RM100 million down the drain
posted in - Dobbs, - General |Reported in the NST:
This is a story of money down the drain. As many as 100 Malaysians educated in Ireland at a cost of between RM60 million and RM100 million to become doctors have turned their backs on the country. If this news is not depressing enough, there are suggestions that they are encouraging other Malaysian students not to return home but to make a living in Europe’s fastest growing economy.
This discovery was made by Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek who recently visited the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland and University College Dublin in Ireland, where more than 1,000 Malaysians are pursuing undergraduate or post-graduate programmes in medicine.
“They have not only evaded the compulsory service and the government bond but have become a bad influence on other Malaysians pursuing medical degrees overseas,” he said. Many of the 100 doctors studied on Mara scholarships.
Dr Chua said his information was gleaned from discussions he had with Malaysian students last month. The 100 doctors had been working in Ireland, mainly doing locum, for between one and 11 years.
I wonder if you felt as shocked and apppalled as I did when I read this in the news. Knowing we have a shortage of doctors in the country, here are 100 doctors trained overseas courtesy of our Government, unwilling to come back and serve the 10 years (3 years compulsory service and 7 years bond) they agreed to when they took up the scholarships. What is MARA doing about it? Surely the doctors or their families/guarantors should be made to pay back the scholarship money and if not, taken to court for not fulfilling the condition of their bond. Dr Chua said he would bring up this issue to the Cabinet’s attention and we sincerely hope that something concrete will be done about this. Otherwise the Government is literally pouring millions down the drain to train these ungrateful and irresponsible doctors.
Related link:
Scholarship doctors should do postgrad studies locally
Related MMR post:
Training abroad: are you coming home?
Last 5 posts by dobbs
- Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri - September 10th, 2010
- Seminar & Workshop on Immunohistochemistry - August 2nd, 2010
- Insider’s Guide to Passing MRCP(UK) PACES - June 11th, 2010
- A Seminar on Soft Tissue Tumours - May 16th, 2010
- 2010 MSQH International Conference and Exhibition - February 25th, 2010
November 8th, 2005 at 5:12 am
Hi, just got this from Utusan
hmmm it’s pointing fingers time!
November 8th, 2005 at 5:55 am
Its true that Malaysia had a shortage of doctors but honestly, if you have a better opportunity abroad why not take it? This might sound selfish and ungrateful but have the government ever thought on the subject as to why med grads student prefer to “abandon” their home country for others?
November 8th, 2005 at 9:32 am
perhaps MARA and other scholarship sponsors need to enforce their policies.
I have friends who do the same. “Why worry? MARA will never take action.” Such is the thinking.
In the meantime, the taxpayers pay.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Yeah “Why Worry” indeed when you have Kelab UMNO to jump to their defence
November 8th, 2005 at 11:12 am
The issue here is not why they are not coming back but rather the fact that they are not fulfilling the conditions of the scholarship bond. Don’t come back if you don’t choose to, but at least MARA should get back the money spent on them!
November 8th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
[Edit: Quoted from Utusan:"Apa yang beliau patut lakukan ialah mendesak pelajar persendirian yang kebanyakannya pelajar berketurunan Cina untuk pulang segera selepas tamat pengajian..." ]This kind of statement can only be made by people who are racist and resist to change for the better for their own race; I used to stay with a couple of MARA scholars doing medic, who used to complain about “shortage of money” when comes to buying textbooks, sharing out rentals, etc. But when they shopped around during Boxing day, buying things like Nike or Giorgio Armani clothings, DVD player and Home theatre systems… then u start wondering how “poor” they are.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Well, we shouldn’t look at things thru ethnic goggles. All Malaysian doctors training abroad who don’t return home represent a loss to the nation, scholarship holder or not. But scholarship holders who don’t honor their contractual obligations are worse than those who have paid their own way….a loss to the nation at the cost of tax payer’s money.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
The Utusan report was interesting.
I wonder if that Kelab UMNO rep realised that Dublin is not part of UK?
Secondly, there is no ‘sub-specialty’ training in UK. Among ourselves (UK specialists) we know collegues who have ‘sub-special’ interest and we tend to refer ‘sub-special’ cases to each other in that sense. Most of us pick up sub-special interest during the course of our training but actual ‘sub-specialty training’ with ‘pengiktirafan antarabangsa’ is unknown to me.
Indeed if you read my update in the MMR forum about changes in UK training, UK is trying to minimise super specialisation for some very practical reasons.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Moreover it was clearly stated in the original NST report as well as reiterated in the NST today that they stayed back to work as locums and not to do post-graduate studies. Is it that easy for them to convert their student visas to work visas?
November 10th, 2005 at 6:12 am
This is what the honorable Minister was quoted as saying in the NST:
Well look at the pay disparity. Who wouldn’t be tempted to stay behind?
