Tan Cheng Bock
Singapore
“As I said, we have not done much. We must not be captured by our old style of managing the old. The new old, as I said before, are better educated and travelled, and are very knowledgeable. So we must quickly explore new ways and methods to meet the expectations of the new old.”
“If we only have such a small pool of talents in Singapore because of our population size, we should spare no effort in seeking every such talent.”
“Thank you. I accepted the Minister's reply on the different pricing in the outpatient polyclinics and the hospitals. My point is that the patient's problem has still not been solved. Whenever a doctor refers a patient from a hospital to an outpatient clinic, he still has to pay more.”
“Six out of the nine items were much more expensive. Sir, I am asking why is there such a difference. Is this a one-off incident or is it going to be a norm? How can doctors in the hospital then refer patients back to the outpatient clinic if the patient is going to pay more?”
“I move this amendment to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's stand on seat belts to be made compulsory for primary and kindergarten buses. I heard over the radio that the Ministry is reviewing the case. There are two issues here, question of cost and question of safety. I think safety has a higher weightage over cost.”
“I also want to commend the NTUC for working with the Government to put this package together. I believe that without the NTUC's representation in putting forward the workers' case, the workers would not be able to benefit so substantially this year from this package.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,095 lines we hold for Tan Cheng Bock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 22.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are discussing this Nominated MP issue and yet I hear Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam rambling on the Cheng San election which, I think, is not proper. I thought we have discussed this and spoken at length in the past few days. We have given him a lot of time and he should not be bringing up this matter again. He should stick to the debate on the issue of Nominated Members of Parliament.”
“No, I am raising a point of order. We are discussing the Nominated MPs. I think we should not be distracted by all this.”
“A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing Nominated MPs.”
“People who want to come in are monitoring the pattern of selection and appointment. They are watching you very carefully. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most of us will not be in this House forever. New Members of Parliament would be elected in. They have no history. They feel less for the issue because they were not involved in it in the first place and they have different value systems. I think I will rather plug all the loopholes than feel sorry later on. The last time we debated this subject, the Whip was lifted and I voted against it. This time the Whip is not lifted. Am I right? And I cannot vote against it because of party rules. However, my conscience tells me that this scheme is unnecessary and wrong. I am left with no choice. I will still continue to vote against it.”
“Yet I remember very clearly that we came to this House to pass the Bill on Group Representation Constituencies to ensure that multi-racialism will exist well in Singapore. And yet I can tell you, and I am warning this House again, your Nominated MP scheme would one day be the back-door entry for all this type of politics. Because we are multi-racial, we cannot nominate only Chinese NMPs. The other races will be upset. The minority race will have to be included. Then, if you nominate only the professionals, the very well educated, questions will be asked on favouritism. What about the non-graduates? I hear the Leader of the House mentioning all the various professions. But this will stir a sense of unease among those non-graduates. Communal politics and clan interest groups want a voice. Even Tang Liang Hong tried to become a Nominated Member of Parliament. And if people like him are excluded, such groups can send in a seemingly good Singaporean to be their proxy representation. I know we have a Special Select Committee to prevent this. How long can you resist these people knocking at your door every two years wanting to get in? If they are rejected too many times, again, there will be questions asked. If for some unforeseen reasons, one gets into this House, then this House will be in real trouble. This is going to be possible because you want more Nominated MPs and you might lower your guard in your selection process as a result of wanting more. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a while, the original purpose of wanting Nominated MPs becomes blurred. First, you started with non-partisan Singaporeans. Then we start to choose people because they represent interest groups - your employer groups, your unions, your business groups. What other changes are we going to make?”
“In fact, Tan Sai Siong, the Straits Times journalist, acknowledged that the NMP scheme was a success, thanks to Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, and I quote her: "As someone who used to agree with those MPs who are opposed to the scheme, the performances of this pair have convinced me that it is probably not the NMP scheme that is good, but the NMPs themselves who have made it so." However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a saying, "One swallow does not make a summer." One Walter Woon or one Kanwaljit Soin does not make the NMP scheme a success. [Mr Bernard Chen interrupted.] I am surprised that Bernard Chen acknowledged. He is an old MP here. He should be proud of the fact that he got elected and he has done well in this House. I warned this House when the NMP scheme was introduced on vested interest groups trying to seek representation in this House. I see shades of this in the last Parliament when women's interests were expounded by NMP Kanwaljit Soin. She did well. But many have asked me if she is a representative of AWARE. I hope not. Dr Kanwaljit Soin is a good friend and colleague and I know she has very strong views of her own and I respect her for that. However, those who do not know her well may think that she is the spokeswoman of AWARE. Fortunately, AWARE is a good organisation fighting for women's rights only and has no hidden agenda. What, Mr Deputy Speaker, if some other organisations take the cue from Dr Kanwaljit Soin's performance and try to send their own representatives into this House? These organisations could be religious, communal groups, seeking to be heard. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would be a back-door entry for communal, religious and racial politics.”
“Those without a mandate should not be telling Ministers and Members in this House what to do and what not to do. There are already adequate representations in this House. We do not need more lawyers, unionists, professionals, doctors and businessmen. Are you saying that all these professions are not represented in this House and that Members in this House are not able to present the views of these various professions? What is most important is whether Members in this House have brought up the people's concerns. If we are judged to have not done so, then we deserve Nominated Members of Parliament. If we go through past Singapore Parliament Reports and compare the topics brought up by Nominated Members of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament, you will find that there was no topic brought up by NMPs that had not been brought up by any elected Member of Parliament. However, the way these topics were brought up differed because of difference in style, presentation and emphasis. NMPs, being smaller in number, captured the attention of the media. And some, being more articulate than some of our Backbenchers, would receive more coverage and thus appear to be doing more work and be more effective than the Backbenchers. But it is not just speaking well in this House that makes one better than the other. It is the ground, the constituency that must be constantly nurtured that is important. If elected Members of Parliament were to neglect the ground and just concentrate on making speeches in this House, I am sure they can do an equally good job. There is no doubt that NMPs, like Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, have done well with their fine rhetoric in this House.”
