I refer to the news reports ‘Why the pace must slow: PM’ & ‘Knitting with $10m’ (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
PM Lee revealed that his government has admitted many foreigners, in recent years more than 100,000 a year but conceded that we cannot continue to admit at that pace.
Eloquently the PM turned the argument and added that nevertheless, it is still better to have foreign workers in our team, because when the economy is good, they create jobs but when the economy is bad, they absorb job losses.
Economic rationalization aside, it is evident that this government has finally awakened to the consequence of its over-confidence during the booming economy. Problems acknowledged by PM include not merely on employment alone, but also related-problems, that of housing and social integration of foreigners.
The Workers’ Party has challenged the government on numerous occasions about this and hold the view that Singapore should take a long term view in population policy formulation with a holistic approach to bring about a sustainable desirable size of population. (WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’, Chapter 13, Preamble).
In this aspect PAP government has been erratic. They spend one decade enforcing local population control, the next decade stimulating growth via attracting foreign talents and giving out baby bonuses. Right now we hear from the PM himself on the need curb the rampant pace of foreign influx.
Therefore if the mindset of the government is that our citizens are indeed the ‘heart and soul’ of our nation, then our population policies must be robustly long-term and not merely based on purely short-term considerations but one that strive us towards a more humane society, anchor people and make people want to make Singapore our home.
Otherwise even though armed with a $10 million dollar fund to bond locals & immigrant, public scepticisms will continue and effort may be all for naught. Not withstanding the fact that the very idea behind this fund is so unimaginatively papish!
Links:
Why the pace must slow: PM (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
PM Knitting with $10m (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’ (Chapter 13, Preamble)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
On Affordable HDB flats?
* Reader Keith (OCT 15, 2009 1:34:00 AM) pointed out to me that this blog post contains a factually wrong piece of information. This is because singles do still qualify for housing grants. A quick search of the HDB website yielded the following: http://tinyurl.com/yhgw8n7. Thank you Keith for pointing the error and my sincere apologies to readers for not having clarified the fact first. Yaw Shin Leong, 15th Oct 2009 10.05am
I refer to the news report ‘HDB flats still affordable’ (Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
Last Sunday together with fellow WP members, we were conducting our weekly public outreach at Tiong Bahru Market when a man approached me. He shared with me that because he is single, he does not qualify for housing grants and he could not afford to purchase a HDB flat from the open market.
His question was why should him being a Singaporean, be left out from such governmental grants, by virtue of his choice to remain single? He just wanted to be treated equally.I shared with him that Singapore’s prevalent pro-family public policy on housing does not consider a single as a household to begin with. This man replied that he understood Singapore’s public policy on being ‘pro-family’, but he is just requesting that he, being a Singaporean should not be discriminated for his choice to remain single.
In this instance, this fellow Singapore, who is single by personal choice, will unfortunately fall within the category of the two out of 10 Singaporeans households who does not qualify for the various housing grants the Government gives to home buyers.
Concurrently the very fact that National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has to publicly assured Singaporeans that HDB flats ‘remain affordable to most’ is an acknowledgement that prices of HDB flats have escalated to a point of public concern.
Interestingly as I was scrolling down the same ST news report online, I read a comment made by a reader who shared the following, ‘Housing Affordability Index Chart for the UA. A Median Priced Existing Single-Family Home in the US is at an average of USD189, 125 (SGD 280, 000) and monthly mortgage payment as a % of income is only an average of 15.5%.’ This reader’s source was taken from US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index.
So when I read Minister Mah said that ‘first-time households use on average less than 30% of their household income to service their housing loans, which is within the yardstick the government uses to measure affordability.’ I can’t help but wonder why this purportedly first-world government uses a yardstick which is no where near first-world…
Links:
HDB flats still affordable(Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index (2009)
I refer to the news report ‘HDB flats still affordable’ (Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
Last Sunday together with fellow WP members, we were conducting our weekly public outreach at Tiong Bahru Market when a man approached me. He shared with me that because he is single, he does not qualify for housing grants and he could not afford to purchase a HDB flat from the open market.
His question was why should him being a Singaporean, be left out from such governmental grants, by virtue of his choice to remain single? He just wanted to be treated equally.I shared with him that Singapore’s prevalent pro-family public policy on housing does not consider a single as a household to begin with. This man replied that he understood Singapore’s public policy on being ‘pro-family’, but he is just requesting that he, being a Singaporean should not be discriminated for his choice to remain single.