November 10th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Quite true, who will not be tempted?
If you are single and you intend to live on rice porridge and salted fish, then it is possible to accumulate a small amount of fortune by locuming in UK/Ireland for a few years and then go home to buy big houses and cars.
But for those of us with family to bring up who intend to live a normal standard of lifestyle, then I can assure you our living standard is not any higher than those professionals in Malaysia who earn a 5-6 thousands ringgit a month.
My salary is no secret to the public, it is easily found in the BMJ. Using the current conversion rate, I pay a monthly income tax of about RM15K, and that will take away 14.5K of income disparity. I pay RM50 for one plate of char kweo teoy, that’s RM250 for a family supper. So, the actual pay disparity is not as great as it appears.
The main reason for people like us not going home is that we have a few ‘ang mo kia’, and hence we are stuck here for their sakes.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
As I mentioned before in this website, those who took the scholarship had no excuse of not coming back. They are robbers, bunch of unethical doctors. Specialist course should be privilegde and not right for them. They will not be doctors in the first place. They took our money (including mine as taxpayer) to persue their own interest. The private student should be left alone. [edit: sensitive parts removed in accordance with the MMR Terms & Disclaimer]
December 4th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
@poor doctor: I second that!
January 7th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
It’s not a matter of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.
All those who took loans from the government have a contractual obligation to return to serve the country. Full stop.
If they refused to do so, the government has an obligation to the tax-payers to take legal action against them.
I’m sure the Malaysian government is aware of this.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:11 am
I am currently studying in the UK now as a private student, and those students on scholarship for medicine are contemplating to stay behind to specialize and work! They do not even hesitate. Why? Because they can pull strings within the government sector, corruption and all to get this done easily. Even though everyone as well as the Malaysian government is aware of this, no one will do anything, and that is the fact of the Malaysian government. Who am I but a person by the sideline to look angrily at these students, who are not any much smarter than I am, ethically I won’t comment on race disparity, taken our tax money for their own greed, and to just fume silently and feeling angrier at Malaysia? As for us privately funded students, we feel anger for being unfairly mistreated since primary school, and we do not feel we need to give anything back to Malaysia, so forget going back to work for the public sector and earn measley money!
April 10th, 2006 at 10:33 am
A woman once said ‘it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees’.
I refuse to come home to live on my knees under the yoke of male domination and prejudice. I have experienced real freedom and happiness in an open and free society here in the UK a world away from the medieval society back home.
Am I thief? I have offered to repay in installments, it has been refused, what more can I do?
Should my elderly parents be made to suffer for my decisions? If so, perhaps all parents will, in future, doubt whether they can trust their children to return and not leave them with the pain and shame of having all their lives savings taken away.
While I can understand some of the replies on this topic, all it has done is further alienate me from a society that I have come to consider as backward and insular.
Both my parents and I envisaged a time when I would return home to serve my country full of good intention rather than greed. They have not changed and whilst I have changed, it is not greed that drives me but my liking for an enlightened society where I choose my life course and am not pressured to be a obediant servant of others.
Another thing, some of my Malaysian collegues are happier than they’ve ever been as they can easily live here and be openly gay. I’m glad they too have found freedom and my conscience and compassion for people could not ask them to return ‘home’ (a compassion many of you seem to lack).
You love your country as I once did, you’re welcome to it! If i’m forced to return it will be to jump from the highest bridge. I refuse to live like that again.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Yummy: The number of students who abuse the terms of the scholarships given to them to acquire an overseas medical degree is large, probably increasing and worrying. The discussions in MMR look at this problem in general. There are many parties involved here – the government and the scholarship awarding bodies, the taxpayers, the general public who uses the MOH hospitals and healthcare facilities, the existing doctors in MOH and of course the scholarship recipients and their guarantors. You may wish to contribute your views in a more constructive manner.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Here I must come out in Yummy’s defence. Her predicament was exactly the same as mine except that I was on my parents’ scholarship. All the hype about Dr M coming to power in 1980 attracted me to return. I did come back after basic physician’s training and MRCP and did my compulsory service voluntarily and after having seen the truth evolve, then left again for subspecialist training.
Again, one senior health DG persuaded me to return to offer my specialist skills as a medical oncologist – I did but found it so frustrating when the MOH offered me a letter of appointment as a Gynaecologist! The UH and GH bigwigs told me that there was no room for such a specialty (as they were already experts in this) so I went private and began to look overseas again, finally leaving for good in 2001.
I have not looked back since! My warning to those who wish to really return is that it would be very hard to get out and also, it would be harder to resettle the older you get.
The issue here is that Yummy did offer to pay and it is alleged that it was not accepted. So, although there may be numerous stakeholders here including tax payers like myself, if this allegation is correct and if Yummy has documentary evidence to support it, I think she has fulfilled her duty by offering to payback.
