Good afternoon everyone. Welcome back to this side of the house. I'm Eileen.

I'm Andre, and today we have with us our guest for episode number two, Sylvia. Hi everyone. Okay.

We've been getting questions about when the next episode of this podcast will be out, and now that Parliament is in that recess, but taking a break for December, we thought it's also a good time for Andre and I to give a recap of our first quarter of parliamentary sittings and to share a little bit of our experience.

And there's actually a reason why we have invited Sylvia to be our guest for the second episode, because some of you may not know, some of you who may not be familiar, but Sylvia was also an NCMP Back in 2006.

Yes. So...

Yeah, maybe you can share a little bit about that. Sylvia, you were an NCMP in Parliament back then, alongside two stalwarts of the opposition, Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong. So it must have been quite an interesting experience, like this two experience. Experienced opposition stalwarts, and you were fresh NCMP After running in your first election, right?

That's right. I mean, it seems so long ago, nearly 19 years back, and in those days actually, well, the Constitution was different in the sense that presently, you know, there's this safety valve of 12 NCMPs in Parliament if there are no elected opposition MPs. But in 2006 it was fixed at three. So because there were two elected MPs already, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low then there was a seat just for one more person to be an NCMP, Aljunied team stood against the PAP team, and we were the highest losers. But the vote share we had was 43.9 which is much less what you guys got, you know, like you had 48.5 I think Jalan Kayu and our Tampines team at 47.37 so it was 43.9 but the mood at that time was such, and that was the highest, you know, losing team, so to speak.

Anyway, the party decided to nominate me to take up the seat, and I was there, you know, from 2006 to 2011, I mean, it was a steep learning curve, like, I think what you all are facing now, you know. And of course, the two experienced guys, I mean, they're there. And I worked with Mr Low because he's our party chief. There was a lot of pressure that I felt, which I think you may be feeling too, because the first time you enter parliament, you know that people are assessing you all the time because they don't know whether you can do it. You know, what are the topics you're going to raise? How are you going to do it? And I can always also see that the ruling party is also assessing to see, okay, what is this person like? Is this person constructive or not, but I'm sure you guys also feel the pressure, right? I mean, yeah.

I think I actually want to pick up what you said about the public pressure and social media and everything. In many ways, the NCMP role has perhaps evolved a little bit because of how social media is these days. Back in your day, Parliament wasn't live streamed for one thing, right? And then, because you are at NCMP, and you don't have a constituency, basically, all you do that the public can see is in Parliament, and then, even then, it's you're relying on reporting by the mainstream media as to your performance in Parliament, right? As opposed to, basically, since the last term that kicked off with live streaming started at the same time, and then social media has blown up in the political space as well, right? So I think in many ways, the NCMP role is much more visible now, right? The public can really see what you're doing. That's probably, to me, the biggest change since your time.

Well, one change also that took place was that during my time, the NCMPs didn't have equal voting rights with the elected MPs, so we were not allowed to vote on constitutional amendments or money bills, you know, supply bills. So I remember one speech I was making, it was very likely to be on the amendment to the Constitution, and my final line was this, and my party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, will vote against this bill because I cannot vote.

So maybe that's a good time for us to get into the nitty gritty of exactly where the powers of NCMP are distinct from those of elected MP, right? So as far as parliament is concerned, these days, there is hardly any distinction. It's about the same, right? We can still vote on constitutional amendments. We can vote on supply bills. So basically, anything that has to do with budgets and money, and we've always been able to vote on regular bills. So I think the only remaining distinction is administrative, if I'll put it that way, we can't hire legislative assistants, or at least not funded.

We're not given an allocation right for research assistants or legislative assistants, exactly. And I think many have also wondered whether we Andre and I have also gotten questions on whether we are planning to be full time, whether we are able to do that, and realistically speaking, today, Singapore, I think it's very challenging.

Yes, not impossible. I don't actually know the exact figure of what our allowance is.

