nus/ntu -another mrt in the making

the corporatisation of the two universities, autonomy, merger and acquisition, to be the best we can be, to generate revenue as a business organisations...are these the goals for the future? are we taking the same route as the privatisation of our public transport system and our health services? i hope i am wrong. that we are not turning the two universities into private organisations for more efficiency and better results and profit generation. if these are the goals, we can expect the universities to embark on a trail of acquisition and expansion, recruiting the best among the professors, acquiring the best facilities that money can buy, to make the two universities a brand name, to attract more paying students to generate more profits. look at the busines model. where are the sources of income to support such a grand design? raising funds from the public/shareholders, selling bonds, joint projects with commercial enterprises etc etc but finally up tuition fees. an ambitious plan to be the best would demand a very big appetite and big funds to keep it going. raising funds from the public has its limits. selling bonds is a debt that must be repaid. commercial projects, selling books, publications, research works will not be enough to sustain a branded organisation that wants the best in everything. ultimately the tuition fees must go up. just like the mrt. the commuters, in this case the students, will have to pay. which student is going to pay and carry the burden? foreign students would be given scholarships. the super rich students, no problem. the bottom 10 to 20% may have grants and subsidies. it is the middle crunch. depending on the financial ability of these parents, the lower half will bear the biggest brunt of ever increasing tuition fees. the squeeze will always affect the neither here nor there families. fees will be increased but affordable. affordable to who?

nus/ntu corporatisation - another world cup dream

i don't really know what corporatisation of nus/ntu mean. is it privatisation or a different animal? but looking at the broad direction and goals that these two universities are heading, we can expect them to aspire to be the best in the world. this is like our world cup dream. there is nothing wrong with big dreams and big ambition. both universities are highly regarded and highly ranked among the world best. but we need to touch ground and not get too swell headed and get carried away. how far shall we go? do we want to be better than harvard, yale, mit, princeton, cambridge and oxford? yes, for sure. but at what price? we can bring the world cup home. no big deal. just pay for it. but for what? to make all the football fans in the kopitiam happy? in the case of being the world number one in education, the formula is not that simple. even if we are willing to pay, we can only buy all the facilities and the best professors. but the input, the quality of the students is not going to change much. unless we go for the world best students and tell our own students to go elsewhere. the world best university needs world best students. because of our own national interests, ie to educate our own students, we cannot be a harvard or the equivalent of any top ivy league universities in the usa or uk. our talent pool is just too limited. but we can get the best from the region. so what? what are we trying to achieve? do not let this over exuberance to want the best lead us astray. we need to set a more realistic objective. be the best in our region and among the best in the world. our current ranking may be good enough. yes we can push for a higher ranking, at what price? who is going to pay for it?

comcare fund update

about $9 mil have been given out to help 20,000 needy families. this works out to about $450 per family. just wondering what $450 can do to help a family in need and for how long? are their problems solved by $450? if that be so, then their problems are very minor. families in financial difficulties are unlikely to get away from their problems with $450. why can't the comcare administrators deal with the problems on a longer term basis? i reckon most of them would probably be able to ward off and be relieved of their problems with a $10,000 grant and only for one year, unless there are other means like employment and income to keep them going. tackling hardship problem must be done more thoroughly and as a package. i must still amused to think that 20,000 families were helped by $450 each. if that be the case, we don't really have any problems at all. and we don't need a $500 mil comcare fund. let's be serious in helping people who are in need and don't treat them like we treat beggars on the street. throw them a couple of dollars and all is well.

australia: the new drug capital

seah chiangnee wrote an article in littlespeck revealing something that many people did not know, that australia is now the new drug capital of the world. many australians have been arrested across the world for drug trafficking. it is no longer the golden triangle or afganistan. who knows poppy fields are cultivated in the australian outbacks. the australian govt has been very firm and stringent in protecting australia from all the diseases of the world. they have one of the strictest quarantine system in the world. they have practically kept everything bad abay. but drugs? well it is something else and they need to look carefully at their backyard. they do not want another opium war, this time with their indonesian neighbours do they? the proliferation of drug traffickers of australian origin is something that the world did not expect. but it is taking shape. the new breed of drug traffickers are not asians, but yes, australians. the hair dresser corby is not the only australian arrested in indonesia for drug related offence.

the right of reply

singapore only ask for the right of reply. that is what hsien loong told the foreign press. it is a simple and legitimate request. why is it so difficult for the foreign press to comply? are the foreign press thinking that they can say anything they want without the aggrieved party telling his side of the story? is this the western standard of press freedom? even i think that this is absolutely unfair. you just can't tell your side of the story, especially when it is distorted and with your own agenda and refused people the right of reply. what then is the motive of western press? isn't providing objective, analytical reports and the truth important? with both parties explaining their views, isn't that fair? and further, if the press is concerned with revenue, i bet, a highly charged press engaging in a discourse with the authority will be in hot demand and readership will definitely soar. isn't that good? but in reality the western press has been monopolising the media to shape the minds of the world, telling the world their distorted views and getting away with it. we may admire press freedom in the west. but make very sure that it is press freedom and not something else. make sure that it is press freedom for the truth and not concocted truth.