Andrew Loh

What we have now is a PAP-infested Select Committee which has picked, to be NMPs, a YPAP member, a NTUC member and 5 people who idolise MM Lee! Good grief!

“Enacted in 1990, the NMP scheme provides for persons …. to contribute to the political process through the presentation of wide-ranging, independent and non-partisan views in Parliament.” (Emphasis mine)

The above statement is taken from the press release by the clerk of Parliament, dated 8 June 2009.

The news that one of the newly-appointed Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP) was a Young PAP member has thrown up several issues of concern. Mr Calvin Cheng, 34, an entrepreneur in the fashion/modeling industry, had joined the People’s Action Party’s youth wing (YPAP) in 2006.

According to the press release by the clerk of Parliament, on 6 April, the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) invited the general public and functional groups to submit names of persons for its consideration for appointment as NMPs. The closing date for the submission of names was 11 May 2009.

When nomination for the new slate of NMPs closed on 11 May 2009, Mr Cheng was among the 46 names submitted – and he was still a YPAP member.

The Committee shortlisted nine names from the list, which was then submitted to the president on July 7 for approval. The president promptly gave his approval on the same day. Mr Cheng has now revealed that he tendered his resignation from the YPAP the next day, 8 July, Wednesday.  That is, after his nomination had been approved by the president.

Mr Cheng’s resignation indicates that he was aware that NMPs are expected to be “non-partisan’, otherwise there would be no need for him to resign from the YPAP. In his letter to the Today newspaper on 13 July, Mr Cheng explained why he could only resign on 8 July. “Due to the fact that offices were already closed, and also a technical issue about the exact status of my membership,” he said, “I was only able to email my resignation the very next morning on Wednesday.” (Today)

I think Mr Cheng has missed the point. Application for NMPs was opened on 6 April. The Select Committee’s final list was decided on 7 July. That is a period of three months in between. Mr Cheng, during these three months or so, could have and should have settled the “technical issue” about the exact status of his YPAP membership. As he himself put it, the “technical issue” was whether he was “a member of the General Branch or of the Teck Ghee Branch.” Surely, this is not a question which should or would take months to clarify? As for the offices being closed, well, Mr Cheng had had three months or so to resign his YPAP membership. Why wait till such a late hour to do so?

Did not his YPAP membership raise a red flag for the Select Committee, which incidentally, except for Mr Low Thia Khiang, is made up of PAP MPs? Apparently, the committee did not even ask him about it. One wonders if a Workers Party member, say, would be given approval if he applied to be a NMP.

Also, did the president, who promptly approved Mr Cheng’s nomination, raise the question of Mr Cheng being a YPAP member?

There are now questions being asked about Mr Cheng’s “non-partisanship” as an NMP – and he is not the only new NMP being asked these questions.

Mr Terry Lee is the new “Labour NMP”. His nomination was supported by the NTUC, and no NTUC-backed candidate has failed to be appointed so far. He has held many appointments (see here) and is currently a member of the Central Committee of the NTUC.

The first question one would ask about Mr Lee’s appointment is whether we need another representative from the NTUC to be an NMP, given that many current MPs and ministers already are from the NTUC. These include Minister Lim Swee Say, Minister of State Heng Chee How, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang  and  Mrs Josephine Teo – all except for Mr Yeo belong to the NTUC Central Executive Committee. Are these ministers and MPs so incapable of providing alternative views that we need another NTUC member to do so? And how different would his views be from those of his NTUC boss, Mr Lim Swee Say or how “non-partisan” his views would be from the government’s, given that the NTUC has always boasted of its “symbiotic” relationship with the government?

In an earlier article, I highlighted how five of the 9 new NMPs listed Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as their “favourite politician”. Basically, they idolize MM Lee. (Incidentally, the only PAP member among the new batch, Mr Calvin Cheng, is one of the exceptions in this case. His political idol is US president Barack Obama. ) [Editor’s correction: It is Nelson Mandela, not Obama.]

Now, if you were looking for people who would provide “independent, non-partisan” views in Parliament, would you select – not one or two or three but five – NMPs who hero-worship the person who’s regarded as the most influential and powerful man in the cabinet?

And what about the Select Committee itself? Out of the eight members on the committee, seven are PAP MPs. It is a clearly biased committee. Yet, it is tasked to select NMPs who are to be “non-partisan”? Is this even possible? Would a PAP-controlled committee select say, a Singapore Democratic Party member to be NMP? (Of course, he would have to resign his SDP membership but even if he does, would the committee be really impartial?)

So, what we have now is a PAP-infested Select Committee which has picked, to be NMPs, a YPAP member, a NTUC member and 5 people who idolize MM Lee! That sure gives the term “non-partisan” a whole new meaning.

Seriously, is this what you’d want for a scheme which is meant to provide “independent, non-partisan” views?

