For The State of Our Union (2016)

Parliamentary Speech delivered 9 November 2016 on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore(Amendment) Bill

It is difficult to debate about today’s Bill without reflecting upon the political upheavals that democracies older than our own are experiencing right now.

Both the United States of America and the United Kingdom are going through an unprecedented public display of disunity at the government as well as the ground level. In Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, far right parties are gaining in political traction with the electorate with uncomfortable ease. Racist and xenophobic political agendas have become normalised.

It’s not just about the state of the political candidates but the state of the electorate that is causing great anxiety around the world. Few leaders at the top expected that there would come a day where so many voters on the ground, would become so disillusioned with the prospects of political reform that they were willing to overturn political norms, values and behaviours that everyone once assumed were foundational for their democracy.

So there has been much soul-searching in those democracies about what could have caused such profoundly wide divides to open up between leaders and their people. And what could have been fixed earlier to prevent this situation.

It is in such extraordinary times when the world’s attention becomes focused on the rigour and resilience of each country’s political institutions. Will the system fall apart or will the centre hold?

In each of these democracies now, a generation of young people are holding their breath to see whether their system’s fail-safes - the precious checks and balances a generation before them had designed during peaceful times - will kick in and do its work to protect the future of all that they hold dear.

We are one of the world’s youngest democracies. Barely over half a century old, we still have much to learn and we are presently still living in our season of peace.

Deputy Speaker Sir, I believe this is now our time to fix things. And perhaps each one of us here in this House was somehow made for such a time as this.

Given the backdrop of current global events, I am reminded that there is no better time than now for our own politicians to meet across partisan divides to look - to really look - at the state of our own union, to build our own system’s circuit breakers, to fight for the checks and balances we most believe in. And to do all that not for short-term political gain but for long-term national preservation.

Do you know what stands out to me most about the role of the Elected President?

It’s that he is given the responsibility to stand as a non-partisan symbol of national unity.

The Government’s White Paper explains that “This crucial role as a unifying symbol of the nation is unique to the President’s office. No other public office is intended to be a personification of the State and a symbol of the nation’s unity in the way that the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction in principle between the Presidency and other public offices…He embodies the nation itself.”

When I read those words, I hear them as a voter. I take them absolutely to heart.

Because that is the kind of President I want. And that is the kind of President we’ll need.

Because in times to come, we will appreciate having a Unifier-in-Chief, especially in a world where internal hostilities and growing divisions are becoming more the norm than not.

But the question here is: if unifying the country is such a significant and distinctive responsibility of the President, then are the Constitutional amendments built to favour candidates with that sort of particular strength and inclination - or not?

Presently, the discussion of this particular unifying role of the President is centred purely on multiracial representation. And I have no quarrel with the Government’s decision to go for a reserved election option to ensure that the Presidency is accessible to all the major races in Singapore. I accept the Government’s argument that as long as there is a real possibility that 10-20% of the voting population may still be swung by factors of race, we have to be realistic and put in the least intrusive short-term mechanism possible to guarantee some level of multi-racial representation. Meanwhile, I accept that we all must share in the long-term responsibility of helping each other reach that ultimate destination where such an artificial safeguard would no longer be needed. We can go beyond community self-help groups and work towards a multi-racial story of lifting each other’s communities together.

But I share the perspective of many young Singaporeans, that a President’s ability to unify a country is not really about his race. Young people will tell you frankly that they Young people will tell you frankly that they could not care less about the colour of the President’s skin as much as they care about the complexion of his politics.

Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland “yes man”-sounding candidate from their own race Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland “yes man”-sounding candidate from their own race any day.

Some political scientists have argued that the political dysfunctions we are witnessing now in America have less to do with race and more to do with class divides, partisan politics and a divisive electoral process. The reminder I take from the US Presidential Election is that racism is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed simply by minority representation in the highest office of the land. Representation is important and useful but even two terms of having a powerful, competent, charismatic African American as President of the United States could not do enough to defuse the racial tensions that continues to divide their country. Some analysts even feel that Obama’s presidency inadvertently provoked more open expressions of racism than ever before.

