Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 85.
“Sir, I shall not attempt to ask a question and answer it at the same time. Can I ask another supplementary question? Does the Minister agree that the COE, instead of dampening demand, is, in fact, increasing it by virtue of the fact that there is a huge residual value in each car? Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the price of the COE is linked with the demand for it. And if there is strong demand for COEs, the prices will go up. I think that is a simple balance between supply and demand. The market will find its equilibrium. You can advance many other theories why price goes up and goes down. But it merely reflects the balance of supply and demand at the point in time.”
“Can I say that if you do not control the financing aspect and more people are buying cars, the Government will get more revenue by issuing, in fact, more COEs? Am I not right? Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision on whether or not individuals wish to bid for a COE at the prevailing prices is really up to them, and it is the decision of the individual and the upward pressures being provided by the generally good economic conditions that are much stronger than any of the measures that the Member has suggested.”
“Obviously, the Minister has not understood my question. The purpose of COE, as stated by the Government, is to curb or reduce congestion on our roads; in other words, to bring down the car population. Does he not agree with me that one of the reasons why there are so many people buying cars is the easy availability of cheap car loans? If the Government has a policy on car loans by the finance companies that you must provide upfront 70% or 80% cash to buy a car, I am sure the number of car purchasers will be very much less than today. Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the COE system and the Vehicle Quota System is to limit the growth in the vehicle population to a manageable level. Whether or not the financing aspect for COE ought to be manipulated in a way which makes the financing cost different from what the market sets is a separate issue from whether or not the car population can be controlled. I think the car population is being controlled satisfactorily by the system and there is no necessity to interfere with the financial market in order to cater to this particular requirement.”
“Sir, one of the reasons for the increase in the car population is the availability of cheap finance. Will the Minister consider curbing cheap and liberal finance which finance companies are offering to motorcar purchasers? I have a related question to that. Will the Government also consider cutting down the practice of offering generous car loans to its officers? Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure what the Member is suggesting. But if he is suggesting that we increase the price of loan artificially, then I think that may impact unnecessarily on people who want to buy cars. We should let the market set the price for loans. With regard to his second question on whether or not the Government provides generous loans, I do not think the loan conditions of the Government for cars are generous. I think they are adequate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I was speaking yesterday I was interrupted by the call to order to adjourn Parliament. Anyway, I have only a final point to make. I note that there was no report in the White Paper on the recruitment and training of nurses. I observe that, in Appendix B, our hospitals have a low number of beds to population ratio as compared to the other countries listed in that Appendix. I would just cite the best ratio and the lowest amongst the other countries that have been listed in Appendix B. West Germany has one bed to 93 persons. In the USA, the ratio is 1:210 whereas in Singapore, there is one bed to 327 persons. This obviously shows that the number of beds in Singapore is low proportionately compared to the countries listed in Appendix B. Is this due to the fact that we do not have enough nurses to look after the number of intakes of patients in our hospitals? If that is the reason, then there is a weakness in our hospital system which we need to quickly rectify. In this respect, the Government should increase its nurse training programme and also to look into their working conditions and the reasons why Singaporeans are reluctant to become nurses with a view to encouraging more Singaporeans to take up nursing. After all, nursing is a noble profession.”
“But we can have a national system where we cater only for a definite, specific number of services, something like the scheme implemented in Oregon State, USA, or in Canada, as mentioned at page 22 of the White Paper. The other aspect of the health care philosophy, I would like to mention in relation to Government's subvented hospitals, is, "To rely on competition and market forces to improve service and raise efficiency". Again, how can we do this when the Government intends to cap their revenue? In other words, how can they compete if you want to cap their revenue? Be that as it may, the competition among subvented hospitals may not be a good thing. Instead of competition, the Government should promote productivity. It has been shown that "productivity is directly linked to the production of competitiveness rather than its increase". This is quoted from Psychology Today, September 1986 issue, pages 22 to 26. It must be realised that trying to beat others and to do well are two different things as they actually work at cross purposes. In a cooperative situation, others are depending on each other person to succeed. While in a competitive situation, others are hoping that you will fail. I think it is not right that subvented hospitals which are built at great public expense should go all out to make money and become richer through competition. The purpose of subvented hospitals is to serve the public well, and this can be done by good innovative management. Government can give it autonomy or there must be less bureaucracy.”
