Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 54.
“No doubt this separation of the twins was a breakthrough in our medical sciences in Singapore and we have made a reputation in the world-wide medical fraternity. But the ultimate duty of a doctor is to safeguard the well-being of the patients. Judging from the suffering of the sisters and their family members, this surgery is really a mistake from the beginning. Analogically, a government has the responsibility to maintain good social character and value, and the people's well-being should be the ultimate consideration in deciding whether to go ahead with the casino project. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who was then the CEO of the Singapore General Hospital, is now in the Cabinet which collectively made the decision to open the casinos. This casino decision is similar to that of separating the twins, the difference is that the sisters may leave this world soon if the procedure was not carried out, but are we saying that if we do not have a casino, our economy will collapse and that Singapore will have no future? Just like the Singapore General Hospital has its own consideration at that time, but ultimately, the risk was undertaken by the patients. Would the economic benefit that is going to be brought about by the casino in the long term cover the social costs? We cannot tell. The Government would have no control over it. In order to attract more tourists, more budget surpluses, the Government is leading our people into taking this risky path. Do we have no other alternative but to open a casino, without which we would have to just sit still and wait for the end of our day?”
“The Australian Productivity Commission also published a report in 1999 confirming that proximity of the casino to the residential areas has a direct effect on the rise of social problems relating to gambling. Thirdly, the Government said that we will have adequate measures to mitigate the impact of gambling on our people. We all know that the PAP Government has all along been practising stern and serious governance, adopting the policy of having the family as a nucleus and advocating the Confucian traditional values in our society. Now they are allowing casinos. In future, if they are pressurised because of the changing environment, will the Government not relax the safeguards, citing pragmatic need and people's maturity as its rationale? Moreover, by that time, people are used to frequenting the casinos and accustomed to all the problems that are created by the casinos. They will accept the fact that this is a matter of course. This will indeed be lamentable! A few days back, PM Lee's younger sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to the Straits Times' Forum page. She openly criticised the so-called "successful" surgery carried out in the Singapore General Hospital in 2001 to separate a pair of Nepalese Siamese twins and said that it was indeed a mistake. This could serve as a useful reference in the casino case. The sisters are now five years old. One became a vegetable and the other has yet to walk. The grandfather of the sisters said that their future is very bleak. Dr Lee felt that at that time, had we allowed the sisters to pass away naturally, the family would be better off. They could have gone along to have more healthy children and live a normal life without having to go into the predicament they suffer today.”
“So long as the Government allows them to build the casino, it will have an integrated resort to boost tourism without having to pay a single cent. However, the PAP Government, which has never allowed its people to have free lunches, should know very clearly that nothing can come so cheap and easy to them. If you allow them to build a casino, you have to pay a social cost and the Government is prepared to pay the cost, allowing our people to suffer the damages that may be brought about by the casino. On the other hand, the Government will just sit back and reap the harvest without having to pay a single cent and yet have this integrated resort to boost its tourism. Secondly, the Government said the problem that can be brought about by the casino is not a big one. We have not seen the problem, but the Government is already saying that the problem is not great. The Government bases its premise on a survey that shows only 2.1% of our people are problem gamblers. Furthermore, in any event, Singaporeans are already gambling. It is just that we do not have a casino here yet. The logic is that since they are gambling, whether they gamble at the casino or at the betting station or the Turf Club, there is no difference. If we use the same logic, then since our people are smoking, we should also allow the people to take drugs and legalise it. We all know that there is a great difference in the attraction, excitement and the thrill between buying lottery and gambling in the casino, just as smoking and taking drugs are two different matters altogether. In 1999, a report by National Gambling Impact Study Commission, appointed by the United States Government, pointed out that within the radius of 50 miles, the number of pathological gamblers is double that of the national average.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the pot of porridge that was being cooked by the MTI Minister one month ago is now ready and is being served on the dining table. The Government said that certain medicine with special efficacy has been added to the porridge, and it can better fill our stomachs. Notwithstanding the fact that this special medicine may cause some of our people to suffer diarrhoea, dehydration and even lose their lives, PM Lee said that for the collective interest of our people, even if they have objections, they have to swallow it and he will do what is necessary for the after-care. For the last few months, Singaporeans, including the Workers' Party, who opposed this idea have expressed their concerns. All that needs to be said has already been said. The Government sought the opinion of the people but it does not go along with the opinion of the people and it has now made a unilateral decision. Eventually, will it turn out to be a blessing or a curse to our people? We have to wait and see. When the Government announced this decision, it tried to package it and had brought forward some specious arguments. First, the Government said that the casino is only a small portion of the integrated resort. We cannot reject the IR just because of this casino component, considering that the IR is the trump card in the development of tourism. This is just an attempt to divert the people's attention. If the IR is the most important part, then why do we not just have an integrated resort? If it is said that building an integrated resort without a casino is not feasible, then the key consideration is really on the casino. In other words, the investors' real interest is in the casino that can bring huge profits to them.”
