Has WP hoodwink voter in Medisave

lionnoisy SG

Worker Party denied they had proposed to phrase out medisave.
How can we trust them when what they said in black and white.
Judge for ueself if Mr Low need to rectify this mistake.

1.What were said in Parilment:
08/03/2006 Pub: Strait Times Page: H4
Headline: Heated words over hoodwink'
Page Heading: Home
Picture Caption:
MIND YOUR LANGUAGE : Mr Khaw (left) took offence at Mr Low's words, saying 'I'm not one to hoodwink people.'

Mr Khaw: 'In their earlier manifestos, the Workers' Party (WP) wanted to abolish Medisave. Phase out the Medisave scheme as soon as possible', they said. Luckily, they did not succeed.
'... The WP has since achieved some enlightenment. The latest manifesto no
longer wants to phase out Medisave. But they have replaced the medicine with another. They propose........

Mr Low: 'I would like to ask him (Mr Khaw) whether he purposely distorted the Workers' Party manifesto for political purpose to hoodwink the voters.
'What he has said was not what we published in the 1994 manifesto. We
highlighted the inadequacy of Medisave. We did not say we want to abolish it.
...........'

Mr Khaw: 'You claimed that I lie, although you didn't use that word, it was in
your old manifesto when you talked about abolition of Medisave ...
'... So I must object to this use of word that I tried to hoodwink
Singaporeans. Singaporeans have seen me by now, I've been in public service for many years.

2.What WP said in 1994 manifesto

6. HEALTH CARE

6.1 Medisave - A System in Collapse
6.1.1 Medisave is not the answer to the very real problem that our low income citizens face in paying for their health care. The system is nothing more than a way of shirking society's responsibility but ensuring on the other hand that hospital fees and charges are collected without the odium of taking to court those who are unable to pay for their bills.

6.2 The Workers' Party Alternative
The Party proposes to phase out the Medisave Scheme as soon as possible and implement instead a comprehensive public health insurance scheme.
........The details of insurance claims (what its scope should be/whether there should be different classes of care within the public health care system/how the scheme will interact with private health care, etc.) can only be fully worked out once the Party is elected. The Party will study schemes in operation in other countries and learn from their experience. A comprehensive health insurance scheme has the following advantages over the Medisave scheme

3.Is 'abolish 'equivalent' to phrase out as soon as possible'?
This looks like TAIWAN Chen said 'ceases to be operation.='freeze'
Shall Secretary-General,Low Thia Khiang apology and recitify this mistake?

4.Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was born in Malaysia and came to Sg to study.
I think he likes Sg more than most of us here for he has experienced personally the two systems.Who really hoodwink voters?

5.Search for Parliment report few days later to read what Low and Khaw reallt said.

6.We can tolerate different views but the facts must be right.
If one have proposed or said somethings,one must admit.

If one dare to deny which has been recorded down,what he will do if those nobody or only few know he has done or said?He simply just forget them at all.
Can u trust a potential leader so 'forgetful'?

geodome SG

why was medisave introduced in the first place?

to allow us to use our hard-earned and accumulated CPF to pay off expensive but necessary medical bills.

Medisave is not the problem, rising cost of healthcare is.

Atobe SG

What is the difference between 'Annul' and 'Phase Out' ?

'Annul' :
- to reduce to nothing : OBLITERATE
- to make ineffective or inoperative : NEUTRALIZE
- to declare or make legally invalid or void : NULLIFY

'Phase Out' :
- to discontinue the practise, production, or use of by phases.

Is there no difference in the nuances between the two words ?

Does not the word - 'Annul' - carry some degree of 'immediacy', some degree of 'effective completeness' ?

Are the words 'Phase Out' not clear by implication of the work being carried out in Phases ?

Politics is a battle of wits, but some resort to trickery and guile to 'hoodwink' the less informed, and those who have lesser understanding of a language which is foreign to themselves.

Concerning the Parliamentary Report, was the Opposition Member - Low Thia Khiang - given any opportunity to represent his position ?