“On the one hand, you say that Singaporeans must take care of their own health, in other words, pay for all their own health needs out of their own pocket. On the other hand, you say you want to subsidise 65%, so the Government does recognise that there must be subsidy in hospitals, and not rely on individual persons taking full responsibility of their own health care. One wonders whether the Government wants, in the ultimate scenario, every Singaporean to pay for himself all the medical services he needs, or the Government wants each Singaporean to be responsible for his own personal health, in the sense that he exercises regularly, eats simple food, and has a healthy lifestyle. But despite these efforts, should he still fall ill, the Government still makes available to him subsidised beds in subvented hospitals which are affordable to him. In my mind, the former scenario shall never prevail if he gets sick. I had better explain. Despite all efforts in keeping good health, he is stricken with a disease such as cancer. What I want to say is that the individual should not be held entirely responsible for the diseases which he inevitably suffers. Similarly, if he is stricken with a disease such as cancer, which has no effective cure at the moment, it is not prudent to depend on state welfare or medical insurance. It is important that those who fall sick should not be put in a position where they will worry as to where they will get the money to pay for the hospital bill. In this respect, I would like the Government to consider, in its medical package, implementing some form of national insurance scheme. I know the Government is against the buffet system.”
“In the White Paper, it says that "there shall be a cap on the revenue of Government hospitals and that Singaporeans are guaranteed affordable basic medical services. There shall be Government subsidies for the B2 and C Classes." This is certainly a departure from the tough stand taken by the Government a few years back. At that time the Government wanted the restructured hospitals to be self-supporting. That meant the restructured hospitals were thrown into a laissez-faire situation. They have to earn their own keep. Under those circumstances, they have no choice but to up their charges to ensure that they are not in the red. When the Government withdrew its helping hand, the cost of the restructured hospitals had to go up, and not only go up, but go up sharply. Naturally, the population was alarmed, especially the older folks. Obviously, the Government has taken note of the concern of Singaporeans over the rise in health care cost and has taken steps to contain the rising cost. The Government can only do that by giving a helping hand. I note that it intends to do so. The majority of the beds in subvented hospitals shall be subsidised. I hope that the standard of care of patients in the B2 Class and C Class beds shall not drop because they are subsidised. Generally, I agree with the Government's health care philosophy. But it appears to me that there are contradictions within that philosophy. On the one hand, the Government wants to promote personal responsibility for one's health and avoid over-reliance on state welfare or medical insurance. But on the other hand, the Government is committed to giving a good medical package to the people which includes 65% subsidised medical services in subvented hospitals. In this respect, the Minister should clarify.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the Cost Review Committee has pointed out that the cost of health care has risen in recent years. Many Singaporeans or their relatives who have been admitted to hospital already know that. We MPs who are running town councils also know that. We have seen instances of residents coming to ask for delay or waiver of payment of the service and conservancy charges, because the breadwinner of the family had been stricken with cancer or other serious disease and was warded in hospital. All the family savings were used up to pay for his hospital bills, and the family as a result was left in debt. When the Government hospitals were restructured and the consequent removal of much of the Government subsidies, the medical cost in those hospitals escalated sharply. The policy then was to cut down the number of C Class beds. The Government policy at that time was to remove C Class wards in one or two Government hospitals. The reason given was that the C Class wards were not popular. Patients were allowed to use their Medisave to pay for their medical services and as a result, many of them opted for better service, either in the B Class or even the A Class wards. They did not want to be admitted to the C Class wards as they had enough in their Medisave to pay for the better class. For that reason, the Government went ahead to reduce the number of C Class beds. As I remember it, many MPs in this House were alarmed at the rate the Government was cutting down the number of C Class beds. Obviously, now there is a change of heart on the part of the Government. This is reflected in the White Paper.”
“Sir, can I get a clarification? The Minister refers to the 1984 amendment and the debate on it. If he will remember, in fact it was, I think, the hon. Member, Mr Chandra Das, who pointed out that even a youngster who stole a hubcap of a motorcar was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, because it was part of a motor vehicle. And in such a case, if there is an amendment here and his age is slightly over 21, he will not get the chance to have a minimum sentence or if he repeats that similar offence. It is not a serious offence. It is only a hubcap of a motorcar.”
