If you take part in NKF health screening, you are considered a suffering person

from the KPMG report, they found that a letter written to donors which accompanied the NKF 2004 financial report, the NKF stated that it had supported "45,000 suffering children and their families".

Are there that many suffering children in Singapore?

Well the 45,000 allegedly suffering children included primary school children who had participated in NKF run health screening in their respective schools.

Suffering?

Concerned about this.....

There were a few people who had openly criticised the NKF in public. People like Archie Ong, Dr Seamus Phan, and Tan Kiat Noi etc. However only Archie Ong and another individual actually took the case to court.

And TT Durai won the cases in court.

So was the court correct in their judgment? Is there any recourse for people like Archie Ong?

Can the courts ever be wrong? Puts a lot of things into question. Not good.

Now we know where the money came for printing all those Christmas cards

In the KPMG report they found that a fund of $75,000 was given to NKF for the purpose of training doctors in improving the management of dialysis patients. This fund was utilised in part for the printing of Christmas cards for the "2004 one-to-one greeting cards mailing event" organized by the NKF.

I always wondered how NKF had money to send all those cards to people. Guess the training of doctors was not a priority.

Incidentally clinical staff were paid in "normal" standard fashion and their salary increments and promotions based on standard institutional practices, unlike that of non-clinical staff.

So I guess the doctors and nurses who worked for NKF can say they were not guilty.

Will there be further revelations on the NKF issue?

KPMG had wanted to obtain access to PwC's audit working papers during their investigation.

PwC had required, inter alia that they be indemnified by the NKF as well as KPMG against any legal claims by third parties arising from the review of their audit working papers.

KPMG's lawyers advised them to decline offer of access to PwC's audit working papers.

So will the government be revealing what information the PwC papers hold? Or will it be case closed and let's move on?

Interesting how all these papers are all so secretly held. But that's the law like it or not.

All transparent? Maybe not.

But it is the debate between privacy and confidentiality vs accountability and transparency.

They are conflicting ideals in today's world.

We should have more of such "special" reports!

I must say the report from KPMG has been very impressive.

A lot of dirt was dug up. In fact there was so much dirt that I am surprised that it was so easily hidden for so many years.

Makes you wonder 2 possibilities

1) That it is extremely easy to hide your dirty dealings in Singapore.

or

2) If you go out searching for dirt, you will find it.

So is Singapore really clean?

Maybe we should have random "special" reports that focus on finding dirt on various GLC's , stat boards, Ministries etc. That way it would keep all of them on their toes.

However I suspect the "special" reports would somehow change it's objectives to NOT finding dirt after some time.

One way to circumvent that problem is to then have random accounting firms conduct "special" reports to find dirt on the accounting firm that is supposed to find dirt. Better to randomly select foreign accounting firms to then do "special" reports on the random accounting firms that conduct "special" report to find dirt on the accounting firms that are supposed to find dirt.

Guess there's no end huh?

Scrap that idea! I am an idiot.

It is safer and easier to remain silent in Singapore

I'm reading the 442 page KPMG report on NKF.

One thing I noticed and this is repeated many times in the report, is that there were many people who resigned from NKF.

I believe many of them knew what was going on. Some probably left because they could not condone what was being done. Some may have left because they were not "favoured". But many did leave and the turnover of staff was 40%! Few however blew the whistle. Those few who did were summarily dealt with by the organization severely.

This seems to be the prevailing trend in Singapore as far as dissenting voices against a powerful incumbent are concerned. As long as it is a dissent of considerable impact (especially when the allegations are true), there will be severe and unrelenting action taken against the perpetrator.

And in Singapore the system is such that if you do not have the financial muscle or social standing, you will probably go bankrupt before you even get to court. So most would simply settle out of court and pay damages. But damages on what?

This practice has the intended effect to strike fear into potential perpertrators and deter them from exercising any vocal opinions. And it has worked extremely well I must say. It had to take the incumbent himself to blow the whistle on himself for NKF's inconsistencies to have been finally uncovered. The NKF board must view this as a tragedy and a clear case of legal suicide.

This "scare-them-so-much-they-keep-quiet" tactic seems somehow extremely familiar. It wasn't originally thought of by NKF, but I just can't put my finger on where I have seen that before though.

Mummy ar I want to watch Narnia....

Narnia is a movie for children and perhaps christians.

It is not a violent movie. There is ZERO blood shown in the whole movie.

It is pretty long at about 2.5 hours but not as bad as King Kong.