“Sir, my clarification is on soccer. I understand that we used to have the arrangement where about 10-15 schools were attached to the S-League clubs. According to a New Paper report, this arrangement has been scrapped due to many problems, as quoted by a local football coach, Seak Poh Leong. He said that the arrangement probably could yield us something like 1,500-2,000 players who could be of the age group of the national team. But with the scrapping of the scheme, it probably would shrink to about 200 potential players. I wonder why was the scheme scrapped and whether the FAS would actually focus more on local football and developing local talent for football. Or else I think we might end up with foreign talent in our national soccer team. The Chairman: I know you are trying to sneak in your amendment into the clarification because you did not raise it just now. Dr Balakrishnan.”
“One clarification on the question of religious teachers. I am just wondering what are the criteria of the scheme that the Minister has talked about. Dr Tan's concern was because the religious teacher was from PAS, an opposition party, and he should not be allowed to preach because he was from an opposition party. In other words, if he is a religious teacher from UMNO, the ruling party of Malaysia, then you would approve. Is that the case? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: As I mentioned in my reply, we will look at the background of the speaker, his track record, what is the topic that he is talking about. It may be something very innocent like the do's and don'ts of a good Muslim or something on Islamic history. I think we will examine all those factors before we make a decision.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any specific scheme, whether under MUIS, AMP or Mendaki, to help families whose sole breadwinner is in a DRC, because these families face a different problem, and it can be daunting, especially when they have five or six young children. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I mentioned in my reply the empowerment programme that we launched last year under MUIS. The idea is to help such families within the constituency nearby the mosque. It does not really matter whether one parent is in the DRC or not. But if they meet certain criteria, in terms of income and family size, we will assist them. At the same time, when members of the public, including MPs, refer such cases to Mendaki, we will investigate. Where possible, the community using our own resources, we will assist. But where we think it is necessary, we will put them onto mainstream programmes. For example, we work closely with the CDCs. When we come across such families, we work with the CDCs and, where additional assistance is needed, we will step in and assist them, to ensure that we close the loop for the family.”
“Thank you, Sir. I am not convinced by the Minister's answer on the proposal. There may be other avenues. But what is wrong with having another avenue for the youths to express themselves? Though the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park may not have attracted the kind of speakers, how are we to be sure that another Speakers' Corner created at Orchard Road area will not see its vibrancy? However, if Speakers' Corner is deemed politically incorrect, then perhaps we can call it a public speaking area in which the youths or the people can go and talk on whatever issues they want without the need to apply for a licence.”
“Sir, the Minister and Miss Penny Low are over-sensitive to my suggestion to allow political activities at the space. I am merely asking for, not to politicise the space, another avenue in which the youths can express themselves, whether in politics or something which they would like to express. The Minister suggested that they can join the Workers' Party or the PAP, but it may not be the case. They may choose not to join, but they have something to say. So I think we have got to have that space. If the Minister is concerned that I will go and speak, maybe he can have a cap on the age for people who want to speak there. You can name it Youth Speakers' Corner.”
“Sir, does the Minister not agree that perhaps he wants to get the youths to be more involved in political awareness and the future of the nation? Since that space is going to be the focus point for the youths, is it not correct to allow some political activities to create more awareness for the youths to participate in the political process?”
“Clarification, Sir. Sir, I applaud the Government in allocating an expensive piece of land along the Orchard Road area to create space for the youth community. Based on the handout, the space is conceived to become a vibrant space for recreational and social activities, community events and performances by young Singaporeans. How about also a vibrant space for political activities? How about perhaps putting up a Speakers' Corner there?”
“Sir, on CPF investments which I raised just now, people were saying that the money that we have in our CPF accounts was given to the Singapore Government Investment Company (SGIC) to invest. In return, it will pay a fixed interest rate. I do not know how true is this. That is why, in my speech, I asked that since SGIC has consistently had good returns above the international benchmark, if SGIC is directly investing the CPF money, perhaps we can get a better return than the current interest rate. Is this true?”
