The moral compass of the elites

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Without international pressure, will the PAP government voluntarily clamp down on arms transfers made through SG?

Singapore will stop arms transfers without blocking legitimate trade with Myanmar: MFA​

Singapore will continue with efforts to prevent the Myanmar junta from accessing military supplies through the Republic. PHOTO: REUTERS
Varun Karthik

Jun 29, 2024

SINGAPORE – Singapore will continue with efforts to prevent the Myanmar junta from accessing military supplies through the Republic while being mindful about not blocking legitimate trade and transactions with Myanmar as that will hurt civilians there, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said on June 28.
“Legitimate trade and financial links between Singapore and Myanmar are necessary to support the livelihoods of the Myanmar people,” MFA said in a statement.
“We have been very careful to avoid inadvertently causing greater hardship for the Myanmar people.”
The statement came in response to media queries following the release of a report by UN Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews on June 26.
The report, which lauded the city-state for its decisive action in clamping down on both the export of military materials from Singapore and the facilitation of arms transactions by banks here, called for financial institutions to “terminate or freeze all financial relationships with Myanmar’s state-owned banks” while “(undertaking) enhanced due diligence on all business relationships and transactions related to Myanmar”.
MFA said: “Singapore’s policy is to prohibit the transfer of arms to Myanmar and to not authorise the transfer to Myanmar of dual-use items, which have been assessed to have potential military application and where there is a serious risk they may be used to inflict violence against unarmed civilians.”
It added: “At the same time, it is not the intention of the Singapore Government to block legitimate trade with Myanmar. Special Rapporteur Andrews’ findings underscore the effectiveness of Singapore’s policy, especially through the measures imposed by Singapore financial institutions (FIs).”

The ministry said FIs based here “will not facilitate any transactions that involve the sale and transfer of arms to Myanmar”, and that banks here have been applying enhanced due diligence on transactions involving Myanmar entities and individuals.
It noted that the Monetary Authority of Singapore had published a circular in August 2023 providing banks with additional guidance on the measures they should incorporate to better detect and manage sanctions-related risks.
“Singapore FIs also had success in the deployment of data analytics to better identify risks and apply appropriate risk-mitigation measures, in particular around the detection of front and shell companies being used to potentially evade sanctions,” MFA said.
“We await specific and actionable information from the Special Rapporteur’s Office so that we are able to conduct the necessary checks on the leads provided in his latest report, and ensure that our FIs and companies are taking the necessary measures to address the risks posed.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

MOH suspends 2 doctors from making insurance, MediSave claims for 6 months​

The two doctors are from Melissa Teo Surgery at Mount Elizabeth Novena Specialist Centre and Dr Natasha Lim Eye Centre at Royal Square@Novena. ST PHOTOS: GAVIN FOO
Salma Khalik and Judith Tan

Aug 05, 2024

SINGAPORE - The Ministry of Health (MOH) has taken action against six private specialists for overtreating, overclaiming or claiming for procedures that were not done, as “part of MOH’s broader efforts to ensure that healthcare costs and premiums remain affordable for all Singaporeans”.
This is the first time it has done so since the Escalation and Enforcement Framework (EEF), which gives the ministry more teeth to act against errant doctors, was put in place on April 1, 2023.
For their “egregious non-compliances”, two of the doctors and their clinics have been suspended from making claims against MediSave or MediShield Life, including Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), for six months, starting from Aug 5.
The most severe penalty would be to have MOH revoke a doctor’s ability to make claims.
The other four have to undergo in-person training on prevailing MOH guidelines for non-compliance.
Whistle-blowing and analytics brought these cases to MOH’s notice.
The two doctors who were suspended are general surgeon Melissa Teo Ching Ching from Melissa Teo Surgery at Mount Elizabeth Novena Specialist Centre and The Surgical Oncology Clinic at Connexion in Farrer Park, and ophthalmologist Natasha Lim from Dr Natasha Lim Eye Centre at Royal Square@Novena.

Both of them can continue to practise, as well as submit claims to non-IP insurers, including companies that pay for their employees’ treatments.
The MOH spokesman pointed out that for both doctors, IP claims made up a significant portion of their incomes.
The ministry is still reviewing whether to refer them to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), or even the police, for further action.

It did not name the other four doctors, who have to undergo training.
All the claims from these six doctors were reviewed by expert panels of four or five senior doctors from the public and private sectors.
Dr Teo was found to have “severe non-compliance” when she submitted claims under six codes when they were fully covered under just two codes. The inappropriate claim amount she made was $90,000 for the bill of $170,000 – or more than half the bill.
She had been warned previously for a similar offence, but the incident took place before the EEF was set up.
Dr Lim was found guilty of severe non-compliance for six claims, including for procedures for conditions her patients did not have, and also for providing treatments that were not medically necessary.
Two patients underwent refractive lens exchanges where their natural lenses were replaced with artificial ones to provide for better sight. These are not claimable against insurance or MediSave.
However, the claims made were for cataract surgery – which is claimable – when the patients, both in their 40s, either had no cataract or had mild cataract that did not require surgery.

