Solomon – a man known for his wisdom, chose to have innumerable wives and concubines. Yet in the book of Proverbs, he warned against adultery and sexual immorality in no uncertain terms. Proverbs 5 alone spelt out in length the ruin that would befall the man who failed to stay away from her (sexual immorality). Unfortunately Mr Yaw would probably be able attest to the accuracy of that proverb.

I am upset. Friends who are social workers tell me Mr Yaw did a marvelous job at the grassroots level. He worked hard and he cared. So he had a weakness – but who is without sin? Should he be expelled simply because he had an affair? I am as conservative as they come – but modern society always claims acceptance at sexual dalliances. So are we being hypocritical?

I simply feel that we have gotten the order wrong. We often fail to teach the young abstinence and denials as virtues. Instead some label these as archaic and irrelevant in modern society. We tend to close an uncomfortable eye when we see the tell-tale signs of the beginnings of an illicit relationship. But when the shit hits the ceiling fan we cry for public confession and crucify the man. In so doing, we pay little heed to those immediately affected – an aged mother perhaps, a wife in pain or children shamed.

So yes – teach abstinence and denials as part of the sex ed programme please, teach – not preach. Teach the young ones how to avoid compromising situations, tell them about the natural urges that healthy males and females will feel, show them what can be done to minimize such urges, explain responsibility, mention the social costs of sexual laxity and warn them about the emotional upheavals they can cause to their loved ones. No one “sins” alone. I am not saying we ignore the other part of sex ed programme. But abstinence must be taught too because it is not natural to want to abstain.

Precisely because sex can be so heady, it is wise to have accountability partners. This is by the no means fool proof, but someone who can check in once in a while can help pull one back before one steps over the brink. Like doctors who make sure they have nurses with them during patients’ examinations, politicians too would do well to avoid visiting residents alone.

When all has failed, instead of bashing the perpetrator, it is time to have damage control. It is time to move towards reconciliation and healing. In persisting in wanting to punish the villain, often it is the vulnerable that suffers the most pain and shame. Frankly the less said publicly the better. In private though, the parties concerned need the service of a compassionate counselor who can take them through the confession – forgiveness process.

I felt that Mr Yaw and WP were doing the right thing when they kept very quiet about the allegations. In my mind, let this issue be settled privately first, then a public statement would be in order. I certainly do not agree with Mr Khaw’s statement about the public figure having no private life – my paraphrase. If that were true, then the citizens will want an accounting from all politicians regarding their rumoured failings, plus details of their personal wealth, and the positions that each of their family members are holding.

Then the shocker – Mr Yaw was expelled. I was very upset.

Then I thought more about this. It is unfortunate that one of the complainants was a resident. Allegations about an affair with a colleague is a private matter. But if there were affairs with residents that he was helping, then there was a breach of ethics. A lack of denial spoke volumes. I began to understand WP’s move – they could not afford an onslaught of accusations with no leg to stand in terms of defense if Mr Yaw refused to help them. On the other hand, silence need not mean an admission of guilt – he could have his reasons to keep mum. Still, his party leaders could not keep using ignorance to push away complaints.

I am sure it was a painful decision for Mr Low Thia Khiang. After all, Mr Yaw was his protégé, and someone he had poured his own life into. Potentially losing Hougang after all the years of work put in would cause Mr Low and WP much. Still, it had to be done.

So no, PM, Mr Khaw, I do not see WP as having let the people down. I see a character weakness that was unchecked that brought about a man’s downfall. This can happen to anyone. I see a party that could not and would not protect a member at all costs. A by election in Hougang could be suicide for WP. Still, it was a decision that they had taken to show a sense of responsibility for alleged wrong-doings. It’s not about whether Mr Yaw had broken criminal law or not – it’s really potentially about his apparent unwillingness to be transparent to his leaders and the possibility of a breach of ethics should residents be involved.

To me, I feel really sad that Mr Yaw had lost so much in this debacle. No man is beyond redemption. I still believe that this young man can rise again, can be helped once more, should be given another chance – but perhaps after some private time. He needs that privacy to heal – and it will be good if we can leave him alone to do just that.

And yes, please stay away from her in the future.

It took me awhile, but I think I finally understand.

I understand that only those with the potential to be the top 1000 earners in Singapore are good enough to be our ministers.

I understand that the identification of these individuals rests on the able shoulders of my leaders. Hence whether the selected contests in an SMC or a GRC – it does not matter – they are the best candidates for the job. I must take your word for it.

I understand that my leaders’ ability to identify suitable candidates is so good, that I must accept that there is an almost 100% likelihood of the selected candidates reaching their potential. This must surely be so because I must accept giving them astronomical salaries befitting top earners before they prove their potential.

I understand that this thing about money is not about the current team. Just like when it was first mooted it was not about the team then. It is really about some other potential MPs or potential ministers who have not surfaced.

I understand that meritocracy is measured in dollars and cents. If you ain’t got the dollar, you ain’t got the merit.

I understand that the sacrifice public servants make can be compensated by money. I always thought that it was priceless.

I understand that while it is not about the money, yet according to Gerard Ee, capable people cannot be moved if the figure is less than $1m per annum. I wonder what this means. Does it mean that the two guiding principles for the committee was firstly to peg it to the top earners and secondly to come up with $1m using percentages? Is my understanding flawed again?

