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 2 of 8.
“I do not think one should or can draw a comparison. Of course, of $225, if you pay $19, the subsidy is higher. But it is an impression given to members of the public that you spend so much money and you pay so little. That is the point. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members now have a sense of the flavour of the Select Committee. $19 out of $140, which was the rectified amount, is 86%. Government only claims that C class wards are subsidised 80%. But, in fact, based upon the corrected actual amount, it is 86%. If it was upon the erroneous amount of $225, it would have been much higher. But Government only claims 80%. It is a very material percentage, Mr Ling.”
“Now you look at my speech and the article printed in the New Democrat. Because the Government has claimed that it is paying so much subsidies, what would be the impression or perception of the members of the public? Instead of $140, you are saying that it costs $225. Members of the public will say, "My gosh! I have been subsidised to such an extent. The cost is $225. I pay only $19." That, to me, is very dishonest. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to answer this later, Members would not be able to follow the mathematics. Can I ask Mr Ling, as a proportion of $140, what is $19?”
“I have not seen the other bills. I assume that it must be the same, $19. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is clear that Mr Ling is quibbling.”
“No. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Did it affect any other patient whose bill contained that similar error in the amount that he had to pay?”
“I would like to make it very clear, to be fair to everyone here, that the quibbling is not so much as to the actual cost. In fact, I made it very clear that the quibbling is over the question of cost. It is a question of cost. Because we are all the time talking of subsidies. So whether it is $225 or $140, Sunny Kow still paid $19. He still paid $19 for the charge, which is the standard charge. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Ling whether the error affected the amount Mr Kow had to pay.”
“" His answer was that: "Mr Chairman, if I may seek clarification. What do you mean by "similar mistakes"? I cited an example [para. 840]: "For example, in Sunny Kow's case, the full charge was supposed to be $140 but it was reflected in the bill as $225. So could there be other bills for a C class ward, instead of $140, you put $225? Could there be other similar bills?" His reply was this: "As I mentioned earlier, this number is fed into the computer and for all bills, regardless of whether it is C or A, it shows $225." It was fed into the computer and it was generated for a period of time. It could be hundreds or thousands of bills. Why? Because further down there, BG George Yeo said [para. 842]: "... They have made a mistake. That mistake probably resulted in errors in many bills issued during that period." "Many bills issued during that period." I have answered the first point. That was a mistake by the Ministry. It was not by us. Now we come to the second part regarding the private hospitals' charges. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo rose ---”
“And having been satisfied that the cost of a C class ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital ought to be $140, instead of $225, this is what BG George Yeo said in the Select Committee hearing [para. 433]: "Mr Chairman, Sir, I am not saying that the SDP had no basis for putting down $225 for a C class bed, because there was in fact an instance where this had happened, it was a mistake, for which we are sorry, and that was the only point I wanted to make. I just wanted to establish where the SDP got its data from. Because if the data were from someone else, apart from Mr Kow, I would have worried, that there was another such case. But since he told me that Mr Kow, I feel quite comforted that he was referring to the same case. In fact, when Mr Kow was here, I apologised to him on behalf of the Health Ministry for having given him the wrong number." Now I go back to this sentence again: "Because if the data were from someone else, apart from Mr Kow, I would have worried, that there was another such case." And it was further adduced during the Select Committee hearing that this was an isolated case. But let me assure this House that it was not an isolated case. I would refer you to the excerpt further down there. It was not an isolated case. It was not the case of only one bill with the amount wrongly stated to one patient. I will go further down and show that. You will see that when Mr John Chu was questioned, the Government admitted that the amount of $225 stated in the bill was a mistake. Government admitted that it was a mistake. So I followed up with my question [para. 839]: "During the period 1994, could there be similar mistakes of this nature where you put down there as $225 per day? Could there be similar mistakes in 1994?”
“I will come to the first part of the motion that the PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day at a Government hospital. I am trying to relate to you how this came to be in our New Democrat. I cannot do better than by going through with you excerpts from the hearings of the Select Committee. BG George Yeo, the Minister for Health, asked this question. The representor was asked to clarify the first part of the New Democrat. The PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day. That was the question put to the representor and was asked by BG George Yeo. So an answer was given. This was from a hospital bill of one of the patients. The hospital bill was handed in. And it was stated in that hospital bill that the cost of a C class ward is $225. Being satisfied with how the SDP came to this figure, BG George Yeo continued from there. I merely read out from what he had said [para. 425]: "Your point in making the statement that C class bed costs $225 is that the Government is not telling Singaporeans the truth, that the cost of health care is subsidised by 80% in C class wards. That is the conclusion in that paragraph. I acknowledge that we made a mistake, that Tan Tock Seng made a mistake in putting down $225. In fact, it should have been $140." Clearly, if there was falsehood in this particular statement, the falsehood originated from the Government because we merely copied from the hospital bill. And if, in fact, this statement is misleading, it was the Government which had misled us and the members of the public. We just copied from the hospital bill.”
