Shanmugam attacks WP’s Senate proposal as being half-baked, unworkable

SINGAPORE — Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam attacked the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposal to substitute the Elected Presidency (EP) with an elected Senate with custodial powers, lobbing scathing terms such as “half-baked”, “unworkable”, and a “total disaster” on the opposition party.

It resulted in a back-and-forth exchange on Wednesday (Nov 9) lasting more than 40 minutes, with WP chairman Sylvia Lim at one point accusing the People’s Action Party (PAP) of not having the public’s interest in mind by springing the last-minute surprise that the upcoming Presidential Election would be reserved for the Malay community.

And highlighting that attacks by PAP MPs do not serve the public interest, the WP also charged that the PAP spent so much time examining details of the proposal that it neglected to fully explain how proposed changes to the EP would address the “inherent tension” in having the President play a custodial role, while also being an elected and potentially partisan 
figure.

On Tuesday, the WP proposed having an eight-member elected Senate take over the President’s custodial powers to oversee Singapore’s reserves and key public service appointments, while the President could be appointed by Parliament and serve a ceremonial role. The suggestion drew brickbats from PAP MPs, who criticised the lack of details and called out the WP on floating the proposal “at the last minute”.

On Wednesday, Mr Shanmugam continued to grill the WP on the proposal, while rebutting objections to the EP raised by the party, one of which was on the revised eligibility criteria, which the WP said would restrict the pool of candidates to the “super-elite”.

Mr Shanmugam pointed out that the WP’s proposal to have an eight-member Senate, who will need to have the same qualifications as an Elected President, would not address the issue of elitism.

The WP was also taking an “astoundingly cynical view” by claiming that the objective of the EP amendments is to curtail the powers of a non-PAP government, Mr Shanmugam said. “If that was the fear, doesn’t the Senate proposal make the position eight times worse? How does the Senate proposal help? We have heard nothing about that,” he added.

As for the WP’s concern that the EP could be politicised, Mr Shanmugam hit back, saying that the opposition party’s idea of a Senate would increase the risk of politicisation and gridlock, and could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Calling the proposal “deeply flawed”, Mr Shanmugam singled out WP chief Low Thia Khiang’s comment that the House should not be “bogged down by details” and should instead focus on the fundamentals of the WP’s idea.

“But Parliament is the place for asking questions. Get your proposals thoroughly examined. As champions of parliamentary democracy, surely the Workers’ Party believes in that?” said Mr Shanmugam. “You don’t come to Parliament with half-baked, absurd proposals and then asked to be spared from searching questions? Does the phrase ‘First World Parliament’ ring a bell?”

Rising to respond to Mr Shanmugam’s statements, Ms Lim said that the WP was flattered that Mr Shanmugam had “so much time to cross-examine” the Senate proposal, but noted that the PAP Government had yet to convincingly explain how it would address the inherent tension in the President’s dual role.

And describing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement that the Government would seek to make the next Presidential Election — due next August — a reserved one for Malay candidates as “sudden”, Ms Lim said: “How does this sudden announcement help to unify the country? Shouldn’t the Government be concentrating more on persuading Singaporeans of the merits of their proposal rather than to spend all their time attacking us?”

She added: “I don’t know who is politicising the process, and is the public interest being served by this?”

WP Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera also rose in defence of his party, taking issue with Mr Shanmugam’s comment that an elected Senate could become politicised. “That same risk of politicisation is what the Elected Presidency is now vulnerable to. How do you manage that? No one from the other side of the House has given a definitive and convincing answer to this point,” said Mr Perera.

Mr Shanmugam responded that the Government has always acknowledged the risk of politicisation in the EP system, and “unless someone else can suggest a better system, our assessment is, this is a risk worth taking”.

“And as our experience shows, if we elect good people, good Presidents, the risk is well manageable. And the alternative that is being suggested is a complete disaster,” he said, adding: “You’re so embarrassed by it that you don’t want to answer questions on it.”