Now I understand that my mathematical logic is quite skewed. I had always thought that the civil service represents, fairly closely, the make-up of the working population. After all they employ cleaning ladies and office boys at one end, and superscale officers on the other. Hence, I thought, obviously wrongly, that the top 1.2% of the civil service may quite closely mirror the top 1.2% of the working population. But DPM Teo says this is quite the same as the top 0.06% of the working population of Singapore. 1.2% is 20 times 0.06%. But they are roughly the same. I wonder if instead of earning $60 000 a month, earning $3000 a month is roughly the same – also 20 times difference only what?

I also understand that the final figure is more important than the process of getting there. After all, the WP final monthly salary figure is very similar to the one proposed by the committee and accepted by the PAP. Can we please tell the Maths teachers in school to just mark the final answers and forget about the working? It will save them a lot of time!

I understand that we should just look at the final monthly wage figure, and ignore the differences in the bonus proposals. If this number is acceptable, then no point arguing about whether we should set a bonus maximum at 5 months or 13 months.

I understand that we must view minimum salary for ministers and minimum wages for the workers differently. The former makes sure we have a well run country that makes it possible for the citizens to enjoy a life free from worries. The latter will wreak financial havoc in the country.

There are many more things I finally understand – but I really don’t feel like writing about them anymore. It makes me feel stupid.

To quote the song, “Vincent”

Now I understand what you tried to say to me 

And how you suffered for your sanity
How you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they did not know how
Perhaps they’ll listen now

 To sum this up: it’s never been about you understanding me. It’s always been about me understanding you.

I understand now!

In her reply, she said: “Thank you all for your candid views. I respect all of them. I realise my last posting could have been misunderstood. The committee has done a thorough job with a substantial recommendation over a fairly emotive topic. I accept and respect the recommendations.

Problem is I am not sure what we have misunderstood.

Then PUB was affronted when Singaporeans misunderstood ponding inOrchard Rdfor a flood.

Just last week, Gerard Ee and his team were also misunderstood and he had to come out with clarifications.

While I am by no means in the same class as these – but in the spirit of unity, I am afraid I too have been misunderstood.

For a start, you misunderstand that I think top earners and professionals make the best politicians. Hence your rationale of pegging salaries to the top 1000 earners with a discount does not cut it for me. I mean, if this is to pacify a surgeon to become the Minister of Transport, or a stockbroker to become Minister of Defence then as far as I am concerned, this measure is counter productive. Wrong skill match as far as I am concerned.  The late Steve Jobs would probably not have made a good president, and if he had decided to take up that role, then I might never be introduced to Siri.

Second you misunderstand me in thinking I am a cheapskate and want my MPs and politicians to be paupers. Hey – I am proud of my country. It is an affluent country with enough resources to help shore up foreign banks, whether or not those investment decisions were wise. So I do not expect the representatives of my country to go around with patched up trousers and pasar malam ties, or to travel to inter-governmental summits on Budget Air. But then, as a peasant I have no understanding of how much, $1m dollars buy. It will be helpful to give me a little breakdown. Can it pay for the mortgage of a decent landed property, the car loan of a fancy car, the school fees in a good foreign university for two students, two family holidays to exotic countries per year, and for enough  plates of XO chai tow kuay atPeachGardento satisfy the extended family? How much is left over for retirement savings? Furthermore, how many actually suffer a paycut when they become parliamentarians?

Rear Admiral Teo misunderstands me when he sets the value on the “ethos” of public service at 40% discount to the median salary of the top 1000 earners. To me the ethos of public service is priceless. It comes with the sacrifice of time, a sharing of life with many in the constituency, a commitment to help strangers and a sincere heart to move the nation forward for the benefit of the citizens. When a dollar value is put to it, you cheapen the service. Their role is to serve. Our responsibility as citizens is to ensure they do not have to worry about finances while they serve.

Those who throw the final figure at me and say it is a reasonable salary misunderstands me. It is not about the quantum. Denise Phua understands. She says that top 1000 earners, the 40% discount is arbitrary and can be seen as elitist. Precisely. Maybe I misunderstand the ministerial review committee but to me it is as if they have worked out a number that is likely to be acceptable by the populace, look at the top 1000 earners and tweak the discount to match the number they have in mind. In 5 years time, given the widening gap between the rich and the poor, it may well be that this number is up by 300% while the income of the man on the street may not even have crawled up 10%. How to buy this computation? If the computation has to be tweaked every election, then I say that there is something wrong with it in the first place.

Then there is a clean wage versus hidden perks argument. You misunderstand that I want to see clean wages above all else. I want to see transparent wages. Perks need not be hidden either. Has the committee actually tabulated clean wage vs salary plus perks? At the end of the day, without a lifestyle downgrade for our politicians, which method will save the country money? While we are at it, can we have open declaration of total wages received by each parliamentarian each year? Including the amount spent on overseas travel and other attending allowances received while on official duty?

Just when I think no one in parliament understands me, I see a ray of hope. Chen Show Mao’s speech in parliament shows he understands. Denise Phua understands. Vikram Nair did not get it when he tried to indicate that the quantum proposed by WP is similar to the quantum the Review Committee came up with. It’s not about the quantum, it’s about the justification of the quantum.

Still, I am more hopeful now that some of my misunderstandings have been aired and hopefully will one day be addressed.

Incidentally, to be put in a fair word for our ministers, for them to accept such a hefty pay cut so soon after elections, without too many complaints, is praiseworthy. I hope that the next round of ministerial salary review will come before elections, not after, to give each potential candidate an idea of what to expect.

“The biopsy shows the tumour is malignant.”

Sitting there, a million thoughts raced through my mind, or at least I assumed they did. I cannot even remember if I thought ahead and worried about a whole host of things, or I just sat there, bewildered and so traumatized my mind was a blank.

