Taking A Stand

A new generation of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) has been chosen. Their mission statement is still the same: represent a wider variety of views inside Parliament. NMPs are supposed to be ‘people who have independent, non-partisan, constructive views of their own’, according to Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan in today’s Today newspaper. To champion causes outside of Parliament may ‘cause an NMP to lose his standing as an objective and impartial NMP and undermine his effectiveness and credibility’.

This all sounds well and good, until one looks up the meaning of ‘non-partisan’. To be non-partisan is to have no formal affiliation with any political party. And NMPs, by their very definition, are non-partisan. They are not affiliated with any political party in any official capacity. By this I mean that they are not card-carrying members of any political party, nor do they represent any political party in any capacity.

This definition could, strictly speaking, extend to special interest groups. These are groups which advocate political change, be it lower taxes or animal rights. But remember that the operating word is ‘formal’. This means that a non-partisan person must not be serving in the group in any kind of capacity, be it as a member or spokesperson or director. It does not mean that the person is not allowed to speak out in favour of the group, and help to represent the group’s interests in public institutions like Parliament. So there is no problem here for NMPs so long as they do not take up a post in a special interest group.

The definition of ‘non-partisan’ may even be extended to unbiased by, or not influenced by, other groups. This may be the level at which Mah is talking about. But in practice, it is very difficult. The role of an NMP is to represent views in Parliament. This means that the NMP must first learn and understand the views held by various groups, But in so doing, he is already influenced by these views.
That is because he would have taken the time to analyse and think through what these views are, and their worth in the public arena, and whether or not they are worth his time’s or the House’s. This thought process leads to a judgment on what these views mean to the NMP as well, if only on a subconscious level…which effectively means that the views espoused by certain groups, be they advocacy groups or otherwise, would influence the NMP in the course of his work.

So, if Mah were referring to this level of ‘non-partisan’, ‘objectivity’ and whatnot, he would be asking NMPs to make an impossible choice. If they choose to remain objective and ‘non-partisan’, they cannot afford to investigate the views held by various groups, which means that they cannot effectively represent their views, which means that they might as well quit and go home. If they choose to represent the views of these groups, they would be indelibly influenced by these groups’ opinions, which means that they would have violated the ‘non-partisan’ guideline.

In my personal opinion, at most we should restrict ‘non-partisan’ to ‘not officially affiliated with any political party of special interest group’. To go any deeper would be to make the NMPs’ jobs impossible. It is this definition I would be working from in the rest of this essay.

Let’s pause for a moment to consider why politicians raise views in Parliament or wherever in the first place. They do this to tell their colleagues about the situation on the ground. By doing so, they aim to implement policies that are connected with the people, and can hopefully benefit the country. Am effective law is preceded by a motion in Parliament that is informed by an opinion. This train cannot be decoupled for it to be effective. NMPs, in particular, represent views in Parliament so that Parliament can better decide on policies, and these views are best summarized and represented in the form of a motion to be brought before Parliament for discussion.

Now consider a scenario in which an NMP chooses to support or champion a cause outside of Parliament, such as the repeal of Section 377A. Because he is an NMP, he is seen as operating by his conscience, without following the agenda of any specific political party. He lends the voice of officially-recognised objectivity and impartiality to the cause, whether he wants to or not.

Even if the NMP were to participate in his capacity as a private citizen, he would be participating in the realm of politics, and in this situation, he cannot escape from his position and identity as an NMP. He will be seen as an NMP first, a citizen second. Even if he were to declare that he is acting in his personal capacity, and if people accept that, the fact that he is an NMP would not be ignored. For example, said NMP may be pressured to bring up the cause in Parliament by everybody else, because of his unique position. To refuse to do so is to give up a unique and unparalleled advantage to do good for society. It would be akin to favouring to follow a set of guidelines instead of favouring an approach to accelerate positive change by bringing up an issue to the national level. To say nothing of doing his job in the first place, which is to represent views in Parliament, like representing the view that Section 377A should be abolished and favouring and tabling a motion to do just that. In politics, opinions only count if they are translatable into actions, such as tabling a motion. Otherwise, giving lengthy speeches on a subject in Parliament without tabling a motion would merely, at best, pique somebody else’s attention.

What if the situation takes place outside of Parliament’s purview? For example, the recent history of the Association of Women for Action and Research took place without official government intervention. NMP Siew Kum Hong was there, acting in his personal capacity.

