TR EMERITUS

作者:雷风雨 卫生部说成本包括分销、存货盘点、注射费，以及相关营运成本, 所以没从疫苗赚钱, 可是康威医疗集团规模比较小, 却能从更廉宜的价格提供服务, 可从想见卫生部一众领高薪的大爷计算成本的方式与HDB师出同门. 他们虽提供软次的服务, 却满脑子的市价, 成本比私人诊高, 居然还不赚钱, 不如把疫苗注射服务外包给康威医疗集团算了. . .MIW老早放出风声不打算从疫苗赚钱, 一副大恩人的谱斯, 结果不过如此.许多欧洲国家还提供免费疫苗(只收少许服务费)呢, 许文远真是菩萨心肠啊. 早报网:在本地有50间诊所的康威医疗集团每剂疫苗收费27元8角（包含消费税），比政府综合诊所便宜1元2角。 虽然价格差距不大，不过还是有一些公众质疑：政府综合诊所主要服务对象是中下阶层新加坡人，为何它们的疫苗收费竟然会比私人诊所高？虽然卫生部之前已经 强调政府不会津贴疫苗注射的费用，而政府综合诊所会以成本价出售给公众，不过为何以同样价格购得疫苗的私人诊所却能以更低价格出售疫苗？ 因担心到政府综合诊所注射疫苗要排队，而选择到邻里私人家庭诊所注射的学生邱昉（21岁）获知政府和私人诊所疫苗的差价后很惊奇：“政府（综合）诊所不是应该比较便宜吗？难道它们是为了避免人们蜂拥到那里而定下比较高的价格？” 据本报了解，所有家庭诊所是以每剂疫苗17元（包含消费税）的成本价向卫生部指定医药产品分销商拿货，不过，个别诊所可以自行决定出售给公众的收费。 拥有72间私人诊所的莱佛士医疗发言人说，他们是在卫生部宣布综合诊疗所的29元售价之前就把每剂的价格暂定在30元，集团后来发现标价跟综合诊所相差不远，所以最终把价格定在30元。 根据卫生部较早给本报的解释，政府综合诊所每剂疫苗29元的定价除了包括疫苗本身的成本外，还要算分销、存货盘点、注射费，以及相关营运成本。 来源：大马华人网站  Read More →

From our Correspondent In yet another sign that the ruling party is running out of ideas to placate its disaffected and disgruntled citizens, its propagandist mouthpiece - the Straits Times has published another article from a PR blaming Singapore citizens for not being "appreciative" of their country. Mr Sam Ahmed began his letter by announcing unashamedly that he is a "new PR": "I REFER to Thursday's report, 'Singapore a top choice for migrants. I am a new permanent resident, and this report not only makes me proud, but also affirms my fundamental belief that Singapore is destined to be a global centre from a financial standpoint and a cultural and social perspective." Strangely enough, for a self-proclaimed "new PR", Mr Sam had the cheek to claim that Singaporeans do not share his "passion" for Singapore: "My only beef with Singapore is that its citizens do not necessarily share my passion for this country.....Perhaps Singaporeans should be prouder of their country. Cab drivers complain about everything and university graduates I come across talk of saving up and moving to Spain or Italy." Mr Sam Ahmed should ask the cab drivers why they are so unhappy with the government why university graduates are considering leaving Singapore for good instead of blindly believing the spins, myths and half-truths propagated by the state media. He ended his rather one-sided and subjective article with a question on why foreigners from all over the world are still flocking to Singapore: "If foreigners from all over the world can see this and are coming to Singapore, why can't Singaporeans?" A key reason is because the ruling party has done a remarkably good job in branding and promoting itself overseas. Being a relatively safe, prosperous and affluent country, it is only natural that Singapore is a magnet for foreigners from less developed nations in the region. However, Singapore is not an attractive destination at all for the creme la crop in other countries. According to a recent Gallup, the top immigration destination for Chinese is the United States, followed by South Korea and France. Based on anecdotal evidence, the majority of PRC PRs and citizens in Singapore are from the poorer inland provinces and not the affluent coastal cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing. Mr Sam Ahmed should walk his talk and take up a Singapore citizenship. Perhaps after living a few years in Singapore, he will come to understand why most Singapore citizens are not passionate about their country.  Read More →