“Sir, can I get a clarification from the Minister? He says that the Ministry has looked into the UK's experience and decided to stick to the age of 16 to 21 years. But I am sure the UK has not got so many mandatory minimum sentences in their criminal law, as we have in Singapore. The 1984 amendment covered a wide range of offences and sometimes even for petty offences the Judge has to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. And sometimes where there is a mandatory minimum sentence and the offence is not that serious, there is a good case to give a probation order. Under this amendment, I think it is going to be very difficult.”
“So I say it would be fairer if, instead of taking the upper limit at 21 years, the upper limit is increased to 25 years. In 1984, the Penal Code was amended to take away the discretion of the Judge in sentencing because mandatory minimum sentences were imposed. At that time, in the debate, the Minister did mention that if there was a deserving case where an offender had committed an offence in which a mandatory minimum sentence should be imposed and the accused person was a deserving case, there was still this provision that he could still be given a probation or a discharge. But now with this amendment, I think the chances of getting a probation, where there is a mandatory minimum sentence to be imposed, are almost nil. So that escape route, where there is a deserving case, there is no possibility of making a probation order.”
“Sir, I cannot support this amendment to the Probation of Offenders Act. My objection is in clauses 2(a) and 3(a). Firstly, it is in respect of the age limit. A young person between 16 and before attaining the age of 21 and without a previous similar conviction can only get probation under this Act. This age is taken on the date of conviction. I think that it would be more proper if this age, especially the upper limit of 21 years, should be taken at the date of the offence. We can think of many situations where a person has committed an offence and he has not been apprehended for some reason, or he has gone away, or sometimes, although he has been arrested, police investigations take a long time and he has exceeded 21 years; or on other occasions where he has committed the offence, but there was very late reporting. So in all these situations, we can envisage that the upper age limit would have been exceeded, and therefore he would not be able to get a probation order or an order of discharge if this amendment comes about. For these reasons, I would suggest that it would be fairer if the age of 16 but not having attained the age of 21 years be taken at the date of the commission of the offence, rather than on the date of conviction. The other objection to this amendment is the upper age limit. We have seen many court cases in which an offender, even on attaining the age of 26 years, comes from a good family background and there is a chance of rehabilitation. He has got proper training and he is on his way to turning a new leaf. It is still possible to rehabilitate that person, especially in our Asian society where the family is so supportive, even at the age of 25 or 26 years.”
“Sir, the Minister of State has explained very clearly why it is better to upgrade than to build new blocks of flats. If that is so, in the earlier years, why were so many blocks of flats demolished instead of being upgraded?”
“Under the first and third categories, it is not a question of whether he can or cannot move out. The question is whether, under the HDB scheme, he can freely continue to sell the flat upon taking possession. It is not a question of whether he wants or does not want or whether he can or cannot. The issue is whether he can.”
“Then he can carry on ad infinitum and enjoy the profits?”
“Since it is upon the sale of the first flat and purchase of the second flat, can he immediately also sell the second flat?”
“Is there a bar on these sellers of flats that they do not have to wait for five years to purchase another HDB flat? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Whether the seller is eligible to buy a second flat from HDB depends on whether the flat he is selling is the first or second flat. In essence, the Government policy on subsidy gives the Singapore citizen two chances to buy from HDB. So if the flat he sells is his first flat, he can sell it, pay a levy, and apply for a second flat. But if the flat he is selling is the second flat, then he cannot come back to HDB.”
“And are they required to pay a levy on the sale price? If so, how much?”
“Sir, I want to clarify with the Minister whether, under these three categories, a purchaser can immediately upon taking possession sell the flat in the open market? Or must he sell it back to the HDB?”
“Sir, as regards the CPF Top-up Scheme, can the Minister tell the House how many new accounts were opened?”
“Can I seek a clarification again? I have spoken about this in this House many times. I think we do need a third university and yet the Government is not willing to spend that money.”
“May I clarify a point which the Minister has made. The Minister has said that the Government will spend heavily on education. May I just know from the Minister what is the upper limit the Government is willing to spend in terms of percentage of the GDP? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: We do not have a precise upper figure. We spend what we think we need for education. Throwing money on education, as many countries have proven, is not the solution to good quality education.”
