Only fair to compensate living kidney donors
I READ with amusement of the disquiet among some members of the medical community over the proposed amendment before Parliament to reimburse living kidney donors.
Most of those who are against financial compensation to living kidney donors are public-sector renal physicians and transplant surgeons. They argue that there are various medical and ethical issues for a donor to receive compensation, but I suspect the real reason is that they are more concerned about being treated as pariahs by international or American medical societies of their specialities.
Ethically, the Government's responsibility as a regulator is to protect the welfare of the donor. That must be the case for all donors, including altruistic ones, before the operations are allowed to take place.
In a study published in the New England Medical Journal on Jan 29, 225 kidney donors were followed up long term. The survival of kidney donors was similar to that of controls. Renal failure developed in 11 donors, a rate of 180 cases per million people per year, compared with a rate of 268 per million per year in the general population. Most donors had quality-of-life scores that were better than population norms.
Hence, we know that careful assessment of donor before harvesting the kidney will ensure that donor's health after removing one kidney will be no worse from that of normal people.
As the donor's health is not affected, how is it unethical for a living donor to be paid an adequate sum of money to go through the surgery to harvest the kidney - money which can be used to improve the standard of living of the donor and his family? How are we enhancing the well-being of kidney patients and donors by insisting on a less than adequate amount of compensation?
Professor Lee Wei Ling
Monday, March 23, 2009
PAP or SDP? The future according to LKY
PAP or SDP? The future according to LKY
Last Friday during a talk he gave at the National University of Singapore Society, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told the audience: "If you get capable people forming the next government, people who know what they have to do to make Singapore work, then I'm not worried. I'm not worried whether it's PAP or SDP or whatever government." (see below)
Mr Lee was looking ahead into the future on the topic Singapore and Singaporeans – Quarter Century From Now.
On the surface, such a statesmen-like observation is beyond reproach: A set of capable leaders who have the vision and the drive to make things work for the country. Now who wouldn't want such leadership?
The question is, how do these leaders rise and come to the fore? This is where one needs to separate Mr Lee's rhetoric from Mr Lee's reality.
While he acknowledges that such leaders can come from his own party or from the Singapore Democrats, he continues to ensure that only those in the PAP are presented to the Singaporean public.
The media that he controls repeatedly extol the virtues of his own people and of those he thinks serve his grand design. Of course, the SDP does not fall into those categories which is why our news are censored.
But Mr Lee knows that as much as he tries to marginalise, and even get rid of, the Singapore Democrats we are not going to go quietly into the night and hand Singapore's future on a plate to people who show utter contempt for public debate and the democratic process.
The incestuous praising of their own kind will yield a political gene pool that will prove to be anaemic and result in dysfunctionality in the long run.
If it needs to to said, capable people don't always agree. The disagreements are often vehement and sometimes even irreconcilable. But these disagreements need not be destructive for the country. In fact, history shows that great ideas and progress have often come from a clash of minds.
But society can only benefit from the contestation of political thought when the ideas of competing parties are allowed to clash in full public debate.
Mr Lee is right, however, on one score. The SDP is currently attracting capable people who will, in time, form the government.
To be certain, many of these people are presently reluctant to openly declare their support and come forward to work with us because of the oppressive nature of politics in this country. They help out behind the scenes.
But many, despite the threats they face, have openly declared their support for the Singapore Democrats and are courageously standing up to be counted.
They do so because they know where we stand and what we want for this country. We have laid out our vision clearly. We have articulated unambiguously our alternative policies and ideas. We have not been diffident about subjecting our views to public debate. We have taken on board criticisms when we have gone wrong and stoutly defended what we believe to be right.
Because of this we have been able to draw Singaporeans of substance and integrity, guided by their sense of justice and urged on by their conscience – even if it means having to endure whatever political nonsense the Government dishes out.
Money and the lure of the false prestige is not a motivator. Opportunism within the SDP is not the in-thing.
