Home loans hinder Singapore recovery

Home loans hinder Singapore recovery

Singapore’s economy is likely to shrink by five percent or more this year, more than any other economy in the region, according to the Asian Development Bank.

No other Asian economy – not even Hong Kong, South Korea or Taiwan -- is expected to shrink so sharply. Most, in fact, are expected to continue to grow. (See chart at the end of this post. The report excludes Japan.)

And the reason Singapore is expected to fare so badly?

It’s not just because Singapore has gone into “high-value industries such as biomedical manufacturing which depend on demand from industrial countries at the heart of the crisis”.

Singapore’s problems are exacerbated by the property market, according to the bank, which released the Asian Development Outlook 2009 report today.

The high level of home ownership – more than 90 percent in Singapore – and the attendant financial liabilities have “suppressed disposable incomes and hence consumption,” says the bank.

Hong Kong consumes more than Singapore, it adds. About Hong Kong, it says:

GDP is forecast to fall by 2 percent in 2009. In 2010, growth is expected to resume at about 3 percent.

The bank says about Singapore:

The deep contraction in this city-state of 4.8 million people brings into sharper focus the lack of domestic demand base that could cushion the effect of an external shock such as the current one.

In this regard, there has been a remarkable reduction in the ratio of private consumption to GDP in recent years. Strong growth of exports can partly account for this drop. However, the share of consumption has been more or less stable, at a far higher level, in Hong Kong, China, a comparable economy.

A more structural explanation is that high levels of home ownership and correspondingly high levels of financial liabilities have suppressed disposable incomes and hence consumption. One possible policy option is to open up more avenues for households, especially older households, to convert their housing wealth into purchasing power.

The report adds:

Private consumption growth slowed to 2.4 percent in 2008, less than half the rate of 2007. Deteriorating labour market conditions have led to concerns over job security and an erosion of consumer confidence. Higher government consumption bolstered overall consumption growth to 3.6 percent.

The bank says the government’s 20.5 billion Singapore dollar (about $13.5 billion) economic stimulus package “will at most limit the severity of the recession”. It adds:

Uncertainty surrounding the economy is likely to intensify during the first half of 2009, and this will induce households to save rather than spend. Job market conditions are expected to worsen before they get better. As a result, private consumption is set to contract in the first half. The weakening in trade and manufacturing bodes ill for equipment investment, which is likely to contract during the first half. The one area of private domestic demand that remained robust in 2008—construction investment—is likely to weaken in 2009 in response to a stagnant housing market. Any significant boost to domestic demand will have to come from the Government.

Here are the bank’s GDP growth forecasts for 2009 and 2010 (percentage change from previous year):

Country	2008 (actual)	2009	2010
China	9	7	8
Hong Kong	2.5	-2	3
South Korea	2.5	-3	4
Taiwan	0.1	-4	2.4
Mongolia	8.9	3	4.5
Indonesia	6.1	3.6	5
Malaysia	4.6	-0.2	4.4
Brunei	2.7 (est)	-0.4	2.3
Philippines	4.6	2.5	3.5
Singapore	1.1	-5	3.5
Thailand	2.6	-2	3
Vietnam	6.2	4.5	6.5
Cambodia	6.5	2.5	4
Laos	7.2	5.5	5.7
Myanmar	?	?	?
Bangladesh	6.2	5.2	5.6
India	7.1	5	6.5
Pakistan	5.8	2.8	4
Sri Lanka	6	4.5	6
Nepal	5.3	3	3.5
Bhutan	11.5	5.5	6.5
Maldives	5.7	1	1.5

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25592.1

Singapore paper slow to report Singapore news

Singapore paper slow to report Singapore news

Singapore’s leading newspaper is slow to pick up even Singapore news! The Straits Times has published online news agency reports about how Asia may recover next year and India’s growth to slow 5% based on the Asian Development Bank’s economic forecast for the region published today.

But it has not yet reported that the Singapore economy is expected to shrink more than Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan or any other Asian economy this year. That’s what the Asian Development Bank report shows. Has anyone at the Straits Times read the report? It’s available on the Asian Development Bank website.

The report says the high level of home ownership and the attendant financial liabilities limit Singaporeans’ spending power and that is one reason why Singapore hasn’t been able to increase domestic consumption to mitigate the recession.

Here are the bank’s GDP growth forecasts for 2009 and 2010 (percentage change from previous year):

Country	2008 (actual)	2009	2010
China	9	7	8
Hong Kong	2.5	-2	3
South Korea	2.5	-3	4
Taiwan	0.1	-4	2.4
Mongolia	8.9	3	4.5
Indonesia	6.1	3.6	5
Malaysia	4.6	-0.2	4.4
Brunei	2.7 (est)	-0.4	2.3
Philippines	4.6	2.5	3.5
Singapore	1.1	-5	3.5
Thailand	2.6	-2	3
Vietnam	6.2	4.5	6.5
Cambodia	6.5	2.5	4
Laos	7.2	5.5	5.7
Myanmar	?	?	?
Bangladesh	6.2	5.2	5.6
India	7.1	5	6.5
Pakistan	5.8	2.8	4
Sri Lanka	6	4.5	6
Nepal	5.3	3	3.5
Bhutan	11.5	5.5	6.5
Maldives	5.7	1	1.5

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25593.1

Human Organ Transplant Act - optimism despite concerns

Human Organ Transplant Act - optimism despite concerns

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Anthony Yeo / Consultant Therapist, Counselling and Care Centre.

The amendment to the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) allowing for reimbursement of living kidney donors was passed in Parliament with heated debate recently.

It generated such heat that MPs from the ruling party were given authorisation to vote in accordance to their religious or moral convictions.

The obvious objection seems to centre on the possible abuse from those donors who may do so for profit as well as how ethics committees can discharge duties responsibly.

Whatever the objections or concerns may be, it does seem that the primary focus is on the donor rather than the recipient. In this sense, would it not be expedient to discuss this issue from a systemic perspective, taking into consideration the needs of recipients, consequences for donors as well as the larger health system.

It is certainly beyond the health system to meet demands for kidney transplants. The fact that there is such a long waiting list for kidneys, must definitely spur us to think of the burden of our health system to ensure that kidney patients do not need to experience undue suffering.

