Parliamentary Speech
11 Apr 2007
Ministers' Pay
By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
In the last 2 days, MPs have covered many aspects of this contentious issue of benchmarking Ministerial pay to the private sector at 2/3M48. The Member for Hougang has comprehensively stated the Workers' Party position on this matter. The gist of our position is that we should instead consider benchmarking based on the remuneration of political office-holders in countries which tick. They generally favour a more moderate use of taxpayers' money for political salaries, and do not seem to have run their countries aground.
Today I would like instead to examine a few points raised by Minister Teo Chee Hean in his reply speech yesterday and also to argue why the benchmark of 2/3M48 for political office will ultimately be against the national interest.
Points raised by Minister Teo on Apr 10
Minister Teo attempted to rebut the Member for Hougang's contention that this debate was a waste of taxpayers' money. He said instead that this was a hallmark of PAP's commitment to transparency.
While I do agree that this is an opportunity to have a public airing, the debate arouses a feeling of deja vu, harking back to the other transparent debate about whether to have casinos in Singapore. The revision was presented in Parliament in a form of Ministerial statement under Standing Order 44 where no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government. I would personally very much like to know what each individual Minister feels about taking more than $2m of taxpayers' money home each year, while fellow citizens struggle with rising costs and taxes.
Secondly, Minister Teo mentioned that it was not right to look at how much political leaders elsewhere earn because our Ministers cannot become Ministers in other countries. But the comparison is logical because we are comparing similar skill sets and responsibilities funded by the public. Looking instead at 2/3M48, how valid is it as a measure of a Minister's worth? Is it possible that, in fact, some of our Ministers are doing better in Cabinet than they would have done in their previous careers? Can we say that each and every Minister in Cabinet now would have become a top-earning banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer or CEO? We have seen instances of civil servants and military personnel embark on 2nd careers in the private sector, and find the business world a whole new ball game; and some, in fact, flounder.
Thirdly, Minister attempted to show that Cabinet salaries were not in the rarefied zone of high fliers by plotting a graph of 1,000 residents and Malaysians. Even so, 1,000 out of the resident workforce of about 1.9 m (as at mid 2006, according to Labour Force Survey) is less than 0.1%. To be in this group of 1,000 is already to be in a very privileged few and as far as the public is concerned, is already in the rarefied zone.
Why 2/3M48 is ultimately against the national interest
Economists have noted that globalisation increases income disparity. As such, the top earners' salaries will in all likelihood move up further in the future. A few years from now, 2/3M48 may require us to endorse each Cabinet minister's pay for $3m or $4m annually. As these pay packets are funded from taxes, including poor people paying GST, how far is the government prepared to go with this? Does it have a threshold of unconscionability?
Next, what makes a good Minister? There may be differences of opinion, but fundamentally, political leadership is a different creature from administration. To add value to policy-making, the Minister must play the role of politician – he should understand the public sentiment and aspirations, and be able to front policies and explain things plainly to people. He must lead not just with head but with heart. His ground feel of the needs of the people and understanding of their plight distinguishes him from the professional civil servant who usually focuses more on efficiency and expediency in implementation. To be effective, a Minister's EQ may often be more important than for him to be part of a Mensa club. In fact, he would be better if he was wired differently from the top civil servants, to reduce the mistakes perpetuated by groupthink.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew previously justified why it was not feasible to have foreign talent in the political leadership. He said that the political leadership should "have passion, the commitment and share the same dreams as the people". (ST 4 Nov 2006). I agree. The question is: how will 2/3M48 affect empathy, the ability of Ministers to share the same dreams as the people?
Ministers are currently drawing $1.2m a year which divided by 12 is about $100,000 per month. How does it compare with the average person?
According to the Report on the Labour Force in Singapore 2006, the median gross monthly income of workers in full-time employment is $2,170. In other words, a worker takes a month to earn what a Minister earns in half a day! For university graduates, the median gross monthly income is $4,450. This would take the Minister one day to earn.
As you move the salaries up to 88% of the benchmark, we will find that the average worker's monthly pay will be earned by a Minister in 2-3 hours. Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort drawing taxpayers' money at such rate? At such rates, can Ministers and Singaporeans share the same dreams?
Another reality is that our leaders may face problems in marshalling the people to make sacrifices for the country.
About 4 years ago, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told the House that his son had asked whether one should be prepared to die for Singapore. This sparked off a heated public debate. The cynics invariably linked this question to Ministerial salaries. To quote a member of the public, and I paraphrase: "Who are we trying to kid? Before we start talking about dying for Singapore, let us look at our leaders. We are told that we cannot get good leaders unless we pay top dollar, so why expect more from the rest of us"?
Citizens should be able to look to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future. What will happen when crunch time comes? Is this a time bomb planted for the future of Singapore?
Salaries and Nation Building
If we are seriously unable to interest good people into public office, we must ask why other countries can do it and we cannot. Is it just money, or the fact that we have not invested in creating a culture of high public-spiritedness?
In some countries, there are young people aspire to hold public office. SM Goh had previously said that we could not expect to behave like people in other countries because we are a young nation and people still see things in material terms. How sad. After 41 years of nationhood, national service and national day parades, what do we teach our children? Do we judge a person's worth by his salary? If so, we have wasted millions of tax dollars on these nation-building efforts, which have truly been in vain!
Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals. As such, I cannot agree with the Members who see political office as yet another career choice. It must be more than a job, and the holder must be able to think of others besides himself.
In the popular American comic strip, the Wizard of Id, there was a public address by the King to his subjects from the royal balcony. The King began: "Remember the Golden Rule!" One of the subjects called back: "What's that?" Back came the royal reply: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules!"
If the gold is the taxpayers' money, then Singapore is not that far from the Kingdom of Id!
And it does not matter what transparency the government has claimed in this attempt to justify the pay hike.
Friday, April 13, 2007
FT stands for Foreign T.........?
April 12, 2007
PAY RISE FOR MINISTERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
Reward leaders for great economic policy
MP LOW Thia Khiang had a point when he said that leaders in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland earned much less than those here.
In Finland, where I hail from, ministers earn roughly S$240,000 per annum in base salary. The Prime Minister receives slightly more at just under $300,000. There are no performance incentives either.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew retorted that the governments of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland never produced the kind of transformation that Singapore has seen.
That is arguable as they, too, rose from the ashes of World War II. Of late the growth rates have slowed down, but the economies are more broad based, as MM Lee pointed out.
It is true to say that the current growth rate of Singapore is much higher than in any European country, but how much of that is due to the Government? Plenty, according to MM Lee.
Furthermore, MM Lee said that the governments of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland are mediocre. That is certainly true as the governments of these countries are political coalitions by nature.
They are not meritocracies where performance is rewarded. They are democracies in the true sense of the word and that is not a blessing.
According to the great 18th-century economist John Stuart Mill, democracy is not the ideal form of government. That is because it will not have the brightest leaders to serve its people most effectively. I do believe he had a point and results are what count.
Singapore is small and needs more safeguards to ensure that its economic performance remains optimal. That includes a strong and decisive government. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated categorically last year that Singapore is not going down the welfare road.
I believe that Singapore must remain strong in its political resolve to run and implement effective policies. By that I mean the kind of policies that warrant its citizens paying one of the lowest rates of income tax in the world and maintaining the same standard of living as in Finland, Denmark or Switzerland.
That, if anything, is a raving endorsement of the success of economic policy in this country and the leaders should be rewarded accordingly.
I believe John Stuart Mill would have liked the Singaporean model a great deal.
Mika Sampovaara
---
Now let's have a little recall of the honourable Mika Sampovaara.
Sources from here .
The writer, Mr Mika Sampovaara, is an Individual NonClearing Member of Singapore Exchange Derivatives Trading(SGX DT), where he actively trades Nikkei 225 futures for his own account
SINGAPORE : A man was fined $1,000 in court for hurting a woman after her pet dog crossed his path.
Mika Johannes Sampovaara pleaded guilty to a charge of causing hurt to Mindy Tan Lay Eng outside her home in Siglap on February 4 last year.
The complainant had earlier asked for $50,000 as compensation. Sampovaara had offered to pay her $38,000 instead, but she refused.
Channel NewsAsia understands Tan may take a civil suit against Sampovaara for the injuries she suffered. - CNA/de
---
Perhaps, a befitting Magic The Gathering card for men of such talent?
---
THIS was one lottery where Mr Mika Sampovaara didn’t want his name to be pulled out of the hat.
The 35-year-old trader from Finland, who moved to Singapore last year, received a letter from the Department of Statistics (DOS) in March, asking him to take part in the General Household Survey here.
Mr Sampovaara was not interested.
“I don’t have anything to hide, but I should have a basic right to privacy. They want to know my passport number, date of birth, education level, my wife’s name, and so on. It’s very unusual for me. Whatever the institution, reputable or not, that’s a lot to ask for,” he said.
He told the DOS that he did not want to participate. He was in for another jolt.
“I was told that was not an option and had to give them the information they wanted.”
If he didn’t do so on time, he would be fined.
According to the department website, anyone who refuses to answer or knowingly provides wrong information faces a fine of up to $1000.
The department feels that the survey, conducted every 10 years, is extremely important. After compiling data on how much families earn, spend and travel, it helps the Government plan public programmes and policies.
