27 Nov 25
Office of the President
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Republic of Singapore
Dear President Tharman Shanmugaratnam,
Commission Of Inquiry To Address Systemic Issues
Administration Of Justice
1. I refer to the letter reference AG/CIV/L/OTH/2024/1 dated 18 November 2025 from AGC to the Minute Sheet Para 1b and 1c in the attachment as follows:
b. Prayer 2 of OA 26 is a request for the court to consider fresh Evidence in the form of the “Schemes-Terms-Conditions” of the Agencies for Integrated Care (“AIC”). Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, this document does not suggest that a “caregiver” is authorised to make decisions on behalf of a patient who lacks mental capacity. There is also no reason why the applicant could not have, with reasonable diligence, adduced this evidence in earlier
proceedings, given that this document is in the public domain.
c. Prayers 3 to 8 of OA 26 are, in substance, the same prayers sought by the applicant in HC/OA 526/2024, which had already been considered and dismissed by the Court of Appeal in OA 1.
2. A. Definitions, B. Declarations and Agreement and Clause 18(a) in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions refers to the definition of “Caregiver”, the Patient who “does not have an appointed donee or deputy authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs” in B. Declarations and Agreement(d)(v)(A) and “any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government, if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge”, “who is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs” respectively as follows:
A. Definitions
(c) “Caregiver” means the person indicated as the Patient’s caregiver in the Patient’s Application;
B. Declarations and Agreement
(d) Where I am the Donee, Deputy, Caregiver, Patient’s Parent or Patient’s Legal Guardian, I declare as follows (as applicable):
(v) In the case of a Caregiver: “I am the Patient’s caregiver; and
(A) the Patient is a Patient who Lacks Mental Capacity and does not have an appointed donee or deputy authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs;
18. Each Relevant Party agrees that the Government has the right to act on a request made by one of the following (as applicable):
(a) in the case of a Patient who Lacks Mental Capacity: any deputy or donee of the Patient who is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs, or any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government, if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge.
3. In Item 1 above the judges cannot state “Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, this document does not suggest that a “caregiver” is authorised to make decisions on behalf of a patient who lacks mental capacity” when in Item 2 above the Schemes-Terms-Conditions does suggest that a caregiver is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs as defined in Clause 18(a). Any “person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government” refers to persons listed in Item 5(x) below and to the same list of persons in Item 6(z) below under the definition of “Relevant Parties” that included caregiver. As Clause 18 states each Relevant Party agrees that the Government has the right to act on a request made by any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge, it means the other persons under Relevant Parties that included caregiver will make decisions on behalf of the Patient.
4. I have been in charge of my mother's financial affairs after the sale of our old house in 1987 and her medical affairs after her 1st cataract operation on 23 May 13. My siblings have not volunteered to be co-caregiver in the application to AIC in October 2020 (Item 10 and 11).
Definitions And Issues
5. In page 1 and 2 other definitions in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions are as follows:
(d) “Cooperating Parties” means the Government, participating statutory boards (including CPFB), public healthcare institutions and organisations approved by the Government that are involved in or assisting in the provision and delivery of the Services and Schemes (including AIC and the Insurers);
(k) “MDW Employer” means the person indicated as such in the Patient’s Application;
(m) “Nominated Bank Account” means the bank account nominated in the Patient’s Application to receive payments or withdrawals under the Schemes (or any of them);
(o) “Patient” means the individual whose details are provided in the section of an Application entitled “About the Patient”;
(v) “Services” means social services and schemes, financial assistance schemes and insurance schemes, including:
(i) the Schemes;
(ii) financial assistance schemes and insurance schemes administered by AIC;
(iii) healthcare, aged care, childcare, education, social assistance and counselling services and schemes;
(iv) any form of financial assistance such as subsidies, grants, tax reliefs, levy
concessions, vouchers or bursaries; and
(v) retirement, savings and insurance schemes operated by the Government, CPFB or their appointed agents (including MediSave and MediShield Life);
(w) “Terms and Conditions” means the terms and conditions applicable to the Schemes which is accessible via www.aic.sg/schemes-terms-conditions; and
(x) “We”, “Us”, “Our” means the following:
(i) the Caregiver;
(ii) each Deputy;
(iii) each Donee;
(iv) the MDW Employer,
(v) the MediSave Account Holder;
(vi) the Nominated Bank Account Holder;
(vii) the Patient;
(viii) each Patient’s Legal Guardian;
(ix) each Patient’s Parent; and
(x) the Patient’s Spouse,
and “I”, “Me” or “My” means any one of them.
