Disclosing Identities of Applicants for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament

Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister of Defence and Leader of the House whether the identities of applicants seeking appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament can be made public and, if not, what are the reasons for not disclosing the identities of applicants prior to

Page: 24

or after the appointment process.

The Member has asked whether names of those seeking appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) can be made public. The legal requirements and administrative processes for selecting NMPs for appointment by the President are laid out in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which was drafted after extensive consultation and debates. This was in 1989−1990 when then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong moved the Constitution Amendment Bill to provide for NMPs in this Parliament. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee to examine in detail the merits and demerits of various modes of selecting NMPs including the question which the Member has asked today, that is, whether the process should be made more public.

This Select Committee, after careful deliberation, submitted their report to Parliament then and therein did not support an open process as it would, and I would quote here, "cause considerable discomfiture and embarrassment to the persons concerned and their families. Few, if any, individual being considered for NMP would want to subject themselves to such public scrutiny". Instead, the Committee proposed the current method of selection where NMPs are selected through a Special Select Committee of Parliament.

The 1990 Select Committee on the Constitution Amendment Bill also made two specific proposals which have been incorporated into our processes. First, that the Special Select Committee obtains the views of other Members of Parliament (MPs) before it made its final recommendations to the President. This is provided for in section 2(3) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. Second, that the criteria for selecting NMPs be put out, which have been spelt out in section 3(2) of the Fourth Schedule, and I will read it:

*"The persons to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement; and in making any nomination, the Special Select Committee shall have regard to the need for nominated Members to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible."*

The Fourth Schedule did not impose a requirement for the Special Select Committee to publish the identities of all the candidates who apply to be NMPs. Indeed, the 1990 Select Committee on the Constitution Amendment Bill argued against it, as I have explained.

Page: 25

Mdm Speaker, I think the reasons cited for limiting the process to the Special Select Committee are still valid. Revealing the names of unsuccessful candidates may give rise to speculation and public debate on their suitability. It may also cause those who are not appointed discomfort or embarrassment. This may deter potential good applicants from participating in the NMP process in the future. Other Parliaments also approach this matter in the same way. For example, in the United Kingdom, there is a scheme which invites members of the public to submit names for appointment to the House of Lords. The nomination and assessment process is undertaken by the House of Lords Appointments Commission which treats all nominations and supporting information in confidence.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for his reply. I am aware of the Select Committee report. I would like to know, given the desire for more transparency, whether the identity of the applicants can be made known. If someone is prepared to serve, there should not be a concern about whether he or she will or will not get appointed. Essentially, my concern is whether we can add transparency into the process.

Mdm Speaker, I would think that Parliament in 1990 debated this thoroughly and was in no less pressure or desire to have transparency. But as I have outlined quite in detail the reasons why an open process, on the balance, was not supported and preferred by the Special Select Committee. I would leave it to the Member to see who were the Members of the Special Select Committee that sat to put up recommendations to the President for the appointment of the NMPs, but thus far, I do not think there has been a large issue in terms of integrity and transparency as he points out.

The reasons why the process should not be made public, as recommended by the then-Special Select Committee, are still valid. The Member says that those who want to put themselves up for public service should not feel embarrassed or discomfort. I would presume he is speaking for himself and for others who wish to reveal. But the truth is there may be others who do. It is a balance and I think we would keep to this system because it has worked well. Certainly, I think the Members who have been selected into this House as NMPs have done credit to the House.

Page: 26