an offence, a prospective candidate's submission of the declaration signals that the candidate has studied and understood the responsibilities of the office.

The second additional item relates to the community certification process. In a reserved election, a prospective candidate must submit a community certificate stating that he belongs to the community to which the election is reserved.

In open elections, a prospective candidate who applied for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit either: (a) a community certificate; or (b) the Community Committee's written decision rejecting the application.

A prospective candidate who did not apply for a community certificate in his community declaration must submit: (a) the Community Committee's written notification that his declaration is accepted; as well as (b) a statutory declaration stating that he does not consider himself to belong to the Chinese community, the Malay community or the Indian or Other Minority communities.

Clause 19 amends section 71 to provide that an election can be declared void if the elected candidate made a materially false or misleading statement of fact, or omitted to state a material fact, to PEC. This new ground for avoidance is identical to the ground for removing a President in the new Article 22L(3)(e) of the Constitution.

Clause 20 repeals and re-enacts section 73 to further provide that only PEC can apply to void an election on the ground stated in the new section 71(f). This is because the false statement, or the omission of the material fact, is made to PEC, and so it would be the appropriate party to apply to the Election Judge to void an election.

Let me now address the second category of amendments. These amendments are being made to improve the election procedures. I will go through the key amendments.

The Government is making changes to the design of the ballot paper to improve the process of voting, adjudication and counting.

Clause 8 amends section 23 to stipulate that the ballot paper must have a clearly demarcated area for a voter to mark his vote for a candidate. Clause 10 amends section 25 to state that a voter's mark must only be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. This ties in with the amendments to section 33 on how ballot papers are to be adjudicated and counted. Clause 14 amends section 33 to require the Returning Officer to only consider the marks made by voters in the area demarcated on ballot papers for voters to mark their votes. Under the amended section, if a voter makes a mark outside of this area, the Returning Officer must disregard that mark when determining whether the voter has given his vote to any candidate. In previous elections, disputes have arisen over whether a mark over a candidate's photo or name should count towards a vote for that individual. The changes will provide clarity in dealing with these situations.

Clause 9 inserts a new section 23A to formalise the inclusion of candidates' photographs on ballot papers and to stipulate the conditions that must be satisfied before a candidate's photograph will be included on that ballot paper. Photographs of the candidates on the ballot paper were first introduced in the 2011 Presidential election. This practice has been welcomed by voters, as they were able to more easily identify the candidate they are voting for on the ballot paper.

The amendment Bill also sets out certain actions to deal with contingency situations pertaining to ballot boxes.

Clause 12 amends section 32A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time for the sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore. The amendments to that section confer a discretion on the Returning Officer to extend the time by another seven days for the overseas ballot boxes to reach Singapore if two conditions are fulfilled. First, the total number of overseas electors is material to the election outcome. Second, the Returning Officer is satisfied that any of the overseas ballot boxes are not likely to reach Singapore within the initial 10-day period.

Clause 13 repeals and re-enacts section 32B to remove the requirement for a candidate or his counting agent to apply to the Returning Officer for a recount of votes. Currently, the law provides for a candidate or his counting agent to apply for a recount of votes if the criteria for recount is met, that is, if the difference between the number of votes given to the candidate with the most votes and the number of votes given to any other candidate at the election is 2% or less of the total number of votes cast in Singapore, excluding rejected votes and tendered votes, at the election. With the amendment, the Returning Officer must carry out a recount of the votes if the criterion for recount is met. This will avoid unnecessary delays to the recount process.

Clause 15 inserts new sections 36DA and 36DB to deal with the loss or destruction of ballot boxes. If any sealed ballot box containing votes cast at a polling station, whether in Singapore or overseas, is lost or destroyed while it is being transported from a polling station to a counting place, the Returning Officer must, first, abandon the counting of all the votes cast at the affected polling station, and this includes the votes cast at the affected polling station that were not in the lost or destroyed ballot box; and second, re-start the poll for the affected polling station if it will be material to the outcome of the election.

The third category of amendments is being made to the Act to align the Act with certain provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act relating to election advertising, publication of election survey results and exit polls. Clauses 17 and 18 insert new sections dealing with those issues.

Clause 24 makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act in relation to the registration of overseas electors. The consequential amendments are mainly to section 13A of that Act. The time within which an elector has to register as an overseas elector or apply to change the overseas polling station allotted to the elector is being extended to two days after the Writ of Election. This will give overseas voters more time to register or change their allotted polling station.

Madam, that covers all the legislative amendments. As I highlighted earlier, I would also like to make two announcements on the Presidential elections. The first is on campaign methods and the second on the date of the Presidential elections. These two areas will not involve amendments to the law or affect this Bill under consideration.

First, the Government will take up the broad thrust of the Constitutional Commission's recommendation on election campaign methods. In its report, the Constitutional Commission stated, and I quote, "Presidential candidates should be required to conduct their campaigns with rectitude and dignity as befits the office and comports with the unifying role and purpose of the Presidency."

The Government fully agrees with the Commission that campaigning for the Presidential election has to be consistent with the President's position as a symbol of national unity. The Government also agrees with the Commission that there should be a difference in the campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. As the Commission said, a "Parliamentary election is a contest of ideas and policies, where candidates have to communicate their policies to the electorate and persuade voters as to the strengths of their own proposals as well as the weaknesses of those put forward by other candidates. This clash of ideas and policies makes for a lively but inevitably divisive contest."

The Commission also said, and I quote:

"in contrast, candidates for Presidential elections have no policy agenda to advance";

"the President plays no role in setting the national agenda nor does he make policy decisions as to the course that the nation should chart";

"[t]hose are matters which properly fall within the remit of the elected Government";

"there is little, if any, need for the vigorous contest of ideas that takes place during a Parliamentary election".

The Commission considered that rules could be enacted which prescribed a "white list" of approved campaign methods, such as televised speeches, and explicitly stated that it was not clear if the holding of rallies is either necessary or helpful in dealing with divisiveness.

The Government agrees with the Commission that there should be a clear distinction in campaign methods for Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. Campaign methods for the Presidential elections must not inflame emotions and must be in keeping with the decorum and dignity of the office of the President, given the important unifying and custodial roles of the President.

The possibility of changes to campaign rules was raised at the end of the debate on the constitutional amendment Bill last November. What was clear is that there is support from both sides of this House that campaigning for Singapore's Presidency should be depoliticised and fundamentally different from campaigning during Parliamentary elections. The Government agrees with the Members of this House on our shared goal to differentiate the campaigning methods of the Presidential Elections from that of the General Elections.

As Presidential elections are contested on a national level and not on a local constituency level, we will encourage the use of platforms and channels that reach out to voters at a national level. Television enables candidates to have wide national reach, and to broadcast their messages more effectively to the entire nation. At the last Presidential Election 2011, there were individual campaign broadcasts and a televised forum. To help candidates reach out to voters, the Government will increase the amount of television airtime for candidates and study different options to achieve this.

Candidates can also use the wide array of social media platforms to reach voters. They can also hold indoor private sessions to engage specific groups of voters. The format of such indoor private sessions is up to the candidates themselves.

The Government will no longer designate any rally sites during Presidential elections. This is in line with the Government's and Constitutional Commission's position not to encourage rallies, which, by their nature and format, may be divisive and not congruent with the unifying role of the Elected Presidency.

Nevertheless, candidates who wish to hold rallies may still do so. They will have to apply to Police for a permit. Police will assess the application based on public order and security considerations. As there will not be any designated and pre-security assessed rally sites, Police may require slightly more time to evaluate applications to hold rallies. Even though this can be announced closer to the start of the application process, the Government is announcing it early for transparency and prospective candidates' early awareness.

My second announcement has to do with the election period for the Presidential elections. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the second handout?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

The current President's term of office expires on 31 August 2017. In the past, polling day typically fell on the last week of August. In 2011, the writ was issued in the first week of August. Campaigning began after National Day and was conducted during the month-long National Day celebrations. Given the slightly longer time required for the new process and to avoid holding Presidential election campaigns during the National Day celebrations period, we will adjust the timing of the polls for the forthcoming elections.

The Government will issue the writ for the election later in August, before President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017 so that if the election is contested, polling day will take place in September instead of August. This resets the clock, so that, in future, Presidential elections campaigning will take place outside of the National Day period, assuming Presidents serve their full six-year terms.

We have been advised by the Attorney-General that there can be an interval between the expiry of the incumbent's term and the assumption of office by the new President. If a new President is not elected by the time President Tony Tan's term expires on 31 August 2017, Article 22N of the Constitution provides for an acting President until a new President is elected and assumes office. The Constitution provides for the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker, to be the acting President. The acting President, it should be made clear, cannot exercise the functions of the President under Article 22N indefinitely. We have sought the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s (AGC) advice on this proposal to adjust the timing of the polls for the Presidential elections this year. AGC has confirmed that this can be done under the current laws.

Some Members might ask why the Government cannot simply extend the current President's term to deal with the adjustment to the campaigning period. According to Article 20 of the Constitution, the new President shall hold office for a term of six years from the date on which he assumes office. We cannot extend President Tan's term beyond six years unless we amend the Constitution.

The period during which the acting President shall exercise the functions of the office of President should not exceed one month, from 1 September 2017 to the date of assumption of office by the person declared elected as President.

Madam, let me now say a few words in Malay and Mandarin.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past year, we have received a range of useful feedback from the Malay community and other Singaporeans on the amendments to the elected Presidency. I am pleased that society, as a whole, understands the objectives and rationale behind the proposed amendments.

We want to maintain and protect our multiracial society because this is what makes Singapore unique. We want to preserve meritocracy because it is a crucial concept to Singapore. Singapore is a country where anyone can fulfil their potential due to their own hard work and abilities, and not because of their ancestry, their connections, their race or their religion. Therefore, this system that we want to establish will carefully balance two factors − meritocracy and multiracialism. The same high standards will be imposed on all candidates regardless of race.

