It must be VERY difficult to find a parking lot in the UK!

Wow people must be damn desperate to get a parking lot in UK!

TCM physicians have problems with Singaporean patients too!

I had always thought that TCM physicians had it good with their patients. Patients would see them and ask few questions. Turns out that is partly true, but they do have problems with some Singaporeans.

One of my lecturers is a TCM physician who works very near to where I used to work and saw all sort of nasty people. In fact I call that area the worst slum district in the whole of Singapore. And my lecturer agrees!

Anyway here are some of the stories he told us :

Story 1.

Patient : eh sinsei! My 5 year old son has fever. I want to buy fever medicine for him.

TCM Physician : Err I need to see your son. See what type of syndrome he has. Heat, cold, excess Yang, deficient Yin etc. Different condition needs different TCM fever concoctions

Patient : Aiyah, he got fever, just give fever medicine lah! So simple why you so complicated?

TCM Physician : Then why not you go to the 7-Eleven store next door and buy some Panadol syrup?

Patient : Har? You ask me go buy Panadol? What kind of sinsei are you? Aiyah you lok quite young must be dunno anything one lar!

Story 2.

Patient : I got back pain. I want acupuncture.

TCM Physician start to take a history and asks whether she was injured, hurt herself, symptoms of numbness, and other questions pertaining to her general health and other systems...

Patient : Aiyah! Why you ask so many questions?!!! I got back pain. Just acupuncture the back lah! Talk so much for what. I very pain now you know?

TCM Physician Sighs : Ok. Anyway before I start I have to tell you the risks of Acupuncture....

Patient interrupts : Aiyah! I know already lah. Dun have to tell me. Waste time only. Hurry up and poke me lah!

TCM Physician : I don't care whether you know or not already, but it is my duty to tell you anyway.

Patient: Ok lah ok lah you damn cheong hei. I know already lah. Ok lah tell me again lah.
.....

Patient jumps : HAR! ACUPUNCTURE CAN CAUSE BLEEDING????!!!!!!! YOU SURE OR NOT?!!! WU YA BOH?!

TCM Physician : I thought you said you know the risks?!!!

No wonder diabetic patients are so scared of insulin injections!

We all know that Mediacorp Drama programs act as important modes of information delivery to the people. I mean the government uses it to explain Trade Union, Tripartite Wage Adjustment issues etc. So why not protray medical issues properly? "The Ties that Bind" was one such drama serial that talked about the wage adjustments after SARS. But from the way they dramatized a particular scene makes me wonder why MOH doesn't take offence and issue advisories to Mediacorp not to perpetuate

I was watching the repeat telecast of "The ties that bind" , a Mediacorp drama serial starring Chen Liping, Huang Wenyong, Cynthia Koh, Joanne Peh and others.

Yesterday's episode revealed how Cynthia Koh's character was diagnosed to have gestational diabetes (diabetes when pregnant). The gynaecologist told her that she would have to take insulin injections. Cynthia's character was very sad after hearing this and called her husband to cry about it. And the husband told her "if you don't dare to give yourself the injections, then I'll do it for you. But I'm very busy tonight. Hopefully I can finish soon and come back early"

The next scene showed Cynthia's character feeling dizzy. And she went on to use the Glucometer to check her blood glucose level. Except the way she did the test was WRONG. She was using the Roche ADVANTAGE system and you usually put the meter strip into the machine FIRST then apply the blood on the strip! She put the blood on the strip then inserted it into the machine! Anyway this error was not as scary as the misconception the next scene protrayed!

(Point to note : usually if you are diabetic and feeling dizzy, it is likely due to LOW blood glucose levels rather than high)

The next scene showed a teary Cynthia taking out her insulin, putting it into a 5ml syringe with a long and big needle and trying to inject it into her ARM VEIN!!!!!!!!!!

Basically it looked like this :



Yes. It looked like she was a drug addict trying to inject insulin into her vein! For dramatic effect they showed the huge needle, her popping vein and her expressions of excruciating mental anguish! Just like a drug addict!

No wonder diabetics are so fearful of being told they need insulin injections! They picture putting huge needles into their veins like drug addicts!!! Mediacorp is doing MOH and the population no favours with such blatant misrepresentations! We should sue them!