“What must you say? Mr Deputy Speaker, these are experiences that only those who have fought in the elections will know. After the general election, we continue to work the ground, doing our Meet-the-People sessions, listening to our constituents' problems and managing these problems as best as possible. We do this because we have the responsibility towards these people who voted for us. And here today we have this motion to allow non-elected Members, without the experience of working the ground, to enter this Chamber and give advice to all of you, elected Members of Parliament, on matters that he or she has very little knowledge of. It is no wonder that at one of our previous Parliament sittings, a Nominated Member of Parliament called on HDB to pass to Town Councils the maintenance of car parks, because it was not profitable. Surely if he has worked the ground, he would not have made such a suggestion. Because Town Councils are funded through S&C charges, and by taking an unprofitable programme, our residents will need to pay more. It shows a lack of grassroots feel. But does he care? No! Because he has no responsibility to anyone, but himself. To me, this entry of non-elected Members is very hard to swallow and, worse still, taking advice from people who have not fought the elections or worked the ground, and who profess openly that they do not want to be involved in the politics of the day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this House not a political institution? Every discussion in this House is political in nature. If this is a political institution, then those who do not want to be involved in politics have no right to come to this House. In this House, we pass legislation affecting the people.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the past few days we have listened to speaker after speaker, inside and outside this House, calling on the people to be competitive and for Singaporeans to stay among the top league of nations, they must always work hard and compete intensely. In other words, competitive spirit must become a part of our culture. When we started to regionalise, we called on our people to be entrepreneurs, to take risk and be prepared to move into the business markets where only the brave dare to go. Yet this afternoon we have before us a motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House to allow Singaporeans into this Chamber without having to work hard, without having to compete and risk being defeated at elections. Is this not a contradiction of what we are trying to do - rallying Singaporeans to stay relevant and compete? Parliament is the highest prestigious institution in the land. It should not be seen to encourage non-risk takers. The NMP scheme is a soft option way of entering this Chamber, and Parliament must not be seen to lower its standards of entry. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have fought and won five general elections. I can tell you each time it gets harder and tougher. Every general election, however, has a very humbling effect on me and I am sure for my other elected Members in this House. At every GE, we go house-to-house campaigning, asking Singaporeans to vote for us. It is not easy. You ask the newly elected Members of Parliament how they feel. How difficult it is for them to approach someone and ask him to vote for you. It is indeed a very humbling experience and it can also be a very embarrassing experience. If the voter turns around and says, "Why should I vote for you? You only come when you need my vote." How do you react?”
“I doubt it. As a former university lecturer, Dr Chee must have realised that an undergraduate would fail in his examinations if he distorted his answers or deviated from the questions asked.' This is how she concluded: `As a mother, can I tell my children that it is not wrong to be disrespectful and to distort answers? Certainly not.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this was the observation of a newspaper reporter, not by the PAP. The comment reflected the feelings of someone who was present at the hearing. Yet, the latest paper of the SDP, The New Democrat, sees a repetition of all the points brought up by the SDP representors. They obviously do not care and do not intend to hear the truth. This is not the correct way to change things. Change will come not with making political statements, but with sound alternatives that will win the hearts and minds of all educated Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is the highest institution in the land. It passes laws that affect every Singaporean. Therefore, it must be respected and obeyed. If politicians choose not to do so, then he or she must be reprimanded and appropriate punishment meted out. Politicians fight hard at every election to enter this Chamber and our behaviour and conduct in this House sets the tone for other Singaporeans. If we misbehave, then Singaporeans will not be proud of us and this country will suffer. Thus, if you remember, Sir, I chose not to speak at the last debate on the Select Committee's findings because you made a ruling that our speeches should not contain materials that will prejudice the findings of the Committee of Privileges. Mr Speaker, it is my respect for you and your ruling in Parliament that I choose to speak today instead. Sir, I support the motion.”
“I recorded Monday, July 15, as an important date in my diary because representatives of the Singapore Democratic Party were scheduled to speak in front of the Select Committee to study Government subsidies for hospitals and polyclinics. It gives the SDP's General Secretary, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and his colleagues the opportunity to explain their stand. I imagine the meeting to be serious as the SDP's allegations were grave. Were the allegations founded? The day I had been waiting for came, but I was disappointed. In following the 8-hour discussion on television in the reporters' room at Parliament House, I observed that Members of the Select Committee panel were obviously very serious in presenting their questions, views and statements. Nonetheless, I cannot say the same for Dr Chee who became the lone voice of the 4 SDP representatives there. My observation of Dr Chee was that he twisted his answers. He often deviated from the matters discussed, blamed others. He was dishonest in his answers and he did not observe the Select Committee proceedings. He often condemned the panel members. In short, he appeared to be playing politics through his answers. His conduct made it necessary for the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, to warn him on several occasions.' She went on to discuss about the proceedings and she concluded, and I quote: `The hearing went beyond 11 pm. Some people might consider Dr Chee a hero for being firm in his position, but I was quite fed up with Dr Chee's arrogance and his stubbornness in not admitting the mistakes in his figures. I was not the only one. My colleague who had all along respected Dr Chee stated, "I lost my respect for Dr Chee from today onwards." Was the SDP sincere in bringing up the issue of health care subsidies?”
“Although the Minister had told the Committee that the hospital had indeed made an error in the bill presentation and that Mr Sunny Kow need not have to pay more than what he needs to pay, the SDP chief representor refused to accept and insisted that the hospital had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the hospital bill. Yet he failed to see his own errors in the many charts, figures and data that were presented. He projected this type of behaviour to detract the Committee but, unfortunately, he was not successful. Sir, in passing judgment on the four SDP representors, we face a section of Singaporeans who think that we are trying to do the Opposition in. It is not a question of whether these four people are Opposition members or not. It is clearly a question of what must be done to a group of people who swear to tell the truth in Parliament but clearly did not. We in Parliament must do what is right and correct, or this House would be taken too lightly by those who wish to present their case before Select Committees. In other words, we are dealing with the conduct of the representors, not their political affiliations. Sir, my comments on Opposition MPs' behaviour carries less weight than those coming from independent non-PAP sources. On 20th July 1996, I read in the Berita Harian an article which clearly tells you the character of Dr Chee. It was headlined Kecewa dengan sikap dan cara Dr Chee semasa perbahasan. Translated it means, "Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate." I will quote the translated version. It is very short: `Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate - by Noraini Hamzah.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. I was a Member of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy and I sat through one of the longest Select Committee sessions I have ever attended. I came out feeling sad and disappointed that a person like Chee, with a doctorate, could act and behave in such a manner, unbecoming of a man of his standing as a lecturer and researcher. Sir, from the very start, if you will remember, without seeking your permission, he took it upon himself the task of rearranging the seating arrangement laid out by Parliament. And this prompted you, Mr Speaker, to reprimand him and ordered him to refrain from such actions unless the Chair's permission is sought. But this behaviour reflected the arrogant attitude of the representor. Throughout the many sessions, there were attempts after attempts to show data, figures and charts that were obviously incorrect or not substantiated. It is not necessary to go through all these as they were brought up by the Select Committee and previous speakers have already spoken on this subject, and the public is well aware of the obvious discrepancies and data presentation, especially the 5% typographical error. However, it is the indifferent attitude of the chief representor that caught many people's attention. He chose to ignore what is correct. The sad thing is that he sees no wrong in himself and he used a case or two of wrongful billing by the hospital to cast doubts on the hospital's policy of hospital charges. He insisted that the hospitals had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the bills, based on the case of Sunny Kow. He attempts to accuse others of doing the very thing he did. This projection behaviour pattern comes out clearly in the above case of Sunny Kow.”
