Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“May I seek clarification from the Prime Minister? As regards the funds handled by the CDC, would there be discrimination as to PAP or opposition ward, or would it be based strictly on merit? In other words, when an applicant comes forward and applies for medical assistance or bursaries or grants, would it be considered on the basis of merit? A man will be sent out to carry out investigation and when he is deserving, that is it, assistance will be given.”
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them. But in a GRC of six, you do not need six single members, as it were. You only need one or two people to lead four or five other competent ones. In a sense, it is a very double-edged sword. The government, instead of losing one seat, could lose six on the coat-tails of a single charismatic opposition leader. If you get a person who has got the credibility and the competence, he can put together five other people who may not individually be electable but are acceptable to the population, he can take one of these super wards and he can in fact get a foothold in Parliament where single opposition members would not be able to. And he has the advantage of being able to go to the people and say, "If you elect us, we will have a self-contained town. We can be tested out in this self-contained town."”
“If we take the long-term view, let us suppose that we have a situation where the government does, in fact, go bad and that it is not working for the good of Singaporeans. Would it be better to have the present system or would it be better to have the expanded GRC system in place? My view is that having an expanded GRC system in place is actually better for the opposition if the government goes bad. If you have a single ward taken by the opposition, a single ward is economically not viable. They have to create their own surpluses. They do not have the economies of scale to provide services to the constituents. And it is very hard for an honest person to go to the people and say, "I can make your life better" when you know that it is going to be so difficult with a single ward. With a large ward, with a team of six, if you take one ward, it is an independent unit that can be run as an independent unit. And if the time ever comes when the government slips up, it is not competent, it is not honest, then the opposition that takes that six-member ward will be able to run it and provide services to the people without compromising their standard of life. Whereas if they take a single ward out of the town, almost inevitably that is going to hurt the people who voted for them. So, in the long run, I think it will be easier for a competent opposition to get into Parliament with a large six-member ward than it would be on single member wards. There is another reason for that, ie, again, coming to the package deal. People think that the package deal works against the opposition, but actually it does not.”
“Having a team and voting for a team, I think, benefits Singaporeans in the sense that you are not voting so much for personalities any more, but you are voting for policies. It is not the people so much as what the policy is. This can only be healthy for Singapore, because it avoids the possibility of having one-shot or one-theme parties. We have seen in other countries, for example, the rise of one-issue parties, Greens, whatever else it is, capitalising on a single issue to get into Parliament. It is much less likely when you have a team of people that you will have this kind of one-issue party, which has no other idea for the rest of Singapore, but it is only focused on a particular local issue, and that certainly is not going to be good for us. So having a team concept is good. Having a team concept, I think, is also good from the point of view of specialisation. It is always difficult to find a group of six people who are equally competent and equally electable. That is the problem. Sometimes you will find that you have people who are good, people who will be competent as administrators and good at running the country and good at running the towns. But for some personal reasons, because they happen to be shy or because they happen to stutter or because some people may have a personal grudge against them, they are not as electable. Having a team allows, in a sense, a more balanced means of getting leadership in place. The problem that many people are worried about is that it is changing the rules at the last moment. If this amendment had been proposed much earlier than now, perhaps there would be less opposition to it. People have claimed that this amendment stacks the cards against the opposition. Again, I am not so sure about that.”
“The problem is we do not know what future governments would be like. If we can guarantee that future governments would be good and uncorruptible, then we would not have to build in all these elaborate mechanisms. As long as the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, he has given us the assurance that minority representation will not be diluted. But he cannot speak for the 21st century and that is our problem. And I think that it would be a lot safer if we have these things built into the Constitution so that it is an accepted part of the Singapore political scheme. As for the expansion of the GRCs, this is the one that creates the most controversy from the party political point of view. But looking at it not as a party man, neither as an Opposition member or as a member from the Government, I think, on balance, it will be good for Singapore. There are a couple of reasons for this. The Prime Minister has already said that the idea is to form a larger unit, a larger unit that can be independent, that is co-extensive with the town, and this of course makes governing the town much more efficient. The main objection that some people have is that you have basically a package deal. You cannot vote for individuals within the package. I am not sure that is really a bad thing. In a single-member constituency, things tend to boil down to a duel between personalities, a one to one. It can become a clash of prima donnas. It can become a situation where the plausible actor wins over the competent person who is not so good in public relations. So I am not so sure that the one to one duel is actually the best way to pick leaders. When you have a team of six, you do not have to have six equally good PR people. You need a team that works.”
