TR EMERITUS

From The Malaysian Insider Lee Kuan Yew — the father of modern Singapore — will visit Malaysia next week, touring several states and meeting with a number of Malaysian leaders and senior journalists in what has been billed as a trip down memory lane. But there is nothing nostalgic about the trip for the longest-serving Singapore prime minister, senior minister and now minister mentor. He has been at the helm of Singapore since 1959, brought Singapore to form Malaysia and cried when it had to go independent in 1965. His week-long visit is packed with meetings from the start in Kuala Lumpur where he meets MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on Monday. A day later, he will meet Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Umno vice-presidents and Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. And some editors of major Malaysian media. Kuan Yew then moves to Ipoh to meet Perak Ruler Sultan Azlan Shah and Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir despite the political impasse in the silver state. His trip continues to Penang where he will pay a visit to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and other leaders of the DAP, an off-shoot of his People's Action Party (PAP) after Singapore left the federation in 1965. The octogenarian will then cross the peninsula to the Malay heartland and meet Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and the Kelantan regent. It will be his first face-to-face meeting with Nik Aziz, the PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan mentri besar for the past 19 years. It is a recognition by Singapore of the growing importance of the Islamist party in Malaysia. Kuan Yew will also pay a courtesy call on Pahang's Sultan Ahmad Shah and the Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob. Lightweight tourism for old times' sake it is not. What is clear is that Kuan Yew wants to feel the pulse of the country that became Malaysia on his 40th birthday in 1963 and figure out if the political landscape will be altered drastically after the next general elections. The unprecedented win by the opposition pact in Election 2008 where Islamists and secularists came together on a common platform to capture four more states and break Barisan Nasional's two-thirds parliamentary majority was clearly a shock to Singapore which has only known PAP rule since independence. Much of that victory has been credited with a younger population and politicians who are savvier in connecting with them, using the Internet to overcome the mass and mainstream media controlled by the government. Much the same as in Singapore. And since Election 2008, Singapore politicians have been wondering whether the strong showing by the Pakatan Rakyat is sustainable or whether Umno will be able to recover lost ground and triumph in the next polls. So what happens in Malaysia is very important for Singapore, which is sandwiched between two Asean giants Malaysia and Indonesia, and has been derisively called a little red dot by some Malaysian leaders. And of utmost importance to Kuan Yew whose pessimism about Singapore survival after being asked to leave Malaysia fuelled his determination to turn the city-state without any natural resources into one of the most developed port and financial hubs in the world. He is someone that Malaysia can learn from. The only thing is, Lee Kuan Yew is in Malaysia to learn, for his country's future. Source: The Malaysian Insider  Read More →

By Dr Albert Lin and Eugene Yeo I was alerted to the plight of Mr Gary Tan by Eugene who emailed me to ask if a Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) has the right to admit a person to IMH on the grounds of a mental disorder. According to a blog post by Mr Chia Ti Lik, the lawyer for Mr Gary Tan on 3 June 2009: "DPP John Loo had instructions to apply for Gary to be remanded in the IMH for 3 weeks on the basis that he is delusional in his blog postings and that he had been allegedly remanded in IMH before in 2006." (read article here) I never did a posting at IMH as a medical officer. My only knowledge about its modus operandi comes from friends who had done a posting there and as a MO at NUH A&E where we refer psychiatric cases to the psy MO on call pretty often. To my limited understanding, IMH has a stringent set of criteria for admission. It has a A&E run 24 hours a day by a medical officer on call. The few instances when admission is seriously considered are: 1. Patient is at high risk of suicide or deliberate self-harm if not admitted. 2. Acute psychosis where the patient is deemed to be a threat to the lives of himself and others. 3. Severe depression in which the patient refuses any food or drinks. [We have a few readers here who are psychiatrists. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion] The MO on call does not decide on the admission. He/she has to consult a senior doctor, usually a Registrar who has passed his Masters in Medicine (M.MED) examination in Psychiatry to determine if the case warrants an admission. The majority of patients residing at IMH are chronic schizophrenics who are incapable of self-care or are abandoned by their families. IMH now prefers to discharge the stable schizophrenics back to the community where they can be close with families and friends so as to facilitate their re-integration into society. The reasons cited by DPP John Loo for remanding Mr Gary Tan at IMH are not clinical decisions and neither are they justifications for admission. In the first place, DPP John Loo is not medically trained in psychiatry to diagnose Mr Gary Tan as having a delusional disorder based on his blog postings alone. Even a family physician like me will have to refer him to a psychiatrist for further evaluation. Furthermore, delusional disorder is not a criteria for admission to IMH unless it can be established that the patient is a danger onto himself and others as a result of his delusion. A previous admission to IMH was never a criteria to determine if the patient requires an admission which is based solely on the result of the psychiatric examination at the point in time. In this case where Gary's mental fitness to plead is of suspect, he can be referred for a psychiatric evaluation which can be completed within a day where a psychiatrist can determine if he needs to be remanded on clinical grounds. Based on the information provided by Mr Chia, I can only conclude that the Attorney-General Chambers may have a prior arrangement with IMH to remand suspects of "unsound mind" which are beyond the jurisdiction of their in-house psychiatrists. This arbitrary confinement of suspects at IMH has the double effect of casting doubts on their mental capacity and preventing their side of the story to be heard at an open trial in court. Besides Gary, there are other high profile cases where the suspect is remanded at IMH without going to trial. In January 2009, Ong Kar Chua was remanded at IMH for torching PAP MP Seng Han Thong. He was never charged in court, his defence was not heard and Singaporeans may never know the real motives behind his act. Boon Suan Ban, a stock remisier from Hwang-DBS Group, was sentenced to be detained in Institude of Mental Health until it pleases the president, as a result of his financial disputes involving Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Mr Robert Ho, had been detained in Institude of Mental Health several times. Robert is a writer and internet activist, who whistle-blowed about the alleged polling fraud during General Election 1997, at hot contested Cheng San GRC. We need to take the government to task and to hold them accountable for their actions: 1. Do the AGC, DPP or District Court have the power to order the detention of persons at IMH without the input of a psychiatrist? 