Singapore 

Source: Today  

OCT 02, 2003 THR

Past, Present, Future 

Current scheme: 

Enacted in 1987, the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) allows for the mandatory removal of suitable kidneys for donations if one dies in an accident. This is an opt out scheme and covers all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, except for Muslims. 

The HOTA supports the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act (MTERA) that was enacted in 1972.

The MTERA is an opt in scheme for people to pledge their organs according to their will.

Under the MTERA, one can specify what one wants to donate and to which institution. Families of deceased patients can also donate organs of the deceased under the MTERA. The percentage of families who pledged their relatives' organs is just 30 per cent.

Compounded with long waiting lists of patients waiting for organ transplants, it is even more pressing to extend the HOTA to cover other organs. Even with the present system, there were just three donors under the HOTA last year.

HOTA excludes Muslims, as they need their two paternal next of kin to give consent as well. Muslims can pledge their organs under the MTERA. 

Those of unsound mind are also excluded from the HOTA as they are deemed as not being able to make their own decisions.

Proposed  scheme: 

The HOTA is up for amendment and will be extended to cover brain-dead patients, whether or not their deaths were caused by accidents. Of about 120 to 130 who are declared brain dead each year, just over 50 are medically suitable for organ donation and even then, most families would not donate the organs of their loved ones if those who died did not make the pledge in their lifetimes.

The amended act would also extend to livers, corneas and hearts, as well as legislate living donor transplants.

The amended Bill is to be read in Parliament, and the amended act will yield another 12 such donors a year.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

AUG 22, 2003 FRI

Lawyer accused of taking client's money

A SENIOR lawyer has been accused of misappropriating more than $29,000 of his client's money.

Tay Soo Wan, 49, was charged in a district court yesterday with criminal breach of trust.

He allegedly took the money - a sum of $29,040 entrusted to him by his client, Mr Albert Zhang Jiande - between July 2 and July 31 in 2001.

The money was the stamp duty to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the purchase of a property in Jalan Anak Patong, in Bedok.

Tay, who was called to the Bar in 1978, is the sole proprietor of S.W. Tay & Co.

He is out on bail of $30,000 and will be back in court on Sept 9.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

JUL 29, 2003 TUE

By Glenys Sim

It's so sad for karung guni tycoon's widow

Wheelchair-bound, the 94-year-old weeps for the son she 'lost' over a bitter $14m property tussle among three brothers, and reminisces about the early difficult days

OLD habits die hard for Madam Lim Kim Yan, who was thrown into the media spotlight last year when her three sons went to court over $14 million worth of family assets.  

When The Straits Times visited her at the Housing Board home of one of her three daughters last week, she was removing the rubber insulation from around some wires with a penknife.

She explained she could sell the chrome wires for $2 a kilogram, and the copper ones for $2.50 a kilogram to hardware shops.

'It keeps me busy and takes my mind off my troubles,' explained the old lady, who has no need to do such tasks as her children provide for her.

The 'troubles' she refers to are her sons' long-drawn battle for seven properties connected to Sin Wah Seng, the company her late husband registered in 1965.

'No one knows why he chose that name,' recalled the widow, her wrinkled face breaking into a smile. 'Maybe he just liked the sound of it.'  

Her husband, Mr Koh Sim, was 16 when he came here from China in 1925.

He sold beauty products and met his wife over the powder and rouge she bought from him regularly.

They married in 1934, when she was 25, and had almost nothing then.

'He never dreamt of making millions, he just wanted enough to put food on the table and a roof over our heads,' she said in Hokkien.  

They began collecting junk in the 1930s, and sold it along Sungei Road.

Living frugally, they saved enough to buy an attap house in Bukit Ho Swee.

'He went around in a pair of slippers. He'd never splurge on shoes for himself and would wear his slippers until they couldn't be worn anymore,' said the old lady.  

In 1956, he was able to afford a stall along a corridor next to Larut Road, near Rochor Canal, and while she ran it, he hunted down the second-hand goods - mainly old tools - and reconditioned them for sale.

When he registered the business nine years later, he named two of his sons, Ewe Chee and Yew Huat, as his partners.

The couple began joining tontines, a local form of saving scheme, and were able to rent a unit at Larut Road.

A week later, the family had to move there because they lost their home in the infamous Bukit Ho Swee fire.  

Mr Koh had a talent for making the most of a moment. By capitalising on the construction boom in the late 1960s, he was able to buy the unit in 1971.

By this time, Sin Wah Seng, which means 'the new Chinese man's success', was importing wheelbarrows and pulleys for worksites.

And when he heard in 1977 that the owner of a Palm Grove Avenue property had died, he quickly offered to buy the 30,000 sq ft bungalow.

It cost $275,000 and is now worth close to $7 million.