The kids love it. My son who is a BIG BIG LOTR fan (he is 3 years old) prefers Narnia. The reason? The heroes are kids so he can identify with them.

The christian symbolism is all that drew me to the movie. Otherwise I'd say it was a pretty light weight action/fantasy movie. I had never read the books so I don't know if this was true to CS Lewis' vision.

People who are expecting a LOTR type movie will be sorely disappointed. Narnia is a different kind of movie. But if you want to compare, I would say nobody does fantasy action better than Peter Jackson. His next project better be the Hobbit otherwise he is finished.

Overall Narnia's a good movie to take the kids to. It won't scare them, but it isn't totally kiddy stuff like Chicken Little. If you don't have kids, then watch it as if you were a kid.

I must say I am disappointed that this festive season hollywood's best on offer didn't make any impression on me.

Rating : 3 stars out of 5

Lessons to be learnt from NKF saga?

There are a few lessons to be learnt from the NKF saga.

1) We cannot place total trust in anyone or anything in Singapore. Despite many years of suspicion and rumours about NKF, we were told repeatedly by the best and most respected people in the government and GLC's that they were not true and that we the man on the street was wrong. We were assured time and time again that there were systems of checks both by the government, private accounting bodies and NCSS to safeguard against such problems occuring. NKF was even lauded for having such stringent checks in place and taking the lead for other charities to follow. Today we read our Health Minister telling us that the "systems" were just structural but there was no action to support it. This is in contrast to what we have been hearing for upteen years.

2) With the best structual systems of checks in place, we still need good people with proper "moral compasses" to make it work. We hear that NKF had a moral compass shift when it became incorporated as a company. What about other areas of our society in Singapore. Would we look back 10 years from now and say our moral compass had shifted when we approved the Casinos or the politically correctly called "integrated resorts"? A spade is a spade. Or maybe the government's moral compass had shifted the day they decided that Ministers should be paid "market value" because "when you pay peanuts you get monkeys". I have always felt that with this change, we could never ever tell if our leaders in office were there truly to serve the nation or for the "market value" remuneration. Another downside of our leaders spouting such remuneration philosophies is that it sends a message to every Singaporean that they should be paid what they are worth and everything is about remuneration. No one wants to be called a monkey and stupid because he accepts a lower than "market" value remuneration. But that is the message. The scholars learn it, and thus they break their bonds to join ego boosting lucrative paying international companies rather than serve out their bonds and "serve" Singapore. Bearing in mind that most of our leaders are from similar cohorts of scholars, you can conclude that they all share the same philosophies. And then the leaders in office chide their own peers, the scholars for caring only about the dollar and not about repaying the nation. Ironic.

3) Who watches the watchmen? TT Durai got away with a lot of "mishandling" all the while playing within the rules. Who checked on him? He is perhaps unparalleled in Singapore as a fund raiser. Hence no one dared to check him for fear of jeopardizing the "essential" fund raising system. Are we going to continue to be too scared to check on the people in power because it may jeopardize the "system"? This is a question we must all find an answer to.

4) Is there transparency in Singapore? Perhaps there is apparent transparency only. If a supposedly transparent organization like NKF could "hide" legally and effectively their misdeeds, what then can we say about those openly declared "non-transparent" companies and organizations? TT Durai shot himself in the foot by choosing to disrupt the balance by suing SPH. If he had not done so, he would today still be leading NKF and building it into a bigger "Taj Mahal" for himself. We really should thank the man for turning himself in. What other non-transparent organizations should we be concerned with? How about the biggest? Temasek Holdings.

5) There is no such thing as a total democracy, total freedom and total trust. Which is why it is always good to have change. Have a rotation of the people in power. Change them regularly so you never have a situation where one individual becomes too "charismatic", influential and powerful. This should be applied to all levels of governance. After all isn't this what we do with the SAF? The SAF is a very powerful organisation which if controlled by a despot could cause great danger to the nation. We change the generals regularly so no one has too much power and can potentially stage a coup? The questions begs then, if it works for the SAF, why not for the other organisations?

NKF saga

A few thoughts about this whole thing about donations, charity integrities, NCSS etc.....

1) The "old" NKF was found to only use $0.10 of every $1 to fund patients' medical services. So how much of every $1 is the "New" NKF using for the patients? NKF has an immediate obligation to inform its current remaining donors. Is it still 10%? 20%? 30%?