“I hope the Prime Minister would take this into account.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many points have been raised and therefore I do not want to go over them, except that I would like to ask the Prime Minister to address two points. The first point is to address the issue brought up by many young Singaporeans that this GRC or team MP concept diminishes the weight of the individual vote and thus it is not democratic. Their argument is that their single vote has to be shared by three, four or six candidates, and some of the candidates may not be of their choice. But I think Walter Woon has put up a very good case on this team MP concept and I fully agree with him. I hope that the young Singaporeans will read what he has said just now. However, I can reconcile this because I believe that this concept of the GRC would entrench minority representation and, to me, this is a very, very important trade-off. It is for the good of Singapore in future and I hope that they would also come to terms with themselves that this sort of arrangement would be for the better good of all of us. But perhaps the Prime Minister can elaborate more on this. The other small point I want to bring up is the boundary of the CDC. I was wondering whether it is possible that we should follow the boundary of the towns that HDB has built. HDB has planned and taken a lot of trouble, I am sure with URA, to plan all our towns. Therefore, if you want to have a mayor, it will be easier for him to run a town and the town must have a nice boundary, and this boundary has already been clearly laid out by HDB. I guess it is more practical and logical to do it this way. Moreover, it will be easier for the residents to identify themselves with this particular town and I hope that the sense of belonging and bonding will be easier.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Non-Constituency MP is for the Opposition. It is not for the ruling party. Does he understand the concept of the Non-Constituency MP? It is not for the ruling party. It is for the Opposition who cannot make the grade.”
“Can I seek a point of clarification from Mr Ling? If I remember correctly, the SDP's stand on the Non-Constituency MP is that it is against the NCMP scheme and it has reasons for objecting. So for the same reason, you are prepared to compromise and allow for minority representation. Am I right? You are against the Non-Constituency MP. Now, for the same reason, you are prepared to allow the ---”
“During the Select Committee, we produced a comprehensive set of data, comparing what patients have to pay for various conditions in public hospitals like Tan Tock Seng Hospital and SGH and in private hospitals like Mount Alvernia, Mount Elizabeth, Glenealges Hospitals. There was no doubt whatsoever that for all disease conditions, Singaporeans pay far less, even A class wards, in public hospitals than in private hospitals. Those tables are in the Report from the Select Committee to you. Again, Mr Ling did not mention it. He only talked about bed charges. Of course, he presents it in a very disarming way. He says, "Oh, my approach is a simplistic one. I see the doctor, GP, three times, $16. So do not blame me if I jump to the wrong conclusion." It may be artfully disarming, it may have even created some mirth, provided some entertainment, but I think it is more than that. I think in that selective suppression of relevant data, Mr Ling was trying to mislead us. Of course, he is very good at word games, at talking about how in his earlier speeches to this House he used words like "I suspect", "I was not sure", "I thought". Then he said opinions cannot mislead.”
“I think that is the straightforward part of the motion, which is that the health care costs in Singapore are heavily subsidised. The second limb is to regret the attempt by the SDP and Mr Ling to mislead us and members of the public. I moved this second limb without any pleasure, not to gloat, but because it is wrong to exploit public concern for narrow political purposes. Mr Ling said that he was only offering opinions. He never tried to mislead us. But even today, in this debate, he tried to mislead us repeatedly. He talked at length about errors in the bills produced by Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But until I pressed him, he conveniently left out the fact that whatever the error, it did not affect the amount which the patient had to pay, not Sunny Kow, not any other patient who received an error in his bill. Even after correction, those patients who were in the C class wards were subsidised 86%. We never claimed in this House or anywhere else that we subsidised C class patients by more than 80%, which we could have. But we did not. It is not something for us to exploit politically. But it was a material fact which Mr Ling conveniently chose not to mention until I asked him. He talked about the bed charges at Mount Alvernia Hospital and how cheap they were relative to bed charges in public hospitals. I do not know how Mount Alvernia Hospital calculates its bed charges, whether in fact it deliberately charges certain items lower than cost as loss leaders. But it does not matter. What matters at the end of the day is how much the patient has to pay.”
“That is fine. The rest of us, including Mr Ling, we go to see GPs who can be just downstairs or nearby, and they provide a very good service. The market operates on supply and demand and prices are set by the market. That is a good system. So it does not mean that while we debate that health care in Singapore is indeed heavily subsidised, we are saying that the more health care subsidy the better. Not at all. Indeed, in many countries, too much health care subsidy or health care subsidy wrongly applied, can bring the whole system down, which is why we try to build in as many safeguards as possible into our system in Singapore to ensure that the subsidies go to those who need them; that there is little moral hazard and that those who can afford to pay should bear a share of the burden. That is very important. Over the years, we have built up quite a sophisticated health care system offering both public and private services and choices, ensuring those who cannot pay are fully covered through Medifund; ensuring those who are poorer enjoy huge subsidies in B2 and C class wards; and ensuring those who are rich who can afford the full cost of health care services enjoy a choice between private and public facilities. Our health care system has earned a certain amount of praise from people who are overseas, even from professional journals like the Lancet, which published an article earlier this year giving us quite fulsome praise. It does not mean our health care system is perfect. We have still got many things to do. There are many problems to be solved and it is a constant challenge. But let us have a debate, which is honest, which looks at the facts and which takes full cognizance of the pitfalls of a health care system that is overly socialised or subsidised.”