But Mr Sampovaara comes from Finland, where there is no obligation for people to take part in such surveys.
This was confirmed by the Embassy of Finland. In fact, about 37 per cent of the people there refuse to - or do not - respond to similar household surveys.
Here, too, Mr Sampovaara wants his right to privacy to be respected even as the Singapore Government seeks to attract more overseas talent.
“Don’t get me wrong, I love Singapore very much. It is a very safe country and I’ve had a wonderful time here so far,” said Mr Sampovaara. “I do not like to be forced to do anything just for the sake of doing so,” he added.
Apparently, the DOS remains unmoved in the face of his stand. Mr Sampovaara said he had received at least 10 phone calls from the department, which randomly selected 90,000 homes - about 10 per cent of households here - for the survey.
When he refused to cooperate, a DOS officer came knocking on his door. It was after 10pm. “I told him to go away but it was hard to sleep afterwards,” said Mr Sampovaara.
When contacted by Today, the DOS said that it typically takes about half an hour for a family of four to complete the GHS.
Said Ms Ang Seow Long, its assistant director of publications and statistical information: “It’s important that respondents provide the required information so that the results are complete and nationally representative.
“The majority of respondents are co-operative and have helped to maintain a high response rate.”
She reiterated that the households that had been selected could not be replaced - to ensure that the survey remained representative. She said there were safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality of the information given to the DOS.
Mr Sampovaara, to whom the issue of privacy is vital, still hasn’t budged. He is beginning to realise there are no easy answers.
How Other Countries Do It
In the United States and Canada, the Statistics Act requires the authorities to inform respondents whether their participation is mandatory or voluntary, depending on the nature of the survey.
Closer to home, countries such as Japan have laws stating that those selected for housing surveys are obliged to respond or face penalties.
No such obligation or penalties exist in Finland.
---
Nov 16, 2006
He left welfare state to come to Singapore
I WOULD like to commend Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for sticking to the Singaporean economic model.
I read with interest his views regarding Scandinavian welfare states. I am from one of them: Finland.
While it is true that there is more ‘welfare’ in Scandinavia, it comes at a price. Public spending in my country stands at 25 per cent of GDP, twice that of Singapore.
The government in Finland spends vast amounts of money on free health care and education, nearly twice the 8 per cent of GDP spent in Singapore. Having been to Changi hospital I can say that health care here is no worse than in my country and the charges are very reasonable. My point is it doesn’t have to be free.
It’s a question of choice and pricing. The public sector typically does not run the most efficient services, because the services are non-competitive.
Singapore runs a tighter ship, because it’s only partially subsidised. Compulsory savings schemes for health care and pensions are a far better way. So is taxing consumption over income.
Many people in my country give up half or more of their gross incomes to finance the almighty welfare state. This serves to promote equality of sorts and creates a vast middle class. It also stifles entrepreneurism and leads to voluntary unemployment. The cost of living is higher too, with GST at 22 per cent.
I disagreed with the crushing taxes in my country. It is for this reason that I came to Singapore, and was happy to give up the benefits I had paid for over the years.
Long live the Singaporean model.
Mika Sampovaara
---
Mr. Mika Sampovaara is not that clean in Finland either. His employers discharged him based on financial misconducts (Arctos and Sofi Bank).
---
Now, I really wonder what are the guidelines for allowing foreign terro... I mean, talents into beloved Singapore? Hmm, any ideas, anyone?
PAY RISE FOR MINISTERS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
Reward leaders for great economic policy
MP LOW Thia Khiang had a point when he said that leaders in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland earned much less than those here.
In Finland, where I hail from, ministers earn roughly S$240,000 per annum in base salary. The Prime Minister receives slightly more at just under $300,000. There are no performance incentives either.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew retorted that the governments of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland never produced the kind of transformation that Singapore has seen.
That is arguable as they, too, rose from the ashes of World War II. Of late the growth rates have slowed down, but the economies are more broad based, as MM Lee pointed out.
It is true to say that the current growth rate of Singapore is much higher than in any European country, but how much of that is due to the Government? Plenty, according to MM Lee.
Furthermore, MM Lee said that the governments of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland are mediocre. That is certainly true as the governments of these countries are political coalitions by nature.
They are not meritocracies where performance is rewarded. They are democracies in the true sense of the word and that is not a blessing.
According to the great 18th-century economist John Stuart Mill, democracy is not the ideal form of government. That is because it will not have the brightest leaders to serve its people most effectively. I do believe he had a point and results are what count.
Singapore is small and needs more safeguards to ensure that its economic performance remains optimal. That includes a strong and decisive government. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated categorically last year that Singapore is not going down the welfare road.
I believe that Singapore must remain strong in its political resolve to run and implement effective policies. By that I mean the kind of policies that warrant its citizens paying one of the lowest rates of income tax in the world and maintaining the same standard of living as in Finland, Denmark or Switzerland.
That, if anything, is a raving endorsement of the success of economic policy in this country and the leaders should be rewarded accordingly.
I believe John Stuart Mill would have liked the Singaporean model a great deal.
Mika Sampovaara
---
Now let's have a little recall of the honourable Mika Sampovaara.
Sources from here .
The writer, Mr Mika Sampovaara, is an Individual NonClearing Member of Singapore Exchange Derivatives Trading(SGX DT), where he actively trades Nikkei 225 futures for his own account
SINGAPORE : A man was fined $1,000 in court for hurting a woman after her pet dog crossed his path.
Mika Johannes Sampovaara pleaded guilty to a charge of causing hurt to Mindy Tan Lay Eng outside her home in Siglap on February 4 last year.
The complainant had earlier asked for $50,000 as compensation. Sampovaara had offered to pay her $38,000 instead, but she refused.
Channel NewsAsia understands Tan may take a civil suit against Sampovaara for the injuries she suffered. - CNA/de
---
Perhaps, a befitting Magic The Gathering card for men of such talent?
---
THIS was one lottery where Mr Mika Sampovaara didn’t want his name to be pulled out of the hat.
The 35-year-old trader from Finland, who moved to Singapore last year, received a letter from the Department of Statistics (DOS) in March, asking him to take part in the General Household Survey here.
Mr Sampovaara was not interested.
“I don’t have anything to hide, but I should have a basic right to privacy. They want to know my passport number, date of birth, education level, my wife’s name, and so on. It’s very unusual for me. Whatever the institution, reputable or not, that’s a lot to ask for,” he said.
He told the DOS that he did not want to participate. He was in for another jolt.
“I was told that was not an option and had to give them the information they wanted.”
If he didn’t do so on time, he would be fined.
According to the department website, anyone who refuses to answer or knowingly provides wrong information faces a fine of up to $1000.
The department feels that the survey, conducted every 10 years, is extremely important. After compiling data on how much families earn, spend and travel, it helps the Government plan public programmes and policies.
But Mr Sampovaara comes from Finland, where there is no obligation for people to take part in such surveys.
This was confirmed by the Embassy of Finland. In fact, about 37 per cent of the people there refuse to - or do not - respond to similar household surveys.
Here, too, Mr Sampovaara wants his right to privacy to be respected even as the Singapore Government seeks to attract more overseas talent.
“Don’t get me wrong, I love Singapore very much. It is a very safe country and I’ve had a wonderful time here so far,” said Mr Sampovaara. “I do not like to be forced to do anything just for the sake of doing so,” he added.
Apparently, the DOS remains unmoved in the face of his stand. Mr Sampovaara said he had received at least 10 phone calls from the department, which randomly selected 90,000 homes - about 10 per cent of households here - for the survey.
When he refused to cooperate, a DOS officer came knocking on his door. It was after 10pm. “I told him to go away but it was hard to sleep afterwards,” said Mr Sampovaara.
When contacted by Today, the DOS said that it typically takes about half an hour for a family of four to complete the GHS.
Said Ms Ang Seow Long, its assistant director of publications and statistical information: “It’s important that respondents provide the required information so that the results are complete and nationally representative.
“The majority of respondents are co-operative and have helped to maintain a high response rate.”
She reiterated that the households that had been selected could not be replaced - to ensure that the survey remained representative. She said there were safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality of the information given to the DOS.
Mr Sampovaara, to whom the issue of privacy is vital, still hasn’t budged. He is beginning to realise there are no easy answers.
How Other Countries Do It
In the United States and Canada, the Statistics Act requires the authorities to inform respondents whether their participation is mandatory or voluntary, depending on the nature of the survey.
Closer to home, countries such as Japan have laws stating that those selected for housing surveys are obliged to respond or face penalties.
No such obligation or penalties exist in Finland.
---
Nov 16, 2006
He left welfare state to come to Singapore
I WOULD like to commend Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for sticking to the Singaporean economic model.
I read with interest his views regarding Scandinavian welfare states. I am from one of them: Finland.
While it is true that there is more ‘welfare’ in Scandinavia, it comes at a price. Public spending in my country stands at 25 per cent of GDP, twice that of Singapore.
The government in Finland spends vast amounts of money on free health care and education, nearly twice the 8 per cent of GDP spent in Singapore. Having been to Changi hospital I can say that health care here is no worse than in my country and the charges are very reasonable. My point is it doesn’t have to be free.