Perhaps it is this knowledge of the Singapore Democrats that prompted Mr Lee, consciously or otherwise, to acknowledge the SDP's role in Singapore's future.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25150.1
Last Friday during a talk he gave at the National University of Singapore Society, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told the audience: "If you get capable people forming the next government, people who know what they have to do to make Singapore work, then I'm not worried. I'm not worried whether it's PAP or SDP or whatever government." (see below)
Mr Lee was looking ahead into the future on the topic Singapore and Singaporeans – Quarter Century From Now.
On the surface, such a statesmen-like observation is beyond reproach: A set of capable leaders who have the vision and the drive to make things work for the country. Now who wouldn't want such leadership?
The question is, how do these leaders rise and come to the fore? This is where one needs to separate Mr Lee's rhetoric from Mr Lee's reality.
While he acknowledges that such leaders can come from his own party or from the Singapore Democrats, he continues to ensure that only those in the PAP are presented to the Singaporean public.
The media that he controls repeatedly extol the virtues of his own people and of those he thinks serve his grand design. Of course, the SDP does not fall into those categories which is why our news are censored.
But Mr Lee knows that as much as he tries to marginalise, and even get rid of, the Singapore Democrats we are not going to go quietly into the night and hand Singapore's future on a plate to people who show utter contempt for public debate and the democratic process.
The incestuous praising of their own kind will yield a political gene pool that will prove to be anaemic and result in dysfunctionality in the long run.
If it needs to to said, capable people don't always agree. The disagreements are often vehement and sometimes even irreconcilable. But these disagreements need not be destructive for the country. In fact, history shows that great ideas and progress have often come from a clash of minds.
But society can only benefit from the contestation of political thought when the ideas of competing parties are allowed to clash in full public debate.
Mr Lee is right, however, on one score. The SDP is currently attracting capable people who will, in time, form the government.
To be certain, many of these people are presently reluctant to openly declare their support and come forward to work with us because of the oppressive nature of politics in this country. They help out behind the scenes.
But many, despite the threats they face, have openly declared their support for the Singapore Democrats and are courageously standing up to be counted.
They do so because they know where we stand and what we want for this country. We have laid out our vision clearly. We have articulated unambiguously our alternative policies and ideas. We have not been diffident about subjecting our views to public debate. We have taken on board criticisms when we have gone wrong and stoutly defended what we believe to be right.
Because of this we have been able to draw Singaporeans of substance and integrity, guided by their sense of justice and urged on by their conscience – even if it means having to endure whatever political nonsense the Government dishes out.
Money and the lure of the false prestige is not a motivator. Opportunism within the SDP is not the in-thing.
Perhaps it is this knowledge of the Singapore Democrats that prompted Mr Lee, consciously or otherwise, to acknowledge the SDP's role in Singapore's future.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25150.1
Change has come to S’pore
Change has come to S’pore
Monday, 23 March 2009
Andrew Loh
Tekka Mall is no more. It has been renamed “The Verge”.
As I stood there watching the workers remove the old name and replacing it with the new one, I was saddened that yet another part of our heritage is being consigned to the memory bin. Soon Tekka Market, which is just across the road and currently undergoing a $12.9m facelift, will also be renamed.
Tekka, meaning “foot of the bamboos” in Hokkien, is along Serangoon Road in Little India. The newly-named The Verge has two buildings. The main building will be refashioned into an IT, lifestyle and F&B hub while the other, called Chill @ The Verge, is targeted at the younger set with its entertainment and F&B outlets.
As the workers took down the old “Tekka” signboard, no one seems to pay it any mind. One can’t blame them, seeing how so much change is going on in Singapore at the moment. Go anywhere nowadays and you will inevitably come across a construction site, or an HDB upgrading programme being carried out, or some road works being done – downtown or in the heartlands. From the ION in Orchard, the two Integrated Resorts, the refurbishment of Tekka Mall and Tekka Market, the “expunging” of Seletar Airbase and its quaint colonial era houses, to the soon-to-disappear Kampong Buangkok, Singapore seems to be in a frenetic race to install the new and remove the old.