The upcoming Presidential election has been reserved for Malay candidates and, should there be a contest, Polling Day will be held in September. This step is taken so that the Presidential election campaign will take place outside the period of National Day celebrations. I hope that eligible Malay candidates will step forward to contest to become a Head of State that can unite our people and provide inspiration to all of us.

As a young nation, we must be bold enough to constantly adapt our institutions according to our needs. This is the spirit of our Pioneer Generation and that same spirit must always be present in future generations.

I will now continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last November, Parliament passed the Constitution Amendment Bill after three days of intense debate. Since then, the Government has received feedback from various sectors of society. Many Singaporeans are very concerned about how we balance meritocracy and multiracialism.

The Government is heartened to see that the Chinese community, as the majority race, has exercised maturity and showed support for the change. It demonstrated that our Chinese community uphold the values of multiracialism and inclusiveness. These values are very important to Singapore. I would like to thank the Chinese community and the community leaders for playing a critical role in this issue.

It is obviously not easy. Singapore is a young nation and our institutions and systems must be adaptable and flexible according to our needs. We should follow the example of our forefathers and do this for the future generations.

The Government agrees with the Constitutional Commission's view that the campaign for Presidential elections must be in line with the unifying role of the President. All sides of this House support that the campaigning for the Presidential election should not be politicised and should be different from the campaigning during the General Election.

In order to clearly differentiate these two elections, the Government will no longer designate any rally site during Presidential elections. Nevertheless, if candidates still wish to hold rallies, they must apply to the Police for a permit.

The Government will increase the television campaigning time during the elections. Candidates can also use social media to reach the voters. Just as before, they can also hold indoor sessions to engage specific groups of voters.

In the past, the Polling Day of the Presidential elections typically fell in the last week of August. Campaigning was conducted in August, coinciding with National Day and the National Day celebrations.

The Government feels that these two should happen separately. To prevent the clash of timings, this year's Polling Day will be in September. Our laws allow us to do this and our Government institutions are also able to handle this transition period smoothly.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the amendments I have described today are either consequential to the constitutional amendments made in November, or to improve the processes during elections.

We are drawing closer to our first reserved elections for our President. The changes to the system have taken more than a year to be discussed and fleshed out since they were first publicly mooted. The time taken, along with the range of people that were consulted in the process, signals the Government's intent in refining the system and ensuring that the office of President is held by a person with the necessary qualities and experience to exercise the powers and duties of the highest office in the country; that the office of the President continues to reflect the multiracial nature of Singapore; and that this office continues to be a unifying symbol for all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. Madam, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Bill. In November last year, following the report of the Constitutional Commission headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, we passed landmark amendments to our Constitution in relation to the elected Presidency.

One of the major changes was accepting the Commission's recommendation of the concept of a "reserved election" in the event a particular race had not had the chance to hold the office of President after five terms. This was to ensure that all the major communities would be represented in the office of elected President.

While there were differences of opinion on whether or not such a "reserved" election was appropriate, almost everyone agreed with the principle that every major community ought to be able to represent the country as President. Indeed, the critics mainly argued that such a system was unnecessary because Singaporeans were unlikely to vote along racial lines and there is no reason to institute such a system.

During my speech on the constitutional amendments, I had supported the concept of the reserved election because I believed it was a self-correcting safety net. If the critics were right that race was irrelevant, and members of each of the races were able to prevail in an open election, then this safety net would never be triggered. On the other hand, if there was no President of a certain community after five terms, then it would be triggered, and hopefully, a person of that community would come forward. In the long run, as Singaporeans get used to having Presidents of different communities, hopefully, race will matter less and minority candidates would start winning open elections, making the reserved election mechanism redundant.

This Bill before Parliament makes the consequential changes to the Presidential Elections Act to implement, among other things, the concept of the reserved election. In my speech, I will focus on these amendments, and given they are unique to Singapore, seek clarification on some of the areas that may be open to interpretation.

This Bill creates a new committee called the "Community Committee", a committee that is made up of three sub-committees, with five members from each of the Chinese, Malay and Indian and Other Minority committees. It also creates a Chairman for this Committee. The language used in the proposed section 8E of the Bill is that this committee is to be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. For each of the committees, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is required to consult such community organisations as it sees fit.

This is slightly unusual drafting because the typical constitutional convention is for the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, whereas this particular provision requires the Prime Minister to appoint based on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

One clarification I wish to seek from the Minister is whether this is a decision in which it is intended that the Prime Minister is to exercise discretion, in which case it is expected that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights would put forward more than one nominee for the post as Chairman, from which the Prime Minister will select one, and more than five individuals for each of the five sub-committees from which the Prime Minister will select five. On the other hand, if the intention is to leave this decision to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, then they may only nominate one person for the position of Chairman, and five for each of the sub-committees, in which case it appears the Prime Minister will have no discretion on this matter.

Next, let me move to a new section 8F which sets out the mechanism by which the race of a candidate is to be determined. The mechanism starts with the candidate self-declaring the community to which he considers himself to be a member. The appropriate sub-committee then decides if it agrees with the declaration. Thereafter, there is also a mechanism permitting the Committee to ask the candidate to re-apply if it is of a different opinion.

Naturally, the mechanism is left flexible to deal with the complexity of race. It is part ethnicity and part identity. Thus, a Chinese person adopted at infancy by an Indian family may grow up identifying themselves as part of the Indian community, despite their ethnicity − indeed, interracial adoptions were common, particularly during the baby boom years when parents were unable to take care of all their children.

Another issue is people of mixed descent. People of mixed descent may face more challenges and as interracial marriages get more common. Indeed, I understand the number has doubled from the last decade. This may become a more controversial issue. Would it be possible, for example, for a person of mixed heritage, say Indian-Malay, to believe they belong to more than one community? Indeed, this would be the aspiration from the perspective of racial integration and permitting dual-ethnicities is logical if the person is able to identify with both communities and is accepted by both communities, but this may mean that dual-identities may then need to be recorded.

The Bill, as currently drafted, permits a person to identify with only one community but a person who identifies with more than one community may then have to make a decision and would this person then be able to change decision if, say, the reserved election were for different community in a subsequent term? This is a problem that, perhaps, may not be faced in the immediate future because we have several terms before the next reserved election. But it is one that we should prepare for.

The reserved election for Indians and Other Minority communities, in particular, may create issues in this regard. There is a common belief that this category includes everyone who does not fit into the other categories. Thus, everyone of mixed descent might feel they belong in this category based on ethnicity, whether or not they identify with a particular community.

However, I understand the original legislative intent when this category was created for the purposes of the GRC scheme was for this category to be based around minority communities that were established in Singapore and not based purely on ethnicity. This appears to be the intention of this Bill as well since section 8F(2)(d) allows the person to declare he does not identify with any of the communities above. Thus, I believe the category "Other Minority" communities refers to a community that is established in Singapore.

This would also mean, for example, we have, say, a foreign chief executive officer from a country with no community here who gets Singapore citizenship subsequently and decides he wants to apply, he would not qualify as a member of the "Other Minority" communities' category for purposes of a reserved election, but would still be able to apply in an open election under section 8F(2)(d). I think this is fair because the purpose of this reserved election is to ensure that all of our main communities feel represented in the highest office and, if a person is not part of a particular community, then they should contest in the open election.

What this means is that the definition of "Other Minority" communities is potentially a prickly matter. What would be the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a particular community is one of the "Other Minority" communities for purposes of section 8F(2)(c) of the amendment?

I would, therefore, be grateful for the Minister's clarification that the definition of "Other Minority" communities, as a provision, is not intended to be a "catch-all" for people who do not fit into the other categories by ethnicity, but is intended to be only for those who are part of the established minority communities in Singapore. If the Minister is also able to identify, of course, without limiting which groups may fall into the category of such communities at this point in time, that may also be helpful guidance as to what considerations need to be taken into account in determining whether a person is part of one of the "Other Minority" communities.

Mdm Speaker, I am just concluding my section in English. Race is never a pleasant topic because we all like to believe that we live in a place where race does not matter. However, minorities experience disadvantages all the time and it is heartening to know that active steps are being taken to ensure minority representation is possible at all levels, including the office of President.

It is my hope that we will one day reach a stage when a member of any race can contest and win the Presidential election without the need for a reserve election, but until we get there, this is a helpful way to ensure that members of each community get a chance to prove themselves in the highest office and help us move towards that ideal. Mdm Speaker, I will say a few words in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I will say a few words in Tamil on this Bill.

This Bill marks the consequential legislative amendments to implement the Constitutional changes to the elected Presidency. One of the important features is the mechanism to ensure that all the major racial groups in Singapore will have a chance to hold this office.

While being a minority in any country has its challenges, in Singapore, steps are taken to confront the challenges wherever possible to ensure that we have proper representation. Tamil is one of the four official languages, and Singapore is one of the few places where Tamil can be used in Parliament. In Parliament, the GRC system has ensured that Malays, Indians and other minority groups have always had a place and a position to speak up.

These new changes now ensure that even at the office of President, Indians and other minorities will have a good chance to be represented. It may be some 25 years before the reserved election for Indians comes up, and it may be that if an Indian gets elected as President before that, we may not even need the reserved election, but it is good to know that we have a system in place, should it ever be necessary.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Speaker, in November last year, Parliament debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which provided for the Presidency to continue to be an elected office and for Presidential elections to be reserved for ethnic communities. The Workers' Party rejects both these concepts and thus opposed the Bill then.

As this Bill today seeks to entrench these further, we oppose this Bill.

Lest we be misunderstood or misconstrued, I should state once again that we wish to see multiracial representation in the office of our Head of State. However, such multi-racial representation should be achieved not by way of reserved elections but by the former system of appointing Presidents. We have canvassed our arguments during the debate on the Constitution amendments and we do not intend to rehash them today.