To set the record straight, diabetics inject SMALL amounts (ranging from 0.1 to 0.2ml)of insulin using small 1ml syringes and very very fine needles into the SKIN (not veins) around the abdomen or thigh area.



It is rather less terrifying and less painful than how the drug addicts do it!

Here are the pics to illustrate my points.



This picture shows the different sizes of syringes and the needles. The smallest one is what diabetics use for their insulin jabs.

The needle and syringe that Cynthia Koh's character used looked like this:



In reality the one we used looks like this :



And the procedure can be done by little kids!



I think Mediacorp has a responsibility to at least get overall medical facts right. I can understand the small stuff, but misrepresenting how insulin injections are given and scaring patients away is irresponsible of them!

Another patient complains!

Read this comment by "anonymous at November 26, 2006 11:37 PM" over at angrydoc's blog.

"Anonymous said...

I had an experience about a doctor prescribing cough and running nose medicine to my son even if the child was not showing the symptoms. The clinic's name is: Lifelink Clinic & Surgery 446 Pasir Ris Drive 6 #01-120 Singapore 510446.
I asked the doctor why did he do it and he was stunned why I asked. He said later that he had given the two medicines just in case the child would be sick with cough and running nose.
Total bill is $50. And the medicine we are expecting was the antibiotic as my kid was having fever, and was vomitting. But there was no antibiotic.
This experience, as was my experience with the doctors here in Singapore, shows how clinics are mere cashcows, and not a place to be healed. It seems to me that doctors have forgotten about their Hippocratic oath and their service to humanity. Their minds are more bent on how to earn more money to pay the increasing rentals and other expenses related to their clinics. "

This is really quite typical of Singaporean patients (for you overseas, non-Singaporean people reading this). Antibiotics is an "expected" medicine when it comes to all forms of colds and flus. If you ever see a Singaporean patient in your clinic (wherever you are) you better giver him/her antibiotics!

As for the cashcow bit. Well I can't speak for the GP in question. It is true that some GPs might really be milking you for all that it is worth, but I find it strange that if this GP was really like that, why not milk you the cashcow a LOT more by giving you some original patented antibiotic and make the bill $85 instead?

Sometimes we do get requests from patients asking for these medicines as their children DO INDEED develop runny nose, and cough a couple of days later. I doubt any GP out there in Singapore would dare to say "No Sorry! Your kid get runny nose and cough then I give you the medicine. Now cannot give!"

Of course the real issue here is that there was something lost in the communication chain between the patient and the doctor. The patient has a right to refuse medicine! Isn't "anonymous" aware of it? Or too intimidated by some old looking grey haired doctor to speak up? And this GP forgot to enquire what ideas, concerns and expectations (mnemonic ICE) you might have. If he had, then I doubt you would have this problem. It takes two hands to clap I guess.

What's with the complaint of a bill of $50 inclusive of consult and medicines? Hey that's real cheap compared to other FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES (don't go comparing with third world ok? You're not the government :)) I wonder if anyone reading this is a doctor from Oz or Uk or Canada or US. Please write here how much a visit to your office would cost?

As for the use of antibiotics. I have previously written a long post on this in February 2006. Go read it. Get educated. Cold or flu, antibiotics don't work for you!

I never knew Singapore was such a dangerous place!

I realise now that Singapore is such a a dangerous place after reading this letter to the ST forum.

Bear with a little inconvenience when VIP visitors arrive

I REFER to the letter by Mr Yeong Chan Kong asking why United States President George W. Bush did not consider taking a helicopter during his recent visit to Singapore (ST, Nov 23).

I think the simple reason is safety. When a flying object is hit, it has to come down and if it does, it will crashland. Considering the density of buildings on the ground here, this will be disastrous not only for Mr Bush's survival, but also for those on the ground.

Moreover, security staff on the ground will be helpless to do anything, whereas Mr Bush's motorcade is reputed to be able to withstand a direct missile hit and still rush him to safety.

All said, let us welcome any head of state to Singapore with open arms and bear with a little inconvenience.

Also, the Land Transport Authority could be a little magnanimous to bear with some losses in Electronic Road Pricing collection by waiving charges if traffic has to be diverted.

Thomas Lee Zhi Zhi

I did not realise that there are people with rocket launchers walking around in Singapore. Hey, if it's such a hassle to protect the President of the United States of America, what chance does the PM Lee have? Just kidding.