It is the government machinery which has failed all the stake holders.
So, there is nothing non-constructive about Yummy’s approach. Dr Ng, are you being too patriachal/paternalistic/pro government/moralistic and conservative in your seniority?
I agree that the taste of freedom is indescribable…..it is like Nelson Mandela being set free. Freedom from the moral police, from societal prejudices and from big brother type intimidation.
The constructive thing about Bolehland is that we are allowed to freely travel (except to Israel) and to choose to live overseas if we wished. The govt knows that we generate good income to send home to boost the economy – so, why should it rock the boat?
April 10th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Whether we wish to stay abroad or return after study, goven. scholarship, or daddy’s, we all opt for personal reasons for what we think is best for us or for the future generation.Our decision is based on what is meaningful to us personally; or if as parents, the same premise is made on their behalf.
The process of globalisation has made a lot of divide less relevant. Often what is a gain on one aspect is a loss in another.There are no more holy cows to protect.
The slow bureaucratic machinery is what Yummie had encountered.Many of us would share similar frustrations.
If you asked why there’s such a “brain drain”, the counter question would be: it required a non racial brain to make a paradigm shift.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Dear LF,
I can understand Yummy’s predicaments. I thought she can deal with her problems in a better way. In such a situation, discussing the issues with a good counsellor is helpful.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Thank you for your concern ngchmd, but it is unwarrented. Perhaps my language was a little strong but I wanted to clearly state how strongly I feel about returning and how I hope to honourably resolve this predicament, something I will continue to do (do not think it will be easy to pay this money back whilst trying to build a home and family at the same time – it’s no easy way out). Also your insinuation that wanting freedom is akin to mental illness is illuminating but sadly nulifies any other sensible comment you might be able(?) to make.
I accept the argument that perhaps medical students should be trained closer to home where they don’t experience a cultural awakening but the fact is that some of us were given the opportunity to study in the ‘west’ and it’s very difficult to turn the clock back and change our perceptions.
I am very grateful for the opprtunities I have recieved and am willing to make equitable recompense for that but again I will not sacrifice my happiness for yours. I cannot understand how you would be happier to have a more demoralised and unhappier team of doctors caring for your communities than they already are. I’m not saying that doctors who are forced to return (almost like a prisoner being extradited) will be bad doctors but I cannot imagine that our lack of enthusiasm would put us at the top of our game.
Perhaps you feel bad doctors (or at least lazy indifferent ones) are better than no doctors something I am unable to comprehend.
I said before I’m willing to pay back over 10 years with interest (or any other amicable arrangement), for example, so the Govt. can continue to fund further students (the UK has a system of student loans and whilst the amounts are smaller the repayments are as with other similar loans – long term with interest). What is wrong with this? I send money to family so I still contribute to the malaysian economy whilst not availing myself of any of its services.
Unfortunately this example is so far unacceptable to your Govt., I’m beginning to think they do not want the money or at least would prefer a bribe to make it go away. In such a case, is the fault wholly mine? There must be some middle ground, as I said before; I will not return.
As for your shortage of doctors perhaps you should spend less on training our people to leave and import more with better pay (or open more medical schools at home). You cannot live in cultural isolation forever and the problems with the current policy demonstrate its abject failure.
Perhaps I was insulting your cultural sensibilities in my earlier comments, for this I apologise, but why can no-one offer answers without insults or unreasonable demands? It seems your goal is my unhappiness for the sake of a society that I no longer feel, or want to be, a part of.
The letters I get are something that worry me every day, if only I had £100,000 sitting around then everything would be fine. In the meantime I am gaining British citizenship both because I want to stay here and in the hope that, as I can’t have dual nationality, it will throw more proverbial spanners into the works re: visa’s et cetera.
I have now become concerned that if I return for a holiday my passport may be taken to force me to stay, perhaps this is an unjustified belief, but something I will not risk. I am deeply saddened that I may never see my family again but it is a price I am grudgingly willing to pay. I think your assumptions that to ‘cut and run’ is easy is a mistaken belief.
I wish you all success and happiness in your lives, I would hope you can do the same for me.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:35 am
Dr Ng CH, Interesting point you made: I guess you have made several assumptions – amongst which the problem is inherently Yummy’s. I beg to differ. I believe the real problem is that the government needs to revamp its modus operandi with managing/administering the post scholarship incumbents and some of her beleagued citizens who have lived there too long need exposure to the external world.
The constructive issue here is that there was an option in place for the candidate to opt out (for a price) but this was denied when requested. So, where is the problem? Who is it who really needs “kaunseling?”
The answer is the efficient and fair enforcement and management of post scholarship holders! In legal terms, Yummy can now assume ‘moral high ground’ as she has done her bit.
