http://nathanielkoh.blogspot.com/2009/04/transcript-of-1988-tv-debate-on-elected.html
TRANSCRIPT OF TV DEBATE ON THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PROPOSAL - 1988
Transcribed by Nathaniel Koh on 18th & 19th April 2009 from Lee Kong Chian Reference Library, Level 11, ENGLISH 324.7 ELE
cont...
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
MOD: Well, we have now run out of time. But it is the moderator’s time, and Mr Chiam had a question. If it’s a quick question, I’ll allow it.
CST: I have the other half of the questioning to do. You have agreed on that.
MOD: No. No, it…
CST: Yes, yes, Mr Goh has to give me six minutes as well.
MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon.
CST: Can I start now?
MOD: Yes, please.
CST: Now, Mr Goh. You are going to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore. Can I put this question to you? Do you agree that there should be a national referendum on this question of Elected President?
GCT: No, my position is very clear. I don’t believe in going to the people on every issue. You can’t govern through a referendum.
CST: No, this is not every issue, Mr Goh.
GCT: Let me finish. You can’t govern through a referendum. I’ve stated my position very clearly. If after all this discussion, first this debate in this studio, debate outside this studio before the people, select committee after the bill has been tabled in parliament, and you, I and everybody agrees that there’s no consensus on this important issue, I’m prepared to refer this subject to the people for a referendum.
CST: No, as a matter of principle, let’s take aside all this talk about consensus. Do you agree on principle that this is a very important issue, as important as dismantling our armed forces, as important as giving up our sovereignty, because we are going to give up our parliamentary system. Do you agree on this issue, in principle, that we require a referendum.
GCT: No. It is not on the same genre as selling your sovereignty to other countries.
CST: Thank you. Alright, Mr Goh. Now, assuming that you go with what you’ve just said, that there is no national referendum on this question, and you have two-thirds majority in parliament, do you agree to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that no more executive powers will be handed over to the Elected President unless you go back to the people on a national referendum to get the permission to do so?
GCT: Now, we have stated this very clearly….
LHL: This proposal is to safeguard money….
CST: I’m asking Mr Goh please, not Mr Lee.
LHL: Mr Chiam, we speak together. This proposal is to safeguard money. We have said that there would be no amendments not related to this money and key people, because key people are related to money. No clearer undertaking is possible. There are no other components to this. The PAP lays its cards on the table. We do not even have to open this subject. We have presented it because we want to debate it.
CST: I have only three minutes. Can you please answer the question yes or no? The question is if you have two-thirds majority in parliament…
LHL: We have no intention of making any further amendments.
CST: Alright, so you would be willing to go to the people on a national referendum should you require further powers given…
LHL: We will proceed the way we have always done with full public discussion on any issue. But this is purely hypothetical. We have no intention.
CST: The question is do you agree to go to the people?
LHL: Mr Chiam, there is no proposal. We are not intending to do any such thing. You are raising a hypothetical question…
CST: No, it is not hypothetical. You are thinking of 100 years ahead. We are only thinking of, maybe, four years ahead. Assuming that you have got problems, you are going to lose the election, are you going to pass more powers to the President without going to people on a national referendum?
GCT: The answer is a simple one…
CST: Yes or no.
GCT: And I repeat my point. We don’t believe in government-through-referendum. And we will proceed with any changes in accordance with the way we have governed Singapore all the time.
CST: So your answer is no.
GCT: No, there must be full public discussion first. The answer is not a no or yes. There will be a full public discussion…
CST: Don’t evade the question, Mr Goh. Yes or no. You are not willing to go on a national referendum if the government sees a need to hand more powers to the President.
GCT: No, you are assuming that we see the need to hand more powers to the President. We have put up a very clear proposal that we are only interested in these two areas.
CST: So I take it that you are not willing. Your answer is no. You are not going to go on national referendum in case you are going to give…
GCT: We are not contemplating of introducing any other areas for the President.