“You have read the whole Select Committee Report. You have noticed that all these items were there. I am here trying to explain that from my speech there is no such thing as misleading Parliament. So I am here to justify, item by item, that there is no such thing as misleading Parliament or members of the public. Therefore, I need to go through all of them, item by item.”
“Let me tell the hon. Member that apparently he did not even understand the motion. Do you know what is the motion about? The motion clearly states, in case you do not understand: "(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 ...". If I explain this item by item, I can prove that there is no such thing as misleading Parliament. You are objecting to me ---”
“No. Can I finish? Because I do not want my trend of thought to be disturbed. Now I propose to go, one by one, to justify what is stated in the article "The Truth about Health Care Costs", as I have done in respect of my own speech in Parliament.”
“You can compare these two hospitals and you will know whether there is subsidy or not. The next point I would come to is what is stated in the New Democrat. In the New Democrat, in the article "The Truth about Health Care Costs", there are four items there. The PAP Government claims that it costs $225 for a C class bed per day at a Government hospital, 40 beds per ward, with no air-conditioning, telephone or private bathroom. Of this, it tells Singaporeans that the cost is subsidised by 80%. But a B class ward, 4-beds with air-conditioning, telephone and private bathroom in a private hospital like Gleneagles, Mount Alvernia, East Shore, etc. costs $160. Yet there is no subsidy in these hospitals. Consultation charges at Government polyclinics, plus medication, cost $14 to $17. Consultation charges at private GP clinics, plus medication, cost $15 to $18. Yet the PAP Government claims that there is an 80% subsidy at Government polyclinics. Health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. For example, beds in a B2 ward in Tan Tock Seng Hospital are more expensive than the same class beds at Balestier Medical Centre. Indeed, the PAP Government says that it is subsidising 20% of B2 beds. I would like to draw your attention that of the four items there, the last one, health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. These apply to bed charges. It applies to the last item. It started off by stating that health care costs are hardly subsidised at all. For example, it states that it is confined to bed charges. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Can I ask the Member a question?”
“" Am I misleading anybody? Because you have eyes to take a look at the sky itself, it cannot be misleading. How can it be misleading? You have eyes to see for yourself. I could be colour blind. So the term "mislead" is not appropriately used here. You would notice that in my speech, I dwelt on two points. The first point is ward charges, and the second point is charges at polyclinics. I dwelt on these two points only. Let me come to my point on charges at the polyclinics. It is an assertion of fact. This is simply because, as I have told the Select Committee, I had been to three different doctors. I was charged $16 per visit on three occasions, and this was why I stated it was $16. That was my point. It is an assertion of a fact. Because I have personally experienced this. That is why I say $16 per visit. Compared to the Government polyclinic charge at $10, $12, $13, I am not far off the mark. Again, I expressed my view to say that of the $16, the private practitioner could have made $8. Thus, if the Government polyclinic charges $10, it is above the amount to be charged. That is the first point. The second point is in regard to ward charges. As regards ward charges, for Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a 40-bedded dormitory type of ward with no air-conditioners and no television, the cost is $140 per day. In fact, I have brought this to the attention of the Select Committee. I have got the tariffs from the Mount Alvernia Hospital where it is stated here, "for 2-bedded ward with air-conditioning and television, the cost is $180, and for 4-bedded it is $135, and for 6-bedded with air-conditioning, it is only $100." How would you reconcile the charges of a C class ward with 40-beds to that of Mount Alvernia Hospital? That explains away whether there is subsidy or not.”
