| Yawning
Bread. 13 May 2009 Parliament now faces "gay test"
|
|
|
|
The Straits Times reported that there were "at least nine new faces vying" for the seats [1]. It appears that this figure did not come from Parliament, but from the newspaper's own checks. It identified two persons who independently submitted their own applications -– Beatrice Chia-Richmond and Terry Lee. It also reported that there are three candidates nominated by the business community, two from the arts community and three more from the professions. The newspaper does not seem to know of lawyer George Hwang, who also submitted his papers independently. So there are at least ten new faces, not nine. Two existing NMPs confirmed that they were seeking a second term. They are Gautam Bannerjee and Siew Kum Hong. Two others -- Eunice Olsen and Loo Goon Yong -- would not be eligible since they have already served the maximum two terms. Three first-term NMPs appear to have told the Straits Times that they were not interested in a second term. That leaves two more of the existing nine NMPs whose intentions are not known: Thio Li-Ann and Edwin Khew. The newspaper said they did not respond to queries Monday. Applicants will be vetted by an eight-member Select Committee of MPs, led by Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi, and which includes Opposition Leader Low Thia Khiang. The panel's recommendations will be submitted to the President for his action. Over the last few days, I asked a few friends what they thought Siew's chances were. Almost everyone thought his chances of re-appointment were poor. In their view, the government would see Siew as too controversial a figure -– which is almost a debasement of the word "controversial".
|
||
|
Siew is outstanding as an NMP if you go by a simple measure of how often he participates in parliamentary debates. In the 26 months that he has been in the House, he spoke or asked questions on 134 occasions. The annexure What did NMPs speak on 2006 - 2008? lists the topics that he and other NMPs spoke on or asked questions about. What will strike you is that Siew ranged over different fields, while some other NMPs restricted themselves to extremely narrow topics. From a taxpayer's perspective, Siew is value for money.
See footnote [2] regarding how the figures were obtained
Yet, people think that Siew is unlikely to be reappointed. If they are right -- and I hope not -- one has to wonder what the ruling party, which dominates the Select Committee, looks for as desirable qualities. Some of us with long memories recall why the NMP scheme was put up in the first place -- to give a sop to voters that there will be "alternative" voices in parliament so that there is no need to vote for opposition parties. Do we now accept that these "alternative" voices should merely be heard only rarely, and not as often as 134 times in 26 months? Of those 134 times, most people will associate Siew with his tabling of the Parliamentary Petition for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Some 2,300 citizens manually signed the petition and Siew thought it was his duty to bring it before Parliament. He also spoke up for repeal. Of course, the petitioners knew the likelihood of success was low. The government had indicated long before that it had already closed its mind on the matter, even though Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself said in April 2007 that the law must eventually go. He repeated it to Reuters on 24 April 2007: "[If] this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it." Still, one gets the feeling that the government wasn't happy with Siew for even bringing up the subject and forcing them to justify why they refused to repeal 377A. It was a most uncomfortable debate since three PAP MPs broke ranks, rising to speak for repeal, and the Prime Minister himself -– who rarely speaks in Parliament -– had to get up from his seat to defend his government's position. Maybe they won't forgive Siew for his peskiness. * * * * * As far as I know, neither has any intention to revive the 377A debate. In fact, Hwang said so to the LGBT communities quite explicitly. This doesn't mean that in other areas of interest to LGBTs, they won't speak up. Having said that, we shouldn't pigeonhole gay persons. There is no reason why a gay NMP cannot be engaged on other issues, from energy conservation to defence policy. Chen will definitely be speaking up on matters relevant to the arts community since she was proposed by them. Hwang's interest -– as I understand from him -– ranges from Asean integration to human rights and freedom of speech. Yet, the undeniable fact is that our leaders are backward. In my estimation, the Select Committee will be unable to shake off from front and centre of their minds that they are looking at a gay man and a lesbian woman. This fact will loom large before them and it will be hard to get their minds around it. So, as much as we may say -– with reason too –- that gay people should be treated purely on their merits as potentially capable NMPs, and that sexual orientation should not be a factor, my best guess is that the Select Committee's decision will hinge strongly on this. And the public perception, whichever way the decision goes, will likewise make much of it. It will be interesting to watch
whether our legislature will flunk the two tests they now face: whether to
reappoint Siew Kum Hong, and whether to appoint neither, one or both the
new gay applicants. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
Monday, 11 May 2009, was the last submission day for candidates wishing to
be considered for the position of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP).
There are nine available places starting in the middle of this year for a
term of office up to two and a half years. The term may be shorter should
parliament be dissolved and a general election called.