“As far as the provisions for Presidential veto on amendments of the Constitution and other statutes are concerned, I have a little bit of reservation about that. But since the provisions are already drafted and the provisions will work when they are brought into force, I support them as well. But my only concern is that we should not leave out entrenching these provisions for too long. When the Elected President's powers were defined originally, it was envisaged that the entrenchment provisions would come into play fairly soon. That was what the Prime Minister said when he moved those amendments five years ago. We have had five years already. The Prime Minister had said that this is not going to be the last round of amendments. Perhaps to allay the concern, as some of us would feel that the Elected President provisions could be whittled down too much, the Prime Minister might want to say when he expects Articles 5A and 5(2A) to be entrenched. One hopes that it will be before the next Presidential election. The amendments to the Elected President powers are not as controversial as the next set of amendments which is the GRC amendments. Unfortunately, in this area, the arguments tend to get clouded by party politics. I think we have to avoid the temptation to deal with this from a party political standpoint and look at it from how it affects Singapore and how it would affect Singapore in future. Do the GRCs actually improve our political system? There are two things to look at. First, the question of minority representation. I think it is well accepted that we must have minority representation in Singapore. The only thing I can do is to reiterate what Dr John Chen has said about building it into the Constitution because the problem is not with the present Government.”
“Ang Mo Kio GRC. I am sorry. It is a single constituency and a GRC. They are actually for operational and administrative purposes under one Town Council. My apology. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, anyone with a sense of history will know that good government is an accident. In most cases, it is extremely rare. So when we look at these amendments that we are making, we are trying to insure ourselves good government for the future. These structural amendments that we make are not just for today, they are for our children and for our children's children. And for that reason, I think it is a mistake to approach these amendments solely from the point of view of what Singapore is today and look at it from the point of view of what we have today. But we have to consider over the horizon threats as well. The structure that we have put in place for the Elected Presidency is our insurance for good government in future. And the additional hassle that we go through is the premium we pay for that insurance. And I do not think we should skimp from that because it is for the preservation of Singapore as a political entity in the 21st century and beyond. Let me consider first the provisions of the Elected Presidency. The amendments that provide for the override of the Presidential veto on appointments make sense because it avoids the possibility that you will have an unbreakable impasse in a situation where we need good people. For those reasons, I support them. Also, the provisions for the expansion of the Council of Presidential Advisers make perfect sense because by increasing the number of members of the Council to six, it allows for greater degree of specialisation.”
“No. Nee Soon South and Toa Payoh --- An hon. Member: Ang Mo Kio GRC.”
“I need to clarify. It is actually --- An hon. Member: Nee Soon Central.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing. It is the infringement of the fundamental and basic right of the voters to have the choice of their candidate. That is why I am mentioning this. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Under this legislation, anyone who votes for the candidates in the GRC is exercising his choice. Mr Ling How Doong: So are you saying that if you put up six candidates, I can choose three and forget about the three? Do you mean this can be done under the GRC? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): But if you do not vote for this group of six, you could vote for the other group of six, representing another party. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Just now, Mr Ling said that Nee Soon South is under Sembawang GRC.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them. Why not? It is better that way. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): I would like to ask Mr Ling one question. Just now, he kept on saying that the PAP should be relaxed and have confidence in themselves. I feel that the SDP is very worried about the GRC and they have no confidence in the GRC. That is why the SDP wanted to cooperate with the PKMS to contest in the GRC. So are they not trying to contest it?”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties. If you consider the GRCs, it is not necessary the ruling party will get the most number of votes, the Opposition parties will also get the votes. So this scheme not only covers the ruling party but also the Opposition parties.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way. All the parties participating in the election should put up the candidates in the usual way and if they were defeated, then we can consider the scheme of the NCMP. So it is not so much my endorsement. It is a way of ensuring minority representation. I do not want to be accused of shutting out representation of the minorities. I emphasise this point that you must have confidence in yourself. You must have confidence in the party running for the election. It is as simple as that. When I heard Encik Maidin, I feel very sad because he seems to have no confidence in his own kind. Very sad!”