It’s a question of choice and pricing. The public sector typically does not run the most efficient services, because the services are non-competitive.
Singapore runs a tighter ship, because it’s only partially subsidised. Compulsory savings schemes for health care and pensions are a far better way. So is taxing consumption over income.
Many people in my country give up half or more of their gross incomes to finance the almighty welfare state. This serves to promote equality of sorts and creates a vast middle class. It also stifles entrepreneurism and leads to voluntary unemployment. The cost of living is higher too, with GST at 22 per cent.
I disagreed with the crushing taxes in my country. It is for this reason that I came to Singapore, and was happy to give up the benefits I had paid for over the years.
Long live the Singaporean model.
Mika Sampovaara
---
Mr. Mika Sampovaara is not that clean in Finland either. His employers discharged him based on financial misconducts (Arctos and Sofi Bank).
---
Now, I really wonder what are the guidelines for allowing foreign terro... I mean, talents into beloved Singapore? Hmm, any ideas, anyone?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Floored
Singapore PM's salary stuns White House official
A senior White House official on Tuesday admitted he was floored by the news that Singapore's prime minister earned five times more than US President George W. Bush.
"I'm going to emigrate and run for office in Singapore," the official said on condition he be identified only as "a senior administration official who sits in disbelief after reading that story."
On Monday, the Singapore government had announced a fresh 25.5 percent pay hike for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, boosting his salary to 2.05 million dollars per year.
Bush gets paid 400,000 dollars per year for doing his job, according to the White House.
Combined with personal investment income, he and his wife Laura reported 618,694 dollars in taxable income in the 2005 fiscal year. They had to pay 187,768 dollars in federal taxes.
But maybe Bush shouldn't feel so bad. The Singaporean's paycheck is eight times fatter than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's.
A senior White House official on Tuesday admitted he was floored by the news that Singapore's prime minister earned five times more than US President George W. Bush.
"I'm going to emigrate and run for office in Singapore," the official said on condition he be identified only as "a senior administration official who sits in disbelief after reading that story."
On Monday, the Singapore government had announced a fresh 25.5 percent pay hike for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, boosting his salary to 2.05 million dollars per year.
Bush gets paid 400,000 dollars per year for doing his job, according to the White House.
Combined with personal investment income, he and his wife Laura reported 618,694 dollars in taxable income in the 2005 fiscal year. They had to pay 187,768 dollars in federal taxes.
But maybe Bush shouldn't feel so bad. The Singaporean's paycheck is eight times fatter than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's.
Monday, April 9, 2007
There was once a woman I loved...
It is a tangled and unhappy tale of hearts betrayed and loyalties misplaced. It was not that I strayed. My love was justice, and infatuated with her truth and loveliness, I worshipped her...
Until, behind my back, she took up with a man who violated and abused her, someone fierce and brutal with burned children on his breath. He changed her, she acquired a taste for leather, chains and whips.
The justice that I loved was gone; who had such kindly eyes; who took such small and careful steps...
Transformed, she glared through narrow slits and ground good men beneath her vicious heel. Imagine when I learned of her affair, my anger and shame to think how they'd made mock of all that I loved. My justice and her bestial swain, cavorting in their bloodstained sheets.
Still, all in love and war is fair, they say. This being both, and turning about's fair play. Though I must bear a cuckold's horns, they're not a crown that I shall bear alone.
---
Courts in Singapore come under scrutiny
By Donald Greenlees International Herald Tribune
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006
From the manicured tropical gardens to the litter-free streets and glistening shopping malls, there appears to be something fundamentally clean and decent about Singapore. And if the island republic's physical appearance is burnished to a high shine, so is its reputation as a place to do business.
It regularly comes near the top of international surveys as an efficient and corruption-free place to invest. Hence, many multinational companies choose Singapore as a sanitary refuge to establish headquarters operations amid the pollution and administrative chaos of many of its Asian neighbors.
One of the cornerstones of Singapore's appeal to multinational investors has been the soundness of its justice system, at least in commercial cases.
But that reputation for reliability in arbitrating commercial disputes is under increasing scrutiny. It is an issue that analysts say could have far-reaching implications for all foreign investors who have sought out Singapore as a haven and for the important role the city-state has played as a reliable legal jurisdiction in Asia.
A court of appeal in Canada is being asked for the first time to determine whether legal decisions made in Singapore are sufficiently fair and impartial to meet the standards of justice of other developed countries.
In documents tendered to the appeals court in the province of Ontario, Singapore's judicial reputation has been subject to scathing attack. Lawyers have alleged in court documents that the Singapore legal system is an "utterly politicized component of executive rule" in which there is no guarantee of fairness even in commercial cases. The Singaporean Ministry of Law rejects these claims.
The case, now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, has also become a forum for some critics of Singapore's political and justice system and served to resurrect grievances about old legal cases brought against opponents of the People's Action Party, which has been in power since 1959.
"Whichever way this case goes, it is, and it is going to continue to be, quite damaging for Singapore because it's highlighted a lot of apparent or perceived problems with the Singapore judiciary," said Michael Backman, a consultant based in London and author of several books on doing business in Asia.
The case centers on a dispute between EnerNorth Industries, an Ontario-based oil and natural gas company, and a Singaporean company, Oakwell Engineering. In 1997, the two companies entered a joint venture to build and operate two barge-mounted electricity generating plants in India.
When the project ran into trouble a year later, EnerNorth bought out Oakwell's stake in the venture in a deal that included promises to pay $2.79 million and royalties once financing was obtained and the project was operational. A settlement agreement provided for any further disputes to be settled in the Singapore courts. EnerNorth, based in Toronto, subsequently failed to raise the financing for the project and, in 2000, sold out to an Indian company. In 2002, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in Singapore for failure to pay the $2.79 million and royalties. The Singaporean High Court, and later the Singaporean Court of Appeal, which is the final appellate court in Singapore, awarded Oakwell the disputed amounts, full costs and interest amounting to about $5.4 million.
As EnerNorth had no assets in Singapore, Oakwell applied to the Ontario Superior Court to have the award enforced in Canada. Last Aug. 2, the superior court ruled in Oakwell's favor.
But EnerNorth's lawyers have appealed. At the heart of their case is a fierce attack on the integrity of the Singapore justice system. In a submission to the appeals court, David Wingfield, EnerNorth's lawyer, argued that foreign legal systems had to meet Canadian constitutional standards for their rulings to be upheld in Canada.
"What EnerNorth is faced with, however, is having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law," he said in a submission to the court. He added: "The uncontradicted evidence in this case, from leading international experts, reveals that Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized."
In large part, Wingfield based his allegations on the record of prosecutions of political critics of the People's Action Party, including Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, a lawyer of Sri Lankan descent, who for a time was Singapore's sole opposition member of Parliament. Jeyaretnam was convicted of fraud in a series of trials in Singapore in the 1980s in connection with donations made to his Workers' Party. He later managed to appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London over a decision to have him struck off the Singapore Law Society's rolls. The Privy Council, which was then the final court of appeal for such professional disciplinary actions, decided to review the initial conviction against Jeyaretnam. In a celebrated judgment in October 1988, it expressed "deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments," Jeyaretnam and a co-defendant had suffered "a grievous injustice."
Wingfield in his submission to the court in Ontario also cited the opinion of the International Commission of Jurists on a more recent case involving Jeyaretnam that "the High Court of Singapore has done little to overcome the Singapore courts' reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country's ruling People's Action Party."
The conduct of legal actions against political figures in Singapore has long been the subject of controversy, but the country's courts have had a strong reputation for fair and impartial conduct in commercial proceedings.
When Gerald Day, the Ontario Superior Court judge, agreed last year to uphold the award made in Singapore against EnerNorth, he wrote, "Historically, there is no evidence of bias or unfairness by the Singapore court in private commercial proceedings." He also found that there was no evidence of bias "in this specific case" and "no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore."
Pointing to Day's statements, the Singaporean Ministry of Law said the Ontario Superior Court had "refused to lend any credence to EnerNorth's spurious allegation of a biased Singapore judiciary." In a written response, it said EnerNorth had been represented in Singapore by lawyers of its choice and had not alleged that the Singapore courts or any of its judges were biased against it at the time of the initial court hearings.
The ministry also said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, which is based in Hong Kong, had "consistently rated the Singapore judicial system as one of the best in the region, and emphasized that Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world." The ministry added, "Singapore prides itself on having an independent and impartial judiciary."
Still, EnerNorth's lawyers produced a number of affidavits from its own experts, including Francis Seow, a former Singapore solicitor general and judge turned prominent critic of the government; and Ross Worthington, a professor of governance and World Bank consultant. Both asserted that the People's Action Party, or PAP, and the executive controlled all aspects of public life, including the judiciary.
Wingfield, the EnerNorth lawyer, also quoted a report in court from the New York City Bar Association that warned American companies to be wary of agreeing to let commercial disputes be settled in Singapore courts as EnerNorth did. The bar association said the Singapore government "had been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of political interests." But it also warned U.S. companies that in doing business in Singapore, they were "likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest."
"The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests," the report said.
The basis of EnerNorth's appeal is that Day, the superior court judge, required EnerNorth lawyers to prove specific bias against the company by the Singaporean courts, which the judge found they had failed to do. Wingfield argued that it was simply sufficient to establish that Singapore's legal system did not meet Canadian standards.