Claims were made for two patients for corneal ectasia, a condition the patients did not have.
When questioned, Dr Lim said the procedure was to prevent corneal ectasia, a condition where the shape of the cornea changes.
The panel of experts said this is not standard care.
The bills for Dr Lim’s four patients amounted to $52,000 – all of which were not claimable.
Dr Lim tried to recover the money from one patient after the MOH review, against the ministry’s instructions. The patient complained to MOH and that was stopped.
All wrongful claims from the six doctors are in the process of being returned to the insurer, MediSave or the patient.
The MOH spokesman said these six cases are “part of a larger and separate review to uncover potential professional misconduct by doctors in their financial practices”. He added that this will not be the last batch of doctors taken to task.
Professor Kenneth Mak, director-general of health at MOH, said: “When doctors make inappropriate claims, we take these very seriously as it causes potential financial and physical harm to the patient.
“Such acts are also not consistent with the core pillars of medical ethics – beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. While these errant doctors constitute a very small proportion of the medical profession, their actions can have negative implications on the reputation of the medical profession.”
He added: “Hence, we need to send a strong signal to the medical profession that we expect all our doctors to abide by high standards, not only in clinical care, but also in their character.”
Since October 2023, MOH’s expert panels have looked at 34 outlier claims.
Of these, 25 claims from 12 doctors were non-compliant. Some of the claims occurred prior to the setting up of the EEF, and those doctors were given a warning.
MOH has expressed concern over the rising cost of premiums for IPs covering treatments at private hospitals.
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said in July that there is a need to break the health insurance vicious circle, including taking action against the minority of doctors making the most egregious and inappropriate insurance claims.
Currently, surveillance of the various MOH schemes to ensure they are carried out appropriately is done by different offices, with different enforcement frameworks.

There is the Claims Management Office’s Claims Adjudication for surgical and medical claims.
The MOH Holdings’ Group Internal Audit (GIA) covers MediShield Life, MediSave, the Community Health Assist Scheme (Chas) and Healthier SG subsidies.
To align the penalties and enforcement approach across all schemes, MOH said it will progressively implement the same EEF for all cases of non-compliance.
It will start with selected MediSave and MediShield surgical claims audited by GIA from Oct 1, and move on to claims made under the Chronic Disease Management Programme, Chas and other schemes from 2025.
MOH said that in addition to EEF sanctions, it may also refer relevant cases to the Commercial Affairs Department under the Singapore Police Force for investigation of potential fraud/cheating offences, or the Singapore Dental Council and the SMC for disciplinary proceedings in respect of potential breaches of their respective ethical codes and ethical guidelines.

---

Why action was taken by MOH against 6 doctors over claims​

1. Dr Melissa Teo Ching Ching​

The Surgical Oncology Clinic at Connexion in Farrer Park and Melissa Teo Surgery at Mount Elizabeth Novena Specialist Centre
She has been suspended from making claims against MediSave, MediShield Life or IPs for six months, starting from Aug 5.
She submitted claims using six Table of Surgical Procedures codes, when two codes were enough to cover the procedure she had done.
The table is a list of about 2,400 procedures for which claims can be made.
The total bill for the patient was $170,000, of which 52 per cent, or about $90,000, was for “inappropriate items”.
This was not her first offence.
She was warned in June 2023 for another non-compliant claim.
MOH said aggravating factors in her case were “repeated non-compliance and recalcitrant behaviour”.

2. Dr Natasha Lim Pei Yee​

Natasha Lim Eye Centre at Royal Square@Novena
She has been suspended from making claims against MediSave, MediShield Life or IPs for six months, starting from Aug 5.
She submitted claims for four cases – two patients treated for both eyes – for cataract surgery.
Reviewing the cases, a panel of experts from the public and private sectors found that the claims were inappropriate as these patients either had no cataract or mild cataract that did not require surgery.
She also claimed for two surgical treatments for corneal ectasia for two patients who did not suffer from that condition.
She told the panel that the treatment was to prevent the condition. The panel said that is not standard care.
An aggravating factor in her case was acting against MOH instructions in trying to recover money from a patient for a claim she was asked to rectify.

3. Doctor C​

Gastroenterologist
He submitted claims for gastroscopy and colonoscopy when only gastroscopy was appropriate, given the patient’s symptoms.
MOH said that in doing both procedures, he “exposed the patient to unnecessary risk of physical harm”.

4. Doctor D​

Cardiologist
The doctor hospitalised two patients for one night, when it was not necessary to do so. They were put through a barrage of tests.
The expert panel assessed the two patients, who were in their 30s, to be at low risk of cardiac conditions.
All the investigations could also be done in an outpatient setting.
MOH said: “The unnecessary admission caused inappropriate claims from MediShield Life and the patients’ MediSave monies.”

5. Doctor E​

Orthopaedic surgeon
The surgeon submitted claims for treating bunions for two patients.
The claims included two under a higher code (which would involve a more complex procedure), and two with multiple codes when a single code was enough. This resulted in inappropriate claims.

6. Doctor F​

Ophthalmologist
The doctor submitted a claim for cataract surgery with a capsular tension ring.
The patient did not need the capsular tension ring, which is for patients who also have other eye problems.
MOH said the doctor exposed the patient “to unnecessary additional risk of physical harm” as well as made inappropriate claims.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Socialite Kim Lim announces pregnancy as a single mother​

Kim Lim broke the news with a video on Instagram which showed her celebrating her birthday and having a gender reveal party. PHOTO: KIMLIMHL/INSTAGRAM