“Sir, the impression I got from the reply of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is that the Ministry of Manpower is trying to wash its hands and take the easy way out of the issue.”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question on the change in the procedure by MOM to require an employer, instead of MOM, to pay the salary arrears. The employer is required to pay the claimant by cheque, and the claimant has to claim the cheque within one week, otherwise it will be returned. Why does the Ministry change that? Is it fair for the Ministry of Manpower to do that, because the workers may not be able to collect the cheque within a week, and what happens if the cheque bounces? What are you going to do? The other point I cited is the Auditor-General's report 2004 that about $25,000 was transferred back to Government fund. MOM held in trust the unpaid salary of workers, but failed to track them down, and so the amount was not paid to the workers, thereby requiring the transfer of the money back to the Government. What are the circumstances for MOM not being able to track down the addresses of these workers?”
“MOM transferred a sum of $25,000 to the Government fund in 2004. This sum consisted of labour court award and salary settlement payments due to workers who are owed money by their employers. The Ministry has not paid the sums over to the workers. I think this is due to an inefficient tracking system. MOM has now required employers to issue cheques in the name of the workers, who are the claimants, instead of MOM, and that the claimants are to collect their cheques within a week. If the workers fail to do so, the unclaimed cheques will be returned to the payers. While this may enable MOM to pass the audit by the Auditor-General, is this a responsible solution in helping the workers or is it just an easy way out? First, the employer is now answerable to the workers and not MOM. If the cheque is dishonoured, can the workers afford to sue? Many of them will not have the means to do so. Secondly, the timeframe for collection of cheques is very short. If the cheques are not collected within a week, can MOM, in good conscience, return the cheque to the employer and then wash its hands off the case? Perhaps MOM should take a cue from the Public Trustee's Office which insists on payment for damages of traffic accident victims to go through their bank account and it will ensure that the victims are paid directly. Volunteer Work Leave”
“The Government should look at ways to invest the CPF savings by pooling the funds together so that CPF members can enjoy economies of scale and, at the same time, individual members can avoid paying hefty financial charges should they invest on their own. I understand that the Government has put on hold the proposed private pension fund for CPF members. Would the Minister care to explain the reason? Is the Government looking for other forms of investment schemes? I would also like to ask whether the Government will consider setting up a statutory board to act as an asset management company for CPF members, like the Hong Kong's MPF system, where individual members can select the proportion of retirement savings they want to allocate to different financial packages available to them. This would allow members to formulate unique financial portfolios with different risk factors and expected returns according to their different risk adversity. Sir, alternatively, since the Singapore Government Investment Corporation (SGIC) has achieved consistent investment returns, higher than international benchmark, would the Government consider allowing SGIC to directly manage the investment of CPF savings in order to achieve a higher rate of return for Singaporeans? CPF Transfers to Homemakers”
“Sir, according to the Lianhe Zaobao of 26th June 2004 report, only about half of the present CPF retirees could meet the Minimum Sum requirement. For the next 10 years, the situation will remain the same. The scenario printed in the report is worrying, especially of the volatile economic situation caused by globalisation and the depressed income from employment. I think there is an urgent need to reform the way CPF savings are invested in order that they yield better return on the savings. If we do not tackle the problem now, many Singaporeans may either find their CPF savings insufficient for retirement, or may even face financial difficulties not too long after they retire. The Government has allowed CPF members to invest their CPF on approved investment instruments of the members' choice. But based on data released by CPF and also by Prof. Mukul Asher of NUS, the following outcome is unsatisfactory. (1) As at 30th September 2003, $20.1 billion was invested through the CPFIS, and the rate of return obtained on the whole portfolio under the Ordinary Account was a negative 14.77%. And for the Special Account, it was negative 6.87%. If transaction cost including investment management cost and tax included, it could have been more unfavourable. (2) Insurance products have been the most favourite form of CPF investment scheme among the members. However, for insurance products, the unrealised loss was $802 million, equivalent to about 5.77% of total investment. Sir, I believe that we need a more coherent and comprehensive system to invest the CPF savings.”
“Sir, the other point of clarification is on WDA's matching jobs with people seeking jobs. Sometimes they match people with employers who cannot speak the language. I have cases coming to me to say that they dare not even go for interviews because the employer speaks only English. So I wonder whether this is something the Ministry can improve on.”
“Sir, I understand that most of the training programmes are conducted in English and there are a lot of older workers who could not even speak English. So how does the Ministry overcome the barrier? In fact, I understand a lot of workers hesitate to go for training because of the language barrier.”