I was 42. To all intents and purposes, I should not be diagnosed with cancer. I had done all the right things – I was not on the pill, except for a few months right at the beginning of the marriage, I had children young, the youngest child was born when I was only 31, I breast fed all my children, I ate reasonably well, was mildly overweight – but that was about it. I did have a very stressful time in the year 2000. Surely that was not enough to cause this “sudden” tumour? Just in 1 year?

The “whys” and “how comes” soon gave way to thoughts of the children. My son was going to do his A levels the year after and my youngest should be preparing for her PSLE. Important exams and they certainly should not have to worry about mum on top of all that. What could I do to minimize their worries and their fears? In the midst of all that, I remember thinking it was a good thing I got married and had children young. Imagine if they were still toddlers!

After a harrowing time in the hospital, getting registered and signing forms so as to be ready for an almost immediate warding for surgery, it was time to go home to break the news to the children. That must surely be one of the most difficult things I had ever done in my life.

By the time we got back, it was almost dinner time. My husband and I forced ourselves to eat. After dinner, we sat the children down and told them the news. I was careful to mention people who had cancer and still lived to a ripe old age. Still, the silence that ensued was so uncomfortable and so unnatural. My husband was uncharacteristically quiet. The patient had to do something to alleviate the tension.

“It’s okay.” I chirped with a cheerfulness I really did not feel. “I have no intention of dying and leaving you to your father. I cannot trust him to feed you properly. He will only give you junk food, and you know I will not have that.”

Uneasy giggles and a mock protest from the husband followed. I could not bear the tension, so I said, “Now, let us go shopping.”

We went to the malls, a normal family on an evening out. It was the quietest shopping trip I had ever made, but it was better than moping at home. In any case, for the youngest one at least, it reinforced the idea that cancer was just an illness and one that could be controlled, if not totally cured. Besides we had God on our side.

Did I panic, did I cry? Of course I did. I did that when I was alone in the mornings. I prayed and complained to God. I verbalized all my fears.

It was not easy. I had to come to terms with death. I had to accept that possibility and to check my spirit if I really believed what I had been professing – that I believed in eternal life and salvation through Christ Jesus. I also had to surrender my children to the only parents I could trust them to – my God, and with His guidance, my husband. I had to convince myself that without me, their lives could still be amazing. It was immensely difficult, and there were upswings and downturns. By the grace of God, there were more ups than downs, and I found peace slowly being more dominant than fear.

With that settled, I began to fight to live. You see, I could only fight when the most negative outcome – death – had lost its sting, and when the most crippling emotion – fear, was replaced with calm.

I was not afraid of death, but I was not going to be cheated of life. I was not afraid of death, but I refused to allow my children to be deprived of a mother, if I could help it.

The fight continues today, ten years after the first pronouncement. How to fight? The most important battle is in the mind and in the emotions. I refuse to allow cancer to occupy my every thought. I refuse it to control how I feel. Sure a good medical report uplifts the spirit and a poor one can throw me into depression. I try though not to wallow in the emotions. I allow some time to work the issues out, but I have learnt not to allow negative emotions to dominate my life.

I have a life to live – and cancer is just an obstacle along the way. There are many other challenges in life, and some of these, especially when they involve the children and the husband must take precedence over needless anxieties and fears.

Many cancer survivors/patients talk about how cancer taught them to live life more fully. I have never felt that way. Cancer or not, I live life the way I would have lived life – in my own laid back manner. I do not give cancer any credit for the way I live, nor do I blame it for the not so positive aspects of my life. Yes I do have an issue with the medications I have been on – they really made me weightier! And yes it has made me more aware of healthcare and its attending costs. Nonetheless, cancer is just what it is – one of the ailments that afflict human beings, a nuisance we need to learn to live with until it can be eradicated for good.

I do feel immense sympathy for those cancer patients who suffer much pain and agony. I am by no means downplaying their suffering. But for those whose life is still fairly normal, and life can be almost perfectly normal, do not allow cancer to control you. Avoid moping. Acknowledge its annoying presence. Embrace the joys that surround you, if you will only open your eyes to see them.

And live on.

This was first published by  publichouse. For the record, MOS Tan Chuan Jin wrote me an encouraging email after reading this article. Thank you for the kind concern sir.

I was watching Assassination Games onDVDlast night. Jean Claude Van Damme was offered double his usual fee to assassinate someone. The fee – 1 million dollars. The amount totally did not impress me. In fact, I was thinking – so little? For so much risk? My ministers earn more in a year in a job that offered very litte risk.

In the postIraqwar years, some GLCs wanted to venture intoIraq. Opportunities were opening and they looked good. Several intrepid Singaporeans were sent by the companies to handle the preliminary work. Before long the situation deteriorated. There were so many safety concerns. One time an RPG was fired into one of the hotel rooms where these Singaporeans were staying, missing them by one or two floors. These were fairly senior staff members and given the danger, one would be forgiven to think that they were paid more than what a new MP is getting. Well, they did get some extra money for being sent to a difficult place – and they had to fight HR for a little more than that. But the same amount as a newly minted mp? Dream on. Their average salary was probably 50% of what Ms Tin is getting. To earn that amount, they put their lives in danger, and had to be separated for months from their families.  Their CEOs, of course continued to rake in the millions.

