Image - The Straits Times
Image – The Straits Times

By Howard Lee

“(ESM Goh Chok Tong) noted that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Government had listened to the people since the last election and accelerated many plans and programmes. So if Singaporeans are happy with what has been done, they should give the ruling party “a strong mandate to continue with what they are trying to do”, said Mr Goh.” – MyPaper, 27 August 2015

Shortly after I published the response by the Ministry of Health to my query on the Medishield Life issue for overseas Singaporeans, petition lead Juliet Low informed me that she has received a similar response from MOH following the submission of her petition to caretaker Health Minister Gan Kim Yong.

In fact, it was more than similar. “An exact copy” would have been a better description. Both response letters had an almost paragraph-for-paragraph mirror, and both were littered with shared phrases like “national risk pool”, “collective responsibility”, “help Singaporeans pay”, “subsidies”, “request for assistance”, “assess accordingly”, “non-payment of premiums in itself is not an offence that will lead to imprisonment”, “lifelong coverage”, “wilfully ignored”, “imposed on wilful defaulters as a last resort”, “smooth implementation of MediShield Life”, “review our policies”, and “seek the views of the MediShield Life Council”.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the image below. The letter Juliet received is on the left, while the one I received is on the right. Both were sent by different people in MOH’s quality service management department, on the very same day.

MOH letters Medishield Life petition

Suffice to say that someone came in with a check list of keywords to use in any correspondence regarding Medishield Life, cross-checked against the online FAQs, and pushed out two adapted drawer statements. And who knows how many more of such statements have been sent out already, and more to come after November 2015.

Sadly, drawer statements are for standard queries, not for an instance where 1,700 (and counting) petitioners knock on your door asking for a dialogue on a very specific issue. Are 200,000 overseas Singaporeans not worth the time of the Minister?

For media, perhaps drawer statements are par for the course. Frankly, I wasn’t hopeful for an answer at all, so kudos to MOH for responding. But to a concerned Singaporean with real issues, the matter could have been better addressed. How about a simple, “Thank you for the feedback, very good points made, we are currently reviewing, how do we contact you for a meet up to discuss, do you Skype?”

All we see here is a sincere petition sent to the Minister diverted to customer service, and a PR mechanism kicked in automatically to shield the Minister – who by all counts has a lot to answer for directly given that Medishield Life is a key piece of legislation that would affect the lives of all Singaporeans, and repeatedly paraded as a sign of the government doing something good for Singapore since the last GE.

All we see is a very well-oiled corporate communications operation, which sadly leaves very little room for attending to the specific needs of citizens. And for that, we have failed as a system that has been prattling on about consultation and conversations – including one done on a massive national scale to which a follow-up platform is still lacking.

How can Singaporeans be convinced, then, that our politicians are listening to their concerns? Here we are, offering valid criticisms to loopholes, even potential pitfalls in Acts already passed in Parliament, and the response has been “we are still good to go, we’ll think about it and let you know”?

Clearly, hearing is not the same as listening, and the PAP is deluded if it thinks it is doing citizens right.

NDR2015 LHL PMOIronically, ESM Goh Chok Tong’s latest words on the government listening might not hold ground, and if you do a word search on caretaker PM Lee Hsien Loong’s 2015 National Day Rally speech, you will find that he alluded to listening to citizens three times, and not every time leading to concrete policies. On the other hand, he used “tell” up to five times to communicate his policies to citizens, including one where another Minister is supposed to deliver some policy initiative. Go figure.

Juliet, in particular, is clearly exasperated with the what is happening, as she felt that MOH has not addressed any of the concerns raised.

“We have done this in a manner that respects Mr Gan himself and we hope that he will reply in a respectable manner to our concerns as well,” she had written back to MOH saying. “We raised an official petition. We went through the proper channels… However, we want this to be addressed, not to be swept under the carpet!”

“We want to be part of the consultation process with the Medishield Life Council. There has been decisions made on behalf of Overseas Singaporeans when none of us have been duly consulted, and poor assumptions about our situation had been made. This is not fair policy making. We are part of your focus of a “smooth implementation of MediShield Life”. That is your collective national duty towards us as Overseas Singaporeans.”