There is also the need to consider ways to ease the burden of having to deny those in grave danger not only from further incapacitation or death. If laws are too stringent and kidney donation becomes restrictive, one wonders if our health system would have the reputation in being an illness system.

If our health system is to provide healing and enhancement of health, then the onus is on the administrators of the system to explore every avenue to ensure that this is made available to all in need.

It is always tragic to learn of those who have to endure extended suffering from kidney failure, far worse to witness those who die prematurely due to lack of access to kidney donors.

We only need to recall the very heart-rending experience some years ago of the family of the Indian woman who experienced severe pain and suffering till her death because her life could not be saved due to restrictions prevailing at that time.

Her family was traumatised and the health of her mother and sister were so badly affected that within a year or two, they too met their death. The surviving sister needed help with her trauma that took a while to heal.

Such an experience should not be repeated if we could consider the needs of kidney patients. If we value life, then surely saving lives must take precedence over laws and procedures. And if easing the restrictions and making donation more readily available can be a way to promote living, then laws would need to be amended to make this possible.

If we were to have this expanded perspective, then it is a little easier to uphold the need to consider how best to make donation more accessible. This is where the amendment to provide for reimbursement can make sense.

There must be a place for care of the donor as well. For one, we are aware of the risks involved. Donors have encountered complications to their physical well-being including deaths, although the latter has been infrequent.

As the Health Minister asserted in Parliament, suffering from financial consequences is a major risk involved. Furthermore, during the recovery from the procedure, disruption to work and life, as well as the need to live with the loss of an internal organ are other risks that have often been overlooked.

To this extent, the amendment to allow for reimbursement can pave the way for reluctant donors to offer their kidneys.

Of course there will be possible risk of abuse of the system but that should not deter us from a very humanitarian approach to this matter. Likewise, those who are concerned about the administration of reimbursement and procedures to be put in place to prevent abuse can be assured that these are operational matters that can be dealt with responsibly.

This confidence comes from the way our government has been functioning, ever cautious and prudent. Sometimes they tended to be unduly vigilant to the point of stifling possibilities for change. If they continue to function as they probably would, then we can be hopeful that measures would be put in place to prevent abuse.

There are already ethics committees in place for approving organ transplants and we can rest assure that fine-tuning will be executed accordingly.

Hence, there should be optimism despite concerns expressed; support for greater flexibility in the midst of existing laws and public support for making kidney donation more readily available.

Hopefully our health system will be life-enhancing, life-preserving and life-extending with this amendment passed in Parliament.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25594.1

US cries Chinese wolf

Mar 31, 2009

US cries Chinese wolf
By David Isenberg

On March 25, the United States Department of Defense released the 2009 unclassified edition of its annual report "Military Power of the People's Republic of China" to Congress.

As a description of the ongoing development of China's military forces it is a reasonably informative document. But if it was supposed to be an alarm about the threat posed by Chinese military forces it failed badly. For this we should be grateful.

Ever since the demise of the Soviet Union many members of America's politico-military-industrial sector have been looking for another country as a replacement, if only to justify the huge military and security expenditures the United States appropriates annually. And, by default, given its sheer size, population, and increasing economic importance, China is seen as the new threat standard. Indeed, China now provides the rationale for at least a quarter of the Pentagon's budget.

Yet, unlike the waning years of the Cold War, when the Reagan-era Pentagon released its annual Soviet Military Power, giving an estimate of the Soviet Union's military power and strategy, the 66-page Chinese version is more nuanced and far less alarmist. And even the passages warning of threatening Chinese military developments seem unconvincing.

Although the report's release comes after heightened tensions between the US and China after Chinese vessels early this month harassed a US Navy surveillance ship, USNS Impeccable, in international waters in the South China Sea it is difficult to see it as anything other than a recitation of the sort of ongoing force modernization that any major power would undertake as a matter of course.

Indeed, in the Pentagon press briefing introducing the report a senior defense official said, "China appears to be pursuing a set of enduring strategic priorities which we identify in this report as, first, perpetuating the role of the Chinese Communist Party, continuing economic development, ensuring domestic stability, protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity and obtaining great-power status."

With the exception of protecting the Chinese Communist Party there are the same goals the United States lists in its own annual strategy documents.

On Taiwan, the report notes that China continues to produce weapons that could threaten the island and increase the number of short-range missiles opposite the island, but it also notes that the overall security situation in the Taiwan Straits has improved in the last year.

While the report mentions China's development of longer-range capabilities it acknowledges that some of these capabilities have allowed it to contribute cooperatively to the international community's responsibilities in areas such as peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and counter-piracy.

On military spending the report says China's official military budget grew nearly 18% in 2008 to US$60.1 billion, although that is not the total of its military expenditures. The Pentagon estimates military spending at $105 billion to $150 billion.

The report notes that China has resumed reporting its defense expenditure to the United Nations. But its decision to employ the simplified reporting form suggests that China's leaders have not yet committed fully to the idea of military transparency as a confidence-building measure. Yet the data that is publicly available shows that overall China's military expenditures are dwarfed by that of the United States.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2007, China's estimated total military expenditure was 506 billion yuan, or $58.2 billion. China spent only 2.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on its military in 2006 (the last year data was available).

For the United States that figure was $578 billion, or $546 billion in constant dollars. That would be 4% of its GDP. Of course, that does not include military spending on wars it is fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, or military spending for homeland security.

Also, during the press briefing the defense official noted that, "I think - yeah, there's been a - there's been an overall trend of incremental and modest improvements in transparency."

Considering that at the press briefing the defense official said "China is now spending a lot more for its military than just about everybody else in the region," it is worth noting that the share of GDP it spends on the military is only 0.1 percentage point more than that of Taiwan. And it is 0.6 percentage points less than India spends on its military.

What the report seems to find most threatening is China's future ability to project power to ensure access to resources or enforce claims to disputed territories. The report noted, "In this regard, we see a continued emphasis on building capacity for sea- and land-based anti-access and aerial denial operations. And as an example, in the maritime domain, China's maritime anti-access and aerial denial capabilities increasingly appear geared toward coordinated operations to interdict at long ranges aircraft carriers or expeditionary strike groups out into the Western Pacific."