The most recent CEO in the limelight is Ms Saw ofSMRTnotoriety. Her take home wages is touted to be 1.8m. What risk does she bear, what genius does she bring to the table, what is the evidence of her blood, sweat and tears? The maximum pay of a train officer is 2.3k. Annualise this and add 3 months bonus, a train officer earns 34.5k. Is Ms Saw so wonderful that she should earn 52 times what a train officer earns? A train officer is not the lowest paid staff member. So imagine how many times more she gets compared to the cleaning lady.

There is something wrong with the way we pay people. I cannot understand why CEOs or their inner circle should be paid so many times what the lowest paid member of the company gets. Can the company make money without the effort of those who are at the bottom of the pyramid? Sure the ones at the top are, at least in theory, the visionaries, the ones with the ability to read the market, to run the show. So yes, pay them more by all means. But peg it at a reasonable percentage to those who are at the bottom. Let them feel that they too have contributed to the success of the company. Give them the dignity of having a good day’s wage for a good day’s work.

The current revision in ministerial salary has surprised me. I had expected a 20% cut so this cut is deeper. I should feel happy, but I am not. I am unhappy at the justifications and the formulation.

First of all, it is a shock to me that in a good year, a minister can get a maximum of 13.5 months worth of bonuses. In a typical year, he gets 7 months worth of bonuses. How typical is that in the life of an ordinary citizen.

Secondly, why is salary pegged at the top 1000Singaporeearners, then discounted downwards? Can I ask what the percentage of our ministers who earn this amount before they join the team is? Do we expect those who just got voted in to hit this bracket if they had remained in the secular world? Since we have many who came from the civil service or Mindef, is that the sort of pay they can expect if they had stayed? Earning potential aside, why do we always assume that the best paid are the best qualified to be politicians? Ask any statistician, and it is obvious that the top 1000 earners are outliers. Why are we paying politicians based on outliers?? And for the conspiracy theorists amongst us, how difficult will it be to manipulate the salaries of 1000 people to ensure ministerial salaries remain fat?

Thirdly, I should be happy that salaries now are affected by median salaries, unemployment rates and the earnings of the bottom 20% of the country. Each of these factors contribute 25% to their national bonus. It only affects the bonus, mind you, not the basic. Given a typical year when a minister earns 20 months worth of salary in total, with a national bonus of 3 months, each of these components contributes 3.75% of their total income. Less than the GST. And frankly, when your salary is in the region of 1 m, 3% means nothing. My beef against this scheme is now citizens cannot claim that ministers do not need to care about median salaries, unemployment rates and income growth of low income Singaporeans. Their bonuses now depend on it. Seems to me to be a little like wage –mandering.

Fourthly, it does not seem right there is no component in the formulation that takes into consideration the wages of other political leaders.

Watching CNA last night, I was amused by the concerns of attracting top talents. The reassurance that Gerard Ee offered is that while it may be more difficult, with this current package, we should still be able get good people into government. I should think so, since mps are getting 192k pa. Don’t forget the exposure that the politicians will get, and how doors will open even when they quit politics.

Mr Brown humorously wrote that Pres Nathan’s new book could possibly be, “ Heng I was there earlier”. Tony Tan said he accepted the new pay structure. Of course he would. To Pres Tan, this new pay structure gives him far more dignity. He does not need the money. A pay cut that still gives him more than a million a year, yet sounds deep – 51% cut, makes him to out to be far more noble and dignified. He certainly did not apply to be the president for the money.

Incidentally, going back to the movie I watched last night, Assassination Games, Jean Claude Van Damme offered his savings to the crook in exchange for his life. He had amassed 12 million dollars as a professional killer. Compared to our former President Nathan who is speculated to have earned between 30-40 million in his retirement years and probably saved a healthy amount, what is 12 million?

I am afraid being Singaporean has made money in the millions rather meaningless to me, even though I will never be a millionaire in my lifetime.

There is some upside to our penchant for foreign talents after all. Getting rid of telemarketers has never been easier.

I wanted to buy a steam cleaner/vacuum. I called up a known local company to make an enquiry. I wanted to check how well the machine worked and wanted to go to a branch with a demo machine.

“Can you speak Mandarin?” the sales assistant asked.

“Can you speak English?” I replied.

“errmm…” was the reply. I gave up and asked in my very basic Chinese if she had a machine and how much it cost. Yes, they had the machine in the store.  And the price she quoted me was $200 more than the price quoted on the website. Nonetheless, I went to that particular branch to take a look. Only one sales staff was present. She could speak no English – NONE. She gave me a blank stare when I asked to see the vacuum cleaner. Finally, she understood what I wanted, and showed me a machine. It was not available for sale in that store which only sold massage chairs- something that they did not tell me over the phone. They did have a machine, but it was meant for internal use and unfortunately it was not working. So I could not even see a demo.

I bought a German made machine from another shop.

My husband went to the petrol station. When he was going to pay, the cashier spoke to him in Chinese. He spoke no Chinese and could not understand what was being said. A Malay staff member happened to be nearby and acted as the interpreter.

So I find Seng Han Thong’s statement (“I noticed that the PR mentioned that some of the staffs, because they’re Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, but I think we accept broken English.” ) inconsistent with what I experience in real life. As a student with friends from many races, I have found the Indians far better with languages than the Chinese. As a school teacher, among the weaker students, the Chinese student tends to be the one with the most difficulty with oral English as compared to the other races. This is a generalization and there are exceptions of course. Even Mr Seng Han Thong himself seems to have proven this point. He must be an intellectual and academician – he would not have been invited to join the PAP team otherwise. But his English is appalling. “staffs?” “cannot converse in English good, well enough?” Can someone be so careless with oral English on TV?

