Andrew Loh / Khairulanwar Zaini
A week after changes to the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme were announced by the Prime Minister, the opposition parties seem unsure of how to react.
Most of the parties, in their public statements, have not categorically stated a clear stand on the issue, preferring to either avoid it altogether or offering contradictory views.
The changes to the scheme will see an increase of a minimum of nine NCMPs in Parliament, up from the current provision for a minimum of three. The Prime Minister explained that these changes, among others, was to “provide adequate voice for diverse views in Parliament, including non-partisan views and views of those who have voted for the opposition.” (AsiaOne)
However, to the Workers’ Party secretary-general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, “the role of the opposition party is not merely to reflect the feelings of the people.”
“In order for the opposition party to play the role [to ensure that the political system can function soundly], opposition party must be elected into Parliament so that it has the mandate from the people and can have sufficient resources to build the capability of the party to enable it to play the role,” Mr Low said in Parliament. “Non-Constituency Member is a representative of no constituency!”
This echoes his views reported in the Straits Times in May 2006. Mr Low was said to be “personally against the NCMP concept because he believes the person holding this post does not represent any constituency.”
The party’s treasurer, Mr Eric Tan, seems to agree with Mr Low. “Voters may just think, why vote for them since we are sure to get at least nine in?” the Straits Times reported him as saying on 28 May. “This is wrong as NCMPs do not have full powers and cannot be said to truly represent the people without constituencies,” he said.
His party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim, however, feels that although the NCMP scheme “can never replace having elected opposition MPs, it is overall supportable.” The expanded scheme, she said, “will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for opposition candidates in significant numbers, which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system.” (The Online Citizen’s questions to Ms Lim has thus far drawn no responses.)
Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the WP’s Organising Secretary, would disagree with his chairman, it seems. “Opposition parties and their leaders must beware of such ‘Greeks bearing gifts’ situations,” he said in his personal blog. To him, “the changes made to the NCMP scheme is about ‘modifying the form but retaining the essence.” Would he accept an NCMP seat if it was offered to him? His answer: “Shin Leong will take orders from WP’s Central Executive Council.” But if given a choice, he will “reject such a ‘backdoor’ entry into Parliament,” he added.
With such differing views among WP Central Executive Council (CEC) Members, it would be interesting to see what transpires at its next monthly CEC meeting. At the moment, there does not seem to be any clear stance from the Workers’ Party.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) too, in a hardhitting article on its website failed to categorically state its position on the NCMP scheme. It did however dismiss the changes altogether. “All these changes are purely cosmetic aimed at trying to prettify the ugly face of an election system that is neither free nor fair,” the article says. “The problem with such schemes is that parliamentary seats given by the Government also means that they can be taken away at a whim. Unfortunately this epitomises all that plagues Singapore’s politics. The PAP runs the country like a fiefdom and appoints law-makers rather than have them elected.”
On the NCMP scheme itself, all the party would say was, “”There is no need to conduct this wayang exercise with the NCMP and NMP systems. Do the right thing by ensuring that the electoral process is transparent, free and fair.”
The party says that if the “PAP is truly desirous of a wider range of views in Parliament, it should implement five simple measures.” These included the abolishment of the GRC system and freeing up the media. There is no mention of the NCMP scheme among the five measures it recommended.
Mr Chiam See Tong, Secretary General of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP), did not address changes to the scheme in his Parliamentary speech. Instead, he called for a fairer playing field for the opposition and suggested a two-men GRC system. (SPP website)
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) issued a press release on 29 May in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. While describing the changes to the electoral system as “half-hearted”, the party avoided mentioning the NCMP scheme entirely. Instead, it regurgitated a list of changes it would like to see – from reducing GRC size to three-members, to a suggestion that Single-seat Constituencies should form at least one-third of the Parliamentary seats available.
The Online Citizen’s queries to the Reform Party have not received any response. Neither has the party made any public statements about the changes to the political system.
Among netizens, views too seem to be mixed. On one side are those who feel that the changes should be rejected, while on the other, some have defended the opposition parties’ acceptance of the scheme.
Mr Alex Au, who blogs at Yawning Bread, feels that “the legitimacy of ‘winning’ the seat is only as good as the legitimacy of the electoral arrangement, which frankly, is suspect.” Comparing “walkover” MPs, who do not receive “a single vote cast in his favour”, with NCMPs like Ms Lim who “received 58,593 votes from the residents of Aljunied”, Mr Au asks, “Who has more proven support?”
