blerdy hell

I'm drafting a letter to turn down one of Indranne's referral for one of her resident. This is the version that won't ever make it to the final letter of course, but it needs to see the light of day:

"To Indranee Thurai Rajah, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, or whoever wrote the letter for you:

We regret to inform you that we are unable to assist Mr XXX in our meal delivery service.

Mr XXX's wife was our client, so the food delivery was stopped upon her unfortunate passing in the June of 2007.

We have extended our service to Mr XXX upon receipt of your letter out of goodwill. I made three attempts to locate Mr XXX at his residence: on Wednesday 21st Nov afternoon and Thursday and Friday morning. In addition, on one visit, the Wednesday one at 3 pm, the lunch we delivered to Mr XXX was hanging upon his door [a picture is included in Appendix 2].



As we are unable to assess Mr XXX and ascertain his eligibility for our service, we are unable to assist him.

As stipulated by the Home Help service model by the National Council of Social Services [the relevant pages are attached in Appendix 1], eligible clientele for Home Help extends only to home-bound in-ambulant elderly with difficulties in the activities of daily living. This precludes elderly folks who require our services to cut costs."

-

But I am still pissed.

I realized it doesn't matter what I write. Blerdy Indranee probably doesn't care about the outcome of the referral because MPs can't ever say no to their residents. It doesn't matter whether Mr XXX gets the service or not because blerdy Indranee still wins. She wins because she agreed to write the referral for Mr XXX so she looks good in his eyes. If we help the client, blerdy Indranee gets the credit in his eyes because she wrote the referral for him. Now I am turning him down. And the client will say: It's not blerdy Indranee who's turning him down.

Blerdy hell.

There is something disturbingly wrong with this country.