While Singapore chases after economic development and all that it brings, such as jobs, one wonders if this should be at the expense of erasing our history. The recent debate over Minister Mentor Lee’s remarks on learning Chinese, or Mandarin, and the gradual eradication of our dialects and their attending traditions, cultures and history, shows that Singapore is undergoing more than just physical changes. They are emotional ones too.
What effect do all these have on the national psyche of our people, I wonder. Would we end up being good in building businesses and making money, but have no roots at all to our past? That things in Singapore have to always be new and shiny, and anything that taints this image should – nah, must – be dismantled and replaced?
Tekka Market has been around for decades. The older folks, especially, have fond memories of the place. Indeed, my grandparents and parents used to mention “Tekka” to me, even though I did not know why it was such a special place to them. There is something really heartwarming whenever I hear the elderly relate stories of these places (which may have since been demolished) and observed how these are so intricately-linked to their life experiences.
When The Verge officially opens later this year, I won’t be celebrating it. My thoughts will be on those elderly Singaporeans who shall no longer utter the name “tekka” and how this means that another part of our heritage has been erased – even from our lips.
Change, indeed, has come to Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24861.1
Monday, 23 March 2009
Andrew Loh
Tekka Mall is no more. It has been renamed “The Verge”.
As I stood there watching the workers remove the old name and replacing it with the new one, I was saddened that yet another part of our heritage is being consigned to the memory bin. Soon Tekka Market, which is just across the road and currently undergoing a $12.9m facelift, will also be renamed.
Tekka, meaning “foot of the bamboos” in Hokkien, is along Serangoon Road in Little India. The newly-named The Verge has two buildings. The main building will be refashioned into an IT, lifestyle and F&B hub while the other, called Chill @ The Verge, is targeted at the younger set with its entertainment and F&B outlets.
As the workers took down the old “Tekka” signboard, no one seems to pay it any mind. One can’t blame them, seeing how so much change is going on in Singapore at the moment. Go anywhere nowadays and you will inevitably come across a construction site, or an HDB upgrading programme being carried out, or some road works being done – downtown or in the heartlands. From the ION in Orchard, the two Integrated Resorts, the refurbishment of Tekka Mall and Tekka Market, the “expunging” of Seletar Airbase and its quaint colonial era houses, to the soon-to-disappear Kampong Buangkok, Singapore seems to be in a frenetic race to install the new and remove the old.
While Singapore chases after economic development and all that it brings, such as jobs, one wonders if this should be at the expense of erasing our history. The recent debate over Minister Mentor Lee’s remarks on learning Chinese, or Mandarin, and the gradual eradication of our dialects and their attending traditions, cultures and history, shows that Singapore is undergoing more than just physical changes. They are emotional ones too.
What effect do all these have on the national psyche of our people, I wonder. Would we end up being good in building businesses and making money, but have no roots at all to our past? That things in Singapore have to always be new and shiny, and anything that taints this image should – nah, must – be dismantled and replaced?
Tekka Market has been around for decades. The older folks, especially, have fond memories of the place. Indeed, my grandparents and parents used to mention “Tekka” to me, even though I did not know why it was such a special place to them. There is something really heartwarming whenever I hear the elderly relate stories of these places (which may have since been demolished) and observed how these are so intricately-linked to their life experiences.
When The Verge officially opens later this year, I won’t be celebrating it. My thoughts will be on those elderly Singaporeans who shall no longer utter the name “tekka” and how this means that another part of our heritage has been erased – even from our lips.
Change, indeed, has come to Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24861.1
New restrictions to Films Act introduced in the guise of liberalisation
New restrictions to Films Act introduced in the guise of liberalisation
The amendments to the Films Act bill has been passed in Parliament. State-owned CNA was the first off the blocks, calling it "a significant step to further liberalize and expand the space for political debate." The Straits Times and others will likely to parrot the enthusiasm, and there will be no end to the Government hailing the amendments as the a sign of Singapore opening up.
