Singapore's governance: should MPs only be MPs?

I sent a letter to the Straits Times Forum for publication a few weeks ago. The Forum chose not to publish my letter. I have reproduced the text of my letter below. 

______________

The Straits Times,

Singapore.

April 20, 2014.

To the Editor:

Recently, I had cause to write to my Member of Parliament (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) to seek his assistance with a particular matter. I was disappointed not to receive an acknowledgement of my request for assistance, leave alone any assistance.

It was not until I followed up with an email ten days later that I finally received a response from my MP. His response was upsetting as the text indicated he had neither bothered to fully read my initial communication nor attempted to properly understand my situation.

Perhaps the blasé manner with which my plea for help was treated is due to the competing demands on an MP's time, i.e. maintaining a professional career within a law firm alongside his duties as an elected representative? In light of my experience, it seems appropriate for the authorities to initiate an independent study to determine whether time spent by an MP on his 'external' professional career, say as a lawyer, impinges on his ability to carry out his obligatory duties towards his constituency.

If the government wishes to maintain the trust of the electorate then the attitude reflected by the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh does not help. Ignoring requests for help from a constituent simply widens the perceived gap between the 'ruler' and 'ruled.' It is time the governing party implements and enforces quantitative standards upon its elected representatives, e.g. response times to requests, etc. Such delivery standards are the norm within any efficient managerial establishment, including Singapore's own bureaucracy, and are necessary to maintain Singapore's usually high standards of governance.

Yours sincerely,

Imran Ahmed. 

Singapore’s medical tourism and the law courts

Singaporeans, particularly those involved with Medical Tourism, should take heart from recent news reports that Gleneagles Hospital must pay a patient damages amounting to SGD 250,000 (approximately USD 201,000) by the law courts as compensation for a botched operation. The patient, a Hong Kong resident, claimed aggravated damages for "grave mental anguish, distress and depression."

Certainly, no one wishes to see Singapore become a trigger happy legal environment – where individuals sue each other over the slightest of grievances. However, maintaining professionalism requires accountability. In turn, accountability implies a fair and transparent legal framework. In this regard, the court's decision must be applauded by doctors, patients and hospitals alike.

The Doctor

Awarding damages to a patient for a poorly executed medical procedure sends the right message to everyone. Patients – already nervous about complicated medical surgery – gain comfort from knowing a doctor's scalpel is answerable to local law courts. Hospitals understand the seriousness of maintaining the sanctity of medical records. Doctor's will be more careful undertaking surgeries for fear of paying damages in case something goes wrong. The positive ripples are numerous.

Presently, patients looking at international jurisdictions for medical services may find Singapore less expensive than most European countries. Nonetheless, in today's globalized world, medical tourists have many alternatives available, including several countries cheaper than Singapore (e.g. Thailand).

Still, Singapore's medical industry can take heart from the resounding endorsement by none other than Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dear ruler! The Zimbabwean President seems to visit Singapore for medical attention every few months.  

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com.