“So the actual cost is only $8." Further down, it reads [Hansard, Vol. 65, Col. 873]: "If the Government is serious about subsidy, the subsidy should be below cost and not below market price. I cite a simple example. In Singapore, C class ward charges are $25 per day, excluding food, toilet paper, medicine, etc. For a C class ward, the Government claims that they subsidise 80%. So without subsidy, it comes to $125 per day. If you compare with a private ward outside - we have a number of hon. Members here who have clinics outside - you will find that for $180, you stay in a two-bedded ward with an air-conditioner, telephone and TV. So is this subsidy? In a private hospital, in a four-bedded ward, you pay $157, with air-conditioner, colour TV, etc. Bearing in mind all the infrastructure and equipment, everything in the hospital is paid for from the taxpayers' money. Therefore, when you talk of subsidy, the Government should [I use the word "should"] make sure it is below cost subsidy. It is very easy to work out this way. If the private hospital charges $200, how much do they make from the amount? If they make $100, that means their cost is $100. So if members of the public are asked to pay $80, that means the subsidy is $20. It is very simple. We do not have to go beyond that. The Government should do that. Then I agree that it is really subsidising Singaporeans." You have observed in my speech that there are two matters. Firstly, assertion of fact and, secondly, expression of an opinion. Expression of an opinion can never mislead. Why I say it is an assertion of fact I will come to it later on. If I am expressing an opinion, how could I mislead with an opinion? I will give you a simple example. I tell you the sky is blue. But you say, "No, it is not blue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first clarify that the speech I made in Parliament in respect of health care cost was not a repetition of what was published in the New Democrat. You would recall that I had, in fact, told the Select Committee that I made this issue in January 1992, immediately after the general election. It is in the Hansard. Members can always check that. In fact, I have a copy here. Actually, it is on 15th January 1992. Immediately after the 1991 general election, I had already raised this issue. I raised this issue at most of the election rallies. So for Members to say that I want to cash in on political ground is all wrong. Why should I? Immediately after the 1991 general election, I raised the same point again in Parliament. Before I proceed, I propose to go through the speech I made in Parliament in respect of the health care cost. This is what I said on 11th March 1996 [Hansard, Vol. 65, Col. 872]: "Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government to do more for the poor and the disadvantaged. There ought to be more subsidies in medical treatment, ward charges and operation fee for the poor. As it is now, the amount of subsidy is just not sufficient. I suspect [I used the word "suspect"] that the so-called subsidy by the Government is not below cost subsidy but below market price subsidy. Let me cite an example. If you go to a polyclinic, you pay $7 per visit excluding medicine. Formerly, you may have paid $12 including medicine. It varies. So you can say, on average, you probably pay $13 to $14 per visit to the polyclinic. But if you visit a private practitioner, you pay about $16. But you must not forget that when you go to a private clinic and they charge you $16, the doctor must have made at least 50% from there. He must have made $8 from there.”
“MEMBERS FROM THE BOTSWANA BRANCH OF THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION (Presence in Gallery)”
“I want to seek clarification in respect of clause 6 of the Bill. The amendment has now required the written consent of the Town Council in respect of improvement to existing facilities. I am wondering why there is the necessity to have this amendment. The second point is, why is there the necessity to have written consent from the HDB? The third matter is, from my past experience in running a Town Council, when we apply for something, invariably there is delay. For example, when we applied to have a wishing well in a piece of vacant land in our Town Council, it was delayed for a long time and finally the answer came, "Permission is not granted because it is going to cause traffic jam". A wishing well can cause traffic jam! That was the answer from the HDB. Another example: we applied to construct a covered walkway. Similarly, the reply was, "We give you in principle approval." There has been no reply until now. Another clarification that I would like to seek is in respect of exemption of charges for the use of Town Council land by the Board's agent or any agent or any civic body, which is all-embracing. As it is now, we have the State land there. In other words, the RCs and the CCs could mean the State land now. It appears that with this amendment, they could also make use of the Town Council land. The responsibility of running and maintaining the Town Council land is on the shoulder of the Town Council and the facilities would have to be extended to the agents of the HDB. It has such a wide coverage as to who are agents of the HDB. Could they ultimately lease out to other people to run the whole place and they are exempted from paying the Town Council any charges? After that, the Town Council has to keep the whole place clean. Is this fair? VISIT OF HON.”
“Yes, you moved on so fast and you asked the Minister to reply. In fact, I signalled that I wanted to speak.”
“Some of the amendments are clearly politically motivated.”
“When it involves $3.4 million, could the House be told how this was entered in the books of Keppel Shipyard?”
“Sir, roughly, when will the investigation be completed?”
“Yesterday afternoon, in his speech, SM Lee told us how he received special treatment under various different circumstances. He went on to say that life was like that. His speech gave me the impression that as long as a person is famous, with reputation, with status, then he should be entitled to be given special treatment, and that receiving such special treatment is something that gives no cause for criticism. Although I agree with the reasoning that whether a person would make use of his reputation and status to derive personal benefits will eventually depend on whether he is honest and upright, I am concerned that if that person is one who is holding high power and position, especially a Minister or a senior Government official, and has this kind of thinking, that is, with power and status, he should be entitled to enjoy special treatment, and treat it as a matter of course, then Singapore will be in trouble. I feel that this practice should not be encouraged. I am worried that if this concept that so long as one has reputation and status, he is entitled to enjoy special teatment is to spread and be ingrained into the minds of the people, thus becoming a trend, from the CEOs on top right down to the grassroots leaders below, then there will be drastic changes to our society.”