“I told them that this is a very important test of the Ministry, that if we acquit ourselves well, then we can go back to our mission of looking after the health of Singaporeans. I told them that it was an effort worth making. I told them, "Look, you might have to work late. You might have to work over the weekends, but do it and do it well, because it is for the good of the Ministry and the good of Singapore." They rose to the challenge and I am very proud of them. The fact that health care costs in Singapore are heavily subsidised is a matter of fact. It should really not surprise us in this House because every year during the budget debates we vote hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose. If there were no health care subsidy, then where did all the money go to? But because allegations were made, and Mr Ling and the SDP refused to retract those allegations despite data provided to this House, and in addition, cast aspersions on the data, we had to have a Select Committee and this debate. But I hope we can get it behind us so that all of us can go back to our jobs, the officials, doctors, nurses, making sure that we provide the best health care system possible for Singaporeans, which Singaporeans deserve to have. It does not mean that the more we subsidise the better. We are proud that we have a good health care system. We are proud that those who cannot afford health care at full cost are subsidised. We are proud of our polyclinics. We are proud of our B2 and C class wards. But it is not our objective to have the polyclinics take over the primary health care sector. They provide only about 20% of the primary health care sector. They perform a specific purpose. They look after those in the lower socio-economic classes in Singapore. They do a good job.”
“The SDP's attempt to twist the facts to mislead the people will not be accepted by the people of Singapore. I therefore support the motion. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken for supporting the motion before the House. Let me also reiterate that the second part of the motion to regret Mr Ling's and SDP's attempt to mislead Parliament and members of the public should exclude the charges I have made in the complaint to the Speaker regarding the behaviour of the four SDP representors when they appeared before the Select Committee because, as Mr Ling said, they would be, in a sense, sub judice and something that we should be mindful of. There are two limbs to the motion: one, to verify that there is indeed substantial Government subsidy of health care in polyclinics and public hospitals. I think that has been established beyond doubt. Because Dr Chee had cast doubts, we opened every drawer and every cupboard in the Health Ministry for audit. It is very important that the officials in the Health Ministry enjoy the trust of Members and the trust of all Singaporeans, because the officials of the Health Ministry and the hospitals perform a very important job, which is to provide the best health care system in Singapore which we can afford to have. And the trust of ordinary Singaporeans in their good faith and in the integrity of the health care system is absolutely important. My officials worked late into the night and I had to meet them from time to time to keep their morale going. The auditors were putting a lot of pressure on them to produce this data and that data.”
“So, without a good Government and a group of responsible and upright political leaders, to effectively look after the people's money, if there is a problem in the way the Government manages the people's finances resulting in massive unemployment, people being unable to earn a living, cannot afford to purchase a HDB flat, then whose responsibility is it? Are you saying that it is the fault of the people? Therefore, a responsible Government will surely take great care and exercise prudence in using the people's money or subsidising them. I do not know whether it has occurred to Mr Ling and the representatives of SDP that they have already indirectly wasted a lot of our people's money. Take a look at this very thick blue book - the Select Committee Report. Together with the proceedings of the public hearings, as the Minister has said, some few hundred thousand dollars had been wasted. Just imagine, the manpower and resources involved before, during and after the public hearings! If we could save on this, we could have helped how many poor people in Singapore! The Minister and senior officials of the Ministry of Health could have made use of their time in a better way to plan and work towards better health care services for Singapore in future, to the benefit of the people. As Members of Parliament, we have the responsibility to censure such irresponsible behaviour, particularly the use of such cunning specious arguments to distort the facts in order to mislead Parliament and the public. As the Minister for Health, BG George Yeo, had said, Parliament should never be turned into an arena for child-play. The function of democracy depends upon Parliament and Parliament should therefore be accorded the highest dignity and respect from the people. Facts speak louder than words.”
“The SDP representatives thought that their ways of arguing would be appreciated by the people of Singapore. They thought they were very clever in the way they argued. In fact, this is a cunning and irresponsible way of arguing. If the people of Singapore want to know more about sophism, episodes of sophism which are more interesting than the tricks used by the SDP, they should read this book. They can learn about a very famous sophist by the name of Zheng Xi, in the time of the Warring States in China, 560 B.C. The tricks used by the SDP are far inferior to the tactics mentioned in the book. It is a far cry from what was mentioned in this book! I am very disappointed with the Member for Bukit Gombak, Mr Ling, for repeatedly going back on his word, during the public hearings of the Select Committee. First, he admitted and then denied that the Government had subsidised on medical cost in Singapore. He said that the money used by the Government on the people's health care cost came from taxpayers' money and therefore could not be known as subsidy. That the Government had subsidised is an undeniable fact. The Government's money is the people's money. The Government is just a trustee of the people's money. We all know that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, and is therefore very vulnerable. Mr Ling said that the people in Brunei do not have to pay income tax. But, he forgot to mention that Brunei has a lot of oil underneath its soil. I think if Singapore has a lot of oil, then we can also consider doing so. But, the fact is, Singapore has no oil, no natural resources, no water.”
“" "If I, Ling How Doong, a Member of Parliament, believe that this horse is a stag, you do not believe it is a stag but believe that it is a horse, then it is your business. However, I, Ling How Doong, a Member of Parliament believe that it is a stag." According to page 124 of the book, "calling a stag a horse" means to deliberately misrepresent, confusing right and wrong, confounding black and white - normally referring to improper or unjust words and deeds. Jiewai Sheng Zhi [ ] (digression) is another sophist trick frequently used by the SDP. Please refer to page 131 of this book. The basic characteristic of this trick is to create a lot of side issues to evade the main issues in order to confuse and mislead people. An issue which was originally clear and defined is brought to an awful mess of confusion through the introduction of many irrelevant side issues. Just now, Mr Ling said that the sky was blue and whether you believed it or not was not his business. I immediately turned to this book, and on page 54, it was there. A question was posed, " Chang'an (the capital of China in the Han and Tang Dynasties) or the sun, which is farther away from us?" The answer was Chang'an. Because, I could see the sun but I could not see Chang'an. So, Mr Ling can tell you, "When I stand in the middle of the road, I could see the sun but I could not see Johor Baru. Therefore, Johor Baru is surely farther than the sun." Just now, he said the sky was blue. Later on, he may stand up and say he can see 12 suns above the roof of Parliament House (referring to12 spot lights above the roof of Parliament House.). Such digression or sophist argument is irrational, unreasonable, and arbitrary.”
