It was a scorching Sunday evening when we walked and visit each family. Great exercise for all the members of the team!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Visit Residents in Taman Permata on 24 May 09
It was a scorching Sunday evening when we walked and visit each family. Great exercise for all the members of the team!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Trying Times
2009 must pass as a difficult year for all;
Struggling to keep afloat with prices all seem to soar.
Making ends meet is tough for those who is aged and sick.
In MPS, cases are sad and we are trying hard to help the weak and meek;
To toil through this trying times and giving them hope;
A helping help from NTUC; with food vouchers so that they can cope.
Helping the children through school and making sure the little ones are in school;
Desolate, sometime with anguish, what can they do?
With Spurs and Workfare, we hope that such measures help in a little way
With help, there'll be hope everyday
For so long as they need help, we'll be there
To share the burden of residents with too much to bear.
Trying times it may be, our helpers will untiring help
Hearing the hapless and helpless cases, sometime our hearts melt;
Not with sympathy but empathy.
Trying time, O, that's our reality!
One case at a time, one resident at a time
We'll pull through together as Singaporeans in this trying time.
Struggling to keep afloat with prices all seem to soar.
Making ends meet is tough for those who is aged and sick.
In MPS, cases are sad and we are trying hard to help the weak and meek;
To toil through this trying times and giving them hope;
A helping help from NTUC; with food vouchers so that they can cope.
Helping the children through school and making sure the little ones are in school;
Desolate, sometime with anguish, what can they do?
With Spurs and Workfare, we hope that such measures help in a little way
With help, there'll be hope everyday
For so long as they need help, we'll be there
To share the burden of residents with too much to bear.
Trying times it may be, our helpers will untiring help
Hearing the hapless and helpless cases, sometime our hearts melt;
Not with sympathy but empathy.
Trying time, O, that's our reality!
One case at a time, one resident at a time
We'll pull through together as Singaporeans in this trying time.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
H1N1 vs Mankind
The H1N1 virus is crippling everyone with fear. All around the world, we fear the worst if there is a community outbreak escalating to the scale of Phase 6. This is the time for us to pull ourselves together with a solidarity like what we have done at Sars. We overcame the dreadful and painful memories.
The greatest thing for us all now is to overcome that crippling fear.
Even at tonight's MPS, we are seeing residents are usual as I think lives must go on and though we have instituted temperature checks and all necessary precautions, problems and issues of everyday lives will still be heard and we'll still go on relentlessly solving each of our resident's concern.
Like one doctor told me: "Wash your hands as frequently as you can!" and I think that will be the best precaution we can now take.
The greatest thing for us all now is to overcome that crippling fear.
Even at tonight's MPS, we are seeing residents are usual as I think lives must go on and though we have instituted temperature checks and all necessary precautions, problems and issues of everyday lives will still be heard and we'll still go on relentlessly solving each of our resident's concern.
Like one doctor told me: "Wash your hands as frequently as you can!" and I think that will be the best precaution we can now take.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Reaching Out
Madam Soh is 92 years old, has 7 children and lives in a one room flat in Sin Ming with another elderly person. Widowed in her fifties, she raised her 7 children on her own. Mdm Soh now continues to do a bit of laundry and ironing for her neighbours for a few dollars. She has kidney problems and swollen limbs which makes her vulnerable to falling.
When asked why she is not living with any of her children, she replied in Hokkien: "All my sons are either unemployed or sick, they can barely support themselves and their children."
Madam Soh relies on monthly NTUC vouchers issued by Thomson CCC and Bright Hill temple groceries, as well as gifts from her neighbours and other charities. Fortunately, caring Thomson grassroots leaders are around to reach out to Madam Soh. Knowing her health issues, they frequently visit to monitor her situation, help her to collect food vouchers and other items.
With such help extended, we hope Mdm Soh can continue to sustain herself, not solely on the charity of others but with familial support.
When asked why she is not living with any of her children, she replied in Hokkien: "All my sons are either unemployed or sick, they can barely support themselves and their children."
Madam Soh relies on monthly NTUC vouchers issued by Thomson CCC and Bright Hill temple groceries, as well as gifts from her neighbours and other charities. Fortunately, caring Thomson grassroots leaders are around to reach out to Madam Soh. Knowing her health issues, they frequently visit to monitor her situation, help her to collect food vouchers and other items.
