Who and what are MPs?

This post is part of CAPE’s GE2025 Voter Education Portal

Singapore’s Parliament comprises three distinct categories of Members of Parliament (MPs), each entering the legislature through different pathways and fulfilling specific roles in the democratic system.

A. Elected Members of Parliament

The majority of Singapore’s parliamentarians are directly elected through the GRC and SMC system described earlier. These representatives form the core of Parliament, with full voting rights on all matters including constitutional amendments, supply bills, and votes of no confidence. In the upcoming 2025 election, Singaporeans will elect 97 MPs across the nation’s 18 GRCs and 15 SMCs.

Elected MPs serve as the primary link between the government and the people, raising constituency concerns in Parliament while also participating in national lawmaking. They typically maintain regular meet-the-people sessions in their districts, addressing residents’ concerns and channeling feedback to government agencies. Those elected through GRCs often divide geographical responsibilities within their team, with each member focusing on a specific division while collaborating on larger constituency matters.

The party that secures a majority of elected seats forms the government, with its leader typically becoming Prime Minister. Cabinet ministers are appointed from among elected MPs, creating a parliamentary system where the executive branch emerges from and remains accountable to the legislature. Opposition elected MPs serve the crucial function of providing alternative perspectives and scrutinizing government policies.

B. Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs)

The Non-Constituency MP scheme represents Singapore’s unique approach to ensuring opposition voices in Parliament, regardless of electoral outcomes. NCMPs are offered to the best-performing losing opposition candidates in general elections, based on their percentage of votes received.

The Constitution prescribes that the maximum number of NCMPs is 12 minus the number of elected opposition MPs. For instance, if five opposition candidates win seats in a general election, up to seven NCMP seats can be offered to the best-performing losing opposition candidates. Since 2017, NCMPs have been granted the same voting rights as elected MPs, including on constitutional amendments and confidence motions. More broadly speaking, NCMPs can vote on any bills so that they formally become law, and are able to vote on any Parliamentary motion.

This scheme was introduced to guarantee alternative perspectives in Parliament during periods when few or no opposition candidates won elected seats. While NCMPs have the same parliamentary privileges as elected MPs, they do not represent specific constituencies and do not receive the allowances to run constituency offices. Instead, their role focuses primarily on legislative affairs and policy debates within Parliament itself.

C. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs)

Nominated Members of Parliament constitute the third category of parliamentarians in Singapore’s system. Unlike elected MPs and NCMPs, NMPs do not participate in electoral contests. Instead, they are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Special Select Committee chaired by the Speaker of Parliament.

The NMP scheme, introduced in 1990, aims to bring independent, non-partisan voices into parliamentary debates. NMPs serve fixed terms of 2.5 years, with up to nine such members appointed in each cycle. While they can participate in most parliamentary proceedings and vote on most bills, their voting rights are more limited than those of elected MPs and NCMPs. Specifically, NMPs cannot vote on constitutional amendments, supply bills, votes of no confidence, or the removal of the President from office.

Over time, the NMP scheme has evolved to represent specific sectors of society. Contemporary NMPs often come from backgrounds in business, academia, social services, environmental advocacy, sports, and the arts. This approach ensures that specialized knowledge and community perspectives are integrated into parliamentary debates, even when such voices might not emerge through the electoral process.

The NCMP and NMP scheme: Enriching democracy or diluting opposition?

Singapore’s non-traditional parliamentary roles—the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP—represent innovative approaches to ensuring diverse voices in the legislature. However, perspectives on their democratic contribution vary considerably.

The NCMP scheme, introduced in 1984, was presented by then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as a way to “sharpen the debating skills of PAP MPs,” “educate young voters to regard the need for an official opposition as a myth,” and “dispel suspicion of any cover-up by the government of its policies.” Opposition parties initially rejected the scheme, with then-Workers’ Party leader J.B. Jeyaretnam denouncing it as a ploy to create a tame Opposition and “a ruse to keep the electorate thinking of the PAP as the only government.”

Some scholars, including Hussin Mutalib, suggest that the NCMP scheme could actually entrench PAP dominance by diminishing the incentive for voters to elect opposition candidates, since alternative voices are guaranteed in Parliament regardless of electoral outcomes. The scheme has also been characterized by Christopher Tremewan as potentially delegitimizing opposition parties by rendering them seemingly less necessary.

Similarly, the NMP scheme has generated debate about its implications for democratic representation. Introduced in 1989, the scheme aims to “evolve a more consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent accommodated,” as stated by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Critics like Beng Huat Chua characterize it as a form of political co-option or “manufactured consent,” where dissenting voices might be moderated by their inclusion in the parliamentary system.

Political scientist Walid Jumblatt Abdullah offers a contrasting perspective, arguing that NMPs can enhance democratic governance by promoting deliberation, accountability, and representation. He suggests that NMPs “could better represent the voices of the people at the margins of society” and might be “better positioned to raise issues that are deemed too ‘sensitive’ to be raised by opposition parties.” By examining specific cases where NMPs have championed causes like homosexual rights, environmentalism, and feminism that mainstream parties avoided, he contends that the scheme has produced “the unintended consequence of widening the democratic space” despite its original intent.

The debate around these innovative parliamentary roles reflects broader questions about representative democracy. While traditional democratic theory emphasizes the centrality of electoral authorization in creating legitimate representation, these alternative pathways to parliamentary participation suggest that representation might also be enhanced through mechanisms that bypass direct electoral competition, particularly in systems dominated by a single party.

Food for thought

  1. Can alternative pathways to Parliament strengthen representation in a dominant-party system?
  2. How do non-elected voices in Parliament affect accountability and public trust?
  3. What are ways to ensure legitimate political representation?
  4. What defines effective democratic representation in today’s political landscape?

References

Related Posts

Scroll to Top