Take 6:15am de bus also got such a long queue    Food in Singapore is serious business

difference is if we go overseas..we assimilate properly... unlike a lot of them here...

SINGAPORE – State Coroner Adam Nakhoda had strong words for a surgeon whose patient died days after a botched procedure, saying the doctor was not forthcoming when providing evidence and gave untrue accounts of what happened. The consultant urologist had operated on a 63-year-old woman who complained of blood in her urine after a scan revealed a 7.5cm tumour in her kidney. The patient agreed to it after she was told a minimally invasive surgery was needed to remove the growth. During the procedure at Raffles Hospital on April 29, 2022, Dr Fong Yan Kit mistakenly disconnected her superior mesenteric artery and coeliac trunk – arteries that supplied blood to the stomach and bowels – instead of her renal veins. This led to a lack of blood supply flowing into her abdominal organs. She died in hospital on May 2, 2022. At the coroner’s inquiry in November 2025, the state coroner noted that when Dr Fong realised an error had happened, the surgeon paused for 13 minutes during the procedure, but he failed to accept the mistake and call for help. The state coroner added: “Any reasonably competent surgeon would have realised by now too many large vessels not directly related to the kidney had been ligated and transected. “The consequences of ignoring the obvious clues and making no attempts to correct the situation while the opportunity may still exist while the patient is still in the operating theatre is incomprehensible.” He said the subsequent delays in taking active steps to verify the mistake by CT (computed tomography) scan, a medical imaging technique, and calling a vascular surgeon for help were also inexcusable and could have contributed to her death. The state coroner said that if the mistake was recognised, admitted earlier and immediate repair performed, the patient could have been saved. He said that Dr Fong had not been forthcoming in his explanations to the court, noting that the urologist’s first medical report did not refer to the fact that he had mistakenly severed the wrong arteries. “Similarly, the Raffles Hospital second medical report at best skirted around the fact that the coeliac trunk and the superior mesenteric artery were transected due to an identification error on the part of Dr Fong,” said the state coroner in ruling the death as caused by medical misadventure. Botched surgery Court documents seen by The Straits Times showed the 63-year-old mother of two had visited Raffles Hospital at around 3am on April 28, 2022, after discovering blood in her urine and vomiting. She was referred to Dr Fong after a 7.5cm growth was found in her left kidney during a CT scan. At around 8am the same day, the surgeon diagnosed a left renal tumour and advised the woman and her daughter that keyhole surgery was required to remove it. The pair agreed and Dr Fong scheduled the surgery for the afternoon of April 29, 2022. Following the surgery, the woman was transferred to the general ward. Dr Fong said he reviewed her the day after and noted her vital signs were stable, although she complained of mild bloating. He told her that it was normal to feel slightly bloated after the surgery, but the woman continued to complain of abdominal bloatedness and nausea throughout. At around 3am on May 1, 2022, the woman highlighted her abdominal pain again. Her blood pressure had dropped by this point. A resident doctor on duty was activated and attended to the woman, who was crying in pain at this point. He then called Dr Fong and told him the woman was not well. Dr Fong then sent instructions 45 minutes later for the woman to be sent to the intensive care unit and ordered an urgent CT scan. Dr Fong returned to the hospital at 4am and examined the woman. He noted from her CT scan results that there was a lot of gas in her colon, and that her colon was distended with no free air or fluid in her abdomen. At this point, he referred her to the general surgeon on duty. The surgeon ordered for an emergency gastroscopy to be performed. Court documents show that Dr Fong made an urgent referral to a vascular interventional radiologist at around 11.30am, who then found that the woman’s superior mesenteric artery and coeliac trunk had been severed. A vascular surgeon was then called to review the woman at 1pm and an emergency surgery was called to rejoin the severed vessels. The three doctors started to perform the emergency surgery at around 3pm. Upon making an incision on her abdomen, the doctors saw that the organs, colon, stomach and small intestine all showed signs of inadequate blood supply. They also saw arteries that Dr Fong had initially severed, and wanted to rejoin them, a procedure which would have lasted a few hours. According to the coroner report, they were forced to call off the procedure as they had assessed that the woman would not survive a major surgery. Her condition continued to deteriorate and she was pronounced dead at 3.05am on May 2, 2022. In one of his medical reports, Dr Fong said that