“8% is a classic example of "stealing the beams and changing the pillars" to confuse the people. There is another example in the book to help us understand how the SDP made use of a sophist trick of "stealing the beams and changing the pillars". It says, a customer went to a coffee shop and asked the shopkeeper for a chashao bao (steamed pork bun). Before he paid for it, the customer said that he would like to exchange the bao for a cup of coffee. After drinking the coffee, he wanted to go off without paying for the coffee. The shopkeeper asked him for the money, but he said, "I traded a bao for the coffee." The shopkeeper said, "But you did not pay for the bao either" He replied, "I did not eat your chashao bao, why should I pay you for it." I think, by listening to Mr Ling this afternoon, and all that was being said by the representatives of the SDP, you will find that they are more or less the same as described in the book. Dr Chee and the SDP are very fond of the trick known as moxuyou [ ] (equivocation) as described on page 51 of this "Complete Book on Sophism". The book says, moxuyou means "maybe there is". "Maybe there is" does not mean "there is". It cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to form a basis for argument. If one uses "maybe there is" as a basis to assert his argument to be true, then that is truly sophism. From 25% it can be changed to 5%. So, you can just equivocally find a number and fit it in. That is moxuyou . In their argument, they are also fond of using the trick of zhi lu wei ma [ ] (calling a stag a horse). Like what he said just now, "I believe it is right, but whether you believe it or not is another matter.”
“In fact, in our society, the Government has taken upon itself the responsibility to look after the poor who could not afford to pay for their medical treatment, by setting up Medifund. In Singapore, no one is denied good medical care and treatment just because he cannot afford to pay for it. Such a thing does not happen in Singapore. I can cite you an example in my own constituency. Certain poor people in my constituency were admitted to the hospital for medical treatment and surgical operations. They could not afford to pay the hospital bills. As their Member of Parliament, I appealed on their behalf to the hospital to waive the payment, and they were all given free and proper medical treatment. You can read the articles and see the photographs on pages 85 to 95 of Petir, our Party organ. These are all records of true incidents. The SDP also likes to use another trick in sophism known as touliang-huanzhu [ ] (steal the beams and pillars and replace them with rotten timber) as described in page 87 of this book. In other words, it is to perpetrate a fraud. The book says people who use this trick would consciously or unconsciously use one concept to replace another concept in the process of arguing and reasoning. Let us look at how the SDP "steals the beams and changes the pillars". When Dr Chee Soon Juan and the representatives of SDP talked about the national health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP, they used the same tactic. They gave the figure as 0.8% and claimed that they were quoting from a figure given by NMP Dr Soin. As a matter of fact, the figure quoted by Dr Soin referred to the net Government health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP, as the actual figure of the national health expenditure as a percentage of the GDP is 3.1%. Substituting 3.1% by 0.”
“Let me illustrate how the representatives of SDP had made use of some of the tricks mentioned in this book during the public hearings of the Select Committee and in the statements issued by the Party, in attempts to conceal the truth and distort the facts, in order to mislead Parliament, and even the public. First, let me look at the Chapter on Sham. According to this Book, people who deploy this tactic generally make use of specious reasoning, just like what Mr Ling did just now. For example, the book says, "Water can drown people. People who practise sophism will tell you that since water can drown people, the water in a tea cup can also drown people." Such specious reasoning may sound seemingly logical, but it is in fact a very irresponsible argument to deceive others. Another argument is that anyone who intentionally kills another person shall be sentenced to death. The act of execution is also intentional killing. Therefore, the executioner should also be sentenced to death. This type of sophism is ridiculous and irresponsible. Yet, the SDP has been using them over and over again, at the public hearings of Parliament, at election rallies, and in the SDP's party organ. Their purpose is to create a sham to mislead people. For example, in the recent public hearings of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy, the SDP, in order to make people believe what they said in the past that "people in Singapore can die but cannot afford to be sick", they persistently argued that the health care cost in Singapore was hardly subsidised at all by the Government, and that the people could not afford the medical expenses in Singapore, in order to gain political capital.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have earlier given my name to speak. But I realise that my speech contains remarks that could be interpreted as being prejudicial to the Committee of Privileges' hearing. I therefore choose not to speak today but I will speak at a later date. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Health, BG George Yeo. In my view, when we want to doubt or negate any matter, we must have sufficient grounds and evidence to prove our argument, but not to fabricate data or to make use of specious arguments to deceive oneself as well as others. I agree with Mr Maidin that we do not wish to have agak-agak MPs, neither do we like to have blur-blur MPs. The SDP had, on several occasions, made use of the erroneous figure of 5% instead of the 25% to represent the Government's health expenditure in terms of the total Government expenditure, in order to discredit the Government, and then claimed that it was a "typographical error". It is more than that. It cannot be simply dismissed as a typing error, as claimed by Dr Chee, to cover up at the last moment. Personally, I feel that this is similar to the fallacious argument of baima fei ma [ ] (a white horse is not a horse) popularly used in ancient China. The SDP consistently uses this sophist tactic to mislead the people, in order to achieve its political objective. Sophism is very famous in China. I have here a book entitled "Complete Book on Sophism" which sets out more than 500 tricks in sophism. The sophist tricks used by the SDP are, according to my reckoning, not more than 10 types.”
“Sir, since my name has been mentioned, I had better tell you exactly what we spoke. When I saw his name was not on the list, I asked him, "You are the leader of the SDP, at least in this House. You must make a stand. There is a debate going on. Why are you not talking?" And he said exactly what he said just now. I just want to put it on record.”
“Government can only advise, step in when things become excessive, as the Prime Minister has done. When the competition hots up, as in cars, houses or even hamburgers, who knows what new innovations the marketing man can come up with. The second concern that was addressed yesterday was integrity and honesty of the Government. And from PM's statement, we can see that this was well addressed. Because as soon as the Prime Minister heard of the adverse effect, he went about quietly investigating, gathering the facts and ordered the investigation of the purchases. Finally, even putting the questions directly to SM and DPM. He exercised his powers and responsibility without fear and favour. This shows that the system of checks which are essential for a clean and honest government is able to respond to allegations against the highest officers. All transactional details are well documented by private and public sectors. There is no hidden or lost information. There is complete transparency. This augurs well for Singapore's future. The present and future leaders of the PAP are well prepared to uphold the strong traditions of honesty and forthrightness which the party absolutely demands. SM is a pillar of our political stability and his reputation transcends Singapore. I feel we do ourselves a disservice if his reputation of incorruptibility and integrity is tarnished unjustifiably. All Singaporeans must make an unbiased fundamental decision in our hearts with regard to SM's integrity and DPM's integrity, for SM has been the standard bearer of clean government in Singapore since independence. We do well to take account of all the facts regarding these transactions.”