With such help extended, we hope Mdm Soh can continue to sustain herself, not solely on the charity of others but with familial support.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Human Organ Transplants Act (HOTA)
I rise in support of the good intentions behind these amendments. They are clearly noble. Who could disagree with giving more hope to those whose lives hang in the balance, and whose only prospect of survival is to receive a transplant?
So the repeal of the prohibition against removing organs from a deceased person over 60 years old is timely. So long as the organs are healthy, there is no reason to impose artificial age limits for prospective donors. Likewise, the enhancement of penalties.
The amendments to allow a donor to receive compensation are more controversial. Many around the world will criticise us for this move. But as a matter of principle, I see no difficulty with it.
Some have argued that many countries have not allowed this, so we should not. That by itself is not a good reason not to do something. Some say it is immoral to donate your organs for money. I say it is equally, if not more, immoral to simply ask patients to accept death gracefully when there is a feasible option. It is also immoral to stop someone from saving a life, if that is his real intention.
What are the critics really concerned about? That this new regime will prove an irresistible source of income for the poor, the ignorant and the desperate, and that ultimately, the rich will obtain transplants at the expense of the poor. These are powerful, emotional arguments which cannot be ignored.
But what is the reality? A father of a friend died on an operating table in India during a kidney transplant; an acquaintance of mine is still alive after receiving a kidney in China. Many of us know similar stories. This is a life and death issue. People who face death will move mountains to survive, and do things and take chances which most of us would not even dare think about. So there is a thriving black market, where organs are traded for huge sums of money, and the poor, the ignorant and the desperate will continue to be a ready source of organs for those who can pay. HOTA did not bring about that situation, and these amendments, if properly applied, are not going to make it worse. In fact, creating a framework to handle compensation for organ donation may help stem the rise of a black market.
But there is no doubt that even with the enhanced penalties, introducing a financial element will prove too tempting for some to make money from donating their organs, and for others to take advantage of that temptation. We cannot leave the weaker members of society to fend for themselves. We need to ensure that the law and spirit of HOTA are preserved.
The key phrase, which appears in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, is “altruistic living organ donor”. In other words, the amendments are not supposed to facilitate transplants by persons who are motivated by money. Further, as I understand them, these amendments do not remove the requirement that there must be a deep emotional connection between the donor and the recipient. Could the Minister clarify this? If a relative or close friend of the patient is willing to give up his kidney to save him, but is naturally concerned about his own future medical expenses and potential loss of earnings, why should we not allow the patient to compensate that relative or friend?
The problem is that the amendments do not say all this. The phrase “altruistic living organ donor” appears in the Explanatory Notes, but not the amendments themselves. The requirement that the donor and recipient must have deep emotional ties is also not found in HOTA.
Therein lies my difficulty with these amendments, and with HOTA in general. The vital organs are missing. Let me explain.
The way the Act seeks to ensure that organ trading does not take place and that donors are not exploited is to depend on the Hospital Ethics Committees to assess the application, and to approve or reject it. But HOTA and its regulations make it clear that this committee is not equipped for this important role.
Section 15B of the Act provides that the committee shall consist of not less than three persons, of whom one shall be a medical practitioner not employed or connected with the hospital and one shall be a lay person. But the lay person apparently can be employed or connected with the hospital. In other words, that committee can be constituted by a majority of persons who have an interest in promoting the business of the hospital. In fact, the third person, the medical practitioner not connected with the hospital, may be from another hospital which carries out transplants or is otherwise interested in promoting transplant operations.
Of the persons sitting on the committee to decide a particular application, the only disqualification from participating are that they cannot be directly involved in the care of the donor or recipient, or will be involved in the transplant procedure. Surely, there are other obvious instances of conflicts, such as blood relations or friends? But the members of the committee are not even required to declare their interests.
Further, neither HOTA nor any other law or regulation sets out how the committee is to discharge its duties. All it has to do is submit a report of its decision to MOH. What that report should contain is not clear. The committee has complete discretion in the manner of its deliberations. It has the power to make rules to regulate its own procedure. There are no requirements to keep a record of the proceedings or the interviews with the donor or the recipient, so we do not know what questions, if any, were asked. In fact, the committee is not even obliged to interview the donor or the recipient. Why is that not a mandatory requirement? How is the committee able to properly discharge its duties unless its members actually speak to both donor and recipient? A committee can therefore rubber stamp an application and no one would be the wiser. The committee is obliged to have regard to the considerations of “public interest and community values” when assessing applications. But these terms are not defined, so the committee decides what they mean. There is no accountability for its decisions. The MOH does not carry out audits of the files (if any) kept by the committee. I could go on.
