Means testing already in practice?

Is this true? Mrs Yeun Yik Kwong wrote to the ST forum page on her personal encounter with means testing at a polyclinic. All we have been hearing is that means testing is still an option in govt hospitals. OK, polyclinic may technically not be a hospital, it is a clinic. So has means testing been introduced into polyclinics and not in hospitals? Whether it is introduced in polyclinics or hospitals, would it make a difference that means testing is already in practice? What is the truth? Administratively it is brilliant, worthy of the high pay for talented minds. If a referral from a polyclinic is the first door to a hospital admission, and if this door is closed, no further need for means testing in hospitals. Now is this true or false? Simply brilliant.

market economy, consumer choice

When the market was booming and demand for condominiums was high, many developers, including HDB, responded by building more condos. When the market was weak, HDB changed policies to build more 3 rm flats. This is not only being responsive to the needs of the people, it makes simple commonsense. Provide what the people want and can afford to pay. Read in the papers today that C class hospital wards are in demand. This simply says that people cannot afford better class wards or do not want them. And this is expected. According to the distribution of incomes, only 10% are at the top and another 20% are reasonably comfortable. The bulk of the populations are just struggling and trying to make ends meet. C class wards would be appropriate for their pockets. Hospitals should provide the different classes of wards according to the income of the people. The number of A and B1 wards must reflect proportionately the income distribution of the population. A responsive govt that thinks for the people should provide goods and services according to the needs of the people. So, are we going to see more C class wards being provided by the hospitals? Or are we going to see means testing being introduced to cut down on people opting for C class wards? Or the charges of C class wards will go up to cut down the high demands for them. Whatever, those who have to be hospitalised must quickly get themselves admitted and take advantage of the current situation.

out of quotes

'My outlook on life is not based on what possessions I own, knowing how transient life is; or what others think of me, knowing how seldom they do.' Peter Lim in Today paper. I don't know which Peter Lim this is. There could be thousands of them in the streets. Personally I have known at least half a dozen. Doesn't matter. But this is crap and dangerous in a way. It will undermine the ethos of our society. People may start to give up the chase for more dollars. People may stop working. We will have employers crying for employees and may end up with more imports of foreign workers. And if people refuse to work, to earn money, to buy those properties, the property market may collapse. We cannot say such things. Quite stupid actually. Money is good. The smell of money is the smell of success and recognition. No money no honey.

whose right balance?

Another great debate in the making - The right balance This time we are seeing learned counsels trained to argue in courts arguing in the media. And we are seeing two of the best taking sides on Champs, Chumps and Chimps. The key issue probably is about who are the Champs, the Chumps and the Chimps. Philip Jayeratnam is not comfortable about the remuneration system in the public sector, including the salaries of Ministers. Shanmugam is now out to defend the goodness of the system. The Today paper reported, 'Mr Shanmugam, however, argues that Singapore must strike the right balance between valuing the contribution to society through public service and paying reasonably for that service.' Now, right balance according to who? Many, including Jeyaratnam, must have disagreed with the present right balance. That's why the issue was hotly talked about in every little corners of the society, including the msm and cyberspace. But this is the right balance, the best balance, in fact less than perfect, as the salaries paid are still below the benchmark provided by the formula. So who should have the final call and say 'I am right. My version of the right balance is the right balance.'

The basics of education

An educated workforce is an asset to the nation. Govt will find it to its advantage, and also its responsibility to educate its people, which in turn benefits both country and people at the same time. Educating the population is thus both a necessity and a responsibility of a govt. The investment ploughed into education will bear its fruits and the country will be rewarded with a better educated and trained workforce. Initially it may appear to be a cost centre. But it is more than just the churning out of more employable workers, it encompasses the whole well being of a nation, the quality of life and the social environment, and everything that got to do with progressing up the ladder towards an advanced country. But education has been seen as an avenue for profit by some wise guys. Which is true to a certain extent. However, when profit is the only driving goal for education, it undermines its reason to exist as an industry. The assumption of private education for profits must be quality education to befit its high price. And quality education, which culminates in producing quality students, does not depend on the infrastructure and the quality of the teachers. It also depends on the quality of the students. Another case of rubbish in rubbish out. Here comes the problem. Quality students will either be provided with scholarships to pursue their studies in quality institutions or will qualify for admission to state universities at a much lower cost. There is no need for them to pay through their nose to private institutions for a quality education. Private institutions will thus be snuffed out of their supply of good quality students. This is a simple fact that they must know. Unless private universities can provide such a high quality education that established universities cannot provide and can attract quality students to pay for it. In reality, only those who cannot get into cheaper state universities will opt for private universities and willing to pay a higher fee. What these students would expect is that the entry requirements must be lower. That is the expectation. This is the contradiction that private universities must live with. Who the hell would want to pay more for admission to a lesser private university when they can get admitted into the best universities at a lower fee? Education for profit must thus compromise the quality of the education for the students. And this has been going on in many countries when grades were inflated to keep paying students happy and coming. Exceptional cases can be made out for niche markets or for very well established universities that can still retain the high entry requirement and command a high fee. A Harvard or MIT campus here will attract some very good students who are willing to pay the high fees which again may be relatively cheaper than pursuing it in the US. Any other average brand universities must reckon with the hard realities that they will only get the second or third best candidates available if they set up business here and want to command a higher fee. Would ivory tower professors understand this simple business logic?