2) The NKF seems to be a pretty big employer in Singapore. If NKF closes down, many jobs would be lost. Perhaps that is a major consideration for the government too. But I don't think this should be an issue. Sometimes when organizations get too big, you end up having a lot of unecessary fat. A good example I think is the health care clusters Singhealth and NHG. There should be a report on how much of health care expenditure is spent on non-medical (ie administrators, managers, etc) manpower costs vs on medical ( ie doctors and nurses) manpower costs. The figure might or might not shock you.

3) NCSS is useless. If they could not monitor the BIGGEST charity. It is fair to assume that there are many hundreds more smaller charities that are getting away with creative accounting too.

4) The report says that authorities could have acted 4 years ago, meaning this problem was suspected 4 years ago. Did the Straits Times know about it 4 years ago. I bet they did. So why only after NKF wanted to sue SPH, did the press report and expose NKF? A case of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"? I smell a rotten fish at many levels here. Perhaps this problem of unaccountabbility goes deeper than just the NKF?

5) TT Durai looks like a total idiot in what has happened. I doubt that he is that stupid. I suspectt TT Durai had some confidence that he would win in his lawsuit against SPH. Perhaps he felt that NKF was essential to MOH's plans? Perhaps he had inside information on other "problems" in our society, which he thought he could use as his bargaining chips? I believe there is a lot more than meets the eye.

6) 10 years ago, my grandfather developed kidney failure and needed dialysis. NKF turned down his application for subsidies based on our family's income status. This was despite most of us being regular NKF donors. It was explained to us was that we as donors would not be able to receive help because we were deemed "too rich". The donations were meant for the "poor". Today we know that only 10% of our money was given to the "poor" (God knows whether these "poor" actually exist). The other 90% was used for salaries and to make "rich" people richer! Where is the justice?

7) People are blaming TT Durai as being a tyrant, dictator, and despot. People say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is TT Durai the only person in Singapore with the same degree of power and control?

8) We have seen many letters of support written by very prominent and important people in our society, some of who control very very important parts of our resources. These letters were written to vouch for the integrity of NKF and that they had been providing good service to the needy. With the new revelations, especially the one that only 10% of donations was used for the needy, shouldn't these people step out to retract their statements? Can we trust these people with our important resources? Are their powers of observation, research, and judgment up to the mark for the important responsibilities their roles require? Are they too easily fooled and cheated? Or were there personal reasons for supporting the NKF?

9) All the excuses given by NCSS that they have to pay market value to good people in order to manage and run organizations that can raise funds properly is NOT what people want to hear. The bottom line is this. Either you put in place regulations that will protect the donations received or you will have no charities or donors. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The government promoting "social entrepreneurship" also should be stopped. It spreads the wrong message to people.

10) What other conspiracies and hidden truths are out there which we the public should know about? It is time the Straits Times fulfills its intended role. Judging from this incident of "delayed reporting" by 4 years, the Straits Times' 140th ranking in the "free press" list is clearly not a mistake.

Donations

If you really wanted to make sure that as much of your donation was going to better the cause of the recipients, you should be donating your TIME.

If you donate anything else, be prepared that it might be misused, wasted or stolen.

Boring Long King Kong

I haven't said this of a hollywood blockbuster for a long time.

Boring.

I mean most blockbusters can be stupid, they can be cheesy, they can be not up to standard, but they usually don't bore you.

I think the main problem with King Kong is that it is OVER 3 hours long! They should have called it "The King Kong Trilogy, One for all and All for one."

The movie didn't really know what it wanted to be. A study into the evils of man? A love story between a man and a woman? (that obviously didn't play out well so no "Titanic-like" possibilities at the box office there) A love story between a 25 foot gorilla and a fair Australian Nicole Kidman looking blonde? Last I knew bestiality was still taboo. An action movie? Not possible with all the long drawn soppy and sappy silent scenes.

Another problem is that the star of the movie doesn't talk! And in scenes involving the star male (King Kong) and female leads, they don't talk either. I never expected I'd be watching a silent movie!

I suspect most people would watch King Kong for 2 reasons.

One, it is directed by Peter Jackson. Who can forget his LOTR trilogy? Simply fantastic and brilliant! This being his first movie after LOTR everyone would be curious to see what he has to offer.

Two, it's KING KONG, which is an interesting well known icon.

Unfortunately I think most viewers would be disappointed. The effects are top notch. However the movie is too long. Most of the draggy scenes involved King Kong and Naomi Watts communicating.

