The National Environment Agency or NEA announced a blanket ban on the serving of raw freshwater fish by any food outlet with immediate effect. Food stalls include hawker centres, coffee shops, food courts and canteens. Restaurants are exempted from this ban as they generally observe hygiene standards and source fish from suppliers who deal with fish intended for raw consumption.

NEA stated that this new ban was announced to protect public heath in view of the upcoming Chinese New Year where yusheng would be served. In total, the Ministry of Health has received 360 cases of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infections in 2015, 2 of which were fatal. 150 of these cases were linked to the consumption of raw fish, in particular raw snakehead and asian carp which are usually consumed with porridge.

Last Tuesday, a 22 year old NSF passed away of GBS and the case is currently being investigated. In November this year, another 52 year old man became critcally ill after eating raw fish porridge and just woke up from a 10 day coma on Tuesday.

NEA lab tests found freshwater fish to have significantly higher bacterial contamination than saltwater fish and comes with a much higher risk of GBS infection when consumed raw.

5 stories of work permit foreign workers in Singapore 

I refer to the article “Searching for the good life, miles from home” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 5).

Gave up citizenship due medical costs?

It states that “When Mr Muthusamy secured his Singapore citizenship in 1974, he brought his family to join him in Singapore. They lived in a flat at JalanMinyak in BukitMerah that cost S$200 a month to rent. After PUB, Mr Muthusamy took up temporary cleaning jobs.

In 2007, his wife discovered that she had breast cancer, and her medical treatment, which cost about S$14,000, put a financial strain on the family. Five years later, Mr Muthusamy himself had to undergo bypass surgery — and it was then that he decided to give up his Singapore citizenship after 38 years.

The whole family reluctantly moved back to their village in Alangottai and relied on his Central Provident Fund savings to get by.”

The above may be indicative of how unaffordable healthcare may have become in Singapore.

Isn’t it sad that a foreigner who became a citizen in 1974, had to give up his citizenship due to medical costs?

No mention of high agent’s fees?

As to the other four stories of foreign workers – why is there no mention as to the large sum of fees that foreign workers have to pay their agents in order to come to Singapore?

These fees are typically as much as $8,000 which can take many months to pay off from deductions of their salary.

What about the numerous foreign workers who have to leave after just two years of their contract, with little earnings after paying off the agent’s fees?

Strangely, only two of the workers’ salaries were mentioned – $1,400 for the construction worker and $1,300 for the maintenance worker.

The other two – domestic worker and cleaner – did not mention their salary. Is it because their typical salary may only be about $500 and $800, respectively?

Work permit holders becoming PRs/citizens?

Moreover, it is almost impossible now for foreign workers on work permits to be able to get permanent residency or citizenship in Singapore.

So much for “this month, Singapore will commemorate Foreign Domestic Workers’ Day and International Migrants Day”.

LeongSzeHian

A.S.S. Contributor

Dear Editors,

My father is currently in NTFGH. He needs nursing care and assistance with daily activities. He is sick with various medical conditions and bed bound currently.

We requested for help for him to be admitted to a nursing home. We spoke to a Ms Woo Li Ling from NTF kidney department, after waiting 1.5hrs for her to be back from her lunch. We skipped lunch for fear that we may missed her. She strolled into the ward slowly at the end of the visiting hours. We need help. We hope that she can and will help us. But nothing positive came out from the brief 5min conversation.

She was very arrogant. She insisted that our father be discharged next week, without empathy for his current condition. She said that she can probably try to put in a request for us for him to be placed in a nursing home but the wait would be 3-6 months. We asked for an alternative solution like transferring him to the community hospital in the meantime as he need rehabilitation as well. But Ms Woo justbrushed us off that she is not sure if my father even meets the criteria. Without giving us any assurance that she would help, she just walked away. We are really at a loss of what to do now. We can't just leave Ms Woo to not do anything. This is really sad.

In fact, since early 2015, we have be asking for help from the Social workers (Ms Fan Xin Yue and Ms Tan Xin Yee) at the hospital but nothing has been done.