“Sir, what is MOM's projection of the estimated job growth for the current year, in the light of the end of seasonal hiring and some retrenchments, such as in Maxtor? What is the estimated net growth?”
“Sir, these older workers in the 80s and early 90s helped to build the Singapore that we have today. We owe them much more than to leave them to the fate of the market. If creating opportunity is to mean anything beyond political platitudes, it must mean more employment opportunities for this particular group of Singaporeans. Foreign Worker Levy”
“Sir, the Prime Minister stated on Sunday that, going forward, we must expect higher unemployment, amidst a backdrop of loss of 5,500 jobs from Maxtor. The economic growth of the past brought jobs and sense of security. The economic growth of the present brings structural unemployment and fear. To put things in another perspective, the job losses in Maxtor in one day in 2005 equal almost 50% of the total job losses in the previous year 2004. Sir, I would like to seek clarification on MOM's report on the employment and manpower situation. It was stated that a total of 66,200 jobs were created in 2004, according to MOM's preliminary estimates. However, it was also estimated that many of the jobs created which grew to 23,300 in the final quarter of 2004 were in services and were due to seasonal hiring. I would like to know how much of the job growth will disappear once the seasonal hiring is over. Next, we all recognise that older and lower-educated workers are most vulnerable to retrenchment and structural unemployment. We also know that training plays an important role in re-employment. However, in the 2004 labour survey findings, there were a number of factors that were considered as motivations or barriers to older workers' participation in skills training. Some of the factors are affordability of fees, location of training centres, information on the courses, convenience of the time of the courses, relevance of the course to the improvement of their career prospects, pace of the course and, more importantly, also the language used in the training. I would like to ask the Minister what measures have been taken so far to mitigate the adverse factors of taking up training and to address the needs of the older workers.”
“The Minister just now said that the attrition rate of the university will be taken into account in funding. Could he clarify that?”
“While they accept that tertiary institutions must be performance-driven, they also recognise that there are dangers in over-reliance on output targets. Hence, these countries fund their education institutions based on a mix of input and output targets, based on both the number of first-year students enrolled and the number of graduates produced. Why is the Ministry not considering a mix of input and output targets? Sir, using graduate numbers as a primary measure to fund universities is a drastic change which leads us to conclude that all that matters to this Government is students getting that piece of paper. Is that the only one value of education?”
“For example, in order for a university management to do financial planning, it will probably set graduate targets for individual faculties to achieve, to ensure that it can obtain a certain amount of funding from MOE. Academic staff will then face pressures to pass students and face intense scrutiny for failing students. Their bargaining power with the students will be weakened. After all, how many students can a professor fail. Once a student knows that this is a numbers game, they need not try too hard. According to the same report, Sir, MOE intends to increase the university cohort participation rate from 21% from each Primary 1 cohort to 25% by 2010. Assuming that the average intelligence of each cohort is constant over the years, what this means is that the cut-off point for entry into university will be lower, since more students in each cohort are to be admitted into university. If the universities are to enrol weaker students and yet are to be funded based on the number who graduate, the threat to maintaining standards becomes clear. Another concern is that stricter rules will probably be implemented on the maximum candidature of our students. There may even be rules to remove a student after the first year when he fails so that he does not remain in the system for too long. This will inevitably put much pressure on university students. We should bear in mind that someone who manages to get a degree with a longer duration can still contribute much to society, even though the system sees him as not cost-efficient. Will the new funding model force such students out of tertiary education prematurely? I understand that in some European countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, funding of tertiary institutions is based on a mix of input and output targets.”
“Sir, the preliminary report of the steering committee to review university autonomy, governance and funding released by MOE recently stated that the Government will shift its funding model for university by 2006. Instead of funding operating expenditure based on the number of students enrolled, funding will be based on the number of graduates produced. According to the report, the general rationale is to enhance the competitiveness of our three public-funded universities. The change will also encourage universities to meet national manpower targets and the Government will be able to predetermine the number of graduates when it provides its funding. Under the new system, it would be up to the universities to decide the numbers and profiles of the students it should enrol, so as to produce the required number of graduates three or four years down the road. Universities which do not meet output targets will have to refund MOE the money based on a certain formula. Such a funding model will also force universities to look at alternative sources of funding, such as soliciting donations and enrolling full-fee paying foreign students. Sir, I do agree that whenever public funds are used, we should have some measure of accountability and some ways of measuring whether the funds meet our national objectives. However, the question is whether it is in the national interest to fund operating expenditures of universities based on graduate numbers. If graduate numbers determine the level of funding received, a university will face pressures to graduate a high percentage of the intake. This could manifest itself in the lowering of academic standards.”
