Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 17.
“30 pm became sick (he said he vomited) during his second interrogation, but he was nevertheless not allowed to leave. He has complained that he was intimidated at both interrogations. Persons who sent in monies to the account in the bank, after seeing the appeal in the Hammer, were also called up to attend before the officer. Some of them have been so upset that they called up the Secretary-General of the Party to ask if it was a crime to have donated any money to the Workers' Party. I ask the Minister to say whether the Government considers it a crime for any member of the public to give money to the Workers' Party. Why all this frenzied illegal activity by the police? Is it not simply to dissuade and prevent members of the public from giving any assistance to the Workers' Party, whether in the form of business service or in the form of any donations? Is the Government attempting to frighten the printers from printing the Hammer for the Workers' Party? Is that the object? Is the Government trying to frighten people from giving any monies to the Workers' Party? It has also been suggested by some members of the public that the Government is hoping to disqualify Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam as an election candidate for a further term. Is that the object? I have said, at the beginning, that appeals, similar to the Workers' Party's appeal, have been carried in the press. I ask the Minister to say now whether the PAP had in August 1989 applied for a licence under the House to House and Street Collections Act before it made its appeal at the dinner I referred to, and which was publicised in the press. I ask the Minister to say now: Was a permit granted under the House to House and Street Collections Act for the Spirit-of-Singapore appeal?”
“But he was threatened that if he refused to open the door, the police would break it down. Although they were told that the film and plate, which they were looking for were not in the house, they nevertheless insisted on ransacking the house to confirm for themselves that the film and plate were not in the house. From there, they proceeded to the house of a Council member, reaching the house at 1.00 am where the police again carried out a search but found nothing incriminating. Sir, let me ask: is it really necessary for the police to execute search warrants in the middle of the night? Or is this particular treatment reserved for members of an Opposition party, in this case the Workers' Party? Is there no respect for the convenience of the public? In any event, Sir, it is not as though the Workers' Party has been accused of a monstrous crime, and that if the search was not carried out at that particular hour, the thing that the police was looking for would be spirited away or disposed of. What justification was there for such a night raid? Not content with raiding the homes of the members of the Workers' Party, quite unnecessarily at unearthly hours, be it noted, the police had also harassed the people who have nothing to do with the Workers' Party. The printers of the Hammer were not spared. How are they responsible for an appeal by the Executive Council of the Party? Not only were the present printers interrogated but even the printer who had printed the Hammer in the past was also interrogated. Members of the Party who were summoned to appear before the Inspector were kept in the Inspector's office for as long as four to five hours. Why? One member whose house was raided at 11.”
“I was merely trying to remind the Minister of these various sections. That's all. I am not interpreting them. Sir, I am advised that the sections do not give the police certain powers, which I will leave to the Court, if he wants to take them to Court. But as far as I understand, Sir, the police have nevertheless gone to do things that they were not empowered to do. This is an alarming situation, because if the police can do this, then monies in a bank account are no longer safe. No one can be sure that his monies will not be seized by the police without first obtaining an order from the court. What is more alarming is that, in this case, the trustee was not even informed before the seizure to enable him to apply to the court to stop the police from seizing the monies. I ask the Minister: Does he not think that this is a most alarming situation which will seriously undermine confidence among members of the public in the banks? The bank in question, Standard Chartered, for its own part, never took the trouble to inform the holder of the account before it handed over the monies. What reliance, I ask, can be placed by members of the public in banks if the banks are going to hand over all their monies at a wink from the police without even informing the account holders? I hope the Minister realises the seriousness of the action by the police. And I ask the Minister to inform the House how he justifies the seizure by the police. Apart from this positively illegal act of the police, police officers raided the house of a member of the Workers' Party who is not a member of the Executive Council, at the hour of 11.30 pm when the family and all had retired for the night. The member told the police that the hour was not convenient.”
“Should one under the guise of an Adjournment Motion claiming harassment bring to this Parliament questions of law which may be discussed by a Court should there be a prosecution? I think it is highly inadvisable, highly undesirable to do that, because we are prejudging matters which may come up in a Court if there was a prosecution.”
“It is very odd, Sir, that information should only be given to the police on 2nd August when members of the Party had been observed selling the Hammer carrying the appeal on 26th and 27th May 1990. The report does not give the source of the information. May I ask the Minister whether the police was directed by his Ministry, or by any other Ministry, to investigate the appeal by the Workers' Party? If a member of the public had made a report, a copy of that report should have been furnished. But from what I can see, it would suggest that there was no such report. Apart from the officials of the Party, the other members of the Council, as I have been told, were also asked by Inspector Lopez to attend. The police also raided the office of Mr Gopalan Nair, and the Workers' Party premises at Silat Road which the Party uses for its meetings. Then, without any notice to the trustee or to the Party, the police seized monies in the account. Sir, I ask the Minister to take note of what I have said. The trustee was later informed by the bank that they were advised by the police that the monies were being seized under sections 58 and 68 of the CPC. Section 58 of the CPC empowers the police to order the production of any document that a police officer investigating a case considers it necessary for his investigation. I have been advised that this section cannot (and I emphasise, Sir, cannot) apply to monies in a bank account. That becomes clear when one reads the proviso. And section 68, the other section --- Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, on a point of order. I have no problems in answering it. But I think we have to follow certain procedures and order in this House.”
