Hearing but not listening. Beyond the population white paper.

We all know the expression 'to hear but not listen'. How many times have we screamed' in exasperation at our kids, and for that matter - our kids screamed at us..   " .....but you are not listening!! *sigh*

Our present gahment seems a bit like that, isn't it. Minister Ng Eng Hen, said in no uncertain terms "We heard  Singaporeans clearly". PM Lee in his post election speech said it too..." We hear all your voices.". Hear, hear. The question is...have they listened?

In Medicine, hearing is a function of the auditory organ, the ear and all its connections. If you can't hear, it is a malfunction of the organ. Something is damaged, or there's just a big cockroach stuffed into your ear. But if you can't understand despite hearing.... something is wrong higher up. Some people call this an auditory Perception Difficulty, and link it with the more recognizable group of dyslexic conditions.

But it is not necessary that the gahment has something so crippling. More likely, they are just locked into an ideological frame of mind, that they cannot see anything worth considering beyond the ideology. Talk about needing to think out of the box. Here is a bunch of smart (very smart, I believe), high salaried technocrats, who believe that all they have is in that box, and cannot conceive of any possibilities outside of that box.

So when they hear, they actually cannot understand. So when they say they hear, what they mean is that they  have heard the noise and clamour, and believe that their failing is merely that they have not worked hard enough to make us come round to their way of thinking. So they will try harder, to make us understand.

Sadly, with potentially tragic outcomes.

Returning Singapore to Singaporeans? Dare we wish?

It is hard to feel betrayed. Gigamole says 'feel' because that is what it is, only a feeling. Gigamole can understand the logic of our political leaders, and I don't think they had any real malice in the decisions they took. But Gigamole thinks they were misguided, and Gigamole, like many others, feel betrayed.

Mind you, Gigamole was one of those who stood in the rain for the first National Day parade. And Gigamole was one of those who dug into pocket money to give to the Singapore National Defence Fund.

Whether it is about birth rates, education or academic achievements, where we are now, and who we are is a result of policies in place during the early years of nationhood. Until the 1980s, the thinking about university education was that we were training too many graduates. University education was seen to be an 'evil' contributing to frustrations and social discontent. The university was deliberately kept small. We were producing too many doctors. Not good, because doctors were woolly headed and bleeding hearted.

Gigamole remembers that medical research was regarded as a 'luxury'. Research funding was only available to allow medical scientists to 'tickle' their minds and keep them interested in their science. Gigamole remembers how we all had to troop, hat in hand, to the Singapore Turf Club to ask for a small sum of money to do some research.

What a turn around in the 1980s when the university began to expand, and research became a much sought after activity. In the years that followed, Gigamole has seen hard working colleagues given the boot because they did not have the research track record that was comparable to academics from developed countries who had spent a lifetime doing research. Foreign talent they were called.

Since then or universities and research establishments have turned into wonderful performing whale-ariums populated by non- Singaporeans. Mind you, Gigamole is not against foreign talent. Just that it has become too easy a solution to rent (not buy, mind you) performing whales in order to vicariously capture research glory. It is really no different from buying Olympic gold medals on Ebay. Now almost every department in the Universities and Research Institutes are headed and staffed by non-Singaporeans. It looks fantastic on paper, but only on paper. The reality is that the local content has been severely hollowed out. To make matters worse, the current crop of 'foreign talent' mostly do not want to teach, and do not engage in any technology transfer. The Nanyang Technological University, for example, under their Swedish President, is fast becoming a totally foreign university, desperately trying to catch up with the NUS in glbal ranking. The Lee Kong Chian Medical School with their Deanery imported from Imperial College, London, seems engaged in political struggle with the more indigenous Tan Tock Seng Hospital for pre-eminence. No prizes for guessing who is backed by higher forces, and who will eventually win.

Even the student population appears to have been done in. Gigamole has often wondered about the logic of building so many elitist universities, that our own Singaporean children have no choice but to venture overseas if they want a university education.

So Gigamole is not happy. Gigamole can't help feeling betrayed.