Anyway I agree a small country like Singapore which is so dependent on "good relations" with bigger countries (read every other country) has to bend over its back sometimes.

Mr Lee's letter would have be good except that he disguised his request to have ERP waived as a "feel-good-praise-government-letter" in order for it to be published. Very smart this Mr Lee. LOL!

Here's the question I'm BURNING to have answered. Did George Bush's entourage pay ERP? *snicker* I suppose everyone already knows the answer to that one so save your crappy answers LTA! LOL!

Insurance agents have code of ethics too!

I discovered that insurance agents are also bound by a code of ethics after reading this letter in the ST Forums.

Insurance professionals sell policies on basis of client's needs

We refer to the articles "Many Singaporeans don't have the right insurance cover" (ST, Nov 11) and "More turning to term insurance plans" (Sunday Times, Nov 12).

The statements in the articles - "there is a high chance that whatever product is sold depends on the commissions derived" and "agents did not push such (term insurance) plans aggressively given the lower commissions" implied that all insurance advisors sell products that give the highest commissions and not based on the customer's needs.

The Insurance and Financial Practitioners Association of Singapore (IFPAS) feels that such an implication is highly unfair to the many professionals in the insurance industry who sell products based on clients' needs.

Each type of coverage, be it participating whole life and endowment, investment-linked plans or term insurance, has its own product attributes that cater to specific needs.

For example, the cash values accumulated in participating whole life plans can be used to pay premiums should the policy owner run into financial hardship and cannot afford to make premium payments. On the other hand, the cover for term insurance will cease once premium payment is not made.

Though one can argue about the merits of "buy term and invest the rest", the purpose of this letter is to rebut the highly biased statements in the articles.

IFPAS represents over 4,500 insurance and financial practitioners in the industry and we are proud that our members have to adhere to its Code of Ethics, which IFPAS enforces strictly to ensure a high standard of professionalism and to protect the public's interests.

The Code of Ethics is appended below:

An IFPAS member shall:

- Always place the best interest of his clients before his own.

- Hold in the strictest confidence, and consider as privileged, all business and personal information pertaining to the client's affair.

- Make full and adequate disclosure of all facts necessary to enable the client to make a intelligent decision.

- Not conduct his profession to cause the public to lose confidence in the Association or the insurance and financial services industry.

- Not indulge in unethical practices which may be detrimental to the client or the insurance and financial services industry.

- Abide by and conform to all rules and regulations of the Association.

The mark of the IFPAS membership signifies professionalism and ethical practices. Consumers can rest assured that our members will sell products based on client's needs.

Ting Chee Kheong
Council Member (Chairman, PR Committee)
2006/2007 Executive Council
Insurance and Financial Practitioners Association of Singapore

It is good to hear that there is a code of ethics that agents have to abide by. Very similar to what doctors have.

However when was the last time you heard of insurance agents found guilty of unethical practices? Eg advising clients on policies based on what the agent's interests are vs the client's?

It is one thing to have the code of ethics and all. It is another to actually enforce it and catch the offenders.

Frankly, I am sad to say I do not have the confidence that the IFPAS has acted and will act on agents. For the matter it is unlikely anyone ever goes out to catch any such offeding agents.

Real life machine to terminate yourself!

Anyone want to try using this machine?

Map Wars : The Empire Strikes Back!

Looks like Virtual Map is in trouble

The roadmap to the courts
SLA sues creators of streetdirectory.com

Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg


THE Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has filed a civil suit against Virtual Map — the company behind streetdirectory.com — for copyright infringement.

The copyright material in question: Singapore's map data and street information, which the SLA had licensed to Virtual Map, but whose licence the authority terminated in July 2004.

The statutory board claimed that after the termination, Virtual Map continued to sell and distribute its maps. It also created new maps, which the SLA alleges are reproductions of the authority's works.

The SLA is seeking damages and an injunction to restrain Virtual Map from further infringement of the data.

It also wants Virtual Map to disclose the names and addresses of all persons or companies that it has distributed the maps to. Additionally, the SLA is also seeking an order to destroy all documents, materials or images in which copyright breaches have occurred.

The suit, filed in October last year, was confirmed yesterday by an SLA spokesperson.

It goes to show you don't screw with the government. Or the government will screw with you. Also, contrary to what they keep denying, NTUC is the "government" in every sense of the word.