Lucky Tan of Singapore Mind, one of the most popular socio-political blogs, on the other hand, is upset with Ms Lim’s position. “There is no level playing field and there is nothing in the recent tweaks that levels the playing field,” he writes in his blog. “I think while Sylvia clearly expressed some of the differences she had with the ruling party on those system tweaks, she played it too soft….and I think she missed the big elephant in the scheme of things,” he said. “We want to vote you in to change the system, not to support it and perpetuate it.”
The lack of a clear and outright policy among the parties can be read as a deliberately-nuanced position that allows them sufficient wiggle room. By stating in the TV interview that the WP are “not contesting to win NCMP seats”, Ms Lim tacitly acknowledged the possibility of a vote deterrent effect the scheme can have on the opposition.
However, it would seem that their bets are still pragmatically hedged on this scheme as a fallback in the event that their candidates fall short.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Lucky Tan said “and I think she missed the big elephant in the scheme of things”.
I think the opposite is true. The oppositions know the big elephant in the scheme of things well. They also know that people are not going to come out to help them to tackle the big elephant. So, it is giving the big elephant a miss because it is not yet the time to deal with the big elephant.
No matter how many time opposition parties have said the election system is unfair, they continued to participate the GE. So you can be sure they will take up the NCMP seat if one is offered.
Those who agree (with no choice) on ncmp, e.g. WP LTK and Sylvia is due to they “assume” the majority of the voters are mature, and vice versa for those who disagree. I feel that both parties are not right nor wrong, based on their explanations. Personally, my stand is shouldn’t. I feel that the voters should be responsible on how they cast their voters at the ballot box and they shouldn’t have they right to expect non-elected parliament members speak out for them. Since they decided to vote for PAP, they should accept and responsible whatever policies implemented by the PAP or wait for another 5 years.
The lack of a clear and outright policy among the parties can be read as a deliberately-nuanced position that allows them sufficient wiggle room.
I think this statement summaries the parties’ positions well (with the exception of SDP, of course). If they condemn the scheme severely, it will be hypocritical if their candidates become NCMPs, which I think most parties will be willing to accept for a variety of reasons including experience, exposure and publicity. It is characteristic of a pragmatic political party to position itself to be slightly against the NCMP scheme, but not so much as to make it awkward if they have candidates who qualify for NCMPs.
After all, I did find WP’s choice of Sylvia Lim as the NCMP quite hypocritical when they were quite against this scheme previously.
Now, I wonder if the SDP will reject the NCMP positions if their candidates qualify for them.
2) ZL on June 6th, 2009 6.43 pm
Those who agree (with no choice) on ncmp, e.g. WP LTK and Sylvia is due to they “assume” the majority of the voters are mature, and vice versa for those who disagree.
If they assume majority of voters are not mature, what is the implication of letting immature voters decide the future of the country?
Mature or immature, voters still have to vote to allow the politicians to decide the way the country to be shaped and going forward, regardless of any implication, unless Sg has turned into communist country like N Korea,
“4) Now, I wonder if the SDP will reject the NCMP positions if their candidates qualify for them.”
Yup I wonder too. But then again would they even be offered?
In 2007, Mr Lee Kuan Yew repeated his motivation of introducing the GRC system: To keep opposition politicians like Dr Chee out of Parliament: http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,7889,
Mr Goh Chok Tong echoed this sentiment saying that the Government would not give the Singapore Democrats a chance to survive: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011122a1.htm
3) Jackson Tan – I believe WP’s position on the NCMP scheme was settled as early as 1997 when JBJ took up the offer. In 2006, Low Thia Khiang was reported to have abstained from the WP CEC’s vote on the NCMP decision. He was (and is) personally opposed to the scheme.
It should be noted that he is also opposed to the NMP scheme, but he still sits on the parliamentary committee that chooses NMPs. I don’t think it signals that he has changed his mind. But if he doesn’t sit on the committee, then the opposition will have no say in choosing NMPs. These are the sort of non-moral compromises that I expect politicians to make for the greater good.
Gerald Giam,
“I believe WP’s position on the NCMP scheme was settled as early as 1997 when JBJ took up the offer.”
I don’t think it is. If it was, WP wouldn’t be so shy in stating it outright. The fact that they are disagreeing publicly with one another tells you that it is not settled.
“But if he doesn’t sit on the committee, then the opposition will have no say in choosing NMPs.”
The opposition doesn’t sit on many committees. What makes the NMP scheme so special that the opposition finds it necessary to sit on it, especially when the WP itself has stated it disagrees with such a scheme? This makes no sense.
“These are the sort of non-moral compromises that I expect politicians to make for the greater good.”
On the contrary, I would say that it is totally a moral issue, one of moral principle.
The WP disagrees with the NMP scheme but sits on the committee which selects NMPs!
The WP disagrees with the NCMP scheme but accepts the seat!