Let me move specifically to two aspects of this Bill which are very problematic. First, how to count reserved elections and, secondly, the eligibility criteria of candidates from the private sector.

First, how to count reserved elections. Clause 3 introduces a new section 5A that to determine whether an election is reserved under Article 19B of the Constitution, one has to refer to the new Schedule. The Schedule sets out a table showing President Wee Kim Wee as the first President to be counted. Together with the subsequent presidential terms of President Ong Teng Cheong, two terms of President SR Nathan and one term of President Tony Tan, these formed five terms where a non-Malay President was in office. Thus, the Government reaches the conclusion that this year's Presidential election will be reserved for Malays.

Madam, this is a conclusion that has left Singaporeans bewildered and suspicious. To recap, during the November debate, the Prime Minister told the House for the first time that the Government had received advice from AGC on how to apply the hiatus-triggered mechanism for reserved elections, that is, which President's term to count from. We were told that the advice was that counting should begin from President Wee Kim Wee, who was the first President to exercise the powers of an Elected President. This advice was surprising and illogical to many Singaporeans, given that President Wee Kim Wee was never elected to office. When I asked Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean then whether the Government would publish the AGC's advice for Singaporeans to better understand the reasoning, the Government appeared reluctant to do so and even asked me whether I was suggesting that the Prime Minister was not being truthful.

There has been a lot of public reaction to the announcement that this year's Presidential election would be reserved for Malay candidates. After the last Presidential elections six years ago, Singaporeans are right to be sceptical about the Government's motives now. In 2011, Dr Tony Tan was the Government's preferred choice but had to fight off three other candidates, scrapping through to victory with a mere 35.2% of the popular vote and a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. For the next Presidential election, we hear a sudden announcement by the Government that it would be reserved for Malay candidates based on reasoning which is totally unconvincing. How many people really believe that the Presidential election this year is reserved for Malays to ensure minority representation and why now?

Madam, three months have passed since that debate. I have been reflecting on the decision to use President Wee as a reference point. I realise that this decision to count from President Wee was not a matter of getting legal advice to interpret any existing laws. If one looks at this Bill and the Schedule, the Government is asking Parliament to simply make it the law that President Wee is the first one to be counted. Why not count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong? Is it because if President Ong was the first one to be counted, we would have to go through this year's elections as an open election and risk the contest by Chinese or Indian candidates who may not be to the Government's liking? Is the decision to count from President Wee not an arbitrary and deliberate decision of the Government to achieve a desired outcome?

Next, eligibility criteria for private sector candidates. Clause 3 also introduces a new section 5C which deals with the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates from the private sector. Section 5C touches on the definitions of shareholders' equity, profit after tax and insolvency events. These definitions are needed due to the new requirement for candidates to have run companies of shareholders' equity of at least $500 million which have been profitable. But what does section 5C provide? Basically, nothing but to say that Parliament is delegating its legislative authority to the Minister to make regulations.

Madam, as a general principle, Parliament can delegate its legislative power to a Minister to make rules, and regularly does so for matters of a technical or more operational nature. But what disturbs me is that these definitions are not just technical or operational. These definitions would determine who gets to run for President. More importantly, if one refers back to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill passed in November, it was provided in the new Article 19(6) that it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify how the PEC is to determine the value of shareholders' equity and profit after tax, and it is the Legislature that is supposed to specify what constitutes an insolvency event. Since the Constitution entrusts these specific matters to the Legislature to deal with, it is not right for Parliament to simply delegate this responsibility to the Minister to do so. Parliament should not abdicate its responsibility and give a blank cheque to the Government to draw up these definitions.

Madam, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. We will later call for our dissent to be specifically recorded.

Mr Thomas Chua.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President is the symbol of our country and has to unite all Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion, working together for the country's prosperity and progress. I have three suggestions with regard to the amendments to the Presidential Elections Bill.

First, regarding the neutrality and fairness of the selection process. New conditions have been included in the eligibility criteria, including the ethnic Chinese, all candidates need to submit a community declaration to a 16-member Community Committee, and they can only be considered eligible for an election after their ethnicity has been confirmed. The 16 individuals are the so-called inspectors during the election process. Hence, the selection of the committee members should be done with great care.

Notwithstanding their ethnicity, these 16 individuals must be equipped with fundamental qualities, such as values, character, capabilities and, especially, good standing in their particular ethnic community. Ideally, they should not belong to any political party; some should have served a long time in community organisations or business chambers. They should be familiar with social matters and have opportunities to interact with people from various backgrounds and have a wealth of experience in community engagement.

They should belong to different age groups and should have young people among them. New media is now predominant, and the presentation and rules of the game vary greatly between the real world and the virtual world. To include in the Committee young people with stable values, who are conversant with Internet technology and have an interest in social issues, will enable their views to wield more influence in every sector of society and in the new media.

As for the other criteria for members of the Committee, I hope the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will consolidate the feedback from the community at large before deciding on a complete set of criteria.

Second, interracial marriages. Singapore is a multiracial society. Interracial marriages and bringing in new immigrants will bring about ethnic integration. This is a good thing. Winning the respect of the community depends on one's character and behaviour. If there is an outstanding individual who has superlative abilities and is willing to serve the society, even if his or her parents are of different ethnic groups, surely both communities will be proud of him or her. Likewise, if a person has reprehensible character and conduct, no group will find him acceptable. We have to pay attention to the selection process of the Presidential candidates. Besides ethnicity, character and capability are even more important. Thus, should there be any candidates originating from interracial background participating in the next presidential election, I hope the Committee could give careful considerations when confirming the community that they belong to, to avoid losing talents.

The third suggestion is to extend the nomination and campaign period. From our first elected President Mr Wee Kim Wee onwards, none of our five Presidents was a Malay. Hence, the next Presidential election will be reserved for Malay candidates. Being a Chinese, I am not familiar with developments within the Malay community and there are many Chinese voters like myself. During the last Presidential election, I took a taxi to the airport. On the way, the taxi driver said something which has left a deep impression on me. He said, "The President has to represent Singapore to meet leaders of different countries and his photograph will be hanging on the wall for five years. His wife's photograph will also be displayed for five years. Thus, we cannot make a hasty decision. We must elect someone who is pleasing to the eye." While this may sound simplistic, it does reflect the views of the general public towards the Presidential election.

Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections are very different. Many of the candidates who run for General Elections have served in the grassroots for a long time and have had direct interactions with the voters. Some newer candidates have also been mentored by senior Members of Parliament (MPs) and have an all-rounded understanding of the roles, responsibilities and the working process. The number of MPs is large and they are from diverse backgrounds as well, enabling them to get the support from voters of different backgrounds.

However, there is only one President. Moreover, for the coming election, the candidates can only be a Malay. If the election period is short, many may not be interested in the election because they are not familiar with the background of the candidates. Whether the President can command the respect and admiration of all Singaporeans and can unite Singaporeans to forge a better tomorrow, could be a question mark. Hence, I suggest that due to the unique nature of the next Presidential election, the nomination and election period should be extended, allowing more people to understand the background of the candidates. I believe that gold will always shine and talent will always obtain trust. However, as the issue pertains to the population at large, they do need time to understand the candidates.

Mdm Speaker, with regard to the Elected President system, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI), the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI) and the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) have arrived at a consensus. We feel that meritocracy and multiracialism are the two pillars of Singapore's success. Singapore's style of government has been tried and tested over the years. The business community is most concerned about social stability and racial harmony; only then can economic growth be ensured. Hence, I support the amendment to the Presidential Elections Bill and hope that it can be refined continuously.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The Workers' Party believes that Singapore is best served by an appointed President and a system that will allow the Government to appoint a President regardless of race or religion.

One of the most significant aspects of this Bill is the establishment of a Community Committee which ensures that, in a reserved election, only persons who see themselves as belonging to a particular community for which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for the Presidential election.

As the PEC and, by extension, the Community Committee's decisions are not justiciable in a Court of law, Parliament is effectively the last place for Singaporeans to gain an insight into how the Community Committee and sub-committees will operate in practice, and how decisions are made by these committees in reserved elections will be the focus of my speech.

Clause 8(g) is scant on details as to how the relevant Community Committee/sub-committees will assess a potential candidate as to whether he or she is a member of a particular minority community. With the prospect of reserved elections for minorities, it should be reasonable to assume that the Government expects form to follow function. It cannot be the Government's intention that a bare declaration that a candidate considers himself or herself to be part of a particular community as stated in clause 8(f) would carry overwhelming weight for candidature to the highest office in the land.

To this end, clause 8(g)(4) states that the Committee must be guided by the merits of the application by a prospective Presidential candidate. But what defines a meritorious application and on what basis will an application be deemed so? What factors are assessed to determine if an applicant sees himself or herself as a member of particular community?

To begin with, and in step with the Government's decision to institute reserved elections, the Government must concede that language is an important criterion that is intricately tied to race. To that end, does a minority applicant's language abilities in his or her Mother Tongue matter to the relevant community sub-committees the same way it does for Singaporean students through their educational journey? Would an applicant be expected to have passed his or her Mother Tongue at the GCE "O" and "A" levels? For example, should a Presidential candidate who sees himself as part of the Indian community pass muster if he or she can barely get by in Tamil or the other Ministry of Education-recognised Indian languages? Can the Minister confirm if language proficiency is a consideration for the Community Committee and, if it is not, why not?

Secondly, the President's spouse is, for all intents and purposes, a customary but central part of the Presidency, reflected most vividly with the portraits of both the President and First Lady prominently displayed in all Government buildings. Former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, put it differently when he told The Straits Times about his possible candidacy in the upcoming reserved Presidential elections, and I quote, "I will be lying if I say that friends have not been asking me about it… If you look at the people who qualify, it is not that big a pool… I have got to think of my own preferences, my life, my family and my privacy. This is not a journey I take myself." The last point is worth repeating and it needs to be stressed: This is not a journey I take myself".