“If I am not mistaken, the Member is also the President of CASE. He says that when he sees the advertisement on cars, he is confused. I am just wondering whether he really meant it. How can he lead a consumers' association when he himself is confused by advertisements?”
“Sir, a clarification from the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC.”
“The public deserves to know whether or not there is actually subsidy and what the subsidy means, and whether the HDB makes profits on its sale of flats.”
“I agree with the Minister that I had a long debate on land value with the then Prime Minister. I have to clarify that at that time when I said that there was no land value, I meant that the Government could peg any land value to the price it wanted to when it sold to the HDB from its own land bank. But I do not want to go back to history. Sir, the issues are HDB subsidy and whether HDB makes profit on the sale of its flats. Up to today, we have never really got a clear picture of what subsidy really means in regard to the purchase of HDB flats and whether it is just a book subsidy, just only for accounting purposes, or whether really the Government takes out money from its pocket to subsidise the buyers of the flats. Our contention, in fact, is that there are no subsidies, whether book or actual handout. The HDB is, in fact, making profits. As I have said, we have published an article to this effect way back in 1984/85, and we have stated that for a 3-room flat, either the Government suffers a loss of $607 or it makes a profit of $22,000; a 4-room flat, the Government can make up to $6,000 to $40,000; a 5-room flat, the Government can make a profit of up to $14,000 to $63,000; and an executive flat, the Government can even make as much as $90,000. We have got all these figures worked out based on what the Minister had said in regard to building a flat. We have taken into account construction cost, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, from the published reports; land cost, resettlement cost, financial and overhead costs, professional and supervisory fees. I think this particular subject is not tabled for debate. I am willing to debate on HDB subsidy and whether HDB makes a profit. I think we can have another day to do so.”
“Can I get a point of order? I think there is no need to be sarcastic in this House.”
“I think my position is quite clear. As far as the CPI is concerned, the general position of inflation in Singapore reflects the general inflation of Singapore. But for particular cases of Singaporeans who have suffered, for example, the taxi driver who has to pay $7,700 for the diesel tax, or suddenly a rise in the price of flats, I think even the Minister for National Development would not deny this. The rentals of HDB premises have risen tremendously. Of course, they are passed down to the consumers. I think these are the matters which people have been complaining of and, as a result, the Government had commissioned this Committee to be formed. This Report makes good sense in many ways. But the point is that: has it addressed itself to those people? I think there are a large number of people who are affected by Government policies of trying to cure social ills with fiscal measures.”
“Sir, I do not know what the Government expects of the Opposition. The Opposition's role is to voice the concerns of the people. This is what I hear very often when I go down to my constituency. I talk to people and they cannot stop grumbling. I do not think that Singaporeans grumble just for the sake of grumbling. I think they really have to dig deep into their pockets to take out the money to pay for increase in prices. There is a case for these people. Therefore, I think the Government should address rising costs in education, health, housing and transport. These are basic essential things. They are not luxuries. That is the job of the Opposition. I do not have to give answers to the Government.”
“My position is like that of Mr Chua Beng Huat. I think there are two perceptions. One from the Government's point of view, which adheres strictly to the CPI and it says that the inflation rate is low. In other words, cost rises only about 2.4%. But to the average person who suddenly has to incur a heavy rise, for example, in the sudden rise of prices of HDB flats, he has to put 20% downpayment, which is a massive sum tied up for two, three or four years; or he has to suddenly change a car, or two of his children, paying $10 a month for school fee, suddenly has to pay $200, or a taxi driver who has to pay $7,700 for his diesel tax - all these people perceive that there are rises in costs. We cannot deny that. That is my point. I do not want to go into the argument of calculating the CPI.”
“Sir, I think one person is allowed to speak only once to a question.”
“It has given the impression that the inflation rate is very low in Singapore and sometimes even negative. But the inflation rate is in regard to the items that have not affected most of the items which people need. But, as I said, at our relative affluence, there are certain items, like better housing, motor cars, where the increases in costs have affected them.”
“I have already stated in my speech the position of the CRC.”
