By T K Chua

I sincerely believe I have lived long enough in our “system” to make some observations and to form some conclusions. It is my opinion that many of the things we do with noble intentions have mostly been hijacked, abused or diverted to something else. The latest fad is university students going hungry and how we should help them.

Maybe it is true a few university students are indeed in that predicament, but I maintain that the problem is probably overblown. As usual, we have mastered the skill to use the “exceptions” as the basis to analyse problems, form conclusions and formulate public policies.

If we see two students needing food, we think all university students are hungry. Soon maybe we shall have an elaborate “food programme” for university students. Maybe some food contractors are already waiting on the wings.

Please trust me on this; if we ever embark on a food programme, thousands of students who do not need free food will be getting it. We are just hopeless people hoping for “free lunches” because those governing us are equally clueless, if not more.

Of course, I am a heartless person; what else could I be to hold on to views like this?

Years back, when public universities started to charge tuition fees nearer to market rates, PTPTN was formed to provide study loans to students, including those studying in private universities. Billions were given away to thousands of students, many of whom did not really need it. PTPTN loans became a source of cheap loans or income for many students and their parents. A programme to help targeted students has become a universal entitlement.

Today, we know PTPTN is facing a big problem trying to recover the loans dished out earlier even though these loans were given to many who did not need them in the first place. We just did not know how to “discriminate” – to separate those who really needed it from those who just loved to take advantage of public policies and programmes. We were governed by half-baked people with no professional skills and aptitudes who think public money grows on trees.

I am sure many of us remember EPF allowing contributors to withdraw their savings to buy computers, again based on the observation that computers were important learning tools and that there were many among us who were too “poor” to buy one. Granted, a few members may have genuinely needed it, but EPF has made it a universal entitlement. EPF is a retirement fund, but inadvertently, we have allowed it to become an “all and sundry” fund for computers, housing, medical expenses and unit trust investments. The fact that EPF contributors were caught using fake receipts to “steal” their own EPF money is the extent of how absurd the situation became.

Now, it is the era of BR1M. Soon, even more people will be receiving it as the eligibility criteria expand. If public policies permit abuse and allow people to take advantage, I guess only the nincompoops will not do it. Seriously, is our economy still “working” if we have more than 40 per cent of households depending on welfare like BR1M? How do we explain an economic situation when people with full-time employment or even two jobs depend on welfare payments to survive? What kind of economic policies are we promoting and making ourselves addicted to?

Some of you may want to cite Singapore as an example for giving bonuses to some of their citizens. It is better that you check their eligibility criteria and the circumstances in which these bonuses were given out.

If an economic system churns out thousands of poor households, thousands of students who need loans, and thousands of EPF contributors who need their retirement savings before they retire, I think we have to fix the system. No number of piecemeal programmes or inordinate policies is going to help. This is how I see PTPTN loans and premature EPF withdrawals in the past, BR1M presently, and food programmes for university students in the future.

T K Chua is an FMT reader.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.