I made this speech in Parliament on 22 November 2023 during the debate on the Constitutional of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill.
Mr Speaker,
This Constitutional Amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities if it serves the national interest. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty, co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report, co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. The DPM said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity.
Internationally, it is a common practice for political office holders to resign from their private positions before being sworn in to office. Recently, Mr David Cameron resigned from various business and charitable positions, including as president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, when he made a comeback to government, saying, “I have one job — to be foreign secretary and work with the prime minister for the UK to be as secure and prosperous as possible in a difficult and dangerous world.”
Conversely, there are many examples of former politicians who are now leading high profile international bodies, but only started serving in these organisations after their political tenure in their home countries. Examples include Mr Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was a former prime minister of Portugal, and Mr Charles Michel, who became the President of the European Council after stepping down as the Belgian prime minister.
The presence of currently-serving senior public officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union ombudsman called on then-European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi to resign from the G30 — the same organisation whose board of trustees President Tharman is now chairing. She said Mr Draghi’s membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised, adding that “for the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes maladministration on its part.”
The PMO stated that “from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations.” Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first?
Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted? Could the DPM provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President’s involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitment for these roles.
Prior to his election, Mr Tharman articulated his vision for the presidency, emphasising the need for a “different character to the presidency” in Singapore’s next phase of development. He underscored the role of the President in checking the governance system, fostering unity, and evolving Singapore’s norms and culture. During his inauguration, he committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities. His plans include 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 — even the President — have only 24 hours each day. Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties and his constituents — who are the people of Singapore. Surely the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention.
The President also draws a salary of $1.57 million a year. If we include his entertainment allowance, the salaries of his personal staff and other expenses, the total budgeted expenditure of the President’s office in the current financial year is over $12 million. This is a substantial amount of taxpayer money. It is only reasonable for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates all his time and energy in his official capacity to meeting his promises to the people.
The Government may argue that the President serves Singapore by accepting these key positions in international organisations. However, we must note that the proposed Article 22Q specifies that he will act in his “private capacity,” not in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution.
We must more closely examine how these private roles, separate from official duties, genuinely advance Singapore’s national interests. How will the Government ensure that the President, when acting in his private capacity, follows the Cabinet’s advice about what to say or do in his role, since many of these organisations hold their meetings behind closed doors in foreign countries?
The DPM said that international organisations would want our President to continue in his official role. They also want their appointees to contribute independently. But if the Cabinet can instruct the President what to say or not to say, how is that contributing independently?
Invoking the “national interest” cannot grant the Government unrestricted authority to pursue its every desire. There are varying degrees of national interest. Is there any objective test that the Cabinet will employ to assess the degree of national interest of the President taking up foreign or international roles?
Mr Speaker, 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. However, 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. For this reason, the Workers’ Party will vote against this Bill.