The Hospital Ethics Committee currently represents our only real check against abuse – yet we demand so little of it. The hospitals may argue that it is not their responsibility to determine if what is declared by the donor and recipients is true. If that is the case, then it would appear that no one is taking any responsibility for this entire process – not the doctors, the hospital or the Ministry.
If we are going to allow compensation, and if we are serious about not allowing organ trading, there clearly needs to be a complete overhaul in the manner in which applications are approved. I know the Minister would prefer to keep things flexible. But flexibility without accountability is a not a good recipe. Otherwise, a law which has such good and noble intentions may fail in its execution. That would be a real shame.
These matters should be addressed in HOTA, or at the very least, in subsidiary legislation. If any Hospital Ethics Committee is not prepared to assume these basic obligations, transplants should not be carried out at the hospitals it represents. There is also no reason why MOH should not audit every approved transplant to ensure that the letter and spirit of HOTA have been observed. It will provide an essential check to ensure that the committees are doing their job. Surely, that is not an onerous obligation. How many living donor transplants take place every year? Even if many, is that not the least MOH should do in the public interest? If it does not, who will?
Improving the process will not reduce the number of genuine donors. May I ask the Minister if he intends to improve the current approval process, and if so, what he proposes to do?
Likewise, I am not comfortable leaving the details of the compensation scheme to another committee without any legislative guidance or oversight. Delegating may be a convenient and efficient way of dealing with these issues, but the devil in these amendments is really in the details.
I accept that it will be impractical for this House to deliberate on all the details of the compensation formula or mechanism. But there are some fundamental questions we should talk about. For example, what does compensation for “loss of earnings” mean? Should compensation be restricted only to Singaporean and PR donors? Should there not be a cap on the amount of compensation? Should foreign donors and recipients be subject to different rules? How is the compensation sum to be disbursed? Other members of this House have raise many good questions.
We should debate these questions in this House, instead of giving a committee , which has not even been formed, a blank cheque to decide them.
May I also ask the Minister if his Ministry intends to take a similar light-touch approach with this committee as it does with the Hospital Ethics Committees?
A compensation regime which does not adequately address the interests of donors, or worse, encourages less than altruistic behaviour, will undermine the very amendments which we are being asked to vote on today. If the system is inadequate, and there is exploitation as a result, the failure should be ours and not laid at the door of some committee.
I hope that the Minister will clarify these matters so that we can take this important step confident that we are doing the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. But absent an overhaul of the approval process and clarity on the compensation scheme, I cannot support it.
So the repeal of the prohibition against removing organs from a deceased person over 60 years old is timely. So long as the organs are healthy, there is no reason to impose artificial age limits for prospective donors. Likewise, the enhancement of penalties.
The amendments to allow a donor to receive compensation are more controversial. Many around the world will criticise us for this move. But as a matter of principle, I see no difficulty with it.
Some have argued that many countries have not allowed this, so we should not. That by itself is not a good reason not to do something. Some say it is immoral to donate your organs for money. I say it is equally, if not more, immoral to simply ask patients to accept death gracefully when there is a feasible option. It is also immoral to stop someone from saving a life, if that is his real intention.
What are the critics really concerned about? That this new regime will prove an irresistible source of income for the poor, the ignorant and the desperate, and that ultimately, the rich will obtain transplants at the expense of the poor. These are powerful, emotional arguments which cannot be ignored.
But what is the reality? A father of a friend died on an operating table in India during a kidney transplant; an acquaintance of mine is still alive after receiving a kidney in China. Many of us know similar stories. This is a life and death issue. People who face death will move mountains to survive, and do things and take chances which most of us would not even dare think about. So there is a thriving black market, where organs are traded for huge sums of money, and the poor, the ignorant and the desperate will continue to be a ready source of organs for those who can pay. HOTA did not bring about that situation, and these amendments, if properly applied, are not going to make it worse. In fact, creating a framework to handle compensation for organ donation may help stem the rise of a black market.
But there is no doubt that even with the enhanced penalties, introducing a financial element will prove too tempting for some to make money from donating their organs, and for others to take advantage of that temptation. We cannot leave the weaker members of society to fend for themselves. We need to ensure that the law and spirit of HOTA are preserved.