Majulah Singapura

Indeed, we do love Singapore, our home. Here's my wish list for this year's birthday celebrations:

a] that while we react very publicly against some government policies and misdeeds, we do not run down our beloved homeland;

b] that we learn to distinguish between ruling party, government and country;

c] that the government will re-commit to focusing on the poor, unable or incapable - and generally those among us who need a hand in this difficult world. The current balance is not right. Too much of our resources has been devoted to building up those who are already successful. The government has to date been too miserly in its dealings with the other end of the spectrum in our society;

d] that the government will stop this idiocy in buying cheap glory through the wholesale import of "foreign talent". What pride is there in this vicarious pursuit? While I was cheering on Ms Feng Tian Wei during her table tennis matches, I found myself strangely more drawn to support Malaysian badminton champ Lee Chong Wei when he was playing Lin Dan. I have to confess to some envy of the Malaysians among us, that they should have someone so homegrown and local as their champion. Though Malaysian, Dato Lee could easily pass off for the boy down the road here in Singapore. A real ka kee nang. It didn't matter that he lost. He was the object of much love and adulation even in defeat. And whatever problems the Malaysians may be struggling through in the lead up to their national elections, Dato Lee's defeat brought the people together. A lesson for the government here. It really isn't about winning or losing, but what participation truly means to the people. Solidarity doesn't come from buying cheap (not so cheap considering the $$$ spent) cosmetic simulates of glory. This only serves the interests of the 'elite' who want to posture on the world stage.

So thank you Minister Chan Chun Sing for acknowledging this problem. It's time to put a stop this lunacy.

e] that we all learn to be more gracious and welcoming to the new immigrants among us. It doesn't matter what their reasons are for taking up citizenship here. Our forefathers all came here to make money and to find a better life for themselves and their families. Our new comrades deserve an equal chance at this. Let us welcome them and make them feel at home. Singaporeans are much more caring and gracious then what has been portrayed in the more xenophobic blogs. Let's not forget what being Singaporean means.

So we turn 47 today. Cheer up, we'll survive this mid-life crisis if we but pull together, and remember our love for Singapore.

Majulah Singapura!

Selling off our heritage - the plight of Kampong Glam

Most would have missed the plaintive appeal (tucked way down on Page 42, Sunday Times 17 June), of Ms Hidayah Amin about how Kampong Glam may be losing  its story to the glitz of Omani wealth. Kampong Glam was a Malay enclave, originally designated for the occupation of Sultan Hussein Shah (himself of Bugis heritage) and his family. The area was primarily populated by immigrants from Java, Sulawesi and Bawean. There were Indian and Middle Easterners as well, but they mostly assimilated into the Malay culture. Ms Amin would know as, being the great grand-daughter of Haji Yusoff the belt merchant, she lived in the big yellow house, smack in the middle of Kampong Glam. At least until the government forcibly acquired the property.

She is so right, and her appeals should not go unheeded. The Malay culture needs to be protected, and it is fundamentally wrong to continue to assume that propagating a pseudo Middle Eastern Islamic facade is  equivalent to preserving the Malay heritage. The richness of Malay, Javanese, Sulawesian and Boyanese cultures need to be specifically protected as well. Unfortunately though, there are few who are wealthy and powerful enough on their side to fight for them.

Their voice desperately needs to be heard. We have lost too much of our true Singaporean heritage already.

Is Justice blind in Singapore?

Recent happenings have prompted many to ask if justice is indeed blind in Singapore. Intriguing question, since I wasn't at all sure how the idea that justice should be blind actually came about.

The only Greek goddess that regularly had a blindfold was actually the goddess of fortune/fate (Fortuna, Tyche/Dike). It really wasn't until about the 15th century that a number of goddess imageries were conflated to give the idea that justice is scaled, sworded and also blind. Even so, the goddess of justice (Justitia) is not always portrayed outside our courthouses as being blind. For example, outside the Old Bailey in London, Justitia is clearly sighted. Outside the Legislative Council Building in Hong Kong, on the other hand, Justitia is presented as wearing a blindfold.

Interestingly, On top of our old Supreme Court Building, the tympanum carries a scene conceptualized by artist Rodolfo Nolli, where Justitia is represented. The scene apparently depicts: "......the central figure represents Justice; to the left is a person begging for mercy (or protection), and next to him are the legislators with books in hand, representing the Law. On the other side of Justice is a figure showing gratitude, then a man and a bull, and two children holding a sheaf of wheat, all representing Wealth, Prosperity and Abundance where Law and Justice prevails."