“No. I did not say that. We are against the NCMP even. We are also against the NMP. An hon. Member: You are changing your mind.”
“If you want to win, win in a very honourable and proud way. That is the Hokkien saying. I come to this conclusion that the introduction of this amendment is a reflection of the acute kiasu syndrome of the PAP.”
“The present one is not about securing or protecting minority interest in Parliament. You are just increasing it. Why? In my mind, this amendment is not so much for the protection of minority interest because there is really nothing to protect. They are protected under the previous amendment. So there is nothing to protect under this amendment. In my mind, this amendment is to strengthen the ruling Party and to entrench its continuous rule. The Government has done so much for the people as they claim. What is there to worry to confront the people? The people can look at the last five years and see that they have performed so much. You know that Singaporeans are no fools. They are very sophisticated. They know who to vote and what to vote. So if you show them and convince them that you have done that much for them, I am sure you will be elected. So why should you have this particular scheme to get more and more into it - three, four, six, very soon 15, 20, and keep on increasing it. As I said, the very basic and fundamental right of the people to have the liberty to choose candidates of their choice is not there anymore. So what are we talking about parliamentary democracy? As I said earlier, if you have done so much for the people, the PAP candidate can sleep in peace. In Mandarin, it says, [gao zheng wu you], just sleep soundly. You do not have to worry about all this. Why is it that at almost every election, new schemes and devices will come in? To me, it is under the pretext of protecting minority interest and communal bonding. To me, it is something else. By introducing all these schemes and amendments, even if you win, what is so much about the honour? There is a Hokkien saying, ya ma ya, ya liao eh sui. An hon. Member: Could you translate it?”
“I was a bit surprised when some of the Members mentioned the fact that a minority candidate needs to be in a GRC to come to Parliament. I think you are doing a disservice to your own kind. Please, you should have more confidence in your own kind, rather than having your own people in a GRC, under the umbrella of a strong candidate, to be put into Parliament. You must remember in the early days of the PAP when the people had so much confidence in the PAP, any candidate put up by the PAP went in. Serious! They were voting, not based on the individuals, but under the symbol and the banner of that particular party. So in the early days of the PAP, when they put up anyone, you could safely say it was a walk-over. What happens now? Please, you must have the confidence in your own party, that you can be in Parliament on your own steam, rather than being pulled in. In Mandarin, it says it is a vehicle of convenience passing your way, you just jump on the bandwagon and, there you are, you will be carried into Parliament. Please have more confidence in your own people rather than to have this sort of thing. I am more concerned with this fact. To me, I feel that all MPs, in particular Ministers, should get a clear mandate from the people to be in Parliament. All candidates, ministerial as well as ministerial aspirants, should get a mandate from the people to come into Parliament. And the only way to do so is to be in a single constituency. This amendment is quite different from the previous one in the sense that in the previous GRC scheme, the most important purpose was to ensure minority representation in Parliament. But this amendment is not so, because you have already secured this in the previous amendment.”
