ST, Thursday, March 1, 2007
Why PAP MPs should go beyond cheerleading
What is the role of a PeopleÂ’s 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 MPÂ’s 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 MPÂ’s role to articulate constituentsÂ’ 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 MPÂ’s role should include critiquing policies, voicing independent points of view & scrutinizing the executiveÂ’s 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 GovernmentÂ’s 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 GovernmentÂ’s 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 Government’s fiscal position is tight, quoting from international reports that said the Singapore Government’s Budget principles “tend to under-report its true fiscal strength” by excluding land sales from the Budget’s 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.
