TR EMERITUS

(June 27, 2014) - Wan Qingliang Is Under Investigation for Suspected 'Violations of Discipline and Law' SHANGHAI—China put the top Communist Party official in the southern economic powerhouse city of Guangzhou under investigation and appointed a successor, in a fresh signal that Beijing is continuing a major anticorruption drive. Wan Qingliang, a 50-year-old who briefly served as Guangzhou's mayor before he became the city's Communist Party chief about two years ago, is under investigation for "suspected serious violations of...   Read more:   http://online.wsj.com/articles/china-probes-guangzhou-party-chief-wan-qingliang-1403863214?mod=World_newsreel_4      Read More →

Six women aged between 18 and 30 years old were charged in court yesterday (27 Jun) over an attack on a 19-year-old girl, also from PRC, Ms Zheng Lu. The incident happened in K-Box, a karaoke chain, at Orchard Cineleisure, on the night of 2 May last month. Of the six charged, five are Chinese nationals while 1 is a new Singaporean citizen: Wu Huamin, 18, PRC, student Wu Huachun,19, PRC, student Qiu Zhulin, 28, PRC, assistant account manager Liu Jiabao, 30, Singapore PR, housewife Wang Xi, 23, Singapore PR, student Ding Jiao, 28, new citizen, consultant On the night of 2 May at about 11pm, for some reasons, Wu Huachun together with Wang were allegedly attacking Ms Zheng, punching and kicking her. This was said to have gone on for 3 hours. At about 2am, the other 4 allegedly also joined in the attack. Ding, Wang, Liu, Qiu and Wu Huamin were accused of taking part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause hurt to Ms Zheng. Wu Huachun was charged together with Wang for voluntarily causing hurt to Ms Zheng. This is believed to be the second case of rioting involving PRCs at K-Box in recent months. In April this year, five women, also from PRC, were charged with rioting for allegedly attacking 20-year-old student Chen Xing on Nov 10 last year. The 5, all students, are: Shi Yanjun, 17 Li Xuefei, 19 Hu Heying, 20 Ma Ruian, 21 Pan Jingwen, 19 They are scheduled to go for another pre-trial conference on 7 July while the first 6 will go for theirs on 21 July. If convicted of rioting, each offender could be jailed for up to seven years. For voluntarily causing hurt, the offender could be jailed up to 2 years and/or fined up to $5,000. Meanwhile, the 6 were told not to approach the victim, Ms Zheng. PRCs behaving badly outside China PRCs behaving badly even outside of their country appears to be a common phenomenon these days. Last year, South China Morning Post reported PRC tourists got into a fist fight in a French lavender field [Link]. A Chinese wedding party and a group of PRC tourists got into a scuffle in a lavender field in Provence, France as they jockeyed for better backdrops for their wedding photos. The video of the fight, which was shot by one of the tourists involved, was posted online and went viral. One woman in the video shouted, “You mainlanders behave so badly”, fueling speculation that one of the groups might be from Hong Kong or Taiwan. The PRC group was rumoured to be tourists from Anhui province. When asked to comment on the incident, Anhui government said, “We have an obligation to inform tourists to behave well, but we can’t force them to do so.” Many Chinese netizens criticised their fellow compatriots. “You guys make all Chinese people lose face,” said one Weibo user. “If you go abroad, you represent not only yourself, but also all Chinese people,” commented another. Others felt sorry that the beautiful French lavender field had been damaged in the fight.    Read More →

Medishield Life comes through as a grand exercise in OBFUSCATION, concealing or diverting attention away from the essential truth, and beguiling the ordinary folks into a false sense of hope and relief. Unfortunately, the much sought "peace of mind" would continue to elude most of the folks. The conditional waiving of "pre-existing condition" can be best seen as little more than a bait to achieve a larger and harmful purpose that remains unspoken and cleverly hidden. The key to uncovering the hidden purpose is the following question: Why is the government-managed Medishield Life scheme limited to class B2 and C wards in government hospitals ? In contrast, the original CPF plans (A - C) of the 1990s covered the full range of the wards (classes A, B and C) in government hospitals. Even the existing Medishield scheme, underlying the current Integrated Medishield Plans (IPs), since 2005, covers all classes of wards in government hospitals. The Medishield Life scheme, therefore, appears to be a severely curtailed version of the current Medishield by virtue of its being narrowed down to B2 and C wards.  Unless you have private insurance, you are effectively locked out of the A and B1 wards of government hospitals. Yet this is not something that has happened all of a sudden.  There have been ample signs of what is slowing creeping up on us all, both in actual practice and the choice of language (labels).  It started out with the A wards of government hospitals being talked of in the same breathe as private hospitals.  That was the start of the tendentious conflation of A wards (government hospitals) and private hospitals. The conflation was embedded into the very structures of the Integrated Medishield Plans (IPs) offered by the five government-approved 'private' insurers.  In popular discourse, the following characterisation in respect of government hospital wards was being fostered: Classes B2 and C wards as "public"; Class A ward as "private"; Class B1 ward being some kind of intermediate. i.e. "private wards" in a government (public) hospital, whether "restructured" or not ! This has helped government hospitals to join the medical tourism game! This has helped government hospitals to join the medical tourism game! With Medishield Life, the point is being reached whereby any government hospital will be effectively partitioned into two parts, leaving little room for ambiguity or squeamishness: "public" wards (classes B2 and C) - eligible by Medishield Life; "private" wards (class A) - eligible by private insurance. "B1" is the placeholder for the in-between. There will be a categorical shrinkage of the "public" space in the government hospital system.  The best of hospital resources and medical talents available within a government hospital would be cornered by the "private" parts of the government hospital. This can only encourage the government hospitals to redouble their effort to lure medical tourists and other "private" or "full-paying" patients. The best of resources and medical personnel (from nurses to doctors/surgeons) available within government hospitals will be diverted toward serving these "private" patients in the A wards and specialist (outpatient) clinics of the very same hospitals, competing against the private hospitals for a share of the potential revenue. The partial privatisation of the government hospitals would become an inescapable reality. Whereas the local "cattles" would be herded into B2 and C wards, with no assurance of any objective standard of care. The announcement on Medishield Life speaks only of premiums, without any commitment on the standard of medical care to be expected in those "public" wards, as well as in specialist clinics (in the case of "public" patients).  There is also no mention about the complicated list of categories of surgery (or hospital procedures), which impose strict limits on claims.  There is also strange silence on the matter of deductibles and co-payment, which together help ensure that, in many instances, the insurers pay nothing and the insured (patients) everything on top of the 'subsidies'. The premiums are merely the visible 10% of the huge healthcare iceberg. The hidden 90% comprises parts of the healthcare maze that would continue to ensnare the ailing "public", patients and their families alike !   A TRE Reader * Submitted by TRE reader    Read More →