Jan Lee
Correspondent

Aug 07, 2024

SINGAPORE – Singaporean socialite and beauty entrepreneur Kim Lim has announced her pregnancy on social media.
She broke the news with a video on Instagram on Aug 7, which showed her celebrating her birthday and having a gender reveal party with a massive fireworks display on a yacht along the Chao Phraya River in Bangkok, Thailand, on Aug 6. She turned 33 in July.
In the video, Lim, dressed in a white cropped T-shirt and grey sweatpants, was seen crying and touching her baby bump while looking up at the sky. She is said to be five months pregnant after going through rounds of in-vitro fertilisation.
Drones formed words in the sky to wish her a happy birthday. They also formed a cartoon-like image of a dragon to signify the current Chinese zodiac year. And they posed the questions: “Is it a girl? Is it a boy?” The video was cut off before the answer was revealed.
Lim, the daughter of Singaporean billionaire tycoon Peter Lim, has a seven-year-old son, Kyden, from her first marriage with Kho Bin Kai. The pair married in 2017 and divorced in 2020.
She married her second husband Leslie Leow in a lavish, star-studded wedding in February 2022, but they split up two months later.
It is not known who the father of her unborn child is or when her due date is. Given the reference to the dragon zodiac sign, it is likely that she is due within the current zodiac year, which ends on Jan 28, 2025.

In a caption accompanying the video, Lim, who said she had been waiting for this moment for a long time, indicated that she embraced her status as a single mother.
She wrote: “My heart especially goes out to all the single mothers out there. I understand the journey can be incredibly tough, especially when there are fewer resources available for you compared with married couples. The struggle is real, and it’s okay to feel overwhelmed.
“But please know, single mummies, we see you, we recognise your strength and we want you to know that you’re not alone on this journey. We are here for you because we truly care. Your resilience and dedication are inspiring, and together, we can support one another through the challenges.”

The gender reveal party, organised by luxury events planner Lelian Chew, included guests such as local influencer JianHao Tan and his wife Debbie Soon.
Soon posted on Instagram a shot of herself with Tan and Lim, and said: “Oh, how you have planned and longed for this, and watching how you’ve gone through so much for this little dragon makes me emotional. I am over the moon for you, big sis. Little baby is already so loved by us all.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Inflated insurance claims: MOH sends strong signal with action against doctors​

Salma Khalik
Senior Health Correspondent

Two specialists were suspended from making claims against MediSave, MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans for six months. PHOTOS: ST FILE

Aug 08, 2024

SINGAPORE - Six doctors have been taken to task for making wrongful insurance claims against unnecessary treatments, excessive claims and procedures that were never carried out, but the crackdown by the Ministry of Health (MOH) is still ongoing and more doctors are likely to feel the heavy hand of the regulators.
Two specialists, for their severe non-compliance, were suspended from making claims against MediSave, MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) for six months.
The other four private sector specialists have to attend in-person training to refresh their knowledge of what can be claimed from insurance and how claims should be made.
Reactions to the MOH action have been mixed, with some people shocked at such conduct while others sympathised with the doctors, saying that it is easy to make mistakes and what they did was to help patients avoid paying big bills.
Nonetheless, whether or not these were unintentional mistakes, the ministry has indicated it will have little tolerance for wrongful claims that will ultimately lead to higher medical costs for everyone.
Yes, mistakes can happen. But MOH has made clear these erroneous claims are not first offences that draw simply a warning, and may in fact take legal action if such is warranted.
Furthermore, it is incumbent on doctors and clinics to know how to submit claims properly.

Even “honest” mistakes due to lack of knowledge are inexcusable, since the result is to make the patient or insurer pay more than they should. Too many “accidental” excessive claims would result in huge amounts of money wrongfully paid out. The losers are the insurance policyholders, whose premiums will go up.
To give doctors the time to work out the process for making claims, MOH allowed a six-month transition period, where they were not penalised for wrongful claims.
Since that grace period elapsed, MOH has decided that two doctors deserved harsher punishment for their actions – citing “aggravating factors” of repeated non-compliance and recalcitrant behaviour for surgeon Melissa Teo, and ophthalmologist Natasha Lim’s attempt to recover the monies from her patient against the ministry’s instructions.

Dr Teo submitted a claim for one operation under six different codes instead of two as prescribed by the Table of Surgical Procedures (TOSP) codes.
This effectively meant she was making more claims for the same operation than justified.
This was not an unintended mistake. She told The Straits Times that the surgery was complex, involving several organs, and can sometimes take up to 18 hours to complete.
However, the complexity of a procedure is already taken into consideration by the TOSP. The TOSP lists about 2,400 procedures, including those involving multiple organs. The codes also indicate the maximum payout from the basic MediShield Life and MediSave accounts.
MOH said Dr Teo’s claim of $170,000 for the one procedure included $90,000 in “inappropriate claims”.

