What the govt is looking for in a govt scholar

What the govt is looking for in a govt scholar Below is a quote by Eddie Teo, PSC Chairman, on what the interviewers will be looking for when interviewing potential scholars. He advised the young interviewees to be themselves, to be critical and sceptical. And this is what he meant by that. ‘Being critical means you care about our nation and want to improve things and correct what you think is wrong. Being sceptical means you are not naïve and do not accept everything you read or hear.’ He also added that the PSC ‘is not looking for conformists or yes men …but people who dared to think and question existing policies’. With so many people calling me naïve, I sure fail miserably if I were a young man applying for a scholarship. But the motherhood statement is a very nice ideal to live up to. It would be nice if the people recruiting scholars really believe and practise what they preached. I think they do. The problems come only when these highly idealistic young people graduated and started their civil service careers. Would they continue to believe in such ideals and practise them? Look around, look at some (some only) of the farcical reasonings given to justify some of the absurb policies and decisions made, I think many would believe that such ideals are at best a myth. Or the recruitment process failed miserably in its ability to select the critical and sceptical into the service, the ‘few mavericks – people with unconventional viewpoints who are willing to challenge assumptions…(to) add vitality and diversity to the service’. What do we have and what do we see in public service? The minibond fiasco and the mess in the finance and private education industries are examples that say nobody cares nothing about our nation and about improving things. It is just a job with a clearly defined job description that comes with it. Where is the ownership, the passion and conviction in nation building? If it is not my job then it is not my problem. Running a country is not a job. Running a country is not simply about making more profits. It is about improving the quality of life of a people. What kind of life we want our people to live, cost of living and cost of not living. Are the people living when they have to spend a whole life working just to keep themselves alive instead of living life?

What integrity to protect the small investors?

We want fairness, fair odds to trade in the stock markets, to win and lose fairly. We demand a fair trading system and fair treatment from the regulators. No loaded dice in the stockmarkets. These are the minimum conditions that small investors should expect from the stockmarket trading system. Allowing a trading system to be loaded against the small investors is not only unfair, but CRIMINAL. It is a crime amounting to cheating or collaborating with the cheats to rip off the small investors. There is a very revealing article in the ST today, of course it must come from the gods in America, in Wall Street, from the New York Times. Our demigods and immortals are blind or ignorant to such revelations. Even if they do, they won’t make a whimper of it. The best they could do is to copy an article, like this article, and innocently push it out to the public. For what? To educate who? High frequency trading moves in blink of an eye ‘Critics say it offers unfair advantage over traditional trading.’ The big boys, hedge funds, are making millions and billions by the use of sophisticated trading systems and computer programmes to trade against the small investors. And the verdict is simple. They win and the small investors lose. Programme trading has been put in practice for many years with the consent of the regulators who knowing very well that it is unfair to the small traders. They are accomplices to the crime of robbing and cheating the small guys. Period. Not only that the big funds have technology on their side, the trading rules are also on their side, and aided by a big war chest, the unfair advantage they have over the small investors is unimaginable. Why were they allowed to participate in an unfair game where integrity, honesty, transparency and fair play are fundamental principles of the whole trading system? They provide volumes, they churn up volumes, giving the fictitious impression that the market is active and trading with high volumes. It was all a big farce. It was all programme trading that contributes to the high volume, buying and selling at the same time. Syndicates manipulating the stockmarkets are frown upon and apprehended for cornering the market, for market manipulation. Is programme trading in the same league? Where is the integrity to ensure a level playing field for all? Where is the integrity to protect the small guys? Or is it another case of immoral morality, exploiting the innocent small guys with a loaded dice?

Brookes duped? Not so, say ex students

This is the heading of an article in the ST about the case against Brookes Business School for issuing fake degrees from RMIT. The heading is appropriate. It is the school, Brookes, that was duped and in turn duped the students. It is the school that issued fake degrees. No human bean is involved or guilty of it. Brookes should be hanged. Would this be the natural finding at the end of the case?

New Singapore city waterfront

The financial district waterfront at dusk. 2nd pic shows the three towers of Sands Casino nearing their completion. They stand on the left of the waterfront pic and facing the Fullerton Hotel. The tower block with blue lights behind the Fullerton is the new MayBank building.

Stage for the National Day Parade

This is the floating platform in the sea next to the Esplanade. The NDP shows will be staged on this platform. The 2nd pic were performers on stage during a rehearsal.