Amendments to the composition of parliament: entrenching
the unelected elementIn 2010 , the government removed the sunset clause associated with the Nominated
Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme, which allowed each parliament to decide
whether that session should have NMPs,^46 pronouncing the success of an
institution which was controversial at inception.
The government, in making the scheme permanent, affirmed the value of having
unelected or nominated legislators, an erstwhile feature of the colonial legislative
assembly, where nominations were based on race or special trading interests.
Introduced in 1990 , a Parliamentary Special Committee would select talented
and distinguished individuals whom the president would appoint, following
Fourth Schedule provisions.
47
From an original six, the number was raised to nine
NMP positions in 1997. The public is invited after a general election to submit the
names of potential candidates whom the committee interviews in camera. In 1997 ,
the practice was altered insofar as functional constituency groups (labour, business,
industry, etc.) were invited to put forward candidates. In 2001 , the number of
functional groups consulted was doubled to include social and community service
organisations, tertiary institutions and media, and arts and sports organisations,
48
to ensure ‘a wider cross-section of NMPs into Parliament’.
49
The scheme’s original
rationale to provide alternative non-partisan views was departed from by opening
the door to potential interest-group politics. The scheme has been identified as a
way to improve female political participation, involving less onerous responsibil-
ities, as most women were thought not to want to juggle career, family and
constituency.^50
NMPs cannot hold membership in political parties and are supposed to present
views drawing from their expertise to enhance viewpoint diversity in parliament.
They serve a two-and-a-half-year term and play a ‘senatorial’ function insofar as they
raise national rather than parochial issues. While generally acknowledged to have
raised the quality of debates, the NMP scheme has been criticised for diluting
democratic legitimacy.^51 NMPs have not only questioned government policies
reactively, they have been able to proactively put things on the agenda, through
(^46) Prior to Act 9 of 2010 , the Fourth Schedule provided that within six months after
parliament first meets after a general election, it shall resolve whether to have NMPs
during that term of parliament.
(^47) Section 3 ( 2 ) provides that potential candidates must ‘have rendered distinguished public
service’, ‘brought honour to the Republic’ or ‘distinguished themselves’ in their respective
fields.
(^48) Wong Kan Seng, 74 SPR, 5 April 2002 , col. 572. (^49) Ibid., col. 571.
(^50) C.T. Goh, 54 SPR Nov. 1989 , col. 700 ; Irene Ng, 74 SPR 5 April 2002 , col. 602 – 3.
(^51) ‘Quality Debate v Democratic Ideals’,Straits Times, 5 September 2008 ,A 32.