Singapore - Do less, achieve more

'Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group Annual Meetings in Nusa Dua, Bali, Mr Heng said: "I’m very disappointed to read the Oxfam report ... The report, rather erroneously attributed, measures the performance (of countries) by input and how much money the public sector is spending on education, on healthcare.

"As we know, what really matters to our people is the outcome. It's the health outcome, it's the educational outcome and those are fairly objective measures. So it is important for us to focus on the outcome and not get misled by input measures," he added. ' Quote from CNA

The economists and statisticians have certain ways of understanding an issue. One of the way that is making Heng Swee Kiat and other ministers unhappy is the correlation between input and output. The more you put in, eg money, the better will be the result. This is like paying higher and higher education fees to make sure the education is quality or paying millions if you want above mediocre ministers. You can't blame Heng and his peers for not understanding this relationship. Actually they should know better. They are the living practitioners of more money more results.

But why did Heng think otherwise, that it is not how much you put in but the outcome. The outcome in this case is not how much is being put in 'by the govt'. In this matter, you can spend less and get more, or do less or work less and get better results.

The first believer of this theory is Tharman when he was the Education Minister. He came out with 'teach less and learn more'. The trick is in the details and implementation. And this do less and achieve more catchphrase is gaining popularity. The latest from DBS, ''Bank less, live more" in a way comes from the same kind of reasoning. How about eat less and live well, eat less sugar to live healthier, or pay more sugar tax or water tax? Oops, I digress.

I am also a believer of this theory of doing less and achieve or getting more. I eat less, never full, and somehow feels healthier. I spent less on food, often a $3 meal is enough and still go kicking or running around. On this, never eat until your whole face is rough, rosy and oily. It may give one a wealthy and prosperous look, like towkays, but once lard start to ooze out from your pores and crevices, you are in deep trouble. I know it looks so rich and handsome, the wealthy and succesful look of having a good life, not the scrawny poor look, like a starving grey hound.

I digress again. I may like the do less achieve more catchphrase, but this is only good as a queer theory, an exception. In reality, in practice, it is more input, more output, more money, better quality. If not the ministers would not be asking to be paid in the millions and asking for more, or the universities would not be raising fees to improve their qualities. Same as the MRT, must raise fare to improve quality of service.

Then you ask, why they never say pay less and better quality of work and services? Should give it a try by paying the ministers less and see if the result would be better? Lower train fares, lower medical fees, lower tuition fees in universities, and achieve better results?

Would any minister be shouting,  pay less get more? This is a good topic to table in Parliament.

PS. Can daft do less and achieve more? I think super talents can.