|
I
refer to the article written by your correspondent
Chua Tian Seng arguing against my suggestion of
replacing the Nominated MP scheme with an Elected
National MP scheme instead. This idea was mooted
by me in a recent Think Centre Public Forum on
Non Partisanship Politics in Singapore. It should
be seen in that light. Please allow me to make
some clarifications.
Most
countries, even those with a strong two party
system like the UK and US have two chamber --
the Upper (Senate) and Lower House (Congress)
with the Upper House tasked with specific checking
powers. Thus having the two types of representatives
and having them voted in differently are not new.
They play different roles and should not be directly
compared. We must look at the issue in our very
own unique context. The government has put forward
its view that Singapore is too small to justify
two chambers. I can accept joining the two into
one Hose but the two types of representatives
must have equal voting powers. We can say that
our NMPs are like the Upper House members tasked
to play the non partisan independent check and
balance role. I can cite the time when I moved
a motion to debate whether the Dr. Chee Soon Juan
dismissal from the University was politically
motivated as an example of a non partisan independent
act. The motion was both welcomed by the ruling
PAP and opposition SDP.
The
NMP scheme is ten years old now. Perhaps it is
time to review the success and shorting comings
of the scheme. Most of the participants at the
Think Centre Forum agreed that the NMPs have collectively
contributed to the well being of Singapore. The
glaring shortcoming is that as the NMPs are appointed
and not elected (no mandate) they are not given
the powers to vote on Constitutional amendments
and Financial bills. Therefore they are not equal
partners in the House and cannot truly play the
check and balance role. Also there is a so-called
sunset clause to its existence. Every new Parliament
will decided if it wants to have NMPs appointed.
A NMP is appointed for a two year term (reapplication
allowed) as against a 5 year term for elected
MPs. I am arguing that the NMPs be made full-fledged
Upper House members and the best way out is for
them to be elected for a full five-year term.
We can set criteria similar to what we now expect
of our NMPs to pre qualify candidates standing
for elections as National NMPs. This will take
away the fear that political aspirants would rather
take this path.
This
idea is beneficial and will safeguard our well
being. No one can be sure what the future political
scene will be. Therefore putting in this extra
check and balance is essential. Former President
Ong Teng Cheong said it is more important to have
a good an honest government that to have a good
and honest President. Wise words. I would venture
to go a step further to say that it is more important
to have the check and balance in Parliament and
the not the Istana.
This
scheme will also serve to satisfy the growing
concerns of the educated minority (cosmopolitans
as defined by PM Goh Chok Tong) as many of them
with their sectoral minority interests would not
find themselves heard under the present electoral
system, boundaries and every changing rules. Most
of the are non partisan in the sense that they
are interested in forming the government but simply
want some of their kinds to voice their values
views and ideas in the National interest. Without
this avenue and as they their interest compromised,
they can vote with their feet out of Singapore.
For
all the above state reasons which will become
more obvious as we become more entrenched in a
knowledge based economy, I strongly suggest we
allow a bigger leeway to Non Partisan politics
in Singapore. Picking former NMPs to become PAP
candidates will be counter productive and regressive
Back
to top |