“In fact, I would suggest it should be proportional representation, eg, if the Malays make up so many percent, they will be represented in that sense by that percentage or more, in fact. The minimum is proportional representation. In fact, my colleague Mr Cheo mentioned this point earlier. He did not say that GRC is against minority representation. He said that there are other means. Of course, he mentioned the NMP. I would mention one way is by way of NCMP because NCMP is more representative. You stand as individuals. You stand for election and it would be divided into categories - the Malays, the Indians, and whatnot. So when you decide on the NCMP, you cannot put in a Chinese in the same category, because you may have problems. So you put all the Malay candidates, choose the highest number of them and then select them accordingly. Similarly, for the Indians. It is more representative in that sense. One must remember that at every election, be it the Government or the Opposition, invariably you call for a mandate from the people. You are asking for a mandate from the people to continue for the next term and thereafter. It is a question of mandate. Can you be sure that you will get a mandate in the GRCs? My answer is no. Because in a GRC, previously you had three, four, but now you have six. Not all the six of them will be able to get a mandate. Probably you will get one or two. Now, how are you going to decide that all of them have got a clear mandate from the people to be in Parliament for the next term? So the only way to decide would be in a single constituency. Let the people decide. It is only in a single constituency that you will be able to determine whether you get a true mandate from the people.”
“As I mentioned earlier, you could achieve the same result without having to increase the number of candidates in the GRC. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution is sacrosanct. This amendment strikes at the foundation of parliamentary democracy in a sense that it has deprived voters the right, the liberty, to choose the candidates they want. This political decision to change our electoral system, through the GRC scheme, is repugnant to parliamentary democracy. True, the feature of the one-man-one-vote is still there but then it deprives the voters the liberty to choose candidates of their choice. And to me it is implied that any amendment that takes away, curtails or strikes at the foundation of the rights of the voters, you would have to refer it by way of referendum. I give a simple example. If that can be done, without referendum, the Constitution can be amended, very soon you can keep on amending the Constitution to say that the people have no right to vote. To follow your argument that far, you can in fact amend the Constitution to say that you have no right to vote at all or rather you will only vote the candidates I put up. It can go that far. That is why I am saying that it is implied in the Constitution. It may not be written but it is implied. Anything that takes away the basic and fundamental rights of the voters, it can only be done through referendum and not otherwise. The GRCs not only undermine this basic and fundamental right but, to me, it is also a scheme to get those rejected and the weak into Parliament. I for one am never against the idea to have minority representation in Parliament.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils. For example, the Sembawang Town Council is a GRC, they are taking in Nee Soon South. So I think his argument does not hold weight at all. You can have all the GRCs grouped together and operate even under one GRC. There is nothing to prevent that from happening. In fact, this has been done in a number of the PAP Town Councils.”
“Resolved, That this House (a) adopts the Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals, contained in Parl. 5 of 1996, and endorses the Committee's findings that: (1) the figures for the fees charged by polyclinics and private GPs and the average bill sizes in private and public hospitals, which the Minister for Health provided to Parliament on 15 March 1996, were correct; (2) the subsidy levels for services provided by polyclinics and public hospitals, as provided by the Ministry of Health, were also correct; and (3) Mr Ling How Doong and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had not been able to provide any objective data to substantiate their claim that "health care costs are hardly subsidised at all"; and (b) regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament and members of the public about Government subsidy of health care. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. QUESTION FOR WRITTEN ANSWER WINNY HO 1. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Community Development why his Ministry allowed an abused child by the name of Winny Ho to be returned to her parents' care to be severely abused again after the parents apparently broke their original undertaking to ensure her safety.”
“We know our population is ageing, we know how easy it is to incur health care costs when we are old. We all have parents, uncles, aunts whom we have got to help bear this burden. And if we are not careful, health care costs can not only impoverish entire families, they can bankrupt entire societies. It is an issue of great concern, and must be of great concern, to all Singaporeans and to all of us as Members of Parliament. And we must try our very best, work our hardest, to create a system in Singapore which is competitive, which offers choices, but which at the same time makes sure that no one is left by the side, left dying on the streets. And there are none in Singapore who are left dying on the streets. We all know that. Even compared to cities like Tokyo, Washington, London or Paris, if you look at the bottom 10% of society, they are better treated from the health care point of view. We have not done too badly. We have not done too badly at all. But it is a continuing challenge because we all want the best for ourselves and for our parents and our children. But in order for Parliament to pass laws which help us get the best system for Singaporeans, we must have the facts, we must acknowledge the facts, and we must have honest debates, based on the truth, not based on opinions, not based on assertions about the colour of the sky. There were parts of our exchange with Mr Ling today which had a certain Alice-in-Wonderland quality about it, where words mean what we want them to mean. If you were telling stories to children, that is fine. But we are not telling stories to children. We are talking about how to look after the sick and the dying. So words must have meaning, and words must not mislead. Question put, and agreed to.”