We tried to look for alternatives through the MOH-Singapore Silver pages but all they can tell us was to get a domestic helper (snap shot of online chat conversation attached) or go through the medical social workers at the hospital (back to square one). The social workers have also asked us to get a domestic helper but what we need is nursing care for my father. We cannot understand why the Ministry kept asking us to go for domestic help instead of helping us to apply for a nursing home.

Are they promoting that people should rely on foreign domestic help? Is the Ministry not serious in helping our pioneers when they need help? Our next step is probably to try to see the MP during one of those meet-the-people session, if we do get to see him.....

Disappointment Singaporean
A.S.S. Contributor

<Blog post by Philip Ang>

I refer to “National servicemen to get $80 more in monthly allowance”.

I hope our youths will start to think if there’s really a need for conscription instead of relying on PAP propaganda to do their thinking. There has been no real debate in parliament for 5 decades and PAP is stuck in a dinosaur mindset.

The love of one’s country should not be defined by conscription as that would mean all Singaporean females are free loaders. Before I go on, let me state that, being a regular in the RSAF from 1982 to 1988, I did more than my fair bit for Singapore. After ROD (now ORD), I had to compete with younger Singaporeans in the job market. But it wasn’t much of an issue as PAP did not prioritise foreigners over locals, one could easily land a job and salaries were not depressed. What’s more, housing was affordable even on a single income. And I am not talking about a 2- or 3-room flat.

Due to the impact of Social Studies’ and mainstream media propaganda, I believe our youths have not realised that PAP has shortchanged them for decades with its double standard, ie one rule for themselves, another for ordinary folks. Let’s look at what PAP means by ‘sacrifice’ and some figures to put this into perspective:

– The PM’s salary was $2500 in 1970 and increased by 9000% to $3,800,000 in 2008.
– A recruit’s allowance was $40 in the 1970’s and increased by only 600% to $240 in 2008.

– Taking into consideration the PM’s $1.6 million decrease to currently $2.2 million, his ‘sacrifice’ still saw an increase of 7333%.
– Poor recruit is currently getting $480/1200% increase.

– From the 1980’s to 2002, PM’s annual salary shot up from $214,500 to $1,940,000.
– Poor recruit’s monthly allowance crawled from $120 to $240 or $1,440 to $2,880.

– From the 1980’s to 2002, PM’s annual salary increased by $1,725,500.
– Recruit’s sacrifice saw an increase of only $1,440. The PM’s increase was almost 1200 times of a recruit’s.

– From 2000 to 2008, PM’s salary defied gravity and skyrocketed to $$3,800,000 from $1,940,000, an increase of $1,860,000.
– During the same period, PAP forgot inflation impacted everyone including recruits, or they even existed: allowance increase – ZERO.

PAP has lost all moral authority to lecture Singaporeans/TKSS about sacrifice as it is clear they are all hypocrites. If sacrifice means getting a 6-month bonus on top a 13-month pay, then shouldn’t NSFs be entitled to an additional 7-month bonus allowance?

The $80 increase is really an insult; the increase should be $800 to reflect the ‘discounted’ real cost of sacrifice. Every dollar that PAP pays themselves, NSFs should be entitled to the same percentage increase.

The huge difference in NSFs’ allowance is also unjustified. Every father’s mother’s son is sacrificing exactly 2 years of their lives so why should a CPL be paid half the allowance of a LTA? Is this an elitist system that recognises the ‘sacrifice’ of white horses who eventually become officers? Why should a CPL be paid $630 while a LTA gets $1,260? A marginal difference would have sufficed because these spoilt, book smart white donkeys are really no different from ordinary citizens.

Truth be said, PAP’s objective of having 35,000 conscripts is solely to maintain an organisational structure to promote its scholars to generals. Without 35,000 conscripts, we would have a couple of generals instead of 30. All these paper generals are a huge waste of tax dollars. After retirement, PAP will still need to find meaningful work for them by parachuting them into GLCs. More tax dollars wasted.

A little red dot like Singapore probably needs a professional army of 10,000. A couple of generals with real combat experience is more than enough. It’s a win-win situation but of course PAP will not want to lose the support of its paper generals.

