Should opposition parties reject the enhanced NCMP scheme?

The augmented NCMP scheme will hurt opposition parties -- so says a clear majority from an online poll conducted by The Online Citizen. A fragment of a screenshot (accessed 2 June 2009) can be seen here:

I thought it interesting that respondents to the poll had such decided views. Why did they think so?

A trawl through various comments appended to relevant Online Citizen articles indicated that some readers saw the enhanced NCMP scheme as a ploy by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to further marginalise opposition parties. The logic appears to go like this: When voters know that a minimum number of opposition party candidates are going to make it into parliament even if they lose, then there will be less incentive for voters to vote for opposition parties. Having been assured that "alternative" voices will be represented in the legislature, voters can afford to be complacent or to play safe, and vote PAP.

Other comments said the Workers' Party should reject the NCMP scheme, and Sylvia Lim, the current NCMP from the party, should resign from Parliament immediately.

"NCMP" stands for Non-constituency Members of Parliament. It is a scheme under which "best losers" in a general election also get seats in Parliament. Currently, the total number of NCMPs allowed is capped at three; under the new proposals, this cap will be raised to nine. See the article Minimum nine opposition MPs from now on. NCMPs can participate in all debates and votes, except those relating to the budget and to motions of no confidence.

 
Will it hurt opposition parties? How?

I don't think it is obvious how voters will modify their behaviour, if at all, in the light of the new scheme. I don't agree that the enhanced NCMP scheme will necessarily hurt opposition parties.

As political observers have noted through the years, about 20 percent of voters will always vote for the opposition if given a chance. It doesn't matter who the opposition candidate is, these voters will never vote for the PAP. The enhanced NCMP scheme is not going to change their behaviour.

Another 50 percent have shown themselves to be prepared to vote for opposition parties, but whether or not they do so appears to depend on their perception of the quality of opposition candidates. By "quality", I don't only mean "credibility" -- an accolade that the PAP likes to bestow on their own candidates, signifying seriousness and career qualifications. Here, I use the term "quality" in a broader way, to include charisma, good speaking skills, earnest looks, or just being able to convey that they have empathy for the common Singaporean -- anything about the background, personality and style of a candidate that can win people over.

How did I get this figure of 50 percent "swingable" voters? From the 1991 result of Potong Pasir single-member constituency. In that general election, Chiam See Tong won 69.6 percent of the vote against the PAP candidate Andy Gan. Assuming that 20 percent were "diehard" opposition supporters, Chiam managed to swing almost 50 percent more to his cause.

Even in group representation constituencies, where the homogenising effect is strong, the Workers' Party team of Francis Seow, Lee Siew Choh and Mohd Khalit won 49.1 percent in Eunos, in 1988. They swung nearly 30 percent of voters to them on top of the 20 percent of "diehard" supporters.

The question before us is whether, with the enhanced NCMP scheme, these same voters would be less likely to vote for opposition candidates, that is, whether they would take the view, "Oh, the opposition will get into Parliament anyway as NCMPs, so I'll vote for the PAP."

Frankly, I don't see why many would think like that. Some may, but probably not many.

Firstly, there is no guarantee that their constituency's opposition candidates would be among the "best losers" to earn NCMP slots. If voters want to see "their" opposition candidates in Parliament, whether as NCMPs or as MPs, they have to vote for them.

Secondly, the "swingable" voters have shown in past elections that they were prepared to send (quality) opposition members into Parliament and not have any PAP representation at all. Why should they be more timid in future? 
 

Voters vote more for candidates than for the "opposition" label

Analysis will be misguided if we see voters as basing their decision purely on the distinction between "opposition" and PAP. Even among opposition parties, many voters differentiate among them; they may be prepared to vote for one opposition party, but not for another.

More importantly, as historical data have shown, the quality -- and I am using this term in the broad sense -- of opposition candidates can make a huge difference. 

When a minimum of 9 opposition candidates will enter Parliament either as MPs or NCMPs, anyone considering joining the electoral fray will know he has a better chance of success than before. His effort will be less in vain. This simple change in the calculation should enable opposition parties to attract more good people to stand for election.

Since the biggest problem opposition parties currently face is the difficulty in attracting good candidates, the new NCMP scheme should therefore make a significant difference. Then, whether as MPs or NCMPs, they get up to five years to prove themselves in Parliament, through asking tough questions of the front bench or through presenting new perspectives and insights. They will get much more exposure as NCMPs than as losing candidates without a seat in Parliament.

This may not necessarily be a blessing. Some of them may prove to be duds, as not a few past opposition MPs have shown, but with careful selection by party leaders, there will be some who will shine.

Take Sylvia Lim. She was mostly an unknown quantity before she became NCMP in 2006. A fresh face, no doubt, but few knew how she would perform. Now, people – well, at least those who have paid attention – have a pretty good idea of what she's worth. Even among those who haven't paid much attention to what she's said in Parliament, there is name recognition.

Ditto with future NCMPs. With exposure, there will tend to be an increase in the comfort level that voters feel with a candidate. This comfort level is largely linked to name recognition and a familiarity with the person's history. This is another way by which I think the enhanced NCMP scheme will benefit opposition parties.

 
Legitimacy

Another line of reasoning I noticed among comments in The Online Citizen is that NCMPs have no legitimacy. That's why the scheme is bad and opposition parties should reject it. In the view of these comment-makers, only fully elected MPs have legitimacy.

I find this argument poorly grounded.

First of all, what do we mean by "fully elected" MPs? If we mean those who got into Parliament by "winning" elections in their constituencies, then we should first ask: How legitimate are those constituencies? How legitimate are the electoral boundaries, or for that matter, the arbitrary arrangement of having a huge group representation constituency here and small single-member constituency there.

The legitimacy of "winning" the seat is only as good as the legitimacy of the electoral arrangement, which frankly, is suspect. To speak of "fully elected" MPs as white and paint NCMPs as black is a false distinction when there is no white, but grey at best.

Secondly, how many "fully elected" MPs were really elected? Let's not forget that 37 MPs in the current Parliament are there courtesy of walkovers. None of them received a single vote cast in his favour. 

In contrast, NCMP Sylvia Lim received 58,593 votes from the residents of Aljunied. Who has more proven support?

In a way, the augmented NCMP scheme is a step towards proportional representation. The legitimacy of parliamentarians elected under proportional representation is based on the fact that significant fractions of the electorate voted for them, not because they won in such and such a constituency.

So yes, I support the enhanced scheme. It goes a little way to a more representative system. It is far from satisfactory, and it does not address bigger issues of an uneven playing field as I have discussed in Latest electoral changes only treat the symptoms. But I think it would be churlish to reject it.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None