LHL: There’s no proposal. We’re not intending to do anything.
CST: We are talking of a system if the need arises.
LHL: We are talking about the Elected President.
GCT: Mr Chairman, we are discussing the Elected President proposal as it is. Mr Chiam is asking us a question on what we will do. It’s all in the White Paper.
MOD: Mr Chiam, in the opening statement, Mr Goh made the statement that if as a last resort, if all other issue…
CST: Alright, I go to the next question…
MOD: Let me finish, Mr Chiam. If all other options are exhausted, then the last resort would be they would be prepared to go for a referendum as a last resort if the need arises.
CST: Now, on the first question, he said no. I’m not going to the second question. Mr Moderator, now I go on to the next one. I presume your answer to the second question is no. Now, we come to the general elections, we are in the midst of the general elections. Now, what is the purpose of the general elections?
GCT: Very simple. First, to present our programme to the people, to get a mandate from the people.
CST: To elect a new government, isn’t it?
GCT: Exactly.
CST: Correct. Now what is the purpose of my standing at Potong Pasir?
LHL: You have to answer that.
GCT: I’m amazed. I don’t know what’s the purpose.
CST: So the purpose is not to decide on the issue of the Elected President, is that not correct?
GCT: The purpose of a general election is to decide on whose programme you’re going to accept for the next five years, and…
CST: But the purpose of this general election is not to give a mandate to the government to change the Constitution.
GCT: It is part of our programme, and we’re putting it before the people to decide.
MODERATOR’S TIME
MOD: Well, gentlemen, it’s time for your cross-examinations, but if I may just come back to where we started. Let me get one thing straight on the part of the People’s Action Party. That in proposing the Elected President and the safeguarding of the accumulated reserves and the integrity of the public service, you’re not talking in terms of either hindering the proper functioning of government or dismantling anything or working out to detract in manner from the people’s rights or the normal concerns of a democracy. What you’re really concerned about is how to prevent the squandering of hard-earned reserves by putting in a check, checks and balances to be provided by an Elected President of proven worth and integrity. Is that what the main thrust?
GCT: Yes.
JBJ: Mr Moderator, if I may say, you are putting the case for the government. You are putting the case for the government.
MOD: No, I’m not. I’m coming to you now. And I’m going to ask you that is the case for the Opposition that the Opposition is not opposing the principle but you are concerned about the manner in which it is being implemented and the impact that this is going to have for the very fundamentals that you are concerned.
JBJ: I thought I made that clear in my speech. We are concerned with the further erosion of parliament’s role and its effectiveness. The Party believes that parliament and parliament alone should have the final say over what happens in this country. Now, under the proposals the President can thwart the elected mandate of the people by stopping appointments, preventing use of assets. He’s got great powers under these proposals which is not realised by the government, or they do realise it, they are disguising it.
MOD: Mr Chiam.
CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. Our stand is that the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President, and if you want an Elected President, there must be a national referendum, otherwise the will of the people will be subverted. That is our position. We are demanding that there must be a national referendum on this very vital issue.
MOD: Thank you. Do you want to add anything before I move to closing statements?
LHL: I would just like to ask the Opposition why they are against having two keys on the reserves. All these years the PAP has never found it necessary to do what the Elected President is elected to prevent namely touch the reserves in order to spend them. We have never had to do that because we always run prudent financial management. We’re now trying to put a safeguard.
JBJ: May I answer that?
MOD: Quickly.
JBJ: Well, he’s taken a minute or more. Alright, but I say give that other key to the people, and that is the key should be given to parliament, and I will outline in my closing statement how I think the parliament can hold that key.
LHL: The President is elected by the people.
JBJ: But the President is not accountable to parliament.
MOD: Right gentlemen, we are really going to run out of time. And now I think you will have your last chance to say really what you consider to be fundamental. I’ll start with BG Lee on behalf of the PAP.