On that note, has the Government deliberated whether the background of an aspiring President's spouse is a factor for the Community Committee's consideration in assessing whether that applicant is a member of a particular community? For example, in the case of an interracial marriage, what if the spouse of the applicant does not see himself or herself to be part of the Indian community whereas the aspiring Presidential candidate does? What if a spouse has converted to Islam in order to marry but does not partake in the practices of the faith?

Mdm Speaker, these questions are central to the symbolic role of the President as a unifier of the country and even more so after the Government has determined that some Presidential elections ought to be reserved for specific races. Should there be residual doubts about how the Community Committee makes its decisions, the presidency could be anything but a unifying office not just for Singaporeans in general but the respective minority race in particular.

A third aspect of the Community Committee I wish to clarify with the Minister is whether the Community Committee would expect an applicant to be active in community work and what this entails. This expectation has also been referred to by one academic who was quoted in the media as saying that if an applicant has not been, and I quote, "in the public eye, and is not active in community work, it is much harder to make the case for seeking election to the highest office of the land." What are the expectations of community service amongst the candidates and, if so, are the expectations the same with regard to all four classes of candidates, namely, public sector, public sector deliberative track, private sector and the private sector deliberative track?

Fourthly, during the recent debate on the Constitution, one People's Action Party (PAP) MP suggested that the presidency ought to be reserved for individuals born in Singapore. The Government did not address this point during the debate but perhaps it can today. Can the Government at least affirm that the PEC shall not issue a certificate of eligibility to any male candidate who has not performed two years of National Service? This would be in line with the reality that National Service brings Singaporeans of all races together towards a common purpose and would serve as an important foundation for the life experience of any future President.

Fifthly, Mdm Speaker, I take the position that because minority candidates are likely to be few to begin with, many candidates are likely to enter Presidential elections through the public sector track or public sector deliberative track rather than the more stringent private sector track with its $500 million threshold. This may render hollow the Government's claims that it is not relaxing the criteria to make it easier for minorities to assume the presidency as a result of the latest constitutional changes. If so, the more accurate statement would be that the stringent private sector requirements simply do not apply for public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates, minority or otherwise. What this point does reiterate however, is the importance of the Government sharing what criteria would be used by PEC to determine if a public sector deliberative track minority candidate qualifies for candidature as President in the first place.

Finally, the idea of race poses other considerations in certain cases of reserved elections involving public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates. For example, in the case of Mdm Speaker, should the hon Speaker decide to stand as a candidate, what happens to the very existence of Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC which, by law, requires a Malay MP as one of its political representatives in Parliament? Should it be passed, does this Bill herald a new precedent in marked contrast to the scenario in Jurong GRC some years ago when the late PAP MP Mr Ong Chit Chung passed on?

Does the Bill and the prospect of reserved Presidential elections change the Government's thinking on the question: will a by-election be called in a GRC when the minority member of a GRC steps down to contest in a Presidential election? Can the Government set out its position on this matter in light of the introduction of reserved Presidential elections?

Mr Chen Show Mao.

Madam, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill last November effected changes to the Constitution relating to our Elected Presidency. This Bill proposes to put in place nuts and bolts to give effect to these changes and to improve election procedures. Today, I ask about election procedures.

Clause 15 of the Bill proposes to abandon the counting of ballots cast at a polling station if one of the ballot boxes is lost or destroyed in transit from the polling station to a counting centre, and to restart the polling, if necessary. In this connection, I would like the Minister to confirm if the smallest unit to which electors are allotted in our Presidential Election is the ballot box, a unit smaller than the polling station. If so, I would like to make the following points on election procedures.

On the abandonment of counting, the Bill provides that in the event a ballot box is lost or destroyed in transit, the counting of all the votes cast at the affected polling station, including the votes cast that were not in the lost or destroyed ballot box, would be abandoned. The voting for the affected polling station would be restarted if the difference in the vote count of the two leading Presidential candidates, without counting the votes cast at the affected polling station, is less than the sum of: (a) the total number of electors allotted to the affected polling station and entitled to vote in the election; and (b) the total number of overseas electors entitled to vote in the election.

If electors are allotted to the level of ballot boxes, should we not provide that any re-vote would take place only if the total number of electors affected by the lost or destroyed ballot box, rather than the entire polling station, proved material? In other words, why not limit as much as we can the electoral impact of any lost or destroyed ballot boxes?

In the last Presidential Elections of 2011, the difference between the ballots cast for President Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock was just some 7,000 votes. It is not unreasonable to expect that fewer than 4,000 electors allotted to an affected polling station and another 4,000 electors registered to vote overseas, would trigger a re-vote at the polling station in a close election under the proposed amendments. Why give leverage to persons who tamper with the ballot boxes seeking to influence the results of our Presidential Elections? Why amplify their powers to do so in close elections?

The restart of polling. How about the manner in which the polling would be restarted once it has been determined that the affected number of votes is material? Currently, in a different context, our laws provide that polling may be abandoned and restarted on another day in our Presidential or Parliamentary Elections in the case of riot or open violence, storm, flood, fire, fire, health hazard or some other difficulties in the physical conduct of voting. In such cases, our laws provide that the abandonment and the restart of polling must be carried out in the prescribed manner and among other things, only those electors who "have not already voted", shall be entitled to vote when the polling restarts. In contrast, in the Bill before us today, it is not clear to me if electors who have voted at the polling station and whose ballots remain available for counting because they are not in the lost or destroyed ballot box, whether they would also vote again when polling restarts in this case.

Instead, the Bill says, "The Minister may prescribe the manner in which the abandonment of the counting of votes, the restart of polling, or the counting of votes is to be carried out". Does this mean the Minister would have the discretion to decide whether all electors allotted to the affected polling station would vote again upon the restart of polls, or limit the re-vote to only the electors allotted to the lost or destroyed ballot box? And if the Minister indeed has that discretion, is that not too much discretion, especially in a close election?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mdm Speaker, allow me to begin in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Following the Prime Minister's announcement early last year about the proposal to review the Elected Presidency, a Constitutional Commission was formed to study this matter. This Commission submitted a very detailed Report and suggested several changes. The Report was then studied by the Government, which also produced a White Paper as its response to the Report.

The issue of the review to the Elected Presidency was intensively debated within and outside of Parliament. After three days of debates in Parliament, amendments to the Constitution that made changes to the Elected Presidency were passed.

We have now reached the stage where we amend the Presidential Elections Act. In general, I support this amendment. Nonetheless, I feel that it is important for us to think about the fundamental issues that were raised during the debates on the Elected Presidency. Regardless of any view on this matter, we cannot deny that the discussions that we had together as one people have sparked an awareness about the important things in our lives within a multiracial society. We have not reached the ideal state where everything is perfect, and the efforts to forge interracial relations is a work-in-progress, especially in the context of an ever-changing world. We can see the challenges in other countries, and we need to prepare our people to overcome those challenges.

Here, I would like to take the opportunity to echo what was stated by Minister K Shanmugam recently. During a discussion at the symposium organised by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), he asked that Singaporeans, as a society, remain committed in protecting our minorities. He also spoke about how minorities should also play their part and not become exclusive. This view is stated in the context of discussing the issue of xenophobia and extremist views.

However, I feel that this message shows how important it is for us to always be sensitive and conscious of the collective responsibility to continue efforts to strengthen interracial relations. This is our shared responsibility. Therefore, although we may have different views on other issues, we can come together and resolve to preserve our identity as a multiracial society.

(In English): Following the Prime Minister's announcement on the proposal to review the Elected Presidency, an independent Constitutional Commission conducted a thorough review which culminated in a very detailed report. This report not only gave me an insight into the diversity of views on the matter, but also a better understanding of the Elected Presidency in Singapore.

In the wake of the Government's White Paper in response to the Constitutional Commission Report, I engaged in numerous discussions with many Singaporeans on the issue in my personal capacity, and as well as an MP. I had shared my reflections and observations during the debates at the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. After a very intensive debate during that Reading, the Bill was passed, and we are already now looking at the specific amendments in the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill.

I stand in support of this Bill. I just have several clarifications and observations which I wish to make.

Firstly, I refer to clauses 8G and 8H, in particular, 8G(4d) and 8H(9). I also note clause 8J. I would like to seek a clarification on whether there will be an opportunity for an applicant to present further facts to the Community Committee or the sub-committee in the event the applicant's application for a community certificate is rejected. In particular, clause 8H(9) appears to suggest that the applicant may not make another community declaration upon rejection except on the invitation of the Community Committee. Can the applicant request for a further invitation?

Secondly, I would like to recap the findings and proposals made by the Constitutional Commission on the rules governing election campaigns for the Presidency. The Commission had, among other things, proposed that there be rules to regulate campaigning methods, with a view to tempering divisiveness of the election process and ensuring that campaigning remains consistent with the role of the President as a symbol of national unity and which preserves the dignity associated with the highest office of the land.

The Commission had also proposed that certain laws be enacted for candidates to make explicit declaration on their understanding of the constitutional role of the President, make it an offence for candidates to make promises or take positions that are incompatible with the office of President and impose a regime of sanctions. I see merit in the proposals made by the Commission to avoid divisive campaigning and giving misinformation about the President's role to the public. I, therefore, welcome and am happy to note the amendments that clause 6, with regard to the statutory declarations required of the candidate, and clause 17 on election advertising. I am also happy to hear that there will be some adjustments made to allow for more national airtime for the Presidential candidates. These are useful measures in the right direction to regulate campaign conduct.

In conclusion, I wish to highlight that in the course of our discussions on the Elected Presidency, there was an awareness that we could do better in maintaining our race relations in Singapore. We are not race-blind, we are not there yet. The discussion on minority representation for the Elected Presidency system has created an openness to talk about something that used to be perceived as a sensitive topic, such as race. It made us a bit uncomfortable to think about the current state of affairs but it had pushed us to think about issues a bit more.