Fixing representation issues in the highest office of the land must be always accompanied by fixing representation issues in the lower offices of the land as well. It matters that we address how many women get a seat at the table in corporate boardrooms as much as Cabinet positions. It matters that we address how many minorities ascend the ranks in our armed forces. It matters that we address how many children from less privileged families and less prestigious schools actually emerge victorious in leadership positions all across the sectors.

It matters because as a globalised city-state, we will always struggle with high income inequality. So I do worry more about the effects of polarised elitism than racism on our democracy, especially because the former enflames and exacerbates the latter. Again, there is a lesson to be learnt from the US. Rising inequality is most extreme in America. In 1979, the top 1% in the US earned 9% of its income; today they earn almost 25%. In 2010, more than 90% of the country’s income gains went to the top 1%.

As the elite and less-elite become further and further removed from each other’s lived realities, it becomes difficult to build the mutual understanding and wide-reaching consensus needed for effective democracy. Pollsters discovered that out of the many demographic fault lines exposed by the current US Elections, few divisions went deeper than that of education attainment. Those with the most schooling clearly back one candidate. Those with the least number of years of education clearly back the other.

When elite group-think settles in at the leadership level and an empathy gap grows between an elite political class and an economically and politically frustrated middle to working class electorate, a dangerous vulnerability in the democratic system is created. It is a vulnerability that can be hijacked at the right time by an opportunistic populist politician unafraid of riding upon a racist or xenophobic agenda.

What we see happening elsewhere can all too easily happen right here.

To be a unifying symbol, the future President of Singapore cannot just wear the right skin tone. He or she must have the political courage and moral gumption to navigate the divides of class and partisan politics. It is those divides that intersect with and exacerbate racial issues. In times to come, it is across those divides where we will most need a bold non-partisan voice of national unity to step out to be a bridge. He or she is de facto Diplomat-in-Chief not just to the world but within our homeland as well. He or she must be the centre of calm that can hold a space for not just the different races, but the elites and non-elites, powerful and powerless and establishment and anti-establishment as well.

As a Nominated Member of Parliament, I cannot vote on Constitutional Amendments. But I’ll still bring 3 requests today to the table.

My first request concerns the eligibility criteria:

I am still hesitant to support the new stricter set of eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency. I fully understand the need to always update the criteria for the times. And it’s not that I think the new criteria is wholly unreasonable.

It’s just that I’m unsure whether having such criteria now will help us sieve in more good candidates or sieve out more promising ones. I am unsure whether stricter private sector criteria will end up slanting our Presidency towards more public sector candidates, especially in the case of minority candidates. And I am unsure whether if we keep setting the bar higher and higher for who gets to run for President, one of the unplanned outcomes would be a further widening of an empathy gap between an ever more elite leadership and an ever less elite electorate.

How drastic is the difference between CEOs who lead $500 million organisations and CEOs who lead $100 million or $300 million organisations in terms of their intellectual competency, financial proficiency, moral courage and diplomatic sensitivity? Given how small our country is, are we running the risk of arbitrarily cutting off potentially great Presidential candidates?

I hear the government’s reasoning that “Quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country’s economic situation does not itself remain static.” I hear the government’s reasoning that “Quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country’s economic situation does not itself remain static.” Agreed.

But qualitative thresholds aren't fixed in perpetuity too.

A country’s emotional, sociopolitical and cultural situation does not remain static either and is equally demanding of nuanced understanding. So why don’t we have more holistic eligibility criteria that also specifically demands a candidate display a minimal level of sophisticated understanding about the state of our nation? Shouldn’t we require candidates hoping to become the symbol of national unity to possess at least a bullet point or two on their resume in some actual ground experience in building bridges or bringing communities together across sociopolitical divisions? I know my request might sound strange but if unifying is such a significant and unique responsibility of the President then wouldn’t it be worthwhile attempting to word out some criteria more explicitly along those lines?