It's not the same. I mean, there's another we get one. So, yeah, so. I think realistically, you probably still need to work. Yeah, I think the other thing also that we were talking about earlier was that even if residents or members of the public were to come to you guys for some problem they're having with a government, you have no local standby to write for them. And you know, the correct advice would be for the person to go back to see their local MP, because that person is actually, in a sense, empowered to represent the constituents.

Yeah, yeah. And that's one of the things I also found to be very critical. I mean, the difference between being an NCMP and an elected MP, in the sense that as an NCMP, you don't have an area to take care of, right? So besides not being able to represent your constituents in letter writing, you're also not able to show that the Workers' Party is able to deliver on the ground. You see which we have been able to do in Hougang, Aljunied, and Sengkang.

First of all, the law the law requires us to run the town councils right so the residents can assess for themselves whether we are doing a good job or not. It also gives many or more opportunities for us to deploy, say, volunteers or potential candidates, where they can see direct benefit to the public, whether it's to help running the meet people session or or running welfare programs or helping in letter writing and MPs show to the public that we can perform, that you can see if you're in charge of an area, but if you're NCMP, talk about this comment by Mr Low Thia Kiang some years back, that NCMP are like duckweed.

I mean, I think that's what he means. Because you're not rooted, you're sort of floating there, so you're sort of neither here nor there, in a way. Of course, we have to acknowledge that being an NCMP is an important platform in Parliament, you have the chance to show that you can actually debate and raise issues of public importance, you know, and you can hold your own there. That's very important. But again, you know, I think we can never say that they are equivalent.

I mean, the NCMP and the elected MP position. And I think, you know, if you look at WP's attitude towards NCMPcs, I mean, of course, we have had a history of accepting a number of NCMP seats that were offered to us, but we've also rejected some of them. Each election will have a fresh consideration. You will need to see what are the circumstances if we offer any NCMP seats and whether it makes sense to take up those seats or not.

Yeah, Andre is actually the he's, I mean, an NCMP because he stood in Jalan Kayu, but back then, way back then, in 1984 right? Also when we contested in Jalan Kayu, I think we did not. Yeah, that was the very first NCMP seat that was available, yeah, because the scheme had just been given birth too.

I mean, one can form one's own conclusions. The NCMP scheme came into being in the 1984 GE just before that, you have Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam winning the Anson by-election seat. So it would not be out of turn for commentators to say, in fact, the PAP government has used this argument to say that you don't have to worry the opposition's here to stay. There's this guaranteed NCMP seat. So in a sense, no need to vote them into you because. But thankfully, the voters have their own thoughts about this. So you can see that despite the existence of the scheme, from then, we have managed to gain some seats in parliament, so I think the voters can see the big picture.

And funny enough, I've noticed every time the WP makes some electoral gains, then the quota for NCMP also expands at around the same time.

I haven't tracked it that closely, so I don't know whether it's directly linked in that way.

Don't actually think there's a causal link. I just think it has so turned out this way every time you think, Oh, finally the NCMP scheme, because I think the ultimate goal is for the Workers' Party or the opposition cause in general, to win so many seats that isn't render the NCMP scheme completely irrelevant. Have to have this discussion, because it may still be in the Constitution, it's this vestige of the past, but we always end up with more elected MPs than the quota. So it's not relevant, but somehow, every time we come close, then it like they amend the Constitution and push the quota out a little bit.

So it's very interesting, because now we have been hovering at this 10 elected MPs, right? Yeah. So the quota is 12, yes. So are you expecting, hoping that we will be the last two NCMPs?

Yeah. But how was it you're preparing for your maiden speeches? I mean, what? How did you find that experience?

Yeah, I think it was really like it made me really think about why I stepped forward and ran for parliament to begin with. Right the maiden speech, for those of you who are not familiar, it's couched in the context of President Tharman, gives a very broad opening address. To Parliament sets out the government's agenda for next five years. It's deliberately framed in a very broad way. It's a platform and instrument for MPs to respond to it so that they can kind of present their own agenda. It really makes you sit down and think about why you're doing this, and what you really want to advocate for and what you stand for, and then that sets the tone for your next five years, in a way so you what was the topic you picked up on?