“Before I reply to him, in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear just now that the Opposition parties are very quick to find fault with the ruling party. The fact that the statements issued by both the Workers' Party and SDP did not mention them is a clear indication that we are not criticising any one of you. That is the first point. The second point is that our party's stand has all along been that Ministers should declare their assets. So it is merely a follow-up of our party's stand. In fact, DPM just now mentioned that he had purchased properties with the help of his parents. So we would also know the source of their income. For example, if you say, "I am buying a property for $5 million." People will calculate and ask how much is his income. How come from nowhere he has got $5 million? The fact that you explain, "Yes, I get it from my parents," that is it. What is wrong with that? Anything wrong? Would that not put you in a better position to explain, "The money is not what I have. I got help from my parents." Simple. 3.23 pm Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I make my speech, I would like to clarify what Mr Chiam has said about what the Opposition should or should not do. I would like to point out that Mr Chiam is not a member of the Workers' Party. He does not represent the Workers' Party. Yesterday morning, I read the newspaper reports on the HPL press conference. Because SM Lee and DPM Lee bought properties from them, the company stood to reap more benefits. My impression is that the HPL has made use of SM Lee and DPM Lee. I believe SM and DPM Lee would not want to be made use of by businessmen for advertisement purpose to make more profits.”
“As I said, lest I repeat myself, whatever rebates given should not be returned and, secondly, we should not debate this in Parliament. To me, a statement by the Prime Minister to say,"I have carried out investigations and I am satisfied that there is no impropriety," would suffice. In actual fact, the return of the money and holding a debate here created more doubts in the minds of members of the public. That is all, Sir.”
“I think it is a question of the perception of members of the public. Let me put it this way. People were asking: were special favours granted? I met a lot of people during the meet-the-people sessions and in coffeeshops. They were asking: were there special favours given to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister? The SDP statement was to clear up whatever perception members of the public may have. If we have a commission of inquiry, it could clearly state that the discount given is a normal practice. The fact that this is brought before Parliament ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that there was no mention of the Senior Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister in the statement that was issued. The statement was issued because of the escalation of property prices. Prices were going up. And also, partly, we thought that if we had a commission of inquiry, we could settle once and for all the issue of the discounts given to Ministers and whether there was any impropriety.”
“I want to make it very clear. I say this not because the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are here. Yesterday, I told Dr Tan Cheng Bock that I would not be taking part in this debate. He asked me why. I said, "There is no impropriety." He can vouch for it. I told him so. I said, "In actual fact, there is absolutely no necessity to have this matter brought before Parliament."”
“I am a practising lawyer and it is a common practice that discounts are given not only in the purchase of properties. In fact, discounts are given in many other transactions. Sometimes it is not necessarily reflective of the discount that they give to you. They can jack up the price and then say, "I give you a discount." In fact, it is not a discount at all.”
“From the very outset, when I heard the news about the purchases of the properties and that both he and DPM intended to return the money, I thought, what is the necessity. At that time, I had already said that there was no necessity to return the money.”
“Because the money you received is proper. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Proper in what? Mr Ling How Doong: It was proper. That is why I said they should not have returned the money. The other point I would like to say is this. If you want to have a meaningful debate, the Prime Minister should not have issued a statement straightaway saying that there is no improperity. Because he has come to a conclusion, how could one debate? I would imagine that the proper way is to have a debate and after the debate, he can come out with a statement saying, "There you are, this is the conclusion." It is not that I jump the gun. Let the people decide and then come to the conclusion that it is highly proper.”
“My position is this. To me, what the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister had done, I think they made a mistake by returning the rebates to the Government first and then suddenly donated it to a charitable organisation. The logic is very simple. If there is no impropriety, I would not even say the word "illegality", why is the necessity for them to return the money to the Government and later donate it to a charitable organisation? The simple reason is that, by doing this, it begs more questions than answers. The public perception is this: if you have done nothing wrong, whatever you have done is proper, why is there a need to return the money? There is a Chinese saying, (wen xin wu kui). The problem started because they decided to return the money which they did not have to, if it is proper. BG Lee Hsien Loong: What is proper?”