“My perception is that the Government should be truthful in telling the people that, in fact, there are cost rises, and not sticking to the fact that there are no cost rises. The Government only says that it is the perception, the higher expectations and aspirations of the people, which I think is not right. The Government should come out bluntly and say, "Yes, there are cost rises and we are taking steps, either to curb or lower it, or put it on hold." The Government has never done that.”
“I think we are talking at variance. I am saying that if you go and take a survey, you will see that the man-in-the-street will complain vigorously that costs have gone up. That is his perception. What happens is that the Government calculates the CPI and insists that this particular person has not suffered a cost rise. By calculating the CPI in this way, it shows that the inflation is only at 2.4%. If a man suddenly has to pay an increase of $50,000 for his flat for that year, can you say that inflation is only at 2.4%? Certainly not. Mr Dhanabalan: First of all, if the flat goes up by $50,000, he does not pay in that year. Mr Chiam knows that. Let us forget about the layman's perception. What is Mr Chiam's perception?”
“But there are many Singaporeans who go to the hospitals and they pay higher hospital fees and it is only reflected at 0.36%, which is not true.”
“There may be a way of calculating CPI. As I said, I am not aware of it. But to the man-in-the-street, as Mr Chua Beng Huat has said, his position is that prices have gone up. If prices have not gone up, and if they have not suffered, the Government's votes will not fall. That is one of the main reasons why I think the Government's votes have fallen.”
“I think that is fully and internationally accepted.”
“Again, as regards the Government's help for universities, I would say that the Government should assist Singaporeans up to 50% of the tertiary educational costs. After all, the Government is willing to pay dollar-for-dollar in respect of donations from the public. It should do the same for university tuition fees. I have the impression that the Government wants the students to pay 75%. [Laughter]. I stand corrected. If I am wrong, I withdraw that. Much has been touted by the Government that it subsidises the building of HDB flats. This is not true. At most, the Government gives book subsidies and not actual cash handouts to help HDB in the building of its flats. In the 1984 General Elections, the SDP published a report that the HDB was making profits in its sale of HDB flats. Up till now, the Government has not rebutted the SDP's report.”
“I believe Singapore could do with an additional university.”
“Let me finish, please. Therefore, one can see at a glance the CPI is rather misleading. All those items that concern Singaporeans at this particular time of relative affluence are given artificially low weightage. No wonder the inflation rate in Singapore is recorded by the Government as being so low. The message of the CRC Report seems to me to be quite clear. It is as follows. The Government is right. The CPI is sound. The inflation rate is low, averaging 2.4% over the last 10 years. There are no substantial rises in prices. Do not ask Government to subsidise health care, housing, education and transport. Although there were substantial price rises in these areas, subsidy is taking taxpayers' money and to dish them out to others. It will distort the free market and eventually bankrupt the country. The message, to me, is more political than economics. Anyway, Singaporeans are a proud people. They do not want handouts but they do certainly want assistance in education and health. It is only right that the Government assist Singaporeans to get the best education and to let them develop to their fullest potential. At every General Election, when the PAP wins an election, it is like going under a social contract with the people. I believe that one of the contractual terms is that the Government should provide education to the people at affordable rates. In fact, more importantly, I think they should give them more university places. There are not enough tertiary places in Singapore at the moment. That is the reason why we see great numbers of canvassers of foreign universities coming to visit our schools and urging the students to study overseas.”
“The attitude taken by the CRC can be compared to that of a man who goes to a doctor and when asked how was his health, he replied, "I am all right, except that I have a weak heart, high blood pressure, a lump in my stomach and high sugar content in my blood." Any doctor would know that these are serious symptoms and the doctor should take the proper action to cure the patient. The CRC similarly, when told that costs of health care, housing, education and transport have risen, should take the proper steps, namely, to have a good look at the way the CPI is calculated and correct it. But it did not. I had a look at the Report on the way our CPI is worked out. I note that what is relevant in our Singapore context is not given enough weightage. Food is given the heaviest weightage, namely, 40%. Everybody knows that food prices in Singapore historically have never gone up drastically. We import about 80% of our foodstuffs and with the strong Singapore dollar, raw food in Singapore has always been relatively cheap. The important items such as health care and education are assigned low weightage, only 2.5% and 5% respectively. On a specific item like hospitalisation fees which is important in the Singapore context, it is only given a miserly 0.36%. We know that the prices of private housing and motor cars have shot through the roof, making them not affordable to many people, which to them were once affordable are only given under the heading of "Housing" and "Transportation and Communications" 17% and 14% respectively.”