“Certainly not on the scale of the billions of dollars and matters of state which they handle in their respective portfolios, and for which they reserve their intense scrutinies. I asked SM why he decided to return the so-called unsolicited gifts if there was no impropriety. His reply was what he told you yesterday, that he and DPM sought and was counselled by his friends and some colleagues that they should give back the discounts to the Government. With the benefit of hindsight, if SM and DPM had listened to Dr Tony Tan's argument and had stuck to the original stand and not give up the discounts which were in line with market practice, then this will have pre-empted Singaporeans from thinking that there was indeed some underhand deal. But deep down I felt different. To me, it was out of a very acute sense of honour that SM felt he must return anything that will taint his reputation. He has a very strong sense of pride and shame, as you have heard him in yesterday's debate. Over the years, we must have observed his acute sensitivities to matters concerning corruption and impropriety in government. Yesterday's debate addressed two very important concerns: First, Government's role and private sector practices. This is tied up with the issue of invitation to soft launches to men of influence and men of means. The practice of soft launches, price list with differing discounts, selected launches of different phases of a development, these are tactics of marketing. There is no way that the Government can dictate the workings of the private market or legislate this private business market to level the playing field. Again, this was touched on by the Senior Minister yesterday. Business thrives on free competition of ideas.”
“Again, like many of us, his respect and trust in his wife is quite absolute, for she has never let him down in the past. He was sure she will get fair market value. Therefore, these purchases, as you can see, were given very little of his personal attention, while he continued to focus full attention on his demanding job. He was not in direct contact with the sellers of the property. I was told by my CCC Chairman that sometime ago when his brother sold SM a car, SM was adamant that he received no special favours and that the price offered must be what the other buyers were getting. My CCC Chairman's brother was very impressed by his no-nonsense deal. This is very illustrative of the acute sensitivity of SM's sense of integrity when he is personally involved in negotiating a purchase. As for DPM, those who have worked with him will testify to the intensity of his devotion. Did he buy his second house for speculation, as insinuated by Mr Chiam? I do not think so. As a family man, when you are struck down by illness at a young age, what do you do? You worry about your wife, you worry about your children, and you must quickly make plans to cater for their future. And he did just that. To him, property is the best option requiring the least attention. Property is tied to the future of Singapore's well-being. And he has tied the family's future to the future of Singapore. I can sympathise with him on that. I am glad that SM asked HPL to tell their side of the case, so that all facts can be clearly established. From HPL's account yesterday, it is clear that SM and DPM acted properly, perhaps too trustingly, in a matter they view as a simple transaction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I sensed that both SM and DPM must be very hurt and astonished by the reactions. However, I wrote to SM and in spite of what has been said, I believe him, I believe DPM and I stand by them on this matter. I disagree with SM on some policy matters, but I never doubted his honesty and his integrity. That is why I stayed with him and the PAP. I have time and again similarly disagreed with DPM on issues. His manner has always been very direct. But as with his father, I never have cause to doubt the honesty and integrity of his actions. And the fact that SM and DPM wanted this issue to be debated in this House is testimony to their belief that this country must always be run by men of honour and integrity and no one, not even SM who has set the highest standards of personal behaviour for MPs and Ministers, will be above scrutiny. So also DPM, his son, will not be exempted from scrutiny. Many Singaporeans were disappointed when they learned that SM and DPM took discounts for their purchases and were even more confounded when they gave away the discounts. It is easy to point fingers, but we must try to be more objective in our judgment and put aside the emotional element in this issue. From what SM. and DPM have said, I think no one can doubt that they have anything to hide. Their statements are one of frankness, openness, honest and even anxious efforts to clarify these purchases. SM has bared himself concerning the most intimate dealings of his family. He has not spared members of his family from public scrutiny. Like many of us, he puts all his attention on his job and let his wife handle the details, once he has given his approval of the purchases.”
“I wonder whether corporate bodies, like JTC, could buy flats from the resale market and also sell them on the resale market, or should they sell the resale flats back to HDB. Will there be a limit on the number of resale flats that corporate bodies are allowed to buy? I hope the Minister can give me some answers. I support the Bill.”
“Therefore, Ayer Rajah, Boon Lay, Jurong and even Yuhua will be having more foreign workers than the other constituencies. I believe there should be a quota of foreign workers in each constituency. Misery must be shared equally by all. Furthermore, they should not be housed in big numbers in individual blocks. The experience I have related to the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very real one. Therefore, we should not house them in big numbers in individual blocks but spread them out, similar to the way we spread our races living in each block. In other words, we follow the racial mix proportion. There should also be a proportion of foreign workers in each block. I call for these changes because I remember that in the Committee of Supply debate, the Minister for National Development said that it was unlikely that these workers would be housed in new estates, like Pasir Ris. This again, I feel, is not fair as some old estates have image problems already. So we should not let these estates be further disadvantaged by too many foreign workers. But I welcome his statement about the kind of foreign workers that will be housed in HDB flats. I am sure it has changed from the type of workers that were housed in Teban estate many, many years ago. But we always start off with very ideal conditions. It will slowly deteriorate when more and more demands are made by companies wanting to house their foreign workers. Therefore, we may start off with foreign professional and skilled workers, but later we might have to house factory workers again. Lastly, allowing corporate bodies to purchase resale HDB flats will affect the HDB resale market depending on the number of such flats sold and bought.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill because I understand the need to house our foreign workers who come here to work and contribute to our economy. Yet I am also concerned that their presence in our HDB environment can create problems because they come from diverse social, educational, linguistic and political backgrounds. Let me share my constituency's experience of housing foreign workers. I remember when I first became a Member of Parliament in 1980, I was saddled with many problems, apart from the sunken aprons which I mentioned to the Minister before. There was this problem of many foreign workers being housed in the HDB flats in Teban Gardens. A few of these blocks were given to companies to house their workers. These workers were factory workers and not construction workers, and some of them were fairly educated. And I can tell Members that it made my life very miserable as a young MP, I would say unbearable, because I received so many complaints from my residents about their social behaviour. Now, let me share with Members some of the problems encountered. When you group workers together in a block, the social behaviour of these workers can be very disturbing and embarrassing. Disturbing, because they drink, play loud music, yell and shout, and often fight. Embarrassing, because the women block allocated to them became the centre of activity of ill-repute which I think is not nice to mention in this House. The nocturnal activity in this block created embarrassment to my residents living nearby. While I understand the need to house foreign workers, I feel that it is only fair that these workers be spread evenly in all constituencies because it is quite natural for a corporate body like JTC to want to house their workers in the constituencies within Jurong.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Chin Harn Tong.”