LHL: I think it should be the other way, Mr Chiam.
MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon. We will start with Mr Jeyaratnam.
JBJ: No, Mr Chiam first.
MOD: Ok, sorry. Oh, you’re going to follow this order.
JBJ: That was how it was arranged.
MOD: Sorry. Mr Chiam to start off with, then Mr Jeyaratnam, and then the closing statement by BG Lee.
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. I said that the purpose of the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. Now I think it’s significant to quote from the Straits Times of 23rd December ’84, what the Prime Minister said, “Asked what alternative there were to the system, he said,” ‘he’ meaning the Prime Minister said, “he was thinking of modifications to make sure the excesses were not carried too far.” I interpret the word ‘excesses’ as being the 12.6% vote swing to the opposition in the 1984 general elections.
Now, the Prime Minister is an experienced man, and he knows that once this swing starts, the momentum will be there and if it goes to the ultimate conclusion, the PAP will lose power. In fact, that is what he said, “It is necessary to try and put some safeguards into the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle, to get what they want without running the risk of losing services of the government because one day, by mistake, they will lose the services of the government.” He said, “Suppose there had been another 14% shift in votes, the combined opposition would have captured forty seats, and the PAP 39.” Mr Lee then went on to describe the mood of the voters as groping out for something which they thought was better for them. To those voters, he had this to say, “By all means, reach out. But know the price, this is going to lead to some brinkmanship, not in 1988 maybe, but if we go along this road, it must unravel” meaning PAP government will be unseated. “Is it going to be 1992?,” The Prime Minister asked, “When the PAP is going to lose at the polls.” There you were, those were the innermost fears of the PM when he expressed those words.
Now, you would notice that it is very significant. He was concerned purely whether or not the PAP government was going to be unseated. There was no mention about the preservation of our financial reserves. There was only utterances of fear on the part of PAP losing power. By all means, we have safeguards. Like I’ve said, you have hundred, 200 hundred Gurka troops to guard our reserves. But what the people of Singapore are worried is that these Gurka troops instead of guarding the reserves, is going to imprison them. That is the fear. You give powers to one person, and eventually, instead of using it just to keep our reserves, it can be used against us.
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY
MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.
JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. This issue, or these proposals rather have been put forward on a fallacious assumption that only the PAP contains within its ranks honest men, and slanderous statements made of the opposition parties that they’re all crooks. I resent that very strongly and it’s not worthy of the PAP to make that statement, shows the kind of people we’re dealing with.
I’m surprised that I have not been asked what the Workers’ Party’s alternative proposal is, and I will now tell you. A much better safeguard would be to require the government to get the unanimous vote in parliament before it begins to use in parliament before it begins to use any of the foreign reserves or the assets. In that way, the government will have to come to parliament, explain its proposals, why it needs the money, and the whole thing will be debated, and if parliament, the government party and the opposition object to this and reject it, then the Prime Minister can advice the President if he thinks that he has to have access to the reserves to dissolve parliament and to call for elections and go to the people. That seems to me to be a much more effective safeguard of our reserves than to give it to the President. As I’ve pointed out, the President under these proposals cannot be summoned to parliament. He cannot be asked to explain why he has made any decision about the reserves or over the appointments. Contrast this to the United States, the President there can be checked by Congress. Every key appointment that he makes must be approved by the legislative bodies. And if Congress doesn’t approve of any decision, it can withhold the supply of money from the President from implementing it. It seems to me, to the Party, that the PAP is fraudulent in its reasoning and its attempting to perpetuate this PAP hold over Singapore by introducing these proposals which are purely designed to pass from a parliamentary government to a dictatorship. Thank you, Mr Moderator.
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY
MOD: BG Lee.
