Education hub or leper's island

This one is accredited by MYCS and MOE and CaseTrusted. Froebel Academy has not only owed salaries to its teachers, it is not issuing certificates to its students after completing their courses. Some did not get their certificates since December last year. After the camped out, they promised that the certificates will be issued this Friday. The certificates were supposed to have two chops, one from an East China University and another from the Academy as endorsements or credibility of the certificates. Over the news it was reported that the chop from the University would cost the students another $7,500. This was denied by the Academy. The net effect is that the students were very unhappy for their plight. And the Academy told the students it is closing down. How many of such fiascos can the Singapore Education Hub takes before it earns itself the reputation of an education leper's island? It is high time that the ministry persecute these operators for the damage that they are doing to the Singapore brand. Another few of these incidents will turn the Singapore brand upside down. It will become a brand of ill repute. We should not tolerate such violations and quickly put our house in order before more damages are done. We are losing our credibility and reputation very fast.

Nets is doing what is right

Nets is a commercial enterprise and must have profits to survive. It is not a charity organisation. The raising of its levy is part and parcel of its business. It will raise the level until the consumers find it unbearable and refuse to use it. Hey, that is basic. As long as they price it competitively, it is really a business decision. It is doing something not different from public transport or other service providers. And it is better to 'increase in small amounts rather than to raise a big lump sum after several years.' If public transport companies and other monopolistic service providers can do it this way, while reaping huge profits, what is wrong with Nets doing it? What about credit card companies charging 2% interest rate per month and compounded if the consumers did not pay the debt promptly? How many per cent is that a year? Compare that with the loan sharks. Oh it is international practice and no one can do anything about it.

"My name is Naomi Lourdesamy":

hi. my name is rachel. ingatius lourdesamy is my uncle and therefore, unfortunately, naomi is my cousin. sad, i know. don't worry about her or her silly threat. she's a kid and the only thing she could probably do is either scream or cry your ear off. speaking from experience, it isn't something you really wanna endure, but it's by no means something that'll affect you permanently. on my cousin's behalf, i'm really sorry for any trouble or worry she's caused you. (p/s not all lourdesamys are like this) I have copied this post from rachel which she had posted in one of the threads lost in time. It was several moons back and it will be very tedious to search through the blog to get to it. So I posted it here. And don't worry about naomi. I was only teasing her. Singapore is not a place where anyone can go around threatening another person for the slightest thing. Unless the person doing it is a very exceptional person. I believe you have read the many postings here and know that we do not purposely hang anyone for no reasons. And I hope you and naomi can visit the blog more often and share your views here. Cheers.

Case taking on Nets

It is good that case is taking on Nets for the impending increases in its levy. And I support Yeo Guat Kwang's reasoning. 'They have been given this monopolistic mode of operation because we see this as a basic infrastructure, to provide a basic mode of payment for all Singaporeans. So, they can't just come out and tell Singaporeans now "I see this as...a commercial decision."' Well said and well reasoned. I hope Case will use the same logic and take on other monopolistics infrastructure businesses and stop them from squeezing the people. Infrastructure and essential services were given monopolistic businesses as a service to the country and people. They must not be allowed to hijack them and keep raising their fees using commercial decision as an excuse. Lets see which monopolistic infrastructure organisation is next on Case's list. Keep up the good work, Case.

NKF story - A big sham!

The Straits Times Editor is angry. How could Richard Yong ran away so easily. It is just unbelievable in our squeaky efficient system that Richard Yong could sell off all his properties, got all his money and disappear into thin air leaving everyone mouth open wide wide. Lan lan so they said. An no one got any hint of all these happenings, that it was clear that he was going to scoot off! In the ST editorial, I quote: To say this is an unsatisfactory end to a scandalous episode in a matter of public trust is an understatement. Singaporeans who have ever gien money to charities big and small, no questions asked, have never been more incensed....This is not an academic question. Substantial amounts in damages could be involved. It is conceivable cases of breach of a public duty to care can crop up from time to time. What more can I say?