It is fast becoming a mirror of the PAP, putting its own selfish political needs above higher principles, and justifying it! This is indeed very sad. It shows that even the opposition would discard its principles if something fulfills its political needs.
To me, ncmp seat is the way to go, to actually win a seat as mp if you really have the keenest interest to invest politically by engaging Great people of Singapore at their door steps.
No short cut then this one, honestly speaking.
I personally support NMP scheme, although we should not forget the fact that it is very much a sweetener deal. Singapore government just love to give sweet deals so that most of the short-memory singaporeans will take up their offer and forget all the issues brought up.
I think only mr siew has been the one questioning some of the policies and been active in grassroots issues compared to other NMP. NMP can be a good alternative to those people who has a keen interest in politics and serving the community and yet do not want to devote their life into it. One may apply for NMP for a prelude of what awaits them in the parliament.
Let’s not forget that the electoral system serves us.
I believe the opposition parties need also to have a clearer target to aim at and that target has to come from us, the people. What do WE really want? If the ground sentiment is shifting or discordant, opposition parties can have no clear goal at which to work towards.
The opposition cannot be confident that they would win seats, that is why some are being coy about rejecting the alternative that is being dangled. For the PAP to lose a couple of seats is symbolically a disaster, but not a practical problem. For the opposition to lose just one seat in representation, even if it were a non-constituent one, would be a big big setback in having a platform at all.
I do not support the NMP/NCMP scheme.
Politicians must be opportunistic, manipulative, and able to strategise and manoeuvre. #1 sarek_home is correct. WE who are against the status quo, are too weak to take on the elephant now. So we have to seize every toehold we can find to mount the elephant and bring it to its knees. We should continue to drum in our message to the voters at large that this is not the end, but the means. Just as the PAP made use of the Communist tiger without being eaten up, Opposition parties have to ride the elephant this time and come out victorious. No weapon is too small or disingenuous to exploit; no opportunity is too little to grab.
Gerald and ST Observers:
From what Gerald said, I guess there’s a difference between a political stand and a national duty. If disagreeing with something means not participating like ST Observer, then only the Barisan Socialis has acheived this and look where it ended up. WP is not the only one. NSP, SDP are all against GRCs, NCMP and even the honesty of the elections. In that case I’ll spoil my vote every election.
[i]they continued to participate the GE. So you can be sure they will take up the NCMP seat if one is offered[/i]
that is why the oppositions take up the offer
as though they want to get into parliament just to earn $14,500 monthly perhaps
people enter into oppositions is for the passion of serving the people the community with a ^bleak^ futures as long as leekuanyew is alive
actually the opposition is not going to bring about any political tsunami in the next two elections.
singaporeans arent going to vote for anyone or any GRC team unless they have seen or heard something of the person sometime before.
given these two realities, its only in interests in opposition parties to use those extra powerless seats to introduce new candidates.
PAP fail to realize this is a gain only in short term to them but going to be a big loss in long term.
Guess who would be having the last laugh….
Opposition parties, should just go against and make a stand….
then convince people….to vote them in …and not be in the middle….because that drives people to be in the middle as well
That’s how the game must be played….no if’s no but’s…..yes or no….
Expenses—exposure…that’s no big deal….
Imagine..with the NCMP scheme in place and nobody wanting it till now….perhaps more opposition would be in….people would know and would have made up their mind.
Sometimes such tough decisions must be taken…
A gamble…which must be taken with regards to how people would react.
I think people would be alot more serious in voting the opposition in, then playing middle ground. All happily settling in for middle ground.
What use is that.
I think all opposition parties should boycott the NCMP scheme.Put up a good fight and be proud if you are elected by your constituents with a majority vote.The scheme makes a mockery of the electoral system!
I guess it’s perhaps Sylvia is being too successful being an icon as an ncmp which is why WP wants to create more icons to promote WP. But what’s the point if opps can create more icons for publicity, in the case of Sylvia and Steve Chia but denied to right to support the oppose the bills to be passed in the parliament that affect us.
One reason i oppose ncmp scheme is i’ve come across one opposition member made comment after the last GE – “I don’t know what to do if i’m elected.” Obviously, some opp members aren’t prepared to sit in the parliament. Thus by creating more ncmps, it doesn’t help the opps to grow, but instead create icons for the parties they belong, only. That’s no healthy in the long run. Another reason is some opps members (i say some) might abuse the ncmp scheme to promote their companies they owned.