An example would go like this:

Anne Darrow (played by Naomi Watts) : Sad look, mouth agape, showing off buck teeth, tears running down her cheek ( all done really really slowly)

King Kong : fierce look, eyes widen, pupils dilate, nostrils flare, looks away, looks back at Anne Darrow (all done really really slowly)

Anne Darrow : her head tilts, a frown forms, she smiles slightly (all done really really slowly)

King Kong : reaches his hand out, opens his palm on the ground (done very slowly)

Anne Darrow : Looks stunned, frowns to look slightly confused but understands, sits down on King Kong's palm (done very slowly)

King Kong : looks at Anne Darrow, looks away, looks at her again, looks to the sky (done very slowly)

scene pans out, music plays....... (slowly)

Man.......and this happened about a DOZEN times throught the movie!

Rating : 2 stars out of 5

Traffic police giving chances nowadays?

My mother in law received a letter from the Traffic police stating that her car had been caught travelling above the speed limit by a speed camera.

The fine would have been $130 with 4 demerit points. However the letter stated that the driver would NOT be charged and no action will be taken. Only a warning was issued and the offence would be logged into the Traffic Police's records for reference.

Initially I had thought they "gave chance" because the person who drives that car is my brother in law who just got his licence a couple of months back and is a new driver. But then the car was registered under my mother in law and she has had her licence for many years now. So it couldn't be that.

Secondly when I heard about it without reading the letter, I had thought my brother in law had spoken to the traffic police officer who stopped him and successfully pleaded for a chance. But then it was a speed camera that had caught him. So it couldn't be that.

So what could be the reason for the Traffic Police's sudden kindness? I had received a summons last year and was asked to furnish details of the driver of the car. I successfully wrote an appeal letter (always good to try, they can only say no). But this is the first time I have heard of the Traffic Police writing to you and informing you that you were caught but no action would be taken.

What basis do they decide to do that? Not that I don't want my brother in law to have a chance but hey everyone should be excused then isn't it?

Two possibilities were raised by my family, the second which was raised by my father in law seems the more likely:

1) Perhaps the speed camera on that road had malfunctioned and recorded an incredible number of drivers as being speeding. Thus the TP were unsure if it was indeed true and thus decided to just send letters to warn people rather than have egg on their faces when someone manages to prove that they weren't speeding

2) Elections are coming and the government wants people to be in a good mood. Every driver summoned would be a lost vote for the PAP?

Anyway I have made copies of the letter. I think it can be useful in future.

If ever I get a summons from TP, I will write a letter of appeal and include this letter of "giving chance" for evidence that the TP do indeed give chances, it's just whether they want to.

10 reasons why doctors are like hookers

They can be paid per session or per hour.

The client complains if they finish their job too fast.

The boss complains if they finish their job too slowly.

They have to be able to communicate effectively with the client and be gentle and elegant in their actions.

They do their work inside a room.

It's usually just 2 persons involved: the client and them.

The aim is to let the client leave the room with a smile and feeling good if not better.

Sometimes what they do can be painful for the client, but it is part of the deal.

Their work involves exploring body cavities and orifices.

You can see them by appointment or walk-ins.

And the 11th reason...

Sometimes you don't have to visit them. You can simply "see" them for free on the internet.

Australian's reply to "racist" attacks in Sydney

"Dec 14, 2005Sydney 'race riots' actually attacks on criminals

THERE have been reports in the Australian media about race riots in Sydney. In fact, the riots are not race riots but attacks on criminals.

The situation has been brought about by the deterioration in law enforcement in recent years. Australian state governments, which run the police, have cut the number of police patrol officers, and have instructed them not to respond immediately to crimes like they used to do. Also, patrol officers have been instructed not to prosecute criminals unless they see the crime taking place, which they never do since they generally turn up two hours later.

The result is a paradise for criminals. Large areas of Australian cities have become no-go zones. Parents won't let their children play outdoors. With the recent hot weather, law-abiding mainstream Australians would like to use the beaches, but are prevented by criminal gangs.
In Cronulla, the criminals are mostly of Lebanese origin. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for people to assume that any person of Lebanese appearance is a criminal and treat them accordingly. The police have not clamped down on Lebanese criminals, so the public are understandably taking the law into their own hands.

Most criminals in Australia are from ethnic minority groups, mainly the Irish 25 per cent of the population. This is hardly surprising since these groups send their children to schools which actively encourage crime.

For example, at Irish Catholic schools in Australia they teach: 'Which is better, for your family to die of starvation, or to steal a loaf of bread? Obviously, to steal a loaf of bread.'

In contrast, at government schools in Singapore, you teach that it is better for your family to die of starvation than to steal anything.