6. In page 8 and 9 other definitions in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions are as follows:
(c) “Application” means, in relation to an individual, the application submitted by or on behalf of that individual to apply for financial assistance or Payouts under one or more of the Schemes for the care of that individual;
(e) “Caregiver” means the person indicated as the Patient’s caregiver in the Approved Application;
(s) “Patient” means the individual whose Application has been accepted and approved by the Government;
(x) “Payouts” means payments or withdrawals under the Schemes (or any of them) made or paid by the Government or CPFB pursuant to the Agreement or the Relevant Legislation;
(z) “Relevant Parties” means the Patient, Patient’s Spouse, the MediSave Account Holder, each Patient’s Parent, each Patient’s Legal Guardian, each Deputy, each Donee, the Caregiver, the Nominated Bank Account Holder and the MDW Employer, and “Relevant Party” means any one of them;
(aa) “Schemes” means the following financial assistance or financing schemes run by the Government:
(i) the CSHL;
(ii) the ElderFund;
(iii) the ESH;
(iv) the Home Caregiving Grant;
(v) the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly;
(vi) the MediSave Care;
(vii) the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession for Persons with Disabilities; and
(viii) the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme,
and “Scheme” means any of them; and
(bb) “Terms and Conditions” means these terms and conditions, as may be amended, altered or added to from time to time.
7. In relation to Item 5 above on “Cooperating Parties”, the 3rd sister was able to delete a joint bank account of my mother and me that was registered at CPF so that she could open a new bank account for her at CPF. However, after I informed CPF that I am the only caregiver in my application to AIC, CPF replied they would transfer my mother’s CPF payout to her Ordinary Account and stop the Silver Support to the new bank account. It shows that CPF was aware of my caregiver status in the application to AIC.
8. In relation to Item 5 above on “MDW Employer”, “Nominated Bank Account” and “Services”, my mother as a MDW employer (Migrant Domestic Worker employer) makes the monthly payment from a joint bank account of my mother and me for the levy concession. However, the 3rd sister terminated the 1st maid’s employment mid-contract that was registered under our mother’s name so that the employment of the 2nd maid could be registered under the 3rd sister’s name for the reasons (a) the 3rd sister expected the monthly payouts from our mother’s CPF account to be transferred to a new bank account after the joint bank account of my mother and I was deleted at CPF and (b) to allow her to administer the Atorvastatin (statin) to our mother so as to prevent my supervision.
9. In relation to Item 5 above on “We”, “Us”, “Our”, “I”, “Me” or “My”, the persons listed are under “any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government” in Clause 18(a). Clause 18(a) shows that the director was in error when he referred to Clause 19 and 31(e) to suspend the 2 payouts from August 2025 pending my application for deputy when I am a caregiver in the application for the 2 payouts that was given from October 2020. Item 3 above shows the same 2 lists of persons determined by the Government where the caregiver and deputy listed are distinct persons.
10. In relation to Item 6 above on “Application”, I am the only caregiver in an application to AIC after a meeting at the 3rd sister's house where all my siblings did not volunteer to be co-caregiver. The application was carried out with the assistance of a MSW (Medical Social Worker) who my siblings had been in contact with and I referred to him in a discussion with my siblings over WhatsApp.
11. Continuing with Item 6 on “Caregiver”, “Patient”, ”Payouts” and “Schemes”, a court order to AIC to produce the application form would show (a) our mother lacks mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care as certified by a doctor, (b) I am the only caregiver listed and (c) 2 payouts made by the Government for Home Caring Grant and Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme from October 2020. I am a caregiver for my mother who lacks mental capacity because an application for the 2 payouts were successful.