“This jeopardises the health of students and the meaning of the quest for knowledge is distorted. Streaming system also results in serious social contradictions. There is this student from one of the "elite schools" who sparks a war of words with the neighbourhood school students over the issue of boy-girl relations. They use words full of class discrimination and set up the alarm bell of social segmentation. If we sit on the fence and do nothing, then this will become a heavy price to pay later. Year in and year out, I have repeatedly asked for a review of the streaming system because its ill implication is far-reaching. I sincerely hope that the Education Minister will boldly deal with the present streaming system to fully meet the demand and concept of teaching according to the students' ability. To truly develop our talents, we must resolutely abolish this narrow and rigid streaming system and expand the concept of subject-based classrooms by implementing the subject-based teaching system that is customised based on students' ability and interest. This will provide greater opportunity to maximise the potential of students, allowing the full play of maximum ability of each student. This is in contrast to the current system of streaming in determining one's fate by English language. Development of a society depends on development of each individual within that society. An education system which is flexible with a customised system of teaching to foster individual development is helpful in building a reservoir of human capital for our nation. This will enable us better face the challenges of this rapidly changing world. The current streaming system lacks these positive factors. Recognising Excellence and Helping the Academically Challenged”
“Sir, in the year 2000, MOE launched the subject-based pilot classrooms plan. I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry is ready to fully implement the plan with a view to ultimately replace the current streaming system. I think the true spirit of "teaching according to students' ability" is to respect individual students' natural endowment and strength and teach them the corresponding contents and methods. Give them the corresponding space and opportunities so as to lead students to realise their potential. By euphemism, the current streaming system is described as "teaching according to ability". In reality, it favours the two subjects of English and Mathematics. The Mathematics examinations seem to test the students' proficiency in English to comprehend the questions that are set rather than their mathematical skills. This type of elimination system based on the command of English fails to fully assess and discover the students' natural endowment and aptitude. If a student should lose the chance to go on studying their strong subjects such as Chinese or Science just because their English is poor, can it be said that we are streaming them according to their ability? Worse, the superficial elimination system has left in the minds of many students the intangible branding or inferiority complex. School rankings have caused principals to avoid putting resources and attention on such students. This makes them feel rejected and hopeless, consequently giving up on themselves and become a social problem aggravating juvenile delinquency. At the same time, the polarisation of streaming results in elitist education and "elite schools". Many parents push their children to learn with intensive tuition hoping for their children's admission into these elite schools.”
“Sir, on medical records, I wonder what the Minister has in mind to ensure integrity and accuracy of medical records. I would also like to tell him that in the case of the constituent I cited, it was a computerised record. They entered it into the computer system and it was wrong.”
“Sir, I have a few clarifications on MediShield. In my speech, I have asked the Minister: what is the Ministry's projection of pay-out ratio for the newly redesigned basic MediShield, in view of the more comprehensive risk-pooling? Second, I also asked in my speech about the coverage of the basic MediShield - are there some treatments that are not available in "C" class wards as well as "B2" wards? Third, I also asked: what is the justification, and how useful is it to have an annual claim limit on the MediShield of $50,000? Because if you are seriously ill, you may need more than that within a year. You do not get a serious illness every year. I also requested for details of the premiums and pay-outs per age group of the MediShield for the last five years.”
“Sir, one of my constituents went for a blood test at Kelantan Clinic. The result of the HIV test on her was negative, but was entered as positive in her medical record. My constituent returned to the clinic a week later and was told that she was HIV-positive. She was further advised to get her husband in to test for HIV. The whole family became very worried, and their lives were miserable. The adult son who accompanied the mother to the clinic for follow-up was told by the medical staff there that the HIV test results were correct and he was even counselled on how to accept the results as correct and to deal with the situation. The error was only discovered when my constituent subsequently went to the Communicable Disease Centre. Sir, the question is: how does the Ministry ensure the accuracy of its medical records and whether this is a concern for the Minister for Health when he considers the new law to ensure that spouses of HIV patients are told if their spouses have the disease. The last thing we want, Sir, is for poor medical record keeping to tarnish the innocent and to break up families.”