“499-502) when he was questioned about it. Apart from this, we have seen from time to time appeals in the Straits Times and other newspapers for donations for victims of accidents or of catastrophic illnesses. There is also currently an appeal called the Spirit-of-Singapore appeal which has been publicised in the press for some months now. So, naturally the Executive Council of the Party did not think it was doing anything outside the law when it published its appeal. But to its surprise, some almost three months later, as I have already been reliably informed, the Secretary-General of the Party and Mr Gopalan Nair, the trustee, were sent notices under section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to attend before one Inspector Lopez in connection with a police investigation into an offence under Cap. 128 of the Laws of Singapore. Chapter 128, I understand, is the House to House and Street Collections Act, and it makes it an offence for anyone to stand at street corners or at public places to solicit for monies from passers-by, or for anyone to go from house to house, knock at doors and solicit for monies. The Secretary-General then asked for a copy of the report made to the police upon which the police had started investigations. He was duly supplied with this report. And I have a copy of this report, and the report is made by Inspector Lopez himself, the Investigating Officer, and he said: He received information on 2nd August 1990 that the Workers' Party Executive Council had made an appeal in the Hammer, and that - (a) the Hammer was sold at two public places on 26th and 27th May 1990, and (b) that pamphlets were also put into the letter-boxes of the residents in the Tiong Bahru GRC. He did not say when the pamphlets were put into the letter-boxes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party, a registered political party, publishes a newspaper called the Hammer, bi-monthly for which it has the necessary licence from the Ministry of Communications and Information. In this year's May issue of the Hammer (No.2 of 1990), the Executive Council of the Party published an appeal to the public of Singapore to help its Secretary-General pay the award and damages that may be made against him in the defamation suit brought by the Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew that was then pending against him. The appeal informed the readers that the Council had opened an account for this purpose with the Standard Chartered Bank giving the number of the account, and that it had also appointed the firm of Messrs Gopalan Nair as trustees of the monies in the account. The public were expressly told to send or make their donations to the account with the bank. Two copies of the issue of the Hammer, immediately after the publication were deposited with the Ministry of Information, and five copies were deposited with the National Library under the Act. There was therefore nothing secretive about this appeal that was made by the Party to the public of Singapore on behalf of its Secretary-General. May I add, Sir, that a copy of the Hammer was also sent to the Headquarters of the PAP. One would have thought that this was a perfectly harmless and legitimate activity by a political party. You will remember, Sir, that not very long ago the PAP itself, at a dinner party which included a number of people from the commercial sector of Singapore, appealed for donations for the party. This was reported in the Straits Times, and the appeal was even defended in this House by the First Deputy Prime Minister (Hansard, Vol. 54, No. 6, cols.”
“The PCRH makes the recommendation which is to be accepted by the Minister, and rightly so, as at least two-thirds of the members of the Council are representatives of the major religions in Singapore and, I quote, "being directly concerned, are in a better position to consider the matters which may be brought before the Council". This would be in keeping, Sir, with the correct purpose or tenor of the Bill. After all, the general understanding of most people is that the very people most concerned with religious harmony should be given the duty and responsibility to maintain such religious harmony in Singapore. This is also in keeping with the proposed policy of participatory democracy. Will Government be flexible enough to accept a most reasonable proposal which is acceptable to, I believe, the vast majority of people in Singapore? If it is a question of public policy, is it wise to allow a politically inspired Elected President to be the final arbiter in matters related to religion? Or is it wise to allow an independent Presidential Council which knows more of matters related to religion to decide on the exercise of power to make a restraining order? To me, Sir, the answer cannot be in doubt. The Presidential Council must be the final arbiter.”
“So we go back to square one. The Minister and Cabinet, and perhaps the Elected President, all have more or less similar political views and will probably act similarly. In other words, the Elected President in the circumstances is no check at all on the unfettered powers of the Minister and Cabinet. An independent check on the powers of the Minister and Cabinet must therefore be found elsewhere. A judicial review by a High Court Judge would be acceptable to most people. But the Government has rejected judicial review as a safeguard. I therefore believe that a most reasonable compromise safeguard would be the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Presently, its role is only to advise. Its role should be more than advisory. It should become the final arbiter or authority on all questions of whether any act or conduct violates the law in mixing religion with politics "under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief" - words already accepted by the Government. This has in fact been suggested in some written submissions to the Select Committee. One submission on page B48 reads as follows: "We therefore recommend that Clause 11 (4) [that is of the original Bill] be amended to read: The Council may recommend that the order be continued, revoked or varied in any manner and the Minister, in the event of a majority decision of the Council, shall accept [I emphasise "shall accept"] such recommendation." To me, the words are clear and unequivocal.”
“Almost all submissions had pointed out that the Executive is given too much power in the Bill. The first White Paper on the Elected President says it too. That is why everyone has asked for more safeguards against the power of the Minister, and now Government says it too, In paragraph 14, I quote: "The Committee agrees that additional safeguards are desirable ...". Government has however argued that the remedy should not be a judicial one as a court trial may mean delay and prompt action may be necessary. What remedy has the Committee then proposed? Paragraph 21 of the Report states that, and I quote: "It decided that the proposed Elected President could appropriately provide an independent check on the Government when it exercises its powers under this Bill." Sir, if the Elected President should be non-political, and its election open to wide sections of the people, such a proposal would have some merit and might be considered a good and fair proposal. But the proposed Elected President is to be elected from a very small exclusive PAP club. Only ex-Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Chairmen of big corporations may stand as candidates for the high office. The common man-in-the-street is totally excluded. In the circumstances, how could the Elected President be expected to be completely unbiased, fair and independent in his decisions, even if he is a most upright man? It is true that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony may offer its views to the Elected President and its advice may not be lightly disregarded. But the Elected President," acting in his discretion", could well ignore the advice of the PCRH and confirm the restraining order made by the Minister and the Cabinet, as the Minister has quoted again," no Minister acts alone isolated from Cabinet".”