The key phrase, which appears in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, is “altruistic living organ donor”. In other words, the amendments are not supposed to facilitate transplants by persons who are motivated by money. Further, as I understand them, these amendments do not remove the requirement that there must be a deep emotional connection between the donor and the recipient. Could the Minister clarify this? If a relative or close friend of the patient is willing to give up his kidney to save him, but is naturally concerned about his own future medical expenses and potential loss of earnings, why should we not allow the patient to compensate that relative or friend?
The problem is that the amendments do not say all this. The phrase “altruistic living organ donor” appears in the Explanatory Notes, but not the amendments themselves. The requirement that the donor and recipient must have deep emotional ties is also not found in HOTA.
Therein lies my difficulty with these amendments, and with HOTA in general. The vital organs are missing. Let me explain.
The way the Act seeks to ensure that organ trading does not take place and that donors are not exploited is to depend on the Hospital Ethics Committees to assess the application, and to approve or reject it. But HOTA and its regulations make it clear that this committee is not equipped for this important role.
Section 15B of the Act provides that the committee shall consist of not less than three persons, of whom one shall be a medical practitioner not employed or connected with the hospital and one shall be a lay person. But the lay person apparently can be employed or connected with the hospital. In other words, that committee can be constituted by a majority of persons who have an interest in promoting the business of the hospital. In fact, the third person, the medical practitioner not connected with the hospital, may be from another hospital which carries out transplants or is otherwise interested in promoting transplant operations.
Of the persons sitting on the committee to decide a particular application, the only disqualification from participating are that they cannot be directly involved in the care of the donor or recipient, or will be involved in the transplant procedure. Surely, there are other obvious instances of conflicts, such as blood relations or friends? But the members of the committee are not even required to declare their interests.
Further, neither HOTA nor any other law or regulation sets out how the committee is to discharge its duties. All it has to do is submit a report of its decision to MOH. What that report should contain is not clear. The committee has complete discretion in the manner of its deliberations. It has the power to make rules to regulate its own procedure. There are no requirements to keep a record of the proceedings or the interviews with the donor or the recipient, so we do not know what questions, if any, were asked. In fact, the committee is not even obliged to interview the donor or the recipient. Why is that not a mandatory requirement? How is the committee able to properly discharge its duties unless its members actually speak to both donor and recipient? A committee can therefore rubber stamp an application and no one would be the wiser. The committee is obliged to have regard to the considerations of “public interest and community values” when assessing applications. But these terms are not defined, so the committee decides what they mean. There is no accountability for its decisions. The MOH does not carry out audits of the files (if any) kept by the committee. I could go on.
The Hospital Ethics Committee currently represents our only real check against abuse – yet we demand so little of it. The hospitals may argue that it is not their responsibility to determine if what is declared by the donor and recipients is true. If that is the case, then it would appear that no one is taking any responsibility for this entire process – not the doctors, the hospital or the Ministry.
If we are going to allow compensation, and if we are serious about not allowing organ trading, there clearly needs to be a complete overhaul in the manner in which applications are approved. I know the Minister would prefer to keep things flexible. But flexibility without accountability is a not a good recipe. Otherwise, a law which has such good and noble intentions may fail in its execution. That would be a real shame.
These matters should be addressed in HOTA, or at the very least, in subsidiary legislation. If any Hospital Ethics Committee is not prepared to assume these basic obligations, transplants should not be carried out at the hospitals it represents. There is also no reason why MOH should not audit every approved transplant to ensure that the letter and spirit of HOTA have been observed. It will provide an essential check to ensure that the committees are doing their job. Surely, that is not an onerous obligation. How many living donor transplants take place every year? Even if many, is that not the least MOH should do in the public interest? If it does not, who will?
Improving the process will not reduce the number of genuine donors. May I ask the Minister if he intends to improve the current approval process, and if so, what he proposes to do?
Likewise, I am not comfortable leaving the details of the compensation scheme to another committee without any legislative guidance or oversight. Delegating may be a convenient and efficient way of dealing with these issues, but the devil in these amendments is really in the details.
I accept that it will be impractical for this House to deliberate on all the details of the compensation formula or mechanism. But there are some fundamental questions we should talk about. For example, what does compensation for “loss of earnings” mean? Should compensation be restricted only to Singaporean and PR donors? Should there not be a cap on the amount of compensation? Should foreign donors and recipients be subject to different rules? How is the compensation sum to be disbursed? Other members of this House have raise many good questions.
We should debate these questions in this House, instead of giving a committee , which has not even been formed, a blank cheque to decide them.
