If your insurance company rejects a claim under a life or health insurance policy and give the reason that you (the policyholder) did not disclose a pre-existing condition, you should look at "indisputability clause" in the policy document.
This clause usually states that the insurance company will not dispute a claim after, say, 1 or 2 years, except in the case of fraud.
If you were not aware of a pre-existing condition or did not know that it need to be declared, the the insurance company is not allowed to reject the claim. If the insurance company wishes to reject it due to fraud, it has the onus to prove that the policyholder intends to defraud the insurance company. It is difficult for them to prove that there was intent to defraud.
I give English lessons to Vietnamese spouses of Singaporeans. I learned that some of these spouses are still on short term visit passes (1 or 3 months) and have to leave Singapore regularly. Some of them have children. This is inconvenient for the family and affects the children adversely.
Should these spouses be offered a long term visit pass (1 or 3 years) or even permanent residency?
They are the foreign spouses of Singaporeans. It is rather harsh to ask them to leave the country every few months. I agree that this is disruptive for the family, especially for the children.
I cannot understand why these foreign spouses of Singaporeans are not granted the same long term visit passes as the spouses of foreigners who are granted e-pass to work in Singapore.
This practice seems to discriminate against Singaporeans who have served National Service! Why are they treated worse than the foreigners on e-pass?
I suggest that the government should:
1) Grant long term visit pass for the foreign spouses of Singaporean males and females on the first marriage of the Singaporean.
2) When the family has children, the foreign spouse should be granted permanent residency.
3) The permanent residency may be revoked on divorce.
4) This treatment should be extended to all foreign spouses, regardless of their working status. Non-working mothers also carry out an important role in raising children for the family.
his elderly woman, who was not well educated, was advised by the agent to upgrade from a shield C plan to a shield A plan. She took the advice.
15 months later, she was diagnosed for colon cancer. She went to a public hospital and was advised to be treated in a private hospital as she was covered under a shield A plan.
Her treatment cost a staggering $300,000. Yes - $300,000 in a private hospital!
The insurance company rejected her claim as she did not disclose that she had diabetes when she upgraded her plan. She was not aware that it had to be declared, as the insurance agent filled up the upgrade form and did not explain to her about the need to disclose her health status.
I have come across a few cases of this kind in the past. I now advise the public - NEVER, NEVER upgrade your plan when you are elderly. You never know if your claim will be rejected for ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
This graphic explains the concept of the wisdom of the crowd. http://sg-pulse.com/Crowd/page/1 If many people guess the number of jellies, the average of their guesses will be quite close to the actual result!
My family is currently in a dispute with an insurance company with regards to a health shield upgrade.
·My mom is elderly, cannot read and speak very limited English.
·She was on the health shield plan C for several years, and successfully did an upgrade to plan A in Feb 2014.
·She has been diagnosed with colon cancer and has been treated in a private hospital since Apr 2015
·The insurance company will not honor the upgrade to Plan A as there was no disclosure of my mum’s diabetes during the upgrade.
My mom’s proficiency in the English language is limited. When filling up the upgrade documents and questionnaires, the agent did not go through the questionnaire in detail with my mum. My mum was not aware about what she was signing. her at all.
The insurance agent failed in his duty to help the policyholder to make a full disclosure of her medical condition for upgrading the plan. The insurance company was also negligent. Surely, they should know that an elderly person will have some medical condition. They should not rely on the questionnaire, especially as it was signed by the agent (who has a conflict of interest).
I have been approached on similar cases in the past - i.e. rejection of claim under an upgraded shield plan. I advise elderly people to stay with their current plan and avoid all types of upgrading. I downgraded to Medishield Basic myself, and will stick with it.
I am happy to inform you that you have both submitted the closest answer to the final results. The final result was 69.9%. Your entry was for 70.1%.
The panel of judges have confirmed that you are the joint winners. You will share the cash prize of $500 equally, i.e. each of you will get $250 (SGD).
Are you able to visit my office (24 Sin Ming Lane #02-107 Midview City) on Saturday 19 September at 11 am to collect the cheque. I like to have a chat with you and also to take a photo with you - if you do not mind.
Someone told me that the HDB insists on viewing the original death certificate of her deceased mother, when it was quite clear (from the Government Register) that the mother had passed away. The HDB insisted that this is their "house rule".
Here are two troubling aspects of this behavior.
1) The civil servant insist on a requirement that is unnecessary and troublesome, because it is "the house rule". He (or she) does not care about how much trouble it cause to the citizen. He probably enjoys giving hassle to the public.
2) Why is this stupid rule allowed to remain for so many years? What has happened to the internal feedback system in HDB? What is happening to our Parliament? Surely, the MP could have raised this issue a few decades ago?
