TR EMERITUS

Dr Jay Lu Jiade Immediately following Tan Tock Seng Hospital’s (TTSH) dismissal of blogger Roy Ngerng (‘Tan Tock Seng Hospital dismisses Roy Ngerng‘) on 10 June 2014, the Ministry of Health (MOH) also issued its statement the same day, supporting TTSH’s decision to terminate Roy’s employment. MOH said: MOH supports TTSH’s decision as Mr Ngerng’s actions show a lack of integrity and are incompatible with the values and standards of behaviour expected of hospital employees. A reader told TRE there was a case some time ago about another hospital employee, a foreign doctor, who was struck off from medical register in the US for selling Viagra online illegally, but who was later found to be working in the National University Hospital (NUH) in Singapore. Indeed, the foreign doctor is Dr Jay Lu Jiade who is currently still working in NUH [Link]. He is the Head and Senior Consultant at the Department of National University Cancer Institute of NUH: Dr Lu was, in fact, struck off from Florida’s medical register after he was caught selling the prescription drug Viagra online illegally in 1999 (‘Foreign doctor with license revoked in U.S. now employed by NUH in Singapore‘). Subsequently, he made his way to Singapore in 2001 and found a job with NUH. He has since been working in NUH/NCIS for the past 13 years. A relative of a NUH's patient, who first informed TRE about Dr Lu in 2012, wondered “how could someone with such a record” rise to attain senior leadership positions in our university hospital? She said, “I am concern what values are imparted to our young training doctors, given that NUH/NUS is a major teaching hospital in Singapore.” “I am very concern about the checks and balances for employment at NUH. Are independent checks being done on prospective foreign drs? A simple google search revealed so much detail about Prof Lu. I consider my family lucky as I managed to find this out before seeing Prof Lu. I have since decided to go to another hospital.” When the news of Dr Lu broke, NUH held a press conference on 7 September 2012 to defend its decision to hire him. NUH then said: “The National University Hospital (NUH) and the National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS) have looked into claims that a doctor on the staff of NCIS was hired to work here even though his practicing certificate had been revoked in the United States.” “Dr Lu has informed us that he very much regretted his 1999 involvement in the online prescription of drugs, which he puts down to a lapse of judgement. It is an error for which he has already been penalized by the US medical authorities where these offences occurred.” “He is a physician who has earned the gratitude of his patients and the respect of his colleagues and students.” "We took on board a talented and enthusiastic physician who, when he came to us, was not encumbered by legal challenges brought on by health regulatory bodies. Dr Lu has shared a full and thorough account of what transpired.” At the time, MOH did not issue any statements about Dr Lu, unlike Roy's case. Subsequently, TRE also wrote to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for comments on Dr Lu's case, since SMC, a statutory board under MOH, is in charge of governing and regulating the professional conduct and ethics of registered medical practitioners in Singapore. The first reply from SMC was in Sep 2012, saying that it was reviewing Dr Lu's case: From: SMC Enquiries (SMC) Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Subject of concern Thank you for your email and for writing to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). The SMC is aware of Dr Lu's case and processes have been underway to review this matter fully. Presently, the requisite processes will take its course to balance fairness to the practitioner and safety to the public. As the case is now pending, it is not appropriate for the SMC to comment further. As for your general query relating to the grants of licences in Singapore, SMC requires a doctor to make a formal declaration as to whether there has been previous investigations and/or convictions (whether related to their medical practice or conduct generally) in all jurisdictions. We take these matters very seriously and if there has been any transgression on disclosures to the SMC, the relevant committees will take the appropriate action. Singapore Medical Council A month later in Oct 2012, TRE wrote to SMC again to enquire about the status of their review. SMC said they were still reviewing Dr Lu's case: From: SMC Enquiries (SMC) Date: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM Subject: RE: Subject of concern Thank you for your email. SMC has already taken steps to investigate Dr Lu’s matter. As the process is underway, we are unable to disclose any details relating to ongoing matters. This is to ensure that the due process is conducted fairly and independently, in the interests of the public and the doctor. SMC will release information about the outcome of its investigations at the appropriate stage. Singapore Medical Council Since then, 1 year 9 months have passed. Nothing is heard from SMC. A check on its website [Link] also showed that SMC has not published any grounds of decision on Dr Jay Lu yet. It is not known why SMC is taking so long to come to a decision. Perhaps it is still contemplating if Dr Lu's illegal online viagra selling is "compatible with the values and standards of behaviour expected of hospital employees"? What do you think?  Read More →