“For example, if it allows too many and too often criticisms of its policies by critics, it could, and possibly would, mean considerable loss of votes for Government in elections. Unpopular policies of Government are of course often subject to severe criticisms by the public and political parties. While opposition political parties' statements may be distorted and may not even be published in the press and so may not possibly reach many people, similar criticisms by religious leaders and organisations may well reach a wider audience through word of mouth, and so are more damaging to the ruling Party. As quoted by one submission, religious leaders' views have, I quote, "extra credibility". Therefore, whether or not criticisms of Government policies become, and I quote, "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of any political party" depend very much on how adversely the ruling Party will be affected by such criticisms. All this of course has nothing to do with liberation theology, as put down in one of the submissions, and which has so frightened the PAP. What is troubling the Government is not the mixing of religion and politics per se, because they cannot make out the difference, but how much so-called mixing of religion with politics will adversely affect the credibility and popular support for the PAP Government. As I had said during the debate in June, Sir, the Bill, apart from providing a belated cover-up and excuse for the arrests of so-called Marxists, is really intended to be another step towards total control of public opinion in Singapore. Many people share this viewpoint and that is why so many people do not support the Bill. The other issue I would like to touch on is the role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Select Committee has brought forth a good number of welcome changes following submissions from the church organisations and individuals of the public. The Government has accepted many of the proposals of the representors. I too have no wish to be repetitive. But in spite of the sound arguments presented, and the Government's so-called concern, it has refused to budge on two very basic issues, namely, (1) the "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of a political party", and (2) the role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Let me first touch on the political issue here. Government has said that the Bill is intended to maintain religious harmony in Singapore. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is concerned about the mixing of religion with politics by some sections of the church. Submissions to the Select Committee have pointed out, as we have also stressed, that it is impossible to completely separate religion from politics. And now the Select Committee itself has admitted this to be so. Paragraph 15 of the Report states that "the division between religion and politics is not a well-defined one." Such being the case, Sir, any Government allegation arbitrarily made that a religious leader or organisation has mixed religion with politics may be completely erroneous. Such an allegation would probably be based on questions, as put down in the Report, of "public policy" of Government. And of course on whether or not "the issue is wise for the Government to allow, and not what is lawful for a person to carry out". In other words, it is preventive, yes, but it is based on whether or not it is in the interests of the ruling Government political party.”
“While agreeing with what the Minister has said, does the Government keep check on the number of organs available against the number of people who really need such organ transplants and have died as a result of waiting?”
“The only way to find out the true wishes of the people is to let the people decide in a democratic national referendum, in which a simple straightforward question is posed to the people requiring a simple answer of Yes or No. So let the Government hold a national referendum on the question of the Elected President proposal as the Prime Minister, the First Deputy Prime Minister and others, at one time, had promised.”
“Ostensibly to safeguard our financial reserves and the integrity of the civil service, a PAP Elected President, chosen from an exclusive PAP club, and not easily removed by Parliament, would be able to exercise his wide veto powers to destabilise any Opposition government and so protect PAP interests. With an Elected President, the PAP will no longer need to fear that the Opposition will become entrenched as an Opposition government for any length of time. Thus, the PAP hopes to have a firm grip on the Government and be able to continue to rule Singapore for years and years to come. As the Prime Minister will be stepping down in November this year, the Elected President proposal would also appear to have been specially tailor-made to instal him as the first Elected President after the incumbent President steps down. Other PAP leaders would become Elected Presidents also after him. Everyone will have an opportunity. Hence, the Ministers' support for the Bill, though the Elected President takes away much of their powers. The Elected President proposal, however, has many controversial and undemocratic provisions. The radical changes to the Constitution and to the existing parliamentary system of Government, if adopted, will have far-reaching effects on the politi- cal life and future of our people. It is, therefore, imperative that every person in Singapore be given an opportunity to express his or her views on the matter in a free and fair manner. The PAP Government has no mandate from the people to carry out such sweeping changes to our system of Government, and amending the Constitution with a parliamentary two-thirds majority alone is unrepresentative of the true wishes of the people.”
“This can only be realised when the Elected President proposal is placed before the people for their approval or rejection in a democratic national referendum. The Prime Minister also said in 1984, "First, a White Paper, then a proper debate, and then a referendum, and many other things besides.". The Government should now live up to its promises to the people, solemnly said, solemnly made. Let the people have the referendum. Let me also summarise, Sir. Some undesirable and undemocratic amendments to the Constitution are proposed. There are certain checks on Government's powers in the present parliamentary system, but these checks have been undermined by the PAP Government. There is, therefore, no need to amend the Constitu- tion to provide for an Elected President. Government needs only to practise genuine parliamentary democracy as in other democratic countries and the checks will be in place and working well. The real reason behind the Bill is the fact that, since its defeat in the Anson by-election in October 1981, a discernible trend of falling electoral support for the PAP has emerged. The PAP leadership fears that if this trend should continue, then PAP rule over Singapore might not last beyond the next election or two. The PAP has said that the one-man-one-vote could be unpredictable, and that "freak" election results are possible. Therefore, the PAP leadership believes that changes to the Constitution and the parliamentary system of Government are necessary if continued PAP rule is to be assured. Hence the proposal for Elected President.”
“The proposed changes to the Constitution, as listed in the 1990 White Paper and in the Amendment Bill, are changes in the power structure and in the parliamentary system of Government, as has already been stressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. These changes will affect not only the future of the people but also the future of their children and their children's children. The Elected President proposal will, therefore, need to be placed before the people to be fully debated so that they may decide and vote on it in a democratic, free and fair national referendum. It must not be imposed on the people through a two-thirds parliamentary majority vote today. Neither should the Government try to pass it off by saying that the PAP does not believe in ruling by referendum. We have to remind the PAP that when the Constitution which gave Singapore full internal self-government was negotiated and agreed upon with the British in 1957, it was negotiated and agreed upon by all the political parties then in Singapore, namely, the Labour Front, the Liberal Socialists and the PAP itself. That is, all the people in Singapore were represented in the negotiations through the political parties they supported. Today, the PAP represents only 62% of popular votes. Other political parties representing 38% of popular votes have not been consulted at all. In other words, a parliamentary vote of all Government MPs put together represents at best 62% of the people of Singapore, not the true wishes of all the people. The only way to find out the true wishes of all the people of Singapore is to hold a national referendum. The White Paper stresses, "The will of the people will prevail.".”
“But those who oppose the undemocratic and callous policies of the PAP will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Let the people decide in a national referendum. The Amendment Bill for the safeguarding of reserves and the integrity of the civil service proposes radical changes to the Constitution and the present Westminster parliamentary system of Government that has been practised in Singapore over the past 30 years. With such radical changes, it is obvious that the people will have to be consulted. The PAP claims that it has more or less done that, and has been given a mandate in the 1988 elections to carry out such radical and sweeping changes to the Constitution. That is not true. The PAP has never been given a mandate on the matter. In the 1988 elections, the White Paper on the Elected President proposal was only one of the many issues brought before the people. And in the 1988 elections, the PAP obtained only 62% of the total votes cast, less than two-thirds and, what is more important, 1% less than in 1984. Moreover, the 1988 White Paper is now outdated. Additional powers have been given to the Elected President in the 1990 White Paper. The Constitution Amendment Bill had not been published, and the voters had not been asked specifically to give an unequivocal answer of Yes or No to the Elected President proposal. In a general election, voters vote for candidates from various parties so that the party with the most candidates elected form the Government. Voters do not vote on any particular or specific issue in an election.”
