PTPTN must be flexible when handing out loans

THE 1% charge to be imposed by the National Higher Education Loan Fund Board (PTPTN) is about the minimum figure for borrowers.
This is already a significant reduction based on the last rate, which was 4%, and which led to complaints that it was a burden to loan recipients.
However, based on a fixed rate, borrowers would have to pay at least 50% more in installments, which would be a bit high. A fair way of calculation would be on a reducing scale, but this would be quite complicated for those in charge of the scheme.
The borrowers would still have to pay slightly more than the 1% on completion of their payments. Still, the new figure would mean considerable savings for students.
After having been in operation for a number of years, there are a few procedures for those interested in such financing. One common occurrence is that PTPTN employees have been quite slow in replying to inquiries of the outstanding amount.
For example, those wishing to settle their debt in one lump sum usually find it difficult to know the exact amount they have to pay, sometimes for months.
Surely with computers and other equipment, it would have been quite simple for PTPTN employees to do this at the touch of a finger. Yet, the borrowers have to go to the department several times and waste a lot of time, yet come away without getting a satisfactory answer. This process needs to be speeded up to make life easier for the public.
The public finds this puzzling since they expect the department to be happy that some people are prepared to pay off their loans immediately.
More should be encouraged to do so, and this will certainly help to recover the money from those reluctant to meet their loan obligations. There is no reason to inconvenience the public.
PTPTN needs to look at another issue concerning the frustration faced by some in loan disbursement. While this happens only once or twice a year, depending on the academic term, it should be able to streamline the process.
It was reported recently that applicants at a private college waited days without being able to deal with PTPTN staff.
Many who went to the centre at 7am, the time when applications were dealt with, waited the whole day in vain.
The reason was that the staff could deal with only 500 applicants a day and they closed shop after that. Those left out have to return the next day. With thousands of students seeking loans, there just was not enough time and many were left out when the period was up.
Surely a better method could be found when handling so many applicants, and PTPTN should show some flexibility until every eligible borrower could be dealt with.
Since they are providing an extremely useful service, they must be more accommodating in meeting the aspirations of those in need of such finance.