Should Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) Be Allowed to Run for Election or Become Ministers?

Singapore’s Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme was introduced in 1990 to bring in alternative perspectives and broaden parliamentary discourse.

The Legal and Constitutional Perspective

Article 39 of Singapore’s Constitution defines Parliament’s composition:

• Elected MPs – Chosen via general elections.
• Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) – Opposition candidates with the highest votes who did not win a seat.
• NMPs – Appointed by the President to contribute non-partisan views.

While there is no explicit rule against NMPs contesting elections or holding ministerial positions, the debate revolves around political legitimacy and governance principles.

Can NMPs Use Their Role as a Stepping Stone to Elected Office?

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong when he was the First DPM stated that the NMP scheme was meant to encourage political participation.

Key Considerations:

Experience in Parliament: NMPs gain valuable exposure to national issues and debates.

Non-Partisan Insights: Their participation can enrich policy discussions.

Potential Unfair Advantage? Critics may argue that NMPs gain public recognition without the rigors of election campaigning.

This author wonders if NCMP's, who also enter Parliament unelected, can later contest elections, why shouldn’t NMPs have the same opportunity?

Should an NMP Be Appointed as a Minister?

While Singapore’s Ministers are traditionally elected MPs, nothing in the Constitution explicitly prevents an NMP from being appointed. Goh Chok Tong during the Singapore Parliamentary debates, said that the principle of appointing a non-elected individual to the highest executive office is not unprecedented compared this to the House of Lords in the UK, where appointed members influence legislation. Goh Chok Tong highlighted the example of Lord Home's (Alec Douglas-Home) appointed as Prime Minister of the UK in 1963 by Queen Elizabeth II after being summoned by then-Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who was unwell. Lord Home, a Peer in the House of Lords, later renounced his peerage to contest an election.

This historical precedent and our Parliament's intent reinforces that leadership and governance are not strictly contingent upon an electoral mandate.

More UK Precedents of Non-Elected Ministers

In the UK, it is not uncommon for members of the House of Lords (appointed Peers) to be given key ministerial roles, including high-profile economic and executive positions:

• Lord Mandelson was appointed as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in 2008 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, despite not being elected as an MP.
• Lord Darling and Lord Bridges also played key roles in financial and policy matters in the UK government.

These examples suggest that expertise and leadership capabilities can sometimes outweigh the necessity of electoral legitimacy in ministerial appointments.

Key Questions:

• Is electoral legitimacy essential for governance? Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister, not directly elected by the people.
• Would an NMP-led Ministry lack credibility? Public perception may question the legitimacy of an unelected Minister.
• Is expertise more important than elections? If an NMP brings significant expertise, should their non-elected status matter?

Time to Rethink the Role of NMPs?

Singapore values pragmatism in governance. If NMPs contribute meaningfully to Parliament, why restrict them from running for election or assuming ministerial roles?

Should the system evolve to allow NMPs to stand for election?

Should an exceptional NMP be appointed as a Minister?

Let’s discuss. What do you think? Drop your thoughts in the comments! ??