All those legal suits by Virtual Map settled out of court.....well the government is going to take it all back and more!

I have never seen a private entity go up against the government and win in the courts. And I don't envision why it will be any different with this case.

Virtual Map would be wise to settle out of court and try to broker a deal to work WITH the SLA rather than compete.

Good luck Virtual Map!

Husband is angry....

Read this letter in the Straits Times forum :

Op scare but patient discharged 2 days later

ON AUG 21, my wife had keyhole surgery at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) to have her gall bladder removed. Shortly after the operation, she developed complications, with her blood pressure dropping to 50/30.

The doctors (excluding the main surgeon) that operated on my wife were alerted. They immediately ordered intravenous drips, a blood test and an X-ray machine, apparently to arrest the problem and also to check for the cause. When I enquired, I was told that it was due to the after-effects of surgery.

Two days later, we were astonished to hear the surgeon tell my wife that she could go home. This was because she was still in pain and her stomach felt bloated.

On Aug 31, my fears came true when my wife complained of extreme pain in the abdomen. I immediately drove her to TTSH's A&E.

A CT scan confirmed internal bleeding, which the doctors suspected could involve the womb and they might need to have it removed. However, after the operation, the surgeon - a different one from the first - told me that the actual site was the fats area around the abdomen and not the womb.

I have several questions:

1)During my wife's follow-up appointment on Sept 11, the first surgeon said that the keyhole surgery was the likely cause of the internal bleeding. I was rather unhappy when he told us that this was the first time he had encountered such a case and they were still investigating the cause.

What upset me further was that upon hearing that my wife had undergone ligation, he said that as both types - ligation and gall-bladder removal - of keyhole surgery used the navel as the entry point, the possibility of internal bleeding was increased.

Should not the medical staff to be extra careful in treating such patients as my wife did tell them about her ligation before the surgery?

2) Was the surgeon aware of my wife's complications after surgery and did he study her blood-test and X-ray results before certifying her fit to go home?

3) Last but not least, was it not the duty of the doctors to be more precise in their diagnosis, rather than to speculate on the site of the internal bleeding, resulting in such a long laceration?

Allenn Tay Boon Leng

You can read TTSH's reply to Mr Tay here.

Dr Chia's approach to replying to the letter is to give the facts of Mrs Tay's medical history ( I am not sure if that is really a nice thing to do, but I guess if you write to the open press then it sort of means you waive the right to privacy), but he does not really answer Mr Tay's questions.

He may have sort of answered his 2nd question but he certainly does not answer questions 1 and 3.

Question 1 is really Mr Tay suggesting that the surgeon might have been negligient because he was not more careful when operating having "failed to remember" that she had previous key hole surgery for ligation. Well here's the thing. The umbilical route is still the safest port of entry for the key hole surgery. However having had surgery before makes the risk of bleeding higher. But is it higher than going by another route? I am not certain. Well Dr Chia certainly chose not to answer this question. I wonder why?

As for question 3. Perhaps Dr Chia doesn't realise it. But Mr Tay is very upset that his wife now has a huge operation scar (most likely midline from pubis to rib cage). It is well known that such scars do affect sexual and marital relationships. However in emergency setting, scar conditions and not the priority. Save the patient first. An operation to remove the scar can always be performed later. Mr Tay's wife's life is obviously more important than her appearance during those few hours when she was bleeding internally.

Finally, all surgery carries a risk. What happened to Mrs Tay was unfortunate. But she is NOT the first and last person who will have such similar complications.

Which is why we get patients to sign a consent form. However, the consent forms in Singapore are pretty pathetic. They are no where like the contracts that lawyers draw up for people when they sign to buy a house or a car or get a loan. As a matter of fact I think as doctors we should have 16 page consent contracts for patients to sign before they go for the operation. You might say "But how will I read 16 pages and will I understand it?" Well then ask yourself when was the last time you understood all that stuff written in the contracts you sign to buy that HDB flat? It's the same. It's all there to cover your ass. Except as doctors we don't cover our asses very well.

Free maps of Singapore online!

From the TODAY

"Twist to online street map row
SLA sets up website that allows users to download maps free, gives information on State-owned lots

Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg


CAN you really use that online map without being slapped with a lawsuit? Singaporeans, who are familiar with such cases, now have one more resource to turn to.

