.

If I had to characterise this book as accurately as I could, I would describe it as an 'A'-Level version of the Social Studies textbook. To be perfectly honest, the only reason why I bought this book was because it was compulsory and even then I knew that it was going to be one huge ego trip like it always is. And guess what? I was right.

So here we have an extract from the book talking about how Singapore's health care system eclipses those of the United States and the United Kingdom. Let's dissect this sentence by sentence.

The first thing that catches the eye is how the author begins both paragraphs with the word 'despite'. This gives the ostentatious impression that Singapore, in some way, actually faces a handicap when compared to the other two countries in terms of providing health care. This, of course, is false. While Singapore may spend less on health care than the United States (approximately four billion dollars, according to the 2010 Budget) but let's face it: When you talk about spending on four million people as opposed to three hundred million people, the extra expenses incurred by the United States is justified. This applies for the United Kingdom as well, with a population of sixty million people. Singapore isn't at a disadvantage as they would have most people believe. They are, in fact, in a better position since they have less people to provide health care for, hence the reduced spending.

Secondly, the author goes on to extol Singapore for having a higher life expectancy rate and lower infant mortality rate as compared to the two superpowers. While this may seem somewhat of a truism, we have to examine the circumstances behind these facts that goes unsaid. Statistically speaking, an average of four million people provide a smaller spread of data when you compare it to an average of, say, fifty million people or more. We can therefore expect that when averages are calculated, a smaller group would exhibit statistics that are slightly more positive than a larger one. Another reason that is overlooked is the demographics of these three countries. Singapore has a urban population of one hundred percent whereas the United Kingdom and the United States have a rural population of roughly twenty percent each. Now, what does this mean? This means that one out of five people who live in these countries does not have immediate access to a hospital, driving down the means calculated in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality. Out of the four that remain, how many live within an hour of a hospital especially in a country with a large land mass? Looking at a small island such as Singapore, which has time and time again used its small land mass as a crutch in nearly every argument made, and we see that anyone can make it to an emergency room within minutes, a convenience not available to a relatively large proportion of people from the other two countries. Couple that with the large volume of people that require treatment and you have 'unready and unaffordable access to public hospitals'. You can have the best doctors and best equipment but if it is not used by the public, then it all becomes obsolete. Here, again, what seems to be a bane turns out to be a boon.

Finally, the author takes great pride in stating that Singapore surpasses both the United Kingdom and the United States in health care. There are several things that are erroneous with this assertion. The report which it is based on, released by the World Health Organisation in 2000, relies on outdated statistics that are deemed incomplete. The ranking was faulted because it judges health care systems for problems - cultural, behavioral, economic - that aren't controlled by health care in the first place, leading experts and skeptics alike to decry the validity of these rankings. Even if we assume that the rankings are still based on the two factors described in previous paragraphs, life expectancy and infant mortality rate, I have already explained why it is inevitable that Singapore will score higher in these two factors regardless of how far ahead the other two countries are in terms of health care. If we base rankings on these two factors alone, the ranking would be biased and flawed.

It is easy to confuse the facade of health care with its substance, and propagating such confusion is an even larger sin. Sometimes I wish these writers could just get over themselves already.