I refer to Mr. Shriniwas Rai's letter "NMPs Show Way to Less Confrontational Parliament" February 8, 1996, ST.
Mr. Rai's suggestions subvert the very raison d'etre of Singapore's representative democracy which is citizens make intelligent choices to be their elected representative based on their party platform. The operative words are "choice", "elected" and "platform". The very notion of having more NMPs defeats this basic tenet of representative democracy and the PM was very correct to approach this issue with the great caution that he did. If we are to have more NMPs in Parliament, we will be on the slippery slope in reducing the actual representation, choice of platform of the common citizens' interest in parliament. Parliament needs to have the partisanship and the adversarial positions to issues that Mr. Rai eschews.
The NMP is chosen by a few and do not represent the needs of the many. By increasing the number of NMPs we are not solving the problem of ensuring the representative and constructive views of the common man in Parliament.
If Mr. Rai is interested in having "constructive, non-partisan, non-adversarial positions" discussed in Parliament, one should not increase the number of NMPs but rather elect the best candidate to be his Member of Parliament. The level of debate that emanates from Parliament is dependant on the person that is elected into it. The MP represents the constituents, the needs of the HDB homeowner, the person who eats a bowl of mee rebus at the hawker center.
As for partisanship, it is part and parcel of the hurly burly of parliamentary democracy. Parliament requires the airing of views, all views. The very basis of the MP's election into Parliament was on the candidate's political orientation which is defined by his party affiliation. To demand non- partisanship of an MP is to emasculate the elected representative of the people. In any event, if the prospective candidate wants to be non-partisan and representative of his constituents, the person should run as an independent MP.
Mr. Rai believes that NMPs can represent "special groups" e.g. women, labour or business. The question to be asked here is who will choose the NMP to represent these amorphous "groups"? Another question would be from within these "groups", who chooses the choosers of the NMPs? For an awful lot of choosing, the labouring family with a working mother in Ang Mo Kio doesn't seem to have much of a choice. Furthermore, these NMPs may be reduced to one-issue Parliamentarians. Although, I believe that it can never happen, these NMPs can be actually "captive" to these interest groups.
In any event, I always thought that every Member of Parliament that gets nominated by their respective political party to run in the General Elections is supposed to represent the average man in the street, the working mother, the NSman, the aged and the businessman. By increasing the number of NMPs, there is an implied assertion that we are not having constructive representative views in Parliament. The NMP is not the cure to the lack of "constructive" positions in Parliament, it is the symptom of the malady that there is a lack of "constructive" positions in Parliament.
I do not understand this fetish that Singaporeans have with this "non-adversarial" & "non- confrontational" approach. Even in Japan, the touted paradigm of a non-adversarial & non- confrontational society, the public hue and cry over the jusen issue and the struggling economy has shown that the Japanese can be adversarial and confrontational if there is a need. If the founders of our Republic were "non-confrontational" and "non-adversarial" to the Colonial Government and later with the Communists, I wonder if we can really achieve what we have in Singapore. A pussycat cannot ride on the back of the tiger of communism, the pussycat may be in the tiger's belly very quickly.
Mr. Rai wishes to replicate the non-adversarial methods that are currently in vogue at the Courts into the body politic. Well a divorce squabble over who gets to keep the car is quite different from deciding what should the national transport policy be on the ownership of cars.
In matters of national interest, the active combat of ideas in Parliament is absolute. If such ideas cannot be discussed in Parliament, where else can be it be discussed.
Hopefully, Mr. Rai's suggestions for the NMP will be rejected because they are not healthy to the Singapore body politic in the long run. In the short run, Singapore may have one or two stop-gap bills enacted to address some long standing issue that was supposed to have settled a long time ago, some burning pet interest to be brought to Parliament's attention and a couple more pages added into the Hansard.
Sadly, all this was the precise job of our elected parliamentary representatives and/or the Government in the first place. Increasing the numbers of NMPs is like a placebo. It camouflages the necessity of having a meaningful and articulate representation in Parliament. Parliament needs more constructive views from elected MPs not more NMPs.