Launched yesterday by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), StreetMap@Singapore allows users to download street maps for personal and non-commercial use free. Users, for example, can utilise these maps to make personal invitation cards.

The SLA has also launched LandQuery, a map-based system that will provide information as well as ownership and contact details about land in Singapore, particularly State-owned lots.

Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, who launched the services yesterday, denied that StreetMap@Singapore was the result of a series of lawsuits filed — and letters of demand sent — by an online map company against a slew of users for copyright infringement last year.

Since 2004, Virtual Map — the company that owes streetdirectory.com — has sent letters to hundreds of small and medium enterprises demanding payment for reproducing maps from its website. If they did not pay, these companies faced being sued.

So far, Virtual Map has filed five civil suits — against the likes of NTUC Income and Suncool — for copyright infringement. The suits have all been settled out of court.

Yesterday, Virtual Map managing director Firdhaus Akber refuted suggestions that legal action was a part of his company's business model. He pointed to an increase in online traffic — from 300,000 users in 2004 to about 600,000 users now — and an increase in revenue, from $2 million in 2004 to $5 million now, as proof. "If our objective is to sue, no one would want to do business with us," Mr Firdhaus told Today.

While SLA said its new service is not to compete with existing ones, StreetMap@Singapore's web interface is similar to streetdirectory.com's. On both sites, users can retrieve street maps by keying in an address, building or development name, postal code or the nearest MRT or LRT station. Interface options on both sites are also similar.

Virtual Map's Mr Firdhaus said his website "had the lead" in this face-off. Alluding to the map quality on StreetMap@Singapore, he said: "I think the public doesn't have to get too excited with their service."

He added that new landmarks such as VivoCity and Tanglin Village could not be found on the new website. "This clearly shows how much work they need to do to get up to speed," he said. "For us, not only do we update daily, we even provide information like 'formerly known as'. SLA's mapping application seems to be more focused on selling services related to land — such as land title and land information."

While its plan is to update street maps on its site every quarter, SLA's director of strategic planning and policy Ng Siau Yong said the maps would be updated more frequently if feedback was received from the public. The two services launched yesterday cost the SLA a total of $500,000. A further $200,000 will be spent each year to maintain the services.

Along with these new services, Prof Ho said the aim was to build SLA's Integrated Land Information Service into a one-stop portal for land information.

SLA sets up website that allows users to download maps free, gives information on State-owned lots"


This is interesting news. I wonder why would the government want to compete with Virtual Map for this small segment of business unless, Virtual Map was indeed causing a lot of problems for the government in the first place.

The interface for SLA service is indeed uncannily similar.

And to top it all, SLA is allowing people to use the maps for FREE! Granted the website is a bit slow right now, but I'm sure it will improve over the next few weeks.

I think this would be great for businesses as they can now post a map of where they are located on their websites or print them out etc. Good move SLA! Credit where credit is due.

As for Virtual Map's Mr Firdhaus' comment in reference to the quality of StreetMaps@Singapore's online maps, "I think the public doesn't have to get too excited with their service." I think Mr Firdhaus has missed the point totally. The public and businesses are going to be excited because the service is FREE. Yes the word FREE brings out the biggest smile and generates the most excitement in the land of Singapore.

I'm sure Virtual Map's revenue is bound to drop a bit now that they have a competitor that gives free map usage and possible might get more advertising contracts on their site.

Good luck Virtual Map!

The TRUTH! Can you handle the TRUTH?

You know after reading the forums and blogs and internet for 3 years. Having had my revelation about the true nature of Singapore 6 years ago. I've come to realise one very very sad thing.

For all the complaining and talk that we have, the truth is that for many Singaporeans all they are running down and condemning are people like themselves/ourselves/myself.

Put it this way. It's not as if 90% of the nation goes out of its way to help the poor, are involved in charity work, involved in community work etc. If they did, you think the government would be so bold as to marginalize the lower income groups?

All the talk about actually helping the poor is it reflective of what the majority of Singaporeans think? Or is the unwillingness to help due to a national philosophy and not just the government's initiative?