bleeding is commonly encountered in the procedure as blood vessels around the kidney can be damaged. He said that bleeding had happened during the woman’s first procedure, and added that he had disconnected and severed the surrounding arteries as per usual practice, to stem the bleeding. He said that based on his own experience, the surrounding arteries should have been the renal arteries supplying blood to the woman’s left kidney. Dr Fong said that it was unusual for her superior mesenteric artery and the coeliac trunk to be in that location, and that the tumour may have caused the arteries to be displaced. However, an expert report by Professor Christopher Cheng, senior consultant urologist at Singapore General Hospital, found that while it was possible for the arteries to be displaced, any variation would have been identifiable on the CT scan. Prof Cheng said that it is unlikely for the superior mesenteric artery to be mistaken as a renal artery as it is bigger, and also anatomically distinct. He added that in his review of the video recording of Dr Fong’s surgery, there was no apparent attempt to look for a pulsating vessel typical of a renal artery. Prof Cheng also pointed to the 13 minutes when Dr Fong paused during surgery after severing the wrong arteries which exposed the real left renal artery. “During this period, it is not apparent if Dr Fong had realised the surgical mishap, and if there was any attempt to ask for a second opinion from another urologist or surgeon. There is no documentation that such considerations were made or actualised,” said the expert. Prof Cheng said that most patients who undergo the same procedure often have a smooth and uneventful recovery course, with many suitable for discharge within two days. The state coroner said that there were three opportunities for Dr Fong to remedy his errors, but they were not addressed. He added that in his opinion, the patient’s death was avoidable. He added: “Whilst I am slow to give recommendations in cases involving a medical treatment or procedure as I am not medically trained and often the decisions made are clinical decisions best made by the medical personnel, for the present case, I would recommend that in surgeries of this nature, surgeons ensure that they review and plan the course of the surgery and what organs or structures they will be interacting with.” He added that during the surgery, if the landscape appears different to what was expected or the plan changes, it would be best for doctors to pause, verify what they are seeing, and, if necessary, reconsider their plan before proceeding.   More on this topic Doctor gets 6 weeks’ jail for role in liposuction patient’s death in 2009   Doctor who forged certificates for aesthetic procedures gets 4 months’ jail   In his findings, the state coroner ruled out foul play and said the patient died as a result of the medical procedure. Lawyers Chang Man Phing and Rachel Ong from WongPartnership, who are representing the woman’s family, attended the coroner’s inquiry. ST has reached out to Raffles Hospital for comments. Dr Fong remains listed as a specialist in the hospital’s urology department online.

As the Chinese New Year approaches, banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) are encouraging the public to adopt e-HongBaos or Fit notes (good quality notes, similar to those from ATMs, that are not new). To accommodate those who wish to exchange Fit or new notes at bank branches, patrons of DBS, OCBC, and UOB were instructed to pre-book online via the respective banks' official websites or mobile banking applications. UOB, OCBC, and DBS reported strong customer turnout for exchanging new and Fit notes at their branches, with some banks seeing fully booked reservation slots.   Photo via Yew Wah Ow/Facebook   Benny Chan, UOB's managing director of group channels and digitalisation, noted that strong demand for new or Fit notes persists, as customers continue the tradition of gifting physical red packets.   An incident   On Feb. 3, customers were seen queuing outside a bank branch in the early morning hours. A Mothership reader at the scene then witnessed an elderly person in the line fainting at around 7:30am. In photos shared by the reader, the man could be seen sitting on a stool and being supported by others around him.   Photo via Mothership reader   The man was also assisted by two bank staff, even though it was at least an hour before the bank's opening hours. The reader added that the man was rushed to a nearby clinic and regained consciousness afterwards.   Existing support for older customers   To support older customers, banks have already implemented measures to assist their elderly patrons and those with disabilities. Jean Oh, OCBC's head of branch service and risk management, shared that they have deployed additional front-line staff to their branches to assist customers and provide guidance. "As Singapore becomes a super-aged society, we have also introduced enhanced measures to better support our senior customers," Oh added. OCBC branches popular with seniors, such as the Toa Payoh branch, will have OCBC CARE Ambassadors who can converse in at least two dialects, enabling them to better communicate with some seniors. Additional chairs have also been provided at OCBC branches for seniors who may need to rest while waiting.     