I refer to the 8 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Lasting Power of Attorney system has adequate safeguards” and the 9 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Another LPA storm brews over a rich person’s assets”.
One day after Minister Chan Chun Sing declared that our LPA system has adequate safeguards, another contentious LPA case emerges.
Ms Sylvia Lim’s suggestion to reinstate the option to inform others of an LPA application doesn’t contradict Mr Chan’s concern that “not everyone wants to inform certain family members of their decision.” If a person doesn’t want to inform certain family members, he can simply uncheck the option to inform others. Better still, the applicant should simply be allowed to list the names and NRIC of those he wants to inform in the LPA application. In that way, those whom the applicant doesn’t want to inform won’t be informed while those whom the applicant wants to inform will be informed.
Saying it is up to the certificate issuer to do the job professionally doesn’t solve the problem if there is an inherent weakness in the system that has nothing to do with the professionalism of the certificate issuer. If the medical practitioner or psychiatrist okays the LPA application, what professional reason has the certificate issuer got to say no?
The recent LPA commotion involving Madam Chung has shown that a medical practitioner’s or psychiatrist’s assessment may not be sufficient to validate an LPA application as the independence of the medical or psychiatrist assessment can be easily doubted later on by the authorities. If the whole basis of the LPA which is the medical or psychiatrist assessment can be so easily doubted later on, doesn’t it show that the fundamental basis of the LPA is actually quite weak?
Given that our LPA system is only four years old, it should not be deemed as being cast in stone but should be refined as problems surface along the way. Ms Lim has provided some good suggestions but our minister conveniently brushed them off, ignored obvious issues and refused to resolve them. This reminds us of the period between 2007 and 2011 when the people constantly highlighted the problem of runaway property prices but the PAP just kept turning a blind eye until they were told in no uncertain terms through the ballot box.
To avoid the system becoming overly onerous, additional checks can be confined to LPA cases that do not conform to a predefined set of guidelines or that which confound common sense and experience. For example, it would be unusual for someone to appoint an unrelated person whom he or she has known for less than 5 years as the LPA. This should raise a red flag and prompt for more investigations to ascertain the validity of the application. This is consistent with the principles of both law and accountancy to always err on the side of caution.
Mr Chan should list the countries that have less onerous LPA systems than ours. The last thing we want is to compare with Uganda or Afghanistan.
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/lasting-power-of-attorney-system-adequate-ha-ha/
One day after Minister Chan Chun Sing declared that our LPA system has adequate safeguards, another contentious LPA case emerges.
Ms Sylvia Lim’s suggestion to reinstate the option to inform others of an LPA application doesn’t contradict Mr Chan’s concern that “not everyone wants to inform certain family members of their decision.” If a person doesn’t want to inform certain family members, he can simply uncheck the option to inform others. Better still, the applicant should simply be allowed to list the names and NRIC of those he wants to inform in the LPA application. In that way, those whom the applicant doesn’t want to inform won’t be informed while those whom the applicant wants to inform will be informed.
Saying it is up to the certificate issuer to do the job professionally doesn’t solve the problem if there is an inherent weakness in the system that has nothing to do with the professionalism of the certificate issuer. If the medical practitioner or psychiatrist okays the LPA application, what professional reason has the certificate issuer got to say no?
The recent LPA commotion involving Madam Chung has shown that a medical practitioner’s or psychiatrist’s assessment may not be sufficient to validate an LPA application as the independence of the medical or psychiatrist assessment can be easily doubted later on by the authorities. If the whole basis of the LPA which is the medical or psychiatrist assessment can be so easily doubted later on, doesn’t it show that the fundamental basis of the LPA is actually quite weak?
Given that our LPA system is only four years old, it should not be deemed as being cast in stone but should be refined as problems surface along the way. Ms Lim has provided some good suggestions but our minister conveniently brushed them off, ignored obvious issues and refused to resolve them. This reminds us of the period between 2007 and 2011 when the people constantly highlighted the problem of runaway property prices but the PAP just kept turning a blind eye until they were told in no uncertain terms through the ballot box.
To avoid the system becoming overly onerous, additional checks can be confined to LPA cases that do not conform to a predefined set of guidelines or that which confound common sense and experience. For example, it would be unusual for someone to appoint an unrelated person whom he or she has known for less than 5 years as the LPA. This should raise a red flag and prompt for more investigations to ascertain the validity of the application. This is consistent with the principles of both law and accountancy to always err on the side of caution.
Mr Chan should list the countries that have less onerous LPA systems than ours. The last thing we want is to compare with Uganda or Afghanistan.
http://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/lasting-power-of-attorney-system-adequate-ha-ha/
