SINGAPORE, June 7 — The Singapore government has dismissed an article published on the TR Emeritus (TRE) website yesterday, which claimed that Cabinet Ministers such as Heng Swee Keat were “fully entitled to free A-Class healthcare in government and restructured hospitals”.

“This is a blatant lie,” said a statement issued on the Gov.sg Facebook page.

“TR Emeritus has once again sought to mislead the public,” the statement added, saying that the website had given the impression that Heng’s medical expenses were being funded by taxpayers.

“As TRE would have known very well if it had bothered to check the facts, Ministers in Singapore are on the same medical benefit scheme — the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme — as most civil servants.

“Officers on the MSO Scheme get a 2 per cent CPF contribution to their Medisave accounts capped at S$2,380 per year on top of their normal statutory Medisave contributions.

“This can then be used to buy Medishield Life or other portable Medisave-approved insurance plan to cover their inpatient needs.

“Ministers receive no extra benefits for themselves or their spouses/children.

“All Ministers and other political office-holders pay tax.

“Minister Heng’s hospitalisation is most certainly not borne by taxpayers’ monies,” the statement said.

On May 12, Finance Minister Heng collapsed from a stroke during a Cabinet meeting.

He was taken to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where doctors successfully closed a ruptured aneurysm.

In an update on May 30, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Finance Minister was “recovering well”.

In the TRE article, purportedly submitted by a reader, the writer said that Heng’s medical fees would cost the taxpayers almost S$500,000.

The writer also questioned whether “your average man on the street” could afford the sum, and then added: “Therefore, no need to give him (Heng) well wishes.”

The Government noted that TRE’s editor had added a caveat at the end of the article wishing Heng well, but decided to reproduce the letter anyway to “show an alternative angle to his situation and the underlying socio-political issues”.

“A vicious lie is not an ‘alternative angle’, said the government.

“Choosing to run an article that contained glaring misinformation that could have been easily searched and verified online is irresponsible”.  — TODAY