2024年5月8日，新加坡衛生部高級政務部長普立傑醫生代表衛生部長回復後港集選區議員陳立峰先生關於康盛臍帶血事件賠償及立法保障相關事宜的質詢。
以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：
臍帶血儲存事件中受影響客戶的支持和商業臍帶血庫責任審查（3）
議長先生：有請陳立峰先生。
陳立峰先生（後港集選區議員）：謝謝議長先生。我有兩個補充問題要問高級政務部長。我的一位居民最近寫信給我，告訴我她和丈夫從孩子的兒童培育帳戶（CDA）中投資了12000新幣用於臍帶血庫服務。她說，他們一直在為一項沒有達到預期的服務支付溢價，如果當初他們意識到有現在這種情況發生，他們今天會做出非常不同的選擇。
作為普通的中產階級市民，12000新幣對他們來說是一筆不小的錢。他們表示，目前康盛人生集團（Cordlife）提供的補償，包括退還每年250新幣的年費，以及免除今後的其他費用，但遺憾的是，這些補償是不夠的，而且還不包括最初的合同費用，因此，我提出了第一個國會問題（PQ）。她告訴我，這種象徵性的姿態並沒有解決眼前的根本問題，即Cordlife的服務出現了災難性的失敗，不可逆轉地損害了他們雙胞胎臍帶血樣本的存活率。
議長先生，因此，我想請政府重新考慮是否可以協助受影響人士的父母獲得更高水平的補償，包括退還最初的合同費用。這是因為，考慮到索賠的數量和可能涉及的法律費用，一些家長可能會不敢聘請律師。我同意高級政務部長的觀點，即使該公司在法律上沒有義務對政府的任何努力作出回應，我也希望政府能夠在這方面與該公司接觸。
我的第二項補充質詢是，今後，政府會否考慮立法加強對家長的保障，以追討所有已付款項，包括在臍帶服務出現根本性失誤時向CDA帳戶退款？
普立傑醫生：議長先生，我感謝陳立峰議員的質詢。我理解陳立峰先生對其第一項補充質詢的立場，他承認並同意這些是父母與Cordlife之間的合約事宜。因此，我們在政府中可能扮演的角色是與Cordlife接觸，並要求他們提供某種形式的補償，以維持他們與客戶的關係。我們繼續與Cordlife合作。但是，正如該議員所同意和強調的那樣，這是兩個私人當事方之間的合同事項，衛生部和政府不是這些合同當事方。
至於陳立峰先生提出的第二項，即進一步提供立法保障的問題，我認為我們確實需要研究從這一事件吸取監督教訓，看看這類服務是否需要進一步的監管。我想說，這是幾個運營商中的一個，我認為這是該運營商的一個事件。這並不意味著監管制度或立法框架本身就是錯誤的。這可能是操作和審計的問題。但是，儘管如此，我們將研究這一事件，看看如何確保業界對未來有信心。
以下是英文質詢內容：
SUPPORT FOR AFFECTED CUSTOMERS IN CORD BLOOD STORAGE INCIDENT AND REVIEW OF OBLIGATIONS OF COMMERCIAL CORD BLOOD BANKS（3）
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. A resident of mine wrote to me recently and informed me that she and her husband invested $12,000 from their children's Child Development Account for the cord blood bank services. She said that they have been paying a premium for a service that has not met expectations and, had they been aware of the situation, they would have made very different choices today.
As general mid-working-class citizens, $12,000 is a significant amount of money for them. They shared that the current compensation offered by Cordlife, which includes a refund of the annual fee of $250 per year and the waiver of further fees going forward, is, unfortunately, not sufficient and it does not include the initial contract fee, hence, my initial Parliamentary Question (PQ). She told me that the token gesture does not address the fundamental issue at hand, which is the catastrophic failure of Cordlife's services, which has irreversibly compromised the viability of their twins' cord blood samples.
Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Government, to reconsider whether they can assist the affected person's parents to obtain a higher level of compensation, including a refund of the initial contract fee. This is, given the quantum of claim and the likely legal costs involved, some parents may be deterred from engaging lawyers. I take the point that the Senior Minister of State has shared which is that, even if, indeed, it is the case that the company is not legally obliged to respond to any Government efforts, I wish the Government can engage the company on this front.
My second supplementary question is, moving forward, will the Government consider legislating a better protection regime for parents to recover all monies paid, including a refund to the CDA account for payments made when there are fundamental failures in the provision of blood cord services?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his questions. If I understand the Member's position with respect to his first supplementary question, he recognises and agrees that these are contractual matters between the parents and Cordlife. So, the role that we might play in the Government is to engage with Cordlife and ask them to facilitate some form of recompense to maintain their relationship with their customers. We continue to engage with Cordlife. But as the Member has agreed and as he has highlighted, this is a contractual matter between two private parties, and MOH and the Government are not a party to these contracts.
As for the Member's second question about legislating further protection, I think we do have to study the regulatory lessons that have come out of this episode and to see whether or not such services need a further type of regulation. I would say that this is one operator amongst several and I think this is one incident in that operator. It does not automatically mean that the regulatory regime or the legislative framework is inherently wrong. It may be issues about operationalising it and auditing it. But, nevertheless, we will study this episode to see how we can make sure that there is confidence in the industry, going forward.
CF丨編輯
HQ丨編審
新加坡國會丨來源
新加坡國會丨圖源