“Indeed, with his other powers under the Constitution, the Elected President may even be able to manoeuvre events or create situations that will cause the Government to resign. That was how the Whitlam Government was dismissed from office in Australia more than 10 years ago, and also the Benazir Bhutto government in Pakistan recently. Thus, we see the hidden powers of the Elected President that could be used to destabilise an elected Opposition government and even dismiss it from office. The Prime Minister has said and I quote, "They say an Elected President will block an opposition party that comes in. Quite right. Absolutely right." He let the cat out of the bag. Proof from the very horse's mouth itself. A PAP Elected President will make it well-nigh impossible for an Opposition party to form a government and continue in office for any length of time. The six-year term of a PAP Elected President ensures that the five-year term Opposition government is in no position to cause it much trouble unless it can win another election for another term of five years. The Elected President's wide veto powers over the key appointments in the civil service will deprive an Opposition government from appointing the right people in the right place according to its political philosophy. That would facilitate destabilisation of an apposition government. All in all, it can be seen that the Elected President is meant not so much to be a watchdog or custodian of our nation's reserves and assets, but as a watchdog over the electoral fortunes of the PAP and its continued rule in Singapore. Those who support the Elected President proposal will have nothing to lose and everything to gain, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said.”
“Otherwise the whole scheme would backfire to the disadvantage of the PAP. Qualification requirements as presidential candidates must therefore be strictly exclusive. Political opponents would have to be excluded in order to ensure that the Presidential election is an exclusive one-party PAP affair. Like the British raj in colonial days, the Elected President is vested with wide powers to veto all spending of reserves, all borrowings as well as all the appointments of key posts in the State. The Elected President is then in a position to use veto powers to manipulate the political situation to the exclusive advantage of the PAP. The Opposition presently is weak and disorganised. The PAP has nothing much to fear for the time being. But then there is no way to find out whether or not the voting trend unfavourable to the PAP will continue. So the PAP has to prepare for all contingencies. If the PAP should form the Government, then there would be no need for the Elected President to exercise any of those veto powers. He would merely sit pretty in masterly inactivity and watch over the situation to see that all goes well. But if an Opposition party should form the Government, then conflicts would develop quickly. The Elected President's withholding of concurrence to the annual budget would certainly cause a total paralysis of the day-to-day administration of government. The newly-elected Opposition government would be unable to carry out its policies and live up to its promises made to the people. If the government cannot get funds from the reserves and cannot raise loans, then it will be forced to raise taxes. This must inevitably lead to loss of popular support for the Opposition government.”
“Anyway, a trend was beginning to emerge. PAP leaders saw the danger clearly. They could see that, if the trend should continue, and the PAP lost more votes in the next election, in 1992 or 1993, then the continued rule of the PAP would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. The PAP is therefore confronted with a most important and urgent task. It is to break the downward trend and stop a further decline in electoral support for the PAP. Only then would the PAP be able to remain in office and continue to rule in Singapore. That means, of course, the Opposition must be prevented from getting a firm grip on the reins of Government come what may. But how is that to be done? In the past, the way to keep the PAP in power, and the Opposition out, was to put the Communist label on effective political opponents and detain them under the ISA. Recently, the Government could still use the so-called Marxist plot as an excuse to suppress some of those who were opposed to the PAP. But the Communist scare story is wearing thin. Very few people buy it nowadays. A new way has to be found - a way to make it extremely difficult, and well-nigh impossible, for an Opposition party to form the Government, or if it succeeded in doing so, to make its stay in office short and uncertain. And the way to be adopted, of course, has to be institutionalised so that PAP's interest would be protected for a long, long time. For the PAP leaders, the Elected President with wide veto powers would seem to be the best answer. Hence, the White Paper, first in 1988 and again in 1990, and the Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill today before the House. Of course, the first prerequisite is that the Elected President must remain in PAP hands, or at least in the hands of its most loyal supporters.”
“To find out, Sir, why the Elected President proposal has been put forward, we must begin with the Prime Minister's announcement some years back of his intention to step down from office in favour of a younger generation of leaders, and some time later, his understandable concern that the huge reserves, accumulated over the years, should not be squandered away. The question in his mind must have been: Could he trust the younger generation leaders to continue his stance and follow policies that would protect the reserves and not erode into them? I presume that he could, but there were probably also doubts. However, I believe that what had alarmed the Prime Minister most, and probably given him some sleepless nights, was the fact that he could see, as other PAP leaders also could, soon after the PAP's defeat in the Anson by-election in October 1981, that the Singapore voters, especially those young ones, were beginning to see the need for Opposition MPs, and more of them in Parliament, and what was more important, that electoral support for the PAP was beginning to decline. The alarm soon developed into fear when it lost 13% of popular votes in the 1984 election. PAP votes dropped from 76% in 1980 to 63% in 1984. In the post-election press conference, the Prime Minister, both angry and fearful, threatened to change the one-man-one-vote system altogether. Subsequently, every effort was made to spruce up the PAP's image, enlarge and strengthen its organisation, and change some of its unpopular policies. However, in spite of all its efforts, the PAP's popular votes did not go up in the 1988 elections. Instead, they went down another 1% from 63% to 62%. Some people estimate that the drop was probably 3% to 4%, as more seats were contested in 1988 than in 1984.”