May I also ask the Minister if his Ministry intends to take a similar light-touch approach with this committee as it does with the Hospital Ethics Committees?
A compensation regime which does not adequately address the interests of donors, or worse, encourages less than altruistic behaviour, will undermine the very amendments which we are being asked to vote on today. If the system is inadequate, and there is exploitation as a result, the failure should be ours and not laid at the door of some committee.
I hope that the Minister will clarify these matters so that we can take this important step confident that we are doing the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. But absent an overhaul of the approval process and clarity on the compensation scheme, I cannot support it.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Singapore 2009 Extraordinary Budget
More than 2000 years ago, a great Chinese philosopher said: “In calam ity lies good fortune, and in good fortune lies calamity”. It was a shrewd observation of human enterprise and fallibility.
We are now witnessing the calamity which was hiding in the economic run which started some years back; a run driven in large part by greed and ignorance. These are mistakes people have made many times in the past, and are condemned to repeat in the future.
Experts continue to debate about when this mess started, and who or what was responsible. But it does not change the fact that the world faces its most serious economic challenge in 60 years. The IMF says that world growth is at its lowest since the Second World War. Millions of jobs around the world will be lost. We have seen that Singapore is not immune.
This $20.5 bn package is a significant response. It is an extraordinary sum of money, but really, what it does, or hopes to do, is to help us tread water. No one knows how long this situation will last, how bad it will get and how much more it will cost to keep our heads above water. Many predict that the Government will have to inject even more money in the future. If anything, this Budget is a sobering testimony of how vulnerable we are and the difficult times we face.
So as time goes on, there will be increasing calls on the Government to do more for different groups, sectors or industries. We have seen examples of this around the world. In the United States, different industries have argued forcefully for a share of the bailout fund, including the pornographic industry!
But our means are not unlimited. The solution cannot be to throw money at every problem, but to pick the right battles and the right weapons to deploy.
In that regard, I would like to touch on one issue which the Budget does not address: helping Singaporeans keep their homes.
I support the Government’s focus on helping companies and businesses stay afloat by addressing their cash flow and credit issues, and thereby save jobs. Few would disagree with these objectives.
But make no mistake, we will all face a stressful time in the coming months to hold on to our jobs. No industry will be immune. It will also not matter how senior or experienced you are. I am often told by my clients that this is a good time to be a lawyer, as failing businesses often translates to more legal work. That may have been true in previous recessions. This one is turning out to be a very different creature. Over the last few weeks, law firms in the US and the UK, including major, international law firms, have been announcing thousands, of redundancies. Significantly, those receiving their pink slips include partners and senior lawyers.
So the reality is that despite the measures being taken in Singapore and the billions of dollars other governments are injecting into their own systems, the world economy will be in decline for some time, and a good number of Singaporeans will lose jobs. As the market for goods and services dry up, some companies may have no choice but to let their people go. Others will lose their jobs because their companies and businesses will go under.
More will need help. The government has increased financial assistance payments to PA recipients, CCCs’ Comcare fund, GST Credits and such. Every bit helps and is welcome. Incentivising companies to retrain and retool are also important. But with limited opportunities, it may take time for those who lose their jobs to find employment. Stress levels will go up. Now more than ever, we need to ease the pressure off Singaporeans.
I therefore hope the Government will have plans to deal with other likely points of stress. One of these will be the ability of Singaporeans to keep their homes.
To a large extent, we are fortunate that most Singaporeans live in HDB flats. I know from my MPS experience that HDB exercises considerable flexibility to help families that are unable to meet their loan payments. But over the last few years, because of regulations, many have had to finance their purchases through commercial banks. We also cannot ignore the large numbers who live in private properties. They may not have the option of downgrading because their loans exceed the value of their homes or they may not be able to get loans to purchase an alternative home. If they are retrenched and unable to service their mortgage, foreclosure is a serious risk. And a spate of foreclosures and forced sales will only depress the property market, and put more loans, and therefore homes, at risk.
There are a number of ways the government can help. For example, easing the current restrictions on obtaining HDB loans; allow those with commercial bank loans to refinance with the HDB; impose a moratorium period on foreclosures; require banks to restructure default loans, including offering interest-only payments for a specified period of time.
Other countries have or are planning schemes – the HOPE for Homeowners program in the US; the Homeowners Mortgage Support Scheme in the UK. Those programs are calibrated to meet the challenges in those countries, but the objectives are the same.