LHL: Mr Chairman. The PAP has deliberately made the Elected President a key issue in this general election. Otherwise, we will not be here today. We seek the people’s mandate to implement the proposal. Our purpose is very simple: safeguard CPF savings, prevent an unscrupulous government from squandering them without telling you or consulting you. The Elected President will stand guard over these reserves and should they be in any danger, he will sound the alarm. The Opposition are against having a guard or an alarm. You must ask yourselves why.
The Elected President will also have to consent to key appointments in the civil service, because otherwise his powers to protect the reserves can be circumvented. You just put the wrong man in, he will do the job surreptitiously for a crooked government. The Opposition says there’s no need to do anything, all is well. They say that this is a way for Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, to hold on after he has stepped down as PM. They say this will lead to an executive president, and water down our one-man-one-vote system. They are wrong.
First, Mr Chiam and I think also Mr Jeyaratnam have already admitted that there is a need to do something to safeguard our reserves and to uphold the integrity of our public service. So it’s not a difference of principle. It’s only a question of how it should be done.
Secondly, Mr Lee is not interested in this job. He doesn’t want the job. Why should he? He’s already said he doesn’t want to and we have held him back from saying so publicly. And in any case, as he has explained, if he wanted to hold on to power, this is not the way to do it. All he has to do is to be Secretary-General of the Party, and that would be enough.
Thirdly, the Elected President’s powers are purely custodial. He cannot do anything. He can only say no. And they are only restricted to two areas: key personnel and money. He cannot extend his influence to other areas. Even Mr Chiam has no objections to these two proposals. His fear is this will lead to horrendous consequences. Totally unfounded, of course. But even as it stands, he has no objection to the intrinsic powers which will be given to the President. And one-man-one-vote will be quite unaffected. In America, they vote a President. It’s one-man-one-vote. In France, they have a President and Prime Minister, it’s one-man-one-vote. And in Singapore too, nothing would have changed.
Now, we must ask ourselves why the Opposition opposes a two-key system. The PAP has never had to touch the reserves all these years. Is the Opposition intending to touch them as soon as they come into power? Why oppose? If they oppose, what is their alternative? Mr Chiam has sketched none. Mr Jeyaratnam’s alternative is a unanimous vote in parliament. What that means is that if Mr Jeyaratnam or Mr Chiam are the two Opposition members in parliament, they will effectively be the Elected President, because they would have complete veto powers in one constituency on the basis of Potong Pasir.
JBJ: But the Prime Minister can then go to the country.
LHL: So the proposal has been invented on the spur of the moment, and we have yet to hear one from the SDP.
CST: That is not an issue.
LHL: That is an issue, because the SDP, if it is against this proposal in practice, but not in principle, then it is your responsibility to produce an alternative possibility. Now the opposition is asking the electorate to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority, as if except for this majority, the Elected President would be imposed on people The PAP has had more than a two-thirds majority for more than 20 years. We have never abused it. Why do we need to do so now? A referendum? Well, if need be, we will have a referendum. Let us go through the whole process first. Argue, debate, vote in elections. Second reading in parliament, select committee and then if there’s still fundamental objection, we will hold a referendum, and it will be properly entrenched and the votes will be produced. The question is not whether the PAP has a monopoly on virtue, we don’t claim that.
JBJ: Don’t you?
LHL: The question is how can we make sure that whoever governs Singapore is a good government. Never mind whether he’s a PAP one or an Opposition one. Mr Jeyaratnam takes umbrage at some of the things which have been said about the Opposition candidates but none of them are untrue.
JBJ: What about the PAP Ministers?
LHL: The concern is how do we make sure that whoever is in charge, your money is protected. So think carefully, decide whether you want your money protected, that is what the PAP wants to do. And vote according to your decision on Saturday.
CONCLUSION
MOD: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, I’m afraid we have run out of time. I wish we had more time listening to the arguments.
JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. That’s what I’ve been asking for.
MOD: But that’s what we have. And we must bring this debate to a close. In doing so, it remains for me to say how grateful I and the organisers are for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.