“Nevertheless, if we must have a two-key safeguard mechanism, it would be more prudent to let the second key be held, not by one person, but by a broad-based committee, consisting of non-partisan, apolitical, honourable and trustworthy persons, or by some form of ombudsman which could be agreed upon. Let me also say a few words on the financial reserves. I would say that it is both unreasonable and undemocratic not to allow an elected government to use some of the country's reserves (not the CPF which is sacrosanct) to provide for welfare services for the people. After all, the financial reserves have been accumulated by the people over the years. They belong to the people, not to any political party that has been elected to office, and a small part of these reserves could, and should, be spent in a reasonable manner according to need for the benefit of the people. Such expenditure should under no circumstances be blocked by an Elected President. Reserves should not be kept for investment overseas. Thus, it can be seen that the rationale for the Elected President proposal given by Government in the White Paper is not all that convincing. Government probably knows that. Nevertheless, it has put forward the Elected President proposal which will no doubt be passed by Parliament. The First Deputy Prime Minister has explained the philosophy and rationale behind the Bill. I will also do that, and try to explain the reasons why the Elected President proposal has been put forward. So what are the real reasons behind the Elected President proposal?”
“But the PAP soon amended the Constitution to cause MPs to vacate their parliamentary seats if they are no longer members of the party, and thus subject them to very strict control. Nevertheless, I can see that some PAP Backbenchers are fairly vocal in their criticism of Bills they disagree strongly with. They may still put up some check on the Government's power in some other ways. Sir, these are examples to show that there are certain checks on Government power. But as I have said, today in Singapore these checks have all been undermined or suppressed. Parliament has not been given a chance to function like parliaments in other countries. No wonder Prof Tommy Koh, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, has suggested that there should be constitutional changes to make Parliament more representative and democratic. From what I have said, it is clear that we do not need to amend the Constitution in order to provide for an Elected President so that he may check on the powers of Government. There are sufficient checks if Government would only allow these checks to work. All that the Government needs to do is to adhere strictly to the norms of parliamentary democracy, stop its suppression of the Opposition, allow it to have reasonable access to TV, radio and the press as in other countries, curb the arbitrary powers of its Ministers and allow the Court to be the final arbiter in disputes and appeals in political cases. These measures would serve as a better safeguard than a one-man Elected President. There is no need for a change of the parliamentary system for the time being.”
“But in Singapore, recent amendments to the ISA, as stressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister, have effectively blocked off whatever checks the Court may have on such use or abuse of ministerial power of arbitrary arrest. The decision of the Minister is "final" and cannot be called to question in Court. Now the First Deputy Prime Minister says that the Elected President will do the checking. But that is only an argument to justify why Government wishes to have the Elected President. (2) The Civil Service is normally supposed to be neutral and non-partisan. Civil servants carry out orders according to law, and they serve as some form of check on Government if they refuse to carry out orders that are not in accordance with law. But after so many years of continuous PAP rule, sometimes, Sir, it is difficult to distinguish the PAP from the Government, and the Government from the PAP. The check therefore exists no longer. (3) An effective Opposition is often a very good check on Government's arbitrariness and wrongdoings. The PAP itself, when it was still in the Opposition in the late 1950s, exposed Chew Swee Kee's corruption and brought about the downfall of the Lim Yew Hock government in 1959. The Barisan Sosialis too, when it was an effective Opposition in the early 1960s, forced the PAP to tread carefully in pushing its merger proposals at the time. But since 1963 and the suppression of the Barisan Sosialis, the PAP has run riot with its one-party Parliament until 1981. Today the Opposition, with only two members, is too weak to offer any check on Government power. (4) In other countries, Backbenchers of the ruling party sometimes rebel against unpopular measures introduced by government. In Singapore, this was also done in 1961 which led to a split in the PAP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not permit me to deal with all the points raised by the First Deputy Prime Minister or with the various undesirable and undemocratic provisions in the Bill before the House. Suffice it to say that though we in the Workers' Party agree that our national reserves and integrity of the public service should be safeguarded, we do not agree with the two-key safeguard mechanism that is proposed in the White Paper and the Amendment before the House. We are particularly against placing too much power in the hands of one person, that is, the Elected President. We consider it most unwise and highly dangerous, as abuse of power is always possible and even likely. As has been said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that the checks and balances in the present system of government are inadequate. That is only partly true. I would like to point out, that although Government is all-powerful, and has ridden roughshod over the people for all these 30 years, nevertheless it is not really true that there are no checks at all on Government's power. In parliamentary democracies, certain checks on the Executive may be exercised by the Judiciary, the Civil Service, the parliamentary Opposition, and sometimes even the Backbenchers in the ruling Party itself. But in Singapore, the PAP has undermined these checks by its violations of the norms of parliamentary democracy, and has either completely neutralised them, or even turned them into tools of the Executive. For instance:- (1) The Court is usually the final arbiter of disputes concerning the use of power by Government, as can be seen in the United States and European countries.”
“Sir, is it a form of probation for Mr Chia?”
“When the circulation of foreign publications is restricted, it is no longer easily accessible. After all, not everyone can have the time and convenience to go to public libraries to read such gazetted publications with restricted circulation in Singapore. If the vast majority of our people are uninformed or misinformed, then the stage is set for the government which already controls the local media, to effectively influence our people's thinking on vital issues. That is how thought control is carried out in Communist countries and in fascist countries. I see the First Deputy Prime Minister laughing. Of course, he knows it. It looks as if we in Singapore may be heading step by step towards the same type of thought control under the PAP Government. With the new PAP leadership, there is a great deal of talk about consultative democracy. But unless there is a free flow of information with no restriction whatsoever, there is no possibility of any form of democracy in Singapore. The people must first be informed and knowledgeable before they can take part in meaningful discussions and give their constructive views on important national issues. If Government should be genuine about the consultative democracy and not wish our people to be uninformed or misinformed on world and local issues, then it should seriously reconsider its intentions to push through the amendment Bill.”
“In Singapore today, Government already exercises full control over the amalgamated local press. TV and radio are Government monopolies. Professional organisations are discouraged from making comments on controversial political issues. The Law Society cannot comment on new legislations publicly unless requested by Government to do so. Only political parties may express political dissent and their views are given scant publicity, if at all, in the local press and none at all over TV and radio. Legislation is also being prepared to control criticism of Government policies by religious bodies, and now we have an attempt to control the foreign press in Singapore. Yes, Sir, despite the assurance given by the Minister of State, the amendment Bill is clearly intended to be yet another attempt to control the foreign press, and to restrict the free flow of information in Singapore. The PAP Government will naturally gain much adverse publicity internationally for what it does now. But the real losers, I must emphasise, are the people of Singapore. Because the amendment is an attempt, in however a limited way, to shut the people of Singapore off from the world that enjoys free flow of information. Of course, we have other facilities or communication like fax, satellite TV and whatnots. But such things are not easily available to everyone. An hon. Member: Fax is available.”