An orthopaedic surgeon ordered to undergo training had also coded claims wrongly for two patients. He treated them for bunions, submitting claims under four codes each. Two of the codes were for a higher category than the procedures warranted and came with a higher payout than merited. The other two were inappropriately multi-coded when a single code was enough.
In some of the cases, it could be argued that the doctor was helping the patient. Helping a patient game the system could land them both in hot water.
MOH found that Dr Lim had made claims for four cataract operations in patients who either did not have any cataract, or had mild cataract that did not require surgery, among other issues.
The four procedures she actually carried out were to insert refractive lenses into both eyes of both patients to correct their vision. But vision correction, except in very severe cases, is not considered a medically necessary procedure and cannot be claimed against insurance. Cataract surgery, however, can be claimed.
Making a claim for unnecessary procedures is also a no-no. One gastroenterologist performed both gastroscopy and colonoscopy on a patient with gastric symptoms, who needed only the former, which is an examination of the stomach.
It is not unusual for doctors to suggest that patients do both procedures at the same time. Colonoscopy to check for colon cancer is a recommended screening tool. But neither MediShield Life nor IPs pay for screening – only for treatment that is medically indicated.
The doctor’s mistake was to submit claims for both procedures. The correct thing to do would be to submit a claim for the gastroscopy, and bill the patient for the colonoscopy.
Similarly, was the cardiologist who admitted two young patients for a “barrage of tests” instead of carrying out just the appropriate tests in an outpatient setting trying to save his patients’ money?
A panel of senior doctors who reviewed these cases said that not only did the two not need to be admitted given their low level of risk, they also did not need all the tests they were put through.
Then there was the eye doctor whose patient needed only cataract surgery. Instead, on top of that, the ophthalmologist also inserted a capsular tension ring that should have been used only if the patient had other eye problems. In this case, MOH said not only were the claims higher than they should have been, but the patient was also exposed to additional risk.
The vast majority of doctors are conscientious and honest. The six doctors represent less than half a per cent of the more than 2,000 specialists working in the private sector, but their actions do reflect badly on everyone.
Hopefully, by showing it is willing to flex its muscles, MOH has sent a strong warning to doctors to be rigorous with their claims and no more such cases will emerge. It will be a sad day if patients’ trust in the private sector, an integral part of the healthcare system, is eroded by a small minority.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

MaNaDr Clinic’s telemedicine suspended after MOH finds 1sec consultations, numerous MCs issued​

MOH found more than 100,000 teleconsultations involved video calls with patients of one minute or less in duration. PHOTO: MOBILE-HEALTH NETWORK SOLUTIONS

Judith Tan
Correspondent

Aug 16, 2024

SINGAPORE – MaNaDr Clinic has been ordered to suspend its outpatient telemedicine services from Aug 16, over concerns about care quality and stemming from excessively brief consultations.
This comes after preliminary investigations by the Ministry of Health (MOH) found possible wrongdoing, including the issuing of multiple medical certificates (MCs) after a large number of cases seen by the clinic involved teleconsultations that lasted one minute or less.
Citing a sampled month, MOH said it found more than 100,000 teleconsultations involving video calls with patients of one minute or less in duration, with the shortest being only one second.
Such short consultations, the ministry said, raised concerns about the safety and quality of clinical care provided to patients.
MOH also found that following the very short teleconsultations, some patients were issued multiple MCs over a short period of time, typically within a month.
In a sampled month, more than 1,500 patients were given MCs on five or more occasions, with 19 being the highest number issued to a single patient in that month.
While these teleconsultations were short, related case notes contained detailed information that did not appear to correspond with the duration of the teleconsultation carried out.

In other instances, case notes were extremely sparse or brief, potentially compromising the continuity of patient care.
MaNaDr, which has a clinic at City Gate in Beach Road, is operated by Mobile-health Network Solutions, the first Asia-Pacific telehealth company listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
Its website promotes 24/7 access to doctors for online consultations from $8.20. The company claims to have more than 1,500 Singapore doctors and over a million platform users, with over 100,000 monthly teleconsultations and 1.5 million completed.

The website now carries a statement in its footer: “MaNaDr Clinic @ CityGate has been ordered by MOH to stop its teleconsultation service with immediate notice from Aug 16, 2024, until further notice.”
The clinic is currently licensed to provide outpatient medical services through three modes: on its permanent premises, any temporary premises, as well as remotely.
MaNaDr came under MOH’s scrutiny after the ministry received several complaints involving clinically and ethically inappropriate practices, especially those related to its outpatient teleconsultations in the past few months.
MOH is reviewing the clinical consultations of the medical practitioners engaged by MaNaDr Clinic, to assess if there is any potential breach of the Singapore Medical Council’s (SMC) ethical code and guidelines. It said further enforcement action against the clinic and its key appointment holders may be taken.
MaNaDr co-founder Siaw Tung Yeng told The Straits Times that “it would not be appropriate for us to make any comments save to say that we are cooperating with MOH on its ongoing investigations”.
The investigation into MaNaDr comes in the wake of MOH tightening rules over the issuance of MCs by telemedicine platforms.
In an April 22 joint circular to doctors, MOH and SMC said feedback had been received from various employers and government agencies about the “excessive issuance” of MCs following outpatient medical service consultations, particularly teleconsultations.
Among the allegations then were what MOH called “malingering and abusing medical leave privileges”, where MCs were given for non-medical reasons, such as when patients mentioned that they just wanted a certification to skip work or school, and were not sick.
MCs were also repeatedly issued to the same patients, without referring them for physical consultations for further assessment, or following up to check if they were indeed unwell.
MOH said it will also be auditing and monitoring other licensed telemedicine providers, to ensure that teleconsultations are properly conducted in compliance with relevant regulatory requirements.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

7 months’ jail for doctor who submitted false claims, cheated MOH of over $11,000​

Wong Choo Wai was the owner of the Bedok Day & Night Clinic and the Jurong Day & Night Clinic at the time of the offences. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Aug 30, 2024

SINGAPORE – A doctor who submitted more than 100 false claims linked to a government initiative and cheated the Ministry of Health (MOH) of more than $11,000 in total was sentenced to seven months’ jail on Aug 30.
Wong Choo Wai, 53, has made full restitution. His offences involved the Community Health Assist Scheme (Chas), aimed at helping patients receive subsidies for medical as well as dental treatments at participating general practitioner and dental clinics.
Before handing down the sentence, Principal District Judge Thian Yee Sze stressed that the case involved public funds, which must be protected as they are taken from taxpayers.
On June 14, Wong, the owner of the Bedok Day & Night Clinic and the Jurong Day & Night Clinic at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to two cheating charges involving more than $7,000.
The Singaporean also pleaded guilty to one count of making false entries in his patients’ clinical records.
Five other charges, including those relating to the remaining amount, were considered during sentencing.
MOH rolled out Chas in 2000, with two polyclinic groups – SingHealth Polyclinics and National Healthcare Group Polyclinics – administering it on the ministry’s behalf.