“Those of you who have no sin, do cast the first stone” (quoting Jesus)
April 11th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Yummy, You do not need to be apologetic. There is nothing wrong asking to be treated in a dignified way and with fairness and integrity for your honesty and determination! It is not that you have broken the law – there were, in your agreement, get out clauses and you were merely exploring these.
It is strange that you are so fearful that they will take your passport away when you return. If they do, then this is draconian and ultra vires (above the law). I would not worry too much about it: as they would have thought about the possible outcome(s):
1. having to charge you
2. reduction in your income as part of the inpouring of oversesas funds (minute perhaps but this will have ramifications)
3. having people like me and Malaysiakini who will publicise it far and wide
4. having your British employer complain and having this spew all over into the UK/European press
But this tells us that bullying and intimidation is very much part of accepted societal practices in the country we were born in – perhaps moving back to medieval times?
April 11th, 2006 at 9:23 am
While I do agree that the govt should be more flexible about the method of repayment, at the end of the day the fact still remains that those scholarship students have not fulfilled the end of their bargain. Rationalize all you want, but facts are facts and by doing so you are not only “cheating” the govt but ultimately all those taxpayers who contribute towards your education. Of course this will not include those of you who are no longer residing in Malaysia, and no longer paying taxes here!
April 11th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Yes, Dobbs, but the repayment for a broken agreement has penalties added and is not the exactly the same as straightforward repayment of a loan.
I think we have to be careful not to make a sweeping statement about those post-scholarship holders: 1 there are those who do not repay, or repay in quanta ad libitum (I would suggest the majority) 2. there are those like Yummy who are true to their deal and would like to negotiate an amical and honorable way out (I think she was just pushed aside).
Group 1 are indeed ‘cheating’ if you would like to use that term. Group 2 are actually honest and are full of integrity.
I do not think we should use a blanket term to ‘cover all’ Some people find themselves in unusual circumstances, for example being married to a non Malaysian whilst doing an internship (the love missile strikes when you least know it
: others find actualisation in their self development and wish to follow a different path; yet others, for personal reasons wish to stay back etc
You cannot force these people to return. There has to be (and there is) a mechanism to amicably resolve this and, I am again saying that the authorities are NOT allowing negotiation or discussion on what they had originally put in the agreement. Indeed, by their intransigence, they may themselves causing the Gov to be breaching their agreement with the scholar – I have not seen such agreements but modern ones have clauses to declare these null and void!!
April 11th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Yes, parents who have kids studying abroad, beware of the “love missile” LOL
April 11th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Jasa di-kenang
Budi di-sanjong
Janji di-kota
Hutang di-bayar
I think the scholarship holders are contractually bound. If the government were to be in breach of this contract, these scholars should right the wrong within the stipulations of the contract. On the other hand, perhaps the government is just enforcing their part of the contract. Perhaps, the contract specifically asked for total payment of the scholarship in one big lump sum. Perhaps, the contract specifically does not allow other avenue of repayments other than the alternative of pursuing the guarantors for repayment even to the point of bankruptcy.
LF, here is the dilemma. Are our society not ruled by laws? Then, we have a specific case like Yummy – how should her problems be resolved?
April 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Well, today’s The Star has an article on this very issue which Yummy is facing:
I agree that many societies are ruled by laws and bureacracy but surely, right and clear thinking civil servants can see the wood from the trees (also quoted yesterday in the online press)
Do you also not think that residents of Bolehland are all insidiously being programmed to live in a culture which subscribes to and support syariah law whatever their ethnic background and religion? Our identities and philosophies are gradually being hijacked!
Yummy’s predicament should be reviewed on appeal: an appeal to amicably settle her scholarship debt with the option of not returning compulsorily. I am sure the PM would not be unreasonable about it if he hears about this storm in a teacup with something very simple yet made highly complex by a highly judgmental society.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
LF: If it so happened that the PM or whosoever did as you suggested, will there be yet others questioning his judgement or accusing him of impartiality. Worse still, should the said person be even distantly linked with the politician or a sgnificant other, might this not provoked the accusation of abuse of power? I thought you dislike these intensely!
April 11th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I think you are using Aristotle style argument erroneously.
Yes, I dislike abuse of power and corruption intensely. But this is neither.
Yummy’s case appears to be one where she is proposing to repay and opt out honorably. This is certainly better than absconding which a lot of our Bolehland scholars do (and I may add, I too abhor this). I do not think you or I know the full facts: so, you and I may be barking up the tree. The point I am emphatic about is consistency in honoring the alternative parts of the agreement (i.e. the choice of opting out) and not closing the door on those who wish to explore that. Is that abuse of power or abuse of impartiality? It is just interpreting the agreement.
Neither you or I have sighted a copy of the agreement and if anyone does have a standard one, let us have it posted and see for ourselves. I doubt Yummy would want to further comment or discuss as it may jeopardise her application.
