<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - How are NMPs chosen?</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt22 <NOBR>
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Jul-27 10:52 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 10) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>17755.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>Lift veil over NMP selection
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>It's still not clear what gives an NMP hopeful the edge over others </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
GIVEN that Nominated Members of Parliament have been around for 19 years, it is perplexing that the scheme has yet to evolve clear and consistent criteria for the selection of an NMP.
Ordinary Singaporeans - including aspiring NMPs - do not really know what the parliamentary selection committee looks for when it interviews potential NMPs. The selection committee currently consists of seven People's Action Party MPs and one opposition MP, and is chaired by Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi. This issue of clarity deserves to be taken more seriously since the NMP scheme will soon be a permanent part of the political system.
NMPs, who serve 2 1/2-year terms, are not elected but are nominated by various sectors or private individuals. They are then screened by the Select Committee and appointed by the President.
The Constitution tells us that NMPs should have rendered distinguished public service, brought honour to Singapore or distinguished themselves in their professions. Each slate of NMPs should also 'reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible'.
However, one new NMP, entrepreneur Calvin Cheng, 33, was selected earlier this month despite being a Young PAP member. He terminated his party membership only after his appointment as NMP.
He is not the first NMP with links to a political party. Current National Kidney Foundation chairman Gerard Ee was a PAP member when he was picked to be an NMP in 1997. Mr Ee, long active in community work, was reported to have said then that his party membership would not prevent him from expressing independent views in Parliament, since he would not be subject to the party whip as an NMP.
Parliament's website states baldly: 'NMPs are not connected to any political parties.' To remove any confusion as to what precisely 'non-partisan' means, perhaps the Constitution should simply bar people who are members of political parties from being considered as NMPs.
That is not the only fuzzy issue in the selection criteria. Though the Constitution says NMPs should be public personages who have distinguished themselves in their professions or in some field, clearly that is not the only quality the selection committee looks out for.
A past Cultural Medallion recipient, who asked not to be named, shared his experience of being interviewed by the NMP selection committee. He had expected to be quizzed on his views about the arts, assuming that his job as NMP would essentially be to represent the views of a particular sector. He was caught off guard when the committee asked him for his views on public policy instead. He was not selected.
One person who was successful at the interviews was former NMP Siew Kum Hong, 34, an in-house legal counsel and social activist whose tenure as NMP ended on July 17. Asked at a recent forum what criteria he thought the selection committee had applied, Mr Siew's reply was an honest: 'I don't know. I don't think (the criteria are) fixed.'
He noted that he himself was not a leader in the legal profession. Having written outspoken socio-political newspaper columns, he was told that the interview committee may have seen him as representative of young Internet users, even though he did not position himself that way.
As the committee does not publicise its reasons for selecting a particular slate of candidates, some NMPs are none the wiser as to what gave them the edge over others.
'I only know some interviews are very short, and some are very long, and that's a sign of how seriously you are being considered,' one NMP candidate told The Straits Times.
The NMP scheme is a unique creature of the Singapore system. It was introduced because the Government realised alternative views needed to be heard in Parliament. There are certain limits on NMPs and they are not meant to take the place of elected MPs. For example, NMPs cannot vote on money bills, no-confidence motions and constitutional matters.
The Select Committee gets feedback from all 83 elected MPs, for the Speaker asks them for comments on the candidates applying to be NMP.
Nine new NMPs, including Mr Cheng, were sworn into Parliament last week. The other eight were veteran unionist Terry Lee, sociologist Paulin Tay Straughan, managing director Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei, shipping industry veteran Teo Siong Seng, political watcher Viswa Sadasivan, eldercare services veteran Laurence Wee, arts manager Audrey Wong and former national swimmer Joscelin Yeo.
What the selection committee should have touched on in its public report is what it thinks these nine will contribute to parliamentary debate.
Will they provide input on sectors and issues that are currently not well represented in Parliament? Why are their areas of concern priorities for Singapore? These are key questions for many Singaporeans when it comes to choosing NMPs.
Instead, the committee issued a generic statement that it found many qualified candidates among the 43 who were eligible, and so appointed the maximum nine as NMPs.
The committee might also have released to the public the essays that the nine NMPs would have been required to submit in their application, saying how they hope to contribute in Parliament.