OPINION It appears that Singapore is fast turning into a country of loansharks judging from the number of Singaporeans who are charged and jailed lately for loanshark activities. Almost every other day, there will be a newspaper article of a man being jailed for being loanshark or a girl for harassing debtors and the sentences passed are getting stiffer to send a strong "deterrent" message to others. A 16 year Malay girl was sentenced to 4 years in jail for splashing paint onto the door of a debtor. The judge said in the passing that there is a need to send a "strong deterrent message" to others that youth is not an excuse for getting involved in loanshark activities. Two debtors turned runners who took on jobs of harassing debtors on behalf of three unlicensed moneylenders were given stiff jail sentences of six and seven years respectively as well as more than a dozen strokes of cane. In another case, a group of 15 Singaporeans were charged in court for letting a loanshark syndicate use their bank accounts. They had allegedly opened bank accounts only to hand their ATM cards and personal identification numbers over to the syndicate for activities like debt collection. Under the law, those found to have assisted a loanshark to carry out his business face a maximum punishment of two years' jail and a $200,000 fine. While the perpetuators deserved to be punished under the law, questions must be raised over the severe punishment meted out - does the punishment fit the crime? For example, the 16 year old girl can be spared a jail term because of her tender age. She should be placed on probation and properly rehabilitated to become a useful citizen of the country, but now with a lengthy jail term, it is unlikely she will be given another chance in society again. The two runners mentioned above are only 27 and 29 years of age. Is it too harsh to jail them for such a long period of time for the crime they committed? The authorities are fixated on sending a warning to the public that all forms of loanshark activities will not be tolerated and offenders will not be let off lightly, but they have not addressed the root cause of the problem: why are there so many loansharks in Singapore? Naturally when there is a demand for loansharks, they will continue to exist and proliferate. Some Singaporeans have no choice but to borrow from loansharks to make ends meet due to financial difficulties. If their cash flow problem can be resolved through other legal avenues, they will not need to resort to the loansharks in the first place. As for the 16 year old girl, she did not come from a well-to-do family and may be in urgent need of cash to support herself. The two jailed runners were initially debtors which suggest that they may be coerced to work for the loanshark in order to settle their debts. The government should adopt a multi-prong approach to tackle the loanshark problem instead of treating the symptoms only while ignoring the cause. A wider social safety net should be provided to help needy Singaporeans in financial distress to prevent them from becoming easy preys of loansharks. The criteria for the public aid scheme can be relaxed to allow more Singaporeans to qualify for it. Its monthly allowance should also be raised to more than the current amount of $330. Retrenched workers should be entitled to basic retrenchment benefits to tide them through the difficult period till they are gainfully employed. Local banks can start microcredit schemes to provide small loans to Singaporeans with low interest rates. Talks can be conducted at community centers and flyers given to households to inform Singaporeans of the various channels they can approach for financial assistance. Loansharks are the ultimate culprits and they should be given stiff sentences, not the runners and middle-men some of whom are actually victims of loansharks themselves. The relentless influx of foreigners in Singapore in recent years has led to depression of wages among the lower income group which is finding it hard to survive in the face of rampant inflation. Even for Singaporeans who are holding a job, they may be forced to borrow from loansharks during exceptional circumstances such as to pay for the medical expenses of a loved one. The presence and prevalence of loansharks in our society is symptomatic of a wider social problem which the government should not turn a blind eye to. The widening income gap is taking a toll on the lower income group and it will not go away simply by ensuring that there are plentiful jobs in the market for Singaporeans. An in-depth study should be conducted on the reasons why Singaporeans turn to loansharks before a comprehensive solution can be implemented to tackle the problem heads-on. Until then, punishing loansharks and their runners will only touch the surface of the problem and not its underlying cause.  Read More →