Parliamentary Report Annual Budget Statement 17 February 2006

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): A clarification, Sir.
Mr Speaker: A short one. No speeches, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Prime Minister has referred to the Workers' Party's manifesto. I happen to have a copy here. On unemployment insurance, I would like to clarify the reason why we contemplated and decided to propose this unemployment insurance. It is because of the experience of the financial crisis. Yes, we have retrenchment benefits, but when the company closed down, the workers get nothing. Bearing in mind that there are a lot of workers who are not unionised, they are just retrenched and left with nothing. They can be drawing a few thousand dollars or a few hundred dollars but, suddenly, when they are retrenched, they must be left with nothing because the company just went bust. How do they cope with life with the sudden drastic change in income? The current situation that we have, in terms of securing some kind of payment, when a person is retrenched, is not satisfactory.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is not one point of clarification. It looks like Mr Low is making another speech.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: He should have said this in the debate, not now.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am clarifying. He is saying that unemployment insurance is something ---
Mr Speaker: But you are taking the opportunity to make a long speech, Mr Low.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Okay. I cut it short, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Just clarify. That is all.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The concern of the Government is whether this is going to be a welfare state. So I clarify that it is not so because we are contemplating unemployment insurance ---
Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not think Mr Low knows the meaning of clarification. After the PM has made his round-up speech, he is to seek clarification from the Prime Minister and not to say something in clarification of what he had wanted to say or had said but said wrongly or was misunderstood. That is the meaning of clarification. I think he better understand this carefully. If he wants to have a debate on the Workers' Party manifesto, that is a different matter. It is not a clarification.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I understand that I can only seek clarification of what the PM has said. Okay, never mind, Sir. I leave the matter. I do want to clarify some points made by the Prime Minister. First, on unconditional needs-based welfare scheme, he said it would bankrupt the Government. He criticised the Workers' Party for saying that the Government should provide unconditional needs-based help. I would like to seek clarification from the Prime Minister as to what form of help that is going to be. If it is not going to be unconditional needs-based, is it going to be adhoc or depending on budget surplus? What happens if there is no budget surplus? The people who need help will perhaps have to fend for themselves. I hope he would clarify that point.
The second point is on fiscal prudence. First of all, I wish to thank the Finance Minister for his detailed explanation as how the Budget is funded. I noted the funding is actually quite thin in the sense that you do not have very much left. Practically, this Government is spending almost everything it has accumulated within the term of government.
Is he spending too much and having it too thin in terms of the margin that has to be contributed to the national reserves?

Sir, the fact that the Prime Minister has to explain in detail here how the budget is funded shows that we do not need an Elected President. What we need is a robust parliamentary democracy and sufficient number of Opposition Members in Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low, there you go again.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: It is purely for clarification, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Please take your seat.
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong : I want to thank the Prime Minister for his comprehensive reply. Can I clarify with him about his comments on the funding of the Budget. Which chapter and clause in the Singapore Constitution states that all land sale proceeds go immediately into the national reserves and should not be reflected in the operating budget? I think it is the Government's choice of accounting practice and not a constitutional requirement. Can the Prime Minister clarify on this?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, Mr Low Thia Khiang asks: unconditional needs-based versus what? It is versus what we have been doing, where we have many helping hands. We have ComCare, S&C, U-Save and Progress Package. We have many schemes to address problems according to their needs. But unconditional needs-based, that you will all be entitled, do not be afraid to put your hand out. This is something which should have been debated during the debate, when he made his speech, instead of scoring political points. Then we can discuss whether it is wise or unwise, how he raises it. Well, there will be further opportunities for him to do so, I assure him, before the General Election.

As for funding being thin, let me tell Mr Low that every self-respecting Finance Minister has more than one bottom card and I have not shown him all of my cards yet.

On Mr Steve Chia's land sale, this is the principle in the White Paper which is settled between the Government and the President, and it has been tabled. It is not an arbitrary arrangement. Land is a form of asset. So when you transform one asset into another, you are not earning something, you are just changing from land to the equivalent amount of money. The money can come back and become land. So land is locked up, therefore, the money is locked up. This is a straightforward matter. There is no monkey business or anything strange about it.

Is it any surprise that the Speaker of Parliament - managing the debate - seems to be bias towards the Opposition Member of Parliament, while allowing the Ruling Political Party MPs to make speeches ?

With the Members of Parliament from the Ruling Political Party being allowed to make clarification and distort statements and speeches from the Opposition Party, lies and distortions will go into record of Parliament, while any attempt by the Opposition to challenge those errors and set the record straight will remain unrecorded.

Can we depend on the Parliamentary Report for any accuracy ?