An efficient allocation of resources?

The government has unveiled a plan to build a $8.8m museum to showcase the Army's rich history. Besides the inculcation of National Education, this project also aims to boost the country's tourism trade.

Quoting from The Straits Times (22nd July 2006), "The three-storey museum in Jurong will tell the story of the Army's growth from two infantry battalions into a high-tech force and honour the contributions of some 700,000 Singaporeans who have completed or are doing national service."

It sounds logical to improve upon our sense of national belongingness and boost our economy, but $8.8m just seems too much. Does the government really have so much cash to spare? Is this a top priority for a country where there is still a considerable number of families struggling to bring in their daily bread and not fogetting, the plenty of lifts pending upgrade?

I am not anti-government, but such allocation of resources does make me wonder if our financial resources are optimally utilised. Surely the people would appreciate it better if their welfare are being taken care of first. What about other issues that affect the people closely? Take education for example, how many schools have reasonably efficient computer systems? How many schools are over-staffed? How many children have equal access to learning resources in our education system (which advocates equal opportunities for all to succeed)?

The question is, do people really have a say in projects and policies once a "mandate" has been given to our leaders?

Without a doubt, this project is built on good initiatives. However, does it really need such a huge budget to become a reality? I do not know what is the average cost of constructing a decent museum, but I am sure there are many other more important priorities which are unfortunately still lagging behind the queue.

Perhaps it is time for us to redefine the boundaries of a want and a need.