This is thinly veiled code for China's growing ability to counter US military forces in a future crisis. But it takes more than weaponry to fight effectively. The American experience since 2001 shows that advanced weaponry, even against opponents with no navies, armies, air forces and air defenses, can have costly, unintended strategic consequences.

The organization and training of its forces is at least equally, if not more, important.

Yet, the response to a question at the press briefing indicates that China's future military potential is not a burning concern at the Pentagon.

Question: Beyond the region, did you all look at, for example, how many years or decades China may be out from being able to challenge the US militarily?

Senior defense official: We didn't actually conduct that assessment in this report. So we don't make that judgment.

In fact, the report stated, "The Poeple's Liberation Army's (PLA) force projection capabilities will remain limited over the next decade as the PLA replaces outdated aircraft and maritime vessels and adjusts operational doctrine to encompass new capabilities. These changes will require tailored logistics equipment and training that that will take time and funding to develop. Although foreign-produced or civil sector equipment and maintenance parts may help to fill near-term gaps, continued reliance on non-organic assets will hinder PLA capabilities to sustain large-scale operations."

David Isenberg is a researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a US Navy veteran, and the author of a new book, Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq. The views expressed are his own. His e-mail is sento@earthlink.net.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26425.1

like father, like daughter.

like father, like daughter.

Whenever I read about Dr Lee Wei Ling,Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter, the first thing that invariably comes to my mind is: a walking human specimen of hypocrisy.

How so?

She writes often of how a careful saver and non-materialistic she is, how life should be, how people should behave, their beliefs in life, blah blah blah. I think being the daughter of Lee Kuan Yew does give you the liberty and the means to engage in high-handed morals and ethics.

let me give you some excerpts.(there are many more, do look out for her weekly “inspirational’ column on Sunday Times)

The most important trait a doctor needs is empathy. If we can feel our patient’s pain and suffering, we would certainly do our best by our patients and their welfare would override everything else.

Medicine is not just a prestigious, profitable career - it is a calling. Being a doctor will guarantee almost anyone a decent standard of living. How much money we need for a decent standard of living varies from individual to individual.

I see. that will sound fine if she practises whatever she teaches. Unfortunately, I don’t think buying a 2.8 million dollar condo in Orchard is considered as “non-materialistic”. It gets worse when people are fooled and write in to “commend” her. I remember seeing some other articles, and quite a few positive comments and admiration for selfless and “different” Lee Wei Ling online.

When I read Sunday’s article, ‘Medicine is not just a career, but a calling’,by Dr Lee Wei Ling, I felt compelled to express my respect for Dr Lee’s compassion and her dedication to her patients.

There isn’t much purpose in this blog post. Just to highlight the hypocrisy of Lee Wei Ling, so that less people will be taken in. As they say, a leopard never changes its spots. Seems like leopard’s kids also too.

Have a good read about Lee Kuan Yew here, and his worry about his un-married daughter. To be honest, I wouldn’t care less about him and his worry, and him pretending he faces the same problems as Singaporeans.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25554.1

The Pope, condoms, AIDs prevention and a controversy

The Pope, condoms, AIDs prevention and a controversy

Monday, 30 March 2009

Pope Benedict XVI’s made his maiden trip to Cameroon and Angola in the African continent recently. What was a well-intentioned trip to deliver ‘a word of hope and comfort’, however, was marred by a gaffe about condoms and AIDs prevention.

The Head of the Catholic Church was quoted as having said that the distribution of condoms in Africa cannot overcome the problem of AIDS, but on the contrary aggravates the problem. This slip-up comes on the heels of the Pope’s controversial decision in lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson who had made denials over the extent of the Holocaust. This incident aside, Cookie Boy is left baffled and stumped by the Pope’s remarks on condoms.

Meanwhile, The Lancet, a well known British medical journal in its editorial had some harsh words for the Pope. The journal acknowledged the Church’s moral stance and support towards marital fidelity and abstinence in HIV prevention. “But, by saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS,” it said, “the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue.”

Yet to those ignorant of the Church’s teaching, Cookie Boy worries that the Pope’s comments might be taken out of context and risks undoing the efforts of medical and volunteer workers in curbing the spread of AIDS in Africa.

To sum up the Church’s position on human life in just a few words: The Church is pro-life. Period! No arguments! No budging!

The Humanae Vitae decries the use of any artificial methods to prevent procreation as ‘unlawful’ and ‘intrinsically wrong’ which include the use of condoms. It states:

“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come out of it.”

The condom here is the lesser of the two moral evils.

Church’s stand on prevention through condoms

But what is the Church’s moral and authority take about the use of condoms to prevent sexual disease? There aren’t any that I know of. Neither do I think it is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What I do know is that according to the Church’s teachings, fornication is sinful. Any sexual activity outside the sanctity of marriage is considered wrong and sinful (and that includes having extra-marital affairs). This translates to those happily married folks that, ‘Thou shalt not take any other partners besides thy spouse’; and for singles, this means a self-imposition of a sexual drought.

Therefore there is no need for the Church to make an official moral stand on the use of condoms to combat sexual diseases when her stand is absolutely clear – abstinence, chastity and fidelity. A man and woman who had never had intercourse with anyone prior to marriage, and who remain faithful to one another would therefore need no condoms to guard against sexual diseases.

This view is largely utopian and as many critics will argue – far from reality. Because we know that in reality, sex trade workers do exist! Because in reality, people are still going to continue with their sexual activities! Spouses will cheat. Some people will continue with their promiscuous lifestyles. No one is going to say: “Stop. I think I shall abstain from sex!”

Condom the “single, most efficient, available” preventive tool

A 2008 World Health Organisation Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic estimates 33 million people living with HIV, of which 22 million people are in the Sub-Saharan Africa region. It is estimated that there are 190,000 and 540,000 HIV sufferers in Angola and Cameroon respectively. In an ironical and stinging rebuff to the Pope’s comments, UNAIDS in its press release lists Cameroon as one of the countries most affected by HIV whereby “condom use is increasing for young people with multiple partners”.