Gan Kim Yong
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong

Perhaps this brush with Medishield Life is an isolated case, but I have my doubts. Perhaps the bureaucratic machinery is deliberately decoupled from the Minister, but it really shouldn’t be.

At this time more than any, the PAP needs to convince the people that what it has been doing has been a direct response to ground sentiments. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. It suggests a government machine that is still too willing to proceed as planned, and consultation would be done only at a time it is comfortably with – usually when the deed has already been done.

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

兀兰警署水龙头被偷 网民酸水龙头怎么那么贵?

日前,一名男子前往兀兰警署总部保释亲人时,趁机将警署内,价值171.20新元的水龙头偷走。警方经一个月的调查和调阅闭路电视,发现男子并正式逮捕他,昨日(15日)被控上法庭,判处3个月监禁。 偷窃案件曝光后,引发网民关注,许多网民质疑,警方是调阅闭路电视才揪出男子,是否意味着即便在厕所也遭到监控,令他们感到疑惑和不安。 对此,《亚洲新闻台》向总检察署查证,有关警署厕所内装监视器是否属实,而总检察署的回应指,监视器并非装载厕所内,而是厕所门口。 “监视器面向男厕的门口。其犯罪行为会被发现,是因为刚好拍摄到他从门口走出去。”故此,我们至少知道,当局不至于以监视器窥探个人隐私。 另一网民关注的重点是,为何一个警署内的水龙头需用到价值171.20新元? 事实上,兀兰警署是去年11月25日才开始运营。根据警方此前声明,兀兰警署作为新的地区总部,需要“为新加坡人民的需求提供更好的服务”,由陈亮华担任署长。 然而,水龙头一般价格落在什么价位?本社英文站前往查看,与民众最常购买家具的宜家家居进行比对,发现兀兰警署内所使用的水龙头价格,比大多数在宜家网页售卖的水龙头都贵,除了最贵的一款售价175元。 偷窃案报导曝光后,引来网友许多关注,网友都将焦点放在水龙头的价格和厕所内是否装有监视器。部分网友质疑为何警署需要用到这么贵的水龙头: 网友Ray Howe:真的吗?既然水龙头价格这么贵,那一定有他特别的地方 网友Richardson Lau:…

专访淡马亚:点评政经时事 看好在野政党有望合作

新加坡民主党(SDP)主席淡马亚医生(Paul Ananth Tambyah),最近接受网络公民专访,对各项课题侃侃而谈,从他的从政生涯和动机、对新加坡公共医疗体系的看法、政治现金争议、党派联盟的看法、再到假新闻法案,对即将到来的来届大选所带来的影响,以及阐述他对该党未来计划和目标的期望。他指出,各替代政党合作并非不可能,但是反假新闻法案可能会成为绊脚石。 在考虑踏上从政路之前,淡马亚是一名传染病研究员和医生。虽然他的家人都非常支持他,但是当初其母亲对他的选择持有怀疑态度,淡马亚曾面对很大挑战。他的母亲以及他们那一代,受到了90年代媒体描绘民主党的影响,对徐顺全(Dr Chee)及其政党持有负面和消极的看法。 要改变一切需从政 很多人都想加入人民行动党,认为“从里面改变事物”,是“较顺畅”的道路。淡马亚曾以为,在政府和各部门举办的公共论坛上,提供反馈意见更佳。“ 但是最终,我认为我得到的结论是,这个系统有点过于根深蒂固了,很难改变。一个人试图改变整个行动党的运转,几乎是不可能的。” 淡马亚的最终目标不是成为国会议员。他踏入政治界并加入民主党,因为他希望改善新加坡的事物。他提出的其中一个例子,就是已被认为是世界最好的我国医疗保健系统。然而,许多人还是没有获得适当的医疗服务,并且最需要资源的人士也没有获得配给。 这个问题需要具有强烈意识的政党提出,而这就是民主党的用武之处,淡马亚表示,他们拥有明确的意识,视人民福利重于利润、视智慧终于财富,以及在“宣言”提及了,关于生活费用和各种其他政策。 他小说,第二任总理吴作栋,曾告诉新加坡作家林宝音(Catherine Lim):“如果你想改变一切,你必须进入政界”。…

Man accused of Felicia Teo’s murder now has legal representation

The man who is accused of murdering Ms Felicia Teo Wei Ling…