Some would argue that Singaporeans have become like that because of the government (ie blame the government again). Well the government has to take some responsibility for that as they are our leaders. The old guard were against welfare for reasons, and they succeeded in transforming Singapore economically. Hence an entire generation were brought up thinking welfare is a dirty word. But the people made their choice too. So the people are also accountable for this mindset. When we go to the polls we vote for various issues. As Mr Wang (of Bakes Good Karma fame) mentioned before, although the PAP won 66.66% of votes it does not mean that all 66.66% support ALL of PAP's initiatives and philosophies. They might like the economic policies but what about the rest? It's a matter of priority. And frankly helping the poor is not a priority in the majority of voter's minds.

I once remember someone telling me that the easiest and laziest way to help the poor is to give money. What is far more valuable and what few people would donate is their TIME.

Personally I must admit that I'm not someone who would actively go out and spend time helping the poor outside of my current work interaction with some of the poor. Granted I do my part to help them medically and financially while at work, but I spend far more time working for a fee than volunteering. Somehow I feel that in Singapore, volunteerism is just not the way we live life. We're supposed to work as hard as we can to better ourselves and OUR lives. Not other's lives. If we do well, it's our effort. If we do badly it's our fault. Someone tell me this is not what Singapore's society preaches?

Having said that, I am free to make a choice and help. But I don't. I could choose to go against the majority trend and be a minority. But I don't. So I am also just as guilty. I make no excuses for myself.

Hence if you read my first post. I'm not criticizing the government because they are not helping the poor. But what I don't like is people PRETENDING that they are helping the poor when their true intentions lie elsewhere. ( The GST rise is PRIMARILY because of the need to lower income/corporate taxes, the "help the poor" bit is incidental due to current hot topics)

The government can only do so much. Even with welfare (ie money) there's only so much it would achieve. What we need is for the nation and the people to get involved. And frankly I don't see that happening. And it's both the government's and the people's fault. Singapore and Singaporeans choose the pursuit of personal and individual glory and wealth over all else. It's a very Asian mindset and that's no surprise bearing in mind where we are and where we came from. (Much of the complaints about GST increase are complaints by individuals because it would increase their living costs, the impact on the poor is just a veiled attempt at increasing emotional and sympathy support for a protest)

If we want to help the poor and be a truly inclusive society (incidentally everyone is happy to say yes to an inclusive society except that the "people" included should not be in THEIR OWN lives), what we need is a cultural and mindset change. An overhaul of the way we think and grow as a nation. Perhaps this is where the leadership failed despite its economic successes.

Catch ball liao!

After giving it some thought and revisiting my previous thoughts on Singapore (for a while I stopped thinking of Singapore)

This whole GST increase and lowering of tax rates is meant to promote Singapore's economy. This is of course very very important. And I have no qualms about doing it. Hong Kong and China and India are all big competitors globally. We have to keep up. If Singapore's economy fails, we WILL be in big trouble. Hence most of Singapore's policies are always geared towards that. Ensuring the NATION'S SURVIVAL FIRST. The people's survival comes in at second place.

What I don't like is the fact that they don't want to say it as it is.

All this rejection of the "minimum wage" and "welfare". The reasons for doing so are political. Not economical. In fact they would help the lower income groups, but it would go against what the government puts as first place on its priority list.

What I would prefer to see PM Lee say is that Singapore is in a bad situation. Let's work together to ensure Singapore's survival. Hence the need for GST increases etc.

On the other hand the government SHOULD come up with concrete measures to help the lower income group. If it is welfare. So be it. Work out how to decide who needs what and help them accordingly. So far we have not heard anything of that sort. All we hear is plans to help businesses grow in Singapore. How to attract more rich people here by letting them pay lower taxes (how does that help the lower income group? Perhaps it does but indirectly?)

Nevertheless, this is the way companies and businesses are run. It's all about the bottom line. That's understandably so because businesses do not have "natural resources like gold, precious stones, oil etc". Singapore by nature is also a company and not a country.

This is a fact I accepted a long time ago. Which was why I decided that even if you handed it to me, I would pretty much do the same as the PAP. Singapore is a small country with no resources (albeit a fat bank account). In the long run where can it go in terms of expansion?

The answer therefore is that if you can, get yourself more options. Go overseas. Work. Diversify.

Remember we are more employees of this company than citizens.

Remember that no company ever thinks of how they can help their lower earning workers because they can't survive. If you are not worth your weight in salary, then off you go! Sounds familiar right?

Singapore is so small we have to be run like a company. Bo bian.