“But how will the present amendment, and the imposition of new rules for the application of permits for the sale and distribution of offshore newspapers, affect the foreign publications now being distributed in Singapore? Many of the foreign publications have huge financial resources. They will not be that easily intimidated, like the hapless Barisan Sosialis then, and I am sure, they will easily and gladly comply with whatever new rules and regulations that may be imposed. But what will be the possible outcome of the open confrontation between the PAP Government and the foreign press, or rather, certain foreign publications? There is already a record of frequent post-election defamation suits against political opponents, and also of recent defamation suits against certain foreign publication. Then there were the amendments last year to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in the UK. Thus, whether or not we agree with the PAP's so-called cardinal principles, as pronounced by the First Deputy Prime Minister, the passing of the amendment Bill will certainly cause foreign publications which have complied with the new regulations to be extra careful in their comments on issues and events in Singa- pore. Of course, these foreign publications may either ignore or bypass all news about Singapore affairs or just blandly report controversial issues in Singapore without comment, like what the local press does. Either way, that would be a great loss for our people in Singapore. We would not know how other people and foreigners especially see us. We would not know what their comments are, whether they are objective or subjective or slanted, and how they compare happenings in Singapore with events in other parts of the world. What does all this mean?”
“Now, the amendment Bill is intended not so much to correct any anomaly as to facilitate Government action against foreign publications in defamation suits, should it prove advantageous for Government to do so. Various conditions are to be imposed for granting permits for the sale and distribution of offshore newspapers in Singapore. And may I say this, Sir. This immediately reminds me of the somewhat similar imposition of new rules and regulations for the application of the yearly permits for the Barisan Sosialis Party organs, the "Zhen Xian Bao", in Chinese, and the Plebeian, in English, 16 years ago in 1974. The then new rules in the application for the permits made it necessary for a poli- tical party to list in the application forms the names of not only the Editor and Publisher, but also the names of all the Central Committee Members of the Party and, together with, (this is the important part) their disposable capital, including the value of movable and immovable property owned by them. I find this last objectionable condition omitted in the most recent application forms. The threat in the new rules at that time was crystal clear. In the case of the Barisan Sosialis, it was a threat of possible defamation suits against not only the Editor and Publisher, but also against all the Committee Members of the Party. The then new rules, Sir, were of course, meant to ban the Party organs indirectly, which they did, as it was quite easy to stop the Barisan Sosialis from filing fresh applications for the yearly permits of the Party organs, one in Chinese, one in English.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the third amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in recent years, since the PAP's open confrontation with the foreign press. The 1986 amendment allows the Minister to arbitrarily declare and gazette a foreign publication as having engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore (which declaration, of course, is subject to debate) and so to restrict its circulation in Singapore. The Far Eastern Economic Review, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek, have all been affected. The Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal still have their circulations restricted, and their correspondents are also barred from reporting even international meetings in Singapore. When the FEER chose to stop its distribution in Singapore after its circulation had been arbitrarily and drastically cut from 9,000 to 400 or 500, Government brought in another amendment in 1988 to allow approved agents to photocopy the gazetted publication, FEER, with advertisements left out, for sale and distribution in Singapore. But this has not much improved the situation of easy access to the Far Eastern Economic Review. Not many people know where they may obtain the photocopied weekly. And now, why this present amendment? As explained by the Minister of State, because there was difficulty in service of legal process upon the proprietors of Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones. Sir, I believe, this is another knee-jerk reaction from Government, like the amendments to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in UK, after the judgement in J.B. Jeyaretnam's case.”
“Yes. I just want to say that he has not answered my question and, therefore, would he really answer my question about how he would square up a quota with free enterprise.”
“Already, Dr Wang has said that if the quota should be raised, then the prices would be entirely different, but now - - -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has talked about fallacious statements made by people who have asked questions. I just want to point out that the Minister's statement is concerning the quota and the free market is also fallacious.”
“Does the Minister agree that fixing a quota is a means to raising of prices, for example, OPEC? If there is a quotaa, how does he square it with the so-called free market?”
“Are tenants in rented HDB flats given the same treatment?”
“How many months was this shop in arrears?”
“The proposed amendments to the First Schedule in the principal Act should therefore not be a reduction of but instead an addition to the percentage of the loss of earning capacity, so that the injured worker may be compensated more. If that should happen, then it explain Dr Wong's complaint about insurance companies increasing the premiums. Thus, the present 50% for loss of earning capacity for the loss of two phalanges of the thumb should not be reduced by 30%, but instead be increased to 70%, in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the injured workman. I hope the Minister will pay heed to what I have just said or give us a satisfactory explanation.”
“In fact, workers' compensation should be computed, not only according to age and the multiplying factor in the First Schedule, but also according to the type of work which the worker has been equipped and trained to do. Thus, a telephone operator who has incurred a total loss of hearing should be compensated with an amount more than the 60% of earning capacity as provided in the First Schedule. I am also somewhat puzzled as to why the compensation based on percentages of loss of earning capacity for thumb, finger and toe injuries should be reduced as proposed in the amendment Bill. We know that there have been great advances in microsurgery and hand surgery in Singapore. But should the Minister assume that the loss of function following loss of part of the thumb and fingers by a worker will be sufficiently restored by surgery, and that he will be able to perform his job almost as well as before the injury? And therefore the percentage loss of earning capacity may be reduced, and so less compensation be paid to the worker? Is that what the Minister thinks? A few simple examples to show how wrong such an assumption is. Will a musician, for example, be able to play the instruments just as well and provide just as sweet music if he should have unnaturally shortened thumbs and fingers? Will a cook, disabled by injuries with parts of the thumb and fingers removed, be able to hold a wok in cooking? Or will electricians, plumbers, ordinary construction and factory workers, be able to work as well or half as well to the satisfaction of the bosses and themselves? My guess is that such workers will probably be replaced or given less paying jobs.”