Irish-Australians are behind the push for the introduction of so-called 'human rights' into South-east Asia. Asians call these so-called rights 'Western values'. In fact they are Irish values, and most Australians reject them. The ideas Asean leaders call 'Asian values' are supported by the vast majority of Australians.

Most Australians would like to have laws like you have in Singapore, but most of our politicians are Irish. The only area where mainstream Australians would disagree with Singapore policies is that we support trial by jury. Things like the Holocaust and the Gulag Archipelago don't happen in countries where there is a right to trial by jury.

Our student association would like to see greater involvement between Australia and Asean countries. But Asean governments should make such involvement dependent on Australia phasing out Irish values. Clearly, the idea that Irish values are superior to Chinese values or Malay values or English values is wrong.

Geoff Bird National President Australian Union of Students Queensland, Australia"


Just wondering whether what he says about Singapore is true. Would you "teach that it is better for your family to die of starvation than to steal anything?"

The Worst Blog of the Year Awards

Looks like I have a supporter in my running for Worst Blog of the Year Awards!

That's cool! As much as I want to though, I don't think I'll win. There are tons of blogs out there with some crappy head introduction and guess what NO BLOG ENTRIES. I think they are the real favourites for the awards.

At least I have a blog and I DO write entries to it. Even if the entries are bad, I don't think it will win me the WBOY.

What is King Kong with no hair?

Answer :

An Uglybaldie! Makes a lot of angry noises, thumps his chest to scare away opponents, and suffers a gigantic fall in the end.

Is having a maid in Singapore a necessity or a privilege?

Listening to the radio this morning they talked about a report by the Human Rights Watch Group on how Foreign Domestic Workers (FDW) are mistreated in Singapore.

Many views were made. Employers complaining about their maids, employers complaining about how other employers were mistreating their maids, employers complaining about other employers complaining about how other employers were mistreating their maids.

Which brings us to the question. Why are there so many maids in Singapore?

I think there are 2 main factors.

1) Singaporeans tend to have both spouses working. They work long hours. They have difficulty paying for expensive childcare (charged per child whereas a maid can look after a few kids at a time). They claim to have no time to do their housework. So there is a need and want (ie a market)

2) Maids are very affordable in Singapore. So there is a ready affordable supply.

Which is why there are so many maids in Singapore. Almost everyone seems to have one.

My household does not have a maid. So many times I have had acquaintances who have been so surprised by this. Almost invariably they would comment "How do you survive without a maid?"

Well last I checked, my wife and kids and I were all healthy, and the house was clean enough for us to be happy living in it.

I came from a family that had a maid as long as I can remember. My father has never done any housework whatsoever. My mother only did so when we were in transition periods when changing maids and there was no maid. She however did it with much complaints, especially how hard it was for her to juggle work and housework "chores". As for the kids, we were never allowed nor encouraged to do housework. When the maid was around we would be scolded for "helping" the maid. When the maid was missing, mum would just do the housework just so she could complain more to dad. The maids were either Filipino or Indonesian.

My wife came from a similar family set up too.

When we set up our own humble abode, I had arguments with my wife on whether we should have a maid. I did not want a maid. My wife wanted one. She was afraid that she would be saddled with all the housework while I sat around playing the Xbox.

After 5 years and having 2 kids aged 4 and 3, we now both agree that having a maid is NOT a necessity and it is also harmful to the development of our children. When our children are at their grandparents' place, they behave very differently. They call for the maid to do things for them, eg take their clothes for them, wipe out spills and mess that they make etc.

At home they do these things themselves.

I believe that one should be proud of their home. Not proud because you spent X thousand dollars renovating it but that it is truly your home. Housework is not a chore. How clean your house should be, is best decided by you. Who better to actually clean it? Take pride in doing it rather than shunning it. The children will see you doing it with pride and learn to do it as well.Thus making them feel that this is their home and they do have a part in maintaining it.

The civil service now operates on a 5 day work week. My wife and I work 6-7 days a week. There are some days when we get home earlier in the evenings. There is more than enough time to do simple things like changing the bedsheets, washing the toilets, vaccuuming the floor, mopping it, throwing the laundry into the washer, and ironing over the week. Kids as young as 4 and 3 can help out contrary to what people say. And they enjoy doing stuff that their parents do. A case of imitation. So I really do not see why people say they do not have enough time to do the housework. No one works 24 hours a day. Housework can be relaxing once you get into the groove of it.

Just last week, my wife asked me whether there was any housework to do. And I told her I had done everything over the couple of days before. She then said that I should leave some stuff for her to do! She actually missed doing some of it. Imagine a couple fighting over wanting to do housework!

