- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Comments on 2 ST reports on 1 Oct 2014[/h]
October 3rd, 2014 |
Author: Contributions
ST
Susan Lim
I refer to the 1 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Susan Lim case: Court slashes SMC’s cost claims”.
Dr Susan Lim who was found guilty of overcharging two years ago ended up being suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000 by the SMC.
Now that the SMC has been found guilty of overcharging too, why is there no similar suspension for three years, censure and fine of $10,000 for the SMC?
Why the double standards?
Niece’s court action adjourned
I refer to the 1 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Niece’s court action against former tour guide adjourned”.
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is reportedly taking action to suspend both Hedy Mok’s and Yang Yin’s Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) and to also adjourn the court case against Yang Yin so that an independent medical assessment of Madam Chung can be made to assess whether she has the mental capacity to revoke the LPA given to Yang Yin two years ago.
The first question is: why adjourn the court case against Yang Yin? Suppose the OPG finds that Madam Chung doesn’t have the mental capacity to revoke Yang Yin’s LPA or to grant a new LPA to Hedy Mok, does that mean Yang Yin no longer has to answer for his purported involvement in selling off many of Madam Chung’s antiques and purported splurging on himself while neglecting Madam Chung? Is Madam Chung’s knowledge of herself being leeched required before prosecution can be brought against the leech? Madam Chung doesn’t know she is being leeched means no urgent need or no need to prosecute the leech?
If the OPG finds that Madam Chung doesn’t have the mental capacity to revoke Yang Yin’s LPA, does that mean everything goes back to square one and Yang Yin gets to keep his LPA and control of Madam Chung’s assets? That would be scary because it would mean that a person who regrets his decision and wishes to revoke an LPA granted to the wrong person may end up being prevented from doing so by the OPG. The LPA effectively becomes a death sentence, not a life saver it is touted to be. The OPG will probably just say it is up to the individual to choose the right person for LPA.
Why does the OPG question the independence of the medical assessment by Madam Mok’s doctor but not question the independence the medical assessment by Yang Yin’s doctor? If the difference is due to Madam Chung’s dementia condition, then shouldn’t OPG also question the independence of the medical assessment by doctors certifying Madam Chung to be suffering from dementia? Where is the sense of confidence in the LPA system when the independence of doctors’ medical assessments in LPA cases can be so easily questioned? Perhaps right from the start, the OPG should have a list of certified doctors for LPA cases.
Does dementia develop overnight? Only two short years separate the granting of the first LPA to Yang Yin and Madam Chung’s subsequent dementia two years later. Is it not possible that Madam Chung was already beginning to suffer from dementia two years ago when she signed the first LPA?
Heck, there’s no need for dementia, day in day out, we read about cases of perfectly sensible ladies falling victim to all kinds of scams – love scams, money scams, sex scams.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
Susan Lim
I refer to the 1 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Susan Lim case: Court slashes SMC’s cost claims”.
Dr Susan Lim who was found guilty of overcharging two years ago ended up being suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000 by the SMC.
Now that the SMC has been found guilty of overcharging too, why is there no similar suspension for three years, censure and fine of $10,000 for the SMC?
Why the double standards?
Niece’s court action adjourned
I refer to the 1 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Niece’s court action against former tour guide adjourned”.
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is reportedly taking action to suspend both Hedy Mok’s and Yang Yin’s Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) and to also adjourn the court case against Yang Yin so that an independent medical assessment of Madam Chung can be made to assess whether she has the mental capacity to revoke the LPA given to Yang Yin two years ago.
The first question is: why adjourn the court case against Yang Yin? Suppose the OPG finds that Madam Chung doesn’t have the mental capacity to revoke Yang Yin’s LPA or to grant a new LPA to Hedy Mok, does that mean Yang Yin no longer has to answer for his purported involvement in selling off many of Madam Chung’s antiques and purported splurging on himself while neglecting Madam Chung? Is Madam Chung’s knowledge of herself being leeched required before prosecution can be brought against the leech? Madam Chung doesn’t know she is being leeched means no urgent need or no need to prosecute the leech?
If the OPG finds that Madam Chung doesn’t have the mental capacity to revoke Yang Yin’s LPA, does that mean everything goes back to square one and Yang Yin gets to keep his LPA and control of Madam Chung’s assets? That would be scary because it would mean that a person who regrets his decision and wishes to revoke an LPA granted to the wrong person may end up being prevented from doing so by the OPG. The LPA effectively becomes a death sentence, not a life saver it is touted to be. The OPG will probably just say it is up to the individual to choose the right person for LPA.