“In my speech in Parliament. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: But even today, he tried to wriggle away from another position by saying that when the SDP in the New Democrat talked about health care costs not being subsidised, they were referring only to bed charges, until I had to remind him that both he and his party separately issued statements, making it clear what they meant. At least on four to five occasions today, Mr Ling had again tried to mislead us. So I do not think there is any doubt at all what he and his party had been trying to do. If it were not such a serious matter, I think we could have just laughed it away or shrugged it off. But health care, and health care cost in particular, is a very serious matter. It affects all of us. It affects every family in Singapore. We worry about it for ourselves. We worry about it for our parents and grandparents. We worry about it for our children and grandchildren. At the end of the day, however we subsidise or cross-subsidise or charge, Singaporeans have to bear the health care burden of Singaporeans. Americans are not going to help us. Malaysians are not going to help us. Others are not going to help us. We have got to help ourselves. And what we want is to provide the best health care for Singaporeans at the least cost. Because if the burden is too heavy, however we cut it, it must at the end of the day affect the competitiveness of our economy, and that we cannot afford. In America today, it is 14% of the GNP and still rising. 14% - that is more than our health, education and defence budgets combined. It is fortunate that they have got large parts of their economy which are highly productive and very competitive in the world. And even so, 14% is not a light burden to carry.”
“You look at the motion: "regrets ... Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP ...".”
“You read my speech. My speech is the subject matter of this motion today. Where in my speech had I changed the data and figures? Point out to me.”
“That is not the issue. The issue is in reply to his allegation that I only said it because an election was round the corner. I prove him wrong because 1992 was immediately after the 1991 general election. I brought up the same subject matter. So it is my duty as an elected representative that I have been bringing this matter up, not only during the two occasions, ie, the debate on the President's Address and the Select Committee, but I have been bringing this up at most of the election rallies.”
“Mr Speaker, I have already told this House earlier on that I said the same thing in 1992, immediately after the general election, and I spoke again at a parliamentary debate. Why is he now suggesting that because the election was around the corner, I whipped up this sort of thing? The other point is this. When I spoke in Parliament, anyone of you could have spoken up that what I was saying was not true. There was no reply in this House. How many of you were here? Why? I spoke in Parliament, at the right forum, and none of the Members deemed fit to reply to what I had said. If Members thought it was misleading, it was falsehood, how come there was no response from any of the Members here when I spoke in Parliament?”
“If you calculate - in fact, this was done by the SMA - that a doctor needs to see 40 patients a day to make ends meet and he charges, let us say, $20, do not say $16, the overhead is $6 or $7, and he does not make $8 per patient, he cannot survive. You can calculate. With 40 patients a day, if he does not make $8 per patient, he cannot survive. There is no way. It is a very simple, logical way of deduction from there.”
“Like the Statistics Department, for the cost of living, in fact, it was stated in the press that they sent their members out, go to the market place, take a sample of the various vegetables and see how much, then they come to the conclusion that the price has remained stable or has gone up. Mine is the same way.”
“Yes. But the point here is, you tell me, how does the Statistics Department go around collating all these statistics?”
“No, it is on fact. What is the fact? Would you want to know? I repeat one more time. I went to see three doctors. Is it not a fact?”
“I said earlier, based on my deduction that he made so much, and how could you say that I am misleading. As I said, it is an opinion. It is not an assertion of fact to say, "No, Government is charging the public."”