Conscription is therefore too costly and billions could be saved every year. Additional tax dollars could be invested in Singaporeans or saved for PAP’s 50-years-still-has-not-arrived rainy day.

The army logistics department may be doing well during peace time but having too large a military may be counter-productive: it presents a logistical nightmare during times of conflict. By the time the army activated more than 500,000 reservists and conscripts, Singapore would have already gone under.

Forget about classroom scenario planning by book smart generals. We have already witnessed reality in the Little India riot and the chaotic situation after every major MRT disruption.

If conscription is needed, it should be reduced to a 6-month stint as one does not need 2 years to learn the use of firearms. If Singaporeans require 2 years of indoctrination to convince them to defend our homeland at all costs, then we don’t really deserve to survive as a nation.

PAP says we need the numbers to deter aggression but it is essentially fighting World War 2. Are we living in the internet age or not? Why do we require the same level of manpower despite having spent billions on state-of-the-art weapons, weapons which potential aggressors do not have? Has PAP heard of missiles which could be used by aggressors to bring us to our knees if they so desire? Does PAP then intend to launch the human wave to defend Singapore?

PAP is maintaining a large army to serve its political objective, not Singaporeans.

There were already too many conscripts and PAP had realised this 3 decades ago. Some scholar in the government then came up with ‘Total Defence’ which essentially means the abuse could continue at PAP’s whim.

Since the army did not require additional men, more than 3000 youths are channeled into the SPF and SCDF every year. But what these organisations require are professionals who should be paid at least $3000 a month, not the undignified allowance given by PAP. Conscripts are being used as a cheap source of labour and they cannot be expected to have the same level of professionalism because a monkey is what you get with peanuts as allowance.

The SCDF is also being used as a recruitment centre for youths who have little academic qualifications. Opposition MPs should raise the issue on the number of SCDF NSFs injured, which have gone unreported, in Parliament.

It is a fact that we actually have more NSFs than required: PAP has recently floated the idea of using them for crowd control during major train disruptions. It would be fine during a real emergency but since train disruptions are now occurring regularly, is this not an abuse of public resources?

NSFs are also employed to patrol Changi Airport and in the vicinity of MRT stations. Without NSFs, Changi Airport Group and SMRT will need to hire private security agencies such as AETOS or CISCO which will impact their bottom line and more importantly, Temasek Holdings’. NSFs should not replace professional security personnel from private security agencies.

The scholar who came up with Total Defence is one smart ass: in one fell swoop, NSFs are at the beck and call of the government. Temasek companies are able to save millions as it now has access to public resources. After crowd control to cover up PAP’s failure in public transportation, what next?

To many from low-income families, there are real economic losses in serving NS which PAP can’t simply try to make up with free membership to overcrowded SAFRA clubs or token shopping vouchers.

Since PAP started flooding our country with wealthy foreigners 25 years ago, Singaporeans have started to question if we are actually protecting the assets of the wealthy who have little loyalty to our country. Money can buy them citizenships anywhere in the world.

There has been no real debate on the direction of national security for decades. Billions of tax dollars continue to be poured into defence and the real beneficiaries are, as usual, government-linked companies.

Singaporean males should start to think about the future under PAP’s double standard government. They should not blindly accept PAP’s propaganda on the need to sacrifice because a large armed forces is unnecessary.

PAP should first lead by example and not demand million-dollar salaries with each annual increase ranging from ten$ to hundred$ of thousand$. The $80 NSF allowance increase is nothing but a slap in the face.

Dear Editors,

I gave been using Grabcar for months but I noticed over the last few weeks, the fare indicated via the app seems to have gone crazy and haywired. On one of the mornings, it quoted me a $20 fare for what usually cost only $12. (morning peak hours)

And just yesterday (sat night), it quoted me a $52 fare from Ang Mo Kio to Jurong. Who in their right mind is still going to go with them in such instances ? I went back to Comfort DelGro easily which costed only $25.

The most ridiculous instance was a trip from Ang Mo Kio to Yishun Northpoint, Grabcar wanted to charge me $23 for this short trip. With such pricing Grabcar doesn't seem like a good economical choice anymore. Taking the regular taxis or Uber would make more monetary sense.