2. What rights do these detainees have? 3. What does this say about the rule of law in Singapore? The apparent arbitariness exhibited by the authorities in ordering the detention of persons at IMH with little transparency or accountability leaves much to be desired and leave citizens at the mercy of an all-powerful government. Don't dismiss the PothePanda case as an isolated incident which does not concern you for as long the existing laws are not changed, it may happen to you or me one day and we will have no revenues to seek legal redress. Singaporeans must be educated on their basic human rights and to call on the police to shed more light on how the internal decision-making process to determine if a person should be remanded at IMH. Are we a modern democracy or a police state like Burma and North Korea where political dissidents can be made to "disappear" from society without a fuss?  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan The Aware saga showed no signs of abating even after the new exco took office as proxy battles take place behind the scene in retaliation for "outsiders" for purportedly take side in the sordid affair which led to a public humiliation for Josie Lau and team. The latest tussle occured over the online ST Forum where 'feminist mentor' Dr Thio Su Mien traded angry barbs with John Hui Yip Kiong over the speech made by the former's daughter NMP Thio Li Ahn in Parliament on 'militant secularism'. In her defence, Dr Thio wrote that she shares the government's view that 'the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family', is society's building block. She went hold to berate Aware for promoting the homosexual agenda with its CSE in schools: "Aware did much to promote women's concerns. However, I found its apparent recent shift to advocating the homosexual agenda alarming.....The CSE instructors guide contained 'explicit and inappropriate' content which conveyed 'messages which could promote homosexuality'. This violated MOE guidelines that sex education must promote 'family values'." (Straits Times Forum, 1 June 2009) Dr Thio, like the "concerned parents" who wrote to MOE quoted two examples to support her allegations against Aware: 1. The 1 minute segment in the Aware's instruction manual containing the following sentences that "homosexuality is neutral" and "anal sex can be healthy". 2. Screening of a movie 'Spider Lilies' about the life of two lesbians. For Dr Thio's hypothesis to hold true, we must assume that a 1 minute talk to secondary school children about homosexuality being normal and screening of movies with a homosexual theme will somehow "convert" heterosexuals into homosexuals. However, this notion perpetuated by Dr Thio is no more than a mere fallacy which has been debunked by several secular, scientific and medical associations: In the publication “Just the facts About Sexual Orientation and Youths A Primer for Principals, educators and School personnel” which is endorsed by the following: American Academy of Pediatrics American Association of School Administrations American Counseling Association American Federation of Teachers American Psychological Association American School Counselor Association American School Health Association Interfaith Alliance Foundation National Association of School Psychologists National Association of School Principals National Association of Social Workers National Education Association School Social Work Association of America It is stated: “The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or the emergence of same sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has NO support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organization.” Furthermore, the Royal College of Psychiatrists state that "there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.... that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens." (Source: Royal College of Psychiatrists) Dr Thio's fears and concerns that Aware's CSE will lead to a "generation of gays and lesbians" are seriously and cldearly misinformed, misguided and misrepresented which she used to justify the takeover of Aware in order to defend "family values". How does one defend "traditional mainstream family values"? I supposed Dr Thio is referring to a civil union between a heterosexual couple to set up a family. As homosexuals are unable to procreate, they are perceived as a "threat" to the heterosexual family unit. The real threat to the "conventional family" in Singapore lies not in the homosexual community, but in the rising number of divorces which has doubled over the last decade. The most common reasons cited for divorce are financial difficulties, incompatibility of characters and adultery and not the husband or wife changing their sexual orientation halfway into the marriage. Dr Thio Su Mien is barking up the wrong tree. If she is genuinely concerned about promoting "family values" in Singapore, she should think of ways to help the government bring down the divorce rates and encourage young Singaporeans to marry instead of harping on the homosexuality agenda which is destroying the good work done by the Christian community to empower young couples through pre-marital counselling and marriage workshops. While we uphold the "heterosexual family" as the basic building block of society, we should not ignore the blind spots, that "traditional families" have the potential to become dysfunctional too which may do more harm than good to the next generation. Take for example a heterosexual family whose parents are divorced and their child end up neglected, unloved and uncared for compared to a homosexual couple in a stable, loving relationship who adopt a child and bring him/her up as a responsible member of society. As in all relationships, be it heterosexual or homosexual, the key to sustain it lies in open communication, trust, honesty, sincerity and a committment to make it work. Parents should be more concerned whether their children are equipped with the necessary knowledge and communication skills to build a stable, long-lasting and fulfilling partnership with their spouses in future rather than them being influenced by homosexuals to become one themselves. Let us not get distracted from the real battle to defend mainstream family values which is encourage more couples to tie the knot and to save marriages on the brink of divorce. Homosexuals should be left alone to their own privacy. There are more pressing tasks at hand. We should stop polarizing our secular society further with a 'crusade' against the sexual minorities based on misguided beliefs under the guise of defending "family values".  Read More →