“If I can go further, I should say that even the insurance companies are subsidising all their policy holders. For example, you pay $30 premium for an insurance and if you happen to fall ill, you go to a hospital, they will pay you $300 to $500. That is subsidy. Encik Mohamad Maidin: Mr Speaker, Sir, a Member of Parliament went to the clinics three times and he was charged $16 each time. He suspected the doctors made $8 per visit. The Government clinic charges $10. So he came to the conclusion that there was hardly any subsidy at all. The Member came to Parliament and made a speech. His New Democrat published that it was hardly subsidised at all, and based on his assumption, based on agak agak, the Member was not only wrong but he was trying to mislead Parliament and obviously trying to mislead the public. I think that was the point he asked. I think he had just told us very clearly that he had tried and made attempts before, based on agak agak. How can Mr Ling tell us in this House today that he is not trying to mislead Parliament and the public?”
“I have already given, towards the end of the Select Committee, my interpretation on the question of subsidy. To me, in Southeast Asia the only country that can safely claim to have subsidy is in Brunei. They do not pay income tax. Royalty from oil and petroleum is being dished out to help the poor and needy. That is my point. An hon. Member: Insurance company.”
“Sometimes colour blind, sometimes no. As I have said before, I used the term quite often during the election. I said, "The PAP is a chameleon." During election time, it changes colour. It becomes Father Christmas. I have said that before. I am glad that you remind me of that phrase.”
“As I have said earlier, my speech was made during a parliamentary debate. To me, there was nothing wrong with my speech. I went further to justify why I said those things and it was an assertion of fact plus an expression of opinion. BG Lee Hsien Loong: What is your opinion today? An hon. Member: Colour blind.”
“No, I cannot just be giving an answer when no question was put to me. She said, "Mr Ling had to be pushed to give an answer." But I was a Member of the Select Committee. So it is only when you asked that I answered. I cannot just go round like I am a representor. BG Lee Hsien Loong: But did you ask? An hon. Member: You can also ask questions.”
“I raised the health care issue during the parliamentary debate. That is the first point. The second point is, in my view, opinion can only be wrong, but it cannot be misleading. The third point is, she asked why I never raised questions. This is because I was a Member of the Select Committee. I was not a representor. But if you have listened to her, what she said was that I was pushed to answer.”
“I think what she is saying now amounts to sub judice because the four representors of SDP are coming before the Committee of Privileges. She is going into the whole thing. I think it is wholly improper. We should wait until the hearing by the Committee of Privileges to decide on this because she is going into the whole thing now. That is my view. I will leave it to the Chair to decide on this. I think we should leave it to the Committee of Privileges.”
“I have said more than enough to exonerate myself.”
“I merely just want to repeat here. It is stated in the motion, "... regrets the attempt by Mr Ling How Doong and the SDP to mislead Parliament." I would like to hear from any of the Member pointing out which part of my speech has actually misled Parliament. That is all.”
“As I said, rightly or wrongly, I am merely expressing my own opinion.”
“I really do not understand this line of going forward and backward. My answer is a very simple one. I have already told you that I had seen three doctors and they charged me $16. And I am of the opinion that they made $8. Is it not that simple? As I said, if you study my speech carefully, it is an assertion of fact as well as an expression of opinion. I am expressing an opinion. Rightly or wrongly, it is up to you. An hon. Member: There is something wrong.”
“I have just explained that I went to see three private doctors and they charged me $16. If they made $8, and the Government is charging $10-$12, is it not more than what the private clinics are charging? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is quite a grahic illustration of prevarication. Can I also ask Mr Ling, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether he remembers seeing tables during the Select Committee meeting showing the charges, bill sizes for admissions to Tan Tock Seng Hospital versus private hospitals and bill charges by disease conditions? Does Mr Ling remember those tables?”