“For members currently on the enhanced scheme, would they or their insurers be allowed access to either the surpluses or the investment income generated from the surpluses created by their past contribution to the MediShield surplus? Sir, Basic MediShield covers "B2" and "C" class wards. I understand that currently, there are some treatments not available in "C" class wards. Would the Minister confirm this? If it is indeed the case, would the Minister explain the rationale for such a distinction? Would there be treatments also not available to "B2" class wards as well? With regard to the comprehensiveness of the coverage, I would like to know who determines which and what manner of treatments can or should be allowed under MediShield coverage. I would also like to ask the Minister whether the new lifetime claim limit of $200,000 is sufficient for large medical bills, and if so, for how long, in view of the escalating healthcare cost. On the lifetime claim limit, there is a yearly claim limit of $50,000. I wonder if an annual claim limit is justifiable if some serious illnesses do not require you to be sick in yearly intervals. Finally, Sir, with the recalculation of deductibles by 2010, when deductibles for "B2" class are increased to around $2,300 as projected, would we have enough Medisave savings by then to cope with the increases?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Workers' Party has long believed that Medisave is inadequate to cater to the healthcare needs of Singaporeans. We believe a national health insurance scheme, through a wider risk-pooling, is the key to meet the healthcare needs of a nation. I therefore welcome in principle the reform of MediShield by enlarging the risk pool and providing better coverage for catastrosphic illness. Currently, the MediShield premium has been based on age. As it stands, the principle behind the pricing of this premium seems to be that the older you get, the more sick you get and the more you pay. Whilst this might be correct on a strictly commercial basis, MediShield is not a commercial entity. It is both basic and national. I understand that MediShield currently has a membership base of 1.3 million for Basic MediShield and a total pay-out of $65.3 million for 2003. I would like to ask the Minister what will be the effect on premiums for charging a flat rate across all age groups. I would also request the Minister, in the interest of transparency, to provide a detailed breakdown of the premiums collected and the pay-outs for each age group for the current Basic MediShield and the Enhanced MediShield for the last five years. This will help the public understand better the rationale behind the current MediShield redesign. In the same spirit, I would like the Minister to provide the projected loss, pay-out ratio for the new redesigned Basic MediShield in view of its more comprehensive risk-pool. The Minister has proposed allowing private insurers the right to manage the Enhanced MediShield scheme.”
“For example, when I go to a NTUC supermarket, the cashier typically gives away plastic carriers freely. But when I was in Netherlands, I had to pay 20 cents for a plastic carrier. So what is the Ministry's effort in this area? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, we constantly engage the business community to find more environmentally friendly ways of producing things. I tend to agree with the hon. Member that if we can encourage our businesses to look into their processes, that will help the environment and, certainly, some companies are already doing so. On the issue of plastic bags, most of the plastic bags in Singapore are incinerable, and it is not a problem. But I agree with her that if we can get companies to be more conscious, I think that would help. I assure her that we will continue to engage the companies in finding ways which will help towards maintaining our environment.”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has asked Members to inform him about the problem of road pavement. I would like to inform him that in particular, Hougang Avenue 5, he can see that the grass is all botak and very dirty. The other area is along Hougang Avenue 2 where the road divider is full of dried grass. Sir, on the question of dengue fever, I wonder whether NEA has data on the breeding sources of mosquitoes in concealed drains and also in some NEA drains. Some of these drains, because of corrosion or poor workmanship, are uneven, as a result of which a water pond is formed, and it becomes a breeding source. So if that is the breeding source of dengue, perhaps NEA wants to look into how to solve the problem in the long term. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, I want to thank the Member for Hougang for letting me know the areas that are not so clean. We will ask our officers to look at them. Sir, on the issue of Aedes mosquito breeding in choked drains, we will look at that. One of the problems is that, in the last two months, because of the extremely dry weather, many drains were choked with dried leaves. In the last one week, when the rain fell, water is collected there. The mosquitoes found in these drains are not the Aedes mosquitoes. They are the Culex mosquitoes. So they do not spread the dengue fever virus. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: On the topic of engaging Singaporeans on the environmental issue, my question is: how do we engage the producers, manufacturers, SMEs and retailers in the environmental issue? For example, as a manufacturer, how do we encourage them to produce products that are environmentally friendly, easier to recycle, and easier to dispose of? And how do we encourage retailers?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree to move for a full debate in Parliament on the casino issue, and would the PAP agree to lift the Party Whip so that its Members can vote freely based on their conscience?”
“I would like to tell the Minister: let the people have a chance to vote and to decide on what they really want for society and for the future. And I think you can wait. As the Teochews say: "hor leo tim toi, mun mun lai".”