The other thing about maids is that it teaches little children from a very young age to delegate duties, get others to fix their mistakes, and gives them their first exposure to Filipinos and Indonesians. Little wonder how many children grow up thinking Filipinos and Indonesians are there to serve them only. I feel that is bad for a child's development.

I acknowledge however that child care is a problem. It is not cheap. Most child care costs anything between $250 - $1000 a month per child. That can be a heavy burden especially when you have more than 1 child. Well the solution; refrain from having children if you can't afford it. Of course the government is encouraging couples to have more children. I think the readily available and affordable maid is one carrot for that. If I am not wrong some maid subsidy was part of the incentive package to have more children.

In other countries for example Australia, having a domestic worker is reserved for the very rich because it is relatively very costly. Domestic workers are not like our maids in Singapore. Think more like Bruce Wayne's (aka Batman's) butler Alfred. They are generally respectable jobs held by locals and they are covered by the Employment Act.

Quite a number of Singaporeans I know migrated to Australia and bought huge houses, only to find that there were no readily available domestic maids to help them clean and maintain the house and lawn. In the end they sold their big houses and moved to apartments and didn't like staying in Australia because they had to do household "chores" themselves.

Do we need maids in Singapore? The question then is how many percent of the world's households internationally have a maid? I would be interested to know the figures.

Perhaps Singapore might have the world's highest number of domestic maids per household. Something to be proud of? I don't think so.

Why ugly is ugly

Ok now that I have finished doing the housework,

Uglybaldie gave me advice early on when I first started this blog, that I should have a disclaimer on my blog to cover medical advice or information. I thought about his advice and realised he was very right. And I took the advice. I considered totally discontinuing my blog (again).

Then I thought why not take up his other suggestion. He felt that medical information was readily available on the net and hence me blogging about it was a waste of time and boring to boot. He also said he thought reading about views on real life issues was more interesting. Not to mention much safer on the legal front being totally unrelated to my profession. And I felt they were VERY VERY good tips.

And so I followed his suggestions. I was glad that he had given that good advice and I appreciate it. I respect that it also must have come from a wise senior experienced person. Thank you uglybaldie.

If you read my blog again, you'll find I'm staying clear of all medical issues. I decided I would not give any medical advice for legal reasons. I might only comment on hospital administrative situations. The legal situation is very sticky as uglybaldie had mentioned and people can always ask Dr Google for their medical concerns. So there was no advantage for me to give out free medical advice. For the matter I used to do this in my old blogs and I have no problems with giving free medical advice because my main aims for blogging are not for monetary ones. (There are far better ways to make money both in medicine and outside of medicine) However it is true that medical advice can be misinterpreted and misused. It is possible people can get hurt and it does leave me open to legal action. That is a risk I think I'd rather not take anymore after reading uglybaldie's comments as well as "Casebook" from the Medical Protect. Besides it isn't interesting either. Plus there was a discussion on angrydoc's blog that all these statistics based "evidence" was crap. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15575652&postID=113353197575324914

So basically what's the point? If you give advice you end up getting into debates about how medicine should be (eg scientifically based, statistically based, mystically based, total con job etc etc ), and people find it boring too.

All this I agree with uglybaldie. Hence I decided no medical information, advice, blog entries whatsoever to anyone no matter who they are, whether they are friends or enemies etc.

Now here's where I found things got interestingly revealing on the part of uglybaldie.

He had asked me http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19299890&postID=113401307077131120

"I note that the BP monitor attached to my arm reads 138/88 blood pressure with a pulse rate of 80. My normal reading when reading and writing comical stuff is 116/66 with pulse rate of 66. Anything to worry about there doc? "

And I replied "Why don't you go ask Dr Google? It was still free too last I checked so no worries there. "

I mean hypertension is such a common condition, you can find the current recommendations for ideal BP easily. Also, they are based on statistics which many people had said was nonsense.

Strangely here's how uglybaldie replied,

"He, He, No wonder you're a doc with no business.

Kiasu, kiasi, kiaboh.

kiasu=scared giving out free med advice. no income.

kiasi= scared kenna sued if wrong advice.

kiaboh= scared no income or benefit derivable so why bother to give advice.

typically stinkaporean. Hope when you go to OZ you will change your mindset and be more generous or else you will have to remigrate back to kiasuLand.

LMAO

In case you have not come across it in your outdated textbooks. a bp of 138/88 and a pulse rate of 80 is damn good if you are ranting angrily. Anything less proves that you are already dead. "

Now I wonder why that outburst?