The Ontario Appeals Court finished hearing the case in April and under an informal six-month rule is likely to announce its decision by the end of the summer, according to lawyers. But both sides have indicated that they will seek to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, meaning that the case could drag on and could become a test of recognition of foreign legal jurisdictions.
Lawyers for Oakwell Engineering maintain in their submissions to the courts in Canada that the issue has already been resolved under Canadian law and should not be reopened. They said EnerNorth had chosen to attack the quality of justice only because it had lost the case in Singapore - a jurisdiction it had freely chosen for settlement of any disputes with Oakwell. They said the company had not raised objections during the trial in Singapore and had failed to prove or even establish a "reasonable apprehension" of bias against it.
In its case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Oakwell's lawyers said EnerNorth had in fact been represented by a lawyer who witnesses said had strong links to the People's Action Party, while Oakwell had been represented by Philip Jeyaretnam, the son of the opposition figure.
They said the case had been "heard before the courts of a country built on foreign investment, with an impeccable reputation for fairness to foreign businesses like EnerNorth."
But Backman, the consultant and author, said the risk for Singapore, regardless of the verdict in Canada, was that foreign companies might become increasingly wary about business transactions in the city-state. If EnerNorth wins, he said by telephone, courts in other countries might also come under pressure not to enforce Singapore legal judgments. "This will only impact on the desire of investors to invest and remain in Singapore," he said.
From the manicured tropical gardens to the litter-free streets and glistening shopping malls, there appears to be something fundamentally clean and decent about Singapore. And if the island republic's physical appearance is burnished to a high shine, so is its reputation as a place to do business.
It regularly comes near the top of international surveys as an efficient and corruption-free place to invest. Hence, many multinational companies choose Singapore as a sanitary refuge to establish headquarters operations amid the pollution and administrative chaos of many of its Asian neighbors.
One of the cornerstones of Singapore's appeal to multinational investors has been the soundness of its justice system, at least in commercial cases.
But that reputation for reliability in arbitrating commercial disputes is under increasing scrutiny. It is an issue that analysts say could have far-reaching implications for all foreign investors who have sought out Singapore as a haven and for the important role the city-state has played as a reliable legal jurisdiction in Asia.
A court of appeal in Canada is being asked for the first time to determine whether legal decisions made in Singapore are sufficiently fair and impartial to meet the standards of justice of other developed countries.
In documents tendered to the appeals court in the province of Ontario, Singapore's judicial reputation has been subject to scathing attack. Lawyers have alleged in court documents that the Singapore legal system is an "utterly politicized component of executive rule" in which there is no guarantee of fairness even in commercial cases. The Singaporean Ministry of Law rejects these claims.
The case, now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, has also become a forum for some critics of Singapore's political and justice system and served to resurrect grievances about old legal cases brought against opponents of the People's Action Party, which has been in power since 1959.
"Whichever way this case goes, it is, and it is going to continue to be, quite damaging for Singapore because it's highlighted a lot of apparent or perceived problems with the Singapore judiciary," said Michael Backman, a consultant based in London and author of several books on doing business in Asia.
The case centers on a dispute between EnerNorth Industries, an Ontario-based oil and natural gas company, and a Singaporean company, Oakwell Engineering. In 1997, the two companies entered a joint venture to build and operate two barge-mounted electricity generating plants in India.
When the project ran into trouble a year later, EnerNorth bought out Oakwell's stake in the venture in a deal that included promises to pay $2.79 million and royalties once financing was obtained and the project was operational. A settlement agreement provided for any further disputes to be settled in the Singapore courts. EnerNorth, based in Toronto, subsequently failed to raise the financing for the project and, in 2000, sold out to an Indian company. In 2002, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in Singapore for failure to pay the $2.79 million and royalties. The Singaporean High Court, and later the Singaporean Court of Appeal, which is the final appellate court in Singapore, awarded Oakwell the disputed amounts, full costs and interest amounting to about $5.4 million.
As EnerNorth had no assets in Singapore, Oakwell applied to the Ontario Superior Court to have the award enforced in Canada. Last Aug. 2, the superior court ruled in Oakwell's favor.
But EnerNorth's lawyers have appealed. At the heart of their case is a fierce attack on the integrity of the Singapore justice system. In a submission to the appeals court, David Wingfield, EnerNorth's lawyer, argued that foreign legal systems had to meet Canadian constitutional standards for their rulings to be upheld in Canada.
"What EnerNorth is faced with, however, is having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law," he said in a submission to the court. He added: "The uncontradicted evidence in this case, from leading international experts, reveals that Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized."
In large part, Wingfield based his allegations on the record of prosecutions of political critics of the People's Action Party, including Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, a lawyer of Sri Lankan descent, who for a time was Singapore's sole opposition member of Parliament. Jeyaretnam was convicted of fraud in a series of trials in Singapore in the 1980s in connection with donations made to his Workers' Party. He later managed to appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London over a decision to have him struck off the Singapore Law Society's rolls. The Privy Council, which was then the final court of appeal for such professional disciplinary actions, decided to review the initial conviction against Jeyaretnam. In a celebrated judgment in October 1988, it expressed "deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments," Jeyaretnam and a co-defendant had suffered "a grievous injustice."
Wingfield in his submission to the court in Ontario also cited the opinion of the International Commission of Jurists on a more recent case involving Jeyaretnam that "the High Court of Singapore has done little to overcome the Singapore courts' reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country's ruling People's Action Party."
The conduct of legal actions against political figures in Singapore has long been the subject of controversy, but the country's courts have had a strong reputation for fair and impartial conduct in commercial proceedings.
When Gerald Day, the Ontario Superior Court judge, agreed last year to uphold the award made in Singapore against EnerNorth, he wrote, "Historically, there is no evidence of bias or unfairness by the Singapore court in private commercial proceedings." He also found that there was no evidence of bias "in this specific case" and "no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore."
Pointing to Day's statements, the Singaporean Ministry of Law said the Ontario Superior Court had "refused to lend any credence to EnerNorth's spurious allegation of a biased Singapore judiciary." In a written response, it said EnerNorth had been represented in Singapore by lawyers of its choice and had not alleged that the Singapore courts or any of its judges were biased against it at the time of the initial court hearings.
The ministry also said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, which is based in Hong Kong, had "consistently rated the Singapore judicial system as one of the best in the region, and emphasized that Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world." The ministry added, "Singapore prides itself on having an independent and impartial judiciary."
Still, EnerNorth's lawyers produced a number of affidavits from its own experts, including Francis Seow, a former Singapore solicitor general and judge turned prominent critic of the government; and Ross Worthington, a professor of governance and World Bank consultant. Both asserted that the People's Action Party, or PAP, and the executive controlled all aspects of public life, including the judiciary.
Wingfield, the EnerNorth lawyer, also quoted a report in court from the New York City Bar Association that warned American companies to be wary of agreeing to let commercial disputes be settled in Singapore courts as EnerNorth did. The bar association said the Singapore government "had been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of political interests." But it also warned U.S. companies that in doing business in Singapore, they were "likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest."
"The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests," the report said.
The basis of EnerNorth's appeal is that Day, the superior court judge, required EnerNorth lawyers to prove specific bias against the company by the Singaporean courts, which the judge found they had failed to do. Wingfield argued that it was simply sufficient to establish that Singapore's legal system did not meet Canadian standards.
The Ontario Appeals Court finished hearing the case in April and under an informal six-month rule is likely to announce its decision by the end of the summer, according to lawyers. But both sides have indicated that they will seek to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, meaning that the case could drag on and could become a test of recognition of foreign legal jurisdictions.
Lawyers for Oakwell Engineering maintain in their submissions to the courts in Canada that the issue has already been resolved under Canadian law and should not be reopened. They said EnerNorth had chosen to attack the quality of justice only because it had lost the case in Singapore - a jurisdiction it had freely chosen for settlement of any disputes with Oakwell. They said the company had not raised objections during the trial in Singapore and had failed to prove or even establish a "reasonable apprehension" of bias against it.
In its case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Oakwell's lawyers said EnerNorth had in fact been represented by a lawyer who witnesses said had strong links to the People's Action Party, while Oakwell had been represented by Philip Jeyaretnam, the son of the opposition figure.
They said the case had been "heard before the courts of a country built on foreign investment, with an impeccable reputation for fairness to foreign businesses like EnerNorth."
But Backman, the consultant and author, said the risk for Singapore, regardless of the verdict in Canada, was that foreign companies might become increasingly wary about business transactions in the city-state. If EnerNorth wins, he said by telephone, courts in other countries might also come under pressure not to enforce Singapore legal judgments. "This will only impact on the desire of investors to invest and remain in Singapore," he said.
Until, behind my back, she took up with a man who violated and abused her, someone fierce and brutal with burned children on his breath. He changed her, she acquired a taste for leather, chains and whips.
The justice that I loved was gone; who had such kindly eyes; who took such small and careful steps...
Transformed, she glared through narrow slits and ground good men beneath her vicious heel. Imagine when I learned of her affair, my anger and shame to think how they'd made mock of all that I loved. My justice and her bestial swain, cavorting in their bloodstained sheets.
Still, all in love and war is fair, they say. This being both, and turning about's fair play. Though I must bear a cuckold's horns, they're not a crown that I shall bear alone.
---
Courts in Singapore come under scrutiny
By Donald Greenlees International Herald Tribune
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006
From the manicured tropical gardens to the litter-free streets and glistening shopping malls, there appears to be something fundamentally clean and decent about Singapore. And if the island republic's physical appearance is burnished to a high shine, so is its reputation as a place to do business.
It regularly comes near the top of international surveys as an efficient and corruption-free place to invest. Hence, many multinational companies choose Singapore as a sanitary refuge to establish headquarters operations amid the pollution and administrative chaos of many of its Asian neighbors.
One of the cornerstones of Singapore's appeal to multinational investors has been the soundness of its justice system, at least in commercial cases.
But that reputation for reliability in arbitrating commercial disputes is under increasing scrutiny. It is an issue that analysts say could have far-reaching implications for all foreign investors who have sought out Singapore as a haven and for the important role the city-state has played as a reliable legal jurisdiction in Asia.
A court of appeal in Canada is being asked for the first time to determine whether legal decisions made in Singapore are sufficiently fair and impartial to meet the standards of justice of other developed countries.
In documents tendered to the appeals court in the province of Ontario, Singapore's judicial reputation has been subject to scathing attack. Lawyers have alleged in court documents that the Singapore legal system is an "utterly politicized component of executive rule" in which there is no guarantee of fairness even in commercial cases. The Singaporean Ministry of Law rejects these claims.
The case, now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, has also become a forum for some critics of Singapore's political and justice system and served to resurrect grievances about old legal cases brought against opponents of the People's Action Party, which has been in power since 1959.
"Whichever way this case goes, it is, and it is going to continue to be, quite damaging for Singapore because it's highlighted a lot of apparent or perceived problems with the Singapore judiciary," said Michael Backman, a consultant based in London and author of several books on doing business in Asia.
The case centers on a dispute between EnerNorth Industries, an Ontario-based oil and natural gas company, and a Singaporean company, Oakwell Engineering. In 1997, the two companies entered a joint venture to build and operate two barge-mounted electricity generating plants in India.
When the project ran into trouble a year later, EnerNorth bought out Oakwell's stake in the venture in a deal that included promises to pay $2.79 million and royalties once financing was obtained and the project was operational. A settlement agreement provided for any further disputes to be settled in the Singapore courts. EnerNorth, based in Toronto, subsequently failed to raise the financing for the project and, in 2000, sold out to an Indian company. In 2002, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in Singapore for failure to pay the $2.79 million and royalties. The Singaporean High Court, and later the Singaporean Court of Appeal, which is the final appellate court in Singapore, awarded Oakwell the disputed amounts, full costs and interest amounting to about $5.4 million.
As EnerNorth had no assets in Singapore, Oakwell applied to the Ontario Superior Court to have the award enforced in Canada. Last Aug. 2, the superior court ruled in Oakwell's favor.
But EnerNorth's lawyers have appealed. At the heart of their case is a fierce attack on the integrity of the Singapore justice system. In a submission to the appeals court, David Wingfield, EnerNorth's lawyer, argued that foreign legal systems had to meet Canadian constitutional standards for their rulings to be upheld in Canada.
"What EnerNorth is faced with, however, is having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law," he said in a submission to the court. He added: "The uncontradicted evidence in this case, from leading international experts, reveals that Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized."
In large part, Wingfield based his allegations on the record of prosecutions of political critics of the People's Action Party, including Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, a lawyer of Sri Lankan descent, who for a time was Singapore's sole opposition member of Parliament. Jeyaretnam was convicted of fraud in a series of trials in Singapore in the 1980s in connection with donations made to his Workers' Party. He later managed to appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London over a decision to have him struck off the Singapore Law Society's rolls. The Privy Council, which was then the final court of appeal for such professional disciplinary actions, decided to review the initial conviction against Jeyaretnam. In a celebrated judgment in October 1988, it expressed "deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments," Jeyaretnam and a co-defendant had suffered "a grievous injustice."
Wingfield in his submission to the court in Ontario also cited the opinion of the International Commission of Jurists on a more recent case involving Jeyaretnam that "the High Court of Singapore has done little to overcome the Singapore courts' reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country's ruling People's Action Party."
The conduct of legal actions against political figures in Singapore has long been the subject of controversy, but the country's courts have had a strong reputation for fair and impartial conduct in commercial proceedings.
When Gerald Day, the Ontario Superior Court judge, agreed last year to uphold the award made in Singapore against EnerNorth, he wrote, "Historically, there is no evidence of bias or unfairness by the Singapore court in private commercial proceedings." He also found that there was no evidence of bias "in this specific case" and "no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore."
Pointing to Day's statements, the Singaporean Ministry of Law said the Ontario Superior Court had "refused to lend any credence to EnerNorth's spurious allegation of a biased Singapore judiciary." In a written response, it said EnerNorth had been represented in Singapore by lawyers of its choice and had not alleged that the Singapore courts or any of its judges were biased against it at the time of the initial court hearings.
The ministry also said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, which is based in Hong Kong, had "consistently rated the Singapore judicial system as one of the best in the region, and emphasized that Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world." The ministry added, "Singapore prides itself on having an independent and impartial judiciary."
Still, EnerNorth's lawyers produced a number of affidavits from its own experts, including Francis Seow, a former Singapore solicitor general and judge turned prominent critic of the government; and Ross Worthington, a professor of governance and World Bank consultant. Both asserted that the People's Action Party, or PAP, and the executive controlled all aspects of public life, including the judiciary.
Wingfield, the EnerNorth lawyer, also quoted a report in court from the New York City Bar Association that warned American companies to be wary of agreeing to let commercial disputes be settled in Singapore courts as EnerNorth did. The bar association said the Singapore government "had been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of political interests." But it also warned U.S. companies that in doing business in Singapore, they were "likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest."
"The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests," the report said.
The basis of EnerNorth's appeal is that Day, the superior court judge, required EnerNorth lawyers to prove specific bias against the company by the Singaporean courts, which the judge found they had failed to do. Wingfield argued that it was simply sufficient to establish that Singapore's legal system did not meet Canadian standards.
The Ontario Appeals Court finished hearing the case in April and under an informal six-month rule is likely to announce its decision by the end of the summer, according to lawyers. But both sides have indicated that they will seek to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, meaning that the case could drag on and could become a test of recognition of foreign legal jurisdictions.
Lawyers for Oakwell Engineering maintain in their submissions to the courts in Canada that the issue has already been resolved under Canadian law and should not be reopened. They said EnerNorth had chosen to attack the quality of justice only because it had lost the case in Singapore - a jurisdiction it had freely chosen for settlement of any disputes with Oakwell. They said the company had not raised objections during the trial in Singapore and had failed to prove or even establish a "reasonable apprehension" of bias against it.
In its case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Oakwell's lawyers said EnerNorth had in fact been represented by a lawyer who witnesses said had strong links to the People's Action Party, while Oakwell had been represented by Philip Jeyaretnam, the son of the opposition figure.
They said the case had been "heard before the courts of a country built on foreign investment, with an impeccable reputation for fairness to foreign businesses like EnerNorth."
But Backman, the consultant and author, said the risk for Singapore, regardless of the verdict in Canada, was that foreign companies might become increasingly wary about business transactions in the city-state. If EnerNorth wins, he said by telephone, courts in other countries might also come under pressure not to enforce Singapore legal judgments. "This will only impact on the desire of investors to invest and remain in Singapore," he said.
From the manicured tropical gardens to the litter-free streets and glistening shopping malls, there appears to be something fundamentally clean and decent about Singapore. And if the island republic's physical appearance is burnished to a high shine, so is its reputation as a place to do business.
It regularly comes near the top of international surveys as an efficient and corruption-free place to invest. Hence, many multinational companies choose Singapore as a sanitary refuge to establish headquarters operations amid the pollution and administrative chaos of many of its Asian neighbors.
One of the cornerstones of Singapore's appeal to multinational investors has been the soundness of its justice system, at least in commercial cases.
But that reputation for reliability in arbitrating commercial disputes is under increasing scrutiny. It is an issue that analysts say could have far-reaching implications for all foreign investors who have sought out Singapore as a haven and for the important role the city-state has played as a reliable legal jurisdiction in Asia.
A court of appeal in Canada is being asked for the first time to determine whether legal decisions made in Singapore are sufficiently fair and impartial to meet the standards of justice of other developed countries.
In documents tendered to the appeals court in the province of Ontario, Singapore's judicial reputation has been subject to scathing attack. Lawyers have alleged in court documents that the Singapore legal system is an "utterly politicized component of executive rule" in which there is no guarantee of fairness even in commercial cases. The Singaporean Ministry of Law rejects these claims.
The case, now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, has also become a forum for some critics of Singapore's political and justice system and served to resurrect grievances about old legal cases brought against opponents of the People's Action Party, which has been in power since 1959.
"Whichever way this case goes, it is, and it is going to continue to be, quite damaging for Singapore because it's highlighted a lot of apparent or perceived problems with the Singapore judiciary," said Michael Backman, a consultant based in London and author of several books on doing business in Asia.
The case centers on a dispute between EnerNorth Industries, an Ontario-based oil and natural gas company, and a Singaporean company, Oakwell Engineering. In 1997, the two companies entered a joint venture to build and operate two barge-mounted electricity generating plants in India.
When the project ran into trouble a year later, EnerNorth bought out Oakwell's stake in the venture in a deal that included promises to pay $2.79 million and royalties once financing was obtained and the project was operational. A settlement agreement provided for any further disputes to be settled in the Singapore courts. EnerNorth, based in Toronto, subsequently failed to raise the financing for the project and, in 2000, sold out to an Indian company. In 2002, Oakwell sued EnerNorth in Singapore for failure to pay the $2.79 million and royalties. The Singaporean High Court, and later the Singaporean Court of Appeal, which is the final appellate court in Singapore, awarded Oakwell the disputed amounts, full costs and interest amounting to about $5.4 million.
As EnerNorth had no assets in Singapore, Oakwell applied to the Ontario Superior Court to have the award enforced in Canada. Last Aug. 2, the superior court ruled in Oakwell's favor.
But EnerNorth's lawyers have appealed. At the heart of their case is a fierce attack on the integrity of the Singapore justice system. In a submission to the appeals court, David Wingfield, EnerNorth's lawyer, argued that foreign legal systems had to meet Canadian constitutional standards for their rulings to be upheld in Canada.
"What EnerNorth is faced with, however, is having its assets seized under Canadian law to pay a judgment that was granted by a corrupt legal system before biased judges in a jurisdiction that operates outside the rule of law," he said in a submission to the court. He added: "The uncontradicted evidence in this case, from leading international experts, reveals that Singapore is ruled by a small oligarchy who control all facets of the Singapore state, including the judiciary, which is utterly politicized."
In large part, Wingfield based his allegations on the record of prosecutions of political critics of the People's Action Party, including Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, a lawyer of Sri Lankan descent, who for a time was Singapore's sole opposition member of Parliament. Jeyaretnam was convicted of fraud in a series of trials in Singapore in the 1980s in connection with donations made to his Workers' Party. He later managed to appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London over a decision to have him struck off the Singapore Law Society's rolls. The Privy Council, which was then the final court of appeal for such professional disciplinary actions, decided to review the initial conviction against Jeyaretnam. In a celebrated judgment in October 1988, it expressed "deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments," Jeyaretnam and a co-defendant had suffered "a grievous injustice."
Wingfield in his submission to the court in Ontario also cited the opinion of the International Commission of Jurists on a more recent case involving Jeyaretnam that "the High Court of Singapore has done little to overcome the Singapore courts' reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country's ruling People's Action Party."
The conduct of legal actions against political figures in Singapore has long been the subject of controversy, but the country's courts have had a strong reputation for fair and impartial conduct in commercial proceedings.
When Gerald Day, the Ontario Superior Court judge, agreed last year to uphold the award made in Singapore against EnerNorth, he wrote, "Historically, there is no evidence of bias or unfairness by the Singapore court in private commercial proceedings." He also found that there was no evidence of bias "in this specific case" and "no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judges who heard the case in Singapore."
Pointing to Day's statements, the Singaporean Ministry of Law said the Ontario Superior Court had "refused to lend any credence to EnerNorth's spurious allegation of a biased Singapore judiciary." In a written response, it said EnerNorth had been represented in Singapore by lawyers of its choice and had not alleged that the Singapore courts or any of its judges were biased against it at the time of the initial court hearings.
The ministry also said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, which is based in Hong Kong, had "consistently rated the Singapore judicial system as one of the best in the region, and emphasized that Singapore has one of the most fair and transparent legal systems in the world." The ministry added, "Singapore prides itself on having an independent and impartial judiciary."
Still, EnerNorth's lawyers produced a number of affidavits from its own experts, including Francis Seow, a former Singapore solicitor general and judge turned prominent critic of the government; and Ross Worthington, a professor of governance and World Bank consultant. Both asserted that the People's Action Party, or PAP, and the executive controlled all aspects of public life, including the judiciary.
Wingfield, the EnerNorth lawyer, also quoted a report in court from the New York City Bar Association that warned American companies to be wary of agreeing to let commercial disputes be settled in Singapore courts as EnerNorth did. The bar association said the Singapore government "had been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of political interests." But it also warned U.S. companies that in doing business in Singapore, they were "likely to encounter a wide variety of enterprises in which the government has an economic interest."
"The same forces which have led that judiciary to be sensitive to the PAP government's political interests would lead it to take account of its economic interests," the report said.
The basis of EnerNorth's appeal is that Day, the superior court judge, required EnerNorth lawyers to prove specific bias against the company by the Singaporean courts, which the judge found they had failed to do. Wingfield argued that it was simply sufficient to establish that Singapore's legal system did not meet Canadian standards.
The Ontario Appeals Court finished hearing the case in April and under an informal six-month rule is likely to announce its decision by the end of the summer, according to lawyers. But both sides have indicated that they will seek to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, meaning that the case could drag on and could become a test of recognition of foreign legal jurisdictions.
Lawyers for Oakwell Engineering maintain in their submissions to the courts in Canada that the issue has already been resolved under Canadian law and should not be reopened. They said EnerNorth had chosen to attack the quality of justice only because it had lost the case in Singapore - a jurisdiction it had freely chosen for settlement of any disputes with Oakwell. They said the company had not raised objections during the trial in Singapore and had failed to prove or even establish a "reasonable apprehension" of bias against it.
In its case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Oakwell's lawyers said EnerNorth had in fact been represented by a lawyer who witnesses said had strong links to the People's Action Party, while Oakwell had been represented by Philip Jeyaretnam, the son of the opposition figure.
They said the case had been "heard before the courts of a country built on foreign investment, with an impeccable reputation for fairness to foreign businesses like EnerNorth."
But Backman, the consultant and author, said the risk for Singapore, regardless of the verdict in Canada, was that foreign companies might become increasingly wary about business transactions in the city-state. If EnerNorth wins, he said by telephone, courts in other countries might also come under pressure not to enforce Singapore legal judgments. "This will only impact on the desire of investors to invest and remain in Singapore," he said.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Articles
Thursday April 5, 2:35 PM FEATURE-
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070405/3/47ndo.html
By Koh Gui Qing
SINGAPORE, April 5 (Reuters) - The salary of the prime minister of Singapore is more than three times that of U.S. President George Bush and about four times that of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. But that is not enough.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may soon be getting a hefty pay rise as part of a controversial ministerial salary hike that has infuriated many Singaporeans.
Lee, who is estimated to earn about S$2 million (US$1.32 million) per year, said last month that the salaries of Singapore ministers, top public officials and judges have fallen way below benchmark private sector salaries and may need to be doubled.
"It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people," Lee said in a speech in March.
Lee said that Singapore ministers, who currently earn about S$1.2 million (US$800,000) a year, should be earning S$2.2 million (US$1.45 million). Details of the new ministerial salaries will be announced in parliament on April 9.
Since 1994, the salaries of Singapore ministers have been set at two-thirds the median pay of the 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and executives in multi-nationals and manufacturing firms.
But the latest salary hike, which comes at a time when income disparity in Singapore is wider than ever, has sparked an outpour of unusually blunt criticism from Singaporeans.
Hundreds have signed an online petition and the readers' letter columns of the state-controlled newspapers -- one of the few outlets for dissenting views in the city-state -- have published a series of letters protesting the planned hike.
"GOVERNMENT ALWAYS WINS"
Some Singaporeans argue that the six lucrative professions on which ministers' salaries are based do not reflect the country's economy or the government's performance.
"No matter what happens to the economy, the government always wins because it takes only the best results," Jacob Tan said in a letter to the Straits Times.
And given that a 2 percentage point rise in sales tax from July will further hit the poor, some said the government plan is tactless.
"I am rather disappointed with the government's insensitivity," reader Vanessa Teo said.
But the sharpest criticism was online. The "awesome raise on top of their already obscene pay is completely unjustifiable," read an online petition that has gathered 304 signatures.
Given the rare public outcry, analysts said the government may now hesitate to raise salaries by the full S$1 million.
"I would be surprised if they implemented the full formula that would give them over S$2 million," said Garry Rodan, director of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University.
The government defends the high salaries as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.
"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week.
Singapore government officials' salaries are set by different wage formulas, depending on their seniority. The figures are not readily available to the public, but the prime minister earned S$1.94 million in 2000, according to the Straits Times.
Ministers' wages were last raised in 2000, but were cut in 2001 and 2003 during the economic downturn, although the cuts have since been reversed, the Public Service Division said.
"ABLE GENERALS"
Some argue that Singapore ministers are not overpaid, but that ministers elsewhere are underpaid.
Singapore is an oasis of wealth, peace and law and order in a region rife with poverty, violence and corruption.
The island state is Asia's second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000.
The World Economic Forum ranks Singapore as the fifth-most competitive of 125 economies in 2006, while Transparency International said the city-state was the fifth-most corruption-free nation out of 163. Isn't that worth a price?
"According to a Chinese proverb, an able general is worth more than 10,000 foot soldiers. So too is the worth of our leaders if they have the wisdom to help us weather global competition," reader Yik Keng Yeong said.
But critics say that the prosperity and security enjoyed by Singaporeans are not that different from other Asian first-world economies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, where government ministers do not command such high salaries.
Finland, for instance, beat Singapore in the WEF and Transparency International polls -- as second-most competitive and most corruption-free country -- but its Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen earns about a sixth of Lee's estimated salary.
What irks Singapore's opposition parties is that the million-dollar salaries are only accessible to members of Lee's ruling People's Action Party. Opposition politicians have been crippled by defamation lawsuits brought by government ministers and no opposition party has ever held a ministerial post.
The opposition also argues that a million-dollar pay hike is unwarranted for leaders of a country that has no legal minimum wage and where 20 percent of the population earns an average monthly salary of S$1,500 ($991).
But Lee Kuan Yew -- modern Singapore's first prime minister, who is still the leading voice in his son's cabinet -- will have none of it.
"The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government," Lee senior told the Straits Times on Thursday, adding that it is "absurd" for Singaporeans to quarrel about ministerial pay and warning that Singapore would suffer it the government could not pay competitive salaries.
"Your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries," he said.
(Additional reporting by Sakari Suoninen in Helsinki, Isabel Reynolds in Tokyo, Joanne Allen in Washington)
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070405/3/47ndo.html
By Koh Gui Qing
SINGAPORE, April 5 (Reuters) - The salary of the prime minister of Singapore is more than three times that of U.S. President George Bush and about four times that of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. But that is not enough.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may soon be getting a hefty pay rise as part of a controversial ministerial salary hike that has infuriated many Singaporeans.
Lee, who is estimated to earn about S$2 million (US$1.32 million) per year, said last month that the salaries of Singapore ministers, top public officials and judges have fallen way below benchmark private sector salaries and may need to be doubled.
"It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people," Lee said in a speech in March.
Lee said that Singapore ministers, who currently earn about S$1.2 million (US$800,000) a year, should be earning S$2.2 million (US$1.45 million). Details of the new ministerial salaries will be announced in parliament on April 9.
Since 1994, the salaries of Singapore ministers have been set at two-thirds the median pay of the 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and executives in multi-nationals and manufacturing firms.
But the latest salary hike, which comes at a time when income disparity in Singapore is wider than ever, has sparked an outpour of unusually blunt criticism from Singaporeans.
Hundreds have signed an online petition and the readers' letter columns of the state-controlled newspapers -- one of the few outlets for dissenting views in the city-state -- have published a series of letters protesting the planned hike.
"GOVERNMENT ALWAYS WINS"
Some Singaporeans argue that the six lucrative professions on which ministers' salaries are based do not reflect the country's economy or the government's performance.
"No matter what happens to the economy, the government always wins because it takes only the best results," Jacob Tan said in a letter to the Straits Times.
And given that a 2 percentage point rise in sales tax from July will further hit the poor, some said the government plan is tactless.
"I am rather disappointed with the government's insensitivity," reader Vanessa Teo said.
But the sharpest criticism was online. The "awesome raise on top of their already obscene pay is completely unjustifiable," read an online petition that has gathered 304 signatures.
Given the rare public outcry, analysts said the government may now hesitate to raise salaries by the full S$1 million.
"I would be surprised if they implemented the full formula that would give them over S$2 million," said Garry Rodan, director of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University.
The government defends the high salaries as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.
"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week.
Singapore government officials' salaries are set by different wage formulas, depending on their seniority. The figures are not readily available to the public, but the prime minister earned S$1.94 million in 2000, according to the Straits Times.
Ministers' wages were last raised in 2000, but were cut in 2001 and 2003 during the economic downturn, although the cuts have since been reversed, the Public Service Division said.
"ABLE GENERALS"
Some argue that Singapore ministers are not overpaid, but that ministers elsewhere are underpaid.
Singapore is an oasis of wealth, peace and law and order in a region rife with poverty, violence and corruption.
The island state is Asia's second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000.
The World Economic Forum ranks Singapore as the fifth-most competitive of 125 economies in 2006, while Transparency International said the city-state was the fifth-most corruption-free nation out of 163. Isn't that worth a price?
"According to a Chinese proverb, an able general is worth more than 10,000 foot soldiers. So too is the worth of our leaders if they have the wisdom to help us weather global competition," reader Yik Keng Yeong said.
But critics say that the prosperity and security enjoyed by Singaporeans are not that different from other Asian first-world economies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, where government ministers do not command such high salaries.
Finland, for instance, beat Singapore in the WEF and Transparency International polls -- as second-most competitive and most corruption-free country -- but its Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen earns about a sixth of Lee's estimated salary.
What irks Singapore's opposition parties is that the million-dollar salaries are only accessible to members of Lee's ruling People's Action Party. Opposition politicians have been crippled by defamation lawsuits brought by government ministers and no opposition party has ever held a ministerial post.
The opposition also argues that a million-dollar pay hike is unwarranted for leaders of a country that has no legal minimum wage and where 20 percent of the population earns an average monthly salary of S$1,500 ($991).
But Lee Kuan Yew -- modern Singapore's first prime minister, who is still the leading voice in his son's cabinet -- will have none of it.
"The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government," Lee senior told the Straits Times on Thursday, adding that it is "absurd" for Singaporeans to quarrel about ministerial pay and warning that Singapore would suffer it the government could not pay competitive salaries.
"Your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries," he said.
(Additional reporting by Sakari Suoninen in Helsinki, Isabel Reynolds in Tokyo, Joanne Allen in Washington)
Pants on fire
More good years ahead!
---
Means testing may kick in within next 12 months: Health Minister
By Hasnita A Majid, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 07 April 2007 1911 hrs
Means testing may kick in within the next 12 months, says Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
And the first to be affected will be patients in C-class wards who stay more than five days in hospital.
Patients in C-class wards now enjoy an 80 percent subsidy.
But the Health Ministry realised that not all patients need such a subsidy, as there are some in the high income bracket who choose to be hospitalised in such wards.
To ensure that there is no abuse of the system, the Health Minister says means testing must be done on those who stay more than five days in hospital - the average length of stay.
Means testing, which is a way to determine how much subsidy a patient should get, is already done in nursing homes and community hospitals.
Mr Khaw says: "We are in this business where all of us want to constantly improve our service level. But if your prices are wrong, if they are heavily subsidised or free or whatever, you are going to attract more and more patients to you, including those who can go to Gleneagles Hospital and Mount Elizabeth and so on. And we have very good doctors, very good specialists. So we know that at the end of the day, means testing are important.
"And until you introduce proper means testing, I'm afraid all these problems will remain, will simmer. I'm seriously thinking about all those who are long stay, who should now be discharged to community hospital, we should do means testing on them. Now they are saying that if they go to nursing homes they will be means tested but if they remain at SGH they are not means tested, therefore it's cheaper - then we will never solve this problem."
Mr Khaw says for those who can afford to pay more, their subsidy may be reduced to less than 80 percent but they will not be asked to move to a higher class ward.
However, he is not keen to extend means testing at the polyclinic level for practical reasons.
Mr Khaw says: "It's not just looking at your personal income - we are talking about family income here. The whole family should be supporting the patient. So therefore I need to know how many children you have and how much are they earning. And we cannot have self-declaration because everybody will say they are poor, they earn $800 when actually it may not be so. So you begin to see the complexity of means testing.
"We know that at our polyclinics, waiting time is already very long. If at the counter we are going to start asking all these questions, you know, I think we cannot do business. We will end up doing only means testing and no treatment. So it's not practical unfortunately."
Mr Khaw was speaking at a dialogue session on on Saturday with unionists in the healthcare sector, where he answered several questions.
These ranged from whether the 3M framework (of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) will see Singaporeans through their healthcare needs to what the government is doing to relieve the workload of healthcare professionals.
Mr Khaw hoped Singaporeans will manage their expectations, as the authorities continue to improve the healthcare sector.
He says: "Be prepared that if you want this higher level of care so that you can demand this and demand that, your co-payment has to go up, there's no other way because if you want us to continue to pump in more resources so that instead of one doctor to three patients, you now want one doctor to two patients or whatever, the costs just goes up."
At the end of the seminar, Mr Khaw urged Singaporeans to remain within the 3M framework to ensure that their healthcare needs remain affordable throughout their lives.
He also reiterated the fact that Singaporeans should attempt to stay healthy to minimise the chances of being hospitalised.
On Eldershield review, Mr Khaw says there will be rebates for those who have not claimed for the past five years.
The rebates may be used to offset any increase in premiums for those currently insured under the disability scheme, when the scheme is revamped.
And if the premium increase is affordable, he may even allow the payout period to extend to 7 years for the basic Eldershield scheme.
But a lifetime coverage is unlikely.
Mr Khaw says: "We are currently talking about those who are young, about 40 years old, we are talking about life expectancy which may well go into 90s. So we are making a promise of 50 years, who dares to give that kind of promise?"
The Eldershield scheme, introduced to help the elderly with disabilities by providing a monthly payout, is being reviewed.
The revamped scheme is expected to kick in by October this year. - CNA/ch
---
Was Mr Khaw lying when he said, before the GE, that means testing would be put off for two years? Hmm.. I leave the conclusion with you.