I urge the government to come up with and announce concrete plans as soon as possible so that they can be implemented quickly if needed, and Singaporeans know what the conditions are to qualify for help. It would be a major source of stress relief to know that the government will help keep a roof over our heads until the storm passes.
I am not suggesting that the government bails out everyone who defaults on a mortgage. There should be restrictions. For example, it should only be for those with one home; the inability to pay should be on account of the current economic downturn; it should not apply to those who still have the ability to downgrade, albeit at a loss.
I also accept that we cannot ignore the “moral hazard” arguments, and that public funds should not be used to bail out bad decisions or risky behaviour.
So the Government’s role should not be just to hand out money, but to clearly articulate its principles and philosophy, and to ensure that the measures it implements is consistent with these.
One important message that must be conveyed is that this exercise is a two way process. While it is the governments’ duty to give assistance where it is needed, those who receive help must take positive steps to get themselves back on their feet.
My concern is that some, despite losing their jobs, will not see the need to get back quickly into the market, preferring to wait for work which is similar or equivalent to the one they lost. In these times, they could be in for a very long wait. I have encountered too many such cases in my MPS. It is a real problem.
There are also those who are able to work, but are not inclined to because they are able to get by on the assistance they receive. I understand from the CDCs that a large number of job seekers are classified as “not job-ready” or “near job ready”, meaning that, in some cases, they are not prepared to accept work that is offered them eg, because it involves shift work or other inconvenient circumstances. One CDC officer told me that out of every 10 job seekers it helps, only 1 is “job ready”. The overwhelming majority are not. Some live in rental flats, which means they receive large subsidies. I understand that although they reject job opportunities, they continue to enjoy subsidies.
And there is decent paying work out there. An owner of a well-known chain of restaurants I spoke with recently said he cannot find Singaporeans to be restaurant managers, despite the fact that he pays between $2,000 - $2,500/mth. This disconnect does not make sense.
We have to send a strong message that we cannot afford the luxury of bring selective, especially not in these times. We need all hands at the pump to keep our economy afloat, even if it means making compromises or personal sacrifices in the short or medium term.
I therefore urge the government to re-examine the way it gives assistance. It is important to incentivise people to find work with programs like WIS. It is equally important to disincentivise those who ask for or get assistance, but refuse to help themselves.
Conclusion
There is one significant difference between our fiscal measures and those announced by some of the major developed nations. We are in a position to call on reserves, while they intend to fund programs by borrowing and making future generations pick up the tab.
As times get tougher, there will be more pressure on the Government to spend. Many, economic experts and lay persons alike, will have different ideas on how much to spend, what to spend it on and where to get the money from. The Government may have to take tough, unpopular measures. But being tough alone does not mean you are right. That takes intelligence, experience and mature judgment. Our reserves are there because of the hard work of earlier generations of Singaporeans, coupled with sound and prudent management and leadership.
Now, more than ever, we need the Government to exhibit those qualities. The problems we and other countries face are exceedingly volatile and complex. They will not be solved by spending some money here or there. We are in this for the long haul. The measures we implement have to be sound and steady. They also have to be flexible to meet new and unexpected challenges.
The Budget is evidence of that measured, mature approach. Hopefully, it will put us on the path to find good fortune in these times of calamity. I support it.
We are now witnessing the calamity which was hiding in the economic run which started some years back; a run driven in large part by greed and ignorance. These are mistakes people have made many times in the past, and are condemned to repeat in the future.
Experts continue to debate about when this mess started, and who or what was responsible. But it does not change the fact that the world faces its most serious economic challenge in 60 years. The IMF says that world growth is at its lowest since the Second World War. Millions of jobs around the world will be lost. We have seen that Singapore is not immune.
This $20.5 bn package is a significant response. It is an extraordinary sum of money, but really, what it does, or hopes to do, is to help us tread water. No one knows how long this situation will last, how bad it will get and how much more it will cost to keep our heads above water. Many predict that the Government will have to inject even more money in the future. If anything, this Budget is a sobering testimony of how vulnerable we are and the difficult times we face.
So as time goes on, there will be increasing calls on the Government to do more for different groups, sectors or industries. We have seen examples of this around the world. In the United States, different industries have argued forcefully for a share of the bailout fund, including the pornographic industry!
But our means are not unlimited. The solution cannot be to throw money at every problem, but to pick the right battles and the right weapons to deploy.
