Historian renews call to scrap NCMP scheme after PAP remarks on guaranteed opposition voices
SINGAPORE: Singapore historian and author Loke Hoe Yeong has called for the abolition of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme in response to the People's Action Party's recent defence that opposition voices are 'already guaranteed' in Parliament without having to elect the opposition.
Asserting that such a view undermines the democratic spirit of elections, Mr Loke — who co-authored a 2020 book on the NCMP scheme with former Workers' Party (WP) NCMP Yee Jenn Jong — stressed in a social media post on Monday (28 Apr) why he believes the scheme has outlived its usefulness.
Mr Loke argued that the scheme has become a recurring distraction in every general election, taking time and media attention away from policy discussions.
He added that the PAP's repeated invocation of the NCMP scheme also sends a problematic message to voters — that they can vote for the ruling party's policies while still expecting opposition voices in Parliament. He said that this effectively reduces the electoral process to a safety net for dissent rather than a genuine competition of ideas.
'Should elections not be about a party seeking a mandate for its policy prescriptions and thus form the government?' he asked on social media.
The historian also questioned the lack of transparency and consistency in how NCMP seats are offered. He cited past instances — such as the 1984 and 2015 elections — where offers of NCMP seats were rejected, prompting ambiguity about whether further seats would be extended.
Mr Loke pointed to the case of Lee Li Lian, the Workers' Party candidate who declined an NCMP seat after losing Punggol East in 2015, only to face criticism from the PAP. 'The opposition feels caught in a situation of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't,'' Mr Loke said, suggesting that the scheme can be politically weaponised against those it is meant to empower.
In his post, Mr Loke argued that Singapore's electorate has matured beyond the need for token opposition voices and that the NCMP scheme no longer reflects the political realities of today's Singapore, where voters are more than capable of correcting a lopsided Parliament through the ballot box.
'The electorate no longer wants token opposition representation in Parliament,' he asserted, adding that the fear of an opposition wipeout is no longer sufficient justification for maintaining the scheme.
Mr Loke also called for Singapore to move past the legacy institutions of a different political era. The NCMP scheme, he noted, was conceived in 1984 as a hedge against the growing appeal of the opposition after J.B. Jeyaretnam's breakthrough. Since then, the political landscape has evolved significantly, with 10 opposition candidates getting elected in the 2020 general election.
Mr Loke asserted, 'It is time to build a truly 'democratic society based on justice and equality' as envisaged by S. Rajaratnam in our National Pledge.'
Mr Loke's remarks come during the heated campaign period that is coming to a close before the nation votes on May 3. The PAP has continued to defend the NCMP scheme as a safeguard for political diversity, while opposition parties argue that it diminishes the urgency of electing real alternative voices.
In previous Parliaments, NCMPs have had full voting rights, a change made in 2016 to strengthen the scheme. However, critics say that this does not address the deeper issue of NCMPs lacking the same legitimacy and mandate as fully elected MPs.
With renewed attention on the issue, the NCMP scheme could again feature prominently in political debates in the days ahead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
12 hours ago
- Business Times
Tackling America's diploma divide
[LONDON] Why is US President Donald Trump going after Harvard University and other elite colleges? The official reason is antisemitism, but over 600 Harvard professors, many of them Jewish, think that charge is ludicrous. Economics cannot be the reason, either. Higher education is a wildly successful industry that accounts for 4.5 million American jobs. Leaving that industry without foreign customers by refusing to issue them visas is bonkers. The actual reason is Politics 101. Universities and their graduates are increasingly disliked by broad swaths of the US electorate. Beating up pointy-headed academics makes for excellent politics, even if it is terrible policy. It is a cliche of American politics that Trumpian populism was fuelled by the divide between arrogant college graduates brandishing elite degrees and regular folks with a high-school diploma or less. But it is a cliche that contains more than a kernel of truth. Books with titles like Polarised by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics have made the point abundantly, and politicians like Hillary Clinton did not help by calling Trump voters a 'basket of deplorables'. What is to be done? Getting rid of elite educational institutions – as Trump seems to want – is a non-starter. Progressive non-Trumpistas ought to have a better alternative, but they are hemmed in by history. A generation ago, right-wing critics accused the welfare state of handing out benefits indiscriminately. Ronald Reagan's talk of 'welfare queens' was wildly exaggerated, but it left a political mark. Liberal politicians responded by trimming the redistributive state (see Bill Clinton's vow to 'end welfare as we know it') and restricting handouts to the 'deserving' poor. Liberal theorists admitted what they had long denied: that it is legitimate to distinguish between those who deserve and do not deserve help. