Opinion

By Melvin Tan

Since the scheme for Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) was implemented in 1988, the PAP government has portrayed it as a "better alternative" to political opposition.

The PAP Ministers and MPs often try to downplay the role of opposition MPs, claiming that they are partisan and have not raised any new issues whereas the "better calibre" NMPs have been voicing non-partisan views and thus providing more subject matter for debate.

If we dissect the PAP's argument that NMPs can perform better than opposition MPs as they are non-partisan, it is obvious that this rationale is not valid. If opposition MPs are "partisan" and therefore not credible, then all the 82 elected PAP MPs are also "partisan" and not credible as well.

On several occasions, NMPs have brought up topics relating to the unlevel political playing field in Singapore. Are these not partisan comments that are not much different from what an opposition MP would say?
In reality, the PAP government supported the NMP scheme because having an opposition NMP does not cost them any seat in Parliament, and the number of NMP seats is determined by the PAP itself. On the other hand, every opposition MP voted into parliament means one less PAP MP.

There were times when NMPs were asked why they did not enter party politics. Expectedly, they replied that they were not interested. By the PAP's own admission, Singapore faces a situation where the "better people" do not enter Parliament via a "better route" through electoral politics and the "front door" - they would rather accept the "back door" via the NMP scheme. If Singapore's political climate had been more conducive for opposition, perhaps a few of the NMPs could have been sitting on the opposition benches.

The PAP maintains that Singapore lacks political talent and therefore the opposition cannot find good candidates. Yet we are able to produce 9 NMPs, which is equivalent to the size of 2 GRC teams. It therefore cannot be that Singapore lacks the political talent. Rather, it is how the "back door" has been given a fresh coat of paint whereas the "front door", a tad of taint.

Singaporeans should not buy the argument that the NMP scheme has its merits simply because the PAP says so. It is important that we institute good governance in Singapore and for this to happen we must have a system of checks and balances to safeguard the interests and the rights of all our people.

In today's ill-economic times, who is able to speak up and take social action for the rights of the workers and people? The NMPs? Certainly not. Neither can the two elected opposition MPs at this stage. But if we were to have 10 or 20 opposition MPs, it could be a different situation. We will not know unless we get them into Parliament. As the saying goes, "One will never get to ride a horse if one is not even given an opportunity to work in a stable."