Aug 17, 2023
The Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme was introduced in 1990 to provide a platform for alternative and non-partisan perspectives to be raised. With the political landscape evolving significantly since then, how can the NMP scheme evolve to be future-ready?
To explore this, former NMP Anthea Ong set out to chronicle the experiences and opinions of 20 former and current NMPs in the book The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Still Necessary in Parliament? The result was a rich tapestry of diverse views on this uniquely Singaporean parliamentary scheme.
Joining Ong at a panel discussion at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) on 5 May 2023 were NMP Dr Shahira Abdullah, former NMP Chandra Mohan Nair, as well as Dr Rayner Kay Jin Tan, Visiting Research Fellow at Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore. Dr Abdullah and Nair were contributors to the book The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme, while Dr Tan led the research and analysis effort for the book. Together, the panellists brought to life a vibrant discussion on the intriguing role that NMPs play in representing Singaporeans. The session was chaired by the LKYSPP’s Associate Professor in Practice, Terence Ho.
The unique role of the NMP
NMPs bring up concerns that elected MPs may not focus on, particularly regarding vulnerable or minority groups. This contributes to a more inclusive parliamentary representation.
While elected MPs might be influenced by their party values and priorities, NMPs can offer non-partisan perspectives. This promotes a wider range of viewpoints in parliamentary discussions.
An NMP holds a unique position as someone who is not affiliated to any political party, and this enables them to express opinions that may not always be well-received.
Reflecting on the time when he was asked which constituency he was from, Nair quipped, “I said, I'm serving the whole of Singapore. You see, they go by constituency. I am free to say whole of Singapore.”
Detractors of the NMP scheme question the relevance of the scheme in light of greater opposition presence. During the parliamentary debate in 1989 regarding the scheme, there was merely one elected MP from the opposition party and two Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from the Workers’ Party. However, the political landscape has undergone substantial changes since that time. With the increase in opposition MPs, the relevance of NMPs in offering alternative perspectives has once again become a subject of examination.
Whether or not it is the case that greater opposition gains diminish the effectiveness of the NMP scheme, Nair suggested that we should look at the scheme and think about how to make it more effective. He emphasised that it ultimately boils down to the individual to make the scheme work.
Ong added, “The individuals within the scheme can make a difference by raising issues that represent the people that will not be raised by both the ruling party and maybe even the opposition. And I know that for a fact because some of the issues that we raised actually allow the government MPs and opposition MPs to raise them, and these are obviously the minority issues that will be costing either side politically to raise them and some of these issues [concern] migrant workers and the LGBTQ community. Those are issues that really affect people who call Singapore home”.
NMPs can make an impact by enhancing discussions in parliament through incorporating their distinct non-partisan viewpoints derived from expertise in specific fields and active engagement in communities.
Prof Ho raised the question of whether there were statistics that stood out while performing research for the book, The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme.
To Dr Tan, who assessed pertinent comparative data for the book, one of the trends that stood out was that NMPs were leading in terms of the average number of parliamentary questions asked and bills spoken on per year, as compared to elected MPs. Dr Tan said that this highlights how “NMPs are contributing to the parliamentary discourse sector, potentially leading the way in terms of creating certain parliamentary norms.”
Potential for evolving the NMP scheme
Prof Ho prompted the panellists to reflect on changes to the NMP scheme they would like to see.
The panellists said that it would be of great help if legislative and secretarial support could be extended to NMPs instead of just being offered to elected MPs.
Dr Abdullah said that this support would be helpful for NMPs as most of them do not come from a legal background. She pondered on the possibility of NMPs partnering with Institutes of Higher Learning to get this support. Ong highlighted that NMPs can clearly play a role especially in speaking up for minority groups, and “having support in terms of resources for them to do a proper job” would go a long way.
To the panellists, the NMP term was another area that should be reconsidered. As Ong put it, “Each NMP stays for a two-and-a-half-year term. In the history of NMPs, there were even NMPs who were there for only a month, then parliament was dissolved. Because nobody knows when parliament is going to be dissolved … So, I think we should relook the NMP term.”
The NMP scheme can be enhanced to become a non-partisan check against the divisiveness of a two-party system. Although the opposition may offer some check-and-balance, they too are limited by the need to conform to party lines.
Ong urged a contemplation of whether Parliament, in a similar manner to the three branches of government under the Constitution, could adopt a three-branch structure of equal significance, where NMPs serve as a fully realised "third voice".
In addition, the past and present NMPs at the panel discussion argued that greater transparency is needed in the NMP scheme. Ong gave an example, “Submissions to the NMP scheme should be made public. This allows us to see the quality of candidates as well.”
Will the time come when the scheme is eliminated or restructured? Until such a situation arises, the panel discussion encourages us to think about the scheme’s impact and potential for improvement.