SINGAPORE — Three Members of Parliament (MP) argued on whether the Constitution has to be changed to allow Singapore's president to hold roles in international organisations in his or her private, instead of official, capacity.

Mr Gerald Giam, Workers' Party (WP) MP of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), said in a speech on Wednesday (Nov 22) that although the president may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, Singaporeans justifiably expect him to "wholeheartedly dedicate his time and energy to fulfil his national responsibilities".

"Allowing the president to take up external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties." 

Parliament was debating the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill.

In rebuttal, Mr Chris de Souza, People's Action Party (PAP) MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, hit back to say: "We are not in a situation of a binary choice where we have to say 'no memberships' because we don't want our president being overly distracted by international duties.

"We can actually have both."

Separately, WP's Sengkang GRC MP Jamus Lim said that the move could "reinforce the fear" he had expressed during the 2020 General Election, that if the ruling PAP is not denied a supermajority in Parliament, that would be tantamount to handing the party a blank cheque.

For Singapore's Constitution to be changed, there needs to be a two-thirds majority of support from MPs and Non-Constituency MPs. Nominated MPs cannot vote on this.

On Associate Professor Lim's point, Mr de Souza said: "I'd like to take that conclusion and flip it on its head. I am humbly proud that I am part of the two-thirds that pushes through constitutional legislations that are robustly in favour of our national interest."

Here is an edited transcript of the exchange that followed:

MR GIAM: I think Mr de Souza is making a straw man argument. He's implying that the WP does not think our president and ministers should sit on international boards. This is not what I said.

What I did say is, I accept that the president may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity in order to enhance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. We have no issue with him taking up these roles in his official capacity. 

What we disagree with is him taking up these roles in his private capacity. I think Mr de Souza has not addressed that.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong already clarified that these international organisations are happy to have our president and ministers in their official capacities. I don't see what the issue is.

MR DE SOUZA: I’m afraid the member is incorrect on two counts. The first is that the private bodies see the elevation of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam as president and head of state to be an advantage to their organisations. But they did not, as I understood it, they did not want him to be just stating what the Government's position on things would be, they wanted his personal view. And this was never contemplated in the Constitution because the Constitution always had “official capacity”. 

And so, Cabinet looked at this and they were upfront about it. They didn't sneak it under the carpet and say, “Just you know, bygones be bygones, just carry on with official capacity and let the president say what he wants to say in private capacity”. 

No, that would be wrong even if nobody found out.

The Attorney-General said, "Look, based on the tools, the framework, the mechanics of the Constitution, this may run into a little bit of trouble. So why don't we allow memberships by private capacities but fetter them by Cabinet?"

So it was out of an abundance of caution that we are doing what we are doing today. That puts it in perspective.

MR GIAM: Mr de Souza himself said in his speech that Mr Tharman has a mind of his own. He said Mr Tharman has been on these boards in his official capacity all this time, DPM Wong has confirmed that all these positions that he's currently on are in his official capacity. And he's been speaking his mind all this time. So what is wrong with that? 

MR DE SOUZA: Mr Tharman is now the head of state and therefore, we have to have a structure, predictability, a framework in order to resolve what could be internationally prickly situations. And if you look at… what the Cabinet can advise the president to do, three conditions must be met before the president may (take on roles in international organisations). 

So Mr Tharman has now been elevated to head of state and this provides, I think, both His Excellency and the regulators, in the form of the Cabinet, to have a very predictable framework to deal with these issues. 

And let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are issues that are facing the globe, and our ministers and also the president have unique, deep insights to contribute towards these. So do we put a roadblock or do we find a workable solution?

In the Singapore way, we find a workable solution.

ASSOC PROF LIM: Let me start by clarifying that… I actually did not believe that there was any incoherence between the Bill itself and the Constitution. So let me first put that on the record.

Now, if I heard Mr de Souza correctly, he suggests that one impetus for this Bill is that it was to accommodate potentially the concerns of these international organisations about the independence of our potential representatives were we to send the representatives to them.

But perhaps I should ask the question: What does it say about us as a nation, as a sovereign nation, if we amend the highest law of the land, just so that we can potentially appease the desires of international organisations? 

MR DE SOUZA: If you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So when you get invited to these organisations, they speak well of Singapore, they speak well of the person who has been invited. Singapore's interests can be presented by way of osmosis and the whole ecosystem in the boardroom or the committee room, you get a sense of each continent’s political difficulties, economic difficulties. So why say no? 

We're not pandering to the requests of international organisations. But they want not just the official line, if there is room (for these government officials) to share from their own experience and their own wealth of knowledge, what they've been through, how they think things can pan out not just for Singapore but for the world and for the region. Why shut that out?

How can that be construed as pandering to international organisations, when it is a feather in the cap to actually be invited in the first place? 

And then set down rules as to what can or cannot be done so that the international organisations know the rules of engagement and so do we.

So I turn it on its head and say, we're not pandering. We should be honoured and humbled and accept it as far as possible, subject to national interest.