I find that there is a group of people who would respond in a certain way when they don't get what they want. They would insult the person who had refused to give them what they want, call him names, and brand him. Do the doctors in the public and private sectors find this familiar? Or for the matter anyone in the service industry? There is a word to describe such behaviour and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that you can find the word in uglybaldie's name. (Why would anyone give himself such a condescending tag in the first place?)

Another thing I find is that the same group of people also respond in a certain manner when they realise they have lost an argument.

For one they would NEVER admit that their point was misplaced and there would never be an apology.

Secondly they would talk about something else eg give factual or statistical information about the topic rather than really addressing the key arguments.

Thirdly, they would move on to some other topic to hopefully distract attention away from their loss. ( up to this stage you can find good examples of such tactics by reading replies from civil service bodies to letters in the Straits Times Forum section)

Fourthly, some might resort to picking on other things and start calling names and insulting the opposition in a further attempt to get the argument off track and hopefully rile the opposition into making mistakes and indulging in their same juvenile verbal assaults.

So personally I find that uglybaldie is an intelligent person with an ability to express good views. Things change however when he does not get his way.

My wish is for uglybaldie to stay away from asking medically related questions and advice (he advised me to stay away from making that type of blog entries or comment in the first place) and get back to his beef as he writes on his blog : http://uglybaldie.blogspot.com/

"Here's My Beef No Sex, No politics, No Teenage Angst, No Dogmas. Just Feedbacks to Make our Community a better Place to Live."

It would truly make the discussions more amiable and objective and let us have a better more pleasant community here. "Teenage angst" is particularly not welcome here.

Man Utd OUT OF EUROPE!

Champions League Group D Table

Villareal 10pts
Benfica 8pts
Lille 6 pts
Man Utd 6 pts


Man that is a sight I couldn't believe! This was not meant to be a tough group, but it turned out to be a bad one for Man Utd.

To finish bottom of the group and not even be in the UEFA Cup, that's almost unbelievable. But believe it, because it is true.

It's going to be a sad 2006 for Old Trafford.

Looks like the balance of power has changed. It's going to be Liverpool and Chelsea from now on!

You'll never walk alone!!!! Walk on 5 time European Champions Liverpool Football Club!

Of course the banks don't lend you money just like that!

Firstly,

I had written this statement in my last post : "If you need to borrow money, go to the bank. If you need financial help, go to the grassroots leaders for help."

Well if you actually believe that will work, then you really haven't woken up to the real world. Maybe you're still a little kid or teenager. If you're an adult well either you are damn rich and never ever worry about money. But most Singaporeans would know that that statement was absolute bollocks!

I made that statement because that's probably what our govt will tell you to do. And it's politically correct. What else should I say then? If you need money go rob someone? C'mon give me a break. Solutions to solve financial problems for needy people would take up an entire election campaign not to mention a small paragraph in a blog entry.

When I read the article in the front page of the Straits Times yesterday about how the nurse lost her baby, I read that that family had told their grassroots leaders about their problem during a walkabout, and they were told by the grassroots people that they would look into it but nothing was done in the end.

That made me angry. If you are in Singapore, bought a flat from someone who owed loan sharks money and then the loan sharks come after you instead, subsequently pushed your pregnant wife down the stairs and she lost the baby, wouldn't you want the death penalty for loan sharks? Wouldn't you be angry that the police in this great city that has the death penalty and prides itself in keeping crime out can do nothing about loan sharks?

It's murder to me. Manslaughter at the very least.

And the couple had asked the grassroots leaders for help. What else can they do?

Why do people borrow from loan sharks? Obviously because banks don't want to loan them the money. And of course going to your grassroots leader does nothing.

I can understand why people would get angry with me making those statements. But if anyone knows me, they'd know it was utterly sarcastic remarks from me.

But the gist of the blog entry was whether

1) we should really ban loan sharks and go down real hard on loan sharks. (I think we should)
2) Whether there was any good in having loan sharks at all (I think they serve no good purpose)
3) Why shouldn't we have the death penalty for loan sharks (Angry doc brought up a great point)

Unfortunately some people choose to focus on the statements I made about asking people to ridiculously ask banks to loan them money when they are needy and ask grassroots leaders about helping them. And then subsequently make statements to the effect that I was born yesterday, highly idealistic, in need of life advice etc.

I wonder why is that? Maybe it's because I am a doctor and some people just hate doctors so much they cannot resist attacking them when the opportunity arises.

