Calling the thinkers for Natcon

My earlier post calling for the elite to step forward to share their brilliant minds for the good of the nation is likely to prove in vain. Who am I to make such a call but a noise in the wilderness of insanity. I am pleasantly surprised to read in the media that Ngiam Tong Dow has stepped up to the podium to make the same call. This time he was addressing the academia, the place called Ivory Tower, where brains are made of ivory unlike the peasants that are made of mud. Ngiam is inviting the intellectuals, the thinkers, huddling in their Ivory Tower to speak up, to share their precious wisdom and knowledge with the govt for a better future for all citizens.

Then I was slammed right in the face by the comments coming out of the Ivory Tower. Read these words very very carefully. I am quoting them from the Today paper. Eugene Tan, the SMU law professor, ‘cited the fear factor as a possible deterrent for academics to speak out.’ My eyeballs are rolling. Eugene also said, ‘some senior faculty “frown upon their colleagues being involved”, …They regard such involvement as purely non academic and not in keeping with the academic norms.”’

A Taiwan born analyst at NUS, Lee Der Horng said, ‘he found it strange that compared to other countries, academics here are not necessarily thought leaders, who drive discussion on public issues.’ Think he is right. Ours are text book academics whose views and interests are confined to the four walls of academia.

Can anyone wonder why protest or demonstrations on social and political issues are often led by students and notby the thinkers in the academia? But could the thinkers see that the Natcon is different, that the govt is extending an invitation to all Sinkies to speak out and tell the govt what they want for the future of Sin? If the academics are shrouded with fear from opening their gold gilded minds, the govt would have no choice but to ask the uncles and aunties in the market and hawker stalls what they would like Sin to be. And what the uncles and aunties decided, the Ivory Tower academics would have to live with it, if they don’t open their golden mouths. Or is it that the academia is filled with foreigners and they rather not be involved in local politics?

Rogues in Malaysia medical practice

The message below was e-mailed to me by a friend.

         Subject: Fw: Rogues in Malaysian medical practice


                Beware of Errant and Unethical Doctors! Please read

"Dear friends,

I am a general surgeon in private practice in Kuala Lumpur. I would like to bring to the attention of the public the unethical practices of some doctors in private practice.

An 8-year-old boy was brought to see me by his father after suffering from fever, cough and vomiting for 1 day. He DID NOT HAVE ANY ABDOMINAL PAIN. He was initially seen by a general practitioner who insisted that the father bring him to see 'Surgeon G' at a specific private medical centre in Kuala Lumpur. The father at first refused and had wanted to bring his son to the medical centre where he was born but relented when the medical practitioner said that 'Surgeon G' will order some blood tests and will send his son home with some medications.

However, when he brought his son to see 'Surgeon G', the surgeon examined his son's abdomen and pressed so hard that he elicited pain. Then the surgeon told the father that the son had a perforated appendix and insisted that he be operated the same night. The father was baffled because his son did not have any abdominal pain prior to that excruciating examination but he reluctantly agreed upon insistence by the surgeon. About 1 hour prior to the surgery, the father suspected that something was not right and he asked for his son to be discharged. He then brought his son to see me.

The first thing I noticed was that the boy had a slight cough but he was very active. His father told him to jump to prove that he did not have any abdominal pain, which he did with great enthusiasm. After a thorough examination, I was convinced that the boy did not have appendicitis and definitely not a perforated one. I treated him symptomatically for upper respiratory tract infection and sent him home with some medications. The father was outraged with what happened to his son earlier but he was relieved that his son was saved from an unnecessary surgery. Professionally, I could not! tell him that 'Surgeon G' may have tried to cheat him but, in my heart, I knew that was the case because I knew 'Surgeon G' very well and had inherited a few of his patients whom he operated upon and had botched the surgeries.

The next day, 'Surgeon G' called me and asked what happened to the patient. I told him I was certain that the boy did not have a perforated appendix but he insisted that the boy was very sick and had rigors (severe shivering) when he first saw him. Surgeon G said the boy improved tremendously after one dose of antibiotics. In my years of practice, I have not come across one case where one dose of antibiotics can cure a case of perforated appendicitis. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE! He also said that the boy's father was a liar and had lied about his son not having any abdominal pain. Well, dear readers, I am a parent too. No father will lie about his son's health because he would have wanted the best treatment for his son.

I suspect 'Surgeon G' is giving kickbacks to many general practitioners to send patients to him to operate. In return, he would pay these general practitioners for each patient referred to him. He would cooperate with the general practitioners to convince the patients that they need urgent surgery.  I have personally worked with 'Surgeon G' and I know that his skills are questionable. He told me once that it is alright for a patient to have a recurrent disease as a result of his incomplete surgery because he would then refer the patient to another surgeon to tackle the problem. He had caused one death from a thyroid operation and at least 2 cases of complications after gallbladder surgeries which he refused to admit fault. In his clinic he has medical books with pictures of dangerous diseases which he uses to scare his patients into accepting surgery.

I am writing this to alert the public that there are doctors who are out for money only and are unethical in their practices. It breaks my heart that there are such individuals practicing freely and fleecing off unsuspecting and vulnerable patients and giving this noble profession a bad name. The only defense patients have is to be knowledgeable about their own illnesses and not be afraid to ask questions. All patients have to right to a second opinion and no doctors should coerce their patients to accept treatment against their will. The only consolation I have is that most doctors, both in public and private practice, are still ethical and are sincere in helping their patients.

Please circulate this article to your friends and loved ones and lets hope no one will suffer in the hands of surgeons like 'Surgeon G'. Also, beware of the general practitioner who insists that you see a particular specialist in a particular hospital because he could be working hand-in-hand with that doctor.
                                                         

Thank you." 