While I leave the analysis to the bloggers and commentators, I will just spell out here in layman's terms what the amendments really mean to you.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN FILMS ACT
The only major amendment is in Section 33 of the Films Act.
The rest of the Films Act remains largely unchanged. For example, the following sections still applies.
1. Section 14 requires that you submit any video in your possession (this includes video images stored in your handphone and private videos in your collection) to the Board of Film Censors (BFC).
2. Section 21 spells out the penalties if you possesses, exhibits or reproduces any unlicensed video.
3. Section 23 authorizes the police to enter and search your home, seize any unlicensed video(s) and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN SECTION 33
Section 33 prohibits the making, exhibition, distribution and import of "party political films", which are defined as videos or films that makes "partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter." It also states that the penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
In general, the above has not changed. It still applies.
The only change to the above is that instead of the BFC, an Independent Advisory Board will now decide what constitutes "partisan or biased references" . The Board is slated to be headed by ex-district court judge Richard Magnus. The members of the Board have not been announced as yet.
WHAT IS "ALLOWED"
What is "allowed" here, as the Minister and the media gloat, is really a misnomer as there were no prior restrictions on such videos.
1. The new amendment states you can now make a video that contain the whole or material proportion of a political event(s) that are held according to the law. Please note that this new addition is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. For example, my film Speakers Cornered (2006) was passed by the BFC prior to this new ruling. Ironically, this new amendment may actually criminalize Speakers Cornered as the participants of that protest are now undergoing trial!
2. The new amendment states you can now make political videos that do not contain any animation and must composed wholly of an accurate account of a political event or persons. Again this is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. In fact, this is a new restriction dressed up as liberalization. Sneaky.
WHAT IS REALLY ALLOWED (where previously banned)
This is the only part that fits the bill of liberalization (but is negated later by more new restrictions).
The new amendment states that you can now make, exhibit and distribute videos composed wholly of a political party's ideologies and manifestos. But here's the catch - the videos must be made "on the basis of which candidates authorized by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a Parliamentary election." Does this mean that someone like Dr Chee Soon Juan, who is ineligible to stand for elections due to his bankruptcy, is not allowed to appear in such videos? Will something like this be criminalized?
WHAT IS NOW NOT ALLOWED (where previously allowed, or not stated)
Get ready, here are the bombshells.
1. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains any form of animation. Like this.
2. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains "wholly or substantially based on unscripted or "reality" type programmes." Something like this.
3. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that depicts "events, persons or situations in a dramatic way." Something like this.
4. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains scenes of an illegal political event. Something like this.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.2
While I leave the analysis to the bloggers and commentators, I will just spell out here in layman's terms what the amendments really mean to you.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN FILMS ACT
The only major amendment is in Section 33 of the Films Act.
The rest of the Films Act remains largely unchanged. For example, the following sections still applies.
1. Section 14 requires that you submit any video in your possession (this includes video images stored in your handphone and private videos in your collection) to the Board of Film Censors (BFC).
2. Section 21 spells out the penalties if you possesses, exhibits or reproduces any unlicensed video.
3. Section 23 authorizes the police to enter and search your home, seize any unlicensed video(s) and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN SECTION 33
Section 33 prohibits the making, exhibition, distribution and import of "party political films", which are defined as videos or films that makes "partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter." It also states that the penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
In general, the above has not changed. It still applies.
The only change to the above is that instead of the BFC, an Independent Advisory Board will now decide what constitutes "partisan or biased references" . The Board is slated to be headed by ex-district court judge Richard Magnus. The members of the Board have not been announced as yet.
WHAT IS "ALLOWED"
What is "allowed" here, as the Minister and the media gloat, is really a misnomer as there were no prior restrictions on such videos.
1. The new amendment states you can now make a video that contain the whole or material proportion of a political event(s) that are held according to the law. Please note that this new addition is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. For example, my film Speakers Cornered (2006) was passed by the BFC prior to this new ruling. Ironically, this new amendment may actually criminalize Speakers Cornered as the participants of that protest are now undergoing trial!
