Originally posted by robertteh:
It is now clear from the ministerial reply to query in this
instance that IT is full of inaccuracy and lacking transparency in
giving vital information to parliament with regard to
[b]patient subsidy (lately found to be
only S$300 per month not S$3,000 as reported) and
how long the reserve will last to carry on treating the 2000
patients. [/b]
Is the $300 a subsidy from the Government, or was this $300 the
fee that each Patient has to pay NKF for each dialysis session (or
per annum) ?
If NKF had received a subsidy - for each patient treated - from the
Government, PLUS charity from the Public that accumulated to a sum
of $260MILLION, why is it still charging the PATIENTS ?
Why is it turning away Patients based on their income and ability
to pay ?
Hopefully, with a new Management, a more effective and charitable
policy will be created that is EQUAL to the big hearted charity
expected and shown by Singaporeans.
:
I remember the same inaccuracy was given to parliament about
transportation costs and HDB flat subsidy. If PM Lee must know the
reason why checks and balances did not work in NKF case, I think
the reason is clearly established in the above-stated ministerial
reply to parliament. There is clearly a lot of justification,
generalization and assumptions which at the end covers up the whole
lots of problems.
The Principle of Government has always been to take the "High
Ground", hold on to that position, and never lose that "High
Ground" on any issues.
When SingTel changed its $30 per month lump sum fee for telephone
subscription, to the present system of 0.10 cents PER 3 MINUTE, the
Minister of Communications (who was then the brilliant MBT) had
explained that it was unfair that domestic users were paying the
same cost as business users and had in fact subsidise the business
users - a seemingly fair and logical reason.
The Minister continued to assure us that domestic users will be
paying much less at a new charge of 0.10cents per 3 Minute charges,
as payment is based on usage - this was totally misleading, as it
is a fact that every single household today is paying four to five
times more on their phone bills.
There are many more such persuasive arguments being offered to
convince Singaporeans of the need to change, so as to bring about
equity and fairness in the manner of BUISNESS being conducted.
The biggest lie was that GST at 3% is a reasonable level, and will
provide a fairer means of collecting Tax.
At the end of the FIRST YEAR of GST, the Government was shocked at
the final amount of GST collected, which was an embarrassment and
they had to give a REFUND to all working Singaporean.
Despite the GST at 3% having presented a SURPRISE collection
EXCEEDING their initial expectations, two years later, the new
Finance Minister (at that time being LHL who took over from Richard
Hu) decided to increase in two stages to the present 5% GST.
Has the Government been candid about the amount collected per year
?
The issue has faded from Singaporean's mind, as GST has sinked into
the fate of Singaporeans, who are resigned to the constant greed of
increasing revenues by the various Government Departments and GLCs
running the essential service businesses which Singaporeans have no
choice but to use.
:
PM Lee can instruct the ministers to be candid instead of making
all kinds of general assumptions that mull over problems. He can
instruct the ministers in being more objective and candid
so that NKF and GLCs will not learn to
copy them.
If the top do not set the tone on corporate governance there can be
no improvements or remaking of Singapore to talk about. There might
be more NKF cans of worms no doubt. I hope to hear him say to all
his ministers "The Buck stops here!!!!UNQUOTE
From the present scandal, it is quite obvious that NKF and GLCs
have already learnt the art of befudging issues very well, in the
same manner that the Government has avoided answering questions
concerning the GIC.
The earlier scandal concerned NTUC Comfort, when another SPH
publication exposed the $1MILLION salary which the CEO of NTUC
Comfort Taxi enjoyed; and the manner in which he retaliated against
the Reporter and dodging the issue seemed to be lessons drawn from
the Establishment.
If the Ruling Party and/or the Government do not respect the Laws
and Principles, which they set for Singapore and Singaporeans, can
one expect higher standards from the other related Public
Organisations ?