“In the past, to control the car population, the Government increased car park fees from time to time, and later on the fees were increased again on the ground that the construction cost of the car parks had to be recovered. In 1994, I asked the Minister three questions, but they were not answered. Now I would like to ask the Minister again one of these three questions. I hope the Minister can answer it this time. My question is: Can the HDB allow a season car park ticket holder to park his car in every one of HDB's car parks and not be confined to only one or two car parks in a certain estate, during the valid period of his season ticket? In this way, it will be more convenient for the car owners and it will give them more flexibility in parking their cars. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, my questions are: First, under what circumstances does the HDB decide what kind of work should be classified as "Specific Works" programme? Second, apart from the lift and the water tanks, what are the projects that can be considered as specific works? Third, would the HDB consider installing the new booster pump activating system for old blocks so that people on the higher floors will not suffer low water pressure because of the poor distribution system and inferior booster pump design of the past? Fourth, in some low rise blocks, the HDB used concrete roof tiles for the blocks. Because of the porosity of the tiles, water seeps through and many tiles crack, resulting in leakage from the roof. Would the HDB consider replacing the existing concrete roof tiles with zinc-roofs instead?”
“Sir, I shall be very brief. The request by the Minister to use sinking funds to repair the sunken aprons means less money for the upgrading of lifts and other essential facilities, especially in an IUP programme. In some cases, it means putting aside a fair sum of money and I know that in one upgrading programme in the Jurong East Town Council, they have to put aside about a million dollars. But the sinking of the aprons is not due to the residents' doing but due to ground settlement. In Pandan Valley where the estate is built on prawn ponds, it would seem not very fair to use the sinking funds, which have been saved for wear and tear repairs to take care of a settlement problem. So may I ask the Minister to look into this problem again? Maybe it is the method of repair that needs looking into. What HDB is doing, as I gather from the Minister's reply, is to fill up the gaps and top up the apron to the required height. But, again, I believe this will sink with time. Of course, the pipes may be dislocated, and pipes need proper anchoring and support, and by just filling the sunken aprons will not do that job. So maybe the HDB should look at the method of repair. Perhaps, you need proper piling and this is where I think it will pose a problem because the Minister will tell us to use our sinking funds. Perhaps, we can come up with some deal, like cost-sharing basis. 3.00 pm Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, there are many private estates which provide car parking facilities to their residents without extra charges. But, in the case of HDB estates, residents have to pay a monthly parking fee of $55 for a surface car-park lot and more for a covered car park.”
“The next cut is on transitional rental housing. I will be very brief. I think these flats were rented out on a 2-year plus one basis if the new flat is not ready for the occupant. If there is a delay in the housing programme and some of the flats may not be available within the 3-year period, will it be possible for this rental housing scheme to cover that period till he gets his flat?”
“45 pm Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Sir, presently HDB has rented out a number of rental flats to corporations to house their foreign workers. I have received some complaints from the residents that some of these foreign workers are making a lot of noise and they have extended their activities to the common corridors and some of them were in the habit of walking around in the public areas bare-bodied, much to the embarrassment of the young ladies living in the area. If HDB is to rent these flats to the corporations to house their foreign workers, are there some guidelines or rules governing the use of these flats? Are there rules to make sure that these foreign workers will not cause embarrassment to the people living in that area? Is there any guideline as to how many units can be used in each block or each housing estate to house foreign workers? My other question is this. Recently, HDB decided to allow some statutory boards like the JTC to purchase flats from the open market to house foreign workers. All along, HDB's principle has been that the flats are for owner occupation and they are not allowed to be rented out. Those who are caught flouting the rules had their flats repossessed. Now the HDB is allowing statutory boards to buy flats to house workers. Is this not violating its own principle? Is this consistent with the principle laid down by the HDB?”
“Sir, the new HDB flats, particularly the 5-room and Executive flats, are very much improved from the early flats built during the "Home for Everyone" campaign in the 60s. Since that time, the quality of life of our people has improved so much, and the expectation of Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, has risen substantially. Perhaps we could find out from the owners of new 5-room and Executive flats whether they would agree to the privatisation of their flats. Once these flats are privatised, they can be managed by the residents themselves. The residents can form their own management corporations and town councils do not have to look after them. The management corporations can then decide whether they want to improve their facilities. For example, whether they want to build a wall to make their estate more exclusive, or build a swimming pool, tennis court or other facilities. Or even the engagement of security guards and other facilities, so that the residents of these 5-room and Executive flats can enjoy the living environment of a private estate. This will greatly improve their standard of living. At the same time, it will also enhance the value of their assets. Of course, HDB flats are subsidised housing. So the privatised 5-room and Executive flats should continue to comply with HDB's rules, eg, they cannot sell their flat in the open market within five years and that they cannot sell to foreigners. I think this, on the one hand, will improve their standard of living and, on the other hand, still comply with HDB rules. The residents will then have no more complaints against the HDB. Once these 5-room and Executive flats are privatised, it would benefit both the Government and the people. I hope the HDB will consider this proposal. 5.”