What is heartening for me is that at the core of the discussions is a great desire to see Singapore embrace its multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious identity. There was a firm acknowledgment of our commitment to make Singapore a place for all races, and I think this is worth reflecting on and would be a galvanising force to rally people to decide on what is best for Singapore.

We should continue to take positive steps to work towards our vision of being race-blind. I believe that with the continued effort, we can and will make Singapore a place where the people remain united, regardless of race or religion. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.28 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. When I was in London late last year, I had the opportunity to have dinner with some MPs of the United Kingdom (UK) from both the Labour and Conservative parties. Some of them were ex-Ministers. Some have been MPs for decades. We discussed several issues, including why the majority of UK's European Union (EU) Referendum's opinion polls were wrong.

Many reasons were cited, including the following: (a) opinion polls predicted that the majority of UK residents would vote against Brexit to stay in the EU. But these results were skewed as a significant group of the Brexit camp did not voice their true opinions in the surveys. They did not want to be perceived as being anti-EU when the mainstream media and experts were saying otherwise; (b) this lulled the "Remain" camp into a state of complacency and many chose not to vote, thinking it would be a safe result.

In short, opinion polls are very prone to errors. More importantly, the opinion poll results clearly affect the behaviour of the voters before polling day. History repeated itself when the majority of the opinion polls in the United States had predicted a win for Mrs Hillary Clinton but Mr Trump won surprisingly and convincingly.

These are the reasons why I support the insertion of sections 60B and 60C under clause 18 to ban election surveys and exit polls for the period between the issuance of Writ of Election and the close of all the polling stations on the polling day of the election. Election surveys are exciting, newsworthy and lucrative to the companies that conduct the survey but may not be helpful. In fact, it may be harmful. However, the British MPs disagreed with me. The British and Americans are so used to election surveys that it would be hard to ban them.

For Singapore, it is best not to start having election surveys. This is a uniquely Singapore phenomenon, and so is the reserved election.

Next, I would like to move on to the proposed amendments in section 9 of the Bill under clause 6 which proposes that every hopeful Presidential candidate has to declare in his nomination papers that "he understands the President's role under the Constitution, including any particular aspect of the President's role stated in the prescribed form."

I would like to clarify with the Minister: which aspects of the President's role would be stated in the prescribed form, which the candidate is expected to understand? When would the prescribed form be released to the public? Why is there a need for an additional requirement? What would be the consequences if a Presidential candidate, during his or her campaign, says things or makes election promises that contravene certain aspects of the President's role under the Constitution? Would the candidate be disqualified during the campaign or after the campaign when the candidate has already won the election? Or would the candidate be able to get away with a fine only after polling day?

For that matter, I had wanted to ask what would be the changes to the election rules that govern the Presidential Election prior to the Minister's speech during the Second Reading. I am glad that the Minister has made two announcements regarding the Presidential Election, especially the election rules. It is a worthy move that makes it more transparent, upfront and give all stakeholders ample time to clarify, adapt and comply.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the President holds the highest office in Singapore. Hence, the Presidential elections should be different from local elections. The Presidential candidates need to reach as many Singaporeans as possible within a short period of time, and the best channel is through TV broadcast. Just as I was pondering asking the Minister when the new election regulations would be announced, Minister Chan revealed them at the Second Reading. It came unexpectedly. However, I am glad that he has made the announcement early to make it more transparent and fair. It also allows potential candidates to have ample time to prepare.

I noted that the Minister did not specify the frequency of the TV broadcast. Since TV broadcast will be the main channel by which the candidates can reach the voters, the TV broadcast frequency should at least be doubled, compared to the last Presidential Election. At the same time, there should be at least two live telecast debates among the candidates so as to give Singaporeans enough opportunities to assess the candidates' capabilities and persuasiveness. I hope the Minister can consider this suggestion.

In today's digital age, the candidates can always go online and use various social media platforms to reach the voters. Although TV broadcast and online communications allow the candidates to engage the voters extensively, many Singaporeans would still prefer to see the candidates in person. Certainly, the candidates could go to shopping malls or hawker centres during peak hours to meet and talk to Singaporeans. However, there remain space and environmental constraints. I would like to ask the Minister, under the new regulations, whether the candidates can apply to hold rallies at large sites, such as the Singapore Indoor Stadium, to have face-to-face dialogues with the people. If that is permissible, I hope that the Police can simplify the application procedures.

I understand that it is not possible for the candidates to meet every voter face to face. Nonetheless, I hope that under the new election rules, Presidential candidates could still have the option to access large sites for the purpose of having live interaction with the masses.

We know that the coming Presidential election will be reserved for the Malay community for the first time. If we follow the previous election schedule, polling day may conflict with the Hajj period. This will not be very wise. For this reason, I support the proposal to postpone the polling day of the Presidential election.

I also have some questions regarding the functions and responsibilities of the Acting President. When Dr Tony Tan steps down as the President on 31 August 2017, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers will assume the role of the Acting President, until the new President is elected in mid or end September. Does the Acting President have the same powers as the Elected President? If so, some critics might have conspiracy theories that the Government will, in this interim period, ask the Acting President to approve the use of the Reserves or make key appointments such as the Police Commissioner or Chief Justice.

To be sensible, there is no need to rush to access Past Reserves or to appoint key Government officials so hastily. So, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will not ask the Acting President to exercise his custodial powers during the September transition period. This is to preempt such rumours from surfacing in the first place.

(In English): In summary, I support the Bill and I applaud the early announcement on the changes to the election rules of the Presidential Election. However, I hope that the Minister can clarify the purpose of asking the Presidential candidate to declare their understanding of the President's role as stated in the Constitution and the implications of the declaration.

At the same time, I hope that the Minister could ensure that Presidential candidates are not denied the opportunity to meet the masses face to face during the campaign period. Lastly, I would like the Minister to assure Singaporeans that the Government would not exploit the potential weakness of the system during the September period before the next Elected President takes office.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, I stand in support this Bill. However, I would like to seek a few clarifications and also offer some suggestions.

I hope that the decision-making process of the Community Committee can be transparent. I trust that the Community Committee will carry out its functions in a fair and equitable manner. Hence, there should be no issues and difficulties in allowing the decisions and processes to be transparent.

In today's liberal social media where opinions and questions are openly raised and disseminated, it would be advisable for the Government to provide answers and clarity, before doubt and misinformation cloud the minds of people. To this end, the Community Committee should be transparent in its processes. May I suggest that the Community Committee inform the declarant as to why the Community Committee concluded that the declarant is not a member of the particular Community that he or she has declared to be of?

I have as well additional reasons for suggesting why the Community Committee should reveal the reasons that guided it to the conclusion to reject a declaration form.

First, the declarant does not appear to have any recourse if he or she believes the decision made by the Community Committee is incorrect or unjustly concluded. As per section 8J(2), the Community Committee's decision is final and not subject to any appeal or review by the Court. Further, the Community Committee is granted very comprehensive immunity as well, subject to the exception of malice, which is a high threshold to satisfy in a procedural or administrative context.

Secondly, unless invited by the Community Committee, the declarant may submit his or her form only once. Hence, it would be considerate to produce the reasons behind the rejection in order to demonstrate that the Community Committee considered the form and relevant documents or evidence rigorously and fairly in an application where the declarant has probably only one chance.

Thirdly, the Community Committee, which is statutorily unencumbered by legal forms or evidence laws as per section 8G(4), appears to be able to make its decision with fewer considerations or constraints. Hence, it would be helpful for the declarant and the public to know of the reasons behind the rejection. This would surely help preserve the credibility of the Community Committee.

Madam, may I also seek clarifications on section 8L of the Bill? I note that the Community Committee may regulate its own procedure. Could the use of this power be clarified and what possible regulations of procedure do we envisage?

Next, I note that a defect in the appointment of any member of the Community Committee would not invalidate "any proceedings of the Community Committee". The phrase "any proceedings" appear to include decisions on accepting or rejecting a declaration form. May I know why a defect in this particular appointment should be tolerated when a strict and stringent approach has always been adopted in election matters?

Madam, ancillary to this Bill is the powers of the PEC. Like how the Community Committee determines if a person is of a particular community, the PEC functions as another gatekeeper. May I propose that PEC also reveal its reasons for rejecting any candidate for not being "a person of integrity, good character and reputation" as per Article 19(2)(e) of the Constitution? As a group of persons who are not democratically elected by the citizens of Singapore, it is only appropriate for the PEC to account to the electorate on the reasons that guided the PEC to limiting the nominees to such persons only.

Madam, I believe that the declarant ought to know the reasons behind being rejected by the Community Committee in a system where he or she probably only has one chance and where the decision is final and not subject to any appeal or judicial review. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Madam, first, I would like to thank all the Members for speaking up on this Bill. As I emphasised at the start of my speech, this Bill makes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act that operationalise the changes that were made to the Constitution in November last year. The principles underlying the changes were passed by the House last year, and the debate on those changes have passed. This is not the place to reignite those debates. And I hope that the debate would take place on the changes in the Bill today.

With that, let me deal with the specific matters raised by the Members. These can be grouped into two broad sets of issues. The first set of issues relates to the Community Committee provisions. The second set of issues relates to the election processes. If I have time, I will cover some of the queries on the campaigning method and the timing of the election.

Let me begin with the first set of issues: the Community Committee. First, let me thank Ms Rahayu Mahzam for making the points that it is important for us to make efforts to maintain our multiracial and multicultural identity, and that we need to always take care of the rights of minorities. We will continue to work hard to ensure that each Singaporean feels cherished in our society, regardless of which community they are from.

Ms Rahayu also had a question on whether an applicant can request for a further invitation to submit a community declaration upon rejection. As the proposed new section 8H(9) points out, the invitation comes from the Community Committee and is unsolicited. An applicant cannot request for an invitation.

I also thank Mr Thomas Chua for raising two points in his speech relating to the Community Committee.

