By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “Govt Payouts a grey area for nursing homes” (ST, Aug 23).

http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={734381012-6184-4790874719}&print=1

I think for a destitute and penniless person, it may be a blow to their well being, if we deny them of even these “once in a long time” luxury. The purpose of such periodic Government payouts as I understand it, is to reward senior citizens who have contributed to Singapore’s success, by way of payouts like the GST credits.

Whilst I appreciate the fact that some nursing homes are short of funds in providing their excellent social services of housing and caring for the elderly poor, it is no excuse for not even getting the consent of nursing home residents to use their Government payouts to fund their stay.

For those who are of unsound mind, such as those with dementia, I agree that this practice may perhaps be acceptable.

Now that the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) has flagged this practice, what are the Government agencies with oversight on nursing homes going to do about it?

I would also like to point out that the arrangement to allow intermediate and long-term care proxies to cash home residents’ cheques if they are unable to do so, should not be construed as the right to use their Government payouts.

In this connection, why is it that although the Ministry of Finance (MOF) said its guidelines made it clear that the payouts belong to the patients, it also declined to give a copy to the Straits Times?

I am also disturbed by the reason given by two homes that at briefings held by the authorities, they had been given the impression that they could use the payouts to defray the cost of caring for such patients. In my view, the reason given that some patients were not fully subsidised by the Government and had to be supported by the organisation’s funds coming from public donations, is irrelevant to the issue.

In this context, I fully concur with those nursing homes who said that they do not use the money because it would not be proper.

Finally, whilst I do not concur that homes should be penalized for using such monies in the past, they should at least be given clear guidelines now that such practices should not be allowed to continue.

So far, the silence by the authorities on this issue, is I must say, at best, not “golden” and quite puzzling!

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Thirteen new cases of Covid-19 infection; Nine linked to cluster at SAFRA Jurong private dinner function

As of 6 March 2020, 12 pm, the Ministry of Health (MOH)…

SPP National Day message: "We Singaporeans must play a more active role to influence national

  SPP National Day message 2012   My fellow Singaporeans, We remember…

义顺居民提废377A议题 申诉遭李美花议员冷待

推动性少数权益、废除377A的一名自愿者,申诉在会见居民活动,欲向义顺集选区议员李美花提呈请愿书时,却遭后者冷待。 有关名为符宝健(译音)的志愿者,在本周一出席义顺集选区议员李美花的会见活动,想征询议员对性少数权益和废除377A的意见。 同时,符宝健也准备提交一份,有859名该区居民签名,支持废除377A条文的请愿书。 符宝健当晚和三名友人一同出席。轮到他们一行人时,李美花在和众人握手后,首先询问他们之间的关系,其中一人说不是来自义顺选区,但为了同一课题而来。 提交859居民签署的请愿书 不过,李美花要那名非选区居民离开,至于符宝健的另两位义顺同伴,也被要求离开,并再另拿号码排队。 符宝健说,议员称“她知道这是什么情况”,因为“其他议员也遇过”。 “等到我的三名友人离开后,李美花才叫我说出来意。我就告诉她,想了解他对于377A课题的看法。” 符宝健称,李美花听后,只留下一句:“我还有其他居民面对真正的问题”,就离开房间。只留下符宝健一人,被冷待了15分钟。 他说,写信志工有来到房间,但一直避开和他接触,而是与其他居民交谈。最终符宝健告诉他,即便不想和他对话,也好让他转交请愿书给议员。 即便如此,职工也只是挥挥手,请他交给另一名志工。 “感到议员拒绝对话”…

【冠状病毒19】国大医院两名保洁人员确诊

与此同时,有国大医院的两名保洁人员(housekeeping)确诊感染冠状病毒19. 他们分别是28岁(第15259例)和24岁(第15700例)的马国男子。 根据卫生部5月1日发布的文告,两人是在上月28日确诊,近期不曾前往境外疫情重灾区。 第15700在出现症状后就没有到医院上班,但第15259例则在入院前扔去上班。 目前,第15259例已在国大医院接受治疗,第15700例则在中央医院接受治疗。 至于在上月29日,卫生部文告曾提及,一名国家传染病中心护士在当天确诊,她是23岁的马国女子(第15237例)。 她是在23日出现症状。在入院前,她曾领病假,但仍有返回医院上班数小时。