中产家庭脐带血储存投资受损，新加坡政府考虑介入补偿方案

2024年5月8日，新加坡卫生部高级政务部长普立杰医生代表卫生部长回复后港集选区议员陈立峰先生关于康盛脐带血事件赔偿及立法保障相关事宜的质询。

以下内容为新加坡眼根据国会英文资料翻译整理：

脐带血储存事件中受影响客户的支持和商业脐带血库责任审查（3）

议长先生：有请陈立峰先生。

陈立峰先生（后港集选区议员）：谢谢议长先生。我有两个补充问题要问高级政务部长。我的一位居民最近写信给我，告诉我她和丈夫从孩子的儿童培育账户（CDA）中投资了12000新币用于脐带血库服务。她说，他们一直在为一项没有达到预期的服务支付溢价，如果当初他们意识到有现在这种情况发生，他们今天会做出非常不同的选择。

作为普通的中产阶级市民，12000新币对他们来说是一笔不小的钱。他们表示，目前康盛人生集团（Cordlife）提供的补偿，包括退还每年250新币的年费，以及免除今后的其他费用，但遗憾的是，这些补偿是不够的，而且还不包括最初的合同费用，因此，我提出了第一个国会问题（PQ）。她告诉我，这种象征性的姿态并没有解决眼前的根本问题，即Cordlife的服务出现了灾难性的失败，不可逆转地损害了他们双胞胎脐带血样本的存活率。

议长先生，因此，我想请政府重新考虑是否可以协助受影响人士的父母获得更高水平的补偿，包括退还最初的合同费用。这是因为，考虑到索赔的数量和可能涉及的法律费用，一些家长可能会不敢聘请律师。我同意高级政务部长的观点，即使该公司在法律上没有义务对政府的任何努力作出回应，我也希望政府能够在这方面与该公司接触。

我的第二项补充质询是，今后，政府会否考虑立法加强对家长的保障，以追讨所有已付款项，包括在脐带服务出现根本性失误时向CDA账户退款？

普立杰医生：议长先生，我感谢陈立峰议员的质询。我理解陈立峰先生对其第一项补充质询的立场，他承认并同意这些是父母与Cordlife之间的合约事宜。因此，我们在政府中可能扮演的角色是与Cordlife接触，并要求他们提供某种形式的补偿，以维持他们与客户的关系。我们继续与Cordlife合作。但是，正如该议员所同意和强调的那样，这是两个私人当事方之间的合同事项，卫生部和政府不是这些合同当事方。

至于陈立峰先生提出的第二项，即进一步提供立法保障的问题，我认为我们确实需要研究从这一事件吸取监督教训，看看这类服务是否需要进一步的监管。我想说，这是几个运营商中的一个，我认为这是该运营商的一个事件。这并不意味着监管制度或立法框架本身就是错误的。这可能是操作和审计的问题。但是，尽管如此，我们将研究这一事件，看看如何确保业界对未来有信心。

以下是英文质询内容：

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丨编辑

HQ丨编审

新加坡国会丨来源

新加坡国会丨图源

免责声明：

1.凡本公众号注明文章类型为“原创”的所有作品，版权属于看南洋和新加坡眼所有。其他媒体、网站或个人转载使用时必须注明：“文章来源：新加坡眼”。

2.凡本公众号注明文章类型为“转载”、“编译”的所有作品，均转载或编译自其他媒体，目的在于传递更多有价值资讯，并不代表本公众号赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。

精选视频

新加坡眼旗下视频号你关注了吗？

点击下面视频，查看更丰富的内容！

直播等你来看，点击下方预约起来！

上新加坡眼官网搜索更多关于新加坡的资讯