I forgot, we better support them to aspire to different pathways and different definitions of success. I spoke about caregivers in particular, also how to better support young mothers who want to make a choice between trying to stay at home or to go to work on recognizing that caregiving oftentimes is that unpaid. It's unpaid work that many of us do in many different capacity, some more than others, and oftentimes women.

One thing that I called for in my speech was to equalize childcare subsidies for all Singaporean children, so regardless of their mother's employment status, because right now, if the mum works, you get more subsidies. And ironically, if the mum stays at home, you get less. And I was actually very heartened to hear a lot of feedback from the ground. Actually, after that speech went out right that a lot of stay at home moms also felt like it was something that resonated with them.

The reason why I included my speech was because we spent so much time on the ground talking to people in Tampines, North the BTO estates, many young families who moved in and faced with this impossible choice of, you know, do I want to stay at home and be able to witness, you know, these milestones of my children versus the pressures of having to, you know, be a dual income family and picking up on that point, specifically the one about equalizing treatment for working and non working mothers, right?

You had shared with me before you gave your speech that this was actually feedback you received from Singaporeans on the ground, right? So actually, kind of tying back to what we said before about the limitations of being NCMP, in many ways, we can take action on feedback that's shared with us right in Parliament. It's more of the stuff on the ground, like somebody wants an overhead bridge to be built for the elderly or lives and things like that. It's where we really as NCMPs, as duckweed without roots. We can't really take action there, right? But you have demonstrated in your speech, really, that's exactly how we can give voice to Singaporeans despite our not being elected.

Yeah. We do have some touch points because we continue to work the ground, yeah, but I think some very important things that say elected MPs do is, for instance, at the meet the people session. I think oftentimes the people who do show our MPs, and I think that was also where I first started volunteering with workers. Party is also where you see, you know that, however well intended policies are, that it always, you know, cannot cover 100% of the population. That's where you also become aware, I think of where some of these gaps are, and think about how you can work that into your parliamentary work.

It's always very gratifying to know that something you've raised in Parliament actually resonates with the ground. It gives you meaning, you know, in the things that you're doing, at times when I felt a bit down, you know, they'll say, Oh no, you know, you must keep on going. And that kind of thing, you feel quite invigorated by that. And I think we have to be prepared for all kinds of feedback, good and bad, you know. I mean, that's part and parcel of being a public figure. We just have to take it on our chin and just just move on. You know? Well, you were talking about maiden speeches, right? And yours was something about the how AI would disrupt everything, and social safety nets, you know, needed to be much more extensive and this kind of thing.

Yeah, I think mine was quite a broad one. It was framed around the near and medium term future, like a lot of the challenges that we're facing right AI, and also the reorientation of global power and everything. And I think that gave me the platform to speak about things I've always been quite passionate about. I've been with the party, volunteering for like five over years, really. So I felt a lot of the on the ground, kind of like you said, the policy cannot cover everyone and all the people falling between the cracks. So the first topic I really want to speak about was strengthening social safety nets, because the global context draws it into that much more intense focus. Right Like now, more and more people are going to be left behind, or potentially left behind, if we don't reorient and adjust our way of thinking about supporting those who may fall between the cracks. And that's why I felt very strongly about speaking about it.

But I've noticed, like among the newer MPs, kind of I mean, and finally, we tended to focus on broader, systemic topics, right? Because we wanted to set a broad agenda for ourselves for the next five years. I think that's a correct approach. Yeah. But like Sylvia yourself, your speech was quite pointed and very specific about the institution, because as an experienced MP you kind of have the you've already shown what your parliamentary agenda is over the several terms, right? So was that the reason why this time we decided to speak on such a specific thing, I was actually cracking my head over what to say. And I was also thinking to myself what value I could add, because I didn't want to duplicate what others might be covering, you know, and so I thought being a believer in institutions and in how I think Parliament should work, and. I thought that would be my value add, you know, and, and therefore, I concentrated on how we were doing in the rule of law index, you know, which is maintained by the world Justice Project. And I thought it would be important to make the point that you see all of us in Parliament, right, although we are maybe from different parties, but we've all come out of our comfort zones to do something that is actually not so easy, you know, it's you're putting yourself up there for public scrutiny. Your family may be affected, you know. And and you I wanted to say that, you know, let's just look at each other as competitors rather than enemies, you know. But then the subsequent events that happened just kind of showed me that I think we are still some way to go before we can actually regard each other?