But the scene looks too intriguing to just refer to official interpretations. In the spirit of the book Da Vinci's Code, I tried my hand at explaining the scene as I saw it. Firstly it should be noted that the Singapore version of Justitia is similarly scaled, sworded but fully sighted. On the right of Justitia are two very sorry looking figures. At the extreme end, the one with the snake is probably Adam wallowing in his sin, unforgiven. Just next to Justitia is another unforgiven figure begging for mercy. Between them, a pair of very conspiratorial looking figures, plotting to throw the book at the guilty ones. On Justitia's left however, by the hand that holds the sword, is a very grateful forgiven woman. One can only guess at why she has been forgiven. Following her however, is an entourage bearing icons of power and prosperity - cattle and grain.

Was the artist trying to make a statement about how justice operates? Here clearly justice is not blind. Does wealth and prosperity feature in the dispensing of justice? I leave it to your interpretation of this very interesting and oft overlooked piece of public art. After all art, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

Oscar Wilde did write that "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".

The elected President will have considerable moral authority but should not aspire to be our moral authority.

So we will have our Presidential Elections today. Very exciting because it is a very significant milestone in our political development. I like the political awakening I see yet I remain somewhat concerned that this new political energy has been too enthusiastically injected into this presidential contest. Wasn't it supposed to have been a non-partisan affair? But then, I suppose, any kind of election will inevitably be 'political'. By this logic then, the very act of creating the elected presidency had already begun politicization the highest office in our country. Even though it was not intended to be, it has become the new reality.

Instead of being a purely ceremonial position, the Presidency has now become a lightning rod for all kinds of things. Because of the political energy that has been vested into electing the President, regardless of what the Constitution tries to curtail, the elected President will receive a considerable moral authority to do and say things. This authority must come with responsibility. The elected President must realize that notwithstanding the electioneering and promises made in the heat of the moment, the Presidency is a position that must chiefly unify and inspire. He must try and embody all the noble values that will bring us together as a united citizenry.

But should he speak up for all kinds of perceived wrongs and champion pet causes? Though we may wish it to be, I believe he should not. This is not to say he cannot support community based projects and causes. But that he should be careful not be a social activist for causes which may be controversial and divide the society. Can the President be the standard bearer for justice and morality in our society? To be the heart....or voice ....of the people? I don't think so. Because, how is he to decide what is just and unjust,what is moral and what not? The election does not confer upon him the supernatural ability to make those judgements for the rest of us. So inevitably, to place himself on a pedestal to champion a particular position in such causes will cause him to elevate some ... and in the process, decrease some. And make the position open to all kinds of political lobbying. He should therefore ask himself if such activities serve to unite or to divide.

When we elect the President, we willingly confer upon him the moral authority to assume the highest position in our land, but this does not make him eligible to be the authority for our morals.

Why I find it hard to support Tony Tan for President.

Much has been made of his dead fish handshake. Sadly, I have been at the wrong end of that dreaded handshake with presidential hopeful Tony Tan, so I can vouch for the veracity of those allegations. For me it had been a significant turn-off.

But a limp and damp handshake is too frivolous a reason for rejecting a presidential candidate.

In 1991 when the elected presidency was introduced, its purpose was to act as a check against a profligate government. The custodial powers of the elected president would include powers to check governmental abuse of power as well as to have custodial powers against governmental raiding of our national reserves. It seems clear that the PAP introduced this scheme not to check itself but to protect against a freak election result which allowed an opposition group to take over government, and therefore be in a position to 'raid' the reserves.

Increasingly though, the people are now coming round to the idea that the national reserves as well as public service appointments are actually assets belonging to the nation and should be managed in a non-partisan way. The elected president should therefore have custodial powers over the reserves and public service appointments, regardless of which political party is in power. Previous President Ong Teng Cheong had tried unsuccessfully to exercise these powers. But the shabby way he was treated as the people's President because he had the audacity to do his job remains deeply etched many people's minds. I have to confess I still harbour deep resentment for his being denied a state funeral when he passed away.

So never again.

Logically therefore, the uber establishment Tony Tan should automatically be disqualified from the job as he is just too deeply enmeshed with the PAP leadership and the GIC management of our national reserves. How can he be the second key for the reserves when he has been such an integral part of the first key? The increasing litany of endorsements from leaders of unions and establishment groups just continue to flag him out as being so ultra-establishment and so pro-status quo that I find it harder and harder to consider his legitimacy for the elected presidency position. In fact I find it increasingly difficult not to see him as a desperate attempt by the government to stem the growing movement towards greater expectation of a higher level of transparency of government and of the management of our reserves.

