Who is Prof Leo Yee Sin? Independent Review Committee On Hepatitis C Cluster At SGH

This is Professor Leo Yee Sin, chairman of the Independent Review Committee tasked to probe into the Hepatitis C outbreak at SGH. 

Prof Leo is not just an infectious disease expert. She was the one in the frontline leading the battle against Sars in 2003. And that was not the only battle she led. 

Because of her experience in outbreak management, she is frequently called upon as advisor at national, regional and international level.

Leon Pereira of Workers' Party had cast aspersion on Prof Leo's ability to lead the review in an independent and professional manner when he called for a retired clinician or healthcare administrator to co-chair the committee with Prof Leo. He also cast doubts on the commitment of healthcare workers and the review committee to find the whole truth. 

Doctors and nurses, more than the general public and Workers' Party, want to uncover the root cause of the Hep C cluster because they are the frontline workers and in an outbreak they may even be the first to die - as we have seen in Sars. 

EVERY DAY they are exposed to many risks including risk of infection in the course of their work. Their working environment is the hospital. 

More than anyone else, the independent review committee want to know how the infection happened so that the processes in hospitals can be strengthened so that they can ensure a safe working environment for themselves, their colleagues and for the patients under their care. They have every motivation to strengthen processes in the hospitals. 

So don't cast aspersions on the independence and professionalism of members of the independent committee, and asked for retired clinician and a judge. 

The Police are also investigating and there is good reason why they are called in. Does WP not trust the police to carry out their investigations and interview people?

Don't jump the gun and call for a COI for the sake of scoring some political points. 

Let the review committee finish their investigations and the findings be made known first.

Jumping The Gun And Casting Aspersions

What did WP just do when Leon Pereira called for the independent review committee (whose work is already under way) to be reconstituted as a Committee of Inquiry?

WP is casting aspersions on MOH and SGH, on the members of the review panel, which includes 2 international experts, to act independently and with professionalism.

Similarly they are also casting aspersion on the Police who are also investigating to rule out any possibility of foul play.

So why does WP jump the gun to cast aspersion instead of waiting for the review committee to complete their probe and the police to complete their investigation? To what end? Anything just for some political gain?

One cannot help but recall how the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had described the opposition in Singapore. They have no intention of developing into a 'loyal opposition' that is truly for the interests of Singapore.

Workers' Party's LOW's STANDARD

Workers' Party assessed the performance of their MPs not by the quality of questions they asked but by the number of questions they asked.

During the last term of government, despite the presence of 7 MPs and 2NCMPs, they did not move a single motion to discuss any of the issues that they raised so fiercely in the 2011 general election rallies.

MOS Sam Tan's response to WP Low Thia Khiang's Oct 7 forum letter to Zao Bao.

I refer to Mr Low Thia Khiang’s letter of Oct 7 defending The Workers’ Party's lack of policy alternatives and its performance in Parliament. Mr Low points to the 130 policy suggestions in the Workers’ Party election manifesto, and how often WP MPs spoke in Parliament, to show that his party had presented alternative policies and done well. 

But the point here is not the number of suggestions or speeches the WP make, but the quality, feasibility and coherence of its proposals.

A responsible opposition party should offer well thought-out, sustainable alternative policies, or at least serious critiques of what the government proposes. The WP has not done that.

Nor has it confronted unavoidable trade-offs or acknowledged difficult choices. For example, in one of its many variations on foreign worker policy, the WP wanted to tighten their inflow further, yet refused to explain exactly how this could be done without hurting SMEs, which are already finding things hard.

Indeed, it flip-flops so often on this issue, refusing to take a principled stand, precisely because it wants to curry favour with all sides of the debate. When the government does something popular, Mr Low and his colleagues have done little more than pat the government on the back, then say “do more”, “give more” or “should have done earlier”, or even claim it was their idea in the first place.

No WP MP has ever introduced a Private Member’s Bill, unlike former NMP Walter Woon and PAP MP Christopher de Souza.

Mr Low and his colleagues habitually show one face during elections and another in Parliament. For example, in Parliament, WP MPs supported this year’s Budget and praised several aspects of it. Mr Low himself had described the 2012 Budget as one that is “pro-people”. And yet, at election rallies recently, he attacked the government’s economic policies for lacking heart and his colleagues claimed that they favoured only the rich. All the positive statements in Parliament were forgotten.

Similarly the WP made a major issue of ministerial salaries in the 2011 GE. But when Parliament debated ministerial salaries in 2012, the WP proposed an alternative which would actually have resulted in a higher minimum and only slightly lower maximum than what the Government proposed.

Mr Low now tries to explain this away, but Mr Lin Shuxian has ably refuted him in his letter of 9 October, and the Hansard confirms Mr Lin’s account. Remarkably, Mr Low and his Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had stayed silent throughout the debate, even when it was pointed out that the WP’s position on the matter was different from what it had previously stated.

During elections, the WP roars like a tiger and says whatever it thinks will win votes. In Parliament, it squeaks like a mouse and is circumspect because it knows that PAP ministers and backbenchers will challenge and rebut any reckless statements .

Indeed, when WP MPs are asked awkward questions, they have been known to declare that they won’t answer questions in Parliament. This is what Mr Pritam Singh did when asked to explain what had gone wrong in Aljunied-Hougang Punggol East Town Council. This is what the WP means by accountability and first world Parliament!