On behalf of his Bedok clinic, Wong signed an agreement with SingHealth Polyclinics on Feb 15, 2012, to be part of Chas. On June 15 that year, he signed a similar agreement with the National Healthcare Group Polyclinics on behalf of his Jurong clinic.
Under Chas, Wong’s clinics had to provide the subsidies to the patients upfront during their visits. The clinics would then claim the subsidies on a reimbursement basis from MOH. The subsidies were disbursed through the polyclinic groups.
As part of the initiative, participating clinics must submit their claims through an online portal known as eChas within a month from a patient’s visit.

The clinical and financial details of the claims must also be submitted. These included information such as the patients’ personal data, the dates of visits, the types of conditions treated and the cost breakdown of the claims.
Deputy public prosecutors Ng Jean Ting and Louis Ngia stated in court documents that medical facilities did not have to include case notes, receipts and patient consent forms when they submitted their claims.
However, clinics that took part in Chas had to maintain accurate and complete clinical as well as financial records and supporting documents. These must be presented to MOH Holdings (MOHH) – the appointed auditor by MOH for Chas claims – when MOHH performed audits of the claims that the clinics had submitted.
On at least 40 occasions in 2015, Wong used the eChas portal to submit false claims to MOH, which was duped into disbursing $1,755 to his Bedok clinic. He had falsely claimed to have treated certain patients.
Wong committed similar offences on at least 76 occasions in 2016, and MOH was deceived into delivering $5,872.
On at least 21 occasions between August and December 2016, he also made false entries in his patients’ clinical records, recording that they had consulted him for certain medical ailments when, in fact, they had not.
The prosecutors said: “The accused... falsified these clinical records in order to conceal some of the false Chas claims he had submitted.”
Wong’s offences came to light following MOHH audits in or around February 2017, and an MOH officer alerted the police the following month.
On Aug 30, DPP Ngia asked for Wong to be given between seven and nine months’ jail, adding that he had committed fraud against a public institution.
Defence lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, however, pleaded for his client to be given up to five months’ jail.
He said that Wong had contributed to society and was on the front line during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Wong’s bail has been set at $60,000 and he is expected to begin serving his sentence on Sept 2.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Singaporean who incurred gambling debt ordered to repay Australian casino $33.6m​

Dr Wong Yew Choy incurred the A$43 million debt at The Star Gold Coast Casino (pictured) in Queensland, Australia between July 26 and Aug 2, 2018. PHOTO: THE STAR GOLD COAST/FACEBOOK

Samuel Devaraj

Sep 10, 2024

SINGAPORE – A Singaporean casino high-roller who incurred a multimillion-dollar baccarat debt with The Star Gold Coast Casino has been ordered to repay the casino about A$38.7 million (S$33.6 million).
Dr Wong Yew Choy incurred an A$43 million debt at the casino in Queensland, Australia, between July 26 and Aug 2, 2018, but left Australia on the last day without settling it.
Star Entertainment Queensland, which operates the casino, attempted to recover the debt with a signed blank cheque he had previously given Star Sydney, a related establishment.
Dr Wong had exchanged the cheque for gambling chips in May 2017 as part of a cheque-cashing facility agreement. But the cheque was not used then because he settled his gambling losses on that occasion via a bank deposit.
The Supreme Court in Brisbane heard that when The Star Gold Coast Casino tried to cash the cheque in 2018, it bounced.
It emerged that Dr Wong had instructed his bank on Aug 3, 2018, not to honour any cheque purporting to draw on his account in favour of The Star Gold Coast Casino.
The casino made written demands on him for the amount of A$43,209,853.22 on Oct 16 and Dec 21, 2018, but Dr Wong argued that he was not required to pay the losses incurred due to alleged mistakes made by the baccarat dealers.

He said that he had complained to the casino about the matter and also spoken to the chief operating officer (COO) of The Star Gold Coast Casino on July 30, 2018.
Dr Wong said that during the conversation with the COO, he was allegedly told he would not have to pay any losses to date and that he could continue gambling.
The Star Gold Coast Casino said they did look into his complaints and issued a letter of apology, signed by the COO, on Aug 1, 2018. But there was no mention of wiping Dr Wong’s debt.
The casino operator had sued Dr Wong in the Singapore High Court in February 2019 to recover the losses but was unsuccessful, as the law prohibits the recovery of gaming debts, subject to certain exceptions.
The company then sued Dr Wong in Queensland, where he applied but failed to have the lawsuit dismissed or obtain a stay.
He then took his case to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed it with costs.
In her ruling, Justice Melanie Hindman found that the casino had made out its claim for recovery of the cheque-cashing facility money as loans.
Dr Wong is required to pay the casino A$38,659,853.22, plus interest and indemnity costs.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

The PAP MPs in NTUC's Central Committee: Ng Chee Meng, Heng Chee How, Desmond Tan,
The PAP MPs, former PAP MPs and ministers on the board of directors of NTUC Enterprise: Lim boon Heng, Lim Swee Say, Ng Chee Meng
are all sleeping!