“In my view, the setting up of the CRC is an attempt to slow down or stop the Opposition from gaining more votes at the next General Election. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.20 pm Soon after the Cost Review Committee was formed, we noted that its Chairman was already biased. He told the press that there was no problem in regard to rising costs. The only problem was the high expectations and high aspirations of Singaporeans for a better life. No wonder Mr Koh observed that "there is nothing new to the report". There was nothing in the report which the Government had not already told the people. The CRC predictably reported inflation was low, the CPI computations were correct and there was no rise in costs. The people of Singapore, of course, did not believe it. How can there be no rise in costs when HDB rentals are so high, various licence fees, stamp fees, have been jacked up. School fees, parking fees, hospital charges, prices of HDB flats, diesel tax on taxis, have all gone up. Yet, the Government tells them that there is no rise in costs. The Government on its part has stood firm. It says that the CPI is sound. There is low inflation, no rise in costs as perceived by the people. All these are backed up by the findings of the CRC, though the CRC did admit that there are cost rises in health care, housing, education and transport. To me, these findings of cost rise in health care, housing, education and transport are the crux of the matter. The CRC should in fact look into it further but it did not. Instead, it pronounced that the Government was all along right. There was no significant rise in costs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I want to comment on the motion. The second limb thereof, "calls on the Government to accept the Committee's recommendations to contain rises in the cost of living". The Government has already given its reply to this part of the motion. In his letter dated 18th September 1993 and published in the Cost Review Committee's Report which was addressed to the Chairman of the CRC, the Prime Minister replied, inter alia: `Your Committee has recommended specific steps the Government can take to keep costs low in Singapore. The Ministries concerned will study these proposals and implement all those which are practicable.' We already have the answer to that part of the motion. So it would appear that the debate on the second limb of the motion is going to be a long academic exercise. It is also true of the time spent on putting up the CRC Report. It was another academic exercise. Nothing new has come out of it. Yesterday, research analyst, Koh Su Haw, was quoted and he has also been quoted in this House today. I would like to quote him in a different context again. Mr Koh said: `It seems funny that they took a year and there is nothing new to the report. The report seems to have been a political exercise rather than one in economics.' I agree with Mr Koh. The CRC Report is more politically motivated than a sincere desire to tell the Government to find ways and means to keep costs low in Singapore. Rising costs due to Government policies have been a hot topic at every General Election since 1980. The PAP lost a massive 12.3% votes to the Opposition in 1984 and the slide of votes to the Opposition has not abated. The PAP has not been able to arrest the trend.”
“No, Sir. These fruits were, in fact, brought to our homes by hawkers who carried their ware with a pole and two baskets.”
“Sir, from my own personal knowledge, I have been eating fruits, like Sunkist oranges and apples from USA, as early as 1947.”
“Mr Maidin is talking of the good life in Singapore today and that includes getting all kinds of fruits from as far as USA. What time span is he talking about? Is it only after the PAP came into power that we could get all kinds of fruits from the USA? Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Yes, Sir.”
“Sir, may I get a clarification from the hon. Member?”
“He refers us to page 46 of the Report and he pointed out that higher hospital bills are due to equipment, Medisave being used, and so on and so forth. But in calculating its cost, has the Government included land cost and building cost? Maybe these are massive items which the Government tries to recoup. That is why the hospital bills have gone up. Can I clarify from Dr Ow? Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin): When I quoted the reasons given in the Report just now, I meant to rebut what Mr Ling How Doong has said. Mr Ling said that the rise in medical fees was due to rising expectations. I need just only one reason to rebut his point. As we could see from the Report, from pages 44 to 46, there are other reasons for the increase in medical fees. What Mr Ling said could not stand. If Mr Chiam said that the Government is trying to recover its building cost from these higher fees, I think it is not correct. However, rising land cost could have something to do with the Government's attempt to reduce the subsidy rate.”