- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Nov 19, 2008
FROM THE GALLERY
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>When in the line of fire, listen to the ground
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WHEN it comes to bread-and-butter issues affecting wallets and balance sheets, Members of Parliament showed in the last two days that they are not out of touch with the man-in-the-street.
Burning questions relating to how key Singapore investments and ordinary investors alike have been hit by the financial crisis percolated from Internet and coffee shop talk to the parliamentary chamber.
In response, the Government gave answers and pledges on future courses of action, such as in relation to the integrated resorts and investigations into allegations of mis-selling of complex financial products.
Very significantly, Parliament was told how much certain town councils run by the ruling party have sunk into toxic investments, one of the most interesting pieces of news to come out of the two-day sitting.
The problem is, some ministers and parliamentary secretaries sound as though they are delivering stakeholders' reports when they speak. When shot follow-up questions by MPs, some are unable to reply convincingly.
When an office-holder comes across as cold and technocratic, this could be alienating to ordinary Singaporeans who may have already taken a beating on the stock market and shudder at the thought of losing more money through poor investments by their local town council.
Senior Minister of State Grace Fu of the Ministry of National Development (MND), for one, was expressionless and sounded stern when facing Nominated MP Eunice Olsen's question on Monday on whether her ministry would further cap the proportion of town council investments allowed in non-government securities and bonds.
She reiterated the Government's long-held principle of 'devolving' local management to town councils, including the management of their finances.
'It is neither practical nor desirable for MND to be overly prescriptive' about the councils' investment decisions, Ms Fu said, adding that residents should themselves ask their town councils if they were aware of the risks involved in those questionable investments.
Her reply left more doubts. Should it still be business as usual for the ministry, without so much as a nod to greater scrutiny of town councils' financial statements after this $16 million exposure to toxic products? Sometimes, more needs to be said, rather than less.
To be sure, Ms Fu is extremely new to the business of handling questions in Parliament. Given this qualifier, she is actually faring very well indeed.
Younger ministers need more time to fully internalise a policy line such that they can communicate it under the most trying circumstances, confidently and with a human face.
Her colleague in the ministry, Parliamentary Secretary Mohamad Maliki Osman, had a similar struggle yesterday when confronted with another hot- button topic: the limited supply of subsidised rental flats, which the Government wants to reserve for the very needy.
The subject came up during a debate on how to help the 420,000 low-income households who have trouble meeting their monthly mortgage payments on Housing Board loans.
Three MPs told him that more residents have been coming to them with difficulties in this regard, and quizzed him on alternatives other than home ownership for such households.
'Most of the cases, they cannot afford to even downgrade (to a smaller flat). Where do you want them to go,' challenged an impassioned Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC). She appealed for more rental flats and different levels of subsidies.
An earnest-looking Dr Maliki had no real answer to this, apart from reassuring her that the HDB is trying its best to help such families on a case-by-case basis.
Then it was back to the Government's oft-stated aversion to giving out too many subsidies.
'At what point do we actually stop (giving subsidies) and say, 'That's it, I think you have benefited and let's find other solutions for you',' he said.
Older hands such as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam fared better in the line of fire, coming across as more flexible and compassionate while conveying a clear bottom line.
He was asked: Should there be an independent panel to evaluate investors' complaints, rather than have them assessed by the financial institutions themselves?
Mr Tharman's response was a simple one: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires that the process be overseen by independent persons approved by MAS, and this is sufficient to ensure impartiality.
While stressing that the best way forward was to let the rule of law take effect rather than putting political pressure on MAS and the banks, he also said that 'if you ask me where my sympathies are... our sympathies are with the investors', a good number of whom have lost their retirement savings.
Make no mistake about this, he said, 'MAS is not cloistered in...a very formidable building', it is 'listening to feedback all the time'.