The simple fact is, NMPs who participate in external activities are also seen as NMPs first, especially if they do so in politically-charged events. Simply declaring that they are there in their personal capacity would not so easily erase the impression that they are NMPs, in pretty much the same way that a convicted murderer cannot wash off the blood on his hands simply by saying that he didn’t kill anyone. Simply by being at any political event, whether or not the Government chooses to intervene, an NMP would raise its profile, because he would be seen as an NMP first, and this thought would influence everybody’s actions and perspectives. More so if he were reported being there, or admits that he was there in various media. Simply by being there, an NMP would change the atmosphere, perspective, and profile of any group engaging in some activity, be it a rally or a conference.
Instead of downplaying this effect, the smart move would be to capitalize on it. NMP activists would be able to use their position to effect greater change in Singapore. While their official purpose is to represent a wider variety of views in Parliament, these views if accepted would translate into changes in policies. It is inescapable in an arena where an opinion is only taken seriously if it were backed by a motion to change existing law, or if it is opposing an existing motion. When it comes to Parliament, NMPs effectively have the same powers in a debate as an MP except for voting on the amendment of the Constitution, public funds, a vote of no-confidence, or removing the President from office. Since these are not pertinent issues in the foreseeable future, NMPs are effectively non-elected MPs who should represent wider views from the community…which, by its very definition, includes motions towards political action.

Mah has stated that all of this might cause an NMP to lose his standing and undermine his effectiveness. Actually, the reverse is true. If an NMP were seen actively refraining from participating in the political arena, he would be seen as abdicating the responsibilities of his job. An NMP’s job is to represent views from the wider community, in order to benefit the country. This includes views from activist groups. An NMP would not do the group justice if all he does is to talk to the leaders. He would not be able to guage what kind of support the people have for the group, and the nature of the group if he does not attend their talks and rallies; and yet if he does so he would effectively raise the group’s profile simply by being there. If an NMP does not take the effort to fully understand a group, especially one whose pet cause he believes in, he cannot do them justice in Parliament, where he executes his official duties. Thus, his effectiveness and credibility would be undermined.

As for Mah’s concerns about objectivity and impartiality, we need to understand why these values in the first place. Objectivity and impartiality means to not take a stand, regardless of the consequences, positive or negative, of doing so. They ensure that someone would not be unduly biased in his or her work. The key word is ‘unduly’.

Negotiators, counselors, and mediators are expected to be objective and impartial, because they need to understand all sides of any particular issue and successfully reconcile all parties involved. They cannot afford to be partial towards any one view because doing so would mean ignoring in part or whole the concerns of other parties involved. Right up to the end of each case, they need to be objective and impartial, so that everybody involved has a fair say.

So what about objectivity and impartiality? The key difference between the world of the negotiator and the world of the politician is that the former facilitates people in taking action, while the latter takes action for people. The mediator has to be objective and impartial because he is not directly influenced by the negotiation process. A marriage counsellor, for example, would not be affected whether or not his clients divorce or continue to stay married. The politician has to be objective and impartial while considering views, but this stops when he is expressing his view.

Yes, his view, not everybody’s view. When the politician takes in the views of his constituents, or when the NMP thinks through the views of various groups in the community, the people’s views become a part of his views on any given situation. This is because during the analysis of any particular view, that view becomes assimilated into the politician’s frame of mind, or rejected.

For example, a politician may support zero tolerance policies primarily because it sends a strong deterrent message to criminals. After speaking to citizen activists, he learns that zero tolerance policies also saves millions of man-hours and dollars annually that would have been lost to crime. When he speaks to his colleagues and opponents, he now uses both arguments. He has to, in order to win over more people who may not be as convinced of the policies’ deterrence value as he is.

The same holds true even if he decides to understand an opposing view. An American pro-gun politician may take the time to understand his gun control opponents. The politician thinks that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, while his opponents fear that criminals would be able to arm themselves more effectively without any measures. By understanding these concerns, the politician would be able to know where his opponents are coming from when he addresses them in Congress, Senate, City Hall, or wherever. This knowledge forms part of his view on firearms as a direct consequence.

Similarly, when an NMP represents the views of a group, in or outside Parliament, these views must become part of his views. He talks about them because he thinks that they have a point to make that would benefit the country.