Hard to comprehend Govt's plan

I was listening to PM Lee's parliamentary speech on TV last night. After listening to what the government has plans to do, I find it hard to understand what it is they are trying to achieve!

Let's look at what the government is concerned about currently:

1) Widening income gap

2) Helping the lower income groups

3) Maintaining foreign investor interest in Singapore (ie lower tax rates)

Now let's look at what PM Lee has suggested and analyze the implications :

1) Welfare is a dirty word. I can understand that giving freebies to people may encourage people to continue where they are without putting in any extra effort. That is indeed not ideal for our economy. But sometimes, people need some help to get started in the first place. It's all about a balance. Some welfare can't be all that dirty frankly.

2) Say no to minimum wage. Apparently foreign investors will leave in droves if we had a minimum wage. Nobody bothers to talk about how much the minimum wage would be exactly. I mean if I set the minimum wage at $100 per month per worker I doubt it would do anything to scare investors away! However it makes no sense to have a minimum wage that you cannot survive on! I suspect the real issue about not having a minimum wage is because the government is fully aware that there are people who earn so little in this "free market" that they simply cannot survive on one job alone. In some ways you can infer that the government has stamped its approval on foreign companies coming here to exploit cheap labour. It's a political move not to have a minimum wage. Not an economic one. The government could set the minimum wage at a low level that would please investors and keep them here, but then it would anger the people and hurt the PAP politically. The government has thus chosen to sidestep the tricky question of what constitutes the minimum amount a person should earn to survive in Singapore.

3)Increase the GST from 5% to 7%. When I heard PM Lee's speech last night, he announced this in the context that Singapore was competing (economically for investments) globally and had to adapt to global trends. He had mentioned that corporate tax rates would have to drop a few points to make Singapore competitive and attractive to investors again. Every 1% drop in corporate tax rates would cost the nation SGD$700 million annually (if I recall correctly). Hence we had to increase GST to make up for this fall. I'm not really sure whether these investors coming to Singapore hiring workers and paying them salaries with no minimum wage restrictions is going to really help lower income workers or not.

Now what is more interesting is that in Today's paper this was written :

"What are we going to do then, when the people are stuck with a higher cost of living?" he (Mr Low Thia Kiang) said. In response, Mr Lee rebutted the WP for its lack of a clear concept and its constant refrain for a welfare system, and told Mr Low to "wait for the Budget". Details for the "offset package" would be revealed at next year's Budget speech in February, he said, adding that it was "not the time for a long, supplementary debate".

"The higher income should end up paying more. That is part of being one society. I think that is fair and Singaporeans will support it," Mr Lee said.

I don't understand this part totally.

An increase in GST is an increase in the cost of living across the board for all in Singapore. The 2% increase applies to both the rich and the poor. It's not as if the 2% increase is for certain luxury items only , while necessities like water and electricity will be GST-exempt (unless this will be mentioned in the budget). So what happens here? Cost of living goes up for the poor. The poor suffer. What do they get in return? More chance of finding a job that will not pay a minimum level wage that can help them survive in Singapore? How does this help the poor?

As for the above comment by PM Lee that the higher income should end up paying more, it goes against his reason for increasing the GST in the first place! Everyone knows that the low tax rates benefit the business and the rich. It's pro-business. PM Lee did say last night "Have to lower corporate tax rates to be competitive" (ie attract rich people to do business here) "So no choice but to increase GST".

But then he tells Low TK that the rich will pay more? Huh? Did I lose something in translation? Doesn't a lowering of tax rates mean the rich paying less? Which is the point to attract them here right? And now he says they will pay more?

I really don't get it.

To end off, PM Lee said "We have done this before" referring to the past increase of GST from 3% to 5%, and the assistant package they came up with to help the lower income groups. And he implied that they did it well and it caused little problems to the lower income group during that increase.

From what I know, and from what the MPs are debating about, isn't it a fact that the lower income group are SUFFERING badly right now? Since the last GST increase, the lower income groups have lagged further behind! This despite the package they boast about. Hasn't the income gap widened? It is somewhat strange that the government would refer us back to the past increase in GST and their programs as a show of "evidence" that the new increase will be good for the lower income groups.

Having said that. The Singapore government will do what they want, when they want and how they want. As a Singapore citizen, all I can do is read, watch, work as hard as I am expected to, and hope for the best.