“Sir, I wonder whether the 75% includes also the mandate for the Government to go ahead with the casino, which will have profound effect on the future of Singapore. The question is whether it is fair that you take the mandate and you say, "Ok, I have the mandate, and I can do whatever I want." The other perspective is that whilst the Government has allowed people to discuss and encourage people to debate on the casino issue but, at the end of the day, there must be some avenue enabling the people to express whether they are for or against it. I understand that a referendum can cost a lot of money. Perhaps we can tie it in with the election as an issue and see how people vote. At least they get a chance to vote to express their views. So, a vote for the PAP is a vote for the casino. The Minister said, why wait for so long because the election will not be due until 2007. In Teochew, we say, muay sek liao! But my question is: what is the hurry? Are we going to run into economic difficulties if we were to delay the decision on the casino issue? If you were to go ahead now and decide, then people will say that perhaps you have already made up your mind to decide to go ahead with it, thereby you cannot wait any further. I do not see why we cannot wait.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister has said that we have free and fair elections. Would he clarify or elaborate on what account or basis he said that we have free and fair elections, especially in relation to (1) how do the Serial Nos. on the ballot papers ensure a free and fair election; (2) how does redrawing of boundary without consultation with the Opposition constitute a fair and free election?”
“Sir, there is still some time. Would I be allowed to seek a clarification from the Minister?”
“Sir, the Minister for Finance also asked me where the money is going to come from and what taxes to raise. I wish to clarify that, from the Budget, I noted that, based on operating revenue, we do not take into account investment income and also some capital receipts as part of the revenue of the total Budget. I also noted that, in the past few years, investment income revenue has been quite stable, at about $6 billion. I am not sure whether that is all or part of the investment income of the reserve or inclusive of reserve which forms part of the NII, and of which $1.82 billion was taken in this Budget. I think the Constitution allows up to 50% of investment income to be used. So, I think if we can take in, say, another $1 billion from our investment income, perhaps we can provide more help and support to those who are in need.”
“Sir, I wish to clarify. In my speech, I did mention that I am fully aware of the pitfalls of a welfare state. But looking at the situation of our economic volatility over the years, I do not think that there is a way out for people who really cannot get jobs. And I think it is fundamental for the Government to provide basic support for people who cannot get jobs. Secondly, I think it is the fundamental duty of the Government to provide things like basic healthcare. Whether you want to call it welfare state or whatever you call it, I note that some of the Government schemes of help provided to the low-income families are, in fact, welfare. But you do not call it "welfare", you call it "assistance". Sir, there are cases where people who wanted to look for a job could not get one. They tried the CDC, WDA, etc, went for interview, but eventually still could not get a job. I have a constituent who was a truck driver with ENV. But because they outsourced and were privatised, he lost his job. He tried getting a job but could not. Now, he cannot pay his bills. He is facing financial difficulty. Which scheme would the Government use to help people like him? Yes, we want to teach people how to fish. But there has to be fish for people to fish. You teach them how to fish, but there is no fish. That is why I think that it is the fundamental duty of the Government to provide help and, I believe, direct help. You can call it welfare or whatever, but financial help for those who really cannot find a job to tide them over. And that has to be made explicit, so that these people have the confidence to know that if they really cannot get a job and are facing financial difficulty, at least help is at hand.”
“May I have your permission to clarify, Sir?”
“Yet, at the same time, an astonishingly high percentage living in 1- or 2-room flats have no idea how to access to the help being provided for them. I would call on the Government to reach out better to these people who need help.”
“I wish to remind the Government that this economic growth takes place within the context of the lack of"trickle down"anda structural unemployment rate of 4%. I believe that this celebration is premature. We should not count our chickens before they are hatched, as a longerperiod of sustained growth of 5-8% is required to bring back a general feeling of prosperity and confidence to the economy as a whole. I fear that because the Government has that "feel good" attitude, it would justify to itself the necessity to raise fees and charges with the rest of the corporatised public service providers following suit. Whilst the Government may "feel good", the people are definitely feeling less than good and will feel very bad if the prices of public services rise. Sir, behind the "feel good" economic projections and statistics, there lies another set of numbers which urges us to do more for those being left behind. According to the Straits Times' report of 26th February, there was an increase in the number of people seeking financial aid from the CDCs, from 14,300 to 31,570 between 2001 and 2003, an increase of children benefiting from the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund, from 3,735 to 10,419 in the same period. Another article on the same day also stated that 70% of those in 1- or 2-room flats had no idea of assistance schemes, even though 60% of them described themselves as in financial difficulties. The 2000 Census showed 12.6% or 116,000 households had incomes below $1,000 per month. Since the last census, I believe the numbers have increased. We have an increasing number of people who need help but we also have increasing numbers of schemes and funds to help.”