“Sir, I need to explain why I cannot categorically say that I want or do not want to speak because it will be subject to the court's hearing.”
“No. Either the plaintiff or defendant would never agree, simply because if you are the plaintiff and if the date for the hearing has been fixed for, say, three days, you must pay the court fees. The moment you adjourn it, you must pay the court fees. So you are penalised by this payment. As such, you would not want to apply for an adjournment. And very often, the court would say, "Why don't you get another person to take over from you?" As I said, a lot of litigants are very personal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate. Sir, when I received a notification to speak in Parliament, I said to myself that perhaps I should consider taking part. So I checked my diary but unfortunately, I found that I have to be at a court hearing for two days on 21st and 22nd May. So I immediately wrote a letter to the other party asking them whether they are prepared for an adjournment so as to enable me to participate in this debate. I got a prompt reply which said, "No. We are not prepared for an adjournment." I also know for a fact that, even if I had applied to the court, I would not be able to get an adjournment because there was a circular some time back by the Registrar that the court is not prepared to grant an adjournment even if we have to attend Parliament. That is why I did not reply to say that I would participate in the debate. Perhaps it is appropriate for me, at this juncture, to ask Parliament to consider whether an adjournment can be granted by the court if an MP has to attend Parliament sitting. Because this does not happen very often. And secondly, since the new Chief Justice took office, the backlog has been cleared. Before that, when an adjournment was granted, you might have to wait one year later to get a hearing. But now you can get a hearing within a month or so. So I merely ask this House to consider this aspect as Parliament does not sit that often either. I seriously ask this House to consider and I can understand --- An hon. Member: The court starts at what time?”
“And as I said earlier, the increase in the number of the aged and the elderly does not necessarily increase the number of destitutes because they have sufficient savings. They are protected under various schemes and they do not have to depend on society. But the present group of destitutes was from the 1940s/1950s. These people did not have savings for the simple reason that in those days they were the sole breadwinners, unlike at present, we have dual breadwinners. So we should cater for these people who, through no fault of theirs, became destitute and needed the help of society. The next point I would like to raise is on the Public Assistance Scheme. The number of people receiving public assistance is declining and, presently, about 2,500 people are receiving public assistance. To qualify for public assistance, they must pass very stringent requirements. Presently, the amount of grant given to these people is $180 for a single person and $535 for a family of one adult and three children. I would urge the Government to consider increasing the amount. I understand that it was increased only last year from $155 to $180 for a single person. But I would still urge the Government to consider increasing the amount or at least bring it within the minimum subsistence level. After all, the Government has collected $850 million from bettings and sweepstakes alone. Is it too much to ask that we give this group of poor and destitute people something which we can afford? We should give them something to live on, ie, within the minimum subsistence level.”
“Sir, our population is aging and aging in itself is not a problem. The problem would arise when the elderly and the aged become destitute or when they are dependent on society for support. But there are clear signs and indications that this is not the case. Singaporeans have become more thrifty and more prudent. More and more Singaporeans are putting aside money in the POSBank as savings for their future. Also, more and more young couples, or even those who are unmarried, are buying various insurance schemes for their children or for themselves. We have better employment opportunities, the number of women in the workforce has increased and the scheme to allow contribution of the self-employed to CPF was introduced. While there may be an increase in the number of the aged, it does not necessarily mean that the destitute or the dependent would also increase correspondingly. Whatever plans or schemes we may have, there will still be some among us who are disadvantaged and needy who will need the help of society. While the VWOs have been doing quite a lot for society, I would urge the Government to consider building more homes for the aged for the following reasons. Firstly, it may be beyond the means of some of these VWOs to help some of the aged and destitute; and, secondly, I believe various religious bodies or clan associations apply sectarian considerations when the aged apply for admission to their homes. Presently, there are about 1,300 of the elderly and the disadvantaged in the home for the aged and, I believe, we have only one state-run home for the aged and destitute in Woodlands. With the reasons I have advanced earlier, I seriously urge the Government to consider building a few more homes for the aged.”
“Sir, Singapore has got the highest density of golf courses in the world. In 1992, we had 14 golf courses and now we have about 19 golf courses. And ultimately, Singapore is going to have 25 golf courses. Golf courses take up 2% of the available land in Singapore, whereas HDB flats, consisting of 87%, take up only 6% of the available land. Recently the Government has introduced the water conservation tax. I understand that the average daily water use for an 18-hole course would be enough in many countries to supply 2,000 families. In other words, the amount of water used by an 18-hole golf course will be between 3,000 and 5,000 tonnes per day. In land scarce Singapore, I would like to know why we are utilising so much of our land for the use and benefit of such a minority of people in Singapore. After all, we have golf courses across the Causeway, and we have golf courses in Batam island, Indonesia. Why can they not go to these places, instead of utilising the scarce land in Singapore?”
