Time to Tweak NMP Nomination Process

Today ran this article on 14 May 2009:

Time to tweak NMP nomination process
By Loh Chee Kong

SINGAPORE: When it was first mooted, the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme was the subject of intense debate.

But 19 years on, it is still going strong. And as Parliament prepares to accept a new slate of NMPs, it may be a good time to take another look – not at the scheme itself – but the way in which up to nine NMPs are chosen every three years.

The question is this: Is the process by which the candidates are selected – namely the calling of nominations from six "functional groups" – outdated?

It was back in 1997 when then-Leader of the House Wong Kan Seng – citing the lukewarm response to the NMP scheme – proposed to Parliament that apart from waiting for Singaporeans to step forward, it would appoint nomination panels from the business and industry; professions; and labour movement groups.

Five years later, media, arts and sports organisations; tertiary education institutions; and social and community service organisations, were added to the list. These groups can nominate up to two persons each.

Jurong GRC MP Halimah Yacob, who had been on the committee vetting the candidates, said it was preferable to have at least one NMP from each functional group.

Said Mdm Halimah: "I wouldn't say ... they carry greater weight, but obviously, it shows that the groups support them."

But some feel that the practice has outlived its usefulness. Do you agree ?

For one, the NMPs cannot claim to be representative of the functional groups, since they are not elected.

Retired MP Tan Cheng Bock, a long-time critic of the scheme, believes that the selection process is skewed towards the "well-heeled" and influential.

"The real people you need to hear from (in Parliament) are the taxi drivers and the hawkers," he said.

The latest nomination exercise closed on Monday, with the final tally still unknown. But if the upward trend in recent years is anything to go by, few would be surprised if the number exceeds the record of 48 set in the previous round of nominations in 2006.

"If (the practice) was seen as a way of surfacing candidates back then, then you kind of need to question whether that objective is still relevant today," said Mr Siew Kum Hong, a former NMP who was nominated by friends.

It is often unclear which of the NMPs were nominated by which functional groups – even after they had been appointed. The groups themselves have traditionally been tight-lipped about who they nominate.

Urging greater transparency and accountability, Mr Siew added those appointed with the backing of a particular functional group might feel obliged to speak only on "functional issues".

Law academic Thio Li-ann, who was nominated by the tertiary institutions, said there were "no expectations at all" on her to focus on educational issues.

While the underlying assumption of the NMP scheme is that NMPs would "speak with a different voice from an elected MP", the former NMP's own experience tells her that "a lot of it depends on the person".

For example, NMPs whose terms ended recently, such as Ms Jessie Phua, Ms Cham Hui Fong and Mr Edwin Khew – who were presumably nominated by their respective functional groups of sports, labour movement and professions – rarely strayed from their fields.

And Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh preferred it that way.

"There are enough of us within the opposition and the PAP MPs providing debate on the normal issues," said Mr Singh.

Then, there is also the question whether the House really needs a labour NMP, when there are already five MPs – including a minister – who are closely identified with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

Mdm Halimah pointed out that the labour MPs have to fulfil other commitments, such as taking care of their constituents.

She said: "Obviously, our focus is a lot broader ... so I think having a labour NMP is helpful."