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In moral philosophy, how and when people come to deserve their lot in life, and whether desert is a valid criterion for the allocation of honours and material rewards, is a central question. In the 1980s and 1990s, a school of liberal philosophers, known as 'luck egalitarians', argued that justice requires that we distinguish between 'circumstances' and 'choices'. Income inequalities arising from circumstances should be offset, because no one can be blamed for having been born destitute. But if you inherit a fortune and choose to gamble it away, society should not rescue you from your own irresponsibility. This position aligned liberals with the moral intuitions of the middle class. Of course the hard-working citizen who plays by the rules deserves the bankable degrees, the good jobs, the comfy house in a safe neighbourhood! But this position created another problem: hubris. Winners, as philosopher Michael J Sandel put it, tend 'to inhale too deeply of their success, to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way'. Once you have the smug conviction that you deserve your Harvard degree, it won't take much to persuade you that those at the bottom deserve their fate, too. Soon enough, you will be another coastal elitist, looking down on the poor souls who inhabit flyover country. That, in a nutshell, is the contemporary liberal's conundrum: express too little belief in merit and desert, and you seem to betray the American dream; but express too much of it, and you seem to betray those left behind by the American dream – including the downwardly mobile white males without college degrees who ended up voting for Trump. Is there a way out? Can we keep our belief in education as the ultimate source of social uplift while avoiding the uplifted noses of the educated? Yes, as long as we recognise that there is no going back: the solutions will require more faith in merit and responsibility, not less. The ultimate slight elites can perpetrate upon the less fortunate is to doubt their ability to manage their own lives. Want to piss off those not fortunate enough to have gone to university and obtain a well-paying job? Treat them as helpless victims, in the way progressive politicians and activists often have. That is no way to build a society of equals. Universities also have to take merit more seriously. Harvard can rightly be accused of being too woke, but more damning is the charge that it has been insufficiently meritocratic. It is not a coincidence that in the Ivy League, children of the top 1 per cent outnumber those from the bottom half of the income distribution. Admissions preferences for alumni kids and places for athletes in elite sports like rowing and squash keep it that way. The absurd status gap between white-collar and blue-collar jobs must go, too. And it can go because it wasn't always that way. I am the child of academics. One of the first things that struck me after arriving in the United States, many years ago, was that the plumber who came to fix the toilet was not too impressed by the family that had hired him. His car was larger than ours and, judging by his fees, he made quite a bit more money than my professor father. Over the last quarter-century, technology changed this: office workers with knowledge of Word and Excel could now be paid better than a plumber or electrician. But in the next quarter-century, technology may well operate in the opposite direction. AI will research statutes and case law better than the best paralegal, read test results better than the best radiologist, and code better than the best programmer. By contrast, the person who can repair your sink or care for your elderly relative will become ever more valued. A little honesty will go a long way, too. I used to be a Harvard professor, and the list of lucky breaks that put me there is long. To claim otherwise would be a violation of Harvard's motto: veritas, or truth. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a former finance minister of Chile, is dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Ownership through a ‘shared vision': Prof Faishal Ibrahim's hopes for the Malay/Muslim community
Associate Professor Faishal Ibrahim hopes to achieve what he described as a 'shared vision' for the Malay/Muslim community. PHOTO: BERITA HARIAN SINGAPORE - One of the ways in which Associate Professor Faishal Ibrahim tries to engage with young people is by being active on social media and personally replying to messages he receives on his social media accounts. 'They want to be heard. They would like to have an open conversation,' he said on June 4. Acknowledging that he is 'not young,' Prof Faishal said other ways he engages with younger people is by working with younger MPs, speaking to youth during his public engagements as well as creating more mentoring opportunities via Mendaki and other Malay/Muslim organisations. These are some ways in which the newly minted Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs hopes to achieve what he described as a 'shared vision' for the Malay/Muslim community – one shaped in part by the community itself, so they feel a sense of ownership over it. Achieving such a vision would take some time, said the 56-year-old, adding that he would share updates at different milestones. Prof Faishal was speaking to reporters at the KopiCuts cafe and barbershop at community hub Wisma Geylang Serai – where he serves as lead adviser – in his first sit-down interview since taking being appointed to the role on May 21. He replaced Social and Family Development Minister Masagos Zulkifli, who had held the portfolio since 2018. Married with two children, Prof Faishal was previously an associate professor at the National University of Singapore's Department of Real Estate. He said he received a warm reception from residents following his recent appointment. 'It is very heartwarming to see the responses from our community where they say that they want to cooperate with me and my colleagues, to continue the effort to develop our community and our country,' he said. 