It is the largest of the disputed properties, which include two other homes and four office units.

Despite his much improved financial standing, Mr Koh did not show off.

'He never wore anything flashy. It was difficult to even get him to put on a tie to take a formal photo. He was a very private man.'

And he never borrowed, paying cash for everything, including the properties.

He was diagnosed with liver cancer in 1975, but insisted on going to work every day. To ease his pain, he would smoke opium. When he died at 70, he had a booming hardware business.

The humble tycoon transferred his share to his youngest son, Hua Leong, to whom he also left a one-third share of his Palm Grove Avenue and Jalan Senang properties.

The fact that he did not register Sin Wah Seng as a sole proprietorship showed he wanted his sons to share the business equally, she said.

But it was not to be.

Their second son, Ewe Chee, has not spoken to her since he lost the court case in which she testified on behalf of his two siblings.

Her eyes teared when she said: 'All this wouldn't have happened if my husband were still alive. But I accept my fate, that now I've lost a son.'

And sadly, this is the second son she has lost, the eldest having died years ago.  

Singapore 

Source: Today  

JUN 16, 2003 WED

By Tan Hui Leng ([email protected])

Insurance Pitfalls

And a CPF twist to debate on who gets the money

The once-routine act of naming your wife or child as the beneficiaries to your insurance policies suddenly seems somewhat risky.

Any nomination is irrevocable - you cannot cash it or change beneficiaries, even if you divorce your wife or fall out with your child.

That is why insurance companies have stopped the practice of asking that beneficiaries be named in new insurance policies.

Now, a new complication has emerged.

It concerns people who bought insurance plans with their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.

CPF money should belong to the account-holder while the person is alive. But the person relinquishes control of the policy if he or she named a spouse or child as the nominee. This contradicts the primary function of the CPF as a retirement fund.

The complication stems from Section 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA) which states that if spouses or children are nominated, the insurance policy automatically becomes a trust that the policy-holder cannot change or revoke. This does not apply to those who nominate people other than their spouse or children.

The CPF Board has said that insurers should ensure that no Section 73 trust is created for policies bought under the CPF Investment Scheme.

There is nothing in the CPF Act now that let it overrule Section 73.

In 2001, 19-year-old Tammy Xu Meihua sued her grandmother and stepmother for taking most of the payouts of her late father's policies. He had named her as the beneficiary but changed the nomination later. The court ruled in Ms Xu's favour as the beneficiary could not be changed.

Still, the section has its uses, especially when it comes to estate duties.

Only NTUC Income policies seem to be safe from the CLPA as they operate under the Cooperative Societies Act. Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore is looking into the issues stemming from Section 73.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

APR 18, 2003 FRI

By Elena Chong

Was $2.5m held in trust or a gift for ex-mistress?

Tycoon and wife sue for return of money which ex-mistress had withdrawn; he says it's for his future medical needs

A MALAYSIAN tycoon, whose former mistress withdrew about $2.5 million of his money from Singapore bank accounts, says the money had been put there to provide for his future medical needs.

Lawyers for Mr Yeoh Poh San, 58, say the money had also been placed there to maintain his mistresses - Madam Choo Lee Chin, 46, who is now his wife, and Ms Won Siok Wan, 48.

Mr Yeoh and Madam Choo are suing Ms Won for the return of the money, which had been held in joint accounts here by the two women.

Ms Won's defence is that the money had been a gift to her from Mr Yeoh, a partner in a law firm who is also involved in property development and other business dealings.

Yesterday, the couple's lawyer, Mr L. Kuppanchetti, said in the opening statement that Mr Yeoh had suffered heart problems since 1991 and, after his third major heart operation in November 1999, had instructed the two women to open bank accounts in Singapore to hold some of his savings.

They came to Singapore on Dec 28, 1999, and opened a current account with United Overseas Bank (UOB). Later, a fixed deposit and a foreign currency account were also opened.  

'They were like sisters. I thought they could manage their affairs together. When I grow old and need money, off and on, either one of them will come, instead of both.'

The hearing, before Justice Lai Kew Chai, continues.

Mr Kuppanchetti, together with lawyer Koh Chia Ling, alleged that Ms Won had misappropriated about $780,000 of Mr Yeoh's money from bank accounts in Thailand. That money was later recovered and the case settled.

Ms Won, represented by Mr Andre Arul, claims in her defence that Mr Yeoh had intended to give the money to her on the grounds that they had lived together as husband and wife for about 22 years until she was forced to leave.

Mr Kuppanchetti said the contention between the parties was whether it was a gift from Mr Yeoh to Ms Won.

Mr Yeoh, a former Malaysian Chinese Association secretary-general and former Malaysian Federal MP, is expected to testify today that the money was for her and Madam Choo to hold in trust and to safeguard for him.