Are you happy with this argument?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
LF: For a brief moment, I thought you have shifted your principles.
Rather than challenging the terms of the contract, I think you should have advised that the terms of the contract be followed. By not so doing, you are only giving false hope to these scholarship holders. Moreover by rewarding denial, this contributes to their frustration and distress in the future.
Of course, even with a contract, the legal process takes time and the outcome is not invariably the same for each case. One can also mitigate based on the circumstances peculiar to each case.
The terms of these scholarships awarded by the government, particularly for medical studies, are indeed extremely generous. Any insinuation, rightly perceived or otherwise, that the government is inflexible or behaving like “Shylock” (in Shakespeare’s play, the Merchant of Venice) in this context is yet to be played out and therefore not appropriate.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Counselling involves helping a person understand and manage their personal problems and issues. The critical step is defining and representing the problem.
State your goal
Why do you want to reach this goal?
What steps should you take?
Problems you might encounter?
Ways of dealing with the problems?
What support do you have to reach this goal?
Focus attention on topic at hand.
Are you in control?
Acknowledging the reality of the situation provides one with the perspective of the problems.
State the problem and standards.
Ask for a solution.
Develop an action plan.
“Happiness, happiness is the greatest gift that I possessâ€.
You are responsible for your own happiness or unhappiness.
No one can be responsible for your happiness.
The solution is often within yourself.
No one can give you the solution.
The counsellor helps you to find your own solution which is within yourself.
The counsellor maybe your husband or friend or a professional.
It is in this context, I think counselling helps.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Some points to ponder:
What if the guarantor does not have enough money to pay? Rather than taking the person to court, the creditor may often be willing to accept only a fraction of the payment to settle the debt.
There were also those in the past who did not pay. How did they manage to get away with this? Maybe this reflected the efficiency of the collection of these scholarship payments and the attitudes of the borrowers.
There were also those on scholarships who worked as doctors in UK for 10 or more years after their graduation. What happened to their debts (which through the many years have diminished in purchasing value) when they return? You maybe surprise at the outcomes.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:53 am
These are valid arguments from your side….my point is that after I posted my last set of thoughts, such government contracts are usually “SULIT dan TERHAD”
So, bringing them up might well breach another set of rules! The OSA -even if they have been misinterpreted!
As you well know, in law, there is the principle of ‘contra proferontom’ My “loyar buruk” experience tells me that this essentially states that if there is an interpretational dispute within a contract drawn up between 2 parties, the intepretation would faviour one who did not propose and document the terms. In Yummy’s case, it is the governemnt.
But, interestingly, as we all now, there is a perpetual haze in Bolehland, both in the atmosphere and in governance…..enough said for now.
What is your response to that, casting aside your recommendation for ‘kaunselling’
April 12th, 2006 at 3:56 am
I meant it was the government who proposed the terms of the contract.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:42 am
This discussion opens a Pandora’s box – in summary so far, the previously assumed heavy ‘penalties’ of opting out of a bond for a government scholar, which, ordinarily cannot be realistically met short of a miracle have now become a reality with increasing wealth and earning power. Theoretically it is possible to raise such sums demanded.
The second is what we have partly discussed: the transparency and ‘fairness’ or ‘unfairness’ of the deal once one chooses to explore the options of the get-out clauses. People like Yummy might have been presumably negotiating options to repay the penalties and found no relief.
The third is a practical one: why should the government choose to send scholars to study undergraduate medicine overseas when it claims that that local schools meet the standards and that there are more medical schools mushrooming to meet the ‘demand’
The fourth is how to deal with those “lost” from the net. Should they be written off, like thousands of other scholarship holders? If not, why should double standards be so applied? New questions then would be again surfacing
April 12th, 2006 at 8:20 am
>But, interestingly, as we all now, there is a perpetual haze in Bolehland, both in the atmosphere and in governance…..enough said for now.>
Dear LF, this is a recurring schema in most of your postings. It would be unfair for me to disagree with all your points. However, perhaps on 70%(?) of them, are you sure that it may not be your spectacles that are causing this “hazy” perception? Please do wipe them clean occasionally. Have a good day. : ))
April 12th, 2006 at 10:00 am
No, it might be the haze in my lens capsule as a long term outcome of a Bolehland performed IOL replacement before I left
In actual seriousness, is it not truly hazy how the country is heading?
April 12th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I would also like to know why the Govt is still sending students overseas to study medicine. But the PSD did state recently that Top medical schools produce best talent!
April 12th, 2006 at 10:52 am
The contract was signed circa 1995 (forgive my obliqueness as I do not wish to forsake anonymity) when it was understood that any abrogation of contractual responsibility (the 10 years compulsory service) would result in the demand of the loan amount with repayment possible by installments.