In that regard, I would like to touch on one issue which the Budget does not address: helping Singaporeans keep their homes.
I support the Government’s focus on helping companies and businesses stay afloat by addressing their cash flow and credit issues, and thereby save jobs. Few would disagree with these objectives.
But make no mistake, we will all face a stressful time in the coming months to hold on to our jobs. No industry will be immune. It will also not matter how senior or experienced you are. I am often told by my clients that this is a good time to be a lawyer, as failing businesses often translates to more legal work. That may have been true in previous recessions. This one is turning out to be a very different creature. Over the last few weeks, law firms in the US and the UK, including major, international law firms, have been announcing thousands, of redundancies. Significantly, those receiving their pink slips include partners and senior lawyers.
So the reality is that despite the measures being taken in Singapore and the billions of dollars other governments are injecting into their own systems, the world economy will be in decline for some time, and a good number of Singaporeans will lose jobs. As the market for goods and services dry up, some companies may have no choice but to let their people go. Others will lose their jobs because their companies and businesses will go under.
More will need help. The government has increased financial assistance payments to PA recipients, CCCs’ Comcare fund, GST Credits and such. Every bit helps and is welcome. Incentivising companies to retrain and retool are also important. But with limited opportunities, it may take time for those who lose their jobs to find employment. Stress levels will go up. Now more than ever, we need to ease the pressure off Singaporeans.
I therefore hope the Government will have plans to deal with other likely points of stress. One of these will be the ability of Singaporeans to keep their homes.
To a large extent, we are fortunate that most Singaporeans live in HDB flats. I know from my MPS experience that HDB exercises considerable flexibility to help families that are unable to meet their loan payments. But over the last few years, because of regulations, many have had to finance their purchases through commercial banks. We also cannot ignore the large numbers who live in private properties. They may not have the option of downgrading because their loans exceed the value of their homes or they may not be able to get loans to purchase an alternative home. If they are retrenched and unable to service their mortgage, foreclosure is a serious risk. And a spate of foreclosures and forced sales will only depress the property market, and put more loans, and therefore homes, at risk.
There are a number of ways the government can help. For example, easing the current restrictions on obtaining HDB loans; allow those with commercial bank loans to refinance with the HDB; impose a moratorium period on foreclosures; require banks to restructure default loans, including offering interest-only payments for a specified period of time.
Other countries have or are planning schemes – the HOPE for Homeowners program in the US; the Homeowners Mortgage Support Scheme in the UK. Those programs are calibrated to meet the challenges in those countries, but the objectives are the same.
I urge the government to come up with and announce concrete plans as soon as possible so that they can be implemented quickly if needed, and Singaporeans know what the conditions are to qualify for help. It would be a major source of stress relief to know that the government will help keep a roof over our heads until the storm passes.
I am not suggesting that the government bails out everyone who defaults on a mortgage. There should be restrictions. For example, it should only be for those with one home; the inability to pay should be on account of the current economic downturn; it should not apply to those who still have the ability to downgrade, albeit at a loss.
I also accept that we cannot ignore the “moral hazard” arguments, and that public funds should not be used to bail out bad decisions or risky behaviour.
So the Government’s role should not be just to hand out money, but to clearly articulate its principles and philosophy, and to ensure that the measures it implements is consistent with these.
One important message that must be conveyed is that this exercise is a two way process. While it is the governments’ duty to give assistance where it is needed, those who receive help must take positive steps to get themselves back on their feet.
My concern is that some, despite losing their jobs, will not see the need to get back quickly into the market, preferring to wait for work which is similar or equivalent to the one they lost. In these times, they could be in for a very long wait. I have encountered too many such cases in my MPS. It is a real problem.
There are also those who are able to work, but are not inclined to because they are able to get by on the assistance they receive. I understand from the CDCs that a large number of job seekers are classified as “not job-ready” or “near job ready”, meaning that, in some cases, they are not prepared to accept work that is offered them eg, because it involves shift work or other inconvenient circumstances. One CDC officer told me that out of every 10 job seekers it helps, only 1 is “job ready”. The overwhelming majority are not. Some live in rental flats, which means they receive large subsidies. I understand that although they reject job opportunities, they continue to enjoy subsidies.
And there is decent paying work out there. An owner of a well-known chain of restaurants I spoke with recently said he cannot find Singaporeans to be restaurant managers, despite the fact that he pays between $2,000 - $2,500/mth. This disconnect does not make sense.