One of the keys to a successful message is consistency. You cannot throw up opposing arguments in a speech without addressing or reconciling them and hope to be seen as effective, if your mission is to represent a view. An NMP may try to talk about opposing arguments in or outside Parliament, but unless he is giving a primer on the situation he would not achieve anything significant, like passing legislature to improve the country. Having NMPs do just that would be a poor use of manpower and talent; Parliament could simply invite an expert into the building to brief everybody on the situation instead of letting an NMP use up his valuable speech time in Parliament to talk about the situation instead of moving towards change. Our NMPs have stated that they want to see some kind of change in Singapore. This means taking a consistent stand. This means being partisan.

Outside Parliament, the NMP would have to maintain that stance. They cannot afford to promote the opposing view in the hopes of being ‘objective’, because it would compromise their effectiveness in and out of Parliament. Championing a cause would reinforce the consistency of that stance, even outside Parliament, which means a greater effect inside Parliament, which means change in Singapore. Of course, the moment they become officially associated with that cause, such as being an official spokesperson or favouring it above other duties, they cease being NMPs. But there is still plenty of leeway in this regard.

The negotiator helps people make a decision, while the politician helps people by effecting legislature. The difference between them is context. The negotiator is working in a place where concerned parties address each other, aided by the negotiator. In this world, the view of, say, the Israelis on an independent Palestine is not the same as the view of the negotiator, whose view is simply to get the Israeli and Palestinian delegations to reach a compromise. The politician is working in a place where his fellows address each other. In this world, the view of a politician is seen as his view, not necessarily the view of the people he represents. This even extends to NMPs. The NMP, after all, is raising views in his view that would benefit society.

This is not to say that there is no place for objectivity. The NMP must be objective when gathering the views of the people, doing research, and understanding any countercurrents. This is the only way he is able to understand the breadth and depth of any given issue. But in Parliament, when speaking, he is no longer objective. He is talking about what he thinks would benefit society, which takes away all notions of objectivity. After all, to be objective is to not take a side, regardless of the consequences of doing so.

This is the place for objectivity and impartiality for NMPs. But NMPs are politicians, whose job is to decide on policies for the country. This means taking a stance at some point in time, or being sidelined forever. It is impossible to be an objective and impartial politician, but it is when you are simply gathering information. This should be the standard all politicians should hold themselves to for objectivity and impartiality. To do more would be akin to hunting dragons up a tree. To do less would mean dishonouring the people of Singapore.

Mah also said that NMPs should not be activists because doing so is ‘not in line with the objective of the NMP scheme, which is to provide more non-partisan views in the House’. To be perfectly blunt, ‘non-partisan views’ are the views of citizens, who are informed by partisan groups (the Government, activist groups, etc.)…which means that non-partisan views are partisan views. A truly non-partisan view comes from someone who has been living in isolation in a dark cave for the past decade or so, because that someone would be untouched by all the groups out there spreading information about anything. But that kind of view is both uninformed and irrelevant in today’s context.

The objective of the NMP scheme should be to provide more views in the House. These views could then be accounted for in future and existing policies, to better benefit the country. If Mah were referring to this, then NMPs should still be allowed to champion causes outside of Parliament without being partisan. This would have the effect of reinforcing the message of that cause and strengthening its influence in Parliament. This would mean that Parliament would have to understand this message and this cause while considering legislation, and take it into account.
But this does not mean surrendering to that message. If, for example, an NMP decides to advocate for a group that believes in stopping all immigration and closing off Singapore, and that group somehow becomes a strong voice in Parliament, Parliament still does not have to pass legislation that stops immigration and turns Singapore into an isolationist state. Before legislation is passed, it must be debated upon in Parliament in order to consider all points of view, and to accept and reject useful and harmful ideas respectively. While this means taking the isolationists’ message into account, it does not automatically mean passing a law that turns Singapore isolationist. But since NMPs have to go through a vetting process, and are recommended by the communities they live and work in, I would think that such a scenario is unlikely to begin with.

An NMP is merely an MP who is supposed to represent other views in Parliament and with diminished powers. The objective of raising these views is to bring about better legislation and other changes to better serve the people of Singapore. But in order to do this, the NMP cannot be objective and impartial all the time. At some point, he has to take a stand, or be ignored -- along with the people he is supposed to represent. I hope that our new MPs are able to understand this, and act accordingly. And that Mah understands just what his words really mean.