The Government retained a right to change the terms of the contract at any time without making any represntation of the views of those party to it. Accordingly the contract has been changed many times the most insiduous of which relates to only those people that graduated after 2003 (of which I am one). These changes are:
1) Compulsory service became mandatory. There was no avoidance for anyone and payments would not be accepted in lieu of service.
2) Those people who abrogated from their contractual responsibility (re: point 1) were liable for the full amount of the loan outstanding, plus penalties, without the possibility for repayment by installments.
I ask if it is equitable for someone so verdant in respect of the vagaries of contractual law to become party to a contract that continually changes and if this is equitable, is the discrimination between how I am treated to those who graduated a year or more before me also equitable?
What makes me so different from those who came before? If you force us to return to complete service should you not force all to return, perhaps even those that ‘bought themselves out’ should have their monies returned and be forced to complete.
Should the terms of the contract change further so that in the (unlikely?) event the Government decides that the length of service should be doubled to 20 years be an equitable ammendment?
Would any of you be happy for your employer to lock you into a contract which could have its terms changed at any point without reference to your objections and no choice of withdrawl?
Would nay of you be happy to have a maid that could contractual award herself a pay rise and holidays without taking any consideration of your views and without being able to fire her?
In ‘The Historie of the Damnable Life, and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus’ an ambitious man makes a pact with the devil for his soul. I would never have envisaged myself as a teenage Faust and my Government as the devil, but I have come to realise the irony that my ambition may still be my downfall and yet unlike Faust even God cannot save me as 21st Century devils want more than 16th Century ones, and more than Shylocks’ pound of flesh (although it does make me ponder whether those who opose money lending such as those devout venetians – and even some muslims – may have the right idea).
I think ng was right about there being a perceptual haze there, it just seems that only those of us far away can see through it (with or without glasses).
April 12th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Aha, the plot unfolds – and you read Goethe!
The gov appears to be playing the moving goal posts game with its scholars with these strong arm tactics. Was it also “Terhad” and thus subject to the OSA? If the gov is truly playing these games, they really deserve what they get and despite having been a tax payer with a credit at the Inland Revenue, I would say to those who oppose this unilateral bulldozing of change in the contractual terms, “Good on you! Stay put till they (the gov) get their act together. If you wish to consider coming and be a Resident (sorry, no Registrars as this is College controlled), write to me in Oz”
April 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
>>The Government retained a right to change the terms of the contract at any time without making any represntation of the views of those party to it. Accordingly the contract has been changed many times the most insiduous of which relates to only those people that graduated after 2003 (of which I am one). These changes are:
1) Compulsory service became mandatory. There was no avoidance for anyone and payments would not be accepted in lieu of service.
2) Those people who abrogated from their contractual responsibility (re: point 1) were liable for the full amount of the loan outstanding, plus penalties, without the possibility for repayment by installments.
I ask if it is equitable for someone so verdant in respect of the vagaries of contractual law to become party to a contract that continually changes and if this is equitable, is the discrimination between how I am treated to those who graduated a year or more before me also equitable? >>
Get legal advice.
Yummy: Pardon my intrusion to make a point. It is often in the darkest hour of despair when one should be cautious in making major lifetime decisions. I often advise my patients not to make major lifetime decisions during their illness. Similarly, my advice will be that one should make major lifetime decisions based on positive factors and especially important, when one is in the right frame of mind.
For example, there is this student who gave up her Malaysian citizenship 30 years ago to live in Australia. She subsequently married a Malaysian and raised a small family there. Guess what? In the early 90s, she and her young family reverse-migrated back to Malaysia. She is now staying in Malaysia on social visit pass although her husband and children are Malaysians.
Your comparatively short stay in UK compared with your potential lifespan has changed your perception: what guarantee is there that the next 5 or 15 years will not change your outlook again? Keeping your options enable you to enjoy the Malaysian citizenship, probably without any or little impediment to your life presently. Of course, one should be responsible for one’s decision and who is to say that your decision is not right?
Finally, here is wishing that your life will be as happy and rewarding wherever you happen to be.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I agree..do not be hasty.. and do not even challenge the government at this point before seeking good legal advice. Your solicitor can actually write to the government to seek clarification on their moving goal posts game (which, if true, is completely contrary to the universal principle of torts, and a total embarassment)
Do not assume that Yummmy will relinquish her citizenship…from my obs, most who cling on finally do, when their children grow up and prefer to stay overseas. Those who do not leave their children and return to their few friends and they too get lonely…Dr Ng, I think your patient made a wise move as her children will have the right of PR in Oz and also by virtue of their Malaysian father, Malaysian citizenship. They get the best of both worlds (if there is such a thing) for a small parental sacrifice.
April 12th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Here is some more interesting historical information.