It does not help also that he has not 'come clean' about the allegations of preferential NS deferment for his son Dr Patrick Tan. From what I have read of the incident and of his early rebuttals, the whole thing seemed somewhat irregular. And if he as a very senior political leader, cannot see that it was irregular and should not have happened, then I am more than concerned. So be it if it was a lapse in judgement. I can accept that. But if it remains unaddressed, it sets an awful precedence for all our subsequent generations of leaders that such 'white horse' decisions are acceptable and defensible. That's not the road I want our country to go down.

I have actually tried very hard to avoid commenting on the presidential election, but I find it very difficult because it continues to grate upon my conscience. I want my President to represent my country and to function correctly as the custodian of the reserves and a guard against a profligate government. And I am not sure Tony Tan is the man for the job. Sadly though, he may still end up getting the job because of the continued silliness of the other candiates in not wanting to coordinate their efforts for Singapore's sake.

Which of the other three candiates would I vote for? I am not telling you. But two of the three appear to be too driven by their egos for my liking.

Assoc Professor Paul Ananth Tambyah's speech

Reprinted from Temasek Review Emeritus

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Paul Ananth Tambyah, I am an academic infectious diseases physician working at a major teaching hospital. I would like to state from the outset that I am speaking entirely in my personal capacity.

Historically, Singaporeans, especially those in public sector jobs have been very reluctant to speak at major political events except for those organized by the ruling party for fear that it would adversely affect their careers. I am pleased to share that after speaking at the SDP rallies at Boat Quay and Sembawang, my career has not taken a dive, I am not in exile on some island feeding seagulls off Pedra Branca and I am not walking the corridors of Mt Elizabeth Hospital looking for a job.

Since the SDP rallies at Sembawang and Boat Quay, I have received countless messages from all ends of the healthcare spectrum. Allow me to share a few of these actual quotes:

“I am a current Houseman. I just wanted to thank you for speaking out for our state of healthcare in Singapore. Many of us echo your sentiments, but are too timid or too selfish to speak out for our patients. As Singaporeans, we have often been taught to take the pragmatic approach and very often that means to be silent and let the underprivileged fend for themselves, I pray that the day will come when the sole aim of our healthcare system is to serve our people and not fill the coffers.“

From a cancer specialist, “I saw your impassioned speech on the internet and I would like to thank you for voicing the concerns of thousands of doctors in the public sector. I often see patients making treatment decisions based on whether or not they can afford them. This one patient I am looking after decided to stop cancer treatment the moment his medisave account ran dry. He did not want to burden his children. He knew that he was not eligible for additional funding as he had dependents. The only way for him to continue treatment was to tap on his daughter’s medisave accounts. I ask myself if there is indeed fairness in the world. I worry for my 11 month old child’s future. I need to think hard this elections, not for myself, my career but for his future”

From a SPH journalist, “I read your rally speech online, agree with you on many points. Healthcare and education are two major areas that need seriously to be re-looked if we want to build a truly inclusive society. Also, our social safety net…”

These are just a sample of the heartfelt feedback that I have received after the SDP rally speech. It has been very heart warming and encouraging to me to recognize that not all Singaporeans care only about making money.

On the other hand, there have been rumors going around that I was sacked or demoted or reprimanded. I would like to state categorically that this is NOT true. In fact, in the last few weeks, I have received nominations for awards and important administrative appointments.

More importantly from a pragmatic Singaporean point of view, I received my bonus letter last week telling me that I got a thousand dollars more than last year. I also received a letter from NS PC telling me that I was now eligible for a responsibility allowance and I received an award from MINDEF for my service as a volunteer.

Although I have enjoyed working with the SAF in research, education and clinical care in my field of Infectious Diseases, I am also still serving with an infantry brigade as a BMO. In fact, last week, I broke my elbow walking out of the cookhouse to a bus en route to a training visit!

Many in authority in Singapore are trapped in a system which says “Do not rock the boat”. Like the SPH journalists who privately support alternative points of view while publicly producing official spin, many in public sector institutions set aside their own personal beliefs and convictions to “toe the party line”, make minor tweaks to official policies without really addressing the fundamental flaws or unintended consequences of policies which come from above.

