4/07/2008
Poor planning led to shortage of lawyers
The decision was made some 20 years ago to cut down on the number of lawyers through smaller student intakes. 'The decision to aribitrarily turn off the tap was grounded in some sound reasons, such as the desire to maintain the quality of the profession.' So said Conrad Raj.
Can a decision be arbitrary and at the same time based on sound reasons? Arbitrary means arbitrary, boh lee yew. With sound reasons, must be well thought out. Whatever, the consequence is what we are facing, a shortage of lawyers, and indirectly a high legal fee, as shortage means high demand which means can command more pay.
We are also facing a severe shortage of doctors and hospital beds. The latter we have talked about earlier and we know why. Well thought out reasons with intention to maintain a shortage. The lack of doctors could also be an arbitrary decision with sound reasons.
It cannot be a case of poor planning. Planning is our forte. We are excellent planners and we are proactive, able to look into the future and anticipate problems. I think we should not be presumptious to deride our super talents for poor planning and lack of foresight.
The problems we are facing are likely the result of good decisions that are coming back to haunt us. The decisions were good then, but bad now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Not true.
It PLANNING itself that led to a SHORTAGE of lawyers. (Govt planning always causes shortages in supply).
This is simply a consequence of central (govt) planning of the economy and society.
It had to happen. Natural law at work.
how come budget planning can be surplus?
"the desire to maintain the quality of the profession."
This is pure bullshits of the highest order. The real reason is to maintain the exclusivity of the profession in order to realise higher pay.
The problem with PAP is that exclusivity is taken to be quality when it is not.
One must look at both sides of the situation when looking at government interference (in economic matters).
"Budget surpluses" are planned, but they are achieved by creating shortages in what individual citizens could keep for themselves.
The govt has only one source of revenue: by seizing something from others - whether it is taxes or opportunity for SME's.
When a govt has a "balanced" budget, that means it hasn't taken too much from the citizens - just enough to run the state for that particular year.
I don't support the idea of large govt surpluses because by simple logic it just means that they have taken TOO MUCH private property from private enterprise and private individuals.
However having budget deficits doesn't mean they took "too little". It means that the govt has spent too much and is too large. Solution: close down govt departments, sell off govt property and fire some of those lazy scumbags who are on the state's payroll.
"Ideal" situtation (if there ever was one): small budget, and balanced.
past university quotas miscaps caused present shortfall in local talents,, need to import foreign talents and doctors,, alternative culture discouraged in the past led to dearth of creative local talents...
last time they planned to stop at two, now they planned to increase the population... which is rite?
all the good decisions we made yesterday will come back to haunt us today.
all the good decisions we made today will come back to haunt us tomorrow.
Post a Comment