Is anyone experiencing the same thing or did I miss out on any news about crazy fare hike?

Grabcar Gone Siao
A.S.S. Contributor

<Post by Ganymedean>

Pinoy got citizenship in 2007, not too long ago, then joined PAP as a member soon afterwards and proudly voted for them! Song bo Singaporeans?

Can't believe nowadays Pinoy can also be part of PAP. Apparently serving NS is not a requirement to join PAP...

Seems like PAP is becoming a new citizens' party rather than a party for true Singaporeans. :(

<Complaint by Oscar Heng>

My name is heng hock kee, I felt ashamed to be a Singaporean! This morning at around 9.20 am, I went to Geylang NPC to lodge a police report against 2 NEA officers, Namely, Muhammed Foraz Bin Ibrahim and Tan. When I reached Geylang NPC. I given all the relevant infomations to Sgt Mohd kamal, halfway through, I was told that the investigator by the name of ASP mohd faizal from Bedok police station want to speak to me on the phone.

Without second thought, I shared with ASP Mohd Faizal about my unpleasant encounter with the two officers from NEA, I was shock when ASP Mohd Faizal threatened to charged me double (in his own words) for giving false statement to Singapore Police Force!

In the first place, as a well experienced senior police investigator who having the rank of ASP, without gathering further relevant informations, how dare he claimed that I made the false statement. I challenged him to charge me with his own right, and ask his full name and rank in police, he cowardly said that he can not disclose his full name and rank over the phone.

I went further to challenge him is our conversations being recorded, he give me the assurance that there is no recording device on the phone. He hold the senior post in the Singapore police force, I gave him the benefit of doubt, and without questioning him further. However, I was puzzled that why there isnt any security system to safeguard the interest of police officers and general public in such a well established Singapore police force.

Again, I was being "instructed" by ASP mohd faizal to report to bedok police station at the point of time. He shamelessly told me to take a bus all the way from Geylang NPC to Bedok police station, I told him that is uncall for. Again, he "instructed" me to stay at Geylang NPC, he will make his way to come to Geylang NPC. I obliged.

However, while waiting for him for another twenty minutes or so, he called Sgt Mohd Kamal that he is busy investing another sensitive case, he could not meet me. What a laughing stock to a senior police officer, one minute he said that, the other minute he go back on his word! Is he selling roti prata, keep turning and turning!

First the unpleasant encounter with the NEA officers, now the joke from the Singapore Police Force. The Singapore civil servants only know how to threatened commoner us. They thought they are the one who call the short, well behave Singapore citizens were at their own expend. I do not buy the idea that Singapore civil servants are on top of the law, we law abiding Singapore citizen will be forever be their victim!

Is time to clean up the integrity of Singapore civil servants! Is time to wake up, Singapore civil servants. We have enough! Now my confidence level with the Singapore public service had gone down the drain! My dream with the Singapore civil servants had completely smash! I felt so shamed to be a Singaporean!

Dear ASS editors,

Dentist charged me unfairly!

Unfair dental charges by T32 Dental I brought my daughter for a routine cleaning of her teeth. It was our first visit to T32 Dental Pearl at JCube Jurong. We were not told that there would be a consultation charge prior to the treatment. Despite an unexplained waiting time of 30min, we were slapped with an unreasonable bill of $170, $70 for consultation + $100 for cleaning.

We find these charges rather unreasonable especially when all the dentist said was reminding my daughter to clean and floss properly. Do patients not have a recourse against the professionals for such unfair charges?

I find it difficult to get good dentist nowadays. My mum went hospital make dentures since early Mar this year. She run numerous times till now still cannot get it fixed properly! At the end refer her to one of the specialist Hopefully after one or two sessions it can fix well! I was told that making dentures is not profitable as a lot of processes involved. Doing teeth whitening, extraction etc can make easy money. Better to take gd care of our teeth n pray hard we don't need dentures when we are older...

Cheryl Lum
A.S.S. Contributor

<Complaint by Hank Rutherford Hill>

Expected that this kind of issue will happen. My mum aged 69 had suffered a severe stroke. My father's age is 83 and luckily he is strong enough to take care of himself. We sought help from MSF but to no avail.