For DBS, walk-ins for seniors and customers with disabilities are available from Feb 3-16. Additional staff have been deployed to its branches to assist the branch teams with queue management and customer enquiries. Branch ambassadors are stationed outside selected branches before operating hours to monitor walk-in traffic and issue queue numbers so customers can return later, instead of waiting in line. Additional seating, tents and fans are also provided at selected high-traffic locations.   Photo courtesy of DBS     Photo courtesy of DBS     Photo courtesy of DBS   Along the same vein, UOB is also doing walk-ins for notes exchange without prior appointment for those 60 and above, as well as persons with disabilities. It has also dedicated the first hour of its opening to serving the demographic, who may approach  branch service personnel for assistance on a first-come-first-serve basis.      More than 80 temporary staff across various branches in anticipation of higher customer traffic.   S$50 most popular for e-AngBaos: UOB   Across the three banks, designated ATMs are set up to allow customers to withdraw a limited number of new and Fit notes. From Feb. 3 to 15, UOB has designated 34 ATMs across 17 locations to dispense new notes, and four ATMs at four locations to dispense Fit notes, Chan noted. Each customer is limited to three withdrawals during the exchange period, and there is a maximum amount and denomination for withdrawals. For OCBC, Oh said that there are 25 dedicated ATMs across 14 locations for customers to withdraw new or Fit notes. Meanwhile, DBS has 71 pop-up ATMs across 47 locations from Feb. 3 to 16.     Chan noted that despite the demand for notes, there has been a strong and growing interest in UOB's e-HongBaos. PayNow transaction counts and amounts have steadily risen for the past three years during the fifteen days of Chinese New Year. This is primarily driven by e-HongBao gifting. Chan added:  

Using a burner account to vent my thoughts. As an Indian Singaporean, this has been on my mind for a long time. I’m reaching my thirties soon. My parents were Indian immigrants. Dad got a PME job, mum had a PME job, then turned to SAH to take care of me and my siblings. Sooner or later, all of us got citizenships (before I reached P6). Since birth, I always considered myself as a Singaporean first, and everything related to my parents’ homeland third, or more. It has just been like that naturally to me and my siblings. If I’m not wrong, CECA came around shortly after they both settled in SG. I never have been aware of CECA, never knew what it was. I did my research on it. Recently, the term CECA has been thrown around irresponsibly (sort of). What is it about a person that makes them a CECA? Is it just being Indian? or an Indian immigrant? I don’t get it. Last week, I was in a Grab. The driver was talking about how nice my BTO was. He was extremely friendly and lively. He asked about my family. Told him about how my parents came from India, etc. Instantly, his mood changed. “Oh CECA”. That’s all he said. He was upset that he didn’t get a BTO, while we did as “CECAs” according to him. He was quiet the rest of the ride. As a Singaporean Indian who has worked hard in his studies, served National Service, assimilated completely into the Singaporean culture, deep down I feel extremely sad and inferior whenever I am out in public. How do they perceive me? Am I going to be shamed for my history? My race? Every post’s comments section involving Indians have rude and harsh things written like CECA stealing our jobs, CECA is scum, etc. Yes, I do understand some CECAs behave like a complete disgrace to the society in Singapore. I agree. I do not condone such behaviour as well. But it feels more of a blanketed witch hunt where any and all CECA or CECA-looking people must be “targeted” and “hunted down” to make the country a better place. What is the issue with CECAs? Is it the lack of job opportunities? Is it their behaviour? Is it their race? What exactly is it? Because to me, as an Indian, it just feels like “CECA hatred” is equivalent to “Racism towards Indians”. It is not nice. I feel like I have imposter syndrome. I am an Indian too. My friends make hateful remarks towards CECAs, but tell me I’m good. But my parents technically were CECAs? So what now? Are you guys going to abuse my parents? But tell me I’m alright? Why is it only towards Indians? Why not other races like Indonesians, Westerners, the Chinese? Why can’t people move abroad to seek better opportunities for their families? If all CECAs must be “sent back” to where they came from, sure. Let’s do that. But what if your children wish to move abroad to Australia, Malaysia, Canada, or London, but they get denied because of the same reason? Please do not leave hateful remarks in the comments. I am looking for positive, neutral, or negative opinions / feedback. But not hate.