UNAIDS states:

“Condoms are an essential part of combination prevention which includes among other elements: access to information about HIV, access to treatment, harm reduction measures, waiting longer to become sexually active, being faithful, reducing multiple partners and concurrent relationships…”

UNAIDS, UNFRA and WHO also updated their information on condoms and HIV prevention in response to the Pope’s remarks. They reiterate that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections” and will “remain the key preventive tool for many, many years to come”.

The information also states:

“Conclusive evidence from extensive research among heterosexual couples in which one partner is infected with HIV shows that correct and consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission from both men to women, and also from women to men.”

Manipulating science?

So how did Pope Benedict XVI get the facts so horribly wrong? Perhaps it was just out of ignorance. Didn’t the Pope learn how to pay more attention to information easily available on the internet since the Lefebvrite decision? The Lancet in its editorial meanwhile wonders if this was a “deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology”.

The Lancet’s position is clear. It is braying for a mea culpa from Pope Benedict XVI for his comments. The Pope is an influential religious leader and the statement which he made is contrary to scientific knowledge which could put the health of millions of people at risk.

The controversy is nothing new. It isn’t the first time that the Catholic Church has been flogging this horse. The late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, said in an interview in a BBC Broadcast in 2003 that condoms don’t block the spread of AIDS.

The Catholic Church is in a quandary. On one hand, the Church has to safeguard and uphold the dogmas and teachings that have been its cornerstone for 2000 years whilst fighting off relativism and secularism, yet at the same time she has to make herself relevant and humanely accessible to the people who essentially form the body of Christ – physically represented by the Church. There is a clear need for a message of love and compassion, a need for solidarity manifested in practical action. There had been some previous talk of reforms to change the Church’s stance on condoms. But it looks likes the Pope’s recent comments have quashed all hopes. But yet, as the Second Vatican Council has proven, anything is possible.

Whether the Pope was right or wrong, one should not live under the fallacy that the condom is the only way to beat the spread of sexual diseases. Yet there is no doubt that the condom is part of a bigger equation and must work with the other elements suggested by UNAIDS above to curb the spread of AIDS.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25519.1

Financial crisis has become full-blown economic crisis, says George Yeo

Financial crisis has become full-blown economic crisis, says George Yeo

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Donaldson Tan / Head, TOC International / London

Cambridge – Last Friday, Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo visited Cambridge University in conjunction with its 800th Anniversary. During the visit, he discussed the state of the world and the global economic crisis with Singaporean students. “No one is sure where the bottom is or how long this crisis will last, “ he said. “In the meantime, tens of thousands of companies will go bankrupt and tens of millions of people will lose their jobs. What started as a financial crisis has become a full-blown economic crisis. For many countries, worsening economic conditions will lead to political crisis.”

Recent Developments

Mr Yeo spoke out against government interventions in this global economic crisis. Public policies worldwide can hinder the market from reaching the bottom. “Many stimulus packages being proposed will make the adjustment more difficult”, he said. “For example, bailing out inefficient automobile companies may end up prolonging the pain of restructuring at tremendous public expense.” Attempting to shortcut the process may worsen underlying conditions. He also commented that the wages and salaries of Americans, Europeans and Japanese are being held down by billions of Asians and Africans who are prepared to work for much less. He expects protectionist pressures in America, Europe and Japan to grow, in order to keep jobs at home.

The minister highlighted the White House’s growing dilemma between injecting liquidity into domestic financial markets and managing an international reserve currency. “If governments try to prevent the re-pricing of assets and human beings, international markets will force the adjustment. A country that is over-leveraged living beyond its means will itself be re-priced through its currency. Its currency will be devalued, forcing lower living standards on all its citizens.” Furthermore, in response to a TOC enquiry, he acknowledged that the calibrated move by the People’s Bank of China to call for the replacement of the US$ as the international reserve currency will put the coming G20 Summit in a precarious position. Mr Yeo said that while it is unlikely for any currency to replace the US$ as an international reserve currency, there will be political and economic obstacles in promoting global acceptance of a super-sovereign international reserve currency.

The world today is at similar crossroads as it was during the Great Depression. A global leadership vacuum marked the Great Depression in the 1930s. “Despite the shift of power across the Atlantic, while Great Britain could not lead, the United States would not lead. In between, the world economy fell,” Mr Yeo said. Great Britain then is United States today while United States then is China today. The US is China’s most important export market while China is the most important buyer of US Treasuries. Moreover, today’s world is more complex due to its multi-polarity. No particular value system will hold complete sway over others. The current crisis has already caused many people to question the nature of capitalism, socialism and democracy. “With the world in turmoil, many developing countries are studying the Chinese system wondering whether it might not offer them lessons on good governance. For the first time in a long time, the Western model has a serious competitor,” Mr Yeo said.

Responses by Singaporeans at Cambridge

A Singaporean commented that the role of Germany, the world’s biggest exporter, in the modern-day epic of the clash between Western and Eastern civilisations, is often underestimated. She also noted that the Singapore government has succumbed to China’s soft power. “Despite the failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Singapore Government has direct and indirect stakes in the Tianjin Eco-City Project and the Guangdong Knowledge City Project. I also wonder if the objectives of the Speak Mandarin policy has shifted towards preparing Singaporeans to be employees at Chinese firms.”

Another Singaporean was disappointed that the minister did not touch on the Singapore economy and the Resilience Package. He was unsure of the Package’s effectiveness to buffer and shield the Singapore economy from the global economic crisis. He also felt that the government was not clear on how long the Package should last. “There should be economic indicators published quarterly to ascertain the continuity and success of certain schemes in the Resilience Package, such as the Job Credit Scheme and the risk-sharing initiative for trade finance and SME loans, “ he said. “This will send a clear signal to the private sector, so that the firms and the public can make timely adjustment should the government suspends or ends these schemes.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25518.1

Abolish SM, MM and Minister in PMO positions

Abolish SM, MM and Minister in PMO positions

The recent expansion of the cabinet with the addition of one more Senior Minister and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office simply beggars belief. As Wayangparty wrote earlier, why does Singapore need 2 deputy prime ministers, 2 senior ministers, 1 minister mentor, and 3 ministers in the prime minister’s office?

1. Senior Minister

The plain fact is that this position was created solely for Mr Lee Kuan Yew to occupy after leaving office in 1990. Apparently he thought (and still thinks) that he is so valuable that he must remain in the government to oversee his successors.