Asked why the accounts had been set up in such a way that either woman could withdraw money from them, Mr Yeoh told the court that the two women got along very well and he trusted both of them.

'They were like sisters. I thought they could manage their affairs together. When I grow old and need money, off and on, either one of them will come, instead of both.'

The hearing, before Justice Lai Kew Chai, continues.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

FEB 03, 2003 MON

By Lorna Tan

Opting for non-HDB mortgage insurance plan may lead to estate tax

HDB loan-holders who pick private firms' policies over the board's scheme may end up paying taxes on their payouts, which are classified as movable assets

HOUSING Board (HDB) loan-holders face a little-known pitfall that could cost them thousands of dollars if they take out private insurance policies to cover their mortgages in the event of death or serious disability.

Many with HDB loans opt for the board's Home Protection Scheme (HPS) for this sort of coverage but private insurance firms have become more competitive in this area in recent years.

The potential problem is whether any insurance payout becomes subject to estate duty.

In the case of the HPS, the policy is 'assigned' automatically to the HDB, which means any insurance payout goes to the board directly to pay off the outstanding part of the loan and would not attract estate duty.

That also means surviving family members are left with a flat that is paid for fully.

But industry experts say many homeowners are unaware that the HDB does not have the practice of accepting assignments of policies if the insurance is taken out with a private company.

And if the policy is not 'assigned' to the HDB, then any payout becomes part of the movable assets of the deceased and faces the danger of being subject to estate duty.

When contacted more than a fortnight ago, HDB suggested that The Straits Times query the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board instead. The latter has replied that as it is not the lender, it would not be the body accepting any assignment of insurance policies. HDB has not responded further.

Singapore has an exemption threshold for estate duty on residential property of $9 million. But for all other moveable assets - including cash, CPF monies and commercial property - a low threshold of $600,000 applies.

Estate duty in Singapore is 5 per cent on the first $12 million and 10 per cent on amounts exceeding that.

To some people, $600,000 may seem like a lot of money but it is not unattainable if one adds the home loan, which totals several hundred thousand dollars typically.

Take the case of a widow who died at the age of 49, two years after she purchased a mortgage policy from a private insurer instead of taking the HPS with HDB.

The deceased was slapped with an estate duty of almost $7,000 because of the non-assignment of the policy.

In her case, the sum insured was $203,355.60, covering an HDB home loan for a five-room flat in Sengkang.

Because the policy was not assigned to the HDB, the proceeds of the policy became an asset of the insured's estate when she died.

After allowing for deductions of funeral expenses of $1,000 and the repayment of cash debts, the total non-property assets of the deceased - which included CPF, cash savings and the policy proceeds from mortgage insurance - amounted to $737,937.66.

And after taking into account the $600,000 exemption, the deceased ended up with an estate duty of $6,896.88.

Said the insurance adviser to the deceased: 'This client of mine ended up paying estate duty which would be avoided if a housing assignment was possible with HDB. Then my client would not have to pay this amount of money which is meant for mortgage redemption.'

Had HDB accepted the assignment when the deceased tried to assign it earlier, the policy proceeds would automatically be used to pay off the loan from HDB and not be added to her movable assets and subjected to estate tax, he added.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

FEB 03, 2003 MON

Private home loan-holders should assign policy to banks

HOMEOWNERS with private housing loans who take out mortgage insurance policies should take the extra step of 'assigning' the policy to the bank which extended the loan, experts advise.

This is to ensure that the full sum insured is used to pay off the loan, if the need arises, they say.

But many homeowners are blissfully ignorant that a failure to do so could cost thousands of dollars in estate duty, industry officials say.

The problem is that if the policy remains 'unassigned', then any sum paid out forms part of the movable estate of the deceased, and the proceeds risk being subject to estate duty imposed by the taxman.

But by assigning the policy to the bank, there is no risk of incurring estate duty on the insurance payout, so the full amount of the sum insured will be used to repay the bank for the outstanding home loan.

Said director and solicitor at Goodwins Law Corp Stanley Jeremiah: 'If the mortgage policy is assigned to the bank as collateral for the loan on death, the bank uses the policy proceeds to pay off the loan.

'So the house comes to the insured's family clear of debt and free of tax.'

In Singapore, there is a 5 per cent estate duty tax on movable assets of between $600,000 and $12 million. A 10 per cent tax applies thereafter, with some deductions, such as $1,000 for funeral expenses.

For instance, if the net movable assets of the deceased amount to $1 million, the estate duty will be $50,000.

When contacted, the banks say it is not compulsory for homeowners of private properties and Housing Board flats to assign their mortgage insurance to the banks.

However, banks will accept assignments of such policies if the homeowner wishes. Maybank says it will accept assignments on a case-by-case basis and would take custody of the insurance policies after the assignment of such policies.

