This House will repeal the Constitutional Amendment Bill (2016) on the reservation of future

Presidential Elections for select candidates on racial grounds. (The motion does not mean to imply
that the candidates are actively preselected - only that a select group are eligible based on racial
grounds.)

Prop / Repeal meaning all presidential elections are open to all races.
- key principles:
- equality in its most fundamental form - everyone gets a chance at the role, the person who
wins the most votes wins, regardless of race
- have faith in the system because we cannot force the idea of multiculturalism (artificially) on
the citizens because it simply defeats the purpose of wanting to by multicultural in the first
place - it creates an illusion of multiculturalism that is inevitably fake and an insult to
Singapores own fundamental beliefs - an insult to democracy
- what kind of message are you sending to people if we keep it? that Singaporeans are racist,
are biased enough to not vote for the best candidate for the candidate that belongs to their
own race?

Opp / Dont Repeal meaning the next presidential election which is in 2017 will only be open to
Malay candidates
- key principles:
- democracy is flawed, the majority of Singapore is Chinese and it would make perfect sense
for the Chinese candidate to win since most votes are from the Chinese - therefore no faith in
the current system especially for minority representations
- cannot trust the system with the citizens - would you rather let people decide the fate of a
country that has been dependent on government intervention?

key clashes:

1) necessity and effects of the policy

2) equity vs equality
3) is it meritocratic?
4) legitimacy of the president
5) how minorities are represented
This House will repeal the Constitutional Amendment Bill (2016) on the reservation of future
Presidential Elections for select candidates on racial grounds.

Prop 1 - Hannah (6.11)

case setup:
- definition
- policy
- based on qualities and capabilities, against forced representation
- unnecessarily politicising issues in society
- presidential candidates are not limited by race, to ensure meritocracy and equality
- criteria
- equal political landscape, place for the country to grow
- onus
- no backlash from the public

case setup okay, clarifications made are a bit awkward. should come after policy.

subs:
- undermines meritocracy and legitimacy
- forced diversity
- limits already small pool of candidates, more walkovers
- voters are less able to decide whos more qualified due to limited choices
- less stringent conditions for the president due to limited pool of selection (?????)
- president might lose moral authority, and support in the government
- example: SR Nathan and his two walkovers
- POI - it wasnt because no one was qualified, it was because no one wanted to step up?? -
reply / if they didnt want to step up maybe they werent even qualified in the first
place
- politicises race
- stunts progress of the country

Opp 1 - Arman (8.16)

case setup: (5 min)

- definition
- policy
- status quo.
subs: (at 6 min)
multiculturalism
could result in disruption of peace
(7.16)
advancing minority groups
spur development, advance at a higher rate
may look bad for them if no one of that race runs, so it forces people to step up

rebuttals:
- prop said opposition wont uphold meritocracy// brings up the prerequisite (but lacking in the
logical analysis)
- opp creates a sense of false equity and diversity - rebuttal doesnt answer the point raised!!
brings up stuff like you can vote not only for chinese but other races as well in different terms

poi: arent you being restrictive on racial grounds // we arent??? its open to everyone???? whoops
nope

Prop 2 - Azmina (7.19)

rebuttals:
- what is meritocracy - if someone meets the criteria to become president, they should be able to
run. brings up the fact that opposition doesnt uphold meritocracy - okay
- prerequisites are the same even after the bill has been applied - then why do we need the bill
when its the same prerequisites and they need the same criteria? - in terms of capabilities and
qualities brings up the fact that past 7 presidents, 3 were from the minority groups
- high chance of chinese becoming president because theyre the majority - brings up the same
example again (can be tied together with just one clash rather than repeating herself
again) in this case, the necessity of the bill dont waste time repeating what the
other team said cause youre only reminding the adj what they said!

subs: (3.12)
- politicises race
- race gives people their roots, should be respected, shouldnt be an aspect in politics, not
justified to politicise so that there is representation.
- stunts progress of the country
- demoralises people more?
- what if no one is qualified in that particular race? - might lower criteria, not fair of the citizens,
may not get a president that is up to the quality/capability that another candidate couldve
fulfilled
POI: were not politicising the race issue, just giving other minority groups the chance to have a
president of their race.// the bill is not needed to ensure the minority groups are represented

POI: 3/7 presidents who are of minority races doesnt show that people are accepting of minority
races // contradicts, theyre already being represented? reply doesnt really answer the POI

Opp 2 - Ya Chuan (7.45)

rebuttals:
- when you repeal this, youll have a false sense of diversity, lack of qualified presidential
candidates - we wont undermine it, the bar and standard will still be set at the same place,
people still have to meet the criteria doesnt really answer the problem. no clash!!!!!
- meritocracy is what we have to uphold, and our side does it - meritocracy is more likely to fail in
their side due to the majority chinese population

subs: (4.00)
minority representation
how much minority representation can these groups even get? natural for the chinese to get
more representation because they have a larger population, people are more likely to choose from
their own race
minority groups have a defeatist mindset, they feel like theyll lose anyway because of the
majority, so the policy helps to address that
greater ethnic cohesion (majority groups wont spark riots? tensions, minority groups tend to voice
out things more often????)

Prop 3 - Yifang (7.39)

multiculturalism and meritocracy go together - but they dont!

1 which side upholds meritocracy (4.49)

1) people who qualify, who are good are removed because of the policy, lessens competition -
cannot pick the MOST qualified candidate. we uphold meritocracy, not the opposition
2) if were so bent on having minority representation what about the parliament? why only the
president?
3) we wont spoonfeed any races
6) is there a likelihood of the president being from the minority race?
1) there is already minority representation in politics
2) EVEN IF - no point in making the president being from the minority race!! they cannot truly
transform the field of politics
3) create a vision that SG is still divided by race, we only see people by race and identity - we
only make the gaps more visible, deeper.
7) are there harmful effects or not?

comparison:
- ensure our society is less polarised, less divided, side that best protects the minorities - there is
flow through all three speakers which is good!!!!

Opp 3 - Xian Wen (8.18)

clarifications - role of the president, in times of social unrest etc the president can understand the
plight of the minorities - the identity of SG etc

1 meritocracy
1) we still hold them to the same standards, same prerequisites etc
2) minorities have no equal standing in the elections (shouldnt this be equitythis isnt
meritocracy right)