GE 2015: The 1st By-election

It was expected to happen anytime after GE 2015. The question was where it will happen first and it has been answered today. Bukit Batok SMC is up for a by-election. The MP who won the seat of Bukit Batok Town Council for PAP has resigned.

There were two by-elections following GE 2011. Both incumbents were from different parties and they resigned because of extra-marital affairs. The latest resignation was for the same reason and the by-election date will be announced in due course. While there are people who are interested in talking about why these marital affairs happen so often and speculating over whether there could be other MPs who are engaged in such "personal indiscretions", others are more interested in exploring the likely scenarios for the coming by-election. Who will be contesting and who will likely emerge as the winner?

This by-election presents a precious opportunity for another alternative voice to be heard in parliament and many aspiring candidates are already sitting up straight and contemplating. In GE 2015, there was a 3-way contest in Bt Batok in which the ward was won by the PAP candidate with 73.02% votes and the SDP's candidate garnered 26.38%. The independent candidate who entered a token appearance lost his election deposit with only 0.6% votes. Aspiring candidates in the upcoming by-election will need to assess their familiarity and appeal to the voters of Bukit Batok SMC before they take the plunge. It will be remiss of them to count on the intuition that by-elections tend to work against the PAP for no one can be sure of voters' behaviour on polling day.

Historically, Bt Batok SMC had been close to being an opposition ward before GE 2015. It was abolished as a single-seat ward in 1997 after PAP won it narrowly against SDP and merged twice - first with Bt Timah GRC (in 1997) and later with Jurong GRC (in 2001). It was restored as a SMC in GE 2015 only to see a by-election barely 7 months later. 

The voters of Bt Batok SMC will have a second chance to exercise their voting power and to present their message. How they vote will now be the focus of public discourse, as will be the likely candidates for the by-election. We wait with abated breath to see what message the voters of Bt Batok SMC will be sending to all of us.

The Un-elected Members of Parliament

The idea of allowing the citizens of a state to elect their parliamentary representatives is a fundamental feature of democracy. The citizens vote in a general election who to send into the highest policy-making body in their country to be their representative and to decide their future. 

In a majority electoral system, the candidate with the highest votes in a particular constituency gets elected into parliament. By contrast, in a proportional electoral system, political parties are allocated seats based on the proportion of the votes their candidates win. In either system, the idea remains that members of parliament are elected. An unelected representative in parliament is therefore anathema to the concept of democracy.

NMPs ("Nominated MPs") and NCMPs ("Non-Constituency MPs") belong to a special category of parliamentarians. They exist only in our political system and nowhere else.

NMPs have not been elected by the citizens but appointed by Parliament to speak purportedly as independent, non-partisan voices. However, because our parliament is consistently overwhelmingly represented by one political party, the NMP is largely perceived to be nothing more than a political appointee for one party. They serve for two and a half years, representing sectoral interests in civil society and do not have to answer to the voters of any constituency. The NMP scheme has been around since 1990 and it is interesting to note that no former NMP has ever ventured to participate in the general elections despite having gained invaluable experience in parliamentary work.

The NCMP scheme has been around longer than the NMP scheme. It was implemented in 1984 and allows NCMPs (Non-Constituency MPs), who were unsuccessful electoral candidates at a general election, to be sent into parliament. NCMPs are deemed elected to the post by vitrtue of their standing as the highest election losers. Given that every electoral candidate contests to win a constituency and not to lose, it is hard to accept the argument that NCMPs are deemed elected to Parliament. The notion of an elected NCMP was finally demolished by Parliament's recent approval to transfer a NCMP seat from one losing candidate to another (Click HERE).

The two unelected MPs' schemes have drastically changed the concept of democracy as it existed in Singapore at the time when the first general elections was held in 1959. In the last 57 years, we have evolved a political system that has become a pale shadow of what it used to be - that was when all MPs must be elected by the people in a general election. The current electoral system is reminiscent of the colonial system of elections where the predecessor of our Parliament, then known as the Legislative Assembly, comprised of both elected members and appointees of the British government. Whether this circular evolution of our political system augurs well for the future of our young nation is something that only time can tell. And it would be hard to gainsay the suggestion that our generation will not be around to find out the answer.

Plans are now afoot to further tinker with the NCMP scheme by giving NCMPs the same voting rights as elected MPs (Click HERE). Many on the opposite side of the divide have expressed their misgivings about these changes. But from a practical perspective, an NCMP appears to stand in a more enviable position than an elected MP in that he/she is freed completely from the burden of running a town council and could dedicate more time in parliamentary work. NCMPs are also not prevented from continuing with their ground engagements with the voters in their chosen constituency and the only apparent disadvantage is that the elected MP would have more resources at his disposal and a wider reach to the same voters. This does not seem to be worthy of concern to someone who had already lost in the elections. At least as NCMP, he/she has now every opportunity to lend an alternative voice in Parliament.

The real question to ask about these changes to expand the number and role of un-elected MPs and future modifications in the same vein, is the extent to which our rights as voters in what remains of our democracy are being diminished when there are Members of Parliament who are not elected by us but have the privileges of speaking and voting on all matters that concern us. If we carry these changes to their logical conclusion, will Parliament end up having the power to constitute itself without an election?

CMIO- For Better or Worse

Singapore's cultural identity is a unique composition of the different beliefs and practices of our major ethnic groups, classified under the Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others ("CMIO") model.

From our food, costumes, music, art, festivals, etc., including our pidgin Singlish, our cultural identity binds us together as one people in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Wherever we may be, we can easily identify another Singaporean.

However, with the rapid increase in the number of new citizens each year, we are beginning to see a potential cultural crisis looming, with the rising influence of new cultures. There are already calls for the CMIO model to be abolished and the argument is that it fails to encompass the increasing cultural diversity in Singapore.

Our intake of new citizens has reportedly increased from an average of 8,200 per year between 1987 and 2006, to about 18,500 per year in the last 5 years (Read More). Going by these numbers, it is not surprising to see the CMIO model already coming under threat.

It is said that the CMIO model does not capture the numerous heterogenous sub-communities in Singapore and the diversity that resulted from immigration and inter-community marriages (Read More). Some have proposed that Singapore should emulate New York City, for example, where there is no fixed preconception of people (Read More). The momentum to abolish the CMIO model seems to be accelerating.

On the other hand, opponents to the abolition argue that the CMIO categorisation sets the minority communities at ease and should not be jettisoned too quickly (Read More). Their worries are that without the CMIO model, not only will the culture of the majority ethnic group dominate, the culture of the minority ethnic group will lose protection. These worries are not completely unfounded but there is a greater worry.

Over the last 50 years, the CMIO has been the invisible scaffolding that has shaped the cultural identity of our nation. Although it started out as a simplistic and racist way of managing the interests of the different ethnic groups in Singapore, which is not much different from the way the British colonialists did it, the CMIO model has become so structurally entrenched in our social make-up that to abolish it now is to uproot the racial markers that has made Singapore unique in the eyes of the world. Its abolition will be followed by a potentially virulent clash of all the cultures that are found in our land today and which will lead to a major transformation not only in our nation's 50 year-old cultural identity but in our socio-political structures as well.

It bears reminder that in a global city, the inhabitants come and go and their interests are purely economic. For a nation to be truly able to hold on to its people's hearts and minds, the people need to feel a strong sense of belonging beyond their economic interests. Their strong cultural identity as a nation of people is what holds them together in one place. Despite its racial overtures and inadequacies, the CMIO has been a necessary evil that has worked so far to maintain the peace and stability in our tiny island nation. Before we tear it down, we should ask ourselves if we are ready for what comes next.