SINGAPORE: Last week, parliament debated and ultimately voted to find Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh unsuitable to continue as Leader of the Opposition following his conviction for lying to a parliamentary committee. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong removed Mr Singh from the role the next day.

But the debate also shined a spotlight on an aspect of the Singapore Parliament which has come under a fair bit of fire in recent months – the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme.

Three newly-minted NMPs – Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Mr Mark Lee and Dr Neo Kok Beng – spoke in support of the motion, drawing on their professional experience as a senior counsel, a businessman and an engineer respectively to talk about matters of integrity. All NMPs voted in favour of the motion, along with all MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). All WP MPs in the chamber voted against it.

Observers have pointed to this as evidence of the NMPs demonstrating partisan leanings. But this conclusion obscures issues that are worth exploring, if the scheme is to retain relevance now and in the future.

(From left) Nominated Members of Parliament Kuah Boon Theng, Mark Lee and Dr Neo Kok Beng speaking during the debate on a motion about Pritam Singh’s suitability to remain as the Leader of the Opposition, on Jan 14, 2026.

QUESTION OF INDEPENDENCE

The independent and non-partisan nature of the role has come into question over the years.

In 1990, the constitution was amended to provide for the appointment of up to nine NMPs to “reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible”. The public and specified functional groups (including academia, arts, sports, media and the labour unions) are invited to submit names to a committee that nominates NMPs for appointment by the president for a term of two-and-a-half years.

Since then, at least three NMPs were former members of political parties, with one serving their term while still a member of the PAP.

In the lead-up to last year’s General Election, two NMPs resigned while still serving, fuelling speculation that they would enter partisan politics. Eventually, one, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi, stood and won a seat as a PAP candidate.

Among the current slate of NMPs who were sworn in last week, Haresh Singaraju had to publicly declare he was no longer a member of a political party after a photograph of him in a PAP shirt surfaced online. He said the photo was from a party activity he had volunteered at, and his LinkedIn profile indicated he had been a grassroots leader since January 2023.

To be clear, there is nothing legally or constitutionally speaking that prevents NMPs from having been in political parties previous to or during their term, or from joining them after their term. But these examples have sparked criticism over the independence of the NMPs, and their ability to contribute “non-partisan views” in parliament.

A DIFFICULT BUT NECESSARY ROLE TO PLAY

Acknowledging and addressing such criticisms are necessary because the NMP scheme is an important feature of our parliamentary system. And as political discourse becomes more polarised around the world, including in Singapore, this importance is likely to intensify in the years ahead.

For full transparency, I served as an NMP from 2012 to 2014 as part of the 12th parliament. I applied as an individual, not representing any of the specified functional groups.

My own experience might render me slightly biased, but it should also be plain for others to see how many developed democracies are seeing more extreme views in their politics, with rising political polarisation associated with increased political violence and unpredictable oscillations in government policies.

Global advisory firm Willis said last year that such polarisation is at an historic high on a global average basis. This suggests that people are increasingly likely to perceive supporters of opposing political parties as hostile. The company also said that this is rising fastest in democracies like the US, Germany, India, Brazil and Bulgaria.

Such polarisation would make it harder for Singapore to maintain its reputation for an efficient and effective democracy, bereft of unnecessary contestation and gridlock which plague other countries. At the same time, a fair and transparent political system and an inclusive parliament where a diverse range of views are heard and considered remain a critical aspect of Singaporean democracy.

That’s where a functioning NMP scheme has a lot to contribute. Bringing in individuals who have external expertise outside of politics and parliament can ensure a more objective view that is unencumbered by partisan politics.

TRULY NEUTRAL?

However, for the scheme to retain its relevance and significance, it is of paramount importance that NMPs be able to contribute to debates in parliament independently and free from partisan influences – and more importantly to be perceived as doing so in this manner.

If their contributions become tarnished with the perception of bias or partisan influences, then their contributions are likely to diminish in the eyes of the public, and any positive inputs they might offer may be rejected out of hand.

Some observers have said that membership in a political party does not mean that one cannot think, speak and act independently, and that this should not preclude anyone from stepping forward to contribute as an NMP if they so wish.

Others contend that any political affiliation is incompatible with expectations to give independent and non-partisan views, which can then impact the perception of independence and credibility of the NMP scheme as a whole.

Thinking back to my time in parliament, I recall making a conscious effort to speak out and raise issues that I genuinely felt were important, regardless of where my views landed on the political spectrum.

These included emphasising the importance of high-performance sports, at a time when the government seemed focused on sporting activities geared towards greater community engagement and general wellness. I remember raising questions about government policy towards diesel vehicles at a time when they were viewed as potentially more environmentally friendly, and also examining the national approach towards nuclear power.

I did not disagree with policies for the sake of disagreeing, nor agree with them blindly.

THE WAY FORWARD

I remain hopeful for the continued usefulness and relevance of NMPs in our parliamentary process.

There have been suggestions to enshrine their independence via a constitutional change to disallow political party membership or at least enforce a cooling-off period between membership and nomination. These could work in principle with further thought to implementation.

But any individual can have political leanings, so such measures would still be superficial if the NMPs do not take seriously their duty to contribute independent and non-partisan views.

This does not mean that they have to disagree with every policy put forward by any one side, or avoid supporting particular motions out of fear of being labelled as partisan.

This requires courage to stick to one’s convictions, and clear-headed analyses of different issues to ensure an objective and intelligent viewpoint, that will hopefully help to deepen understanding of policies and decisions taken at the parliamentary level, and contribute to better decision-making by all stakeholders.

Only then can this unique aspect of Singapore’s political ecosystem continue to be useful for Singapore and Singaporeans going forward.

Nicholas Fang served as a Nominated Member of Parliament from 2012 to 2014. He is a former journalist, and is founder and managing director of strategic consultancy Black Dot. He writes a monthly column for CNA.