First, the Government agrees that the Community Committee has to be diverse and each sub-committee has to be representative of the community it represents. The five members who belong to the Chinese community are to be appointed by the Prime Minister on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) after consulting such organisations of the Chinese community as the Council sees fit. This will ensure that the views of the Chinese community will be taken into account in the nomination process.

Second, the Government also agrees with Mr Thomas Chua that qualified persons must not face difficulties with applications for community certificates simply because they are of mixed parentage. If a citizen whose parents belong to two different communities decides to run and decides to apply for a community certificate, the relevant community sub-committee should adopt an inclusive attitude towards his application.

I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng for the two suggestions he made in his speech. First, I agree with Mr Ng that the process should be as transparent as possible. All these are set out in regulations. We are amending this Bill first before setting out the necessary regulations governing how the PEC and the Community Committee will conduct their meetings. The regulations will also set out the process for applying for the certificates and the information to be furnished by the prospective candidates.

However, we will not be making the Community Committee release grounds as to why it decides to accept or not accept the community declaration of a prospective candidate. The Constitutional Commission suggested that we adapt the mechanism for determining a prospective candidate's community from the Parliamentary Elections Act, and the mechanism in the Parliamentary Elections Act does not require the Community Committee to release grounds. This has worked well over the years and we see no need to disturb this.

Second, Mr Louis Ng suggested that the PEC should set out its reasons for rejecting a candidate. Indeed, the Constitutional Commission said that "it would be desirable for the PEC to give reasons when it rejects applications for Certificates of Eligibility", as this will "provide a measure of transparency and accountability to the process."

However, the Commission did not think that the PEC should publicise its reasons for rejecting an application, because that could discourage persons from stepping forward to run for office, for fear of the embarrassment of being rejected in their application for a Certificate of Eligibility and then having the reasons for the rejection made public. The Commission suggested that "a more measured solution would be to require the PEC to furnish to the unsuccessful applicant its reasons for denying the Certificate of Eligibility, and to leave the applicant to decide for himself or herself whether he or she wishes to make those reasons public." The Government broadly agreed with this suggestion in the White Paper; the PEC should set out its grounds when it rejects a prospective candidate's application, but not publicise it. As this is governed by subsidiary legislation, we will proceed to amend the relevant regulations after this Bill is passed.

Mr Vikram Nair made two points in his speech. First, he asked about the Prime Minister's appointment of the members of the Community Committee upon the nomination of the PCMR. The intention under the new section 8E is for the PCMR to nominate one person for the position of Chairman and five for each of the sub-committees, and the Prime Minister will appoint them to the Community Committee accordingly.

This mirrors the approach taken with regard to the nomination of the Chairman and Members of the Malay Community Committee and the Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee by the PCMR and their appointment by the President, as set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Second, Mr Vikram Nair sought a clarification that the "other minority communities" provision is not intended to be a catch-all for people who do not fit into other categories by ethnicity, but is intended to be only for those who are part of the established minority communities in Singapore. He also asked about which groups may fall into the category of such communities at this point in time.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean provided an answer to this in the debates on the Constitutional Amendments last November. He made clear then that the "other minority communities" refer to groups that have some degree of history, permanence and established presence in Singapore, such as the Eurasian community.

Ms Sylvia Lim made two points. First, she asked, as she did last November during the debate on the changes to the Constitution, about the advice from AGC to the Government on the counting of terms. At the same debate, Deputy Prime Minister Teo had confirmed to Ms Lim that the advice referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech was, indeed, AGC's advice, and invited Ms Lim to challenge it judicially if she thought that it was not correct advice. Ms Lim then suggested that there might be something controversial or confidential that the Government was unwilling to publish.

The Government is confident of the advice rendered by the Attorney-General. We proceeded on that basis during the debates on the constitutional changes in this House. Prime Minister Lee explained to all why we needed the hiatus-triggered mechanism, and we passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. We are here today to put the nuts and bolts in place for a decision made clear by the Prime Minister during the debates in November. And we will not go through this again.

Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about being bewildered. I have also gone round to solicit feedback from the public. I am rather bewildered that Ms Lim is bewildered, because I did not receive the sentiments that Ms Lim said she got. The feedback that I have received has not been like that. And if I may just make two points.

Ms Lim once again questioned the Attorney-General's advice. I am a bit bewildered by this. I would like to clarify: (a) is Ms Lim suggesting that the Attorney-General did not give the Government the appropriate advice? Or (b) that the Prime Minister has not been truthful with the Attorney-General's advice? If it is the first, then I think Ms Lim, as suggested by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, can challenge this in the Courts. But if it is the second, then I am afraid it is a very serious issue to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Prime Minister. Ms Lim is a lawyer; I am not a lawyer. You will know that when you get advice, you do not freely publicise your advice and you may have various reasons why you do not publicise all your advice. And as a lawyer, I think Ms Sylvia Lim will know this better than me. So, I think we should not impute motives on this Government or the Prime Minister.

On Ms Lim's second point, the proposed amendments state that the Minister must have regard to, to the extent that they are applicable, the prevailing accounting standards and the general law relating to the insolvency of companies. These are standards set by professionals. The Minister does not have unbridled power. And if you think about it, is this not even better than the Minister setting the rules by himself? We are adhering to the prevailing accounting standards set by the professional bodies and not by someone else outside the profession. So, if you ask me, I think this is an even stronger system than that proposed for the Minister to decide.

To give clarity and certainty, we will provide administrative guidelines to the applicants.

Mr Pritam Singh made several points. First, on language proficiency and other criteria, Mr Singh spoke about how it is up to the Community Committee to look at the prospective candidate holistically, and not home in on one factor. This is not new; it has worked well in the GRC context.

Second, as to whether the President has to be born in Singapore, we should be careful in differentiating between new citizens and those who are born in Singapore. All citizens pledge allegiance to Singapore. They are entitled to exercise their rights and are expected to live up to their responsibilities. The question of whether a new citizen is accepted as a unifying symbol of Singapore is one that should be left to the electorate to decide.

Third, constitutionally, there is no such thing as a First Lady position. There is only the President. If I may refer Members to the Hansard, in 2001, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in answering a question by Mr JB Jeyaretnam, had stated that "The First Lady is not a position enshrined in the Singapore Constitution. It is a courtesy term that has been customarily used for the wife of the President, including previous Presidents, before the Elected Presidency was created."

Fourth, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the GRC system. Mdm Speaker, I beg your indulgence. This is totally unrelated to the Bill today but, since it was raised, I will deal with it.

When Mr Goh Chok Tong moved the Motion to explain the GRC system to this House, it was done with a very clear intent to achieve two purposes.

One, it was to ensure that this House has sufficient minority Members in the House as a system. Today, we have about one-third of our House with minority Members. That is more than what you would expect proportionally from adding up the percentage of Malays, Indians and Other Minorities. So, that was the first purpose ‒ to make sure that this House has sufficient minority represented. And, over the years, we have achieved this by leaning forward and having more than the minimum that we are expected to have.

The second reason for the GRC system was to make sure that none of the parties will campaign on issues on a race/religion platform, that we will all, regardless of party lines, campaign on the basis that we are all Singaporeans, that we will not use race, language or religion for political reasons.

These were the two very clear reasons why we established the GRC system in this House. The Members of the GRC team who are elected to serve their respective GRCs are expected to serve all their residents, regardless of race, language or religion.

Mr Goh Chok Tong was further asked: if one Member of the GRC team resigns or for whatever medical reason is incapacitated, does the GRC need to hold a by-election? And the answer was given that it is no, because, recalling the two specific reasons that we set up the GRC system: one was to ensure that this House has sufficient minority representation and, given our current circumstances, we have more than what we would expect by a pure proportional representation system; two, the aim was to make sure that no parties campaigned on the issues of race, language or religion; and three, all Members of the GRC team are expected to serve all their residents regardless of race, language and religion.

Madam, I beg your indulgence. This is totally unrelated. But since it was asked, I will put on record our reply. Today, we have 25 minority Members of Parliament out of 89 elected. Even if we have one less, there are 24 out of 89, which is 27% of Parliament.

Fifth, let me talk about public sector candidates which Mr Pritam Singh raised. I do not think the public sector candidates lack experience. Whether it is a public sector candidate or a private sector candidate, they all bring with them their respective suite of experience to the office of the President. They are senior people who have been exposed to a broad range of social, economic and security issues and they would likely have managed and led substantial organisations and regularly made decisions impacting thousands, as the Commission had noted. These officers would have "experienced the contrary pulls and pressures of Government decision-making".

Before I leave this point about the process, I also want to touch on one point which Ms Sylvia Lim raised. Ms Lim, in her speech, seemed to have suggested or imputed that this Government has all sorts of short-term political objectives to amend the Constitution and put in place this new system. Can I put it to the Member that this is not the style of this Government? We are here to build for the long haul. We are here to take care of the country for the long haul. We are but stewards entrusted with the responsibility to take Singapore forward.

The changes that we have made are significant ones. We made it not because there is an immediate issue that we have to address, but we made it with a view to make sure that issues like these do not come about, especially sensitive issues on race, language and religion.

As the debate in November had highlighted, we will be very happy to be proven wrong, that one of these days we are totally race-blind as we all aspire to be; just like you and for me. But we are all concerned for the future of this country. What if we are not and what if we are wrong? Then, it is our responsibility to do what we can to build a mechanism that best allows us to overcome these difficulties should they arise. It is not for short-term political advantage. If it is for short-term political advantage, let me ask the Members of this House, if we are politicians here calculating our short-term political advantage, would we expend political capital to do this?

By any measure, any sensible people whom we can talk to, they would know, that such amendments and the moving of this Bill carry with it high political risk, if not political cost. If this Government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is for short-term political advantage, would we do it? Would we expend our political capital to do this? We have no need to do it now because it is not as if we have faced a problem now, but we know the day when we face the problem, we may not have the chance to discuss this calmly as we do now.

