Connect with us

Current Affairs

Stop using the poor for your political agenda – Part Two

Published

14 years ago

on

The following is Part Two of a two-part response to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s remarks on 4 September (see here) where he urged S’poreans to see things in perspective and to think of the poor.

Leong Sze Hian –

More hospital beds for the poor

In almost every survey done on the elderly and the poor, one of their greatest concerns was the affordability of healthcare.

In this connection, I refer to media reports (“Full house at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital” , ST, Jul 25) that the new Khoo Teck Puat Hospital has been full since it opened recently, and that the bed crunch has been so bad in the past couple of years that non-urgent surgery had to be put off, beds placed along corridors and hours spent waiting for an available bed.

According to the Department of Statistics’ Yearbook of Statistics 2010, the number of hospital beds in Singapore, has hardly changed – from 11,742 to 11,663, from 1999 to 2009.

The number of hospitals only increased by one, from 28 to 29.

During the same 10-year period, the population grew from 3.96 to 4.99 million.

Although the Health Mnistry has said that Singapore will not be caught out by a shortage of hospital beds again, even with the net increase of about 400 beds after the expected opening of the 700-bed Jurong General Hospital before 2015, and the closure of the 300-bed Alexandra Hospital, the total number of hospital beds is only expected to be about 12,613, even after adding the 550 beds from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital.

If not for allowing Medisave to be used for hospitalisation in 12 approved hospitals in Malaysia, since March this year, the shortage of hospital beds may be even worse.

At the current annual rate of growth in the population, at 1.1, 11.5 and 4.8 per cent, respectively, for Singaporeans, permanent residents and foreigners, and the long term target of a 6.5 million population, the shortage of hospital beds may not go away soon.

Perhaps what we may need to do is to spend more on healthcare, as I understand that Singapore’s healthcare spending to GDP is only about 4 per cent, with about 2 per cent of GDP on public healthcare spending in 2008.

In contrast, our neighbour, Malaysia, spent 4.8 per cent of GDP on healthcare in 2008.

The Singapore Tourism Board has been promoting Singapore as a medical tourism destination, with medical tourists to Singapore growing to 646,000 in 2008.

About half of Singapore’s medical visitors come from Indonesia, with the other 30-40 per cent coming from Malaysia and the Middle East. The remainder comes from Russia, China, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Also, more will be done to help Singapore meet its target of attracting 1 million medical tourists a year by 2012.

So, since the number of hospital beds did not increase over the last 10 years, and with the population increasing by 1.03 million plus another 646,000 medical tourists, is it any wonder that the waiting time for poorer Singaporeans seeking medical treatment, may be getting longer?

Billions in investment based on “gut-feel” decisions?

With all the constant rhetoric over the years about helping the poor, what about the billions of investments that we made? How much thought or analyses were made on what some of these billions could do for the poor?

I refer to media reports (“Why Temasek took China project”, Business Times, Jul 3) about Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s remarks that for Singapore’s industrial projects in Suzhou and Tianjin, on the government-to-government side, we did not do any economic feasibility study, and that we just felt in our guts that this was something good to do to engage China and that we could make it work.

Given that these were investments in the billions, I am rather surprised that we did not do any economic feasibility study.

What is perhaps even more alarming may be that this is only revealed now after decades, by way of a casual remark by the Senior Minister.

Are our billion dollar investments now still being made based on “gut” feel?

As we contemplate investing in other cities, perhaps now is a good time to evaluate what is the return on investment on our first Suzhou Industrial Park venture.

It may also be instructive if we evaluate our US$1.9 billion investment in Shin Corp which the Thai Government has indicated a keenness to buy back, PT Indosat and Telkomsel which have been deemed to have violated anti-trust laws in Indonesia, SingTel-Optus which at one point was estimated by analysts to have an estimated expected write-down of $8 billion, the US$5.4 billion investment in Dao Heng Bank which at one point had an estimated goodwill impairment of S$1.13 billion, etc.

I think we may be able to learn a lot from the above, with a view to learn from the lessons and not repeat the mistakes in the future.

Specifically, how and why have we failed in respect of regulatory, market, competitive and business intelligence, and privileged insights, in Mergers and Acquisitions’ (M &A) terminology, in our M & A activities?

On a brighter note, at least Temasek’s latest RMB 2 billion (S$400 million) investment through its subsidiary, Singbridge International, in the joint-project “Sino-Singapore Guangzhou”, to build the “China Knowledge City”, which is on the suburban area of Guangzhou city in southern China, had the benefit of the feasibility study done by the Keppel Group which signed the initial agreement in March 2009, before Singbridge’s takeover of the 50:50 joint project between Singapore and China.

Having said that, we should still ask: Could we not have used these billions to help the poor instead, especially given that S’pore’s income gap is among the widest in the world? Or, and if indeed these investments have been successful, how have they benefited the poor and the low-income?

Additional input by Andrew Loh.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

1 day ago

on

12 October 2024

By

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

1 week ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending