publichouse.sg

The following is the response from the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) statement on the Facebook posting by HOME’s executive director, Mr Jolovan Wham.

You can read Mr Wham’s posting here, and MOM’s statement here.

The statement by HOME:

3rd October 2012

HOME’s response to MOM’s comments

HOME is pleased that NGOs are recognised by MOM for our tireless efforts, and we appreciate the efforts of MOM to collaborate with us to improve the welfare of workers. We are also re-assured by  MOM’s clarification that an official warning was not issued to us even as displeasure was expressed by their directors on three separate occasions. We regret the public disclosure of these conversations between HOME and MOM on a personal Face Book wall.

In a time of rising healthcare costs, insufficient hospital beds and an ageing population, Singapore’s healthcare system must adapt to meet these challenges.

The question is, how much change is needed? Does the 3M system – Medisave, Medishield and Medifund – provide enough of a safety net for Singaporeans? With our government healthcare expenditure (GHE) being a third of total healthcare expenditure (THE), the lowest in the developed world, is it possible or necessary to increase government healthcare spending?

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party  says the “fundamental premise of the current system is wrong.”

“Healthcare is not a commodity that you buy and sell in the market,” he tells publichouse.sg.   “You’re talking about a situation whereby people, the poor, cannot afford healthcare, many of them stay away from getting treatment, or they delay it, and the consequences can sometimes be literally life and death situations.”

By Andrew Loh

For the longest time, associating oneself with an opposition party in Singapore would instantaneously throw up that dreaded feeling - fear. Let alone stepping up and joining and being a member of one. It was the result of years - decades - of fear-mongering by the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), led for some 30 years by strongman, Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee's "hatchet" politics, no doubt, contributed a large part to this aversion towards all things opposition. But times have changed somewhat - and Lee himself is no longer worshipped by the masses, especially the younger set, as the demi-god which some still make him out to be.

His tactics of jailing his political opponents, suing them to bankruptcy, and - with the help of the media which he held a firm hand on - he decimated any remnants of dignity and integrity any of his opponents had in the eyes of the public. All these created a lasting climate of fear - even today.

But slowly, things are changing.

By Dr Wong Wee Nam

Dr. Wong Wee Nam calls on Mr. Lawrence Wong to listen to dissenting voices, rather than vilify them.

The Senior Minister of State for Education and Information, Communications and the Arts, Mr. Lawrence Wong, wrote in his Facebook blog a few days ago that he had some heaviness in his heart as he watched some incidents unfolding on the internet over the past few weeks.

As it turned out, the “incidents” were criticisms made by some netizens against a show staged for the visit of Prince William and his wife to Queenstown and also against a TV forum that these people had perceived as being staged and should not be passed off as national conversation.

There were nothing extraordinary or unusual about such criticisms and I wonder why Mr Lawrence Wong should get so upset by what PAP leaders had previously brushed off as noise. Perhaps he thought it might be more than noise. As he had written: “But on the internet, there was a campaign targeted against these PAP members (those invited to the forum).”

Campaign? I think it is a bit imaginative to say that this was a campaign. If there was indeed some kind of an organised course of action, I wonder who these internet conspirators are.

As to the composition of the participants at the TV forum, the Senior Minister of State assured his readers that “no one was invited because of his or her political affiliation.” Unfortunately, though 10% of the participants happened to be PAP members, coincidentally, none of the invitees happened to be members of any opposition party. Netizens, therefore, cannot be faulted for complaining that the forum was “wayang’ or staged.

Thus, instead of blaming these critics, Mr Wong should have asked why there was this oversight on the part of the organisers. He could have fended off a lot of criticisms by assuring his readers that his Ministry would ensure future forums by the media do not deny invitations to people because of their political affiliations.

I agree with Mr Wong that “when decent people step forward to be part of a genuine national effort to welcome our overseas guests, or volunteer their time to be part of a national TV forum with the PM, and yet get vilified by their fellow citizens, then we really should pause and reflect, and ask ourselves whether this is the kind of society we want.”

The vilification of politicians or activists by fellow citizens is nothing new. It has a history that is as long as Singapore’s independence.  The only difference between then and now is that the disapproval was more direct, tangible and unavoidable (you face people everyday) whereas criticism posted on the internet need not be read. Furthermore without the internet there was no other way a victim could clarify himself and had to suffer in silence.

However, Mr. Wong’s call would get my sympathy vote if only it had been a universal call that includes those other decent people, with alternative ideas and opinions, who have been vilified for making genuine efforts to participate in nation building.

In the past many of these people have been portrayed as trouble-makers, anti-national elements, liars, cheats, Marxists, psycopaths and what have you. As a result, because of media slant and the climate of fear, such decent people with genuine intention to serve the nation and participate in the affairs of the country were avoided like contagious diseases and looked upon as deviants just because they were associated with the opposition.

I consider myself a decent person. However I, too, have experienced my share of ostracism. After I contested the 1997 General Election as an opposition, some friends and even some of my patients avoided me. A patient who was pushing his mother on a wheelchair met his neighbour in the lift. When asked where he was going, the man said he was pushing his mother to see me. The reaction was typical. “Why do you see Dr Wong? He is opposition.” My patient was very angry and told his friend that choosing a doctor had nothing to do with politics. It is with such support that I do not suffer from any gloom.

However, what I had gone through is nothing compared to what some other decent people had suffered. Anyone who had bothered to get to know people like Vincent Cheng, Teo Soh Lung, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Ang Swee Chai, would have found them to be decent people and not demons. It is really unbelievable that there are still many Singaporeans who have not met any of these people and yet could formed very strong and unfavourable opinions of them just because they had been incarcerated.

Yes, indeed, Singaporeans needs to pause and reflect.

Mr Lawrence Wong also said, “We need to listen to criticisms and improve as a party, to serve our people even better.” Why then is he upset by comments made on the internet?

Mr Wong concluded “Let us continue to work together and keep our democracy healthy – by maintaining a basic level of civility in our public discourse, by treating all with dignity and respect, and by finding ways to bridge our differences and forge a common future together.” This sounds good. But talking alone is meaningless. He can start by using his influence as Senior Minister of State for Information, Communication and the Arts to ensure that our media are free and fair to all decent people who have the genuine desire to participate and serve this country