So, I would urge Members of this House not to impute perhaps our own motives on why we are doing this. We have gone through this in November and I will repeat this again. We are here for the long haul. We are here to build systems for Singapore for the long haul, not for short-term political advantage, not for the political advantage of any particular parties. We are but stewards for our nation.

Let me continue to talk about the election processes.

I would like to thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for supporting the ban on election surveys and exit polls. To Mr Chen Show Mao, the polling station is the lowest unit because voters can drop their ballot papers in any of the ballot boxes in the polling station. This is why even if one box is destroyed and the number of the voters in the polling station is material to the outcome of the election results, we will restart the polls for the affected polling station.

Let me now touch on campaigning methods.

The third set of questions were on the campaign methods for the Presidential Elections. I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam for speaking on this issue. Let me speak on the specific points that the Members raised. The Government believes, like the taxi driver in Mr Thomas Chua's story, that electing a President is an important matter and that voters should be informed and not cavalier in exercising their vote. This is why we have amended the Act to make sure that prospective candidates have to state that they are aware of the limits set by the Constitution on the role of the President, and they will have no excuse if they decide to mislead the electorate on the proper role of the President. The voter must vote in an informed fashion.

It would be appropriate here to discuss Mr Ang Wei Neng's question about the statutory declaration that candidates have to make, stating that they understand the role of the Elected President under the Constitution.

The Constitutional Commission cited one observer as saying that it was "misleading and a great disservice to the electorate" when previous candidates promised to pursue particular policies if they were elected into office, despite such areas not being within the constitutional remit of the President's functions. Ms Rahayu alluded to the Commission's recommendations to deal with this and said that she saw merits in the proposals. What specifically did the Commission propose?

The Commission proposed that laws be enacted, which: (a) require candidates to explicitly declare that they understand the constitutional role of the President before they may be issued a Certificate of Eligibility in the form of a statutory declaration contained within the application form for the Certificate of Eligibility (CoE); (b) make it an offence for candidates to make promises or to take positions that are incompatible with the office of President; and (c) impose a regime of sanctions where a breach of election rules, including a breach of the prohibition in (b), could give rise to a range of possible consequences, including criminal sanctions, applications to an Election Judge for declaratory reliefs, and, in appropriate extreme cases, the revocation of a candidate's Certificate of Eligibility.

Although the Commission suggested criminal sanctions, the Government has decided to take up the first proposal of requiring the statutory declaration. The statutory declaration will ensure that the candidate has applied his mind to the Constitutional limits of the Presidency. It will then be inexcusable if he deliberately chooses to disregard the limits of the Constitution and makes promises or statements exceeding this role.

Let us be very clear about this. We have put this into the rules, and I take it that anyone who runs for the Presidency should understand the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If someone tries to bypass the letter of the law, by violating the spirit of the law, I think I leave it to the good judgement of our electorate. That means that we have to double our efforts to help all Singaporeans understand the roles prescribed for our Elected Presidency. They are the Singapore Elected Presidency and not the elected presidency of some other countries, with their own unique defined roles.

The Singapore Elected Presidency has two main roles. One, a custodial function for the Reserves and appointments of key appointment holders in the Civil Service. Two, as a unifying symbol for our nation. These are the two cleared roles for the Elected Presidency of Singapore.

We will also step up educational efforts on the importance of the institution of the Elected President. As Mr Thomas Chua and Mr Ang Wei Neng had also rightly pointed out, there are fundamental differences between the Presidential Elections and the Parliamentary Elections. This is also a point made several times in the Constitutional Commission's Report, and attempts to draw parallels between the two can be attributed to persons being ill-informed, or worse, intentionally muddying the waters. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked whether we would be increasing the airtime on national TV for candidates, and suggested two televised debates among candidates.

The Government will increase the overall national TV airtime that candidates will have to allow the candidates a wide platform to share their views with the public. During Presidential Election 2011, there were two presidential campaign broadcasts for each candidate and one TV roundtable session which involved all four candidates.

The Government will discuss the provision of additional airtime for the candidates with Mediacorp. We will consider Mr Ang Wei Neng's suggestion on at least two televised debates when we discuss the format of the additional TV time with Mediacorp. The principle that the Government will adhere to is that we will provide candidates with more TV opportunities, which again, I emphasise, will allow for more effective national outreach.

And if I may add, if you just think about it, this actually facilitates and levels the playing field for those without established mechanisms to organise large outreach for themselves. The details will be made known closer to the elections, and candidates may reach out to voters on a variety of social media platforms, as currently allowed.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about whether candidates can continue to meet voters face to face, and if they can organise speeches in places like the indoor stadium. The answer is yes. They can continue to conduct private election meetings at indoor locations.

A meeting is considered private if it is not open to the general public. A private meeting will not require a permit under the Public Order Act. An example of a private meeting is where it is open to only a limited number of persons who are invited by name to attend the meeting. Candidates can hold such private meetings to engage specific groups of voters. No permit from the Police is required for private meetings. Permits from the Police will be required for meetings that are open to the general public. These would include election meetings that are organised on or behalf of a candidate and held during the election period, any time on or after Nomination Day but before the eve of Polling Day.

If a candidate intends to have a meeting that is open to the general public at the Indoor Stadium, he will have to obtain a permit from the Police.

Let me now touch on the timing of the polls that Mr Ang Wei Neng has spoken about.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for specifics on the interim period between President Tan stepping down at the end of his term and a new President being sworn into office. During the interim, the acting President will exercise the powers of the President. According to Article 22N of the Constitution, if the office of the President becomes vacant, the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers or, if he is unavailable, the Speaker, shall exercise the functions of the office of the President during the period between the date the office of President becomes vacant and the assumption of the office by the person declared elected as President. The acting President will have the powers of the President.

Mr Ang suggested that the critics of the Government might have conspiracy theories that the Government will, in this interim period, ask the acting President to exercise his custodial powers. Let me quickly put such rumours to bed.

The Government will be observing a convention in relation to the Elected President. Unless absolutely necessary, for example, in a crisis situation that requires the use of the Reserves, the Government will respect that the rationale of the Elected Presidency is for an Elected President to be the second key to the Reserves and to key appointments.

Before I conclude, let me touch on some other points raised by various Members. Mr Vikram Nair talked about people from mixed parentage. Yes, indeed, that is point that Mr Thomas Chua has also mentioned. Should there be such a person, and there would be more, we encourage the Community Committee to adopt an inclusive approach. In fact, actually, by adopting an inclusive approach, we are allowing more people to be identified with a certain community. So, actually, our approach is quite different from the approach as suggested by some other Members who want to be even more clearly defined as to who forms what community.

If I were to take the House a step back. What is the intention? And how do we meet this intent? The intent is simply this. A person identifies himself or herself with that particular community. And that community accepts that this particular person is from that community. Once these two conditions are met, the person identifies himself or herself with the community and the community accepts the person as a member of that community, then, we have pretty much met our intent. In the hiatus-triggered mechanism, it will be counted towards that community.

That community would not need to feel shortchanged because someone from that community did not represent them. Because in the intervening years, if someone has come forward to be associated with that community, and that community has accepted that person, then that community would have deemed that it has its own representative within the hiatus-triggered mechanism. We are going to adopt an inclusive approach rather than trying to define extra lines, if you like, to do this.

On Mr Thomas Chua's point about giving ample notice, and this is the reason why the Government has announced as many of the processes and procedures that we can, as early as possible, for prospective candidates to be familiar with the new processes.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. The changes that are being made to the Act, such as those pertaining to the Community Committee, are largely consequential to the amendments made to the Constitution that were passed by this House last November. The Government is putting in place the final pieces of the changes to the Elected Presidency. This set of amendments is the result of the review of the election processes.

Today, we are gathered here to see how best to put in place the nuts and bolts to effect what we have discussed in November. Today is not the occasion for us to reopen the debate. And actually I am a bit confused. I thought the Workers' Party's proposal last November was for a Senate, but today, it was on an Appointed President. But never mind. This is not the occasion for us to do that today. Based on what we have passed in November, this proposed set of changes is to put in place the nuts and bolts for us to effect the changes that we have agreed to in November.

I spoke at the end of my speech about campaigning methods and the timing of the Presidential Election this year. These do not require legislative changes, but the Government is of the view that we should announce them as early as possible to give potential candidates ample notice.

Finally, I am heartened to hear Mr Thomas Chua's speech that the Chinese, Malay and Indian Chambers of Commerce are in agreement that meritocracy and multi-racialism are two important pillars of Singapore's success, and this is what I have spoken about in my Malay and Mandarin speeches.

This Government has never shied away from acting decisively to strengthen the institutions of the state to ensure a better Singapore for our people. We proceed to do so because we consider this to be in the best long-term interest of our country, and we will take time to explain the changes to our people.

The Government believes that the changes to the Elected Presidency will continue to ensure that the office will be held by someone who fulfils the stringent qualification criteria, ensuring meritocracy is not compromised, and will also be held by persons of different communities, reflecting the multiracial nature of Singapore.

Throughout the entire process of consultation and changes to the Elected Presidency, the Government has always kept the end goal in mind: ensuring that the Elected President continues to play an important stabiliser role in our system, making sure that our Reserves and our key positions are not compromised, and making sure that the Presidency is not politicised, and making sure that the President continues to be, as it was from its inception in the person of Mr Yusof Ishak, a symbol of our unity for the country.

With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, and urge all Members to give their support to the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Speaker, I have four clarifications for the Minister.

The first clarification concerns the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates running for President. I do not think the Minister has addressed my point directly and that is that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill that was passed in November specifically asked Parliament to make these definitions: to define the definition of profit after tax, and also shareholders' equity. The Bill in last November also required Parliament to prescribe what amounts to an insolvency event.

