WP, PSP vote against Bill on President holding global roles; DPM Wong urges against opposing 'for the sake of’
Opppsition lawmakers from the Workers’ Party and Progress Singapore Party raised concerns around the potential for conflict of interest as well as the impact on official duties.
(Left to right) Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, MP Gerald Giam from Workers' Party, and Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai from Progress Singapore Party speaking in parliament on Nov 22, 2023.
SINGAPORE: Opposition party lawmakers on Wednesday (Nov 22) voted in parliament against a Bill to allow Singapore’s President and ministers to hold international roles in private capacities, with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong calling on them not to oppose “for the sake of opposition”.
Concerns raised by the Members of Parliament (MPs) included the potential for conflict of interest and the impact of such roles on the official duties of the President and ministers.
“There is no need to oppose something that will clearly advance Singapore's interests and bring benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans,” Mr Wong said in a closing speech that sought to address these concerns.
Seven MPs from the Workers’ Party (WP) and one Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency MP voted against the Bill, while 75 MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) voted in favour.
IMPACT ON OFFICIAL DUTIES
At Singapore President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s inauguration in September, he had committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities, Mr Gerald Giam (WP-Aljunied) noted.
These plans included promoting interaction between different communities, ensuring cultural vibrancy and fostering inclusivity through active community participation, civil society and support for the arts and sports.
“These are substantial commitments that will demand a significant investment of the President’s time and effort. All of us – including the President — have only 24 hours each day,” said Mr Giam.
“Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties to his constituents, who are the people of Singapore. Surely the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention.”
Fellow party member Dennis Tan (WP-Hougang) echoed these sentiments. He said that when the
Bill was first introduced, there were people who expected the President to “concentrate fully” on his role as head of state.
“The roles he holds in international organisations do show that he is held by many with high regard and respect. I can also agree with the government’s argument that such a position can possibly enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest,” said Mr Tan.
“However, the time spent on serving foreign and international organisations, no matter how fruitful they can be for our President and even for Singapore, equates to time not spent on his presidential responsibilities including the roles he had campaigned on.”
MP Christopher De Souza (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) argued against Mr Giam's points, saying "there is no divided attention” on Mr Tharman's part.
“Isn't arts, sports, inclusivity also a global goal? Ought not Singapore be seen at boards and international meetings, in conferences promoting this global ideal?”
He added that Mr Tharman “packs a lot” in 24 hours of his day.
“We are not in a situation of a binary choice where we have to say ‘look, no memberships, because we don't want a President being overly distracted by international duties’, or 'we want a largely domestic president to be on the ground',” Mr De Souza said.
“In the president who is elected, we can actually have both and what … an advantage that would be for Singapore."
In Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 22), Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong responded to clarifications sought on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill. The Bill was…see more
MP Denise Phua (PAP-Jalan Besar) acknowledged the worry in some quarters that engaging in international roles in a private capacity may divert attention from elected and appointed responsibilities as minister or president.
She added: “Exactly what is the tipping point when one’s overseas engagements are perceived as excessive? Therefore, guidelines from the Prime Minister's Office will be necessary to strike a suitable balance between the public and private roles of the President and the ministers."
Mr Yip Hon Weng (PAP-Yio Chu Kang) questioned if there would be "sufficient time and bandwidth to execute their roles in both the external organisation and their official capacities".
“Is there a time limit for serving in these foreign or international organisations?" he added. "We must prevent a scenario where our leaders become entangled in external commitments to the detriment of their duties to the nation.”
In response, Mr Wong said undertaking such roles in a private capacity did not mean that the President or a minister was somehow doing “extracurricular activity” outside of work duties.
“When the President serves in this capacity, he is contributing to his national responsibilities, he is undertaking his presidential duties … It is a president serving both domestic and international interest,” he said.
“A key role of the President is Singapore's top diplomat. International dimensions are part and parcel of the President's role, and how he contributes to Singapore.
"So this is not a trade-off."
