Privatise or not?

Our government has announced recently that the privatization proposal of National Heart Institute from Sime Darby will be deferred and further study will be undertaken on this issue. This is great news for numerous heart patients nationwide. However, I really wonder what is there to “study” and why it needs to be “deferred”. Why our government can’t simply reject the proposal straight away? Why let the private sector deprives these medical benefits from the poor. Since we are a developing country and based on the 80/20 rule, 80% of the patients may not have access to good medical service once privatized, isn’t it clear that our government should continue to discharge their social responsibilities even though they claim that abovementioned privatization is to reduce the government costs.

I think not everything can be evaluated or judged from commercial perspectives. It is different from the open and liberalization of the long regulated Singapore and Malaysia sky route, which will ultimately benefit many consumers. Business is operated on a different objectives which is profit oriented. It is likely for a privatised hospital to put serving the top 20% of the rich on high agenda because it certainly brings in more revenue. It is a matter of time for the poor to be left stranded or unattended. On the other hand, government functions on a different basis that requires its social responsibilities to be discharged.

It is no point to argue that the privatization can improve the efficiency. If that is true, it implies that the government is not doing a good job.

Taking care of the health of your people is important, if the government needs them to defend, to fight and to build the country. If our country can not take care of us, who else?

Some decisions need to be processed through our mind / brain. But there are many answers we can get just by asking our HEART.

p/s: visit http://oneyearplan.net/Andrew