TR EMERITUS

As a member of the Pioneer Generation turning 70 soon and having worked in the insurance industry for 15 years and also undergone at least 16 episodes of hospitalisation, I wish to share some views on the much vaunted Medishield Life proposals which will be debated and adopted by Parliament soon. I was first hospitalized at SGH at the age of 5 for a hernia operation. I slept in a bed on the corridor in a C class ward next to the window. When I wanted to urinate at night no one heeded my call. Since I didn’t want to wet my bed or the floor I got up and climbed on to the window sill and from there wee-weed on to the grass outside. Through the years I contracted diphtheria and chicken pox but managed to avoid the hospital and through the TCM doctors I survived what was then a deadly and contagious disease. When I started working in the 70’s and in the decades that followed I was hospitalized at IMH, Mt Elizabeth, Mt Alvernia, Gleneagles and SGH, for a variety of illnesses ranging fom piles, prostate enlargement, cataract, oedema in the eye, benign pitituary tumours, radiation, laminectomy, wrist and arm bone surgery plus the latest tendon transfer about a year ago. In a sense I was fortunate because I have not been hit by the big C’s like cancer, coronary or cardiac diseases and managed to keep my medical expenses low and affordable. I hardly had any private insurance except that provided by the employer and the Medishield Plus policy paid through my medisave account. I do not worry too much about medical expenses because I am content with a B2 or a C class ward if any thing catastrophic hits me. Through the last 10 years I made frequent visits to Specialist Outpatient clinics, and was hospitalized at least 3 times at SGH and once at Mt. Alvernia. I also do not have much in my Medisave Account because I do not believe in keeping excessive amounts in my Medisave Account but enough to keep my Medishield Plus Policy alive so that if anything were to happen I would still be covered. Now fast forward to 2014 and the current buzz over the Medishield Life and the Pioneer Generation Package and I wonder to myself what is the fuss all about? Why can’t we keep things simple and straightforward? Why can’t the government just provide universal coverage by providing B2 or C Class hospitalization for its citizens with a simple deductible of a couple of thousand dollars from their CPF or from cash? Why postpone the future problem of the “paimiah generation” which currently numbers 404,000 aged 65 and older. Remember we have another 2.5 million Singaporeans who will eventually hit 65 in the years to come. What then? Will there be more “paimiah generation” packages and transitional subsidies to tide them over till they hit 100? Medishield policies as pointed  out by NCMP Gerald Giam in Parliament creams off $1.5 billion from the medisave accounts of Singaporeans in the last 12 years. This is grossly unethical. Why does the government still choose to provide universal health care coverage through the vultures in the insurance industry. We should weed them out or “delayer” an entire bureaucracy whose only function is to collect premium and process claims. Medical inflation is created by greed in the health care industry and in recent years it is further buoyed by medical tourism from tycoons, royalty and Sheikhs. Inevitably our public hospitals are also affected creating a class divide for both wards and specialist services. Cost containment by keeping oneself healthy is to be expected from any responsible person who wishes to live a long and healthy life. Cost containment in the health industry can also be done by weeding out expensive procedures and Ferraris, Porsches and BMW’s parked opulently outside valet operated hospital car parks. Finally the issue with the CPF is not just about Medishield Life. It is also about retirement and if at least half the CPF account holders do not have the Minimum Sum to retire then it is time for the government to abort the Medisave Scheme and step up to its responsibility of providing universal healthcare for all citizens. Patrick Low *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

COI also censured Deputy Assistant Commissioner Lu Yeow Lim Riot in Singapore's Little India, 8 Dec 2013 The Committee of Inquiry (COI) said dissatisfaction among foreign workers with their jobs and living conditions in Singapore was not a cause of the riot that broke out at Little India on 8 Dec last year. It released its final report yesterday (30 Jun). COI said that nearly every foreign worker it spoke to - including those who were involved in the riot - testified emphatically that they were "happy with their jobs and living quarters in Singapore". "The COI's finding is that labour issues were not involved proximately or remotely," it added. The COI said that "attempts to frame the riot as a racial issue are completely unfounded when compared against the facts". Racial or ethnic issues did not arise from any of the evidence gathered, or in any of the committee's discussions with witnesses including those involved in the riot as well as non-complicit foreign workers in Singapore. COI attributed the riot to 3 causes: Misunderstandings about the accident and response Culture and psychology of the crowd Alcohol and intoxication It said that alcohol was a "major contributory factor", noting that 4 foreign workers who pleaded guilty to the rioting had admitted consuming alcohol on the day of the riot. The COI also noted that the police's decision to hold their positions instead of engaging the mob gave the rioters a "free rein to do whatever they wanted" despite the presence of a sizeable number of officers. "The COI believes (police incident manager) Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Lu Yeow Lim should have made more effort to establish the resources available and find out more about the situation," it said. DAC Lu had testified that engaging the mob with the officers he had before the SOC's arrival could have sparked retaliation and forced the use of firearms. Disagreeing, the committee noted that two officers who charged and drove the crowd back temporarily were not overwhelmed. During the riot, 54 police officers and other first responders were injured, and more than $530,000 worth of government property damaged. Recommendations were made by the COI to prevent future riots: Beefing up police manpower, including the SOC Cutting the layers of authority needed to activate emergency personnel Improving communications and command-and-control capabilities in SPF Strictly enforcing measures against public drunkenness Putting in place alcohol restrictions in hot spots DPM Teo said his ministry and the Manpower Ministry would study the recommendations and give the Government's response in Parliament next week.  Read More →

The PAP convened a COI which spent 4 months hearing witness statements and poring over video evidence to come up with the following self-evident observations? 1. Improve living conditions of foreign workers. 2. Control alcohol consumption at hotspots. 3. Improve training for police personnel to respond to riot situations. 4. Provide more alternative venues for foreign workers to meet to lessen congestion in current congregation areas. Let's not forget that poor living conditions had already been highlighted as a source of grievance during the enquiry into the SMRT strike by the group of drivers from China the year before. Also, during the COI, Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee had highlighted that police resources were stretched by the need to ensure law and order in Geylang which was a bigger potential hotspot than Little India. As the Home Affairs Minister, we would be surprised if Teo Chee Hean was not aware of the problem. And if he was, why didn't he do anything about it? So now all the above beg the question: are Teo Chee Hean and Tan Chuan Jin (Manpower) guilty of dereliction of duty? Shouldn't they have been more pro-active, identifying and solving problems, rather than reacting to them like fire-fighters waiting for the next hotspot? With the millions of dollars they are paid, surely we don't need a COI made up of a former judge, an ex-police commissioner, a trade union president and a PAP grassroots committee chairman to identify this list of self-evident truisms?   The Alternative View [source]: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739    Read More →