Last month I wrote an email to MSF and was referred to Mr Patrick Teo. In my email, I told him that I would like to apply for the parents maintenance act because my elder brother (used to stay with us and contribute monthly expenses) had abandoned us after my mum had a stroke.

Mr Patrick got the cheek to call me and said that I had to call the comissioner myself and he could not forward my email to the relevant authority. I told him I thought our Prime Minister made it clear there should practise "no wrong door policy?"

What is wrong about forwarding my email to the right department? It is still under MSF!! I was appalled at his answer and I do hope that someone investigate this issue.

<Complaint by Colin Yap>

On 5 Dec 15 @ 1120 hrs, I encountered a Caucasian male in his 20s on roller blade going around trying to open the doors of every parked vehicle at ECP carpark B1. I called 999 at 1127 hrs and reported the incident and gave a description of the Caucasian suspect to the duty officer.

At 1141 hrs, I got a call (98271452) from the police officer who responded to my earlier 999 call. I gave him the description of the suspect and I even offered to send the photo of the suspect over to him. However, I was told by the officer that his mobile phone was unable to receive images?! Nevertheless, I told the officer that I would keep a look out for the suspect and call him at the mobile number again if I see him.

At 1201 hrs, I saw the same suspect again at the same car park (B1) and I called the police officer mobile (98271452) a few times but was futile. I called the Bedok South and Marine Parade NPC and was told to call 999. I called 999 again at 1218 hrs and gave the information to the duty officer and my mobile number again. I waited and watched the suspect going around trying to open the car doors again but the police was no where in sight.

A Malay gentleman told me that the suspect had tried to open his car door and he shoveled him away and he also called 999 too but the police did not arrived.
It's 1510 hrs now and I have not received any call from the police regarding this case. I am very disappointed with such lacklustre response from the SPF. In this heighten alert environment now, I think the SPF should response quickly and with a deeper sense of urgency.

I have attached the photo of the Caucasian suspect in this msg.

http://i.imgur.com/gn9lg95.jpg

<Complaint by Geraldine>

Just call in to Ang Mo Kio Town Council to inform that the traffic junction from Avenue 8 to street 31, traffic lights linking Teck Ghee Primary school to MRT track are not working, which is very dangerous as vehicles are dashing across the road.

The first answer I got from the staff is "the traffic lights are not under our concern, please call LTA. Seriously? At least be concerned about the safety of others right? How can you ask me to call LTA on my own accord?

I'm just doing my part as a Singaporean, concerned of others life but the woman answering the phone representing Ang Mo Kio Town Council could answer me so selfishly. Unfortunately I did not get her name but just FYI.

<Contribution by Francis Chuang>

Poor auntie, someone bought her this lunch pack. Before she open to eat, she doze off to sleep. She is one of the senior cardboard collector in the market place.

Does this auntie look like she is enjoying her cardboard exercise? :(

For years, a 39 year-old woman Zunika Ahmad lived as a man, even going so far as to get herself a fictitious identity as a male living in Indonesia and getting married to 2 local women.

Then in 2011, Zunika moved her Indonesian family into a flat a few units away from a young 13 year-old girl and her family. When Zunika presented herself to the girl and her parents, they did not suspect that she was a woman because of her deep voice and the way she presented herself.

Soon after, Zunika grew closer with the young victim and her family. The 13 year-old and her sibling would often stay over at Zunika's place to spend time with Zunika's daughter, who was conceived by one of Zunika's wives after she had an affair with another man.

Zunika and the underaged girl started their sexual relationship in 2012, and although it was consensual, it is stilled viewed as illegal under Singapore law. Zunika ended the relationship in December 2013 after feeling guilty over the affair. The abuse came to light in March 2014, when the girl made a police report after an argument with Zunika.

Zunika was convicted of 7 charges, including a count of committing an obscene act with the underaged girl, who has now turned 16. 14 other similar charges will be taken into account upon sentencing.