I am more inclined to disregard his comment. As far as I was concerned, I do not read racial undertones, but that he expressed himself poorly, thanks to his ability in the language. He communicated poorly, misquoted what the SMRTspokesman said, and opened a whole can of worms.

At first I was upset by the vitriolic that spewed forth. Last night, I talked with some friends over this situation. I was upset because I felt that while SHT had put his foot in the mouth, a disease that seems to afflict many in the PAP, I was concerned that more disturbing issues are now sidestepped, and there is a misdirection of energy and focus on a less important issue. My friends pointed out that there was no denying the level of anger this caused. It would be wise to try to understand the fury.

Where did this anger come from?

•  Racial tensions are simmering. Racial sensitivities are more apparent than any time in the past. What is causing this? I read a comment that for years, the commentator had difficulty getting a job despite his degree and diplomas because he cannot speak Chinese. Now we are employing foreign talents as frontline staff even though they speak no English! Totally incomprehensible to me. The perception is certain races have been marginalized. Perception is often more powerful than fact. Of course this is not a research or intellectual paper, and my comments are superficial to say the least. Nonetheless, if there is racial tension, then the ruling party had better be aware and take steps to address it before it explodes.
• Insensitivities of PAP MPs and Ministers. For far too long, they have been able to get away with whatever statements they make. The people are no longer willing to take this sitting down. The arrogance of the past and brushing off comments of the people on the ground are no longer well tolerated. The reason is simple. While times are good, and the people are enjoying affluence, they are more willing to accept those in power and stomach the big allowances they are getting. Today however, the income gap is way too wide. It is not easy to tolerate someone who earns obscene amounts of money, making trite and insensitive comments when the man on the street finds it hard to stretch his dollar to make ends meet. Besides, you are always telling us we are paying top dollar for the best people. If we pay top dollar, do not expect us to be tolerant of foibles and insensitive mistakes.
• PAPpoliticians and CEOs linked to GLCs are being watched and judged. This is a natural consequence of being constantly told how we should be grateful we have the best people on the job. You are paid well, yet we feel our lives have not improved. Naturally you will be watched to see that your performance is up to scratch. Especially since it is clear that very able people are now willing to be counted and to be members of opposition parties.  It is also deplorable that our politicians cannot speak English good/well enough.

This is the new normal. Get used to the harsh criticisms. At least you are not in danger of being sued or be threatened with the ISA.

As for the announcements and blaming it on the unwillingness of the train officers to speak English – come off it. In this modern day and age, headquarters can easily make announcements if the right equipment is in place. Otherwise, the driverless trains will be in deep trouble in the event of a breakdown! The real issue is the lack of proper contingency and evacuation plans. The fault is not with the train officers but the management and possibly even with the LTA.

And while we are at it, can we make sure that frontline staff can speak English please?

I am getting quite fed up. Not long after PTC announced that fares on buses and MRTs are going up, ComfortDelgro announced fare “revisions”. This is on top of an expectation of higher costs of living, and stagnant wages. Worse still, social workers are now on standby to counsel people who may become victims of a global recession in the coming year. Of course public transport companies are all showing healthy profits. COEs are now incredibly expensive. So unless really well-heeled, those without cars can forget about getting their own vehicles. Actually it looks as if all companies running public transportation systems will see profits continuing to rise. How difficult can it be to make money? They have millions of commuters who require their services, and if cost of business gets high, they can just raise fares. They will have the blessings of the powers that be.

Then the breakdowns. What really makes me furious about the breakdowns is not the breakdowns themselves but the way the evacuation process was handled. It is inexcusable to allow passengers in crowded trains to stay in carriages with no ventilation and in the dark for more than an hour. Trains are mechanical devices and breakdowns, though never welcomed, have to be expected. Contingency plans should have been in place to evacuate. Why did they not kick in?

Needless to say, the public is now calling for blood. Many have called for the CEO to resign. As usual, main stream media has to put in some form of damage control. In the last few days, there have been reports singing the praises of Ms Saw and her abilities. They work…NOT.

Take a look at her credentials. She was a Retail Director ofDFS. RETAIL! How is a Retail Director suitable as the CEO ofSMRT– a public transport company? What it tells me is that just like the rest ofSingapore, the main focus is profit generation, not the well running of trains or providing services for the citizens.

Next, the papers highlight how she tripled the profit ofSMRTsince taking over from 56m in 2002 to 161m in 2011. Sounds impressive? Not really.SMRThas a captive and rapidly increasing ridership. If she has given the public better, more efficient train services, and controlled fare prices or even reduced them, I will be impressed. But with increasingly more crowded trains and ever increasing fares – how difficult can it be to increase profit? So she used available space for retail outlets to generate rental income. Given the escalating cost of rentals inSingapore, it does not take a genius to figure this scheme to make money. The question is how much of this money has been returned to commuters, to improve the trains, as compared to the amount pocketed as bonuses and salaries of top management and directors? How much of this profit is the result of hiring cheaper “foreign talents” to replace our more experienced, local technical and professional staff? Why is there a need to increase fares if she has done so well by way of profits? I think we need some answers.

SMRTproblems unfortunately are symptomatic of many things that are going wrong with the country. We pay top dollar for so called top people. Except that I wonder if there is proper skill matching. How is Ms Saw suitable if her area of expertise is retail? Top dollar for the best people. Sounds logical except that when we pay top dollar for, say, a military man – does his skill set match what is needed to be, say, an education minister? Or finance minister? Sure, if a potential minister, who happens to be a highly paid cardiologist, remains a doctor, he will be paid millions. I doubt if Citibank will pay him millions to be their CEO though. But we think nothing of co-opting someone like that into the government and paying him very well indeed to be a rookie politician or  minister in a field that may be totally unrelated to his profession. We just trust his intellectual acumen will be enough to make him the right man for the job.

