TR EMERITUS

Dear Mr Khaw, I refer to your comments made on Channel News Asia on 23-02-2010 about the state of what’s previously known as government hospitals to a present day restructured model. In it, you were full of praises for the current system which not only cuts no ice with me but also a futile attempt on the government’s part to explain away policies that shed social responsibility. You mentioned that under the current model, patients experience much better service levels which makes me ponder on how you came to that deduction. Let me ‘enlighten’ you on why it isn’t as sweet as you make it out to be, based on past and my present experience. I sent an e-mail to Ms Audrey Ong of CGH on 10-12-09, requesting for a specialist medical report of my current condition for further personal action and I received a call from her office the following week acknowledging my request. As I do not agree with some of the terms presented, I sought my MP’s assistance on 21-12-09 and 05-01-2010 respectively. And they were only received and acknowledged on 18-01-2010. Please note that it takes their administration almost a month just to acknowledge requests. After some ‘dinging’ of e-mails by the Medical Records Office*, I was advised by them to bring my request to the attention of my specialist during the next appointment as they said the orthopaedic department’s secretary had conveyed to them of their inability to proceed with the report at that point of time. Prior to this, I had also, at length, tried to enquire from the department’s head, Dr Chua, if they could proceed with the report but was met with a non-reply. Finally, when I got to see my specialist after months of waiting, I informed him of my request but he was caught by surprise and said he wasn’t aware of this and advised me to contact the MRO* for the proper procedures pertaining to obtaining medical reports. I immediately went to MRO* to enquire about this discrepancy and all they could pathetically choke up was that they had done their best to assist me. If this is best for them, I couldn’t imagine what’s worse by their standards! In the end, the corporate affairs intervened to convince me to settle for and accept an inferior ordinary medical report which is a great world of difference as they explained that I would have to wait till Aug 2010 if I still require the specialist one. This is my present experience and what I would describe as bad working attitude and poor service standards of restructured hospitals. So much for the government’s calls for increased productivity! This leads to my second point. Months ago, I distinctively remembered Mr Low Thia Khiang bringing up a point in parliament of his constituent’s complain of long waiting hours at TTSH. My father had also experienced similar trends last year at SGH when he was placed at the observation ward for several hours as SGH claimed to be fully occupied and over stretched. It wasn’t until I called my friend about this, a Mr Lee who lives nearby and who requested a full view of the wards, inclusive of the B1 and A class, did they finally relented and admitted my dad to a ward. My friend’s request was of course rejected but we share the same suspicion that they would not open up the ‘upper classes’ of wards in order to maximise profits. After all, what’s a corporation for? But most of all the irony is this, despite a PAP MP working there as an ER doctor, such things still take place. I would not dream that you would take my feedback seriously much less act on it and that nearly state-run media would carry my mail through. So with this, I conclude by insinuating that there can be no real changes except through the practical way of the ballot box and other tactics like REACH, GPC etc. are just the government’s way of delaying the inevitable which will take place sooner or later. Daniel Augustine  Read More →

Associated Press, 27 February 2010 Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit received $128,751 in compensation for 2009 as the bank suffered huge losses on risky investments and failing consumer loans, according to an Associated Press analysis of a regulatory filing disclosed Friday. Pandit agreed in February 2009 that he would only take a $1 salary for the year after the bank was forced to take billions in federal bailout money. But he had already received $125,000 in salary before making that announcement, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He received no bonus or stock awards. His only other compensation was $3,750 in 401(k) benefits. Pandit's 2008 compensation package was valued at $38.2 million. However, almost all of that package was made up of restricted stock and stock options that are worth far less today. Citigroup's shares rose a penny to close at $3.40 on Friday. New York-based Citigroup was the hardest hit of the big U.S. banks during the credit crisis that peaked in late 2008 and early 2009, and received $45 billion in government bailout money. It raised $20 billion in December to help repay the money it received as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The remaining $25 billion was converted to stock last fall. By repaying the bailout money, Citigroup is now free of salary caps for top executives set by the Obama administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Citigroup Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach received $5.01 million in 2009 compensation, while the head of the bank's client group, John Havens, received $11.2 million, according to the filing. Earlier Friday, Bank of America disclosed that former CEO Ken Lewis received a compensation package valued at $32,171 in 2009 as the bank struggled with loan losses and repaid billions in federal bailout money, according to an Associated Press analysis of its regulatory filing. However, Lewis' accumulated compensation and retirement benefits totaled $73 million, according to a preliminary filing disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, Lewis' beneficiary will receive $10.3 million life insurance payment upon the death of Lewis and his wife. - AP  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao took time off this afternoon to chat online with netizens at two state news portal in Beijing, many of whom were anonymous. The event, titled "I have a question to ask the Premier" was conducted jointly by the central government and Xinhua News Agency. As of now, more than 100,000 questions have been posed online to Premier Wen: A journalist was charged with selecting the questions for Premier Wen to answer. The interview was screened live on CCTV4. Some of the questions revolve around sensitive and thorny issues such as sky-rocketing prices of properties, corruption, inefficient bureaucracy, rights of workers and limited job opportunities. The questions were fielded by netizens from all over China. Premier Wen did not insist they identify themselves before asking the questions. Though the majority of the netizens are anonymous, Premier Wen listened to their questions attentively and took pains to answer them. He did not cast doubts on their credibility because their identities are not revealed. In some cases where he could not come up with a satisfactory answer immediately, he promised he would look into the matter. Though China is a communist state, its leaders have shown a willingness to listen to the people unlike the authoritarian PAP government in Singapore which is used to talking down to Singaporeans. While there is an official "feedback" channel REACH, comments posted on it are seldom taken note of by the leaders who are reluctant to engage netizens directly and openly. More than 200 comments were posted a few days ago on the forum by Singaporeans who are mostly critical of the Budget announced by Finance Minister Tharman on Monday, but the mainstream media distorted the truth to give the erroneous impression that they are "supportive" of it. Ministers often dismiss the complaints of Singaporeans as trivial and concoct lame excuses to cover their ineptitude. PAP's strongman Lee Kuan Yew even described Singaporeans as "champion grumblers" in a recent interview with National Geographic magazine. Like China, Singapore has been plagued by a red-hot property market which is making public housing unaffordable to the ordinary people. Instead of addressing the concerns of Singaporeans, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan is adamant that HDB flats are "affordable" to Singaporeans despite evidence showing otherwise. Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong claimed that there is nothing much his administration can do to control the prices of HDB flats when the government enjoys a sole monopoly over the public housing market. In contrast, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said during the interview that "he was determined to tame the "wild horse" of the country's soaring housing market and to keep the prices at a reasonable level within his term as Premier." Premier Wen is a leader of the world's most populous country and yet his annual salary is only a fraction of Singapore's ministers. His counterpart in Singapore - President Nathan earns about $3.7 million dollars a year. He has not been seen or heard lately. Singapore netizens should not expect President Nathan or PM Lee to chat with them online like Premier Wen anytime soon.  Read More →