I believe that while it is indeed a form of discrimination to single out those who might not meet the physical standards he aspires his staff to achieve, it is a discrimination with basis, and hence should not be quickly shot down like it was in the review. It is no different from that of employees not being promoted because they don't meet their monthly quotas- it is essentially about selling a type of lifestyle to the the consumers, the public. This type of lifestyle is one that is concerned with the well-being of a large number of people, it also happens to affect a sizeable demographic of a country, possibly influencing the way they maintain their life and their health. Essentially, it is one that will help determine countrywide statistics on the health which it citizens thrive on or wallow in. Hence, to ask for staff to promote a healthier lifestyle by being ambassadors of one is not a move without its merits.

Secondly, I believe comparing the discrimination of healthcare staff with that of other forms of employment discriminations is inaccurate. In many other cases in the commercial world, the objective of the company in its discriminating policy is to portray a certain image of the company's product or service. But more than that, it is aimed at promoting the sales of the product, it is lending a subconscious suggestion that to use the products or employ the service will allow one to end up in as ideal an image as them. Most importantly, it aims to increase unit sales and gross income. The healthcare industry, where hospitals in Singapore is concerned, supposedly has none of these as their top priorities. I would like to believe that as a stayer in the healthcare industry, Mr Liak aims to allow the chosen image to promote a healthy lifestyle, not one where people keep visiting hospitals. One that should ideally lead to less patients footing bills and more seeking the active lifestyle. Given that the intention is vastly different, this one with an altruistic motive, I feel we should not so easily compare his words with standards that others in the commercial world are held to.

It is also without flaw to assert that medical staff should ideally be fit and healthy due to the line of work that they are involved in. It does not make sense to have unfit staff running a facility in which emergencies may require snap actions or swift action, it will be an ill-fitting place for an out-of-breath nurse or doctor. Administration staff might perhaps not be held to the same standards, but then, as the chief executive asserted, how then are staff supposed to be role models, and encourage those who are obese and suffering from weight related health problems to change? The review took the stand that one's "body shape is nobody's business", but that is exactly what indignant obese patients would say to pleading doctors, whose very purpose of being there is to guide the patient to healthier pastures. It would be even worse a position if the doctor were obese.

Still, I understand that there are many limitations to the well-intentioned stand that Mr Liak has made. To begin, on a practical basis, it is wholly uncertain how effective a change it will be if staff in the hospitals were trimmed. (literally) Patients aware of their medical dilemma may not stop to smell the flowers, but rather just as much be inclined to wallow in the soil that is their own medical issue. And how many of them, in an Asian country like Singapore, come in for weight-related problems out of the sickly demographic? I believe that cancers are the top killers in Singapore, and I'm not entirely sure if out of the many types of cancers there are, a sufficient numbers are related to obesity such that changes might possibly be significant enough for a seemingly draconian move to staff. In essence, I doubt obesity is the main issue at hand when it comes to attempting to reduce further the unhealthy population in Singapore, and such a move may be unecessarily drastic.

We must also give thought to the fact that while staff in line for higher promotions may end up looking healthy and adequately slim, it is ultimately the attitude of the healthcare workers that should count for more. Role models are not role models through and through if they simply exude the kind of lifestyle we should aspire to be, but fail to carry through with the psychological aspect-the one that sinks deeper and makes a more lasting impression. A healthcare worker who has been blessed with the genes for a healthy life may fail to understand the amount of hard work and effort needed for a metabolically unstable person to become a healthier person. Essentially, denying a place in the healthcare workforce to those who have studied very hard, or those who have a burning passion to help the sickly for an added criteria of fitness might not be the wisest choice. Ultimately, it is the message that the caregivers bring across to their charges.

Overall, I think that Mr Liak's statement is justifiable and also understandable to a large extent. However, the social and practical restrictions are also similarly compelling, and it is fair to point out that it is uncertain to what extent a hospital staffed with trim and lean employees will affect the eventual lifestyles of patients. More importantly, the attitude of the staff is something that I believe should heavily outweigh (see what I did there?) considerations of an employee's physical appearance. I thus think that while well-intended, Mr Liak may possibly have hit the wrong note on where it matters more when it comes to encouraging a healthier lifestyle.

0 comments