“Yes, of course. What I am saying is that in both The New Democrat as well as my speech, we only dealt with the ward charges as well as the fees at the polyclinics. As I said earlier, I expressed my view in the sense that I had seen three doctors and I was charged $16. I was also of the view that probably the doctor made $8 from there. So the actual charge was $8. On that assumption, the Government should charge less than $8 in order to be considered as a subsidy, as you call it. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think here we see it again. Just a moment ago, Mr Ling told us that when the SDP said health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, they were only referring to bed charges. So he brought us this thing about Mount Alvernia's bed charges compared to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But Mr Ling had conveniently forgotten that not long after the first Select Committee meeting, both the SDP and he issued statements confirming their allegation that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, statements which Mr Ling told us earlier that he remembers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify here? I have stated earlier what I said in Parliament. There are two issues - ward charges and polyclinic fees. An hon. Member: Mr Ling, you want to deal with fees?”
“I will give you an example. You go to a sundry goods shop, for example, you will find identical goods there. One is $16, and the other is $14. Must I ask him? A layman takes a look and he will know it is $2 more expensive than the one which costs $14. You do not have to go beyond that. Anyway, my point is this. Why I am bringing all this up is simply this. If you look at the motion, it says that the SDP and I are trying to mislead Parliament. You read my speech and my backup of what I said. As I said, firstly, it is an assertion of fact. Secondly, it is an expression of opinion. How could these things mislead anybody? That is my point. So I am labouring on all these things. It is ironical that when hundreds or even thousands of bills are printed with the mistake of "$225", the Government just exonerates and clears itself by saying that it is a mistake. But when we said it is a mistake, no, this is fabrication, prevarication. I really do not understand. And when I said something, you said it is misleading. I really do not understand. So I would seriously want to hear from any Member of this House telling me which part of my speech could mislead this House or the members of the public. I would like to hear that. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Ling when he said earlier, referring to the SDP's New Democrat, that when they said health care costs are hardly subsidised at all, they were referring only to bed charges. Does Mr Ling remember that after the first Select Committee meeting on 8th July, Dr Chee Soon Juan issued a statement asserting the SDP's position that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all without qualification and Mr Ling also issued a statement confirming that his position and the SDP's position are identical.”
“As I said, I was just comparing Tan Tock Seng Hospital's charges for a 40-bedded ward. I was just comparing. [Interruptions.] I brought this up in the Select Committee hearing. This is not the first time that you have heard of this. I will give you a simple example. An hon. Member: Why did you not tell the Auditor-General?”
“The Government says that the cost for Tan Tock Seng Hospital is $140 a day. I have the tariffs from Mount Alvernia Hospital. Is it not a comparison? For a layman, he just takes a look at it, makes a comparison and comes to the inescapable conclusion whether there is subsidy or not. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think this really proves the point that we are making. Mr Ling is now suggesting that the figures for Tan Tock Seng Hospital are cooked up, that the $140 are not the real costs, that we were somehow misleading him and members of the public as to the true cost of providing a C class bed. He had ample opportunity during the Select Committee hearings to ask the officials and to ask the Auditor-General to check the numbers to make sure that $140 was inflated. He did not. Why is that?”
“But you must consider earlier on what I have said in this House. We even questioned the $140 cost by bringing in the tariffs from Mount Alvernia Hospital. For Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a 40-bedded ward, no air-conditioner and no television, you said the cost is $140. And I had cited earlier the charges of Mount Alvernia Hospital. It is clearly stated how much is a two-bedded ward. For Mount Alvernia Hospital - I just have to repeat here - 6-bedded ward, air-conditioned, colour TV, $100 per person; 4-bedded, it is $125. We even compared with a 4-bedded ward. Are you telling me a 40-bedded ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, no air-conditioner, no TV, costs $140, while a 4-bedded ward in Mount Alvernia Hospital costs $125? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to record an objection to the line Mr Ling is taking. We had before the Select Committee officials from the Ministry and from the hospitals. We had the Auditor-General to audit the various accounts put up. Mr Ling had full access to ask them the questions he now asks me. He did not ask of any of them those questions. Why is that, Mr Ling?”