Advertisement

‘Do we want powerless MPs in Parliament?’

Singapore's Constitution has been changed to allow more NCMPs in Parliament. (AFP Photo)
Singapore's Constitution has been changed to allow more NCMPs in Parliament. (AFP Photo)

OPINION

By Andrew Loh

It was a masterstroke by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) when it amended the Constitution in April last year to increase the number of non-constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) from three to nine.

The PAP said the move was to address the public's desire to have more opposition views expressed in Parliament. Critics, however, saw it as a way to curb the public's desire for more elected opposition MPs.

As the next general election approaches, PAP ministers have been selling the NCMP scheme as the bona fide scheme which assures an opposition voice; that such alternative views in Parliament are guaranteed — even if the PAP makes a clean sweep at the polls.

The underlying message is thus: do not vote for the opposition because there will be at least nine opposition NCMPs in Parliament anyway, and Singapore needs a "strong government" to see it through the challenges ahead. If more opposition members are elected as Members of Parliament (MPs), fractious debates in the House will take place and Singapore will suffer because of this.

There are, of course, many flaws to the PAP's arguments. These include the fact that NCMPs' voting powers are limited, that NCMPs do not represent any of the constituencies or constituents and that they do not have access to residents on the ground like an MP does.

At the Channel News Asia television forum on 12 April, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong again defended the scheme.

He pointed out that NCMPs had full debating rights in Parliament, and the scheme gave opposition politicians the chance to establish themselves and strengthen their positions in subsequent general elections, The Straits Times stated.

He explained that the PAP instituted and then expanded the scheme because it acknowledged both the desire among Singaporeans for alternative voices and the need for an opposition to represent the diverse views in society, the paper reported.

There seems to be a glaring misunderstanding by the PAP about what exactly it is that Singaporeans desire. I would suggest that it is not just having opposition voices to speak up on issues which Singaporeans are looking for, but that these alternative voices have the backing of law — i.e. full voting rights — to stop the government from pushing through legislation.

NCMPs do not have such powers when it comes to Constitutional amendments.

Despite taking part in the debate last year to increase the number of both NCMPs and Nominated MPs (NMPs), the only NCMP in the House, the Workers' Party Sylvia Lim, had no voting rights to vote against the bill.

After making a well thought-out and passionate speech, Lim ended with: "The Member for Hougang will be voting against the amendment, as I cannot vote."

And therein lies the crux of the matter, really. Why should the government, and indeed Singaporeans, take NCMPs seriously when they are unable to affect changes to the law, do not represent anyone and do not even have access to constituents like MPs do?

If speaking up is all that is desired, as the PAP seems to think, then we should in fact do away with the NMP and NCMP schemes because in the age of the Internet and the miracle of its tools, the government "can just set up a huge mailbox for people to send their grouses" to, as the WP's Chen Show Mao said.

Every citizen will be an NCMP. "Isn't that even better? But can this encourage the ruling party to do better?" he asked.

So, while the PAP's argument that alternative voices will already be represented in Parliament and there is thus no need to vote in opposition members is seductive, the real question here is this: does it serve Singapore to have only neutered MPs to provide that voice?

If the PAP had its way, its MPs — even those less able than opposition ones — will get to be full MPs with full voting rights, while opposition MPs, even those who are more able than PAP ones, will remain neutered NCMPs.

In short, the PAP wants opposition MPs to play only a supporting role. Or to put it another way, opposition MPs should only have sharp tongues but no teeth.

Would it benefit Singaporeans more to have legitimate, elected, non-ruling party members — MPs who not only have the power to speak, but who are also able to express this in the most substantial manner possible by having a vote in the House?

Do we want powerless MPs in the highest law-making body in the land?

I think the answer is obvious.

Andrew is the co-founder and current editor-in-chief of socio-political website The Online Citizen. He writes frequently on issues which are close to his heart, particularly those affecting the less fortunate, and on politics.

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.