 

The above message is an eye opener that we all must be aware that there are medical crooks all over the world includining Singpore so we have to be very careful when seeing doctors whether GPs or surgeons or specialists.

The flexible pricing formula for HDB flats

The clearest picture of what formula was used in HDB pricing was revealed by LKY last Sunday. It was at cost or cost minus. Though it was a general statement, let’s presume that it was construction cost plus a little land cost as the land originally acquired was at minimal cost under the Land Acquisition Act.

So the original formula is likely to be Price = Construction Cost.

Though it was not discussed, it was likely that after a while the Price was slightly adjusted to provide some profits for HDB. Thus the formula would be Price = Construction + profit.

I use a small p for profit as the profit then was really not much to talk about.

Then someone got an awakening. The CPF holders have a lot of money in their savings. They can afford to pay a more for their flats. Then I think the formula was changed to Price = Construction Cost + Profit.

I am now using a bigger P to equate a bigger profit being built into the price.

This went on for a while till someone got another enlightenment, like being struck by a bolt of wisdom, and the formula was changed to Price = Subsidised Market Price. There was no need for the big P any more. It was hidden in the Market Price.

Then more angry noises were heard and the formula was modified and explained in different ways. It was changed to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy.

Then more noises and anger. So the factor of Affordability crept in as many claimed that it was getting unaffordable. So the formula was modified to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of two incomes for 20 years and instantly it became affordable.

As price kept going up, the formula was revised to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 20 years. More members can now contribute to make the price more affordable.

Again the price went higher and the formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 30 years. See, still very affordable. It was all over the media with the Housing Minister having his special pages to drum this affordability idea into daft Sinkies.

But this was not the end. The formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 40/45 years. 30 years simply were not sustainable.

This may not be the last change as the price is still going up. It is likely that the formula will be revised again and likely to be Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 60 years or 100 years.

Does anyone realize that the Cost factor has been missing since Price was changed to Subsidised Market Price? Yes, Cost is no longer a factor in the issue of pricing HDB flat prices. The price of future HDB flats will not be determined by Cost but by the 30% of household income and how long they allow the buyer to repay. It also means that the price of HDB flats, regardless of Cost, can keep going up as long as the salary goes up and the repayment period is extended.

This is called flexible pricing, or rubber band pricing, like luxury goods. It can go as high as the seller so wishes as long as it keeps to the 30% benchmark plus plus. The first plus is the household income. The second plus is the number of years for repayment which is inversely proportional to the Price. The longer the number of years taken, the higher can the price go up. The formula can thus be written as Price = Resale Market Price(with market subsidy) Plus Plus.

Where is the problem?

The basic in problem solving is to identify the problem, acknowledge the problem, then works towards removing or overcoming the problem. If all else fails, just avoid the problem or pretend that there is no problem.

The SDP has worked very hard, putting a team of professionals together to try to solve the high property price problem. They have come out with a very detailed proposal called Non Open Market Scheme to solve the problem that is on everyone’s mind. Actually I am wrong to say this. It is only in the minds of those who see high prices as a problem. Some are jubilant and celebrating the high prices. Where got problem?

LKY had said that his party has delivered the goodies to the people, built and sold housing at cost or below cost, and the people are now happily enjoying the high value of their properties, inflated 5x, 10x or even 20x. Such a great achievement, to make the people so rich cannot be a problem. It is something admirable to brag about. And the people are so grateful. This is even better than the savings in the CPF that put a smile on Swee Say’s face.

Come on where is the problem? If it is a problem, LKY would not be bragging about it. If it is a problem, Boon Wan, would have solved it. His remedies so far were not meant to bring down the high property prices, but to allow continue appreciation of property prices. The reality of price shooting through the roof may be a bit unexpected. But does anyone see any panic, any panic measures being taken to prevent the prices to go further up? They may be quietly celebrating the huge success of a housing programme where all buyers can look forward to more asset enhancements and appreciation of values.

Now, when the govt does not see this as a problem, don’t expect the govt to do anything. Only some people, mostly the younger people and those who have no properties, are crying out loud that high property price is bad. So, one say got problem, one say good thing to have. What will happen to the SDP’s NOM Scheme then? Redundant, unnecessary, uncalled for, unwanted!

Only when the SDP is in power, or when a think alike opposition party comes to power would the SDP’s proposal be considered. To the incumbent power, where got problem? Don’t come and ‘ka cho’ with unnecessary solutions that are not needed. Don’t be too clever when there is no problem to start with.

Alvin Tan’s punishment by NUS confidential

NUS Disciplinary Board has dished out their punishment to Alvin Tan, an Asean scholar, for posting his private sexual pursuits in the youtube. This has caused a furore among sinkies and taxpayers are up in arms wanting to know why public money was wasted on such a person that obviously have values and lifestyle that are unconventional and incongruent to the social norms of the day. Many were asking for the withdrawal of the scholarship and a return of all money dispensed to Alvin Tan.

NUS conducted its disciplinary inquiry and had since announced that punishment had been meted out but this was kept confidential. Is this acceptable, just by hanging a confidential placard over this case? This is no ordinary case and is of great concern to the public whose money is being spent on this scholar? Do the people, the public, have a right to demand to know what is going on, what kind of punishment was handed to Alvin Tan? Does NUS owe the public an explanation?

Or this is a confidential matter, a student disciplinary matter, an NUS internal matter? Is the gag order justifiable? Personally I don’t think this is a confidential anymore. Not disclosing the disciplinary action will only create more anger. The veil of secrecy or confidentially cannot be suka suka used to hide the ugly truth from a more vocal public that demands for more transparency.