Dear Mr. Tan My mother passed away. I wanted to remove her name from my HDB flat as it was bought with her name. The HDB insist on viewing the original death certificate, but I had misplaced it.
Why can't they check the Death Registry to confirm that my mother had passed away? They insisted that viewing the death certificate is their "house rule". Why are they so rigid?
REPLY I also find it strange. I believe that the CPF does not require to view the original death certificate. It seemed that the HDB is out of date. Maybe, they enjoy making life difficult for the citizens?
I wonder if the Minister for National Development can ask the HDB CEO to hara kiri.
Towards the end of the 1980s, Japan had a big property bubble. The property prices were ridiculously high. When the bubble burst, Japan went through a decade (i.e. 10 years) of almost zero growth. This is called the "Lost Decade".
Singapore today is like Japan during the late 1980s. We are now prosperous because of our high property prices. We stand a high risk that our property bubble will also burst. When that happens, we could faced also a decade of slow growth.
Even if the bubble does not burst, it will remain a burden on the economy. Our cost of doing business and our cost of living is high, due to the high property prices. It will be a burden for businesses and for the people.
The government hopes to keep the property prices at the current level, and let inflation in the future restore the equilibrium. At our low rate of inflation, it may take 20 years to correct the imbalance. This is a very long time.
Sadly, it will be an uncertain and difficult future.
My friend lives in a private house in Aljunied GRC. He said, "The residents of private housing estate does not realize that there is little that the town council can do to keep their estate clean. The roads and trees are the responsibility of LTA and the NEA, and not the town council. The town council does not have the funds for these work.".
He said, "If these agencies do not do their work well, deliberately or otherwise, the town council gets the blame. The residents may be unaware about this split of work".
I agree with this observation. We have a bad system where one person is responsible for one area, and another person is responsible for another area. The ordinary people gets confused.
Who is responsible for this type of confusing arrangement?
I have often been asked - "Will I stand for the next Presidential Election". My reply - "No Way".
1. I have a gut feel that the PAP Government will change the constitution and remove the election of the President. They will not take the risk of a non-establishment person being elected into this office.
2. If they still hold the election, I will let Dr.Tan Cheng Bok be the non-establishment candidate for this round. He is highly respected.
3. If Dr. Tan is not able to stand for health or other reasons, I will let Tan Jee Say be the non-establishment candidate.
4. If Jee Say cannot stand, I will also not stand.
I do not wish to fight the PAP machinery. They have all the resources - party, government, grassroots, civil service, mainstream media, money, power. This is not right, but it is the reality.
What about making a stand for the people of Singapore?
The majority of the people like the PAP Government anyway - with its lack of transparency, lack of accountability, its natural aristocratic attitude and the big and small goodies that they can dish out.
What about standing up for those who want the President to be the "check and balance" on the PAP Government?
Most of them are not willing to come forward anyway to play their part. They are not willing to expose themselves in campaigning for their candidate. They are not willing to contribute towards the election expenses.
They expect the candidate to make all the sacrifices. At the last moment, many may exercise their right to abandon the candidate that they had egged on.
There are exceptions to my general observation. But these exceptions are not enough.
I have made edited the comment by Constantine Giam but kept the gist of his views.
EDITED: Most Singaporeans are like barking dogs with not teeth. They think of themselves without considering the bigger picture - how their actions will affect them in later years.
Singaporeans like to complain and voice out negative views. When it comes to change and there is some risk, they begin to waver.
Talking about national issues with all this group of Singaporeans is a waste of time. With this kind of mentality, i.e. fear to take risk, Singaporeans will not prosper in their financial investment or innovation.
Their lives is about work and earning money. But they will never earn enough due to high inflation and suppressed salary caused by influx of foreigners.
Singaporeans will complain online or in their daily conversation with friends. At the end of the day, most of them will still vote PAP because they are scared that when PAP fall, they will lose their jobs.
With this kind of thinking, i am not surprised that Singaporeans will not succeed in many fields in the future. The population will be diluted with naturalized citizens. There will be no more true blue Singaporeans.
The results of this general election in 2015 lend credence to my conviction.
Thank you for posting a link to the article "Shame On You" in The Online Citizen.
I agree wholeheartedly with the views of this writer. Many Singaporeans behave in a selfish and shameful manner.
They urge the candidates from the alternative parties to stand up and contest the election, so that the PAP knows that they cannot take Singaporeans for granted.
AND THEY ABANDON THESE BRAVE CANDIDATES AT THE LAST MINUTE.
I don't know their reason for the last minute change of mind. It is a disgusting behavior.
Do they really know the sacrifice that these candidates have made to provide an alternative voice for Singaporeans? The money they have to spend on deposits, rallies, posters, printer, meals for volunteers?