Yeah, because I also think that maybe you can tell me, because you guys are younger, the younger voters, they don't really like to see the hard ball politics of the past. I mean, they would prefer just focus on the issue and don't, don't focus on the person, and let's have a civilized conversation. I think all of us will have to try to try to adapt to it, because also the kind of politics of the voters want to see is important, you know, yeah, yeah. So I thought that I would focus on that, but, like I say, we still have somewhere to go.

Well, I like to think that we're moving in that direction. I think that there is a trend that we can begin to see emerging, but I think we have some ways to go to fully arrive.

I think voters want to see that you have a conversation in good faith that we are all trying to work towards something that's better for Singapore. Yeah, and to reflect that different Singaporeans can hold different views about the same thing, but still love our country.

Well, I guess bringing back the topic of NCMPs and our work in Parliament, right, despite not having a constituency to call home. We recently wrapped up the online safety bill, yes, or OSRA for short, as NC MPs. I think, in fact, you were two out of the four MPs that spoke on the bill, right. The other two were Ting Ru and Pritam, right. And I think you Andre did quite a lot of research in the preparation for the debate. So you were not hampered by your NCMP role, I suppose, in doing that, right? Because, I mean, ultimately, it's in the job description, right? We are supposed to be parliamentarians first and foremost. So I felt like, you know, giving the bill the rigor it deserved was was the least we could do.

I mean, we were not hampered by our positions as NCMP. But we were hampered by the very short timeline in which this bill, you know, came up for its first reading, where we had that window between the October sitting and the November sitting to go through it, understand it, identify areas that we thought needed strengthening exactly, and tabling that. And I think all of that took a lot of consideration and time, and also sort of first time doing that, yeah, you know, to the things in and we're trying to figure this out.

I think you guys have learned a lot in the last two months or so. No, September, October, no three months, 65 days, yeah, three times. But the fact is that, you know, if I were to compare my experience as an NC, MP, in 2006 Okay, so in those days, there was only in for the party, there was only Mr Low as MP, for aogang and myself as NCMP. So we would never have been able to do these sort of things, like whether it be to table any sorts of motions or make amendments to bills, because we just don't have the critical mass to even try to undertake such a thing. So I think you know, if you take the historical view, you know, we are, it's good that WP is in this position now.

I think ever since, you know, we had also the Aljunied victory and then the Sengkang victory as well. I think proposing amendments to bills took place in the last term of Parliament too. I think when we were debating FICA, the foreign interference countermeasures act, yeah, but I was just saying that if I look back to my first term in Parliament, it would not be something that we would have done, because just didn't have the manpower and bandwidth to do something like that. So, you know, we have made some inroads. I would say, do you recall if we tabled amendments between 2011 and 2020 we were starting to do things like filing adjournment motions and stuff, you know, it is a function of numbers like, you know, in the end, I think we should, in that sense, take a little pride in the fact that, you know, we have moved a little way towards, you know, making a bigger contribution in Parliament. And it is quite resource intensive to be able to table amendments, right? Because I think first it's digesting the bill itself, and then having to have that discussion about what what parts of it do you think needed strengthening, right before being able to think about what kind of amendments do you want to put forth?

Yeah, and like you said, the timeline is so compressed, right? We had a three week gap between parliamentary weeks. Three weeks includes the sitting week, so two intervening weeks between each set of parliamentary sittings.

But this OSRA one previous times when we had proposed amendments, right? It was on the basis that if you don't accept my amendment, I'm not voting for your bill, right? But this one is, we are tabling amendments. Think this will make the bill better, but even if we reject it, we'll support the bill anyway, because we believe that the overarching aims are worth pursuing, because we thought it shouldn't be a binary, right?