Those words, in themselves, are a good reminder for the nation's legislature - to be sensitive to voices from the ground. [email protected]
FROM THE GALLERY
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>When in the line of fire, listen to the ground
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WHEN it comes to bread-and-butter issues affecting wallets and balance sheets, Members of Parliament showed in the last two days that they are not out of touch with the man-in-the-street.
Burning questions relating to how key Singapore investments and ordinary investors alike have been hit by the financial crisis percolated from Internet and coffee shop talk to the parliamentary chamber.
In response, the Government gave answers and pledges on future courses of action, such as in relation to the integrated resorts and investigations into allegations of mis-selling of complex financial products.
Very significantly, Parliament was told how much certain town councils run by the ruling party have sunk into toxic investments, one of the most interesting pieces of news to come out of the two-day sitting.
The problem is, some ministers and parliamentary secretaries sound as though they are delivering stakeholders' reports when they speak. When shot follow-up questions by MPs, some are unable to reply convincingly.
When an office-holder comes across as cold and technocratic, this could be alienating to ordinary Singaporeans who may have already taken a beating on the stock market and shudder at the thought of losing more money through poor investments by their local town council.
Senior Minister of State Grace Fu of the Ministry of National Development (MND), for one, was expressionless and sounded stern when facing Nominated MP Eunice Olsen's question on Monday on whether her ministry would further cap the proportion of town council investments allowed in non-government securities and bonds.
She reiterated the Government's long-held principle of 'devolving' local management to town councils, including the management of their finances.
'It is neither practical nor desirable for MND to be overly prescriptive' about the councils' investment decisions, Ms Fu said, adding that residents should themselves ask their town councils if they were aware of the risks involved in those questionable investments.
Her reply left more doubts. Should it still be business as usual for the ministry, without so much as a nod to greater scrutiny of town councils' financial statements after this $16 million exposure to toxic products? Sometimes, more needs to be said, rather than less.
To be sure, Ms Fu is extremely new to the business of handling questions in Parliament. Given this qualifier, she is actually faring very well indeed.
Younger ministers need more time to fully internalise a policy line such that they can communicate it under the most trying circumstances, confidently and with a human face.
Her colleague in the ministry, Parliamentary Secretary Mohamad Maliki Osman, had a similar struggle yesterday when confronted with another hot- button topic: the limited supply of subsidised rental flats, which the Government wants to reserve for the very needy.
The subject came up during a debate on how to help the 420,000 low-income households who have trouble meeting their monthly mortgage payments on Housing Board loans.
Three MPs told him that more residents have been coming to them with difficulties in this regard, and quizzed him on alternatives other than home ownership for such households.
'Most of the cases, they cannot afford to even downgrade (to a smaller flat). Where do you want them to go,' challenged an impassioned Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC). She appealed for more rental flats and different levels of subsidies.
An earnest-looking Dr Maliki had no real answer to this, apart from reassuring her that the HDB is trying its best to help such families on a case-by-case basis.
Then it was back to the Government's oft-stated aversion to giving out too many subsidies.
'At what point do we actually stop (giving subsidies) and say, 'That's it, I think you have benefited and let's find other solutions for you',' he said.
Older hands such as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam fared better in the line of fire, coming across as more flexible and compassionate while conveying a clear bottom line.
He was asked: Should there be an independent panel to evaluate investors' complaints, rather than have them assessed by the financial institutions themselves?
Mr Tharman's response was a simple one: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires that the process be overseen by independent persons approved by MAS, and this is sufficient to ensure impartiality.
While stressing that the best way forward was to let the rule of law take effect rather than putting political pressure on MAS and the banks, he also said that 'if you ask me where my sympathies are... our sympathies are with the investors', a good number of whom have lost their retirement savings.
Make no mistake about this, he said, 'MAS is not cloistered in...a very formidable building', it is 'listening to feedback all the time'.
Those words, in themselves, are a good reminder for the nation's legislature - to be sensitive to voices from the ground. [email protected]
