Non-constituency Member of Parliament - Criticisms

Criticisms

The NCMP scheme has been the subject of criticism, both within the PAP and among opposition MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). During parliamentary debates in April 2010 on increasing the number of NCMPs from six to nine, several MPs expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of legitimacy and anti-democratic nature of the NCMP concept. For instance, PAP MP Alvin Yeo expressed doubts as to whether the NCMP scheme had served to raise the level of debate in Parliament, while NMP Calvin Cheng said:

eople who are proposed to be NCMPs are politicians who stood for an election and lost. Sir, they lost. They lost. I do not know how much more emphatic I can be about this. These are politicians who have stood on certain political platforms, for certain political issues and the majority of the electorate have considered these issues, these politicians and have rejected them at the polls. To then allow them into Parliament flies in the face of the logic of a democratic election at best and, at worst, is a slap in the face to the people who have voted against them.

The opposition has, from the introduction of the NCMP scheme, decried it as a "sham" and a "toothless" office. Opposition member J.B. Jeyaratnam questioned whether it was a trick or a ploy by the ruling party to maintain its dominance in Parliament. It has been argued that the system has placed the opposition at a disadvantage at general elections for a number of reasons. For one, there are restrictions on NCMPs as to what they can or cannot vote on in Parliament. Thus, it has been suggested that the presence of NCMPs in Parliament "does not seem to extend beyond the decorative and the provision of debating foils for the younger PAP generation unexposed to the gladiatorial quality of parliamentary debate". Moreover, the effectiveness of the NCMP scheme is limited by the perception that the NCMP is obliged to be adversarial by virtue of being party to the opposition. This is so even if privately the Member can apprehend the benefits of a Government proposal. Finally, the NCMP scheme has been criticized as a ploy to discourage voters from voting in opposition MPs because of the guarantee of at least a number of NCMP seats. This inhibits the natural growth of an elected opposition voice in Parliament as the electorate's motivation to vote in an opposition Member into Parliament is conceivably diluted by the assurance that a default mechanism exists for the "best losers".

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang has cited an NCMP's lack of "muscle and real grassroot grounding" as a reason for his refusal to take up an NCMP seat. NCMPs do not represent any constituency and are thus denied of opportunities to expand their influence.

During the 2010 debates, Sylvia Lim, then the sole NCMP in Parliament, commented that having NCMPs "make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system". She identified an NCMP's lack of any official capacity to represent the people or write letters on their behalf as a drawback of the scheme. Moreover, an NCMP has no physical base to organize activities or dialogues with the people. In her view, it would be better for politics in Singapore if the NCMP scheme was regarded merely as a "stop-gap measure" to deal with the lack of alternative voices in Parliament as a result of the ruling party's alleged abuse of the GRC system and gerrymandering.