Strikingly, Mr Low’s letter was totally silent on the WP’s management of AHPETC, the one area where WP might have put its fine words into action. For four consecutive years, the AHPETC failed to submit a clean set of accounts, without disclaimers or qualifiers. As a High Court Judge observed, if AHPETC were a corporation, it might have faced criminal prosecution. Nor has the WP explained why it paid extravagant sums to its management agency, FMSS, which was owned by close associates of Mr Low, while AHPETC itself ran repeated deficits.

If Mr Low is unwilling to apologise for the WP’s shortcomings, he should at least have given an honest explanation to voters of why he allowed this to happen. The WP’s arrogant refusal to account for its record is the reason why many Singaporeans are frustrated with it. They can see it will say anything to score political points. They doubt the motivation of WP candidates who look good on paper, but are prepared to identify themselves with a party which is opportunistic and unprincipled.

If Mr Low had been less defensive, he would have realised that this was what the letters that upset him so much were trying to say.

The judgement of the people is an awesome thing. After every general election, the PAP does its best to analyse the results, understand what message voters are sending, remedy shortcomings and strive to do better the next time. That is what we did after the 2011 GE, and are doing after this GE.

Whether we receive 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the vote, our respect for the people’s verdict cannot change. It is not my place to offer advice to a veteran politician like Mr Low, but perhaps he too should study closely the results of GE 2015, listen carefully to voters and retool his politics.

The people are sovereign. As their servants, not masters, all who aspire to political office must always pay heed to the judgment of the people.

 http://on.fb.me/1Mxljhr

“Did the opposition not provide alternative policies?”

Translation of a letter that was published in Zao Bao:

Zaobao forum letter: Does the opposition have alternative policies? (ZB, 5 Oct 2015) - By Lin Shuxian (林叔献)

I was somewhat disturbed on reading Professor Ong Chang Woei’s commentary “Did the opposition not provide alternative policies?”

First, Prof Ong said the opposition finds it hard to come up with effective alternative policies because official figures are not easy to get. What puzzles me is: If official figures are so important and so hard to get, what did the opposition base its criticism of current policy on? Was the opposition shooting its mouth off based on incomplete figures? 

The fact is the opposition spent a lot more time criticising current policies than raising alternatives, which means the opposition’s focus during campaigning was criticism of the ruling party’s policies. This is an undeniable fact.

Opposition MPs had over four years in the previous term of Parliament to ask ministers for many figures needed in policymaking. But did they? I would ask Prof Ong to look at the records of the scant comments made by the opposition in Parliament. 

If the opposition does not actively seek the vital information it needs to come up with alternative policies, how can the ruling party be obliged to help them to come up with alternatives? It is apparent how much weight the opposition gives to coming up with alternative policies. 

During the debate on ministerial salaries, the Workers’ Party (WP) calculated based on publicly available figures. But when it was pointed out that their calculations gave even higher ministerial salaries than what was proposed, they stayed silent. 

Clearly, this is not a question of official figures, but of attitude and capability. We are not denying the importance of figures. But the key is whether they are used to hit out at opponents or serve the people. And this has to do with whether political figures enter politics to satisfy their own desires or to serve the people, this is a question of principles. 

So, voters in Singapore do not just have expectations of what candidates say, but also their character, ability and sincerity. The voters have to listen to the candidates’ views and more importantly observe their actions.

Has the opposition raised alternative policies? Yes, many! But how many are feasible and good enough to replace existing ones? Voters are discerning and can judge for themselves. For instance, is giving a monthly sum to elderly and young citizens a feasible policy? In short, the election results reflected voters’ views. 

I feel this is not just about being able to convince voters, as today’s electorate are knowledgeable and well able to interpret policies, and would have their own views and done research on the various current national issues. So they would want more in-depth explanations of policies and they would consider their sustained feasibility, as well as the capability, integrity and reliability of the people implementing these policies. This is the will of the people, which must be taken seriously.

Through history, there have been many eloquent and charismatic politicians. We often hear beautiful and rousing political speeches and slogans, but few can produce brilliant and sustainable political achievements. It is easy to raise different policies and deliver great speeches, but the important thing is the feasibility and sustainability of policies, more so the reliability of the people who implement policies. The key is to convince people and win their support, and those in politics must take voters’ wisdom seriously.

Founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had a unique ability to convince voters through words and deeds to accept his policies and trust him as a reliable executor.

As many older Singaporeans said: “Follow Lee Kuan Yew and we will not go wrong”. If the opposition cannot convince voters that their policies are better and they are more reliable and more capable than ruling party candidates, should that responsibility lie with the electorate, the ruling party or the opposition? From salesmen to politicians, either convince your clients or voters, or accept failure.

Prof Ong said the opposition’s alternatives would not be too different from the ruling party. And that means there are many good things about existing policies, does it not? So to Prof Ong: If there is not much difference, why change? 

Prof Ong said: “The only difference between the opposition and the ruling party is that the opposition cannot implement these policies because they are not in power.”

Is that so? No! Such thinking shows no respect for voters’ wisdom and no regard for public opinion. It is like a salesman who cannot convince people to buy his product but blames them for not giving him a chance to show how good his product is, instead of reflecting on his ability and his sub-standard product.. Voters in Singapore have not come to the stage where they have to choose between two rotten apples and want to try something different for a change. I hope the opposition will not be so arrogant, or they will never turn things around.

The basic requirement of being a politician is being able to decipher, value and direct public opinion!