Fadli Fawzi
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH?”
“As we have seen with Changi Airport, Singapore is capable of building infrastructure that both impresses the world and benefits the lives of Singaporeans. Changi drives our economic competitiveness while simultaneously being a place for Singaporeans to gather, relax, celebrate and create memories.”
“I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue. Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight?”
“But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees? So, again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place?”
“Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies.”
The complete record
Every one of 108 lines we hold for Fadli Fawzi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“I thank Mr Xie for his clarification. I would just like to say that, although we come from different sides of the isles, I agree with the Member and many others of the House who have spoken about the need to work harder to make meritocracy fairer for everyone, especially for those left behind. Thank you.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a clarification for the Deputy Speaker, Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech. Firstly, I would like to thank the Member for his eloquent speech in Malay. If I understood it correctly, the Member acknowledged that though some people will be ahead and some will lag behind under a meritocracy, everyone will still be in the same direction of success on the escalator of progress. While it is good that we are heading in the same direction, would the hon Member agree that the true test of meritocracy is whether it truly fosters social mobility and is he currently satisfied with the current state of social mobility in Singapore?”
“I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, given that healthcare expenditure has been rising quickly, at what point would the Government consider disallowing insurers for providing as-charged coverage for non-cancer treatments? Secondly, given that since 2018 there still has been rapidly escalating healthcare costs, does that suggest that the private industry is not compliant with the guidelines? And thirdly, the Minister of State mentioned that MOH is also studying the creation of other benchmarks. I am wondering if the Minister of State can clarify if the benchmarks will be for costs, like the cost of consumables, like hospital gowns, meals consumed by patients, to limit the size of insurance claims?”
“Mr Speaker, I believe that the hon Member has mischaracterised what I said in my speech. I did not say to abandon meritocracy. What I was saying was that meritocracy, when it is taken to the extreme, it discourages our solidarity with the vulnerable. And I believe even in her speech, she gave a lot of examples of the people who are falling through the cracks of the system. And I think, ultimately, these are the people who both are advocating for.”
“On the hon Member Mariam Jaafar's speech.”
“Mr Speaker, in response to Mr Sharael's clarification, in the article, he said it was a SG60 community fundraising initiative together with M³@Towns.”
“It was incredible and magnificent, and it must be remembered." More importantly, our sense of generosity and solidarity extends cross-communally. The Straits Times reported on 27 June that the Singaporean public raised more than $2.4 million in aid for Gaza. I was especially heartened to learn that our local temples were among the many donors to the cause.”
“Mr Speaker, in the President's Address, Mr Tharman relayed the Government’s vision of a "we first" society where Singaporeans would "put the collective before the self", or the "we" before the "me". This reiterates the Prime Minister's message in his National Day Rally about the importance of "feeling that we are all in this together and not just looking out for our own self-interest". Sir, we know Singaporeans are not selfish people. Our citizens do not only care for their self-interest. Time and again, Singaporeans have demonstrated their public-spirited and civic-minded character. Our communities have robust and longstanding traditions of acting in solidarity for the sake of the collective interest. I am sure the House is familiar with the term "gotong royong". Many older Malays, especially those who lived in kampungs, may fondly remember participating in a rewang for a kenduri, where extended relatives and even neighbours would come to help the host family prepare for a wedding. We can also look at how the Chinese community rallied together to establish the old Nanyang University. Nantah was a monumental achievement of collective sacrifice and solidarity. I want to recount the words of Han Suyin from her autobiography "My House Has Two Doors", where she described the collective founding of Nantah. She wrote, "How many oyster omelettes, sliced crab, noodles of all kinds went into Nanyang University? The trishaw pedallers of Singapore and Malaya pedaled for three days and turned it all in for Nanyang University, and theirs was the greatest sacrifice, for they were so very poor." She goes on to say, "Rubber tappers flocked to give; they know that their children would never have a chance to go to university, but it was a gesture of cultural identity.”