In this instance, this fellow Singapore, who is single by personal choice, will unfortunately fall within the category of the two out of 10 Singaporeans households who does not qualify for the various housing grants the Government gives to home buyers.
Concurrently the very fact that National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has to publicly assured Singaporeans that HDB flats ‘remain affordable to most’ is an acknowledgement that prices of HDB flats have escalated to a point of public concern.
Interestingly as I was scrolling down the same ST news report online, I read a comment made by a reader who shared the following, ‘Housing Affordability Index Chart for the UA. A Median Priced Existing Single-Family Home in the US is at an average of USD189, 125 (SGD 280, 000) and monthly mortgage payment as a % of income is only an average of 15.5%.’ This reader’s source was taken from US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index.
So when I read Minister Mah said that ‘first-time households use on average less than 30% of their household income to service their housing loans, which is within the yardstick the government uses to measure affordability.’ I can’t help but wonder why this purportedly first-world government uses a yardstick which is no where near first-world…
Links:
HDB flats still affordable(Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index (2009)
Monday, September 14, 2009
On Slow Medicine Movement
I refer to the news report ‘Quality over quantity is the current agenda’ (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
PMO Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned about "slow medicine movement" being an alternative approach to healthcare which emphasizes quality over quantity of life spent - or comfort over high-risk medical treatment - is gaining appeal among elderly Singaporeans.
Slow medicine sounds like a fantastic idea, where elderly patients take charge of their medical care, to decide exactly what measures they do and don’t want. The concept is certainly music to the government’s ears as it is a reasoned step away from conventional medicine.
It may even seem that Minister Lim’s comments also implied that somehow doctors are the ones who are suggesting unnecessary high-risk medical treatments and procedures because that’s how they were trained to do and perhaps that is what they must do to make profits.
On the other hand, we must always remember 2 other key players, both the insurance companies and the government! Logically both players would definitely prefer ‘slow medicine movement’ to ‘fast medicine movement’ as both players are likely to prefer people chicken out on that chemotherapy and radiation, and whatever expensive procedures doctors offer to extend lives. This is where the hidden danger on the logic of ‘quality over quantity’ comes in.
Presently Singaporeans are not in this danger. This is because so long the decisions for alternative approach lie with the patients, as it is now. However, if society is to romanticize slow medicine into a movement, then Singapore may potentially face the risk of being boomeranged.
This is because once insurance companies and government are to embrace ‘slow medicine movement’, worse case scenario, the latter by legislating it, there will be a constant danger that someone out there is going to decide if one is getting too old to be reimbursed for a particular treatment.
Personally I doubt slow medicine movement will ever be legislated into an official health policy. Yet the very knowledge that it is making in-routes into our healthcare policy makers’ mindset is just so disturbing…
Links:
Quality over quantity is the current agenda (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
For the Elderly, Being Heard About Life’s End (NYTimes, 5th May 2008)
Slow Medicine: How Do We Keep Personal Choice from Becoming Impersonal Policy? (Huffingtonpost, 9th May 2008)
PMO Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned about "slow medicine movement" being an alternative approach to healthcare which emphasizes quality over quantity of life spent - or comfort over high-risk medical treatment - is gaining appeal among elderly Singaporeans.
Slow medicine sounds like a fantastic idea, where elderly patients take charge of their medical care, to decide exactly what measures they do and don’t want. The concept is certainly music to the government’s ears as it is a reasoned step away from conventional medicine.
It may even seem that Minister Lim’s comments also implied that somehow doctors are the ones who are suggesting unnecessary high-risk medical treatments and procedures because that’s how they were trained to do and perhaps that is what they must do to make profits.
On the other hand, we must always remember 2 other key players, both the insurance companies and the government! Logically both players would definitely prefer ‘slow medicine movement’ to ‘fast medicine movement’ as both players are likely to prefer people chicken out on that chemotherapy and radiation, and whatever expensive procedures doctors offer to extend lives. This is where the hidden danger on the logic of ‘quality over quantity’ comes in.
Presently Singaporeans are not in this danger. This is because so long the decisions for alternative approach lie with the patients, as it is now. However, if society is to romanticize slow medicine into a movement, then Singapore may potentially face the risk of being boomeranged.