“In the Amendment Bill, Sir, we are indeed pleased to see that the Government has at last taken steps to increase both the minimum and maximum amounts of compensation payable in cases of death and permanent incapacity. But we cannot help pointing out that the new minimum and maximum amounts listed in the Third Schedule are still on the low side. The amounts in the present Act are fixed at a maximum compensation of $45,000, where death results, and a minimum of only $15,000. This shows how lowly the life of a worker is rated in the eyes of the Government. Now the Bill proposes to increase the amount to $78,000 and $26,000, which are just increases of 70% over the past amounts. They are certainly improvements, but the amounts are hardly sufficient compensation for the loss of life of the workers. According to the proposed Third Schedule, maximum compensation for the death of a worker aged 48 would be $78,000. This is equivalent to only 6(r) years earnings of a worker who earns $1,000 per month, that is, the amount he would have earned if he had lived to 55 years of age. Many people do not agree that this is a sufficient and fair compensation for the death of a worker who could have worked until he is 60 or 65, and who would normally have a life-span of more than 70 years of age. Clearly to be fair, Sir, the maximum and minimum amounts of compensation payable in the event of death, as proposed in the Amendment Bill, should be substantially increased. Similarly, the lump sum paid as compensation in the case of permanent total incapacity should also be further increased, especially in these days of rising inflation and high cost of living.”
“Penalties for offences by employers under the present Act should also be suitably heavy. For example, clause 3(b) of the Bill proposes that the penalty for failure of the employer to report an accident to the Commissioner be increased from $1,000 to $2,000. The sum seems ridiculously low. It is indeed derisory, as employers who deal in large sums are not likely to be deterred by a penalty of a meagre $2,000. The penalty should therefore be substantially increased to $10,000 at least, if it is to have a deterrent effect. Similarly, clause 4 of the Bill should also increase the penalty for an employer, who makes deductions from the earnings of a workman to defray the cost of insurance (in the present section 23(2) of the principal Act) from $2,000 to $10,000. At this stage, I might ask, have employers who have violated provisions of the present Act been prosecuted in Court? If so, how many have been prosecuted over the last few years? Would the Minister enlighten the House? Similarly in clause 5 (proposed section 24(9)) of the Bill, the proposed fine of $2,000 should be suitably increased. I suggest that all fines and penalties for violations of provisions in the Act by employers be increased. I might add, Sir, that it is important also to cut red-tape and simplify compensation procedures, as has already been mentioned by another speaker, to help injured workers so that they may be paid compensations as provided in the Act in the shortest possible time. Perhaps workers should be frequently reminded of their rights, and the employers of their obligations and responsibility, in the matter of workmen's compensation now and again by the Ministry.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Minister made the announcement in March, I had not compared the new rates that he mentioned with the existing rates of the principal Act, and therefore I could not even ask him any question at that time. Nevertheless, I support the Bill which in fact has been long overdue. But with increasing inflation and higher cost of living, it has been evident that old compensation rates have been unrealistically low. Every year, thousands of workers have paid dearly for the success of industrialisation in Singapore. Because of numerous industrial accidents and occupational hazards, thousands and thousands of workmen have suffered from various forms of industrial diseases, chemical poisoning, traumatic injuries resulting in partial or permanent physical disability and, not infrequently, in untimely deaths, causing great distress and hardship to their families. Compensations given for disablement or death of the workmen have been scandalously low, and though bosses have made huge profits, compensations have not been raised all through the years. We frequently hear of reports of workers having been diddled of compensation, due to them according to law, by unscrupulous employers who do not insure themselves against workers' injury and accident, and so do not report accidents to the Labour Department, and in some cases do not even pay for adequate medical treatment of the injured workers. There are also reports of cases where, though full compensation is finally paid to the injured worker, the worker is nevertheless assailed by unnecessary delays, anxieties and uncertainties about whether or not payment of compensation for injuries will be paid. It is therefore important that employers be made to observe and carry out compensation laws to the letter.”
“And I would support the Bill full-heartedly if the present scheme already in operation should be revised suitably, if not immediately, then in the very near future.”
“We have the funds and the means to care for our sick and aged in a fitting manner. The PAP also speaks of hopes to bring about a gracious society of distinction. The present MediShield scheme as announced should therefore be suitably revised to provide genuine help to those in need. In summary, let me therefore suggest the following: (1) The age limit for MediShield should be extended from 65 to 70 or even 75. The aged are after all the very people who need MediShield cover. (2) The categories of serious pre-existing diseases listed on page 5, item 2, of the MediShield booklet, namely, cancer, ischaemic heart disease and so on, only a few of the serious diseases, should not be outside, but inside, the scope of coverage of this scheme. Many people feel that the patients who suffer from these illnesses do need Government MediShield cover under all circumstances even if they should have incurred these illnesses during the 12 months before the commencement of MediShield cover. (3) The rates of premiums payable should be lowered for those who earn low wages. (4) The maximum claimable amount should be considerably raised. In addition, the deductibles and co-insurance should be done away with altogether, so that all claims may be suitably and reasonably raised to help those who are in need to pay their hospital bills. Nobody wants to get sick. And to say that deductibles and co-insurance are meant to prevent over-usage is all nonsense. (5) Government should stop raising fees and charges for medical services periodically in order to ensure that medical services are truly affordable - the Minister likes the word "affordable" - for the people.”