That would help the public judge what these unelected representatives stand for, and hold them accountable.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>It's still not clear what gives an NMP hopeful the edge over others </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
GIVEN that Nominated Members of Parliament have been around for 19 years, it is perplexing that the scheme has yet to evolve clear and consistent criteria for the selection of an NMP.
Ordinary Singaporeans - including aspiring NMPs - do not really know what the parliamentary selection committee looks for when it interviews potential NMPs. The selection committee currently consists of seven People's Action Party MPs and one opposition MP, and is chaired by Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi. This issue of clarity deserves to be taken more seriously since the NMP scheme will soon be a permanent part of the political system.
NMPs, who serve 2 1/2-year terms, are not elected but are nominated by various sectors or private individuals. They are then screened by the Select Committee and appointed by the President.
The Constitution tells us that NMPs should have rendered distinguished public service, brought honour to Singapore or distinguished themselves in their professions. Each slate of NMPs should also 'reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible'.
However, one new NMP, entrepreneur Calvin Cheng, 33, was selected earlier this month despite being a Young PAP member. He terminated his party membership only after his appointment as NMP.
He is not the first NMP with links to a political party. Current National Kidney Foundation chairman Gerard Ee was a PAP member when he was picked to be an NMP in 1997. Mr Ee, long active in community work, was reported to have said then that his party membership would not prevent him from expressing independent views in Parliament, since he would not be subject to the party whip as an NMP.
Parliament's website states baldly: 'NMPs are not connected to any political parties.' To remove any confusion as to what precisely 'non-partisan' means, perhaps the Constitution should simply bar people who are members of political parties from being considered as NMPs.
That is not the only fuzzy issue in the selection criteria. Though the Constitution says NMPs should be public personages who have distinguished themselves in their professions or in some field, clearly that is not the only quality the selection committee looks out for.
A past Cultural Medallion recipient, who asked not to be named, shared his experience of being interviewed by the NMP selection committee. He had expected to be quizzed on his views about the arts, assuming that his job as NMP would essentially be to represent the views of a particular sector. He was caught off guard when the committee asked him for his views on public policy instead. He was not selected.
One person who was successful at the interviews was former NMP Siew Kum Hong, 34, an in-house legal counsel and social activist whose tenure as NMP ended on July 17. Asked at a recent forum what criteria he thought the selection committee had applied, Mr Siew's reply was an honest: 'I don't know. I don't think (the criteria are) fixed.'
He noted that he himself was not a leader in the legal profession. Having written outspoken socio-political newspaper columns, he was told that the interview committee may have seen him as representative of young Internet users, even though he did not position himself that way.
As the committee does not publicise its reasons for selecting a particular slate of candidates, some NMPs are none the wiser as to what gave them the edge over others.
'I only know some interviews are very short, and some are very long, and that's a sign of how seriously you are being considered,' one NMP candidate told The Straits Times.
The NMP scheme is a unique creature of the Singapore system. It was introduced because the Government realised alternative views needed to be heard in Parliament. There are certain limits on NMPs and they are not meant to take the place of elected MPs. For example, NMPs cannot vote on money bills, no-confidence motions and constitutional matters.
The Select Committee gets feedback from all 83 elected MPs, for the Speaker asks them for comments on the candidates applying to be NMP.
Nine new NMPs, including Mr Cheng, were sworn into Parliament last week. The other eight were veteran unionist Terry Lee, sociologist Paulin Tay Straughan, managing director Mildred Tan-Sim Beng Mei, shipping industry veteran Teo Siong Seng, political watcher Viswa Sadasivan, eldercare services veteran Laurence Wee, arts manager Audrey Wong and former national swimmer Joscelin Yeo.
What the selection committee should have touched on in its public report is what it thinks these nine will contribute to parliamentary debate.
Will they provide input on sectors and issues that are currently not well represented in Parliament? Why are their areas of concern priorities for Singapore? These are key questions for many Singaporeans when it comes to choosing NMPs.
Instead, the committee issued a generic statement that it found many qualified candidates among the 43 who were eligible, and so appointed the maximum nine as NMPs.
The committee might also have released to the public the essays that the nine NMPs would have been required to submit in their application, saying how they hope to contribute in Parliament.
That would help the public judge what these unelected representatives stand for, and hold them accountable.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