2. The new amendment states you can now make political videos that do not contain any animation and must composed wholly of an accurate account of a political event or persons. Again this is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. In fact, this is a new restriction dressed up as liberalization. Sneaky.
WHAT IS REALLY ALLOWED (where previously banned)
This is the only part that fits the bill of liberalization (but is negated later by more new restrictions).
The new amendment states that you can now make, exhibit and distribute videos composed wholly of a political party's ideologies and manifestos. But here's the catch - the videos must be made "on the basis of which candidates authorized by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a Parliamentary election." Does this mean that someone like Dr Chee Soon Juan, who is ineligible to stand for elections due to his bankruptcy, is not allowed to appear in such videos? Will something like this be criminalized?
WHAT IS NOW NOT ALLOWED (where previously allowed, or not stated)
Get ready, here are the bombshells.
1. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains any form of animation. Like this.
2. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains "wholly or substantially based on unscripted or "reality" type programmes." Something like this.
3. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that depicts "events, persons or situations in a dramatic way." Something like this.
4. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains scenes of an illegal political event. Something like this.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.2
Govt announces relaxation to Internet election advertising rules
Govt announces relaxation to Internet election advertising rules
By S.Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 23 March 2009 1628 hrs
 | |||||||||||
 | |||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: Singapore's taking a significant step to further liberalise and expand the Internet space for political debate. Parliament has approved changes to the Films Act, allowing for certain types of films which would otherwise be termed party political films.
Regulations on internet election advertising have also been relaxed.
Singapore's society is changing and the younger generation want more space for political discourse and greater engagement with the government.
Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew, said: "It is therefore important that the government learns to make better use of the medium of film and new media tools to reach out and engage, inform, educate and obtain the views of media-savvy Singaporeans.
"While videos, films and new media can be widely used and can improve communications, we must be mindful that they can be easily abused. This is the reason why, even as we liberalise, there needs to be some safeguards to minimise the risk that they will be exploited and to reduce the undesirable effects."
So amendments to the Films Act will allow films that are factual and objective. They must not dramatise or present a distorted picture.
With the change, LIVE recordings of events held in accordance with the law, anniversary and commemorative videos of political parties, and factual documentaries or biographies will be permitted.
The space for political expression is also liberalised. Political parties and their candidates will now be able to use films allowed under the Act during an election period.
MPs shared some views expressed by netizens and in other forums.
MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, Penny Low, who also chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Information, Communications and the Arts, said: "The Internet is rife with different opinions questioning the intent of the amendment.
"Is this really a step forward towards liberalisation or is this a step backwards to contain certain political parties? Even worse - is this to introduce a catch-all clause to contain even the film producer, the videographer and free speech."
Zaqy Mohamed, MP for Hong Kah GRC, said: "The proliferation of the new media and the ease of means to get films to be produced and distributed outside of Singapore signals that local regulations are becoming less and less effective."
Mr Lui noted that while films have their impact when reaching the population, they also have their downside.
He said: "If our democracy is reduced to slick commercials, clever editing, sharp sound bites and political spin, then I think our democracy is being debased. So I would say that when we craft this, we are very much aware that even as we liberalise, that we continue to make sure that the debate is serious, robust and rational."
And with an environment that continues to evolve, the government said it is prepared to make further changes, when appropriate. - CNA/vm
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.1
Public Order Act introduced
Public Order Act introduced to examine new realities in managing security
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 23 March 2009 1833 hrs
 | |||||||||||
K Shanmugam | |||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry wants to create a more effective legal framework when managing public order - one that is formal, coherent and transparent.
To achieve this, Law and Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam introduced a new Public Order Act in Parliament on Monday. It examines new global realities in managing security and consolidates existing laws which regulate the conduct of activities.
The Public Order Act aims to distinguish between types of activities in outdoor settings - separating those assessed to be inherently higher than those with lower public order risks.