I cannot find a single official description for this job. What does a “Senior Minister” really do? The government has claimed that the office holder has plenty of experience and is an advisor to the current leadership. But why can’t Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Jayakumar offer their “valuable” advice free of charge? Why must we pay $3,043,300 each for this extra advice that no Singaporean asked for in the first place?

2. Minister Mentor

This is the most ridiculous position in the government. This position was created so that Mr Lee Kuan Yew can still remain in government even after vacating the Senior Minister seat for Mr Goh Chok Tong. The MM commands a salary almost the equivalent of the PM. So who is ruling the country, the MM or the PM?

Who is the Minister Mentor supposed to mentor? I also cannot find any official job description. I only see Mr Lee Kuan Yew giving talks and travelling the world at taxpayers’ expense to have photo opportunities with foreign leaders. Then why do we pay the foreign minister $1,593,500 for?

Singaporeans are wasting $3,043,300 on a power-hungry man’s personal vanity project so that he has an audience to give nonsense predictions about a “golden age” or “first world government”. Mr Lee Kuan Yew should just retire and leave the running of the government to the present leaders.

3. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office

There are 2 (soon to be 3) ministers in the prime minister’s office, Lim Boon Heng and Lim Swee Say. Lim Boon Heng has been in office since 1993. He is also in charge of aging issues. But isn’t the health minister being paid his $1,593,500 to handle that?

Lim Swee Say has absolutely no duties specified at all. He also “happens” to be the NTUC Secretary-General at the same time. So why is he holding a political appointment when he is contributing nothing politically? Are we paying him $1,593,500 to boast that he “feels rich” each time he gets his monthly CPF statement? We don’t, especially since we don’t get it every month.

With 2 redundant ministers already “shaking leg”, we are going to have a third one with the latest appointment of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. PM Lee has been stressing that she is the first female full minister, something that we should be proud of. But what is she supposed to do? So far, there has been no information on what her duties exactly are.

The Prime Minister’s Office is self-explanatory. It should only contain the Prime Minister, not other ministers sucking millions for doing absolutely nothing.

There are also other unnecessary and wasteful positions such as “Minister of State” and “Senior Minister of State”. I think Singapore is small enough for a single minister to take charge of a portfolio.

When we abolish the positions of “Senior Minister”, “Minister Mentor”, “Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office”, “Minister of State” and “Senior Minister of State, we will reduce the size of the cabinet and save millions to help our poor.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25517.1

Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press

Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press

It is an occasion of double joy for SPH today. A new corporate logo was unveiled in conjunction with its 25th anniversary celebrations.

I can’t help wondering how much the re-design of the same name cost the shareholders which brought up to mind the $400,000 of taxpayers’ monies spent by Mah Bow Tan to rename ‘Marina Bay’ back to its original moniker in 2005 (read news report here)

The event was hosted by ex-DPM Tony Tan in presence of the President S R Nathan and PAP ministers Dr Lee Boon Yang and Mr Lui Tuck Yew.

A beaming S R Nathan recalled his experience during his stint with SPH:

‘When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press,…… the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: ‘Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to. I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken - in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years. ‘ (read full article here)

Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Lee Kuan Yew if he is alive. Nazi propaganda lasted no more than a decade. The PAP myth is going into its 50th anniversary and still going strong.

How can the ‘bowl’ of SPH be broken when it enjoys a 100% monopoly and is owned 100% by the government? Other than North Korea, China and Myanmar, I cannot think of any other country where its print media is completely under the thumb of the government.

SPH was formed on Aug 4, 1984 through a merger of three organisations - the Straits Times Press group, the Singapore News and Publications Limited and Times Publishing Berhad which was later de-merged from SPH in 1988. The merger brought together the English, Malay and Chinese newspapers under one roof. SPH later also bought Tamil Murasu Pte Ltd. (read article here)

1984 marked the official demise of a free and independent press in Singapore though the nail was hit into its coffin way back in 1975 with the introduction of the Newspaper and Printing Act to control the ownership of news printing firms.

SPH has indeed served its master well by churning out daily doses of state propaganda to justify the PAP’s many flawed policies and repressive measures to stifle civil society and the opposition.

Unfortunately, its “success” has become a tragedy for many Singaporeans who were brought up believing every single word published by the print media to hold it as the gospel truth while it is nothing more than just plain propaganda to serve the narrow partisan interests of the PAP.

25 years of state-sanctioned indoctrination has created an unthinking, subservient and apathetic citizenry who is contented to leave the running of the country entirely to the government without asking questions.

Few people from my generation actually bother to read up on current affairs, let alone spot the glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the media reports and to challenge the nonsense spewed out from the mouths of our highly paid self acclaimed “talented” PAP leaders.

This is what 25 years of relentless PAP propaganda dispensed through its propaganda mouthpiece has done to our minds. And that is why the PAP is unable to recruit first rate talents into the government and has to content itself with paying obscence salaries to keep second rate talents within its ranks.

In a country where the boundaries between the state and the party are blurred, what works for the party often has disastrous consequences for the state.

To the PAP, having the media under its absolute control is a necessity for them to ride roughshod over a politically naive electorate so as to force unpalatable policies down our throat again, again and again.

Over the years, our basic human rights have been raped repeatedly without any protests. Foreigners are allowed to stampede all over the locals to steal their rice bowls with impunity; GST was raised to 3, 5 and then 7% to “help the poor”. New HDB flats are pegged to the value of resale flats when it is supposedly to be a low cost affordable public housing. CPF withdrawal limits are raised from 55 to 62 and in time to come, perhaps 85. PAP ministers lavished themselves with exorbitant salaries when our income gap between the poor and the rich is one of the highest amongst first world economies. A significant chunk of our reserves accumulated over the years were lost in less than a year and still nobody is held accountable. These are just a few of the many instances where the PAP has taken us for granted without having to pay any political price.

In other developed Asian countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, their media will rise up in arms to serve as the voice of the people to protest against the government. Here in Singapore, the mainstream media is an accomplice to the PAP to preserve its political hegemony.