In the event of problems, we highlight profits made. In the case of the government, we throwGDPfigures in the faces of the citizens. The real issues that worry or anger the people are often given only cursory attention. Take for instance Lui Tuck Yew and his concerns over the overcrowded trains, and the frequency that the trains are running, and whether that meant maintenance has been compromised. Aren’t overcrowded trains thanks largely to the increased numbers of foreigners in the country? Haven’t we grumbled about that before? Then Rear Adm Teo mentioned contingency plans and proper evacuation. Ermmm – we do not need million dollar ministers to tell us that. We do not need you to tell us the problems – we have been telling you about the problems for a long time. We are looking to you for solutions.

We are always told to bear with it, to work together, to understand. Who is going to tell the employer to understand the lateness of his staff? Who is going to compensate the man who is penalized financially by the lateness – whether because he is an hourly rated worker or if he missed an important appointment thanks to the breakdown? We are always having to understand difficulties, but all you have to do is to apologise for inconveniences suffered? And be paid millions for it? On the other hand, the ordinary person who may lose money for this inconvenience– something that often causes real pain, are just told to bear with it? To move on?  How can you even understand what losing $20 mean to a daily rated worker, when the value of money has become so cheap to you who earn so much?

I am feeling very discouraged. The issues surroundingSMRTare really similar to the issues surrounding many government policies. We cannot focus on money alone, whether in terms of profit orGDPor in terms of paying the top man obscene amounts of money. The focus has to be the well being of the citizenry.

Anyway what’s the point of my ranting? When Gerard Ee proposes new ministerial salary, I am steeling myself to see a token reduction. Leopards do not change their spots.

However, a straw can definitely break the camel’s back. There is only so much people can bear.

Sometimes I feel really sorry for Tin Pei Ling.

Tin Pei Ling was supposed to have been a sign that thePAPhas finally heard the cries of the young. She was supposed to be a star catch – a pap candidate that shows thatPAPis ready to be hip and happening and not just remain old and fuddy duddy. They could not have done it worse.

I do not blame Ms Tin alone though. ThePAPand its unlimited budget had failed badly in its pr management and marketing strategies. Ms Tin became the poster girl for much scorn and derision. Choosing her confirmed for most Singaporeans thatPAPreally did not know the electorate well.

This was clear way before nomination day. PM himself made mention of Ms Tin at an NUS forum with the students. He laughingly asked for people to give her and her youth a chance. Just a few days ago, he pledged not to parachute people in at the last minute. Regrets? A little late, dear PM. Now we are beginning to doubt the ability of the PAP to select and attract able candidates.

Frankly, I cannot imagine that the PAP selected a totally empty vessel. However, impressions once formed are very difficult to correct. The question is, could these poor impressions have been prevented? Exactly what made Ms Tin become so unpopular?

• Kawaii post with Kate Spade bag
• Stamping of feet, and cutesy tantrum, professing “I don’t know what to say on national television
• A deepest regret statement that was extremely shallow – “I did not bring my parents to universal studios”. This was made worse by a younger Nicole Seah’s statement that she was too young to have anything that could be categorized as “deepest” regret”
• She did not think any policies needed to be changed for they were all good.
• Her cooling off day fiasco for which she blamed her assistant but made no apologies for the highly sarcastic and uncalled for content. It did not matter who wrote the comment, as the owner of that site, she should have apologized for such a derogatory comment – that would show class.

The above showed a shallow person who is totally supportive of thePAP, who is not likely to make any attempt to speak up against any party policy. The question is, how could thePAPpr team allow such an image to be portrayed to the public? The problem I feel lies more with the attitude the ruling party, than the actual ability of Ms Tin. Did they think the electorate will just accept anyone just because the PAP had selected her? Why was she not prepared for her first public appearance?

This is made worse by the feeble attempts at damage control. Every month or other, there would appear an article devoted to Ms Tin in the mainstream media. Instead of reducing public ire, these articles only serve to remind the electorate how we had been forced to “give her a chance” just because she was a member of a GRC team. It takes time for a rookie to show her performance, and if there were no flashes of brilliance, does bringing her name forward really help her popularity?

In fact, currently, her trying to keep a low profile, quietly serving her community has put her in a better stead. She has been sabotaged enough by her own. Though, to be fair to her team, she has also made some boo – boos all on her own. Classic case was the statement she made about how all of us will grow older, but some will grow old faster than others. Sigh, Ms Tin, every body grows older at the same rate – one year at a time.

Then comes Mr Khaw. He told a wonderful story of how Ms Tin’s grandmother fiercely defended thePAPand Lee Kuan Yew when some people made unfair comments that showed a lack of gratitude for what the party and the former Min Mentor had done.

Et tu Mr Khaw? Has she not been sabo-ed enough? Do you really think a story like this will endear?

All it tells us is that loyalty to the party will reap rewards to the third generation. Come on. Do we want die hardPAPfans, or do we want loyal Singaporeans with a clear eye to see what is not working, and an ear on the ground to hear the complaints without always pointing to past successes as evidence of present capabilities. And why mention Tin Pei Ling at all. I know there are many die hardPAPsupporters who do the same thing. Talk about THEM – let them feel you appreciate them.