This expanded NCMP scheme can be considered a starter prizes for both the oppositon parties and voters who vote for opposition parties. Back on their minds are that if they don’t get the top prize, they get the starter prize. They may feel that participating in elections are not wasted efforts. This may increase the interest of Singaporeans to participate in oppositon politics. Sense of competitions among oppositon parties may drown the competition between PAP and oppositon parties. This may create a ‘vote for credible oppositon candidates’ euphoria among voters. Opposition parties should capitalise on this created advantage to woo voters to vote in their credible candidates to get into parliament as full MPs or NCMP
19) ZL on June 7th, 2009 1.49 pm
//I guess it’s perhaps Sylvia is being too successful being an icon as an ncmp which is why WP wants to create more icons to promote WP.//
There is no guarantee that she will remain the winner among the losers.
The rules have changed.
They should have just sang on from one hymn sheet that says: “Until we further look into this over a “certain time period”(insert your guess about how long), we would feel it is inappropriate to give comments at this moment. Rest assured though, we will release a press statement in regards to this once we have a meeting about it.”
That would have given them some breathing space.
It is PAP that introduce the NMP systems…, hence, I think anyone who’s against the new system is targetting at the wrong people; because the current regime don’t cares the opposition’s point of views. Any disarray created among the opposition plays right into their hands.
In my opinion, if you don’t have any power to change anything, why bother to spend time and efforts debating such a scheme should exists; most importantly, targetting at those that has not authority to change anything? In the corporate world, these types of questions should be taken up at the level of management that has the authority to make things happen.
In my opinion, any opposition; whether for or against the new NMP system; has its’ own merit in their argument. One on hand, it’s on the practical side getting as much out from a situation that you cannot control. On the other hand, it’s about one’s integrity and principle.
My point is, how many Singaporean has swallowed their pride and integrity in their workplace just to continue to put food on the table for their families. Can anyone says that swallowing pride and integrity to put food on the table is wrong? Or to uphold one’s principle and integrity is wrong?
I tends to accept that such a decision differs one man to another. However, the fundamental is why are we landed in such a situation? Are we not good enough? Or not working hard/diligently enough? Or is this the natural order of things? Or someone made a bad decision but you end up taking the rap?
I still think that anyone against the NMP system take it up with the one that implement it. Plain and simple. Why target at the end-user?
Lastly, in singapore, if you want to be an opposition leader, you have to be prepared for the worst. I tend not to believe that anyone wants to have fame and rich would want to join an opposition parties. At least, not now.
If one would to view this cynically, the government move to increase the number of NCMP seemed only further strengthen their legitimacy with the electorates. The narrative appears to be driven on fact that by providing for “opposition” voices, we are ensuring a diversity of voices but nonetheless the ruling party still holds the power to legislate and to carry out important policty changes.
This move only seeks to circumvent the problem of “diversity” and “opposition” within Parliament by providing for this “alternative voices” – which ironically has to be vetted by those in power- in order to speak against those people that “allowed”
them to speak in the first place.
Life’s Irony really.
21) There is no guarantee on June 7th, 2009 3.57 pm 19) ZL on June 7th, 2009 1.49 pm
//I guess it’s perhaps Sylvia is being too successful being an icon as an ncmp which is why WP wants to create more icons to promote WP.//
There is no guarantee that she will remain the winner among the losers.
The rules have changed.
I agree, with the ever changing rules from time to time, no one can ever know what the ruling party will come out with. And should things get worse and knowing that they will not be able to remain in power, be prepared to see more new absured rules to coming into effect, whether you people like it or not, they just go ahead to pass the bills within their own party members and make it official. Nothing new.
23) Dumb and dumber on June 8th, 2009 5.35 pm
Well said. That’s why I think TOC has lost its direction.
People who want to enter Parliament should join in the election and get themselves voted in. NMPs, who do they represented.? They did even dare to stand for election, but want to be in Parliament. Big mockery. Some NMP represents certain sectional interest and does not represent the people, but they are paid an allowance by the taxpayers. This is a waste of taxpayers money.
Sylvia has basically lost the plot. It seems that she is really the politically naive one and lack the basic understanding of the key of democracy.
Her party contradicts itself pretty badly. If the party CEC members object the NCMP, then why this very party has the most NCMPs in the past and present?
If the Chairman Sylvia Lim supports this expanded NCMP scheme, then why is she contesting election? Must well be a NMP instead!
For a relatively small party like WP not to have recounciled their difference of views in such an important political issue, how could we expect it to have more coherent policy views in future? Or take over as the government of Singapore?
The most interesting part is for Yaw Shin Leong to reiterate that NCMP as “backdoor” to parliament, is he implicitly saying that Sylvia Lim is a “backdoor MP” now? The most hilarious part is that he claims he will take order from WP CEC to become “backdoor MP” if necessary! How could a “promising” opposition politician talk so much rubbish?