“Sir, I brought up this subject at the Budget debate and I think the Minister is very familiar with this subject. It is a ritual for me. Every year, year in and year out, I will bring up this subject. This is to bring to the attention of the Government the concerns of young couples buying their first HDB flat. While their incomes may have gone up, the prices of HDB flats have also gone up. But he sees, as I said earlier, his income growing by tens of dollars, while he sees the HDB flat rising by thousands of dollars. Can he then afford his flat when it comes? Would the 20% downpayment be too much for him to manage? This was pointed out by my colleague, Encik Othman Haron Eusofe. I hope the Minister will provide adequate statistics in terms of income earnings to allay their fears that they can really still afford their HDB flats when they come. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to speak about the privatisation of HDB 5-room and Executive flats. During the Chinese Lunar New Year and Hari Raya period, I visited a relative in the new Choa Chu Kang Estate. I found that some of the HDB flats are just as good as the private flats. The entrance to the estate is beautiful and posh. The landscaping is also beautiful. Even the pavements are lined with beautiful floor tiles with graphic designs. There is also a multi-storey car park. The lift lobby is spacious and very nice. The lift has a glass door with an automatic voice announcing system. It is hard to believe that I was in a HDB estate. With all these facilities, there is actually very little difference between a HDB flat and a private apartment.”
“If you want to incorporate, for example, a disabled centre within that building, then we are going to face tremendous problems. If we can come to some form of arrangement between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community Development, then we can get centres, not the run-of-the-mill type, like void deck centres, but more imaginative, effective and even functional ones. We must look at the society's needs and see how well the Government can help. For example, we are fully aware that the working couple always have this twin problem of having to look after their children and also their senior citizens. Therefore, if you want to build a centre that caters to both, community leaders building these centres will have to run around chasing the two Ministries for funds. Therefore, I do hope that the Ministry of Health can work with MCD to find an answer for our over-worked community leaders. Lastly, may I also request the two Ministries to work together to get the community health institutions under the Ministry of Health, and the community care institutions under the Ministry of Community Development, to work out a common strategy to serve the family.”
“Sir, in the Budget debate, I brought to the attention of the Finance Minister about the difficulty of fund-raising projects, like day care centres for the elderly and children, nursing homes, respite homes, based on the current 20:80 formula, ie, 20% of the cost will be raised by the organisation and 80% to be given by Government, and he has given the assurance that he will look into the matter. I thank him for this. My next point is how to get all these community health care institutions, especially the day care centres for the elderly, to work together, rather than in isolation. I am thinking of a more structured and organised way to get the senior citizens' centres, day care centres, respite homes together, so that they can maximise their work without duplication and maybe to make sure that there is no over-supply of these institutions. I understand that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community Development - I am sorry to straddle both Ministries - are funding these homes. May I suggest that the two Ministries study these needs as a single issue and not as an MOH problem or an MCD problem. We must find a way to overcome some of the problems associated with having two Ministries to fund the separate projects. It is not a problem if the project is a standard one, like a day care centre for the elders sited in the void deck. Here the funding, I believe, is by MOH, and it is quite clear. However, if the centre is not of a standard type, that is, in a separate stand-alone building, with other facilities like incorporating a day care centre for children, then the funding is going to be different, because MOH is not going to fund a child care centre within that centre.”
“Sir, I think the Senior Minister of State has forgotten to answer the question about the upgrading of a patient from C class to B2.”
“The hospital authorities always maintain that the upgrading is of the patient's choice. But patients always deny this. So I would again request that there be a written memorandum in future to settle this. Sir, as there is little time, I would just like to move on to this subject of traditional medicine. I think the issue before the House on this subject is the standard of medical practice, and not whether Chinese medicine should be encouraged, allowed or disallowed. We want a healthy population because we are small in number and we want to give the best health care to all. We want to make sure that any Singapore child born here be taken care of properly. Therefore, we set standards of medical practice to ensure that our health care delivery system is of such a high standard that illness or morbidity in our country is cut down and our working population can give of their best without having to be laid off because of ill health. Thus, our medical school sets high standard admission criteria for those who want to study medicine and engage top medical teachers here and outside Singapore to train the students. Therefore, any form of medical care, be it traditional Chinese medicine or Malay traditional medicine, must conform to stringent criteria of admission to the medical school and structured training programmes conforming to world standards of health care as laid down by the WHO before they can gain acceptance. 4.15 pm”
“Sir, it is one thing having procedures and another putting these procedures to work effectively. Thus, while I am aware that there are procedures in hospitals advising patients on admission procedures and on the use of Medisave, I still get complaints during my meet-the-people sessions and medical practice about Singaporeans being asked to pay more for their medical bills and for having to pay for a medical treatment with cash only. Let me take the second issue on cash payment. There are some medical treatments that only cash can be used to pay for the treatment, eg, the use of intravenous immunoglobulins for the disease called chronic progressive polyneuropathy. The total cost for a five-day treatment is $12,000. Many Singaporeans in that situation will agree thinking that they can use their Medisave or their children's Medisave to pay for this treatment but only to learn later that this cannot be done. So there must be improvement to the procedure of what can and cannot be paid for by Medisave in writing, not orally. This is what I want the Ministry to take note. There are many who are still not aware of the $300 Medisave withdrawal limit for their stay in hospital. So I think we must get the procedures correct. The second point is upgrading to a better ward, not by choice but because the lower cheaper wards, eg, C class, are full and patients have to be upgraded to B2. How should he be billed, B2 or C? If you travel in an economy class in an aeroplane and the economy class is over-booked, you get upgraded but you need not pay for the upgrading fee. So I hope the same principle holds for upgrading of C class patients in over-crowded wards to B2. There seems to be a dispute between patients and the hospital authorities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the rebates on tax and other financial policies have brought about only material benefits. The enhancement of spiritual life is overlooked. The building of a gracious society is not given its due priority in this Budget. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to raise the standard of living of the people. However, if sufficient amounts of money can be allocated to the field of arts and culture to enrich our spiritual life, it will surely go a long way to help refine the social behaviour of our people so as to establish a society which is both prosperous and gracious. Moreover, it is not too difficult to set up an arts and cultural fund, given the huge budget surpluses that we have accrued year after year. Donations from business establishments and well-wishers can hardly push our arts and culture to the peak. Mr Speaker, Sir, generally the FY96 Budget statement is an ideal one for the people and it deserves our praise and congratulations. However, if we can apply some appropriate packaging to this Budget, it will be more effective, and will make the people more appreciative towards it. At the same time, in order to raise the standard of our spiritual life, in order to establish a gracious society, I hope that the Minister for Finance will consider allocating some money next year to set up a fund for the promotion of the arts and culture, and to allocate more money to the Ministry of Information and the Arts and the Ministry of Community Development, so that they can work together with the Ministry of Education to carry out this heavy responsibility.”