Ms Tin, no matter how capable she is will find going forward extremely difficult. Mr Khaw’s statement is more damaging than helpful. Her marriage to the Principal Secretary of the PM already made the public scoff and cry out, “cronyism.” This eg that Mr Khaw cited gave further “proof” for those who love to hate Ms Tin.

Some people I know who are kind and gracious tell me that we should give her a chance. Frankly, I do not think the answer is really whether she is given a chance or not.

I know that even within the party, she is an embarrassment. I know that pro-opposition Singaporeans want to see her fail. Hence I feel sorry for her. BUT – she is paid too much for sympathy to stick.Singaporewas forced to give her chance, and the protests shout their displeasure at this.

Frankly, if I were Ms Tin, I will quietly serve my community, and keep as low a profile as possible. If I were Ms Tin, I will not stand for the next elections – no matter how good I am with the grassroots or how much I love serving the residents of my community.

If she is really sincere in wanting to serve the community, she will do better as a social worker and get the pay that these get. With a high flying husband, lack of salary should not cause too much pain. It will give her more credibility. Brush up on understanding why Singaporeans are unhappy and what are the policies that are failing. Come back again when she is more mature, if politics is really her game. Otherwise stay a social worker – there is a desperate need for them.

The Price of Life – Part 2

More than ten years ago, someone I knew was diagnosed with cancer. Since the family was fairly well-to-do, she sought treatment from a private hospital. Several hundred thousand dollars later, she passed away. Her husband was devastated. Not long after, he complained of feeling unwell. A battery of tests were ran on him but doctors were still perplexed. They could not find the reason for his illness. While still in hospital, while still being tested, he passed away. His bill – several hundred thousand dollars. This couple owned a house in a fairly good location. The valuation of the house just about covered the bills. Thankfully, his children did not need to get into debt in order to pay the hospital bills. The irony in this story is that while not mentioned in his will, the biggest beneficiary of his estate was the healthcare industry. He, and countless like him, has made it possible for the industry to remain profitable.  No wonder health related shares are the darlings of the stock market, in good times or bad.

Was the treatment worth it? I have been reminded again and again of the importance of the economy to the country. So while I cannot do it for others, in order to help my children take a prudent decision, perhaps it is time for me to look at how much my remaining days are worth.

For a start, I did not work for much of my life. Family and children have always been far more important to me than career. So as a rough estimate, and spreading it out over the years, I probably earned an average of $15000 a year for the past 25 years. That would mean a lifetime earnings of $450 000, and I am erring on the side of generosity. The choice of staying home also meant we hardly have any savings – after all it is not easy to live on a single income. I have had health challenges for the last 10 years. So while I think I am fit to work, I cannot over-stretch myself. Currently, I hardly work at all, except for piecemeal, freelance work that sometimes come my way. If I want to be generous, let me just assume that the next medical report is a positive one and I can get back to part time work – if I can find a job that is. Say I then can earn $15000 per annum. If I do survive until age 62, I have the capacity to earn another $150 000. Technically, that is all my remaining life is worth – $150 000.

So how does it make economical sense for medical costs to be so high? How can $600 pills, thousand – dollar MRI scans, several hundred thousand dollar hospital stays be justified? How can medical costs exceed what some one can earn in a lifetime?

Ah, you say, your contribution to the family and to society cannot be pegged on money alone. Your love, your care your prayers are worth much more. In fact they are priceless. I certainly hope that not everything we do out of love has to be valued in monetary terms. I’d like to think that when I am gone, I will be remembered not because of the money or jewellery I leave behind, but for the joy I had given to those who survive me. But let us be practical. While life is priceless, can we afford to live? How have you, as a government, made it possible to sustain life? Or are you paying lip service to the value of my life?

Current discussions have been going on and on about how to pay for healthcare. I think before we even begin to consider payment, we should consider the cost. What has made healthcare costs so high?

Like many others, I am painfully aware of the importance of health insurance. At several stages of my life, depending on the medication prescribed, I have had to foot $800 or so a month for treatment. Fortunately the cash element has been kept manageable, thanks to the twin contribution from medisave and medishield. Cash element in the bill is NOT the total cost. So when former Minister of Health, Mr Khaw, spoke about $8 heart bypass, that does not tell you how much the operation actually cost. Being able to pay cannot justify the cost.

As hospitals are privatized, profits must be generated. Just look at the argumentsSMRTput forth to justify fare increases. Shareholders have to be looked after, and CEO bonuses too. Costs will not come down. If the government load heavy registration costs onto already expensive medication, refuse to subsidise new and improved drugs, cost of medication can only escalate. Medical insurances, including medishield are provided by private insurance companies. A public listed company always aims to generate profits. If medical costs soar, if claims increase, premiums will naturally go up too. If healthcare costs are not controlled, if we continue to pursue profit at every turn, at the same time find what seems to be legitimate reasons to justify a reduction in subsidies, then the day will come when most will not be able to afford insurance even.

My husband and I only have one property – an hdb flat. The value of this flat has risen in recent years. It gives me some hope that we can retire and not be a burden to the children, should we downgrade. If we pass on before that time, we hope that the children will have a tiny inheritance each, to help them along this very expensive, difficult world where salaries stagnate and costs soar. We have no intention of contributing to the extremely lucrative healthcare world by making them the beneficiaries of the little we have accumulated through the struggles of our lives. In other words, when push comes to shove, we would opt to cease treatment.

To me, the first consideration in healthcare budgeting is not how to pay, but how to reduce cost. To me, it means that as an example, the government cannot look at healthcare from the perspective of how to ensure profitability. Healthcare facilities for the public, like public educational institutions must be seen as cost centres, not profit centres. Furthermore it is time for the government to review how much the life of a citizen is worth, and budget accordingly.