'And more importantly, they feel that the Prime Minister listened to their concerns and aspirations regarding our community leadership.' He thanked his predecessors Mr Masagos and retired cabinet minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, who served as Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs from 2002 to 2018. Prof Faishal noted he had worked closely with both men, describing them as having had the heart to serve the community and help it progress. It was also by working with both men that he saw the challenges associated with the role, as well as what needs to be done, he said. 'I know this is not an easy responsibility, some have told me they know it's not easy but they want to support this effort,' he added. Prof Faishal joined politics in 2006 at the age of 38, as part of a six-member PAP team representing Marine Parade GRC. Following the 2011 elections, he became an MP for Nee Soon GRC, where he served for three terms. During the 2025 General Elections, he returned to the newly-formed Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC as part of a five-member PAP team, led by Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng, which won the constituency uncontested. In 2012, Prof Faishal became Parliamentary Secretary at the health and transport ministries, and in 2017 was promoted to Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the education as well as social and family development ministries. He subsequently became Minister of State for National Development and Home Affairs in 2020, and following the 2025 GE was appointed Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs as well as Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. While the community has progressed tremendously over the years, making strides in areas such as post-secondary education, there are still areas for improvement, Prof Faishal said. These include working with government agencies to meet the needs of needy families as well as addressing the drug problem in the community. He also highlighted the need to have more Malay/Muslim children enrolled in pre-school education, saying that he would work with Mendaki chairman Zaqy Mohamad, who is also Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, and Defence, to address the issue. Beyond the M3 framework, Prof Faishal said other Malay/Muslim organisations, as well as professional bodies and informal groups, can play a role in meeting the needs and aspirations of the community. M3 refers to a tie-up between self-help group Mendaki, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore and the People's Association Malay Activity Executive Committees Council. He added that he would like to see more ground-up initiatives, citing the example of Bersamamu – a programme which provides Muslim couples with mentoring from their solemnisers in their first two years of marriage. He noted that Bersamamu was initiated by veteran religious teacher Ustaz Pasuni Maulun and other solemnisers, before it received the support of the Government. 'This is an example of how we can work together,' he said. When asked how he would address views which differed from the those of the authorities, Prof Faishal said the Government is 'well-intentioned' and tries to meet all needs. However, it has to take in account all viewpoints, he said, adding that some more complex issues may require more time to be addressed. 'There may be issues that are not easy but we know that the Government's intention is to help, to solve these issues together.' A long-time supporter of English football club Liverpool, Prof Faishal says the club's motto You'll Never Walk Alone – derived from Gerry and the Pacemaker's 1963 single of the same name – can be applied to Singapore's Malay/Muslim community. The community will never walk alone as it has the support of its leaders and community organisations, he said. 'And I will also never walk alone, because I have the Malay/Muslim community and the people of Singapore with me to continue this effort,' he said. Zhaki Abdullah is a correspondent at The Straits Times. He is on the health beat, in addition to occasionally covering science, environmental, tech and Muslim affairs issues. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
International Business Times
3 days ago
- International Business Times
Malaysia Set to Enforce VEP for Singapore-Registered Vehicles from July 1
Malaysia is all set to enforce the Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) for Singapore-registered vehicles crossing land borders starting July 1 to improve road safety. Transport minister Loke Siew Fook said in a press conference on Wednesday, June 4, that vehicles without a valid VEP would be issued a RM300 compound fine, which must be paid before they are allowed to leave Malaysia. "We're enforcing this from July 1 because ample time has already been given. As we've said before, we started with a soft advocacy approach on Oct 1, 2024," Fook said. The VEP system was introduced eight years ago, in 2017. It was postponed again, in 2019 and 2020, before being reintroduced last year. A similar VEP system is being developed for foreign-registered automobiles arriving from southern Thailand. Loke stated that anyone who have pre-registered but have yet to finish the VEP process will be punished and must pay the punishment before leaving the country. He added, "There's another category – company-owned private vehicles. If these do not have a valid VEP and no registration was ever made, the driver of the company vehicle will be fined." "However, if the vehicle has been pre-registered, we will issue a reminder notice instead of a fine. For this category, we are offering a bit more leeway because the process involves submitting various company documents." Loke stated that enforcement actions would take place outside of border crossings to avoid congestion. Fines must be paid cashless at road transport department (JPJ) counters, JPJ Mobile units, or online through MyEG. During the soft enforcement phase, officials randomly scanned 52,012 Singapore-registered vehicles and sent 2,245 reminder warnings (4.32%) to those who lacked VEPs. As of June 2, 231,018 RFID tags had been issued for individual private vehicles, including 2,660 for company-owned private vehicles.