For other banks such as OCBC Bank, the homeowner continues to keep the policy contracts.

The assignment is relatively painless and it involves both the policyholder and the bank or financial institution endorsing an assignment form from the insurer.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

JAN 23, 2003 THR

By Wendy Tan

She Leaves $3.4m to charity and $32,100 to children

ADVERTISING executive Henry Lim will have to move out of the two-storey house he has called home for all his life.   

It's going to charity.    

His adoptive mother, Madam Chia Foong Ying, died in 2000 and left the semi-detached property at Jalan Sedap, off Tanjong Katong Road, to the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the Community Chest of Singapore.

It's just part of the $3.4 million that the former hairdresser, who had only Primary 1 education, has left to be shared equally by the two charities.

Apart from the house, valued at $1.6 million in 2000, she also donated $1.8 million in cash and $23,000 worth of jewellery.

What did she leave her adopted children?

Mr. Lim received $30,000. One of his two adopted sisters got $2,000 and the other, whom the family has not seen or heard from in years, was left a mere $100.

But Mr. Lim, 39, who is single and lived with his mother until she died of cardiac flu, aged 73, was neither surprised nor complaining about how she distributed her wealth. 'That's mum. She was always a generous person and giving to charities for as long as I can remember,' he said.

'She was someone who believed that if you're healthy, you can eke out a living on your own, and that people who can't take care of themselves should have some sort of help.'

As for having to leave his home, he said: 'A house is a house. I have many memories here, but you learn to live as well as you can in any place.'

Describing Madam Chia as a thrifty woman, who led a very simple life, her neighbour and the executor of her estate, lawyer Choo Si Sen, said: 'She hardly wore any jewellery and lived with the bare minimum.

'She even bargained with me over the cost of acting as her executor! She asked for half of what I usually charge.'

She seldom ate out and lived mostly on her savings and the interest earned from the money left by her late husband, who ran a business dealing in construction materials.

They had married during World War II, when she was 18. He died of cancer in 1993 at the age of 83.

Mr. Choo said: 'You know the saying, 'Charity starts at home'. But in her case, everyone at home has been taken care of.'

Mr. T.T. Durai, NKF's chief executive officer, said of the windfall: 'This is the single largest bequest by an individual to the foundation. It's a real gift to our patients in these critical economic times.'

Previously, its largest gift was a $700,000 flat in Sultan Gate Place, left by Miss Rosslyn Mak, a childcare teacher who died of cancer in 1997.

Yesterday, the NKF announced that it will use the money to set up a memorial fund to help poor elderly patients and to further subsidise their medication and nutritional supplements.

The Community Chest, the fund-raising arm of the National Council of Social Service, will use its share to help about 20,000 old people.

It will distribute the money to eight voluntary welfare groups they can get doctors to treat the elderly at home.

Singapore 

Source: The Straits Times  

MAY 27, 2002 MON

By Jane Lee

2 S'poreans missed ill-fated flight

AT 25, Miss Karen Tang has written a will.    

The eldest of three children has realized that she does not want 'everything to be in a mess' if she dies suddenly.

She almost did. She was supposed to be on the China Airlines flight which plunged into the sea off Taiwan on Saturday, with 225 people on board.

A producer with comedian Jack Neo's production company, J Team Productions, she was in Taipei last week to edit an entertainment show being recorded there.

Her work requires her to shuttle between Singapore and Taipei until July. She was scheduled to take Flight CI 611, an afternoon flight that transits in Hong Kong on the way to Singapore.

But she had finished her work earlier, and took a morning flight instead.

Said Miss Tang: 'Maybe it's fate that I didn't get on the afternoon flight. Actually, the news sank in only when I saw the dead bodies and grieving parents on TV.'

She added that she had a 'bad premonition' when she boarded the plane home.

'The ride was a bit jerky and I was really scared. I kept feeling as though something was going to happen. Little did I know that it would - to the next flight.'

Singaporean Pok Tam Soon also missed the same flight. He has not returned here yet.

Still, Miss Tang's narrow escape has made her realize that 'life is so precious'.

She is now trying to spend more time with her family, the same people she thought of as she jotted down her last wishes.

She is flying to Taipei again this afternoon - with China Airlines.

The staunch Christian said: 'There's no point getting scared, I still have to work. I'll just have to pray very hard.'

Previously, its largest gift was a $700,000 flat in Sultan Gate Place, left by Miss Rosslyn Mak, a childcare teacher who died of cancer in 1997.

Yesterday, the NKF announced that it will use the money to set up a memorial fund to help poor elderly patients and to further subsidise their medication and nutritional supplements.

The Community Chest, the fund-raising arm of the National Council of Social Service, will use its share to help about 20,000 old people.

It will distribute the money to eight voluntary welfare groups they can get doctors to treat the elderly at home.