12. In Item 2 above on the Minute Sheet, I have shown Para 1b is not reflected in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions. The key issues of Prayers 3 to 8 in Para 1c would have to be reconsidered. CA/OA 26/2025 was filed based on the discovery of the Schemes-Terms-Conditions showing that I am authorised to make decisions for my mother in Item 3 above. I have brought up my role as the caregiver many times in the 15 legal proceedings, but I was prevented from making the discovery as shown in Item 15 to 19 below and in my affidavit and written submission in CA/OA 26/2025 attached.
Document In Public Domain
13. Schemes-Terms-Conditions in www.aic.sg/schemes-terms-conditions is the document in public domain but I was not aware of it until a director from AIC referred to the document to suspend the 2 payouts in Item 9 above. It shows the various schemes and the terms and conditions may be amended, altered or added from time to time. From the document I was able to show the director was in error and the legal proceedings were biased where as a caregiver I am authorised to make decisions for my mother.
14. The biases are as follows:
(a) The Definition, Declarations and Agreement, and Clause 18 in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions show that the Government has the right to act on a request from each Relevant Party and the Government makes the Payouts. In an Application to AIC I am the Caregiver from October 2020, but the Payouts were suspended from Aug 2025 by a director pending my appointment as a Deputy in which he referred to Clause 19 and Clause 31(e). This is a mistake where the definition of Caregiver, Deputy and other persons are each given (i.e. “classes of persons determined by the Government”).
(b) The taking away of my responsibilities began when a police officer would not allow me to have my mother’s NRIC she had in her hand to make an appointment at the polyclinic to replace the appointment blocked by the 3rd sister that was arranged by Dr Lim for a family doctor at the Family Physician Clinic on 1 Jun 21. The police officer’s action to place the NRIC with the 3rd sister allowed her to change the residential address in my mother’s NRIC to hers on 12 Jun 21 when my mother and I are joint tenants.
(c) The termination of the 1st maid mid-contract registered under our mother’s name and the employment of the 2nd maid registered under the 3rd sister’s name was carried out because the 3rd sister expected the monthly payouts from our mother’s CPF account to be transferred to a new bank account she opened for her after the joint bank account of my mother and I was deleted at CPF and to allow her to administer the statin to our mother so as to prevent my supervision.
(d) At the Service Bureau I wanted to file the Application For Judgment In Default of Defence / Defence to Counterclaim 21 days after date of service, but was unable to because it seemed the Service Bureau did not know what to do with the defence filed by the 3rd sister in an altered Form 1. This contravened ROC 2021 O. 6, r. 7 (3) which states "The defence must be in Form 13". If the Application For Judgment In Default of Defence / Defence to Counterclaim was allowed, it would have ended the lawsuit early. The 3rd sister was able to file the altered Form 1’s defence because of their connections.
An Application Made To AIC In October 2020
15. I emailed AIC on 23 Jun 21 to request for a copy of the application form submitted to show our mother’s lack of mental capacity and I am the only caregiver listed. There was no direct reply to my request except an officer called me over the telephone to say they could not do so unless there was a court order, but did send a certified copy to show permanent lack of mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care.
16. In the Pleadings With Statement Of Claim in MC/OC 237/2022, the Statement Of Claim has Item 69 f) “To ask the court to make a request of AIC to give a certified copy of a letter to show that he was properly appointed as the only caregiver for their mother in the form submitted to them for two grants that were successful”. As our mother prefers staying at the 3rd sister’s house, the rest of the 10 claims in the Statement Of Claim were for the 3rd sister to assist in taking care of our mother, for reverting to prior situation before the lawsuit and for court orders if required.
17. In the Checklist For Case Conference (For Order 65 Cases), I ticked the box that I intended to obtain direction for the filing of a SAPT at the 1st CC (1st Case Conference). One of the 9 items listed is as follows:
An order to AIC to give a copy of the application for the 2 grants that were given showing that the claimant was the only caregiver listed.