Allowing Singapore’s President to take on external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties when “it is only reasonable” for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates his…see more
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
WP’s Mr Tan also said that "double hatting" may give rise to conflicts of interest, and asked about the remedies for such an instance.
While the Cabinet needs to be satisfied that any global appointment must be in the national interest, this does not preclude the possibility that the role a president is initially allowed to assume in an international organisation may turn out to need more time and attention, said Mr Tan.
For example, in a time of crisis, it may be morally - or as a matter of conscience - difficult to step down and walk away from an international position of leadership.
“If done, it may even affect the standing of our President or our country,” said Mr Tan.
“But if the President does not walk away, and the Cabinet does not require him to relinquish, whether rightly or wrongly, it may still add to the time and responsibilities of the President within this foreign or international organisation which may, in turn, reduce or affect the time or attention he has in his actual role as our President.”
Mr Wong said potential conflicts of interest or questions of conflict would be considered in deciding on whether to support the appointment in the first place.
“It clearly would not be in Singapore’s national interest to support appointments that place the president or a minister in conflict with their official functions,” he said.
Mr Wong added that the President or ministers can take steps to remove such a conflict, such as recusing themselves from a particular decision that will clash with official duties.
The Cabinet can also advise the President accordingly, while the Prime Minister can instruct ministers to relinquish an appointment if there are “serious” questions of conflict of interest that cannot be resolved, said Mr Wong.
“If the President intentionally refuses to follow the Cabinet's advice, then that would be grounds for removal, and there are procedures set out for such removal.”
RETROACTIVE AMENDMENTS
Associate Professor Jamus Lim (WP-Sengkang) and PSP's Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai also raised concerns over the backdating of the constitutional amendments to Sep 14, when President Tharman took office.
Mr Leong questioned why it was “so pressing to rush through” the Bill, and asked the government why there was “no such rush” to create this framework when ministers have been taking up international appointments over the years.
The PSP chief gave the example of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who sat on the JP Morgan international council while he was Minister Mentor.
Noting that the first reading of the Bill happened less than three weeks ago, Mr Leong said parliament was “recalled today specifically to approve this fait accompli”.
“The retrospective amendment of any law should not be taken lightly. The speed with which these constitutional amendments are being enacted, as well as the fact that they are being backdated, has created unnecessary unease among Singaporeans,” Mr Leong added.
“A segment of Singaporeans now perceive that the Constitution is being specially amended to enable President Tharman to continue serving in international organisations despite taking up his new office as President of Singapore.”
The Progress Singapore Party does not support the Bill, said NCMP Leong Mun Wai. He told Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 22) that there is “confusion on the ground” and said Singaporeans need a “full explanation from…see more
Assoc Prof Lim told the House that retroactive applications of the law were “especially thorny” when it came to constitutional matters. He cited several other jurisdictions like Japan, Brazil and New Zealand prohibiting such retroactive legislation.
Retroactive laws have been applied in Singapore – such as parts of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act – but never for a constitutional amendment, since at least 2007, added Assoc Prof Lim.
He asked when the government was first made aware of a possible conflict with the Constitution, that would necessitate a potential amendment.
Addressing these concerns, Mr Wong agreed with Assoc Prof Lim that the backdating of laws should be done sparingly.
He said: “It is really the exception rather than the norm, and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on existing law … But this is not the case here. No one is prejudiced under this backdating.”
Mr Wong added that the backdating the amendments here was being done “out of an abundance of caution”, and that the President’s global appointments would be approved “on a prospective basis”.
In his closing speech, Mr Wong also hit back at the opposition MPs for what he said were suggestions that the Bill was “not proper”, "unconstitutional" or in “violation of established principles”.
“This is completely unfounded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's not use this language, technical language, to camouflage political grandstanding,” Mr Wong added.
“We have to ask ourselves – the substance of these provisions, do they further the interest of Singapore? Do they bring benefit to Singapore and Singaporeans?
“And from the government’s point of view, the provisions are very clear. This will enable our little red dot to shine brightly on the international stage. It’s a plus for Singapore.”
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...bill-president-ministers-global-roles-3939551