“Similarly, I will also ask the Minister for Finance to consider granting medical benefits to the children of women civil servants. At present, only children of male civil servants are covered but not the children of women civil servants. I would urge the Minister to consider granting medical benefits to the children of women civil servants. Because this involves about $8 million a year only. The fees for independent schools have increased. In some of the independent schools, the students have to pay about $200 per month and some pay $175 per month. It varies from school to school. To me, I feel that this amount is beyond the ability of many Singaporeans. I therefore urge the Government to really consider granting more scholarships or bursaries to the poor. At the secondary level, it should be based on the ability of the students to pay. In other words, those from well-off families, and in recognition of their performance in school, they should be given book prizes. In terms of money, the Government should give those who really need the money for them to advance their education. I now come to community development. If I am correct, in the whole of Singapore, we have only one home for the aged and the destitute run by the Government. The rest are all run by voluntary organisations, churches and clan associations. Of course, I know that they are subsidised by the Government. But what I am saying is that the Government is in a position financially to build at least one or more homes for the aged.”
“It is very simple. We do not have to go beyond that. The Government should do that. Then I will agree that it is really subsidising Singaporeans. As regards kidney dialysis in Singapore, I was told that a patient has to pay a minimum of $500-$600 per month for treatment. There are some members of a family who just do not have this amount. Their income is about $1,200. If they take away $600, they can hardly survive. I think the Government should be more flexible on these poor and disadvantaged people. The unfortunate part is this. No one knows what is the cause of kidney trouble. We cannot take preventive measures. It comes out of the blue. And believe you me, I had a friend who died about six months ago. When he first contacted the disease, he sold his private house and he spent $250,000. Later on, he went to the National Kidney Foundation for treatment. But because of the regularity of the treatment, it affected his work. So he staggered the treatment. Instead of going twice or three times a week, he went once a week for treatment. Then he was admitted into hospital in a very serious condition and he passed away not long ago. He was a good friend of mine. I think we should have a heart for these unfortunate brethren of ours. Unless, of course, if a man smokes and drinks and he suffers from kidney trouble, there should be no subsidy at all. He deserved it. He asked for it. But if a patient suffers from kidney disease and it comes from nowhere and cannot be prevented, I think we should have a heart for our fellow brothers or sisters. I also urge the Minister for Finance to seriously consider exempting hospital charges from GST. In other words, whatever hospital bill a person pays, he does not have to pay 3% GST.”
“Do not mention about lawyers. It is not because I am a lawyer. But let me tell you one thing. In Singapore, there are so many lawyers who can hardly earn a living and there are lawyers who are earning about $200,000 or $300,000 in certain months. So do not compare it that way. It is as simple as that. In any profession, it is not necessary the best that will make the most money. It depends on your contacts. It depends on your clientele. You may be a lousy lawyer but if your contacts are good, you can engage a good lawyer to work for you, which is what happens in Singapore. So do not compare it that way. I am talking of medical health care. If the Government is serious about subsidy, the subsidy should be below cost and not below market price. I cite a simple example. In Singapore, C class ward charges are $25 per day, excluding food, toilet paper, medicine, etc. For a C class ward, the Government claims there is a subsidy of 80%. So without subsidy, it comes to $125 per day. If you compare with a private ward outside - we have a number of hon. Members here who have clinics outside - you will find that, for $180, you stay in a two-bedded ward with an air-conditioner, telephone and TV. So is this subsidy? In a private hospital, in a four-bedded ward, you pay $157, with air-conditioner, colour TV, etc. Bearing in mind all the infrastructure and equipment, everything in the hospital is paid for from the taxpayer's money. Therefore, when you talk of subsidy, the Government should make sure it is below cost subsidy. It is very easy to work it out this way. If the private hospital charges $200, how much do they make from this amount? If they make $100, that means their cost is $100. So if members of the public are asked to pay $80, that means the subsidy is $20.”