Presently, activities held for a certain cause are regulated together with recreational, social and commercial ones under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
Under the new Public Order Act, cause-related activities will be regulated by permit, regardless of the number of persons involved or the format they are conducted in.
The Act will broaden police powers in dealing with public order incidents. Currently, in the face of an illegal assembly, police can either prosecute or arrest to prevent the incident from escalating.
In the Act, there will be a "move on order" clause. This allows the police to engage the offender and give him a chance to stop his unlawful activity without involving arrest. The order will be issued in writing.
The Home Affairs Ministry emphasised that major international events are trophy targets for terrorists.
As Singapore plays host to more of such events, the priority must be to ensure the security and safety of the delegates and Singaporeans. One key event this year is the APEC Leaders' Meeting in November.
Under the new Act, the minister can declare through a gazette notice certain events as special. This will then allow the police to exercise powers to preserve public order and the safety of those involved.
Finally, the Act also has orders on filming. The ministry said there are specific situations where the recording of an ongoing incident can jeopardise the success of security operations or the safety of officers.
So the Act empowers officers to prohibit persons from filming, communicating and exhibiting films of such activities.
Parliament will debate provisions of the Bill at its next sitting.
- CNA/yt
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24859.1
Mindef breaks silence on dead doctor Allan Ooi
Mindef breaks silence on dead doctor Allan Ooi
By Lin Yanqin, TODAY | Posted: 23 March 2009 0819 hrs
 | ||||||
File picture of Allan Ooi | ||||||
| |
SINGAPORE: For the first time since Singapore Armed Forces doctor Allan Ooi was found dead under a bridge in Melbourne nearly three weeks ago, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) has come forward to address the incident in detail.
In a letter to the press, Mindef stated that it wished to “clarify certain facts regarding media reports on Capt (Dr) Ooi’s service in the SAF and his scholarship bond”, and gave a rundown of the events leading to his disappearance in October.
An alleged suicide note by Capt (Dr) Ooi, which has been circulating on the Internet, has been stoking public speculation, in particular. Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao had referenced the alleged letter and its contents, which touched on his dissatisfaction with his job and his bond with the SAF.
Mindef confirmed in its letter that Capt (Dr) Ooi, who studied medicine at the National University of Singapore under the SAF Local Study Award (Medicine), had last year informed his superior at the Aeromedical Centre that he was “unhappy at work and was considering leaving the SAF”.
Recipients of the scholarship are required to serve a 12-year bond after their housemanship, which Capt (Dr) Ooi completed in 2006.
“On 3 Oct 2008, his superior offered him the option of posting to an appointment which he would be interested in,” wrote Mindef spokesman Darius Lim in the letter.
“Capt (Dr) Ooi agreed to consider this option and to get back to his superior in two weeks’ time. However, he did not do so. He also did not submit any application to leave the SAF.”
Less than two weeks later, Capt (Dr) Ooi went Awol (absent without official leave). He would have been scheduled to go for his hospital posting at the end of this year.
In the letter, Mindef stated that SAF officers who take up sponsorship have a responsibility to serve the full period of their bonds as “substantial resources and time have been devoted to training them”.
“Otherwise, they will leave gaps in key positions in the SAF. Nevertheless, if an officer wishes to leave the service early, he can submit an application through a proper process. Approval to leave the service will be granted only under strong and extenuating circumstances,” wrote Colonel Lim.
Capt (Dr) Ooi was commissioned in 2006, and served for one and a half years in the Air Force Medical Service. He was sponsored by the SAF in January last year for further specialist training in Aviation Medicine in the United Kingdom. He was posted to the Aeromedical Centre after completing the course last July.
While it was not said if this would extend his stay in the SAF, a 12-year bond from a Local Study Award comprises six years spent in hospitals to acquire clinical competency in fields needed by the SAF.
The other six years are spent in command and staff positions with the SAF Medical Corps, performing duties such as the clinical care of SAF servicemen and professional development of military medicine.
Melbourne police are still investigating the circumstances of Capt (Dr) Ooi’s death.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24819.10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)