Yeah, and I think we're behaving responsibly. Possibly in the sense that, okay, like, you don't know amendments have arrived, but please consider them for the future.

I think it was quite a significant Bill, in the sense that it was creating a whole new public agency that will safeguard our rights in this very fast evolving space because of the powers that this agency was going to get, that we thought that we, you know, should examine it with regard to make sure that you know whatever power they're given, that they exercise it with care, and that all Singaporeans will benefit from having this commission.

And you pointed out that we took a quite nuanced position on voting for the bill, right? And it's in our amendments. And I think to give the viewers context in that two week window that we had, we had to read the bill, identify what we thought were strengthening draft the amendments come to a party consensus, because, you know, we are a caucus. We need to get consensus from all the party members. And we're not necessarily all like ideological clones of each other.

We had a good discussion. There were different views. So in that two week window, we had to do all of this. We don't have an army of public servants behind us actually being able to scrutinize the language and the legislation. It's, I think, something creditable.

Yeah, so have we? Have we set the precedent for the remainder of our term now?

No, I mean, but I think this is important and good that you created that momentum. So hopefully it will set a bar for yourself, I mean, but at the same time, I think, because it's a long road, you'll have to manage your own intensity. So the good thing is, because we have a team now, so we can kind of play a tag team kind of thing, you take the lead on that. So yeah, it's better now. Yeah, it's our largest contingent ever, right?

No, I tell you, I can still remember in the past when Mr Low was alone in Parliament. That was before I became an NCMP. I volunteered to help him look at the bills, and it was a lot of work. He was the only one who could deliver the signature. So when I became NCMP, he was very happy. Okay, let you do it. Okay. So eventually, when it became the 2011 there were more people you can share the load, and also people coming from different perspectives, different professions and all that, it becomes more rounded. Let's hope that, you know, if we make more inroads, then the load on each of us will be, I think the first term is always tough, like I say, because of your expectations of yourself, and also that the public is watching you because new you know, like, let's see what these people can do. So the pressure will always be there, yeah. So it is actually a bit of a baptism of fire, I would say. But I've always felt that nothing that's worth doing is ever easy. You know yourself, your character like you believe that this thing is important to do. It just comes to the territory. You just, you just have to make sure that you keep your eye on the big picture, you know, and hopefully people will see that you're sincere and trying to do something for Singapore.

Kind of wanted to pick up something you touched on Sylvia, like the fact that you felt you have a constructive point to add to the debate, and not necessarily just opposing, right? I guess maybe the broader topic we can discuss is, how have you seen the role of the WP in Parliament evolve over the years since you started until today? And maybe, how does it gel with what the public expects from us?

Well, I think WP's role remains fundamentally the same. I mean, in the sense that we want to give people a choice at the ballot box, and at the same time, we want to show that we're responsible and rational in our politics, right? So I think that has not changed. I think is particular about each term of Parliament is perhaps the personalities of the MPs involved. Like some people prefer a harsher tone of debate. Some people, you know, they prefer to just be bureaucratic about it, you know, but the goal is still the same. And of course, I think that the atmosphere in parliament over the years, probably overall, has changed. I mean, if you read the Hansard of the past, that means way before my time, also in early days of independence and all that, they used to be shouting at each other, you know, calling each other, oh, you're a scream, you know, like, anyway, we recorded the Hansard then. But nowadays, you know, we're more particular about parliamentary language, right? So I think the fundamental mission of WP remains the same, like I say, it's also what each of us brings to the table and how we want to realize that mission in the way we conduct our debates, or the way that we ask questions or the way we criticize. I mean the public good point that you brought up, because WP has been criticized for being too moderate, you know, for being too nice sometimes as well. But I think we have to decide for ourselves how we want to do things, and we use the elections as a barometer of what the public accepts. So long as we keep getting public support, I think it's a sign that we are not wrong, and that's probably is what Pritam meant on 'The Assembly' right.