“As it is now, the amount of subsidies is just not sufficient. I suspect that the so-called subsidy by the Government is not below cost subsidy but below market price subsidy. Let me cite an example. If you go to a polyclinic, you pay $7 per visit excluding medicine. Formerly, you may have paid $12 including medicine. It varies. So you can say, on average, you probably pay $13-$14 per visit to the polyclinic. But if you visit a private practitioner, you pay about $16. But you must not forget that when you go to a private clinic and they charge you $16, the doctor must have made at least 50% from there. He must have made $8 from there. So the actual cost is only $8. [Interruption.] Please tell us whether doctors make less than this. An hon. Member: How about lawyers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say I have evidence of someone who was asked to pay cash to top up the Minimum Sum. What I have cited was someone who wanted to withdraw his money. That was my example. But what I am saying is that for the CPF Top-Up Scheme, the amount for the Minimum Sum is through CPF. You are paying back through CPF. In that sense, it is cash. If your CPF is deducted, you will get less. Is it not as good as you are paying cash? Of course, it is over a period of time. If my income is $1,500 and I have to top up the Minimum Sum, I will take back $1,200. Is it not cash every month? I will get $300 less. In that sense, it is cash. One more point which I would like to make here is that the foreign maid levy and the foreign workers levy are imposed, as explained by the Labour Ministry, to curb or control the influx of these workers. I mentioned earlier about controlling the number of taxis. Similarly, workers and maids are not allowed to come here at any time they want. They must apply for a permit from the Labour Ministry. In the same way, the Labour Ministry can impose a quota on the number of maids or foreign workers coming to Singapore. Therefore, I am suggesting that they should reduce the foreign maid levy and foreign workers levy. Some of them are paying about $350 to $400 a month. And it is because of this payment of levy that you find property prices have gone up because overheads and costs have gone up. If you reduce the levy, you will be able to stabilise the property market. In fact, quite a substantial part is being paid. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government to do more for the poor and the disadvantaged. There ought to be more subsidies in medical treatment, ward charges and operation fees for the poor.”
“No. Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, my understanding is that if your income is $2,000, you are qualified for a maid. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---”
“If you have two school children attending independent school, or for that matter attending kindergarten, and the fees are between $85 and $180, I really do not know how they can make ends meet. There are a lot of housewives who have not much education and who want to work in a factory to assist their husband. But they have found it not worth their while simply because if they work in a factory, they are paid about $800-$900 with overtime. With the foreign maid levy taking away $330 and provision of food for the maid, they can hardly get back $300-$400.”
“If you do not have this amount, you will not be able to get $230 a month. The Minimum Sum is divided into cash and property. If you are the owner of a flat, you can pledge your flat and you have to pay cash of about $36,000 into the Minimum Sum. May I suggest that if the amount is not allowed to be withdrawn at the age of 55, the Government should allow owners of HDB flats to pledge their flats without having to pay cash to top up the Minimum Sum. In fact, I accidentally met a person about two months ago, who told me that he would be reaching the age of 55 and he would be withdrawing so much money. He was very happy as his flat is worth about $110,000. So he had calculated that he could withdraw so much. When he went to HDB to find out how much he could withdraw, he got a shock of his life when he discovered that the amount was much less. He asked the HDB officer and was told that when he calculated the amount that he could withdraw under the Minimum Sum Scheme they did not base it on the market value of the property. They base it on the time of the purchase. He bought the property at $19,000, but now it is worth $110,000. What happens is that he must make up the difference between $19,000 and $40,000, in other words, he gets much less. That is what happens. The Ministry can confirm this or otherwise. The Singapore Government has been encouraging women to work so as to increase the workforce in Singapore. On the one hand, it is encouraging more and more housewives to work. On the other hand, it is increasing the foreign workers levy. In Singapore, I think we have at least 500,000 people whose income is less than $2,000 a month. With $2,000, minus CPF of $400, you get $1,600.”
“If the intervals of non-air-conditioned buses are not reduced, it is fair enough. But it would appear that with the introduction of air-conditioned bus service, the non-air-conditioned services are automatically staggered. You have to wait for a longer time. In other words, those who are used to travelling by non-air-conditioned buses to save 10-20 cents may miss their classes or may be late for work because the waiting period is longer. Instead of having one bus every five minutes, you now have a bus about 10-15 minutes later because of the introduction of air-conditioned bus services. So it is very unfair to a lot of the working population or students who have to rush to the university, college or school. It is very unfair to them because you are imposing this on them, and giving them no choice. If you have more bus services, at least they are given a choice. So if you want, you have got money, you want to travel in comfort, travel by air-conditioned bus. If you do not want that, you travel by non-air-conditioned bus. The Government should seriously consider getting other bus services to compete. The Government should stick to its original objective when the CPF scheme was first introduced. The intention and spirit of the CPF scheme was that the money will be put aside, and when you reach the age of 55, you would be allowed to withdraw your money. Now, it appears that you cannot withdraw the total amount when you reach the age of 55. The Government has started off with the Medisave scheme where we have to put aside a certain amount for Medisave. With the introduction of the Minimum Sum Scheme, you have to wait until you reach the age of 60, then you are allowed a monthly withdrawal of $230, that is to say, if you have sufficient funds in the Minimum Sum.”