So I would hope that in designing our criteria for a future President, we do not word it such that we only get applications from brilliant technocrats with the right degrees, right organisations and the right positions. All that is impressive, and good and necessary - but a person can have all that, carry out the custodial duties of guarding the national reserves with immense technical expertise and still fall short in that other equally demanding, equally important duty of embodying and unifying a nation. The latter duty demands no less rigour than the former.

I request that we consider relooking the strictness of criteria especially if we start to see either a recurring pattern of uncontested elections due to lack of eligible private sector candidates or a recurring pattern of elections dominated only by public sector candidates.

Because I believe those patterns will reveal the onset of a dysfunction in our democracy. A string of uncontested elections or even elections with homogeneous establishment candidates harms our democracy as it only feeds into a dangerous narrative of a “rigged system” that entrenches either cynicism or apathy among the electorate. Already, we are seeing that scenario play out in the current US Elections where opportunistic candidates readily ride on that narrative and exploit the sentiment to gain popularity. Especially in the case of uncontested elections, the lack of a victory won by actual votes will forever cast a shade of doubt on the authority of even the most worthy and capable of candidates.

My second request is on staying open to alternative solutions to depoliticise the Presidential Elections

The 2011 Presidential Elections was surprisingly divisive and there is no reason to assume that future Presidential Elections will not take on a similar tone.

We cannot hold an election for a politically neutral office and be surprised when politics intrudes. The medium is the message. Elections are quintessentially political and tend to attract politicised candidates who want to play the game. Only the rarest of qualified candidates from the private sector, without prior political party affiliation or political experience, will be willing to subject themselves to undignified politicking.

I know the Government is unconvinced that reverting back to a Parliament-nominated Presidency is the solution. I agree because it would be a conflict of interest for Parliament to be tasked to choose the very person whose chief role would be to act as a check on it.

Personally, I believe further down the road, it’s worth reconsidering what Mr Janadas Devan and Mr Ho Kwon Ping suggested in 2011 about establishing an electoral college instead. The college should be large enough to proportionately represent major stakeholders and interest groups in Singapore. They suggest that the electors could be selected according to processes set by each stakeholder group and the college would finally nominate a few candidates from among those who offer to stand for President. With electoral college as the first sieve and either the Supreme Court or Public Service Commission holding the right of final approval, the system would get a qualified Presidential candidate drawn from a greater diversity of stakeholders.

However, the present reality is that the idea of getting to elect an independent President has already sunk in with the electorate as their democratic right. To take that right away now would not go down well either. I think the next best thing to do - for now - would be to establish clearer rules of engagement for the upcoming 2017 Presidential elections. I agree with the Commission that shortlisted candidates must be held to a higher standard of understanding about the Constitutional role of a President and be held publicly accountable for any outrageous claims or policy promises made on the campaign trail that fall well beyond the scope of what a President can do. I also agree with the Commission’s observations that public rallies add to the divisiveness of the electoral process and believe broadcasted presidential debates might be a less politicised way for the people to get to know the quality of their candidate.

Another way to depoliticise the Presidency is to provide other democratic institutions that can take on the more interventionist role that some voters want to shoe-horn into the President’s role even though it conflicts with his need to symbolise national unity. Can the Government consider setting up the institution of an ombudsman to take that up? President Tony Tan himself suggested it on his own Presidential campaign trail. An ombudsman who can act as a respectable yet independent representative for the people, who is empowered to investigate the public’s complaints against the Government as well as any public allegations about the Government will strengthen the public’s trust in our democracy and add a useful layer to our system’s checks and balances.