Politics is about getting the people's support, also, if you're going to contest elections right, and I think sometimes public opinion can differ quite drastically from your own perspective of what's going on in Parliament. Because some say, why is Workers' Party focusing on all these like high brow conceptual issues and not talking about the things that matter? Singapore, cost of living, like my maiden speech, I talked about social safety nets, housing affordability. These are topics that still get aired in Parliament. But yeah, exactly. Employment, workers' rights, but I guess in all the noise of social media and what gets amplified and what becomes viral, it usually doesn't reflect the full parliamentary agenda, right?

Let me just put it this way. You know they'll feel that, you know, you're too quiet, because maybe they don't follow so closely, but it's human nature, like you have so much attention you can pay to, you know, per day, and nobody really follows politics so closely, right?

I guess oftentimes, because Andre and I are the NCMPs, right? But we have people coming to up to us on the ground, and they see us, oh, you're the NMP right? And then do you want to correct them? Because if you correct them, then you have to explain the whole Why am I not? You know, what does a C stand for, exactly?

And funniest thing is, even the media sometimes get it wrong, so maybe for our audience's benefit, what is the distinction? Non constituency MP means we are we kind of, we consented election, and we are the best losers. If you can put it that way, we don't have a full mandate, but we do have elected mandate of sorts, right? We are the the writers up in the election. And so in a way, we are representing the voices of representing 48% of Jalan Kayu, and 47% of Tampines, exactly.

But nominated, MP is nominated. They don't take part in election. They don't take part in elections. They start. There is a history of, you know, then resigning their positions to contest an election. Very recently, very recently, yes, yes. So yeah, that is the major distinction. And of course, the powers are also slightly different. They still maintain the distinction that they are not able to vote on constitutional amendments and supply bills, but they can vote on regular bills.

And I think we are hearing, we're seeing more reporting around NMPs recently, because the deadline just passed for the submission of nominations, yeah, for the NMPs for the 15th parliament. You know, during the nomination period, there were sessions in Singapore conducted by former NMPs to come and talk about whether or not the scheme is still relevant, whether it should be kept, in part, in whole, you know, just become a relic of the past. But I think everyone landed somewhat all the past. NMPs also had different opinions on whether the scheme should continue.

And actually, I think that debate also extends to the NCMP scheme, right? Both of these, like non traditional classes of members of parliament, do they maintain their relevance in this day and age? And age, and I think the Workers' Party were quite clear, right? Broadly speaking, we do not think that these two schemes should persist into the future, right? Because we really want Singaporean politics to evolve to a point where they become irrelevant, where we do have sufficient representation in Parliament and diversity of views just from the elected MPs.

I think as far as the NCMP scheme is concerned. We have stated in the past that if the GRCs were to be abolished, then the NCMP scheme would be unnecessary. And the context of that was that that when, you know, for a very long time, the barrier to entry for GRCs was very high for smaller parties, you know. So, so it was a barrier actually, to participation. So that was the consideration. Yeah.

Thank you very much Sylvia for joining us today on our podcast episode. So some of you may wondering why we've chosen to talk about this topic for the second episode. Is also really because, through our DMS, and also, when we meet you guys out there on the streets, everyone's really curious about what parliament has been like, especially for Andre and I, it being our first times. I'm sure you've seen some, some bites of us, and you have not then we hope you'll see some in the coming months. But also, so we thought the podcast is interesting. It's a good avenue for us to sit down and kind of unpack this for you, and we hope demystified Parliament a little bit for you all.

And I think the fact that social media makes Parliament more accessible to many people now actually gives rise to more questions, because I think in the past, it was this just very far away thing and far away concept that people don't have any conception of, right? So okay, MPs are in Parliament, they're debating, and then once every five years, we vote for them again. But now that the clips are percolating through social media, people see it, but they kind of don't understand the underlying mechanisms behind it, so we thought it would be a good opportunity for us to disconnect. Yes, I think it's good to get into a little bit of detail.

And thank you, Sylvia, for being here with us to share your perspectives from 20 years ago versus today and how it has evolved and changed. And on that note. And on that note, thank you very much. Please let us know what you think in the comments below, and we look forward to seeing you next time. Happy holidays. Bye, bye. Merry Christmas. Done.