When I entered Parliament in 1980, there were no opposition members in the House. By 1984 we had 2, Chiam See Tong and J B Jeyaretnam. To allay the electorate's concerns on the absence of an opposition voice in Parliament, 2 schemes were introduced in Parliament, one the NCMP(Non Constituency MP) scheme and the other the NMP scheme. I will discuss the NMP scheme here because Singaporeans are now invited to send in their names for consideration if they want to be an NMP.
“A constitutional provision for the appointment of up to 9 NMPs was made in 1990 to ensure a wide representation of community views in Parliament” and “NMPs contribute independent and non-partisan views in Parliament” ( Ref: records from the Singapore Parliament)
To be an NMP, one should be non partisan and show no favour to the party in power or the opposition. Thus they cannot be members of a political party. As non partisan, he should also not use parliament as a platform to champion a particular cause, be it animal, gender, racial or religious interests, as his role is to represent all Singaporean interests. Parliamentary MPs select them from a list recommended by a special select committee. However, for the scheme to truly achieve its objectives, the select committee should have been an independent body of Singaporeans with Singapore's interest at heart. But it has never happened that way.
To find non partisan Singaporeans prepared to go to parliament was never easy. So, over time, the NMP scheme took a path that should never have happened - specifically by allowing sectorial or functional group representation. So you have NMPs representing trade unions, tertiary institutions, professional bodies, businesses, arts and theatres, social services and sports. These are civil society groups with vested interests. Can they be truly non partisan?
When you invite one group and not some others to be represented in Parliament, you raise more questions than answer. Pressure mounts on the select committee - why are some not included? For example, some questioned the rationale for a trade union NMP when there are already so many elected labour MPs.
At the same time, there are many other groups representing clan associations, religious organisations, minority races, new citizens and people of different sexual orientation, all wanting their voices heard in Parliament. Naturally, they are unhappy that they are not allowed representation in Parliament under the NMP scheme. Nevertheless, some can still find a way into Parliament indirectly, through proxy representation - by way of getting an NMP to speak for their cause. Thus the NMP scheme can be a backdoor for some of these vested interest groups.
Parliamentarians must earn the right to speak in the House. To earn this right, he or she must get elected in a general or by-election. Being elected by his constituents, he is responsible and accountable to his constituents for whatever he says in the house. On the other hand, an NMP, not being elected, is not responsible or accountable to anyone. Also, by participating in an election, the MP takes the risk of losing and not being elected. This is not so in the case of the NMP. So Parliament, being the highest legislative body in the land, must not be seen to promote non-risk taking, which is not in line with government's call to its citizens.
At the House sitting to pass this Bill in 1990, l aired my views. When it came to voting, I was torn between party interest and national interest. I chose the latter and voted against it despite the Whip not being lifted. My party was not happy but my conscience was clear.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock
*Article first appeared on Dr Tan's Facebook page here.