It’s time to show us that you are worth what you are paid. Stop telling us the problems. Show us some answers.

Hell care Health care

Well, it certainly feels that way at times. Just recently a bunch of us got into a discussion on healthcare again. Someone in the group shared his personal story. When his father was admitted into a local hospital several years ago, Class C ward-mind you, he was made to sign an undertaking to pay the bill before the staff would proceed with treatment. 5 months of coma later, his dad passed away. His bill – $500 000.

This story really got me upset. I do not claim to be an expert on healthcare policies, government budget or hospital administrative policies. I am just an ordinary citizen with healthcare concerns for myself. So do not throw me questions on funding – that is the problem for our superbly well-paid ministers to solve. I am also not going into a discussion on the merits of health insurances and medishield. The discussion will get too involved otherwise.

Even as I write this, I hear the many conversations I have had with taxi drivers and the aunties peddling simple ware at the market. “Di zhi dao, ooi si, buay sai pua pi.” Translated from hokkien, what they are saying is, inSingaporeit is ok to die, just don’t get sick.

Someone else mentioned that a cancer patient had to pay close to $600 for a pill – that’s right – $600 for ONE pill. Hospital bill so far, $13000. My reply – if I were the patient, I would stop all treatment. That night, I kept wondering if something similar were to happen to me, at what point would I stop treatment? What is the economic value of my remaining life?

Yes, this world is so economically driven, so financially based that even life itself must have a price tag. The question is, who determines the price tag?

Out of curiosity, I decided to check out the Hippocratic Oath. In particular, I checked out the often used version, rewritten in 1964 by Dr Louis Lasagna (forgive the irreverence – but he sounds almost edible!) One line stood out for me and I quote:

“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”

How interesting. The medical profession needs to be concerned about how the sickness of the patient affects the financial burden of his family. This seems quite the opposite to what is happening in actuality. Not only does it seem as if an impersonal system is uncaring of the “economic instability” of the family, it seems to want to ensure that the family is responsible for every last coin that the treatment may cost, never mind if it costs more than the family home.

I grant you there are those who care, that there is help available – if you know how to look. I know doctors who bring foreign patients into their own homes while they are recuperating from their medical conditions. These would not be able to pay for local accommodation otherwise and once home, would not be able to afford to make trips back toSingaporefor follow-up appointments. I have seen doctors waving their consultation fees when they realize the financial difficulties their patients are in. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule. And as a society, we do not expect the medical staff to be made out of pocket either.

After all, we are a meritocratic society, and how good we are is measured by the salary we can command, the amount we can earn. At a recent interview for placement in our prestigious local university, one student who had applied for either law or medicine, I cannot rightly remember which, said this in answer to the question, “Why do you want to be a lawyer/doctor?

“I heard you can earn a lot of money!” It was a cheekily honest answer – and guess what, his honesty paid off – he got a place.

I remember how when Ng Eng Hen was introduced, his earnings as a doctor was brandished about as proof of how we had snatched a trophy from the private sector. Currently, doctors, especially specialists are leaving government hospitals in droves. They want to be paid more, for less stress. Let me state emphatically that I do not blame them.

What I do blame is how we have allowed ourselves to get to this stage. It begins with a paper chase, and it continues with a paper chase. First it is the degree, then it is the money. What values have we transmitted to our children?

During the discussion, someone mentioned the cost of drugs.  Malaysian pharmacies sell drugs at way lower prices thanSingapore. Someone else said that this is because of the low cost of registration of drugs. There is a downside though. Often times, imitation drugs make their way to the counter. These drugs are either ineffective or may pose a danger to the patient. Be that as it may, counterfeit drugs do not make their way to the counter because of lower registration costs. They get there as a result of corruption. There is no reason why we cannot lower the cost here inSingaporeand still maintain a stringent standard of registration. The truth is pharmaceuticals spend a lot of money testing drugs and coming up with new courses of treatment. They want to earn back the money they had spent and then some. As a people, as a government, we cannot control their business policy. However, we can control how much we profit from their successful research. Are we too profit driven?

Which brings me to the question I asked earlier -who determines the price tag of my life? In the case of my friend who inherited the $500 000 dollar medical bill, the hospital put the decision squarely on his shoulders by making him sign the undertaking. The value of his father’s life to him was priceless – how else could it be?

What if the undertaking was reversed? Instead of making the next of kin sign such an undertaking, bearing in mind the emotional upheavals, the struggles in the conscience on how much filial piety is worth, the lack of medical knowledge that makes such decisions a stab in the dark, why not get the hospital or the government administration to give us a signed policy statement instead? Let them put in black and white to what extent they are willing to treat patients – at which point of debt would they feel compelled to stop treatment. Let them be the one to put a price tag on lives – for they can do so in an impartial, considered and educated manner. The next of kin can still try to maintain treatment by servicing the debt to acceptable levels – if he can find the means to. When he cannot, then let the professionals pull the plug. Stop putting the guilt on the relatives – make the expert decision and take the responsibilities that come with it.

I know I sound cynical and upset. I am cynical and upset. I have one last proposal to make. To me it is absurd to expect the common folk to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. I propose that there is a cap set on the cash portion of medical bills. This can be gradated according the financial standing and affordability of the individual patients. Beyond this amount, I feel a specially set up fund must foot the bill.

I will conclude by quoting the last two lines of the Hippocratic Oath. My prayer is that as a nation, we can help the medical professionals keep their professions honourable and noble.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.