Commentary: Do we need Nominated Members of Parliament when there are more opposition MPs than ever?

In much the same way that we have three branches of government under the Constitution, could Parliament also become an equally weighted three-branch structure, with NMPs providing a fully realised “third voice”? This was the original aim of the scheme after all: To provide space for representatives who did not have to play to the gallery and were free to be constructive while dissenting.

And more than a few have. Take the spirited debate over the Protection Against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) in 2018, in which Irene Quay, Walter Theseira and I proposed several amendments. Or the equally heated exchange on the Population White Paper in 2013, which three NMPs voted against and one abstained.

Data my team compiled found that NMPs participate at a comparable rate to elected MPs, sometimes even asking more parliamentary questions or speaking up on more Bills. But they still do not receive any secretarial or research support despite their potential in reaching Singapore’s many communities, especially underrepresented ones.

REPRESENTING MINORITY GROUPS

This leads to my next point: NMPs can combat social stratification by representing minority groups left out by the workings of majoritarian democracy.

Our first-past-the-post electoral system means that our Parliament is based on majoritarian representation, not proportional. Because of this, dominant interests and narratives are understandably foremost in the minds of elected politicians on both sides of the House.

But this also means that “unvotables”, like our migrant workers who cannot participate in elections – or “unsayables”, groups or issues which might not endear MPs to voters like LGBTQ – may not be adequately represented in Parliament, even as they live in our midst and form a significant part of our society.