David Marshall is indeed spot on in calling the Straits Times journalists “poor prostitutes and running dogs of the PAP”. Not all the SPH journalists are to blame. Some genuinely have a conscience and committment to their professional ethics, but they have little room to manoeuvre when the senior editors are all henchmen of the PAP. Not surprisingly, a few SPH editors were “promoted” to PAP MPs after years of “dedicated service” to the party, Seng Han Thong and Irene Ng being cases in point.

Without a free and independent press to act as an 4th pillar of the state, Singapore’s future is very grim. We have little choice but to swim or sink with the PAP. If they sink, we will go down together with them because there is nobody else outside the system who can replace them.

SPH is the biggest stumbling block to the emergence of a credible alternative party in Singapore to check on the PAP. In almost every general elections, the SPH spin doctors were called upon to demolish the opposition when they should be focusing on critical issues of national importance.

In 2006, we saw how the media conducted a 7 day smear campaign against Workers’ Party candidate James Gomez for a trivial mistake. In 2001, it was Dr Chee Soon Juan. In 1997, it was Tang Liang Hong who was demonized as a Chinese chauvinist and in 1991, Jufrie Mahmood was attacked unfairly as a Malay chauvinist.

SPH’s timely interference had made that extra difference in saving the skin of the the PAP in closely contested constituencies. Jufrie Mahmood won 49.1% of the valid votes in Eunos GRC while JBJ and Tang won 45.3% in Cheng San GRC.

What if Singaporeans have voted 5 opposition MPs into Parliament in 1997? Will we continue to be subjugated by the PAP in our very own land of birth? Can we not find out the answers to the amount of reserves we have now? That is why the PAP doesn’t want to have “real” opposition in Parliament to make them accountable to the people and this is why SPH needs to be chaired by an ex-PAP minister to this very day.

While SPH and the PAP celebrates 25 years of overwhelming success in state-sponsored thought control, let us, as one of the few who have managed to escape relatively unscathed from its omnipresent influence, mourn the demise of a free and independent press.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25516.1

Cabinet “reshuffle”: Is it for self-renewal or self-preservation?

Cabinet “reshuffle”: Is it for self-renewal or self-preservation?

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described his recent Cabinet reshuffle as another step in the long process of self-renewal. (read article here)

Mr Lee added that there is no change in the total number of office holders in this reshuffle and he is keeping some of the older ministers to help out so that they can provide experience and advice, while younger ministers drive policies.

If this was indeed Mr Lee’s original intention, then he had misrepresented himself for choosing the wrong word to describe the reshuffle as keeping 2 ex-Prime Ministers and 1 ex-Deputy Prime Minister in an already bloated cabinet can hardly be considered as ”self-renewal”.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong has been the Prime Minister for 6 years. During his first speech as Prime Minister, he promised to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He has failed to live up to his promise. Our income gap has widened under his watch. Political is dissent is clamped down harshly through a series of draconian laws. Singapore society is less free than before and citizens have few avenues of expression other than the internet.

It was also during Mr Lee’s reign that the ministers’ salaries are jacked up by more than 80% to peg it to the private sector much to the chagrin and dismay of ordinary Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet. In spite of earning 5 times more than United States President Barack Obama, Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession. Both our Sovereign Wealth Funds suffer disastrous losses and the culprits have yet to be called to answered for their mistakes.

Given the dismal performance of Mr Lee, he ought to offer to step down by the next election if not now and hand over the reins of government to another leader who has the capability and vision to bring the nation forward. We are in urgent need of a change in direction and a rethink of the usual tried and tested methods of governance.

The global financial crisis has exposed the flaws of the American economy and its renumeration system for Wall Street financiers whose unbridled greed brought the entire world down to its knees. We cannot afford to continue chasing after GDP growths and other economic indicators while neglecting the development of our precious human capital.

It is common in modern democracies to see changes in government every couple of years. The Americans change their President every four or eight years. The Labor Party of the United Kingdom has been in power for over a decade and they are about to be booted out soon if the latest poll ratings of their popularity are accurate.

Singapore needs a real change in its current leadership if not an outright change in government. Since the PAP has monopolized the majority of the talents found in Singapore, we can only place our hopes on an internal change to give us a leader who is brave enough to do away with the obsolete “mandarinate” system of Lee Kuan Yew and restore real democracy based on the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency in the way the Singapore government operates.

Lee Kuan Yew has often used the threat of political upheavals and economic ruins to dissuade Singaporeans from voting for the opposition. In reality, Singapore is the only country in the region which can survive a change in the political status quo and emerge from it stronger because we are such docile, pragmatic and peace-loving people.

Since the opposition is far too weak to mount a serious challenge to the PAP, its only fear lies in a schism within the echelon of the leadership. As long Lee Kuan Yew is still around, the PAP will remain united in one monolithic entity. It is therefore imperative for the Prime Minister to put in place a 4th generation of leaders who believe in his father’s system of governance and willing to run the country using his doctrine which explains why he is taking a long time to deliberate over the personnel to put in positions of power and influence.

This is not self-renewal, but self-preservation. Will Lee Kuan Yew want to see his legacy being dismantled from top to bottom by his son’s successor after he is gone just like how the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi did to his precedessor Mahathir? His son was put in place precisely to ensure continuity in his policies.

In the first major resuffle of the cabinet in the late 1980s before Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, many first-generation leaders were either retired voluntarily or forced out by Lee Kuan Yew so as to put the second-generation of leaders handpicked by him firmly in control of the government while he remained in the cabinet as Senior Minister to supervise and monitor his successor.

The second generation of leaders should have been retired years ago after Goh Chok Tong stepped down to make way for the fourth generation. Why are Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng and Jayakumar still holding senior positions within the cabinet?

It is likely that Lee Kuan Yew does not yet have full trust and confidence in the fourth generation of leaders. Dr Ng Eng Hen is always his blue-eyed boy, but his popularity and support within the PAP itself remains a suspect. Both Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Tharman were mavericks in their youthful days. Who can forget Vivian’s explosive expletive against Lee Kuan Yew’s failed ‘graduate mother’ scheme when he was the President of NUSSU and Tharman’s visit to exiled student leader Tan Wah Piow in London?

Though they have appeared to follow his instructions and exhortations so far, who knows if they may revert back to their “rebellious” old selves after he is gone? All Singapore needs is one Gorbachev or Badawi to completely destroy Lee Kuan Yew’s “mandarinate” system and restore democracy to the nation.