18. The Summons for Judgment in Default of Defence supported by an affidavit dated 27 Sep 22 in MC/SUM 3684/2922 had 9 orders largely similar in content to the Statement Of Claim where one of the order is as follows:
4. Defendant to acknowledge that she knew that the claimant was the only caregiver in an application submitted to AIC for 2 grants with the help of a Medical Social Worker at SACH, after a meeting with all her siblings at her flat and of texts over WhatsApp Chat.
19. The statement with supporting affidavit dated 14 May 24 in HC/OA 526/2024 for a judicial review had 4 mandatory orders, 1 quashing order and 9 declaratory orders. The mandatory order to AIC is as follows:
Mandatory order to AIC to allow a copy of the application for 2 grants that was given to their mother in which their mother was certified by a doctor from SACH to lack mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care and the applicant was the only caregiver listed in the application
Taking Care Of Our Mother
20. The statin that was given continuously to our mother since 3 Mar 21 caused her to be confined to bed and her physical condition to deteriorate such that she complained each time during the 5-min exercises I conducted with her twice a week with the help of the maid. She has gotten worse recently although the 3rd sister would not admit such has been so.
21. Our mother was able to walk 80m and did all the exercises asked of her at the 1st session of the 2nd rehabilitation at All Saints Home on 1 Mar 21 after Dr Ong from Singhealth-Tampines stopped the statin for a week from 25 Feb 21 to 4 Mar 21. But my siblings made an appointment to have Dr Hosanna prescribed 3 months of statin on 3 Mar 21, one day before Dr Ong was to make his assessment on the effects of the statin on 4 Mar 21. Although I am the only caregiver listed in the application to AIC, I have lost the responsibility to my mother since 3 Mar 21 when the statin was continuously given to her.
Incidents Since 2007 Have A Bearing On The Issues At Present
22. The incidents I encountered began after a complaint against a neighbour in 2007 although the noise from the working of a trade could be traced back to 1998. At the time I wrote to the HDB Branch Office and sent a letter of appreciation to the HDB Feedback Unit when the occupier (not the neighbour who I first saw as a young couple) was evicted. Not long after, an officer facilitated the transfer of the flat to the neighbour who became the second owner of the flat to continue with their work. The first owner appeared to be another person who spoke to my mother. In 2010, I wrote to the police that the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour were installed to protect the neighbour. I may not be accurate with the narrative, but the working of a trade, eviction of the occupier and change of ownership after the eviction and the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour could be checked.
23. I was unable to sell my 5-room flat later. When I was assisted to sell my flat the Resale Operation Section at HDB did not return my deposit, I was not allowed the refund into my CPF Account after sale of the flat, CPF LIFE was shown to miscalculate my payouts and my CPF Account was deducted toward the CPF LIFE payouts without my approval. It appeared matters set out in documents were not followed by the officers involved. Although brought before the MPs many times, there was no direct response by the authorities.
24. I did not get a fair hearing in 15 legal proceedings of which the first is MC/OC 237/2022 and the last is CA/OA 26/2025. A review could be made of (a) the Originating Claim in MC/OC 237/2022 based on the Pleadings With Statement Of Claim, (b) the Summons For Judgment In Default Of Defence in MC/SUM 3684/2022 allowed by the Court, (c) MC/SUM 2503/2023 to strike out MC/OC 237/2022, (d) MC/RA 9/2023 and MC/SUM 3833/2023 in an appeal against the decision in MC/SUM 2503/2023 and (e) the decisions of judges in the High Court, Appellate Court and Court of Appeal in light of Item 3 above.
25. My affidavit and written submission, State Counsels’ Written Submission and Bundle of Authorities, and Order of Court and Letter from AGC to Court in CA/OA 26/2025 are attached.
Conclusion
26. I hope an inquiry could be made in view of my mother’s health and, where there was no evidence of issues against me, of public welfare.
Yours Sincerely
cc
No comments:
Post a Comment