Had dinner with an ex YB (also an ex patient) who was a Govt scholar who did not repay his debt (he is ex Sabah). He told me that in the old days of Syed Kechik, the practice then was an offer of a scholarship in a letter. The guarantors are usually State Ministers. When he resigned to join a state cooperative, this YB was summoned by the DG of Manpower in the state for a demand to repay.
Apparently, the high handed actions of the government were already in existence then (in the 1970s) and this YB challenged it by stating exactly what I argued: that they had unilaterally altered the terms of the contract without consulting him. So, he declared it null and void and offered to see the DG in Court and also rang the State Ministers about it.
Since then the Federal gov has apparently used this technique (albeit retuned) and its has become somewhat of a common practice. The only differences are that 1. they incorporate a phrase which appears to be above the law (and the contract) stating that it is related for the good of the country (which apparently is in the Federal Constitution) and so on. 2. they forbid Gov Ministers to be guarantors but instead make parents and relatives take this role.
So, Yummy and others – if you have this clause in your agreements which allow the Federal Constition to overide the universal principle of law of torts, then, you have to seek good legal advice if you wished to get out.
It still sounds very unfair to me but as Dr Ng said, the benefits had been generous.
HTH
April 17th, 2006 at 8:06 am
I posted this in the Dobbs. I think this maybe useful here too.
Kinds of Happiness.
One theory explains that we quickly become accustomed to receiving some good fortune (money, job, car, degree) and, within a short period of time, take the good fortune for granted; as a result, it contributes little to our long-term level of happiness; this is called the adaptation level theory. According to this theory, very positive significant events such as graduating from college, getting married, winning the lottery, or buying a new care have huge initial emotional impacts, but these emotional highs fade with time. Instead of wealth, factors that are most associated with long-term happiness involve developing and achieving long-term goals and developing and maintaining close relationships or friends.
Happiness includes smiling and laughing resulting form momentary pleasures, such as seeing a funny commercial; short-term joys, such as seeing an enjoyable movie or having a great time; and long-term satisfaction, such as having an enjoyable relationship, career, or life. (Averill & Moore, 2000) A long-term level of happiness is associated with making an effort to enjoy simple, daily pleasurable events, people, or situations, which provide a daily diet of little highs. [KH, perhaps here lie the secret to our "lunch kaki" cohesiveness the last 15 or more years.]
Averill, J.R., & Moore, T.A. (2000), Happiness. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
April 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
There is some allusion to constitutional requirements in my contract which makes the battle somewhat harder , but I will seek legal advice and take my from cue there. I hope for some quick resolution but until then I will keep soldiering on (other complications ahead although not insurmountable – see next paragraph).
There may be some good news for the Malaysian Govt., at least in terms of ‘traitors’ in the UK, as the British Department of Health has introduced a requirement (from June 2006) for all non-EU doctors to obtain work permits to work in the NHS. Such permits will only be available when the prospective employer (NHS Trust) can demonstrate that there are NO EU candidates available for the job (except for newly qualified graduates from UK medical schools which have a two year allowance for GMC registration). This is likely good news for all those countries that lament the loss of their DR’s to the UK, perhaps not such good news for the DR’s.
Here is the announcement: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNotices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4131255&chk=TadpQg
As for happiness I find it strange that getting married should be a short term emotional high but developing/maintaining close relationships is more conducive to long term happiness. Is this scientific recognition that the institution of marriage is the empty gesture that many of us already take it to be?
I think most people understand the transitory nature of short term fixes my house, my car, my clothes, my shoes (haha), all give me a short term boost and contribute to my sense of wellbeing but rather than satisfice any particular need, such things just seem to ‘raise the bar’, much the same way has recreational drug use seems to work. I hope that I am not that shallow, and it is the long term relationship and friends that I have developed that make me feel happy where I am. Having said that if one is to be successfull (or otherwise) in the persuit of hapiness, ceterus paribus, it is perhaps better to have human rights, material goods, wealth and comfort to complement (or mitigate) our sense of wellbeing.
ps.
The work permit most likely does not apply to those with indefinate leave to remain or residency, which means me
April 21st, 2006 at 2:16 am
Human right?? You have had more rights than other people, even more human right than the UK citizens. While millions of Malaysian tax paying public contribute to your education, you are here to brag about how you have managed to cross the bridge of immigration before it’s burnt. If your contract is with the UK gov, you would probably be sent to jail by now.
This is sickening, you are making it as if dishonouring your contract is something glorious. It is not so much of you dishonouring your contract, but the way you go around bragging about it which is a real disgrace to even your fellow scholars who intend not to return.
Many Malaysian doctors and students are badly affected by this Work Permit rule. Be sensitive to their feeling. There is no need for you to celebrate your PR status here, which was given to you by the big fat Santa Claus (Malaysia Boleh) who was too good to you, at the expense of millions of honest tax payers.