Singapore's ranking in this year's Global Peace Index (GPI) fell 9 places from last year's position of 16th to 25th. The GPI is an attempt to measure the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. It is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The list was launched first in May 2007, then continued yearly. It is claimed to be the first study to rank countries around the world according to their peacefulness. It ranks altogether 162 countries. The GPI study is endorsed by individuals such as Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, archbishop Desmond Tutu, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, economist Jeffrey Sachs, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, Jan Eliasson and former US president Jimmy Carter. The index is composed of 22 (qualitative and quantitative) indicators which gauge three broad themes: level of safety and security in society extent of domestic or international conflict degree of militarisation Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines were among the Asia-Pacific countries that saw their scores decline the most this year. Malaysia's ranking went down 4 places to 33rd while the Philippines' was down 5 places to 134th. Iceland topped the index as the most peaceful country, while Syria came in last. The report states Singapore's lower score was due to "an increase in internal security and the police force, as well as higher perceived criminality". In other words, there is a perceived increase in crime rate in Singapore in the past 1 year (i.e., between the time the 2013 GPI was published in mid-last year and the time 2014 GPI was published this month). Three days (11 Dec 2013) after the Little India Riot, PM Lee spoke on national TV saying that Singapore residents commit more crimes than foreign workers do: He said: "We should not generalise a group because of some individuals. I don't think that is fair or justifiable because their (foreign workers) crime rates are, in fact, lower than Singapore residents in general." That being the case, then something must have triggered Singaporeans to commit more crimes in the past 1 year since our GPI has fallen 9th places to 25th position, all in the span of 1 year. What do you think?    Read More →

Lim Swee Say with his famous toothpick (Photo ST) ST headline “CPF money 100% safe: Swee Say” caught my eye. I knew anything related to Lim Swee Say, minister with zero portfolio with a fetish for DTF toothpicks, would be interesting. The more our government emphasises the ‘safety’ of CPF monies in the absence of transparency, the more CPF members should worry. Second paragraph: “While many investments had been lost during the global financial crisis, he pointed out, CPF had still continued to earn interest then”. What does “many investments” mean in dollar value? $10 billion? $50 billion? That “CPF had still continued to earn interest then” is obviously redundant. Swee Say loves to highlight the obvious but does not provide any supporting data. Talk is cheap. It’s like telling Singaporeans ‘the sun will rise tomorrow”. No, not just “tomorrow” but “tomorrow morning”. Third paragraph: “(The) money with CPF.. was not only safe, but continued to earn risk-free interest”. Who is Swee Say trying to kid? First he says “many investments had been lost” (billions) and a few seconds later claims CPF money “was not only safe, but..”. Swee Say has certainly mastered the art of speaking half-truths: “You have the money, the account, and you receive the statement of accounts on a regular basis, so you know exactly how much money you have. CPF money is something that “nobody can take away”. Oh really? “Nobody can take away” our money? Swee Say should be upfront and tell the student participants the PAP government has been helping themselves to OUR CPF monies through legislation, locked them away in a ‘55 till 65 cannot touch account’ and then subject members to a ‘monthly installment until you mati’ scheme. Recall Minister Khaw had recently said about having a degree: “You own a degree, but so what? That you can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless”. Using Khaw’s logic, the students should have told Swee Say: “You have a CPF account, receive statement of accounts on a regular basis and know how much money you have, so what? If the money ‘can see no touch’ for 10 years and cannot give us a good life, it is meaningless.” Swee Say should be upfront and inform the student participants that the dominant party in parliament is able to shift the CPF goalposts any time, any where. Withdrawal age has already been shifted 10 years, from 55 to 65; the PAP could easily, and likely, raise this to even 70 with no resistance in parliament. Swee Say also said our “CPF is 100% safe and is protected against events like the global financial crisis”. This is clearly false as the market value of CPF investments in GIC were decimated during the crisis. It is almost impossible to believe a confused cabinet minister could have made such comments. But then again, coming from Lim Swee Say, nothing is impossible.   Phillip Ang * The author blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com    Read More →