We have to send a strong message that we cannot afford the luxury of bring selective, especially not in these times. We need all hands at the pump to keep our economy afloat, even if it means making compromises or personal sacrifices in the short or medium term.
I therefore urge the government to re-examine the way it gives assistance. It is important to incentivise people to find work with programs like WIS. It is equally important to disincentivise those who ask for or get assistance, but refuse to help themselves.
Conclusion
There is one significant difference between our fiscal measures and those announced by some of the major developed nations. We are in a position to call on reserves, while they intend to fund programs by borrowing and making future generations pick up the tab.
As times get tougher, there will be more pressure on the Government to spend. Many, economic experts and lay persons alike, will have different ideas on how much to spend, what to spend it on and where to get the money from. The Government may have to take tough, unpopular measures. But being tough alone does not mean you are right. That takes intelligence, experience and mature judgment. Our reserves are there because of the hard work of earlier generations of Singaporeans, coupled with sound and prudent management and leadership.
Now, more than ever, we need the Government to exhibit those qualities. The problems we and other countries face are exceedingly volatile and complex. They will not be solved by spending some money here or there. We are in this for the long haul. The measures we implement have to be sound and steady. They also have to be flexible to meet new and unexpected challenges.
The Budget is evidence of that measured, mature approach. Hopefully, it will put us on the path to find good fortune in these times of calamity. I support it.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
A Few Good Men.....
Welcome to my blog.
It is taken me some time to get going. Blogging is not something which comes naturally to me. I am more an old school face-to-face sort of guy. But times they are a-changing.
And how they are changing. It seems that not a day goes by without there being news of bad economic results, or poor job numbers, or some disturbing trend or other. But the real shocker recently was the discovery of the Ponzi scheme in New York run by Bernie Madoff, where investors are estimated to have lost US$50 billion. To put that into perspective, its about a third of Singapore’s GDP.
The term “Ponzi scheme” was derived from a scam in the 1920s in Boston. We often read these stories, and wonder how people back then can be so gullible. But people, even in modern Singapore, continue to be fooled today – be it a “magic stone” scam or a Nigerian letter.
The Madoff victims are not those we would ordinarily consider as gullible. They included hedge funds, large institutions and very wealthy individuals. They were, or were run by, highly intelligent, financially savvy people. It is easy to argue that everyone’s judgment can be clouded by greed, except that Madoff did not promote “get rich quick” schemes. His allure was that he (apparently) consistently delivered a steady and reasonable rate of return on investments.
So how did it happen? The investigations will probably expose the true nature of the fraud. But what will happen is predictable: regulators will be criticised, those involved prosecuted, careers, reputations and fortunes will be lost, regulations will be tightened, and ultimately, the incident will be consigned to a footnote in history. Except that this history will repeat itself. It always does.
The truth of the matter is that the world, and not just the financial world, has become too complicated for most of us to fully understand. Neither can we make ourselves immune from the dishonesty or folly of others by acting sensibly ourselves. Everything is just too inter-connected. There will always be those who will abuse their position at the expense of others. The law does not in every case protect and compensate the innocent. It is often too busy playing catch-up to man’s ingenuity to bend the rules or find a loophole.
Ultimately, the best protection is that those in power have the intelligence, integrity and character to do what is right. The sub-prime problem would not have happened if unscrupulous property and mortgage agents had not conspired to give credit to those whom they knew could not afford to repay it. One commentary I have read suggested that it is very likely that Madoff's operation was legitimate initially, but that he took the Ponzi route when he began to suffer losses that he was too proud to acknowledge. In other words, his lack of character led to his downfall, and others’ pain.
Politicians should be no different. I was bewildered about the many discussions during the US elections on whether it is important to vote for someone “you can have a beer with”. In this world of images and sound bites, politics is too often reduced to choosing the better performer – deciding who is more likable or popular, or dresses or looks better or makes grand and poetic (but usually hollow) speeches. And the media and electorate are consumed by inane questions such as: why doesn’t Obama wear an American flag pin on the lapel of his suit?
I am not concerned about how others choose their leaders. I do care about how we choose ours. We live in a tiny country in a very complicated and turbulent world. It is a tough job to run a country, no matter how small, even in the best of times. Lives and livelihoods are at stake. I do not want people I can have a beer with running Singapore. I want the best people, who have the intelligence, integrity and compassion to work out what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans, and to see us through these difficult times. Other countries may be able to afford a Madoff scandal. We cannot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
