Priority tertiary education for locals

28,000 locals applied and nearly half were offered places. This means about 14,000 places were offered to locals. This is a big number given the average birth rate of Singaporeans at about 35,000. Hey, that is 40% of each year's cohort. Then why are Singaporeans complaining that they cannot get admission to local universities. And the govt's target is only 25%. The actual intake was 23.5% or 8,225 students out or 35,000. Where is the balance of 14,000, ie about 5,700 comes from? Is the intake 8,225 or 14,000? And how many of these are citizens? Locals are not necessarily citizens. Or can we assume that 8,225 are citizens? If this is so, then the percentage of non citizen locals, ie PRs, is 41%. So for every 5 students admitted, 3 are citizens and 2 are PRs. But the actual intake could only be 8225, as 14,000 places were just offered and not necessarily accepted. The numbers are my guestimates based on the data provided in the paper and may not be accurate. What is the real number? Also, should it be a local-foreign problem or a citizen-non citizen issue?

Princelings and Whistle blowers

Two letters by Chan Hwa Loon and Lin Junjie in the ST discussed about the Hongyi saga. Chan Hwa Loon was more concerned about the possibility of an attempt to cover up a princeling which is a step towards the direction of feudalism. That is very bad for a young and modern country like ours to take. Protection of princelings and covering their misdeeds is worst than nepotism. He expects the SAF to shed light on this issue given the rumours in cyberspace. The consequence is serious if we have such a culture in public services. Lin Junjie was more concerned about how a whistle blower is treated. If Hongyi did what he did out of frustration over an issue of favouritism and condoning a breach of military discipline, then his action should be taken as a positive act and be commended. Why should he be punished instead for raising a serious bloop in the SAF? Who else would dare to stand out and be a whistle blower? There must be an official channel or culture to protect whistle blowers who risk everything to disclose a misconduct or foul play. This saga has opened up a can of worms. Thanks to the brave act of a young man. Now should he be punished or be commended?

Tell your story

LKY wrote to the ST forum encouraging the first generation leaders and pioneers to write their stories as they are, as truthfully as possible for the future generations. He has openly admitted his respect for Chin Peng, a worthy political opponent. What is important is to tell truthfully without distortion, and to respect each other for who they were. A man worthy of respect is a man who believes in his ideas even if that was not favoured by history, and his principles. Once a person stoops to play dirty and disregard basic human decency and behaviour, he is not worthy of any respect. Basically it is still between good decent men and indecent men and not about talents or clever men who are crooks.

UNSW - The Angmo TuaKi Syndrome

The UNSW episode shows how vulnerable we are when we believe in the Angmo TuaKi Syndrome. Many would always want to believe that the Angmo will be benevolent and honourable gentlemen that we can look up to and adore. That they will not scuttle an agreement, pack up and run with not regards to the damaging consequences. That saving their own skin is all that matters. The govt should pursue the matter to the fullest and recover every cent that we spent on the project. Take them to court and sue them for every penny. We need to stand on our principles in negotiating a deal and stand by it. And the same principle must apply to our negotiation with those that are not Tauki but think that they are Tauki and would renegate on whatever that were agreed upon and signed. We shall not waver in negotiating a fair deal and will stick to it. We shall not succumb to tribal pressure and kampong mentality.

Sylvia Lim rebuked by Jayakumar

Sylvia Lim opposed the new bill to allow the PM to nominate two members to the Legal Service Commission and raised the spectre of executive interference in the judiciary. It reminded Jayakumar of the Conspiracy Theory of abuse of executive power. The last time this happened, an investigation was conducted and Jayeratnam was fined. Would we be seeing another investigation? Given the high quality of the people in political office today, such abuses of executive power is only a conspiracy theory. There are all kinds of checks and balances to prevent it from happening. Quite safe at the moment. Even in corporate governance in the private sector, when there are good people in charge, the present system will be more than adequate. For that matter, when a decent man is in charge of the old NKF, nothing of the like would have happened. It all boils down to decent men in charge. What happens if loanshark Ah Seng got elected into power? Or say a George Bush equivalent is elected into power? Can our system prevent such an eventuality? Are there enough safeguards in our system to prevent a rogue govt from coming into power? Given the past experience, the people has been proven to be quite naive and can elect any thing into power. This possibility cannot be ruled out. When that happens, and when too much power is vested into an office, would we be digging ourselves into a very deep shit hole.