Sim Ann reported that 45% of foreign scholars got second upper or better degrees while Singaporean scholars only managed 32%. Is this proof and justification that the money spent on foreign scholars is the correct one? I am not going to dwell on the merits and advantages of spending millions of public money on so many foreign students instead of spending on our own children. I am not going to whine about spending money on other people’s children than our own.
What I am questioning is the quality of our local scholars? Are they really that bad? From past records, all local scholars are the cream of their cohorts and each would have a string of straight As in O and A levels. Some were even so good that they were allowed to skip the O level. And only 32% made it to second upper? Our straight A students, 68% could not get a second upper? Is there something wrong?
Who are these scholars that made up these statistics? Are they the same equivalent of the foreign scholars, with full scholarship as the foreign students? We need to know the make up of the statistics. If the quality of our local scholars is so bad, then their O and A level results is suspect, or the university grading is suspect. There can be some deviations from the norms, with some scholars getting themselves into problems or losing interests in their studies. But these are extremely good students to be awarded the scholarships and most of them are expected to do better at least a second upper.
68% getting less than second upper is unacceptable. A 20% or at most 30% getting less than second upper may be more reasonable. So, what is wrong with the statistics or with our education system? Can we have more information on what the data is made up of? And I am not even querying on the statistics to include our overseas scholars. It is reasonable to compare our scholars in our local universities and those foreign scholars here. I am not comfortable with such pathetic results of our local scholars. If scholars, I mean full scholarship offered by the govt or GLCs, could not even get a second upper, then something is drastically wrong. What kind of straight As or near straight A students are we having when they turned out to be less than second upper material?
The govt should save the money if the scholars are unable to perform. But it doesn’t mean that we should throw our money to train other people’s children and say money well spent. We need to know more about the statistics to get a better picture of the truth.
2/21/2012
Paying foreigners with our money to call us dogs
‘Despite sparking widespread anger among Singaporeans with his offensive remarks on there “being more dogs than humans in Singapore”, NUS PRC scholar Sun Xu remains unrepentant and unapologetic.
When asked about the controversy by a Chinese tabloid, Sun replied nonchalantly without offering a public apology or showing any signs of remorse:
I am only complaining. It is just a small matter and I do not want to blow it up. Anyway, I have already deleted the comment.’
The daft Sinkies have been bitten again, by the dog that it is feeding with the public’s money. How can the Sinkies accept such a situation, giving out money out of our generosity to be called derogatory terms by the recipient?
What is the moral of the story? Are we that dull? Are Sinkies offended?
When asked about the controversy by a Chinese tabloid, Sun replied nonchalantly without offering a public apology or showing any signs of remorse:
I am only complaining. It is just a small matter and I do not want to blow it up. Anyway, I have already deleted the comment.’
The daft Sinkies have been bitten again, by the dog that it is feeding with the public’s money. How can the Sinkies accept such a situation, giving out money out of our generosity to be called derogatory terms by the recipient?
What is the moral of the story? Are we that dull? Are Sinkies offended?
The daft Sinkies are still not thinking
The govt is going to spend billions to help the people. $1.1b will be spent to buy 600 buses. More technology acquired and trains be bought to improve the train system. Top people deserved to be paid in the millions in both private and public. One simple question is, where is the money coming from, or who is the ultimate paymaster?
There is no running away from it. You, the daft Sinkies will pay for all these great stuff and the high pays of the great talents in one way or another. Look at the pathetic state of the CPF savings! Is it still your money or other people’s money? Why is your money be kept away from you? You find the answer. For your own good or someone else’s good?
Do not be happy when public organizations are spending huge sum of money in the name of improvement. Make sure that there is a real need for improvement and that there is improvement with the money spent. If there is no need to spend the money, then the money should not be spent. It is always your money that is being spent and you will have to pay for it. Even the pay of top honcho employees of public companies are paid by the people unless they are making their money from overseas. If they are making money from the people, the huge profit is what they made from the people to pay themselves.
And don’t be too happy about the hundreds of billions in our reserves and sovereign funds unless they benefit the people. If they just benefit the few who are managing them, then it is nothing but like the CPF statements, good to feel but cannot touch. And worst, the reserves must come from somewhere, the sovereign fund’s capital must also come from somewhere. Make a guess.
As long as your CPF is being held captive against your will, never be happy about it. Either the CPF savings are returned to the people or the people must elect a govt that will return them to the people. There are just too much of the people’s money being kept away from the rightful owners for all kinds of excuses.
The daft Sinkies are still happily in dreamland. The bulk of the Sinkies that need their savings are deprived from using their savings. Like Gintai said, the minimum sum is going to be bigger and bigger, and so is the Medisave. What is left for the owner of this money? What is the point of saving, or why call it savings? Saving for who?
There is no running away from it. You, the daft Sinkies will pay for all these great stuff and the high pays of the great talents in one way or another. Look at the pathetic state of the CPF savings! Is it still your money or other people’s money? Why is your money be kept away from you? You find the answer. For your own good or someone else’s good?
Do not be happy when public organizations are spending huge sum of money in the name of improvement. Make sure that there is a real need for improvement and that there is improvement with the money spent. If there is no need to spend the money, then the money should not be spent. It is always your money that is being spent and you will have to pay for it. Even the pay of top honcho employees of public companies are paid by the people unless they are making their money from overseas. If they are making money from the people, the huge profit is what they made from the people to pay themselves.
And don’t be too happy about the hundreds of billions in our reserves and sovereign funds unless they benefit the people. If they just benefit the few who are managing them, then it is nothing but like the CPF statements, good to feel but cannot touch. And worst, the reserves must come from somewhere, the sovereign fund’s capital must also come from somewhere. Make a guess.