For the NMP scheme to have any credibility at all, we should start with looking at the composition of the Select Committee and make it one which itself is non-partisan, or multi-partisan. (One opposition MP on the panel hardly makes it so.) We also need to be clear about political party members applying to be NMPs. What is the select committee’s stand? What is the president’s reasons for accepting and approving the names submitted?

There needs to be absolute transparency and accountability in the reasons why certain people are approved while others are not. To this day, Singaporeans have no idea what the deliberations of the Select Committee were. In its report, the Committee did not elaborate on the reasons why the nine were chosen. Or why the applications of two former NMPs, Mr Siew Kum Hong and Mr Gautam Banerjee, were not approved.

The committe, however, did reveal that all MPs in parliament were consulted for their views on the NMP candidates. This is hardly any comfort, given that 82 out of the 84 elected MPs belong to the PAP.

At the moment, the NMP scheme looks far removed from its aims of providing “independent, non-partisan” views in parliament. How can it, when the ruling PAP has a say in and is present in all aspects of the selection process?

Perhaps it should aim for transparency first, especially when the Prime Minister has decided that the NMP scheme will be a permanent feature in the political landscape.

—-

The special Select Committe comprised of the following members:

Mr Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) (East Coast) (Chairman)

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Aljunied) – Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)

Mr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines) – Minister for National Development and Leader of the House

Mr Masagos Zulkifli BMM (Tampines) – Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education  and Ministry of Home Affairs

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol)

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Tanjong Pagar) – Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh)

—–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

AWARE称防犯罪海报为罪行“标价”欠妥 警:旨在强化震慑信息

相信有坐地铁的读者,不难注意到近期多了些防范罪案的新海报吧?一些反性骚扰海报,显示犯罪者在未经同意下抚摸女性,写着“2年监禁:不值得”。 冀重新审视对性暴力的界定 不过,妇女行动及研究协会(AWARE)对上述海报颇有微言。该协会在上周四发文,反驳将罪行“标价”的意义,认为海报没有考虑到受害人承受的痛苦,并将性暴力并非以标价来判定,视为不妥当。 “为什么我们必须在性暴力上“标价”,并判断它的价值?是否判刑一年,就显得比较“值得“?还是六个月?这对造成伤害的人又值多少?我们迫切需要改变对性暴力的讨论与界定。” 对此,警方也作出回应,该海报是连同全国罪案防范理事会,以及新加坡理工学院制作的,其罪行如盗窃或不诚实盗用也被列入其中。 警方续指海报所针对的对象是潜在犯罪者,如无法自我约束的犯罪者,透过视觉化的效果,强调犯罪行为的处置,试图发出强而有力的震慑信息给他们,并指AWARE不了解海报设计的意义,而且还表明AWARE的建议无法对这类犯罪者产生任何阻赫作用。 此外,警方也了解受害者在经历伤害后的痛苦,因此才会想要透过视觉化的效果,强化犯罪者的意识,阻止性暴力行为。 警方称遗憾AWARE未曾与他们有任何的接触,了解警方的观点,就公开批判。 全国罪案防范理事会则认为,在海报上列出干案者面对的刑罚,更能突出防范罪案的信息。在防范罪案方面,理事会寻求的是实际和有效的方案。  

Activist Roy Ngerng urges Singaporeans to be inspired by the fight for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong

The Hong Kong protests have had a ripple effect across the globe,…

SIA receives new Airbus A350-900ULR to service the world’s longest commercial flight

Singapore Airlines  (SIA) has received a delivery of the world’s first Airbus…

自选举后首次回应族群言论事件 辣玉莎感谢亲友、群众的支持

工人党盛港集选区议员辣玉莎因两年前的网络言论,在本届大选竞选期间被举报。警方调查后在今日(17日)表示,予辣玉莎严厉警告。 辣玉莎早前此事协助警方调查,包括在7月27日当天也受警方传召,录供长达三小时。自选举后她首次回应上述事件,感谢期间给予她支持的亲友们。 她也重申本身无意造成分裂,而她从青少时期即积极参与组织、为少数群体发声,包括那些因亲属被囚禁而支离破碎的家庭、残障人士或性侵害的女性受害者等。 但她坦言,她的言论可能造成特定群体伤害,并为此道歉,也表示会从中学习,希望能为国家带来正面的改变。 辣玉莎分享在当上国会议员后,与团队积极与盛港居民联系,协助有需要的居民,与居民的对话也让她谦恭地了解,每个人对于建立平等、富同理心的新加坡发挥的角色。 “从互动中我也了解到,领导者有能力发起艰难议题的对话,以周到和问责的态度来组织这些讨论,至关重要。” 一些支持者也在辣玉莎的脸书留言予以支持,认可她对于少数群体服务的热诚,也提醒辣玉莎身为议员的责任艰巨,应从错误中学习、前进。