---
Related article can be found here:
Means testing put on hold
By Tor Ching Li, TODAY | Posted: 02 May 2006 0657 hrs
SINGAPORE: Means testing - which would see public healthcare patients being charged according to what they can afford - will not be implemented within the next two years as originally planned, said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan on Monday morning.
"Means testing itself is not wrong, but how to do it properly is tricky and needs time. Originally, I was more ambitious when I returned to (the Health Ministry) three years ago. I thought we could do means testing.
"But after discussion with people, I think let us do other proposals first," Mr Khaw told reporters during a Sembawang walkabout.
Instead, Mr Khaw said he would focus on revamping the MediShield national health insurance system and on improving healthcare for the chronically-ill.
He was responding to Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim's questions on how means testing for healthcare would be carried out.
She had raised the issue during a WP rally at Hougang on Sunday night, stating that present indicators such as house size and household income may not be accurate or appropriate benchmarks for how much a person could afford to pay.
"If we make the same amount of money, it does not mean we have the same amount of money to spend," said Ms Lim.
Mr Khaw stressed that nobody can fault the principle of means testing. This included WP chief Low Thia Khiang who, according to Mr Khaw, had raised in Parliament the idea of means testing for Government polyclinic patients because Mr Low felt that rich patients were "overcrowding" the heavily-subsidised polyclinics.
However, whether means testing will eventually be carried out will depend on whether it is practical to do so.
Said Mr Khaw: "I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort.
"So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with practical ideas."
As for how long it would take to work this out, Mr Khaw replied: "I don't know. You know my attitude to work, I am single-minded about things and I focus my energy on a particular issue. Right now, my big issue - besides Sembawang - is the chronically-sick. I think they can get better healthcare than they are receiving now."
When asked for his response to WP candidate Perry Tong's proposal for the Government to scrap the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on drugs - as well as to charge at cost medication for chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure and diabetes - Mr Khaw said the answer to rising healthcare costs was not so simple.
"If it was so simple that just one or two simple ideas from Perry Tong and the whole healthcare issue disappears, we would not have healthcare problems around the world being such a major political issue, not just here," said Mr Khaw.
He accused the WP of trying to score political points by proposing populist healthcare solutions that have proved disastrous in Britain, Europe and elsewhere. In Britain, he said, patients wait for months for even simple procedures.
And ideas such as reducing GST for medical bills, which is already being done for subsidised patients, would benefit the rich more than the poor. Private hospital bills are many times the size of Class C hospital bills.
"Instead, our solution is to provide Class C with the greatest subsidy (at 80 per cent of cost)," he said. - TODAY /dt
---
Means testing may kick in within next 12 months: Health Minister
By Hasnita A Majid, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 07 April 2007 1911 hrs
Means testing may kick in within the next 12 months, says Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
And the first to be affected will be patients in C-class wards who stay more than five days in hospital.
Patients in C-class wards now enjoy an 80 percent subsidy.
But the Health Ministry realised that not all patients need such a subsidy, as there are some in the high income bracket who choose to be hospitalised in such wards.
To ensure that there is no abuse of the system, the Health Minister says means testing must be done on those who stay more than five days in hospital - the average length of stay.
Means testing, which is a way to determine how much subsidy a patient should get, is already done in nursing homes and community hospitals.
Mr Khaw says: "We are in this business where all of us want to constantly improve our service level. But if your prices are wrong, if they are heavily subsidised or free or whatever, you are going to attract more and more patients to you, including those who can go to Gleneagles Hospital and Mount Elizabeth and so on. And we have very good doctors, very good specialists. So we know that at the end of the day, means testing are important.
"And until you introduce proper means testing, I'm afraid all these problems will remain, will simmer. I'm seriously thinking about all those who are long stay, who should now be discharged to community hospital, we should do means testing on them. Now they are saying that if they go to nursing homes they will be means tested but if they remain at SGH they are not means tested, therefore it's cheaper - then we will never solve this problem."
Mr Khaw says for those who can afford to pay more, their subsidy may be reduced to less than 80 percent but they will not be asked to move to a higher class ward.
However, he is not keen to extend means testing at the polyclinic level for practical reasons.
Mr Khaw says: "It's not just looking at your personal income - we are talking about family income here. The whole family should be supporting the patient. So therefore I need to know how many children you have and how much are they earning. And we cannot have self-declaration because everybody will say they are poor, they earn $800 when actually it may not be so. So you begin to see the complexity of means testing.
"We know that at our polyclinics, waiting time is already very long. If at the counter we are going to start asking all these questions, you know, I think we cannot do business. We will end up doing only means testing and no treatment. So it's not practical unfortunately."
Mr Khaw was speaking at a dialogue session on on Saturday with unionists in the healthcare sector, where he answered several questions.
These ranged from whether the 3M framework (of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) will see Singaporeans through their healthcare needs to what the government is doing to relieve the workload of healthcare professionals.
Mr Khaw hoped Singaporeans will manage their expectations, as the authorities continue to improve the healthcare sector.
He says: "Be prepared that if you want this higher level of care so that you can demand this and demand that, your co-payment has to go up, there's no other way because if you want us to continue to pump in more resources so that instead of one doctor to three patients, you now want one doctor to two patients or whatever, the costs just goes up."
At the end of the seminar, Mr Khaw urged Singaporeans to remain within the 3M framework to ensure that their healthcare needs remain affordable throughout their lives.
He also reiterated the fact that Singaporeans should attempt to stay healthy to minimise the chances of being hospitalised.
On Eldershield review, Mr Khaw says there will be rebates for those who have not claimed for the past five years.
The rebates may be used to offset any increase in premiums for those currently insured under the disability scheme, when the scheme is revamped.
And if the premium increase is affordable, he may even allow the payout period to extend to 7 years for the basic Eldershield scheme.
But a lifetime coverage is unlikely.
Mr Khaw says: "We are currently talking about those who are young, about 40 years old, we are talking about life expectancy which may well go into 90s. So we are making a promise of 50 years, who dares to give that kind of promise?"
The Eldershield scheme, introduced to help the elderly with disabilities by providing a monthly payout, is being reviewed.
The revamped scheme is expected to kick in by October this year. - CNA/ch
---
Was Mr Khaw lying when he said, before the GE, that means testing would be put off for two years? Hmm.. I leave the conclusion with you.
---
Related article can be found here:
Means testing put on hold
By Tor Ching Li, TODAY | Posted: 02 May 2006 0657 hrs
SINGAPORE: Means testing - which would see public healthcare patients being charged according to what they can afford - will not be implemented within the next two years as originally planned, said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan on Monday morning.
"Means testing itself is not wrong, but how to do it properly is tricky and needs time. Originally, I was more ambitious when I returned to (the Health Ministry) three years ago. I thought we could do means testing.
"But after discussion with people, I think let us do other proposals first," Mr Khaw told reporters during a Sembawang walkabout.
Instead, Mr Khaw said he would focus on revamping the MediShield national health insurance system and on improving healthcare for the chronically-ill.
He was responding to Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim's questions on how means testing for healthcare would be carried out.
She had raised the issue during a WP rally at Hougang on Sunday night, stating that present indicators such as house size and household income may not be accurate or appropriate benchmarks for how much a person could afford to pay.
"If we make the same amount of money, it does not mean we have the same amount of money to spend," said Ms Lim.
Mr Khaw stressed that nobody can fault the principle of means testing. This included WP chief Low Thia Khiang who, according to Mr Khaw, had raised in Parliament the idea of means testing for Government polyclinic patients because Mr Low felt that rich patients were "overcrowding" the heavily-subsidised polyclinics.
However, whether means testing will eventually be carried out will depend on whether it is practical to do so.
Said Mr Khaw: "I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort.
"So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with practical ideas."
As for how long it would take to work this out, Mr Khaw replied: "I don't know. You know my attitude to work, I am single-minded about things and I focus my energy on a particular issue. Right now, my big issue - besides Sembawang - is the chronically-sick. I think they can get better healthcare than they are receiving now."
When asked for his response to WP candidate Perry Tong's proposal for the Government to scrap the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on drugs - as well as to charge at cost medication for chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure and diabetes - Mr Khaw said the answer to rising healthcare costs was not so simple.
"If it was so simple that just one or two simple ideas from Perry Tong and the whole healthcare issue disappears, we would not have healthcare problems around the world being such a major political issue, not just here," said Mr Khaw.
He accused the WP of trying to score political points by proposing populist healthcare solutions that have proved disastrous in Britain, Europe and elsewhere. In Britain, he said, patients wait for months for even simple procedures.
And ideas such as reducing GST for medical bills, which is already being done for subsidised patients, would benefit the rich more than the poor. Private hospital bills are many times the size of Class C hospital bills.
"Instead, our solution is to provide Class C with the greatest subsidy (at 80 per cent of cost)," he said. - TODAY /dt
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Contradictions
"To build a country, you need passion. If you just do your sums - plus, minuses, credit, debit - you are a washout." - Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 21 Aug 89
"If you are going to quarrel about S$46 million – up or down another S$10 to S$20 million – I say you don't have a sense of proportion." - Lee Kuan Yew, Channel NewsAsia, 4 Apr 07
"If you are going to quarrel about S$46 million – up or down another S$10 to S$20 million – I say you don't have a sense of proportion." - Lee Kuan Yew, Channel NewsAsia, 4 Apr 07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