I believe that the fundamental flaw in our current system lies in the corporatization of our country and society. In healthcare, we have seen how restructured hospitals are expected to recover costs as far as possible.

I have tried to explain to many in authority that I do not believe that anyone chooses to get sick. There is always the fear of abuse when subsidies are provided liberally. I once asked a panel of senior parliamentarians, which individual would say “Aha, the government is providing free healthcare for children with leukemia – let my child get leukemia so I can enjoy that benefit”.

Healthcare, like education, public transport and defence and security are public goods. Singapore has an outstanding record in maternal and child mortality. That is the result of a massive investment in maternal and child care from the 1950s onwards.

My generation are beneficiaries of that investment, today’s parents are often afraid to have children in case the medical costs bankrupt them especially since the state health insurance policy specifically excludes congenital illnesses.

A corporation is concerned about the bottom line, about maximizing shareholder value while on the other hand, a country or a society is concerned primarily about the wellbeing of the people. The key indicator should not be GDP growth, it should be whether all people – young and old, rich or poor, able bodied or disabled are allowed to reach their fullest potential. There are corporations like Google which believe in “Doing No Evil” and perhaps we can start by being less of a Microsoft and more of a Google!

Investments are based on trust. Singaporeans do have a high degree of trust in the government although recently there have been many questions raised about policies and practices. It is time for the government to trust the people. Philip Yeo who is one of the most outspoken voices of the establishment has said “My greatest fear now is that the Government is terrified of the people.”

That is a fantastic position to be in. The ministers need to recognize that the only reason that they are in their jobs is because we the people put them there. We can dismiss them if we think that they are not performing. Singaporeans are an educated people, a first world society who are savvy enough to know what we want rather than being told what is best for us.

The fundamentals of a society can be changed from the ground up and the online social activism that has demonstrated its vibrancy during the elections is a good start. My rally speech was ignored by the mainstream English media and rebutted partially in the Zaobao but it was widely circulated online among the medical and healthcare community.

The internet has provided an unprecedented level of accountability with ministers being forced to justify to their employers – that is us – the citizens why they have implemented various policies. This is good for Singapore. But change can also come from above.

The highest office in the land is the Presidency of Singapore. The President and his wife look down on us from every school and government office. That is an extraordinary position for someone with moral courage and leadership like Mr Tan Jee Say or someone with guts and an independent mind like Mr Tan Kin Lian. Jee Say sees himself as the conscience of the nation. Kin Lian is someone who will speak for the people. Both, like the SDP, have a clear stand on the issues that matter – on how our money should be spent and how our citizens should be valued.

One person who speaks up can be safely ignored. I think that perhaps is what many hope will happen to me. Ten thousand people speaking up at many different fora, at different times and in different places cannot be ignored.

This is the new era in Singapore politics when more and more citizens start asking questions about justice and equality, about our reserves and about our jobs, about our healthcare and our education. We cannot “sit down and shut up”. We will be heard. Start by choosing a President who puts the people first. Vote for either of them.

Happy National Day. Majulah Singapore!

Who cares about the f***ing F-word?

NTU does it again!
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110801-292019.html
But who really cares about the f***ing F-word nowadays, apparently?

What we care about is the education of an elite crop of graduates who feel that vulgarities are a way of life, and whose vocabulary is so limited that joy and exhilaration is best expressed with a profanity.

So what if she apologises. Shame on you, NTU!

Did Corrinne May's "Song for Singapore" do it?

Not for me it didn't.

Lovely girl with great vocals. But it was too much lounge music to connect emotionally too. And it just lacked the confidence that it could actually be a true Singapore song. So it just too easily went for treacly nationalistic imagery.... Brothers and sisters flying flags together....? Give me a break.

Nope. It just didn't work.

The Kit Chan/Dick Lee song "Home" still worked. Though far from perfect, it had the common sense to stay away from imagery associated with "peace, and prosperity and progress for our nation" kinda stuff. Just simple things about home and family, and what Singapore really meant to all of us. Yeah, home is where the heart is. And of course the river, that unfortunately had stopped flowing since Marina Barrage. Thanks Kit and Dick for that song - one that will I am sure eventually become a classic Singapore song.