“Government has a responsibility to look after the aged and the sick. Therefore, it should ensure that MediShield is a truly low cost medical insurance for the aged, that it truly accepts full responsibility in the care and treatment of those stricken with serious illnesses. The concept of MediShield is very good. Insurance against catastrophic illnesses is especially necessary when people nowadays normally live to well past 70. When medical services have been made more and more expensive by frequent Government increases in fees and charges, now compounded by so-called restructuring of hospitals, and when most people have only small sums in their Medisave accounts, a government that claims to be a good caring government should live up to its duty and responsibility to look after the welfare of the people and especially of the sick and the aged. But it would appear that the PAP Government believes in passing the buck to the people themselves, in making the sick and aged look after themselves, first, through Medisave and now through MediShield and in making the people pay more and more. All this must be changed. Catastrophic illnesses are infrequent - I understand, that they represent at the very most, 1% of the total population - but those who are stricken with such illnesses, together with their families, especially those in the middle and the lower income groups, will need all the assistance the Government can offer. The present Bill deserves wide support, but the regulations which the Minister may make, especially as regard to age limit, the rates of premiums payable, the conditions under which an insured person is entitled to claim benefits payable, and the actual benefits themselves, must be truly responsive to the needs, hopes and aspirations of the people.”
“If the hospital bill does not exceed the deductible amount of $600 and $1,000, as the case may be, the insured person will not be able to make any claim whatsoever. He will have to foot the whole bill all by himself. He can make a claim only on the amount in excess of the deductible amount. Thus, in spite of MediShield insurance, a person stricken with a catastrophic illness finds that he will have to pay either the whole or the greater part of the hospital bill out of his own pocket through Medisave or by cash. He gets very little benefit from the medical insurance even when he most needs help from Government. So we must ask: what sort of MediShield insurance is this that the insured person has to pay such a high percentage of the hospital bill? Does MediShield really insure the people against serious illness? It would appear that MediShield's first responsibility is not to the insured person, but to MediShield itself, to ensure that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. Moreover, MediShield covers only people who are below 65 years of age, as already been touched on. It does not cover those who are above the age of 65, the very people who are most likely to be stricken with catastrophic illnesses. It operates just like private commercial insurance companies. It operates with the object of sure profit and no loss. Yet, it provides less benefits than private commercial hospital and surgical schemes. I have a scheme given to me where a person who has to insure himself pays only $70 per year and he gets the full cover for all hospital charges in B2, whatever the amount that is charged. He does not have to pay a single cent. But Government MediShield does not have to operate like a commercial business undertaking.”
“This is like "sketching cakes to assuage hunger". The Chinese call it Hua bing chong ji ( ). But in actual practice, how much does a patient pay from his own pocket, and how much does MediShield pay for him, when he is presented with a hospital bill? That is what really counts. Let us take the three examples quoted in the CPF booklet: Your Guide to MediShield. For those in class A wards, for first admission, the total hospital bill for a 19-day stay is $8,791. But for the first admission, the insured person, using Medisave or cash, pays $8,127, that is, 92% of the total hospital bill. For a second admission, he pays $4,431 out of $5,727, that is still 77% of the total hospital bill. Such an insurance cover is like no insurance cover at all. Perhaps Government could say that those who are treated in class A wards are those who can afford to pay, and therefore should be made to pay for the full cost of hospital treatment. There may be some logic in that. But for those in the B2 wards, the total hospital bill for a 19-day stay is $1,373. For the first admission, the patient pays $1,074, that is, 80%. He pays $244 out of $1,223, that is, 20% only for the second admission. B2 wards are in fact, as we all know, upgraded class C wards. There is no reason why MediShield should make a B2 ward patient pay such a high percentage of his hospital bill. For those in class C wards, for the first admission, the total hospital bill for a 19-day stay is $756. The patient pays $631, that is, 83% of the bill. Only for a second admission does he pay $132 out of $661, that is, 20%. Here again there is hardly any real insurance cover to speak of. There is no reason why he should be made to pay such a high percentage of the hospital bill.”
“Again, for example, outpatient kidney dialysis claims are limited to $50 per day when the Singa- pore General Hospital charges are $150 per day, and only $600 per month, when SGH charges would amount to $1,800 per month. Surely, the ceiling for "maximum claimable amounts" could be raised higher to help those stricken with catastrophic illnesses. Thirdly, there is the novel, as already mentioned, "deductible" item, payable once in any one year, of $1,000 for class B wards and above, and $600 for class C wards, which the patient has to pay before claims can ever be made. Only those on chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and outpatient dialyses do not have to pay these "deductibles" of $1,000 and $600. If the period of stay should be short, and the hospital charges amount to less than the "deductible" amount, it means that the insured sick will not be able to make any claim whatsoever from MediShield. What then is the point of the MediShield insurance? In order to allow MediShield to run away from its responsibility to pay the insured person what should be paid to him when he falls ill? The deductible sum in fact should be scrapped. But if it has to be provided for, it should be substantially reduced to help reduce the amount in the hospital bill which the insured pays, though the amount for some people is only a Medisave paper transfer. Fourthly, we have "co-insurance", already mentioned also, of 20% to be paid by the patient. MediShield pays only 80% of the claimable sum after the patient has paid the "deductible". So with all the road-blocks imposed by the "maximum claimable amounts", the "deductible" and the "co-insurance", what benefits does the insured person finally get? The Government pamphlet says he can claim up to $15,000 a year and $50,000 for a lifetime.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the MediShield Insurance Scheme had initially met with a very favourable public response when it was first announced. And as already pointed out by Dr Wong, the advantage of the scheme is that those who are included in the scheme do not have to go for a medical examination first. But as some of the details of how the scheme actually operates are made known, the favourable response has also given rise to a lot of disappointment and disillusionment. The reason is not far to seek. A closer study of the scheme quickly reveals that many aspects of the scheme are not so advantageous to the insured person after all. Firstly, though low, compared to private schemes of a similar nature, the premiums are not truly low-cost when we bear in mind the poor insurance cover provided by the Schedule of benefits. For those who draw decent salaries and wages and are reasonably well-off, the premiums are of course not high. But for those who earn low wages, have families and live almost from hand to mouth, paying the premiums may cause further hardships. This is especially so for those who are 50 years of age and above and have to pay premiums of $60 and $96 annually. These are the very people who most need Government help. For them the premiums should therefore be cut by half at least. Secondly, the claims on MediShield have comparatively low "maximum claimable amounts". This means that claims can amount to only a small fraction of the hospital fees that have to be paid by the patient. For example, intensive care unit claims are limited to $140 per day when hospital charges could amount to $300 and $350 per day.”