NTUC central committee not aware of capital reduction plan in Allianz-Income deal: Desmond Tan​

NTUC Enterprise went into the deal to strengthen Income in the longer run as it recognised the challenges that Income had been facing. ST PHOTO: AZMI ATHNI

Goh Yan Han
Political Correspondent

Oct 17, 2024

SINGAPORE – The labour movement’s central committee did not know of the plan to return $1.85 billion to shareholders under the Allianz-Income deal before it was mentioned in Parliament on Oct 14, said NTUC deputy secretary-general Desmond Tan.
Speaking in Parliament on Oct 16, Mr Tan said the central committee had been briefed by Income Insurance and its parent company, NTUC Enterprise, on the strategic imperatives of the deal, but the capital reduction plan was not highlighted to it.
As Income is a non-listed public company, it would have to comply with the legal responsibility of non-disclosure of commercially sensitive information on Allianz’s plans post-acquisition, he said.
Mr Tan made the point in response to questions from Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai and Nominated MP Raj Joshua Thomas during the debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, adding that Income is subject to the Singapore Code on Take-overs and Mergers.
The capital reduction plan is a key factor in the surprising turn of events that saw the Government block the hotly debated $2.2 billion deal between Income and German insurer Allianz that was first made public in July.
Allianz had made an offer to buy a controlling stake of at least 51 per cent in Income.
On Oct 14 in Parliament, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong said in a ministerial statement that the Government had decided it would not be in the public interest for the transaction to proceed in its current form.

While the Government does not have concerns over Allianz’s standing or suitability to acquire a majority stake in Income, the concerns lie in the terms and structure of this specific transaction, particularly in the context of Income’s corporatisation exercise, he said.
Mr Tong added that before the deal was raised in Parliament in August, his ministry had not seen the plan for Income to return some $1.85 billion in cash to its shareholders within the first three years after completion of the transaction.
During the debate on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill on Oct 16, Mr Tan explained why NTUC had supported the proposed deal.

When NTUC was briefed on the proposal, it was difficult for the unions to learn that Income was planning to sell a majority stake to Allianz, given the company’s history as the labour movement’s first social enterprise, said Mr Tan, who is Senior Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office.
But NTUC Enterprise went into the deal to strengthen Income in the longer run as it recognised the challenges that Income had been facing amid a more competitive and tightly regulated insurance landscape, he noted.
“The NTUC central committee agreed with the strategic intent and approached it in good faith,” he said.
He also clarified that NTUC, as a major shareholder of NTUC Enterprise, does not get involved in the day-to-day running of operations.

It delegates to the board of NTUC Enterprise the responsibility of making decisions pertaining to all businesses.
Mr Tan also noted that Second Minister for Finance Chee Hong Tat had acknowledged that NTUC had acted in good faith and in the interest of workers and members.
“If you look at it, the Government and NTUC share the same strategic intent and broader objectives for Income and the co-op movement,” said Mr Tan.
“But as far as the specifics of this transaction are concerned, there is now perhaps a difference in view,” he added, referring to the concerns Mr Tong had raised about the deal.
He added that NTUC has reviewed the matter and accepts the Government’s considerations and decisions on the proposed transaction.
“We note that the Government remains open to any arrangement that Income may wish to pursue, whether with Allianz or any other partners, so long as the concerns highlighted are fully addressed.”
Mr Tan added that Income has committed to study carefully the implications of the ministerial statement by Mr Tong and the amendments of the Insurance Act, and will work closely with the relevant stakeholders to decide on the next course of action.
“The labour movement – which includes NTUC Enterprise and NTUC – is united in (its) purpose and we will continue to do right by our people, and what is necessary for the longer-term interest to serve workers and the people of Singapore,” he said.
In a Facebook post on the evening of Oct 16, labour chief Ng Chee Meng said the decision to halt the Allianz-Income deal and its implications were of key concern to the labour movement and union leaders who had supported the deal.
He added that Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, Mr Tong and Mr Chee held an “honest and productive engagement” with NTUC and union leaders to clarify issues after the Parliament sitting.
“NTUC respects and accepts the Government’s decision that the transaction cannot proceed in its current form,” he said.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Need to be more rigorous when examining future proposals after failed Allianz-Income deal​

Oct 18, 2024

Some Singaporeans are understandably relieved at the timely intervention by the Government to block the contentious $2.2-billion deal between NTUC Income and German insurer Allianz on concerns over the deal structure and the ability of the local insurer to continue its social mission (Parliament passes Bill enabling Govt to block Allianz-Income deal; and NTUC central committee not aware of capital reduction plan in Allianz-Income deal: Desmond Tan, both Oct 16).
It is puzzling that the NTUC central committee was briefed on the strategic synergies of the deal for Allianz to buy a controlling stake in Income, but not on the capital reduction plan to return $1.85 billion to shareholders.
As Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong said, Singapore continues to be open to future new proposals if the terms and structure of the proposed deal are robust, protect the public interest, and do not compromise the ability of Income to carry out its social mission.
Hopefully, the takeaways from this failed deal will provide food for thought for a more holistic, rigorous and thoughtful methodology with which to screen investments and assess future proposals.