Death penalty for loan sharks

We have the death penalty for drug traffickers. Drug traffickers bring in drugs and the drugs harm families and lives. Illicit drugs have no place in society. Drugs are banned.

Now let's look at loan sharks. Loan sharks lend money illegally. The people who usually borrow from them, borrow for reasons that are not approved by society and the banks. Some of the reasons include to gamble, to pay off other loan sharks, and to buy drugs. Gambling like drugs also harms lives. (Whether we should ban gambling is another story altogether though)

In essence, loan sharks lend people money to do stuff that harms their lives. Worse still almost invariably the people who borrow from loan sharks are never able to pay off the loans that come with obscene interest rates. It hurts families and perhaps kills people too.

Illegal money lending has no place in society. Illegal money lending is banned. We do not need loan sharks in our society.

We should have the death penalty for loan sharks. If you need to borrow money, go to the bank. If you need financial help, go to the grassroots leaders for help.

There should be no double standards for activities that have no benefit whatsoever to society. We must send out a strong message that drug traffickers and loan sharks are not welcome in Singapore.

$250 a month to go to Hwa Chong JC?

Wowzers!

It looks like Singapore is headed down the public and private schools system sooner than later.

I'm just thinking, in another 13 years, how much would it cost to send a child to RJC or HCJC? $500 a month? I don't think that figure would be too far off. More likely >$500/mth!

So what gives? The claim is that there are new "more better" programs to make your child even "more smarter". But I think the real unabridged answer would be "$250 only lah. That's mini peanuts!"

Well I call all this indirect taxation. Singapore has a pretty good personal tax system. But there are all these indirect taxes. Rising school fees. Car park charges at HDB (going into REITS). ERP, ERP,ERP (read at a forum it's called "everyday rob people"), Rising MRT and Bus fares, Rising HDB flat prices (HDB claims they lose hudreds of millions of dollars every year because they sell HDB flats too cheap http://www.todayonline.com/articles/88566.asp).

It makes me wonder. Is Singapore becoming too expensive a place to live in? I think so. And the answer is pretty obvious. Lack of space. Space is money. Space is the most expensive commodity in Singapore and only one entity owns it. The government.

Try finding a place to live in the heart of Melbourne City and you'll know what I mean. There is unfortunately no Geelong or Hastings or Balarat which you can move to in Singapore.

Oh yeah, actually there is. JB.

Hate doctor campaigns

I realise that in today's world, doctors are moving up the "professions we love to hate" charts.

People probably hate doctors as much or more than lawyers now.

The great thing about hating doctors is that unlike lawyers, they usually don't ever fight back. You don't get countersued or anything.

With all the information about health and drugs etc on the internet, who the hell needs doctors these days? People can read emedicine.com and diagnose themselves and buy the drugs from online pharmacies and have them delivered via Fedex the next day!

I would never advise my children to take up medicine. It's a waste of time. I wish I had never become a doctor. Should have done business and become a banker.

It's too late for me now. My fate is sealed.

WHO will not hire smokers

Heard on the radio this morning that WHO has announced they will not hire people who smoke.

There was a talkback session where callers made their views known.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? If I recall we had a discussion on angry dr's blog about how doctors should practise what they preach.

Looks like WHO is taking a step in leadership here.

I dare say that we should only hire doctors who are not smokers, not drinkers, not obese, and not sexually promiscuous and only practise safe sex.

Unfortunately there are doctors who are smokers, drinkers, obese and sexually promiscuous. I wonder how patients would feel if they saw one of these doctors who tried to "educate" them about quiting smoking and drinking, losing weight and practisign safe sex.

Way to go WHO!

Legal pitfalls

I was just reading the magazine printed by the Medical Protection Society on litigation cases, commentaries about legal pitfalls etc while sitting on the toilet bowl last night.

I then read ulgybladie's comment about having a disclaimer and all that jazz.

Geez. What's the fun in blogging if you have to keep watching over your ass like that? I mean honestly the disclaimer is of no use, if you know what lawyers can do. But I totally agree with ulgybaldie that we live in a very litigous society today. Everyone wants a piece of everyone.

I mean someone, maybe a patient may sue for a doctor using him as an example. Or maybe someone may sue cos her daughter read the word that starts with "P" and ends with "S" on the blog and asked mummy what it was. (Not something mummy has).

So the safest path of action is to basically not blog. Which was the original reason why I killed so many of my blogs before :)

I think very soon the MPS will also say something about doctors blogging too. Who knows there might be a category for doctors who blog. "Do you blog?" *tick Yes or No* And the premiums may just be higher.

Thank you very much to all.