This is because once insurance companies and government are to embrace ‘slow medicine movement’, worse case scenario, the latter by legislating it, there will be a constant danger that someone out there is going to decide if one is getting too old to be reimbursed for a particular treatment.
Personally I doubt slow medicine movement will ever be legislated into an official health policy. Yet the very knowledge that it is making in-routes into our healthcare policy makers’ mindset is just so disturbing…
Links:
Quality over quantity is the current agenda (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
For the Elderly, Being Heard About Life’s End (NYTimes, 5th May 2008)
Slow Medicine: How Do We Keep Personal Choice from Becoming Impersonal Policy? (Huffingtonpost, 9th May 2008)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
On Institutional Care Facilities
I refer to the news report ‘More patients will enjoy benefits’ (TODAY, 10th September 2009)
In January 2006 the Workers’ Party proposed for the facilitation of step-down care within the community and the home of patients by providing supporting facilities and the promoting private services of medical care givers and equipments. (WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’, Chapter 6, Section C, Article 2)
Finally it is reported today that last year, 7 – 8-member AIC teams were placed in public hospitals to help needy patients get step-down care following their discharge; so far they have referred 4000. Now with the newly incorporated Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), being a company under the National Healthcare Group, it has been tasked as the dedicated entity to ensure integrated care across institutions.
Technically, with the formalization of AIC, it should be able to be more effective in helping patients get the appropriate care, and to meet step-down care providers’ needs and to develop their capabilities. It is also made know that the AIC will look at helping to strengthen home support services, so as to lessen demand for nursing homes.
The above are positive developments with noble aims. Yet AIC must not become a convenient excuse for the government to avoid building more institutional care facilities such as convalescent homes, community hospitials, rehabilitation centres and hospices to cater to the different needs of patients.
AIC’s Chairperson Jennifer Lee, herself pointed out that the bottleneck in moving patients out of hospitals is the high occupancy rates of over 90 percent in nursing homes. According to here there are also ‘not enough’ of such services particularly the western and the northern parts of Singapore have fewer nursing homes. This is a certainly major concern, especially in the context of Singapore’s fast aging society.
Concurrently it is also highly important for all stakeholders to brainstorm of strategies to ensure that healthcare & its related facilities to be even more affordable than it is now. Otherwise the common catchphrase of the people that “We can die but cannot afford to be sick” will continue to persist.
Links:
More patients will enjoy benefits (TODAY, 19th September 2009)
WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’ (Chapter 6, Section C, Article 2)
In January 2006 the Workers’ Party proposed for the facilitation of step-down care within the community and the home of patients by providing supporting facilities and the promoting private services of medical care givers and equipments. (WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’, Chapter 6, Section C, Article 2)
Finally it is reported today that last year, 7 – 8-member AIC teams were placed in public hospitals to help needy patients get step-down care following their discharge; so far they have referred 4000. Now with the newly incorporated Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), being a company under the National Healthcare Group, it has been tasked as the dedicated entity to ensure integrated care across institutions.
Technically, with the formalization of AIC, it should be able to be more effective in helping patients get the appropriate care, and to meet step-down care providers’ needs and to develop their capabilities. It is also made know that the AIC will look at helping to strengthen home support services, so as to lessen demand for nursing homes.
The above are positive developments with noble aims. Yet AIC must not become a convenient excuse for the government to avoid building more institutional care facilities such as convalescent homes, community hospitials, rehabilitation centres and hospices to cater to the different needs of patients.
AIC’s Chairperson Jennifer Lee, herself pointed out that the bottleneck in moving patients out of hospitals is the high occupancy rates of over 90 percent in nursing homes. According to here there are also ‘not enough’ of such services particularly the western and the northern parts of Singapore have fewer nursing homes. This is a certainly major concern, especially in the context of Singapore’s fast aging society.
Concurrently it is also highly important for all stakeholders to brainstorm of strategies to ensure that healthcare & its related facilities to be even more affordable than it is now. Otherwise the common catchphrase of the people that “We can die but cannot afford to be sick” will continue to persist.
Links:
More patients will enjoy benefits (TODAY, 19th September 2009)
WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’ (Chapter 6, Section C, Article 2)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)