Politics: We want the (un)elected

The People’s Action Party (PAP) launched the nominated member of parliament (NMP) scheme in 1989 as a way, ostensibly, to infuse diverse voices into a Parliament it dominated. Non-partisan sectoral leaders could, in theory, speak about controversial issues without worrying about constituents and re-election. While NMPs have used the platform to mainstream a range of ideas, critics have long complained about everything from the opaque selection process to the undermining of democratic norms. In a book of reflections published three years ago, former NMPs were generally supportive of the scheme, though also circumspect about challenges, including the self-censorship of those seeking renomination by a PAP-led selection committee. Ahead of GE2025, its reputation was tarnished when two NMPs dropped out to join the PAP, to widespread condemnation. (One stood for election and won.)

Notwithstanding these issues, a survey of 500 Singaporeans launched this week showed continued support for it, with over 70 percent saying that the scheme allows for the inclusion of “more alternative voices” in Parliament. The public consultation, like the book before, was initiated by Anthea Ong, a former NMP known for her focus on mental health issues. A clear majority is also fine with an NMP moving on to electoral politics, though with a preference that they become independents rather than join a party, and for a cooling-off period in between stints. However, there is scope for reform and renewal. Only about a third believe the scheme is relevant or highly relevant, while another 52.4 percent say it’s “somewhat relevant”. Meanwhile, in assessing possible changes to the NMP selection process, the most popular by far (53 percent) is for the public to vote for their NMPs. But that effectively means that we want two elections for two categories of MP. The evolution of Singapore’s curious democracy continues.