Amazingly, both of Zunika's wives and the girls' family did not realize that Zunika was biologically a female until her arrest and incarceration at Changi Women's Prison. It was there that prison psychiatrists diagnosed Zunika with gender dysphoria, a disorder that causes the sufferer to have a strong desire to be of the opposite sex. Doctors did not find that Zunika required any psychiatric treatment, which makes her liable for prosecution under the law for sexually assault against a minor.

Even Zunika's wives had no idea that they were married to a woman. When Zunika's first wife became pregnant after an affair, she had told Zunika that the baby was Zunika's, and Zunika had gone along with the lie as she wanted to have a complete family and was unwilling to reveal her true identity.

In making a case for a lighter sentence, defense lawyer Ms N Sudha Nair cited a psychiatric report by Dr Tommy Tan, which found that Zunika's risk of re-offending is low, and told the court of her client's remorse and desire to continue living with her wives and daughter after her sentence.

Citing the complicated and unprecedented nature of the case, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said he would issue the sentence at a later date.

In an Facebook post that had gone viral, local netizen Imran Olsen shared an image of NEA officers confiscating curry puffs from an 'illegal' hawker stationed outside a mosque in Pasir Ris. Imran lamented that "the officers confiscated the usual karipaps and drinks we buy always after our Friday prayers".

This incident happened at Masjid Al-Istighfar located in Pasir Ris and according to some onlookers, the 'illegal' hawker has been outside the mosque selling his food stuff every friday for many years. This was done with the Masjid's permission.

Most who read the news were upset at the NEA officers for making life hard for the honest hawker.

One angry netizen said: "He's selling curry puffs and drinks to make an honest living God damn it. Unlike you ridiculous officers working for the authorities, confiscating one's rightful possessions and throwing them away and issuing unnecessary summons thus making one's life more difficult than it already is. And you twats feed your families with that money that you earn. Such a pity."

Another man agreed in unison and said " we don't mind buying them, in fact people after prayers look forward to buying it for families at home. stupid fuckers these officers. Nothing else better to do.. Knn"

On the flip side, people like Sashir agreed with NEA's action and remarked "when your loved one dies or gets affected by food poisoning, let's see who you'll blame. Small minded people. They are working to protect us. Don't bring religion into this picture and make it a issue. The fact that they confiscate means someone Complained. Go find that person. Don't blame the authority.period."

And there would jokers like Izad who wondered out loud where all those confiscated curry puffs would go to.. He quipped "So nea officer confiscate the karipap...one question after confiscating the karipap where does the karipap go..balik office share ramai pe...just a naughty thought inside my head haha...."

CPF payouts insufficient for retirement?

I refer to the article ”CPF payouts ‘fall short for higher-income earners’” (Sunday Times, Dec 6).

Lower income better off?

It states that ”Men at the 30th income percentile, however, could achieve a gross replacement rate of 71.3 per cent by annuitising the full amounts in their CPF accounts, Ms Miksa noted.

This suggests that lower-income earners could rely on CPF payouts for retirement income.”

Lower income may be worse off?

As only an estimated 1 in 6 Singaporeans at age 55 were able to meet the full CPF Minimum Sum (currently $161,000) without pledging property – the lower income may be even more financially stretched in retirement.

Low retirement adequacy due low %?

As to ”Singapore scored lowly on retirement income adequacy due to “the lack of a social safety net” and having “one of the highest out-of-pocket healthcare costs in the world”"– to what extent has our very low CPF interest rates (the lowest real returns amongst all national pension funds in the world?) contributed to our low retirement adequacy?

LeongSzeHian

Looking at our current president Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, I personally find it
rather difficult for to recall the things he has done for Singapore. In fact,
he has very little face time and speech time in the mass media, compared to a
certain person from a certain political party, whose face won’t stop
showing up.

During 2011 Presidential Elections, 4 Mr Tans were candidates. Each of these
4 Mr Tans had notable accomplishments, and had contributed to the society in
some way. But let’s be honest, most of their deeds and accomplishments
weren’t as widely publicised as some other politicians. To many of the
voters, it’s just a Mr Tan, and another Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Who?

At the Presidential Elections, all 4 candidates pledge to be independent of
the ruling party’s influence. Can that really be possible? Can we really
believe that?

