ST, Thursday, March 1, 2007
Why PAP MPs should go beyond cheerleading
What is the role of a Peoples Action Party MP in a PAP-dominated
Parliament?
The question came to mind yesterday, as yet another PAP MP rose to
his or her feet to sing praises of this Budget & this
Government, for the second day running.
Mr Wee Siew Kim called Budget 2007 generous & forward-looking.
Dr Fatimah Lateef declared that nowhere else in the world would
anyone find a Budget so full of love & compassion.
Is the PAP MPs role to be a cheerleader for the Government? Maybe
part of his role is to spout & defend the rhetoric of the
excellence of the PAP government. This, after all, is a democracy
with competitive political parties vying for votes.
But too much self-praise by the PAP is off-putting, even if Budget
2007 has won deserved accolades, even from non-partisan observers,
for boldness & generosity.
Or is a PAP MPs role to articulate constituents demands.
MPs were quick to press for more in the Budget for: the
middle-income; the lower middle-income; the elderly; the destitute;
housewives.
But MPs are not just mouthpieces of their residents. They should
also represent the larger national interest, which requires them to
filter self-interest demands of residents, & raise worthy ones
to the attention of the august forum.
Beyond cheerleading & representing constituents, an MPs role
should include critiquing policies, voicing independent points of
view & scrutinizing the executives decisions.
Some PAP MPs did do so yesterday. Among those that stood out was Mr
Ong Kian Min, who used compound interest to argue cogently the case
for raising returns on CPF savings, calling on the CPF Board to go
beyond being an administrator, to becoming a more active pension
fund manager.
The most refreshing speech from Dr Ong Seh Hong.
Amid the chorus of praise for the celebratory Budget, his was a
lone voice in the wilderness questioning if the Government was at
risk of becoming too generous.
He made clear the supported the Budget. But he zoomed in on the
proposal to include capital gains as part of the Net Investment
Income on reserves that a current government can use.
This gives the Government potentially large sums to boost social
spending or for economic growth. Land sales net about $4 billion a
year, for example, although it is unclear yet if they will be
considered part of capital gains.
Instead of applauding the Governments largeese like many other PAP
MPs, he warned against drawing down on capital gains, & called
for limits on the extend of capital gains which may be used in
future Budgets.
His is certainly not a popular point of view but one sure to
resonate with fiscal conservatives may have gone soft with its
constant giveaways. (Fiscal conservatives are, I am sure, not an
inconsiderable constituency in Singapore, a nation known for its
high savings rate.)
These PAP MPs provided value by going beyond adulation to argue a
different point of view, & probing the conventional wisdom of
prevailing policymakers.
But they were a minority. Instead, in the eight-hour debate
yesterday, it was left largely to the few opposition &
Nominated MPs to quiz the PAP on Budget fundamentals.
NMP Eunice Olsen questioned the need to raise the GST & asked
if alternative revenue sources were considered before resorting to
the hike.
Opposition MP Chiam See Ting called for land sales to be included
in the Governments Budget revenue. Using this would remove the
need to raise the GST to finance social spending, he argued.
NCMP Sylvia Lim delivered a well-argued speech challenging fiscal
fundamentals.
For example, she questioned of the Governments fiscal position is
tight, quoting from international reports that said the Singapore
Governments Budget principles tend to under-report its true
fiscal strength by excluding land sales from the Budgets
receipts.
Today, PAP MPs return to the House for a third day of debate on
Budget principles. Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam
will respond to the points raised & sum up the debate.
Going by the substance of the debate so far, he will need to do
just 2 things: accept graciously the praise heaped on the
Government by many PAP MPs, & then deal with the more
substantive issues on the Budget raised by the opposition &
Nominated MPs & the small number of PAP MPs who chose to engage
more thoughtfully with Budget fundamentalists.