Oh, and by the way....someone should arrest the fella who designed Corrinne May's dress that evening.

HAPPY B'DAY SINGAPORE!!!

Teaching a new ball old tricks...

I was reading this interesting account about the new Adidas ball they've been using for the 2010 World Cup. The Jabulani ball.

Not very well received so far. Many complaints. But for intents and purposes, a technologically superior ball compared to previous versions of the football.

I found it quite interesting.

So here's a question to ponder.... is everything better always...better?

I can think of the software upgrades we keep getting. Each versions gets better and more powerful ...but invariably bigger, messier and more difficult to use. In many ways they become less intuitive and we need more keystrokes to get to the same point. Is better, better?

Our work 'software' has the same problem. Office and management 'improvements' keep destabilizing the work process , and I often wonder if productivity is improved.... or actually degraded through these frequent changes.

Seems like there is a certain efficiency in familiarity, and a certain loss in efficiency when we operate on the learning curve. If changes occur frequently, even though they may ideologically be 'improvements', a certain inefficiency is introduced by moving workers from a position of familiarity (and its associated efficiency) to an unfamiliar uncomfortable position on the learning curve.

Not everything that is better, is actually better.

Closer to home....I think our health care system as well as medical education environment needs a period of stability so that we can all start mastering the processes rather than keep chasing endless series of changes.

Good leader, or a bad follower....?

Dr Goh Keng Swee's passing made me ponder a bit about what set him apart so clearly from his contemporaries, and identified him, for me at least, as one of the truly great leaders of his time.

I think it was for me, his clarity of vision and firmness of conviction, and his ability to translate that into down to earth policies that were able to galvanize his followership into achieving wonders for our small island state.

And I think of so much of what's happening in the medical community and our main medical school that disappoints because so much of our 'leadership' appear unable to see beyond blindly following an 'American model'. Where is the vision and self belief that can galvanize our community into achieving true greatness? Instead, the lemming-like dash towards an US residency system continues to baffle everyone about what it is supposed to be achieving. The medical school has been similarly impressive with respect to its pig-headed commitment to policies and pedagogical fads that now is threatening to unravel the very core of medical training.

So here I am wishing instead, that a true leader like Dr Goh can step forward within the medical leadership (MOH or NUS or MOE, or whatever...) and remove the blinkers from their eyes and see the destruction their poor followership has been wreaking on the medical community.

Kit Chan's Home 家 - my all time favourite

The English version

Majulah Singapura

As a post-war baby boomer, who's been here when we were a brit colony to being in Malaysia and then out, I think that painful moment of separation in 1965 turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to us. Some may scoff, but I think it liberated us to be truly able to reach for heights we otherwise might never have scaled. My family and I have definitely been beneficiaries of the 'peace, progress and prosperity' that our little island has made over almost half a century.

I look back now at 44 years, and see that we actually haven't done too badly. And I find enormous confidence that my children and their children can continue to hope for things much better. We have nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to apologize for, and certainly a whole lot to be proud of.

This year I will not be at the NDP, as I have been every National Day, but watching the fireworks from a distance nonetheless with that pounding in my heart and that knot in my throat.

Go for it Singapore!

IVF blunders - Time for a syscheck, Singapore?

Today's Straits Times, prompted by a recent IVF blunder in an UK fertility clinic, carried a report of the rather sloppy processes at such clinics. A recent Daily Mail report can accessed here.

I must say I haven't really thought much about this issue before, but was rather horrified at how frequent mistakes were. The ST report cited a Telegraph report alluding to as much as a staggering 40 mistakes per 10,000 cycles in 2006-07 (up from 15/10,000 in 2003-04). The Daily Mail refers to a report due soon showing 200 such 'serious mistakes' and 'near misses' this year. (The British Fertility Society however without citing figures, reassures that these errors are 'extremely rare'.

I am horrified.

An MOH report 2004/5 on IVF can be found here. In 2002 there were 1569 IVF treatments. Todate we must have done way beyond 10,000 treatments, but I can't find any data on IVF errors in Singapore. Are we that error free? Or have the errors been swept under the carpet somehow?

MOH should enlighten us on how IVF errors are being monitored, or is it that no one wants to know or tell?

MediaCorp in a time warp ...

Seems like the folks in MediaCorp are either very sleepy or living in a time warp. These were spotted on the ChannelNewsAsia website.