And your behaviour is also jeopardising the future of prospective scholarships holders. Because of people like you that other future honest potential scholars may be denied their scholarships as Santa Claus has now been bitten real badly.
And what makes you deserve all the goodness of this yummy deal? Scored a few ‘A’s in SPM or STPM? Pleaselah, if you scored max ‘A’s you are still a very ordinary person among the MMR audience. Go and celebrate your PR in a quiet corner, and you better don’t fail your British Citizenship exam.
April 21st, 2006 at 4:36 am
Well Yummy, it looks as if the wolves are on you! I empathise with your situation but I have always maintained that it takes two to tango and when things go wrong, both should be blamed.
However, approportioning blame is another matter. If there is an agreement between two parties and the stronger party uses goal post moving techniques, strong arm tactics, it is naturally unfair: but as I have stated before, we do not have all the facts on the table and we may all be barking up the wrong tree and jumping to wrong conclusions.
Like all intelligent Malaysia Boleh students/scholars, you have survived! I have never read UK Doc being so passionate here despite being a non gov scholar! So, you must have rubbed him/her up the wrong nerve endings.
If your contract has this vague constitutional clause, you may be on the losing end – but still get advice as it can be a contra preferentum matter.
As for you, may I recommend that this matter should now not be discussed in public as it will cause more discord and bad blood as people have perceived that it is their money being spent and not repaid.
It is interesting why they would not voiceferously complain (or vote with their feet) about a continuously ruling single party government whose leaders and cronies have squandered more of the country’s wealth than anything else in history.
At the end of the day, when you survey events of your life’s journey, this may or may not haunt you and you have to decide either now or in the future how you wished to tackle it.
As for the government, they appear to believe that they do not need to be accountable and time will soon reveal the mysteries of non accountability.
April 21st, 2006 at 8:42 am
The need for work permit will impact the lives of the Malaysians who are studying medicine there significantly. With the ‘anticipated return’ of more Malaysian doctors from UK to Malaysia next year or so, the MOH need to plan to accommodate this sudden temporary influx.
An initial subjective evaluation of the situation maybe appropriate.
Probably to many this may be irrelevant. Many maybe happy as long as they can still work for 2 years after graduation. For a few who are already permanent residents or who have acquired UK citizenship, this work permit requirement will not impact on them.
However, for those privately funded students, this ruling may be stressful – resulting in some emotional and psychological unease – especially so if they have factored staying on in the UK for basic medical training and specialist training before returning home – besides working off their “student fee debt”. They can perceive this new ruling as a threat/loss or a challenge.
A threat/loss appraisal elicits negative emotions, such as fear, anxiety, and anger and in fact, can be as stressful as the actual event itself. A challenge appraisal of a situation means that you have the potential for gain or personal growth but also need to mobilize your physical energy and psychological resources to meet the challenging situation. They will need to seek out a mentor – a consultant who maybe willing to grow his/her career. Getting to know them and discuss with them your peculiar situation may hopefully offer some avenue. Perhaps, you can work the 2 years post-medical school, return to Malaysia to finish one’s compulsory service (basic medical training) and then relaunch one’s specialisation back in UK (plan, plan, plan). A challenge appraisal elicits positive emotions, such as eagerness or excitement, it is usually less stressful than a harm/loss or a threat appraisal.
How about those contemplating permanent work in the NHS and who do not wish to return ever? An option here is to marry a local – out of love or out of convenience. As it may not be easy to marry a spouse of one’s choice in medical school within the short time before the introduction of the new ruling, marrying the local milkman, salesman, barman, nurses, radiographers, salesgirls, bargirls, etc, maybe also be considered (joke).
April 21st, 2006 at 9:05 am
Why did the UK government introduce this work permit? Basically, they have to balance their NHS budget. The Labour government has overspent and found that a major component of cost is doctor’s posts (and salaries) which has been increasing over the years (they perceive this to be unwarranted). They can cut down on the salaries to fund the other arms of their NHS by reducing the number of doctor’s posts. It was not a surprise that they should disallow the non-EU doctors to occupy these posts, through the requirement of work permit.
UK is a nation in decline. In the 70s and 80s, the wealth was (relatively) tremendous. The universities, NHS and social services were well funded. Increasingly, total funding of these through the government coffer is not possible.
For example, the universities have to seek some income through various means. When in the past, the student union was freely used by the students with little commercialization, my recent visit to my alumni found that 50% of the floor spaced is now occupied by commercial enterprises paying rental to the university.
While this region was wrecked by the Asian financial crisis, I met a UK GP who grumbled on the newly introduced fund holding practices. This belied the great unhappiness some of the UK GPs felt at the time. Over the years, many consultants within the NHS were also grumbling – on pay to their working conditions. Yet, there are significant funding problems faced by the NHS as in other countries health care systems.