I also believe that the politicisation and misunderstandings we saw in 2011 is a reflection of how much more we could invest into the general political education of our people, especially the next generation of voters. Can we start taking seriously the need to teach basic political concepts as part of civic education for our youths? Introducing young people to the value of a Constitution, the meaning of a vote and the balance of power between executive-judiciary-legislative will go a long way in helping us build up the rigour of our future electorate.

My third and final request is with regards to the role of the people sector

In the last few years, the Government has been pushing for tri-sector, whole-of-society collaboration as the best way to solve wicked problems in a volatile, ambiguous world. Thus, the absence of any reference to the people sector in this Bill really stood out to me.

Going by the eligibility criteria, only experience and expertise in the public or private sector prepares an individual to be a President of Singapore. Even though there is a deliberative track, it would be really difficult - almost impossible - to find a leader from our local landscape of voluntary welfare groups, non-profit charities, philanthropic foundations and arts & cultural groups who can say their organisations are of equivalent size and complexity as a $500 million company or a government agency. Yet, exceptional leaders exist in the people sector with on-ground wisdom and deep experience in community-building.

Beyond the world of corporations and government agencies, there is another realm of expertise whose day-in and day-out work is all about bringing broken people and broken communities together again.

They have listened into the country’s most silent sufferings and they have seen where our most profound heartbreaks lie.

They have walked beside the fault-lines that cut through our nation’s communities.

They have stood in the gap together with this country’s walking wounded to help them get past anger and bitterness to unite with others again.

Without these everyday warriors working on the front lines of the people sector, you can bet there would be more national disunity than less.

This is not about simplistically asking for people sector leaders to be given an easier shot at running for the Presidency. I accept that the President’s custodial role of safeguarding our national reserves demands a level of financial sophistication and organisational expertise that is likely to be beyond the scope of most people sector leaders. But what of that other equally significant ceremonial role of unifying the nation? Would not the people sector’s unique strengths and insights be profoundly useful in serving that role?

The people sector may currently be small and not as steeped in power, organisational sophistication and financial resources. But neither should it be seen as a lesser brother to the public and private sectors. It is a vital part of the equation in the total defence of our country and the guardianship of our national unity and it deserves equal respect.

I would hope that the President in the carriage of his responsibilities as National Unifier-in-Chief would have access to the street level wisdom and ground-informed insights of the chief unifiers on the ground. I would hope that the people in charge of selecting potential Presidential candidates have that access too. Can I request that in the composition of the Presidential Elections Committee as well as the Council of Presidential Advisors, we make a space somehow for leaders from the people sector?

Because our sharpest people sector leaders could well be the ground experts you need who can first spot the canaries in our sociocultural coal mines.

We should hear out their intuitions.

Conclusion

Ultimately, I am encouraged that this Government is not afraid of refining the Constitution from time to time for the sake of future-proofing our country.

Franklin Roosevelt once said that a Constitution should be revered “not because it is old, but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come.”

A Constitution must be protected enough to ensure stability from government to government but it must also have enough breathing room to be a living, vital thing, evolving enough such that it remains relevant to the needs of every new generation.

I urge our politiciansI urge our politicians across both parties to be unafraid to go deeper and wider with those changes so that they can take all of us further into the future.

Because we are all in this together - for our children and our children’s children.

And please, don’t despair that our youths don’t seem interested in Constitutional issues. Just because they don’t express interest now does not mean they don’t feel a stake in it later. It’s just that most of them only feel it and show it when election season hits.

Our young voters want the same things as our older voters. Good jobs. A decent shot at happiness. Fair treatment regardless of race, language or religion. And they all know their access to those things has plenty to do with the state of our politics.

But at the heart of it, the average young person here - as everywhere in the world - wants to just be able to say, “You know what? I live in a country where the people in charge actually give a damn about me and my future.”

Let us make whatever changes we need to help them say that.

Let’s please work together to bring down walls, protect the state of our union and find a way for Singapore to be a small but strong light of unity even in the darkness of a divided world.

Thank you.