At the Elections, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam won the highest number of votes,
whereas Mr Tan Kin Lian had the lowest number, an abysmally low number to say
the least. This was despite the ex-ceo of NTUC having a notable number of
achievements under his name.

So the question. Why did so many people voted for Dr Tony Tan, if they have
never even heard of these candidates before the Presidential Elections?

I have a theory. Singaporean voters didn’t really know the difference of
one Tan, to another Tan. So, they did the most logical choice: they voted for
the person with the highest education level. A Doctorate.

And can you blame the voters? We are Singaporeans, it’s what we do. We look
at education level. It’s what Human Resources calculate. It’s what
parents value. It’s what student aspire. Our entire society was based on
measuring the worth of a person by his paper qualifications.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s assume you have never heard of the
candidates. Who would you pick to be your President? The guy with the
doctorate? Or the guy who was forced to quit school and never graduated?

SG Keyboardwarrior
A.S.S. Contributor

Recently, my mother had the misfortune of meeting an accident and has been on
a wheelchair for the past 6 months. She had the good benefits of buying many
policies to protect her family against such incidents but was aghast to
receive Prudential's rejection of disability.

These are what my mother and us have been going through but yet Prudential
deem it not serious enough to be considered disability, may I ask what is
disability to the insurance companies?

1) After a fall, my family doctor and medical specialist have written reports
that the fall was unexpected and my mother had “slight concussion” to the
brain.

2) Numbness in her arms and legs forced her to be wheelchair-bound for the
past 6 months.

3) Her daily life revolves around family member helping her to cloth, feed,
move around.

4) She have been enduring painful cramps in arms and legs and unable to live
a normal life.

5) She have been doing therapy twice a week since hospital discharge, and the
results are not ideal, but Prudential does not accept this results.

6) Her doctors have written reports based on forms provided by Prudential,
but yet Prudential officers stated that those reports are not what they want.
Would Prudential clarify on what reports to provide, and what standards
should we adhere since their own forms are not suitable for their claim
officers?

7) Her specialists are unable to provide treatment to full recovery and have
suggested that she uses a wheelchair for her daily movement, does that count
as disability?

8) She had bought many add-on riders to have peace of mind, yet she cannot
claim on such a big event on my life. What is the purpose of insurance?

9) How can we trust insurance agents when they are trained in sales, but not
trained in the terms of the insurance?

10) Prudential has informed us that their agents are not trained in claim
procedures, then who can we turn to after we paid premiums and improved
Prudential's sales?

11) My family is unable to seek help from Prudential's agent because he is
not trained in claims issues, and their claim department refuses to accept
medical reports following their standard forms. My family has no idea who to
seek help.

12) The claim rejection is not transparent and Prudential said it is unable
to provide us other details citing “confidentiality”.Is this fair to
customers that is now no longer valuable but a liability to Prudential?

13) We bought a policy with many riders to protect ourselves, when we meet
the claim events and Prudential raised the threshold of paying out, should my
family accept it as bad luck on our side?

14) I was requested to submit a mandatory financial status report on my
income for the past years, is this fair that they do not ask this when we are
buying a policy but then make it mandatory when we need a claim?

15) We had purchased additional provisional disability benefit but Prudential
reject as doctors were unable to diagnose her medical problem. Does this
rejection means all her riders and main policy can be considered as useless
since nothing is payable?

16) My mother is disabled, forced to use a wheelchair, the medical reports by
professionals are overwhelming in favour that the disability resulted from
the concussion by the accidental fall, yet Prudential can reject it because
causes of the medical condition is not certain. Using the insurer's own
terms, are we consumers protected?

It is frightening that Prudential can reject my mother's claims because the
doctors are unable to diagnose and treat her. I have no idea that they based
their insurance on a perfect world where every medical condition and every
medical treatment is confirmed and guaranteed in black and white in some
medical, or should I say, insurance text book.

As everyone needs insurance, it frightens me that the insurer can use their
own terms and conditions to reject a claim because a medical condition is not
certain despite the victim being wheelchair bounded. What are our rights as
consumers?

It is really frightening that insurance agents keep telling us how important
it is to buy insurance, but when we really need to pay our medical bills,
they do their utmost best NOT to pay out.