Woon Wee Min

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Questions to be answered in the Allianz-Income saga​

The deal between Allianz and Income Insurance was called off by the Singapore Government. ST PHOTO: ARIFFIN JAMAR
Angela Tan and Kang Wan Chern

Oct 18, 2024

SINGAPORE - A plan for German insurer Allianz to buy a majority stake in Singapore’s Income Insurance went awry when a key piece of information belatedly came to light.
Allianz’s plan to return $1.85 billion in cash to shareholders within three years after the transaction in a capital reduction exercise proved to be a sticking point, prompting the Government to urgently pass new laws on Oct 16 to halt the deal.
Had the planned deal gone through, Allianz would have taken a stake of least 51 per cent in Income. NTUC Enterprise would have seen its stake in Income shaved from 72.8 per cent to between 21.8 per cent and 49 per cent, depending on how minority shareholders tender their shares.
The changes to the Insurance Act allow the minister in charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore to withhold approval in cases that involve an insurer that is a cooperative or is linked to one.
Income used to be a cooperative before it changed its legal structure to a company in 2022, and parent NTUC Enterprise is a cooperative.
NTUC Enterprise, in turn, is set up by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the Singapore Labour Foundation and their affiliated unions.
In a four-hour debate on Oct 16, MPs from both the ruling and opposition parties – as well as Nominated MPs – raised several points related to Income and NTUC entities.

Industry experts who spoke to The Straits Times also questioned the role of those involved in the deal.
ST examines the issues and some of the questions that remain unanswered.

Communication about the capital reduction plan​

NTUC deputy secretary-general Desmond Tan said on Oct 16 that the labour movement’s central committee did not know of the insurers’ plan to return $1.85 billion to shareholders before it was made known in Parliament on Oct 14.

He was responding to questions posed by backbenchers including Progress Singapore Party’s Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai and Nominated MP Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Leong had asked about when NTUC’s leaders were briefed on the offer. “If the NTUC central committee did not know the full details, then why did NE (NTUC Enterprise) and Income not brief them on the full details of the transaction?”
Mr Thomas pointed out that NTUC’s secretary-general Ng Chee Meng and president K. Thanaletchimi had issued a statement on Aug 5 that Income can continue to fulfil its social mission only if it has access to additional resources and the ability to scale.
“Did Income brief the NTUC leadership of the proposed initiative to reduce share capital?” he asked.
Mr Tan said that NTUC is a major shareholder of NTUC Enterprise and does not get involved in day-to-day operations, with business decisions delegated to the board of NTUC Enterprise.
In a nod to the questions that MPs posed to NTUC, Income and NTUC Enterprise during the debate, he said: “I will take these comments and questions back... to the relevant entities, so they can find a suitable occasion to address them.”

Singapore Management University’s Associate Professor Eugene Tan told ST that “it boggles the mind that NTUC’s central committee did not know of the capital reduction”.
He noted that NTUC’s Mr Ng also sits on NTUC Enterprise’s board.
“Serious questions must be asked on why this vital part of the proposed deal was not prominently surfaced by NTUC Enterprise to Income’s board and shareholders, as well as the authorities,” Prof Tan said.
Professor Lawrence Loh, director of NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance and Sustainability, added that the Government could also consider improving its regulatory coordination.

Accountability and leadership​

Questions were also raised about how those involved in the decision-making process might be held accountable for how the proposed deal did not match up to earlier assurances made by Income.
During Income’s corporatisation in 2022, it had obtained an exemption from the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), which oversees the governance of co-ops, to carry over a surplus of $2 billion to the new entity.
Then, Income also told MCCY that it was aiming to build up capital resources and enhance its financial strength.
Mr Thomas asked in Parliament if the Government would be taking steps to ascertain how Income could “negotiate, agree and attempt” to execute a deal with Allianz that was the “opposite” of Income’s representations to MCCY.
He noted that the chairman and chief executive of Income at the time of corporatisation and announcement of the proposed deal with Allianz were the same people.
“How involved were they and the senior management of Income in, on the one hand, making representations to MCCY, and, on the other, arranging the deal with Allianz? Did they not see the contradictions?” Mr Thomas said.
Mr Leong also outlined concerns in Parliament over what NTUC leaders had represented to the public about the deal, when there appeared to be a lack of safeguards on the ability of Income to carry out its social mission.
“The leaders of NTUC, NE and Income owe the public a more substantial explanation on this,” he said.
Prof Tan said that a thorough explanation of how things went wrong is warranted. “Otherwise, the next proposed merger or acquisition is going to have stakeholders be wary from the get-go.”
He also raised doubts about Income’s financial adviser Morgan Stanley. “Did they not see the capital reduction as raising serious questions about Income’s corporatisation and its social mission?”
Income’s chairman Ronald Ong is also chairman of Morgan Stanley’s South-east Asia business. Income said in July that he had recused himself from the decision when Morgan Stanley was appointed as the financial adviser for the deal.
NMP Neil Parekh said during the Oct 16 debate that he failed to understand how Income does not have larger market share and greater pricing power, and said the company needed “strengthening”.
To this end, he suggested that “a new Singaporean-controlled board of directors with real talent, real experience and a real vision” could be put in place.
They could then be tasked with developing a “coherent five-to-seven-year plan to make Income Insurance a world-class company operating profitably not only in Singapore but also in other countries in Asia ex-Japan”, he said.