How many people came forward to help them in their campaigns?
No wonder, Kenneth Jeyaretnam said - "You have voted for authoritarianism. I don't want to hear your complaint anymore".
I understand your sentiment. I also understand that the losing candidates would have been very disappointed. (I felt the same after the Presidential Election).
The least that these Singaporeans could do now, is to donate to cover the expenses of the losing candidates.
I am only asking this from the people who had urged them to come forward to be a channel for express their unhappiness at the policies of the PAP.
Mr.Tan With the strong mandate, will the PAP government work to achieve the 6.9 million population target by the original deadline?
REPLY They will. Maybe, delay by a few more years. They have no choice. We have a low birth rate and an aging population. We have built infrastructure to cater to a larger population. With a 70% vote and a strong mandate, they will push ahead for the 6.9 million population target.
Our goal is to have an active Parliament comprising of law makers who can spend time to understand the issues and to debate them in Parliament. They should spend time to understand the concerns faced by their voters.
Preferably, the members of Parliament should be full time.
We prefer a system, similar to the US, where the elected Prime Minister (or the President in the US) can nominated his ministers from outside of Parliament. The nominated ministers have to be approved by Parliament.
We prefer the members of Parliament to be elected directly from the voters in their constituency. We prefer the GRC system to be discontinued.
You have advocated, on a few occasions, that our ministers can be appointed outside of Parliament.
But, many people do not agree with you, especially the anti-PAP people. They are afraid that it allows the PAP to appoint their candidates, who are rejected in the general election, to come to be ministers through the back door.
Why are you advocating this unpopular measure?
We have to go to the root of the problem.
We can never find sufficient capable people from the 89 elected people to form our government. The base is too small. The "suitable" people cannot risk their career to enter politics.
The PAP derived the GRC system to provide a "safe" way for these "suitable" people to enter into politics. The GRC system has its harmful effects.
If we follow the US system to appoint ministers from outside of Parliament, we have a large pool of suitable people to choose from to form the government.
All government policies have to be approved by Parliament. This is the safeguard to the democratic process. Another safeguard is a strong and independent civil service.
My suggestion actually benefits the non-PAP parties. They can campaign to enter Parliament to represent the views of the voters in their constituency.
if the non-PAP parties form a coalition government, they have the freedom to appoint their ministers from outside of Parliament. They can reach out to the most suitable people in the whole country to run the ministries. The nominated people will still have to get the approval of Parliament.
This is the best and most feasible alternative to a PAP government.
Now... what if one day, we wake up knowing that the Singapore's reserves is nothing but hot air?
Why have the government been unwilling to return CPF, and have been issuing bonds and doing all sorts of stunts like SG50 notes? (1.7 billion printed)
Are they really insolvent? We'll never know, but once you do it'll all be too late. We'll be the second Greece/Brazil almost instantly.
I agree with the risk. We need to have a Parliament comprising of a strong opposition to the government. They can demand transparency and accountability.
The Singapore Democratic Party and Dr. Chee Soon Juan have put in many man years of efforts to present alternative policy papers for the future of Singapore. It seemed that the voters do not care about them.
They only care about the SG50 goodies, and the PGP goodies. What are your views on this question?
I agree with you. It reflects poorly on the maturity of the Singapore voters. We have to be ashamed of this state of affairs.
This situation is brought about by 50 rules of PAP rule. They do not want Singaporeans to be mature. They only want to remain in power.
The 70% are willing to put their full trust in the PAP, without any checks and balances. They may have a rude shock when the entire system collapses one day.
But, maybe, it will never happen? Meanwhile, they are happy to live in their comfort zone.
Hi Mr Tan,
I couldn't message you on facebook. Hence, I decided to message you here. I have some questions to ask you.
1)What exactly is the role of a NCMP?
2)Should Dr Chee Soon Juan be nominated as a NCMP?
3)Do you think that Presidential Elections in 2017 is our last hope for Singapore?
1) The position of NCMP (Non Constituency MP) is given to a certain number of candidates (between 3 to 9) from the opposition parties who scored the highest votes in the general election. They attend Parliament and exercise the duties of an elected MP, except that they do not represent any constituency and cannot vote on certain legislation.
2) The candidates from the opposition parties who scored higher than Dr. Chee Soon Juan are:
Lee Li Lian, WP - Punggol East
Dennis Tan, WP - Fengshan
5 candidates from WP, East Coast
Dr Chee will not make it to the list.
3) There is a chance that the Presidential Election may be scrapped (this is just my opinion). If it is conducted as before, do you see the person elected as President to be "the last hope for Singapore?".
Can you be more specific on what are the actions that you expect the President to take to "save Singapore?"