Why does the OPG question the independence of the medical assessment by Madam Mok’s doctor but not question the independence the medical assessment by Yang Yin’s doctor? If the difference is due to Madam Chung’s dementia condition, then shouldn’t OPG also question the independence of the medical assessment by doctors certifying Madam Chung to be suffering from dementia? Where is the sense of confidence in the LPA system when the independence of doctors’ medical assessments in LPA cases can be so easily questioned? Perhaps right from the start, the OPG should have a list of certified doctors for LPA cases.
Does dementia develop overnight? Only two short years separate the granting of the first LPA to Yang Yin and Madam Chung’s subsequent dementia two years later. Is it not possible that Madam Chung was already beginning to suffer from dementia two years ago when she signed the first LPA?
Heck, there’s no need for dementia, day in day out, we read about cases of perfectly sensible ladies falling victim to all kinds of scams – love scams, money scams, sex scams.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
Straits Times, Susan Lim case: Court slashes SMC’s cost claims, 1 Oct 2014
TWO years back, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) had found surgeon Susan Lim guilty of overcharging. In an ironic twist, the High Court ruled that the legal bills sought by SMC from Dr Lim were themselves inflated, and slashed them from $1.33 million to $317,000.
The bills claimed were for work done by the council’s lawyers and other costs related to two disciplinary committees brought against Dr Lim, as well as her appeal to the Court of Three Judges.
Dr Lim, 59, had been probed by the committees for overcharging a member of the Brunei royal family for medical treatment.
In 2012, she was found guilty of professional misconduct, suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000 by the SMC. Her appeal to the Court of Three Judges was dismissed last year.
The legal bills claimed by SMC were examined and argued over two days in July before High Court Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee, who issued her decision grounds last month.
SMC had sought some $900,000 for work done by its lawyers at the two disciplinary committee hearings led by Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo and lawyers Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee respectively.
Assistant Registrar Lee was not convinced by the evidence and reduced the sum to $180,000. She also cut the $150,000 legal bill sought by SMC against Dr Lim for the appeal hearing to $70,000.
The court also disagreed with the sums sought by SMC for the legal assessors hired to advise it on points of law for the two committees. It ruled that Dr Lim should pay SMC only $22,000 of the $235,000 invoiced by the assessor for the second committee.
The legal assessor for the first committee had billed $49,200, which the court pared to $45,000.
Separately, the bills for two expert witnesses set at some $52,000 were also slashed to $14,000. Ring binders for which SMC had priced at $6 per unit for Dr Lim to pay were cut to $2.50 per unit after the court found it had used the cheaper version in past hearings.
Among other things, Dr Lim’s lawyer, Mr Paul Tan, had objected to the $900,000 bill for the lawyers, pointing out there was provision to pay only one lawyer, and not two.
But lawyer Melanie Ho countered for SMC that the costs claimed was for one lawyer only at each stage of the inquiry. For instance, Senior Counsel Yeo presented the opening statement and preliminary arguments in the first hearing, while Ms Ho led evidence in the prosecution’s case.
But Assistant Registrar Lee ruled “that such an interpretation of costs of one counsel/ solicitor cannot be allowed”, as SMC had not been given permission by the disciplinary committee to claim fees for more than one lawyer.
She also viewed with “great circumspection” the claims by SMC’s lawyers that some 1,900 hours and $1.229 million in total time cost was incurred for the disciplinary committee hearings.
SMC, which is understood to be appealing against the decision, declined comment when contacted yesterday.
TWO years back, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) had found surgeon Susan Lim guilty of overcharging. In an ironic twist, the High Court ruled that the legal bills sought by SMC from Dr Lim were themselves inflated, and slashed them from $1.33 million to $317,000.
The bills claimed were for work done by the council’s lawyers and other costs related to two disciplinary committees brought against Dr Lim, as well as her appeal to the Court of Three Judges.
Dr Lim, 59, had been probed by the committees for overcharging a member of the Brunei royal family for medical treatment.
In 2012, she was found guilty of professional misconduct, suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000 by the SMC. Her appeal to the Court of Three Judges was dismissed last year.
The legal bills claimed by SMC were examined and argued over two days in July before High Court Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee, who issued her decision grounds last month.
SMC had sought some $900,000 for work done by its lawyers at the two disciplinary committee hearings led by Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo and lawyers Melanie Ho and Lim Wei Lee respectively.
Assistant Registrar Lee was not convinced by the evidence and reduced the sum to $180,000. She also cut the $150,000 legal bill sought by SMC against Dr Lim for the appeal hearing to $70,000.
The court also disagreed with the sums sought by SMC for the legal assessors hired to advise it on points of law for the two committees. It ruled that Dr Lim should pay SMC only $22,000 of the $235,000 invoiced by the assessor for the second committee.
The legal assessor for the first committee had billed $49,200, which the court pared to $45,000.