The PAP should trust itself to win in a free and fair election solely on merits without any gerrymandering or character assassinations. It can well afford 5, 10 or 15 opposition MPs in Parliament to challenge them without resorting to dirty tricks to “fix” them.

Why then is Lee Kuan Yew so adamant at keeping the opposition at bay, especially genuine opposition leaders like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan who dares to confront them heads on? Because all you need is to have one “troublemaker” in Parliament to ask sensitive and difficult questions and you will lose whatever credibility you have in an instance.

Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister is already in the present cabinet. Mr Lee Hsien Loong made a freudian slip when he remarked during the interview that the PAP needs two general elections at the very least to groom a leader. He will be almost 70 years old after the next two elections. Can he or Singapore wait that long?

Among the PAP’s current crop of leaders, the potential candidates to take over Mr Lee are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, Finance Minister Tharman and Community, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

Both Lees have not made up their minds. Who can they trust most to preserve their legacy and to protect their interests after they have left the scene? Mr Lee Hsien Loong can always “retire” to become a Senior Minister like his predecessors, but his clout is considerably less compared to the senior Lee.

What if the new Prime Minister decides to pander to populist sentiment and enact a “Freedom of Information Act” which will reveal the extent of GIC and Temasek’s losses? What will future generations of Singaporeans think of their founding father?

The next Prime Minister of Singapore, whoever he or she is, should feel free to expunge remnants of Lee’s influence completely from the government, civil service and judiciary and relegate it to the history books for our children and grandchildren to judge for themselves the merits and faults of Lee Kuan Yew.

Is he truly Singapore’s savior or a hero turned villian during his later years? Will there be Singapore without Lee or is there no Lee without Singapore? Nobody is irreplaceable in Singapore. Prime Ministers can come and go, but our Constitution, our Pledge and our People will remain forever on this land we call home.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25515.1

SPH has become an important part of Singapore's nation-building

SPH has become an important part of Singapore's nation-building
by
S. R. Nathan
March 31st, 2009

Speech by President S R Nathan at Singapore Press Holdings 25th anniversary celebrations and launch of its new logo, 30 March 2009, SPH News Centre.

This commemoration of the SPH Group’s 25th Anniversary marks a special moment for SPH, beyond its 25 years. As a merged group, SPH may be only 25 years old, but its flagship newspapers have a far longer history than independent Singapore itself. Not many newspapers in the world can claim a 164-year history. In fact, SPH newspapers have tracked closely our Nation’s history and generations of Singaporeans have grown up with SPH’s stable of English Language, Chinese, Malay, Tamil and other newspapers.

Through the lens of SPH, the news, stories and commentaries that its newspapers and publications bring across in the different languages have enabled our people to keep abreast of the happenings in Singapore and around the world. You have become an important part of our effort at nation-building, helping us in forging a Singaporean identity and reminding us of happenings abroad.

SPH’s multi-lingual capability is an important asset that you must continue to enhance so as to reach out not only to our multi-lingual and multi-racial population but also to readers beyond our shores. Often, your news and stories become conversation pieces amongst people of different races and different places, which help promote bonds among our people and others.

I have been fortunate to have been personally involved in the SPH, following its merger 25 years ago, on 4th August 1984. I was then the Executive Chairman of Straits Times Press – a role I continued to play until 1988. At the time of the emergence of SPH there were many concerns about the new company, not only among the staff but also the general public alike. Would the newspapers be able to compete with each other now that they were under the same management? Would they be able to keep their own independence and identity, yet at the same time, share a common bond and company culture? Those were some of the questions asked. Despite such doubts and the odds, SPH emerged a successful and stronger media organization, meeting all the challenges head-on.

The six years that I spent at Straits Times Press and also in SPH were a unique experience for me - coming as I did from the Civil Service. When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press, I had no prior experience with the workings of newsrooms and other aspects of the production and distribution of newspapers. The day before I started work, the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: “Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to.” I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken – in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years.

In 25 years, SPH has made a name for itself as a leading media group and an authority on news and information in the ASEAN and the greater China region. It offers high quality content not only through the print media, but through online and mobile platforms as well. All this could not have been achieved without the people who toil to produce its publications. They worked day and night gathering and printing the stories that filled the newspapers and daily columns. Among them, we must include the printers and distributors who made sure of the timeliness of the publications and their distribution to anxiously awaiting readers. Working together, knowing that news gets old in a fast changing world, and despite competition from technology and competing new products, all in the SPH team continue with equal determination each day to see that we can read their newspapers with our breakfast. This tribute must apply to all who are part of SPH today but also of its past. For they too toiled notwithstanding the daily pressures on their time and energy.

The production of the daily copy, especially at the editorial management level, involves the making of judgments on news and views to be carried in the columns each day. They face each day’s uncertainty not knowing whether their judgment will stand or fall in the eyes of their readers, newsmakers, board and the authorities. Yet all toil with a devotion to the service of their newspapers and a preparedness to stay and produce the daily newspaper each day, notwithstanding the gripes, grouses and brickbats they may have to face.

The SPH now faces a new climate of the publishing industry, with competition from the electronic media and its wider critical reading public; their new lifestyles, preoccupations and demands. I am confident SPH with its 25 years of track record is well equipped to succeed in this new climate.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25601.1

Why the matrix will not tolerate total creativity

Why the matrix will not tolerate total creativity

SINGAPORE - The ones in charge of Singapore have lamented the lack of creativity amongst Singaporeans. However, the more optimistic ones would like to believe that creativity amongst Singaporeans is in its latent phase. I happen to believe in the latter. Be that as it may, creative learning is now in fashion as our educators now see fit that our students should be equipped with skills to think creatively.

As usual, my conspiracy theorist friend came up with his own theory on why the Singapore matrix will not tolerate total creativity. According to him, the matrix is well aware of the plus side of allowing total creativity that includes technological progress and innovation in many fields, all of which have been proven successful time and time again in liberal first world nations. However, if total creativity is allowed, the matrix runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

You see, the matrix thrives on maximum authority over the people. By allowing total creativity would be akin to letting a whole gang of Neos trotting freely inside it, and this is not what it wants. Creative people have a familiar trait - challenging authority. However, creativity is not about challenging authority only. The challenge part is the first step. The next step is the synthesis of an elegant alternative or solution that improves on the pre-existing condition.