As long as your CPF is being held captive against your will, never be happy about it. Either the CPF savings are returned to the people or the people must elect a govt that will return them to the people. There are just too much of the people’s money being kept away from the rightful owners for all kinds of excuses.
The daft Sinkies are still happily in dreamland. The bulk of the Sinkies that need their savings are deprived from using their savings. Like Gintai said, the minimum sum is going to be bigger and bigger, and so is the Medisave. What is left for the owner of this money? What is the point of saving, or why call it savings? Saving for who?
2/20/2012
The minimum sum straight jacket solution
The minimum sum to be kept by the CPF will increase from $123k to $131k this July. This is based on a person reaching the age of 55 and a retirement income when he hits 65 for life?
The assumptions:
1. At 55, the person only has his CPF minimum sum to live on.
2. He has no family support or filial children to give him pocket money.
3. He stops work at 55.
4. He needs a certain amount to live on as prescribed by the minimum sum.
5. He lives to 80 or 90.
How many of the assumptions are true? What about those with their own savings, flats and children to look after them? What about those who continue to work to 65, 70 or older? Do they still need the magical $131k that will balloon every few years? Do they need $100k or more when they are already in their 70s or 80s? How much do they really need when all they want to do is to stay at home and watch TV? How many of them will live past 60 or 70?
Should not the minimum sum be graduated downwards when a person is economically active, with family support, with savings and properties to live on? Why is this straight jacket sum be imposed unilaterally on everyone? How many people who live past 70 need public assistance and can the govt afford to give them 3 meals in a public nursing home?
The assumptions:
1. At 55, the person only has his CPF minimum sum to live on.
2. He has no family support or filial children to give him pocket money.
3. He stops work at 55.
4. He needs a certain amount to live on as prescribed by the minimum sum.
5. He lives to 80 or 90.
How many of the assumptions are true? What about those with their own savings, flats and children to look after them? What about those who continue to work to 65, 70 or older? Do they still need the magical $131k that will balloon every few years? Do they need $100k or more when they are already in their 70s or 80s? How much do they really need when all they want to do is to stay at home and watch TV? How many of them will live past 60 or 70?
Should not the minimum sum be graduated downwards when a person is economically active, with family support, with savings and properties to live on? Why is this straight jacket sum be imposed unilaterally on everyone? How many people who live past 70 need public assistance and can the govt afford to give them 3 meals in a public nursing home?
Treading on dangerous water
The opening up of cyberspace and social media has given the critics a lot of room to air their grievances. Everything seems to be fair game for the commentators and policy makers would no longer be able to whitewash poorly crafted policies that adversely affect the people. Life has never been that good before until internet came to the scene. It used to be one way but not any more.
I must admit that attacking and questioning a policy is easy. Every policy, no matter how well conceived, would have flaws or would be good to some and bad to others. Some are more bad than good. The housing policy has been whipped and thrashed for quite sometime and will continue to be the angst of the people. But it has done a lot of good in increasing the paper value of property owners and none will be complaining about it. It also has severe consequences on those who come late and could not keep up with the runaway prices. The young and future generations will bear the full brunt of this bad policy.
It is right and proper to want to dismiss this policy for good and modify it to a more well balanced one to be kinder to the young as well. Putting on the pressure for change, kpkb, etc is fine. But the critics have to be careful not to end up attacking the policy maker and ended up with defamation suits.
Shanmugam has sent in his lawyers. Hsien Loong is also taking TRE to task. And the issues or complaints were defamation. They have their rights to clear their names from any accusations or allegations. And being where they are, they have more rights than others for sure. You can’t expect the country’s top leaders to be the same as the man in the street. Even celebrities have bigger rights by virtue of their income and public image which are important to their earning abilities.
So far the lighter touch policy is appearing to be intact with both parties asking for the removal of the offending articles and an apology. Let’s hope that in these cases, sorry is enough and no further action be taken, no cost and damages be lined up after sorry is said.
A reminder to all, criticize for all you want. Attacking and accusing someone for wrongdoings would require proof and the will and resources to go further in the courts of law when challenged.
I must admit that attacking and questioning a policy is easy. Every policy, no matter how well conceived, would have flaws or would be good to some and bad to others. Some are more bad than good. The housing policy has been whipped and thrashed for quite sometime and will continue to be the angst of the people. But it has done a lot of good in increasing the paper value of property owners and none will be complaining about it. It also has severe consequences on those who come late and could not keep up with the runaway prices. The young and future generations will bear the full brunt of this bad policy.
It is right and proper to want to dismiss this policy for good and modify it to a more well balanced one to be kinder to the young as well. Putting on the pressure for change, kpkb, etc is fine. But the critics have to be careful not to end up attacking the policy maker and ended up with defamation suits.
Shanmugam has sent in his lawyers. Hsien Loong is also taking TRE to task. And the issues or complaints were defamation. They have their rights to clear their names from any accusations or allegations. And being where they are, they have more rights than others for sure. You can’t expect the country’s top leaders to be the same as the man in the street. Even celebrities have bigger rights by virtue of their income and public image which are important to their earning abilities.
So far the lighter touch policy is appearing to be intact with both parties asking for the removal of the offending articles and an apology. Let’s hope that in these cases, sorry is enough and no further action be taken, no cost and damages be lined up after sorry is said.
A reminder to all, criticize for all you want. Attacking and accusing someone for wrongdoings would require proof and the will and resources to go further in the courts of law when challenged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)