Separately, the bills for two expert witnesses set at some $52,000 were also slashed to $14,000. Ring binders for which SMC had priced at $6 per unit for Dr Lim to pay were cut to $2.50 per unit after the court found it had used the cheaper version in past hearings.
Among other things, Dr Lim’s lawyer, Mr Paul Tan, had objected to the $900,000 bill for the lawyers, pointing out there was provision to pay only one lawyer, and not two.
But lawyer Melanie Ho countered for SMC that the costs claimed was for one lawyer only at each stage of the inquiry. For instance, Senior Counsel Yeo presented the opening statement and preliminary arguments in the first hearing, while Ms Ho led evidence in the prosecution’s case.
But Assistant Registrar Lee ruled “that such an interpretation of costs of one counsel/ solicitor cannot be allowed”, as SMC had not been given permission by the disciplinary committee to claim fees for more than one lawyer.
She also viewed with “great circumspection” the claims by SMC’s lawyers that some 1,900 hours and $1.229 million in total time cost was incurred for the disciplinary committee hearings.
SMC, which is understood to be appealing against the decision, declined comment when contacted yesterday.
Straits Times, Niece’s court action against former tour guide adjourned, 1 Oct 2014
THE court action by Madam Hedy Mok to strip former China tour guide Yang Yin of control of her wealthy aunt’s assets was yesterday adjourned by nearly a month.
This is to allow a separate court application by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to be settled first.
On Friday, the Family Court will hear whether to suspend the powers given to Madam Mok and Mr Yang to act on behalf of the widow.
By suspending their roles, the OPG can step in to get an independent medical assessment of 87-year-old Madam Chung Khin Chun, whose assets are believed to be worth $40 million.
She was diagnosed with dementia this year and the OPG wants to know if she has the mental capacity to revoke the LPA on her own.
Madam Mok, a 60-year-old tour agency owner with whom Madam Chung has been living since Aug 21, told The Straits Times: “While I understand that the OPG must have its reason for the step that it took, I hope this gets sorted out soon.” She added that her aunt’s well-being comes first.
Madam Mok has accused Mr Yang of manipulating her aunt into handing him a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) which gave him control of her assets.
Mr Yang moved into Madam Chung’s $30 million bungalow in 2009, a year after acting as her private tour guide during a trip to China. In 2012, she applied to the OPG to give Mr Yang the LPA.
Madam Mok is also suing the 40-year-old Mr Yang for damages over his alleged breaches of duty under the LPA.
Mr Yang’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Liow, said these civil cases could come to a “standstill” if the OPG’s application is approved. He was speaking after meeting Madam Mok’s lawyers at yesterday’s pre-trial conference, which he revealed was adjourned till Oct 28.
Last week, the OPG lodged a police report against Mr Yang for possible financial abuse after it emerged he had boasted about his wealthy and lavish lifestyle online. The report was made on Sept 17, the same day Mr Yang was arrested for suspected criminal breach of trust.
THE court action by Madam Hedy Mok to strip former China tour guide Yang Yin of control of her wealthy aunt’s assets was yesterday adjourned by nearly a month.
This is to allow a separate court application by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to be settled first.
On Friday, the Family Court will hear whether to suspend the powers given to Madam Mok and Mr Yang to act on behalf of the widow.
By suspending their roles, the OPG can step in to get an independent medical assessment of 87-year-old Madam Chung Khin Chun, whose assets are believed to be worth $40 million.
She was diagnosed with dementia this year and the OPG wants to know if she has the mental capacity to revoke the LPA on her own.
Madam Mok, a 60-year-old tour agency owner with whom Madam Chung has been living since Aug 21, told The Straits Times: “While I understand that the OPG must have its reason for the step that it took, I hope this gets sorted out soon.” She added that her aunt’s well-being comes first.
Madam Mok has accused Mr Yang of manipulating her aunt into handing him a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) which gave him control of her assets.
Mr Yang moved into Madam Chung’s $30 million bungalow in 2009, a year after acting as her private tour guide during a trip to China. In 2012, she applied to the OPG to give Mr Yang the LPA.
Madam Mok is also suing the 40-year-old Mr Yang for damages over his alleged breaches of duty under the LPA.
Mr Yang’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Liow, said these civil cases could come to a “standstill” if the OPG’s application is approved. He was speaking after meeting Madam Mok’s lawyers at yesterday’s pre-trial conference, which he revealed was adjourned till Oct 28.
Last week, the OPG lodged a police report against Mr Yang for possible financial abuse after it emerged he had boasted about his wealthy and lavish lifestyle online. The report was made on Sept 17, the same day Mr Yang was arrested for suspected criminal breach of trust.