Tiredgirl
A.S.S. Contributor

To my fellow Singaporean artists and arts lovers,

It appears that after NAC CEO Kathy Lai wrote to the Straits Times to defend state censorship of the arts, NAC Chairman Chan Heng Chee defended the same in her speech as guest of honor at the Singapore International Film Festival. Her speech is an insult to the festival, which has prided itself on its support for freedom of expression by taking a principled stance against showing any film censored by the state. Chan’s speech also raises in an acute form the question of artists applying for and accepting state funding. In short, she claimed that the state has the right and the obligation to decide on what to fund, based on other considerations besides the artistic merit of the application. In response to the argument that the public purse belongs to the public and not the government, she countered that the public would prefer to spend more money on welfare subsidies and education, and less on the arts. This last point is meretricious: it is not a question of either-or. One may as well claim that the public would rather spend more money on welfare than on ministers’ pay, and thereby make a stronger claim than Chan’s.

Still, Chan’s speech makes it all too clear that the state after Lee Kuan Yew is bent on controlling the arts through its funding schemes. It will support the arts as a way of promoting the Singapore brand, and neuter the arts as a means of political and social expression. As its strategy clarifies, artists must decide how best to engage the state and retain their freedom and autonomy. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that sees NAC funds as public monies and insists that they be dispensed on the sole consideration of artistic merit, and not the government’s political agenda. Such a view has right on its side, and idealism as its motive force. But the current one-party state has no trouble ignoring what is right and trashing what is ideal. It knows that it is the main funder of the arts in Singapore, and that Singapore artists have come to rely on its funding. By its cynical calculations, the state is certain that no matter how much of a stink artists may raise after each instance of censorship, they will return to suck its teats in the next round of grant applications.

The only way out of this bind is to wean us from state funding. We must learn to develop and present our works by using private, overseas, or minimal funding. This is possible not only for the literary arts, which are relatively inexpensive, but also for film and theater. We can pare down to the essentials, we can invent new forms for the new material situation, we can become resourceful. Groundbreaking works in film and on stage have been produced without state help, and, in many countries, against state sanction. They gain respect with their own people and with audiences abroad for their artistic integrity and innovation. In fact, pioneering Singaporean artists had been doing just this before the state decided to flush the arts with money. (Name the idol of your own artistic field here.) Perhaps, seeing our renewed determination, many more arts-loving private individuals will step forward to help, people big and small, like Eng Kai Er and her No Star Arts Grant. We can dispense with the nanny state.

After reading NAC CEO Kathy Lai’s letter, I decided not to work with the NAC any longer. Acting on that decision, I withdrew my submission to the poetry anthology A Luxury We Must Afford, since the editors intend, not unusually, to apply to NAC for funding. I also told my Russian translator about my no-NAC rule and very resourcefully he is applying for an American arts grant that will pay not only for the translation, but also his travel to the USA to present his translation. A Singapore publisher has just accepted my book of essays for publication, knowing my stance against NAC funding. Win some, lose some, but all’s based on some principle that I can live with.

Next year, I’m bringing back the biennial Singapore Literature Festival in New York. The first edition last year did not accept any NAC funding, but we did ask the authors to apply to NAC for airfare (for which they received partial funding). Next year, we will do without NAC funding completely, and raise funds from private donors. It’s a good way to invite personal investment in a community arts project. Without NAC funding, the festival can only invite a very small number of authors, but we will be able to focus on giving those authors maximum exposure. The tentative theme of the festival is “Singapore Unbound.” The festival will feature terrific writers who are also outspoken critics of the status quo.

I hope you will join me in re-considering your engagement with the state and its arts funding. To return to the topic of the state’s obligation to the arts, I will say that the state is obliged to cherish the country’s artists and art works, even when they are met with public indifference and hostility; the state should do so for the sake of future generations of Singapore, who need a free and authentic culture. I appreciate fully the fact that it is easier for me not to work with the state since I’m abroad. By the same token, I cannot have the same effect as someone working in Singapore can have. I can only do what I can where I am.

Jee Leong Koh
New York City
December 06, 2015