“But I disagree fully simply because it is not open to anyone who can just drive or ply a taxi on the road. One must apply for a licence. The Government can control by way of restricting the number of taxis that can be on the road. Therefore, the reduction of all these would benefit the taxi drivers and the commuters. Singapore has got a duopoly in the transport system. I would say not even duopoly, it is monoploy in fact. Why do I use the word "duopoly"? Because we have two main bus operators - TIBS and SBS. But I would explain later that, in fact, it is monopoly, not duopoly. Duopoly would mean that it is like a competition in any sports. You have two athletes running. One is running a 50-metre race at one track; the other is running at another, say, a 100-metre track. This is not competition. Why I say this is simply because we have SBS and TIBS. But they are not running the same major routes. So it is not competition. And it is not healthy when you have monopoly because commuters have no say. We are completely at the mercy of the bus operators. Public transport should serve a public purpose. Of late, we have seen some bus companies just withdrawing from some of the routes because they say they are non-profitable. And who suffers? The people suffer. Why can we not follow, eg, Hong Kong? They have more bus services to compete. In fact, they have smaller bus companies to augment or supplement the bigger companies and because the smaller companies have lower overheads, they therefore can afford to run the minor routes and thus benefit members of the public. In fact, it would appear that the bus company is slowly converting more and more of their routes to air-conditioned bus services and invariably the bus fares would go up.”
“"Traditional" means the usual source where you get the money from every year. The Government is collecting this revenue year in and year out. But this is an interim measure introduced for a certain purpose. So we call it "non-traditional" source. There is a Mandarin saying "Yang mao chu zai yang shen shang" ( ). It means that whatever you are given, you pay for it. Various measures had been introduced in the past to curb car population. You have the COE, the ARF, very steep road tax, diesel tax and ad valorem duties on petrol. We have succeeded in curbing the growth of the car population. And very soon there will be implementation of the electronic road pricing which is a very equitable measure to penalise the road users. The more you use the road, the more you pay for using the road. Therefore, in view of the present position, I would suggest that the Government should do away with ARF and reduce the road tax. In Australia, they do not have such a thing as road tax, but they call it a licence or registration fee. In other words, you pay every year. Irrespective of the cubic capacity of your car, you pay about $300 a year. And in the United States, the last time I heard it was about $98 for vehicles on the road. But here it depends on the cubic capacity of all the vehicles. I would also suggest that the Government should do away with diesel tax and also reduce the ad valorem duties on petrol. Of course, if you do away with all these, it will cost the Government at least $5 billion from this non-traditional source. Presently, taxis are paying about 70% of the COE and they pay a flat rate of $2,000 as far as ARF is concerned. Of course, when this was introduced, the Government said it was a way of curbing or controlling the number of taxis on the road.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government talks of creation of wealth. To me, creation of wealth would mean either to make or generate wealth by doing business, investment or by putting money in the bank to get interest. Presently, Singapore has accumulated more than $90 billion in our reserves. It will come to $100 billion very soon. If this amount is invested, and there are returns from this money invested, then I would say it is creation of wealth. As far as we are concerned, neither this Parliament nor the people of Singapore really know where our money has been invested and how much. Nor have this House nor the people of Singapore been informed what are the returns on thse investments so far. We have no information about the returns or investments in every year's Budget. And if indeed we do have returns on these investments and if this money is returned to the people, then you can say it is creation of wealth. As it stands now, it is the Government's policy that if it collects more and in the end there is any surplus, it will be returned to the people. To me, the Singapore Government is like a sheep farmer. Every year they shear the sheep for their wool and at the end of the year, they return one strand of the wool to you and say, "There you are! We created wealth for you." And you must not forget that out of the revenue of the Government, nearly $4 billion came from non-traditional sources. I give you an example - COE. COE is created as a temporary measure to curb the increase of the car population. Similarly, ARF and the foreign workers levy. These are non-traditional sources of revenue for the Singapore Government. An hon. Member: Non-traditional?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I unreservedly withdraw the words directed at the Member for Potong Pasir which were recorded in the Official Report. I apologise to the House for having affronted its dignity in uttering those words and also for disregarding the authority of the Chair when asked to resume my seat.”