Now, the matrix is allowing some form of creativity, albeit in a limited form. One can be creative in a number of fields, for instance, the sciences, engineering, music (not anti-establishment types) and any other areas that the matrix deems safe and beneficial to it. And the matrix still sees it fit to take charge in certain creative ventures.

However, the matrix is well aware that creative thinkers even in the so-called beneficial fields can be a threat to it. Robert Oppenheimer, the great american theoretical physicist, might have been Mr Chia Thye Poh’s prison mate. After all, the former was a keen of supporter of social reforms, which were alleged to be a hotbed for communist ideas. Richard Feynman, another great american Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist would have been a good candidate to be charged with violation of the Official Secrets Act. He has a penchant for picking locks and gaining access to highly classified government documents, and did it time and time again at Los Alomos .

Due to the perceived “lack” of creative talents, the matrix decided that the best move is to hire some foreign talents. And it’s a decent move from the matrix’s standpoint because the foreigners can benefit the former in a prescribed way. And if these foreigners prove pesky for its liking, they can always be deported.

And of course, entities (political opposition) deemed to be of a high threat will be isolated in maximum security and high biohazard safety level confinement, and with difficult-to-break iron shackles too. Little leeway for creativity is allowed except for that between the confinements of the 2 by 2 cell. Access to the other humans (masses) within the matrix is limited because of restrictions (read limitations of Film Act and limited mainstream media exposure).

If these high threat entities are allowed to flourished in an environment that allows total creativity, they may just come up with a system that surpasses that of the Matrix’s, making the latter irrelevant. Hence, this is not desired. Come what may, such entities must always be shackled and be deprived of breathing space to exercise maximum creativity.

The matrix has to do everything in its power to function in perpetuity. The people must remain subserviant to the matrix because they are its life force. And the matrix will go all out to achieve this no matter what. Thus, said my friend.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25670.1

Minority Report

Minority Report

Two apparently unrelated events happened these few days. Underneath the events, however, was the crucial issue of Malay representation and engagement by Singapore political parties.

Abdul Salim Harun, who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC the last GE, resigned from the Workers’ Party. He was the most prominent Malay community representative in the WP in 2006, and that party’s attempt to challenge the PAP’s dominance in fielding Malay candidates. His resignation was “not unexpected” as he was supposedly open to a more aggressive advocacy, something contrary to WP’s centralist inclinations.

On the other side of the field, Fatimah Lateef from Marine Parade GRC was depicted as one who could not connect with the temple elders in her ward. SM GOh Chok Tong felt that the Straits Times’ report on the new MPs and their weaknesses tarnished Fatimah’s image as an effective MP and he “disliked the inaccuracy“.

With Abdul gone from WP, the WP has to find a new poster boy to give the party a multi-racial image. Getting someone from the minority group is vital in a contest for any GRC. Parties like the WP already have a hard time in recruiting people as compared to the PAP and a Malay criterion in a candidate makes the recruitment all the more harder. The impact of Abdul’s resignation is not slight at all. The PAP’s problem is at a higher level. They always managed to recruit Malay professionals to stand for elections but now their issue to impress is whether these Malay professionals can rally the ground regardless if the constituents are non-Malay. The allegation that Fatimah could not engage temple elders is a politically dangerous doublewhammy. Fatimah could not only interact with the Chinese, she also could not connect with people from the temple. Goh Chok Tong and the PAP could not accept this insinuation.

WP will now double efforts to find a Malay Malay MP candidate. Similarly, PAP will now double efforts to make sure the new Malay and other minority MPs give the impression that they have good rapport with the constituents regardless of race, language religion.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25666.1

Improve the remuneration for local doctors instead of turning to foreign doctors

Improve the remuneration for local doctors instead of turning to foreign doctors

EDITORS’ NOTE: The writer is currently a General Practitioner in private practice. He wishes to remain anonymous.

I refer to the report on 30 March 2009 - “1,000 foreign-trained docs still not enough” (read article here). Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed that the public healthcare sector needs to recruit a thousand more foreign doctors to filled the gaps and a third medical school may be needed in the future.

I beg to differ with Mr Khaw’s observation that there are insufficient doctors in Singapore. There are 250 graduates from NUS medical school every year. Less than half the number of doctors retire or close down their practices in the same period of time.

The shortage of doctors lies in the public sector especially in primary healthcare and less popular specialties like Geriatrics, Internal Medicine and Palliative Care.

Over half of our polyclinics are now staffed by foreign doctors who have communication problems with elderly patients. Very few local doctors wish to further their careers in the polyclinics and left for the private sector upon the completion of their bonds. Why is this so?

The monthly salary of a final year medical officer at a polyclinic is only S$5,000 plus compared to S$8,000 to S$9,000 in the private sector with less than half the workload. Even a part-time locum working only three days a week can chalk up the same amount.

An internal medicine trainee needs to spend a few years toiling in the public hospitals, but end up with a salary less than fellow GP colleagues outside. The attrition rate for internal medicine is probably one of the highest amongst all specialities. Many of my friends who were internal medicine trainees give up halfway due to work-related or family reasons and some already passed their MRCP examinations.

Though medicine is a holistic profession and financial renumeration should not be an overriding factor in determining the career paths of doctors, more can be done to ensure that local doctors are adequately rewarded for their contributions to public healthcare.

MOH has always argued against that an increase in salaries of healthcare workers will lead to higher healthcare costs for Singaporeans. We spent only 4% of our GDP on healthcare which is far less than most developed countries.

The government can well afford to spend more of our GDP on healthcare to improve working conditions of local doctors and nurses so as to keep more of them in the workforce. Why do we have so few local nurses in public hospitals? The starting pay for a staff nurse is only S$1,500 compared to about A$4,000 in Australia.

Though it is cheaper to employ foreign doctors, they are merely stop-gap measures which do not address the root cause of the problem.

With an aging population, we need more family physicians, geriatricians and palliative care specialists in the healthcare system to add more years of healthy life to Singaporeans.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25598.1