What next for Income and its shareholders​

MPs also called for explanations of how Income will continue to operate profitably and fulfil its social mission going forward.
Workers’ Party MP He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) asked the Government to articulate what it sees as Income’s social mission now, and in the future, given the evolving and competitive insurance landscape.
She asked the Government to redefine Income’s social mission as a life or health insurer to avoid the risk of it focusing only on delivering its present obligations, such as participating in national-level insurance programmes and providing low-cost schemes to union members.
“If we leave the question of what is ‘social mission’ unanswered, it risks presenting these specific matters as central, while missing the wider picture of how Income is fundamentally able to fulfil its social mission as an insurer,” she said.
Mr Thomas said the question of how Income can leverage its corporate structure to meet social objectives may need to be looked at, adding: “I think that Income has a lot of explaining to do.”
Prof Tan noted that had the capital reduction gone ahead, NTUC Enterprise would have a significant cash infusion of about $1 billion that it otherwise would have no access to, and which it could then deploy elsewhere.
“The losers, however, would be Income and Singaporeans because of the real risk that Income would erase or lose its social DNA. As a minority shareholder, NTUC Enterprise could struggle to keep Income’s social mission alive,” he said.
For now, it seems that “elements within NTUC have lost sight of the purpose of its existence. There seems to be a quest for profits that is at odds with NTUC’s purpose”, Prof Tan added.

Sequence of key events​

July 17: German insurer Allianz offers to buy a stake of at least 51 per cent in Income Insurance in a $2.2 billion cash deal.
Mid-July: Allianz, Income and its parent NTUC Enterprise submit plans to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) around the time the offer was made. It includes details about Income returning $1.85 billion in cash to shareholders within the first three years after the deal wraps up. This was not publicly disclosed.
July 25: NTUC Enterprise chairman Lim Boon Heng says that Income will continue to provide affordable insurance after the deal. The statement comes after some former executives and members of the public raised concerns about the insurer’s social mission.
July 27: Income issues a statement that its chairman Ronald Ong had recused himself when Morgan Stanley was appointed as the financial adviser for the deal, after questions were raised about it.
July 30: Mr Lim, Income chief executive Andrew Yeo and Income board’s lead independent director Joy Tan further clarify concerns over the deal in an interview with ST and in a separate joint statement.
Aug 4: NTUC Enterprise and Income rebuts an open letter by former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Suee Chieh, in which he objected to the Allianz offer.
MCCY Minister Edwin Tong writes in a Facebook post that co-ops as social enterprises must be financially sustainable in order to better serve their members in a fast changing economic environment.
Aug 5: NTUC’s secretary-general Ng Chee Meng and president K Thanaletchimi say in a joint statement that the central committee was briefed on the deal, and outlined why Income needed to become more competitive.
Aug 6: The deal is debated in Parliament. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is unaware of the post-transaction details at this time.
After Aug 6: MCCY continues to do due diligence and enquire further into proposed deal. MAS provides MCCY with further details, including Income’s capital optimisation plan as the regulator felt it could be relevant to the ministry’s views on the deal. MCCY had not seen this information earlier.
Oct 14: MCCY minister Edwin Tong tells Parliament that the Government will halt the deal in its current form on concerns over its structure and ability of Income to continue serving its social mission. A Bill to amend the Insurance Act is tabled on an urgent basis.
In a late statement, Allianz says it will consider revising the deal structure. Income and NTUC Enterprise say they will work closely with stakeholders on the next course of action.
Oct 16: NTUC Deputy Secretary-General Desmond Tan tells Parliament that NTUC’s central committee was unaware of the capital extraction plan and learnt of it on Oct 14. MPs debate the issue for nearly four hours, and vote to pass the Bill.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Head of Grab’s fintech arm jailed 12 days, fined for drink driving, crashing into traffic light​

Wong Wenbin had almost double the prescribed limit of alcohol in his system during the accident. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO

Nadine Chua

Oct 24, 2024

SINGAPORE – The head and managing director of Grab’s fintech arm, GrabFin, was sentenced to 12 days’ jail on Oct 24 for drink driving and crashing into a traffic light.
Wong Wenbin, 42, who had almost double the prescribed limit of alcohol in his system during the accident, was also fined $5,000 and disqualified from driving for 36 months.
The court heard he had at least 63 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath, which exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes.
On Aug 17, 2023, at around 9pm, Wong was at Party World KTV in Havelock Road with his colleagues where he drank two glasses of red wine.
He had his last drink at around midnight before driving home.
At around 12.50am, Wong turned right along Havelock Road towards the Central Expressway junction of Outram Road and crashed his car into a traffic light.
Photos of the accident produced in court showed a badly damaged red BMW with its airbags deployed. The traffic light it crashed into was tilted to the side.

The court heard that damage to the traffic light was around $2,100, and Wong spent around $15,000 to $20,000 to repair his car.
Seeking a jail term of two to four weeks, the prosecution said Wong was a serious offender as he drove drunk and caused an accident barely 50 minutes after his last drink.
He had previous records of speeding and failing to stop at a red light.

The police prosecutor said a strong deterrence was needed in such offences given the rise in drink driving cases in Singapore.
There were three fatal drink driving accidents in the first half of 2022, which rose to eight in 2023 and nine in 2024 during the same period.
In mitigation, Wong’s lawyer Danny Quah sought that his client do 120 hours of community service in lieu of a jail term.
He said: “Instead of being sent to jail, he can be an ambassador for road safety so he can influence others and make an impact in society. When someone does something wrong, he is in a position to help other people to not make the same mistake as him.”
District Judge Shawn Ho then asked: “What is stopping your client from volunteering to be an ambassador of road safety, without a court order?”
In response, Mr Quah said it would send a deterrent signal for the community service to be mandatory, but acknowledged it was a slightly unusual request.
Mr Quah also noted the traffic light was fixed the next morning and did not severely inconvenience road users.
But Judge Ho said this was testament to the efficiency of the Land Transport Authority and did not view it as a mitigating factor.
The offence of drink driving carries a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000 or jail time of up to 12 months, or both.
Repeat offenders can be fined between $5,000 and $20,000 and jailed for up to two years.