“Basic affordable healthcare is an important part of the social compact between the Government and its people, between the young and the old, and between the employed and the unemployed. I would say that healthcare is a social investment akin more to home ownership, of which we are so proud as a nation. The Health Minister has called forthe implementation of means testing for "C" class wards. I know it will not be implemented this year, as the Minister has just said in his answer to an oral question. The details, as it stands, are unclear,as to the mechanics andthe quantum. I am against means testing for class "C" wards because I believe that basicaffordable healthcare is one of the fundamental duties of a government on behalf of taxpayers. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have pledged to be a united people, regardless of race, languageor religion, so as to build a just, equal and democratic society for all. I fail to see how discrimination in something as basic as healthcare in the form of means testing will go in any way to build that just and equal society. It will instead serve to erode that unity within the community. If the Government chooses to go ahead with means testing, then I would argue that it has to be designed such that if subsidies for a particular income group decrease, so, likewise, there should be an increase in the subsidies for the less well-off. In essence, froma revenue point of view, it cancels each other out so that, at least, it makes it "redistributive" rather than "discriminatory". Sir, the Government has also signalled its intent to return to a modest surplus budget for FY 2005, in thebelief that the economy hasturned a corner and we are back ontrack for another period of steady economic growth.”
“That fearwhilst correct, when faced with full employment and sustained high economic growth, is irrational when we are confronted with permanent structural unemployment and periods of volatile economic growth. For far too long, the Government has treated the term "welfare" like a dirty word. They call their schemes "HOPE", "Public Assistance", "Work Assistance" when, in fact, they areakin to "welfare"by any other definition. With the ComCare Fund, Sir, I believe there is more that the Government can do. Mr Speaker, Sir,a government and its people and whether they are perceived as a great nation is measured not only by the number of patents, the efficiency ofour airportsor ports, but alsoby how we, to quote the Prime Minister, succeed in "building a community". But what is a community? What defines a community worth living in, growing old, fighting for, andperhaps some day worth dying for? What is there beyond the five "Cs", as articulated by the Remaking Singapore Committee? The answer, I believe, lies in helping those who have been left behind. The Government has accepted growing income disparities as the price of economic growth and success, but I believe that to be united as a nation, a people and a community, there should be an explicit social compact whereby those who succeed help in some form those who fall behind through general taxation. A critical part of that social compact andsocial cohesion, besides a comprehensive social safety net, is the sacred duty of every government to provide basic affordable healthcare for all. For a long time, the Government has treated healthcare not as an investment akin to education, but as "consumption", something which, if the gates were swung open, would lead to a ladder of escalating healthcare costs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore currently faces trialsposed by both globalisation andmore intense foreign competition. This unprecedented combination of challenges to our economic fundamentals and economic growth has resulted in a"perfectstorm" forour country and constituents alike. Growth has happened inthe view of the Government and its statistics. However, economic growth has not trickled downand been felt by many people. This is made worse by the volatility of economic growth and the shortening of business cycle. For those more experienced Members of the House, I am sure they will remember the nature of cases we saw during our MPS 10 years ago and the cases we see now even in the midst of the "growth".In the past, the complaints were about people having the money, wanting to buy bigger HDB flats and chasing HDB to get their flats "very fast",constituents griping about cars being too expensiveand of maid levies being too high. Today, we see constituents who are behind in their HDB mortgage payments and who say that they are being chased "very fast" by Singapore Power because of their arrears. They are no longer seeking to buy bigger flats, but are instead requesting to downgrade to rental ones. They are also no longer complaining about maid levies which have, in fact, at long last, come down. But they are unable to pay for basics like water, electricity and conservancy charges. Sir, the contrast could not bestarker. I would urge the Government to look beyond the economic statistics and see the human costs that restructuring and changes have imposed on the less skilled and the less well-educated. This Government has an in-builtphilosophical aversion to direct "welfare"for fear of an erosion inwork ethic.”
“Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that what is deemed not useful or beneficial from the point of view of the Ministry may be useful and beneficial to others who are interested in the subject, in terms of statistics?”
“Sir, the Minister in his main answer says that almost all students are readmitted, which means that there are some students who are not admitted. I would like to know under what circumstances these students are not readmitted to school and what are the criteria which the school would assess the students whether or not they will be readmitted to school. I would also like to know what is the Ministry of Education's broad guidelines to the schools in terms of readmitting students back to school.”