But what we find in the Bill today is that Parliament is passing this job on to the Minister to do and the purported guidelines in section 5C(2) and (3) are too general. They just talked about the Minister having to have regard to the general law, to accounting standards but these definitions are not before the House today. So, I would like the Minister to comment on whether he agrees with me that, actually, Parliament is not doing what the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has asked us to do with regard to these definitions for private sector candidates.

The second clarification concerns the counting of reserved elections. I think in Parliament in November, the Government has already accused me of the things that Minister Chan Chun Sing has just repeated and I have also answered that in November to say that I am not accusing the Government or the Prime Minister of not telling the truth or that the AGC's advice was not given. My point was simply that people find it hard to understand why Wee Kim Wee counts as the first Elected President. And if the advice from the AGC is such, it would be helpful if the Government could consent to publishing it so that people can understand or try to understand the reasoning. That was the point being made.

And the Minister talked about the fact that I am a lawyer and I can understand why clients may want to have confidential communications. But the fact also remains that clients can choose to waive the confidentiality if they find that there is a purpose in publishing it. So, I am just asking for more illumination on why we are counting from President Wee Kim Wee.

The third point which the Minister made was refuting what I had said was perception of Singaporeans, including myself, that the sudden announcement to count the coming election for President as reserved is in view of what happened at the elections in 2011. I thank him for his sermon on how the Government always thinks long term but I would like to put this question which I have received from my residents which I did put in November, but I do not think I received an answer to it, and that is if the Government is not passing these laws for short-term purposes, why does the Government not agree to defer these changes for one Presidential election? Since the Minister said it is not a short-term purpose, why not? I do not recall an answer to that.

The last clarification I would like to ask the Minister is in his opening speech earlier, I think he mentioned that both sides of the House agreed in November that there should be a difference between Presidential elections and Parliamentary elections. I am not sure what he actually meant by that. From what I recall, our position has been that the Head of State, we believe, if you want him to be a unifying figure, making him go through elections is inconsistent with that. I do not think that our Members went on to suggest how the campaign rules of Presidential elections could be refined because we do not believe that the President should go through an election.

Mdm Speaker, Ms Sylvia Lim's first point on eligibility criteria. What Parliament is doing and asking the Minister to do is to make sure that whatever prevailing accountancy rules that are being practised are adhered to. That surely is better than what we here, being not in the profession, were to make a set of rules and then have it updated. I think the accountants among us, the people in the financial industry among us, will know that the conventions, rules and practices in the industry evolve. We are setting ourselves, benchmarking ourselves to these high standards that are agreed to by the professional bodies. That, I think, is an even better and stronger set of measures than us setting something in place and having to update it as regularly as what the accounting professions might be capable of.

On the second point about the reserved election, I am glad that Ms Lim has confirmed that she is not casting any aspirations on Prime Minister Lee's integrity and if that is the case then the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean, have explained in November why the counting starts from the second term of President Wee Kim Wee's term. That is because President Wee Kim Wee was the first President to exercise the powers under the new Elected Presidency Act.

On the second related point, Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether clients can choose to waive the advice and I think I have answered her, which is that, as a lawyer, the Member would know that there will be circumstances where you can choose to release the advice and you can choose not to release the advice and what we have done is no different. So, unless she is going back to challenge and casting doubt on the Prime Minister's integrity, the Prime Minister has stated on record in this House that it has taken advice from the Attorney-General. We take the Prime Minister for it and it is the Prime Minister's prerogative as to whether he wishes to release the advice as the Member has said.

On the third point about the claim that this is a sudden announcement, I would just make two points: one, we have had this debate for a very long time, for more than one year. The process was transparent. We set up the Constitutional Commission. We invited the Workers' Party and members of the public to present. The Workers' Party's position was that it would not appear before the Constitutional Commission to present its views, but it will come to this House. Last year, the Workers' Party came to this House with a proposal for a Senate. We have debated that and we have made our own conclusions and we have moved on from there. So, I do not think this is a sudden movement.

The second response to the third point that the Member mentioned, Deputy Prime Minister Teo has also shared with this House why we are making the movement now. As what the Constitutional Commission says, if there is a reason for us to act, then it is the onus of this Government to act in the best interest of this country decisively. That is why we have decided to do it in this term of Government.

On the fourth point about the bipartisan support for us to try to depoliticise this, I would just refer Ms Lim to the Hansard, to the speeches made by Mr Leon Perera and I can show them to the Member afterwards which, in so many words, agreed with us that we want a Presidency that is depoliticised. And we should find ways to do so. And the Government has taken seriously the feedback from this House and the members of the public to see how we can depoliticise the Presidency. Because his role is to serve as a stabiliser, his role is to serve the custodial functions for this country in terms of its Reserves and key appointments. His role is to unite this country.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for going through some of the points I have raised. The Minister mentioned that there would be regulations drawn up to define how the Community Committee would assess the applicants. Correct me if I am wrong in this understanding.

But there are two points that I made which the Minister did not address. One has to do with the National Service requirement and the second is how community work would be assessed. That is the first question.

The second question: I would like to press the Minister on this issue of language in the case of a reserved election. For example, if a Presidential election has been reserved for the Malay community, would it not be difficult for the Government to agree that Malay, as a language, would be an expectation of any candidate who would stand for that election, up to the level expected of students in schools in the education system?

Mdm Speaker, may I respond to the two queries from Mr Pritam Singh.

First, on the issue of citizenship, I think I will repeat my point here. Every Singaporean, regardless of whether new citizens or old citizens, make the same pledge of allegiance to this country. They have the privileges of being a Singaporean. They have also the responsibilities of being a Singaporean. As to whether they can best represent and unite Singaporeans, I think it is best left to the judgement of the Singaporean electorate. And I think Singaporeans are wise and discerning, so I do not think we need to overly prescribe this.

The question about how the Community Committee works, I think we have established precedent because this is how we have assessed the eligibility of the Malay candidates and the Indian and the Other Minority candidates for the Parliamentary elections in the past. And that has served us well and the same mechanism will continue to work.

On the issue of language, I would say that the Community Committee and the respective sub-committees will need to assess the person holistically. Yes, language will be one of the criteria. But we are also keenly aware that all of us, regardless of our race, language or religion, may practise our religions slightly differently, may live our lifestyles differently. But the key is this: do the respective Chinese, Malay and Indian sub-committees consider the person belonging to their community, as a package, holistically? That is the key point.

As to how committees work, I would not want to prescribe their roles, and it will not be my remit to comment on how they should go about doing their function. But the philosophy has never changed. The philosophy is that, as a package, do you believe that this person belongs to your community? And I believe that the people in the committees are wise enough to know how to make that judgement call, considering all the factors that the Member has mentioned.

Mr Leon Perera.

I would just like to make a point of clarification to Minister Chan in relation to what he just said. The speeches I made in November when we had the debate on the Constitution amendment were speeches in support of the Workers' Party's position for an Appointed President, for reverting to an Appointed President and an elected Senate. They were not offering specific suggestions about campaigning procedures for an Elected President. I was not agreeing with the notion that we should continue to elect the President, and here are my suggestions for the procedures to run that campaign. It was for supporting an Appointed President. And I would make the point, since it was brought up by Minster Chan who had made the observation, that the Constitutional Commission agreed with that point as well.

I thank Mr Leon Perera for his clarifications. I am just a bit puzzled. The Member said that the November speeches were in support of the Appointed President. Is that what he mentioned just now? I thought the November debate was about the Senate. How does the Appointed President and Senate proposals work?

The Workers' Party's proposal was for an Appointed President and an Elected Senate to exercise the custodial powers over Civil Service appointments and the Reserves that the Elected President currently holds. So, in fact, you are setting that out as a contradiction when there is no contradiction at all. We argued then for a reversion to an Appointed President and an Elected Senate to handle the custodial role and —

So, can I have it on record that you are now proposing that we have an Appointed President and a Senate? Is that correct? That is correct, right? Okay.

Not only is it correct, it is what we have argued all along. That was what we argued in November.

Okay. So, then let me ask this: but you would agree with me that we want a depoliticised President to the extent that our efforts can? Because your line of questioning during November was that we tried our best to have a President that can act as a unifying figure for our country. Is that correct? Do you share that perspective that we would like a President that can unify us and be depoliticised to the extent possible?

I certainly agree with the goal. I think we do not disagree on the goal of having a unifying President as a symbol for Singapore. But what we disagreed about is the Elected Presidency. We argued then and we argue again that an election inevitably has a tendency to politicise the office of the President. An Appointed President, like what we had in the past, with President Yusof Ishak, like what the Constitutional Commission itself called for, is a better thing for Singapore.

Okay, I understand. So, the Member wants to appoint a President and a Senate, but as we have gone through in November, that would also have the same risk of politicisation, maybe eight times over. But we are not to go there today but what we can agree I think on both sides of the House is, as the Member has mentioned, to the extent possible, we want a mechanism, an election process that allows us to have a unifying figure and a custodial figure and that is why we have proposed the slight adjustment to the campaigning methods today and I think we can agree on that.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Madam, just to clarify once again: what the Minister just said is not correct. We do not agree to an election process for the President.

Mdm President [Laughter.] Madam, I think today is not the occasion for us to go through this again. I think we can all check the Hansard as to what was said between you and the rest of the debate. Today, we are here to put in place the nuts and bolts on how we can get an Elected President, see it working.

Yes, Deputy Prime Minister.

Mdm Speaker, I had the privilege of answering the clarification from Mr Leon Perera towards the end of the debate and he specifically asked me whether we would consider the recommendations in the Constitutional Commission to make sure that election methods were not politicised, or election methods were such that the process was not politicised and referred to the speech made by Ms Rahayu. I do not have the Hansard with me, but I stood up and I remembered that I agreed with Mr Leon Perera that, indeed, we should look at these things and we would do so when we enact the processes within this Bill and, indeed, that is what we are doing. I am glad that Mr Perera agreed with me at that point in time.