Changing Singapore’s DNA 换汤换药

The true blue Singaporeans built this place from Independence to a prosperous first world country. Now they are deemed as redundant, obsolete, lazy and don’t have the skills to fit in. So they are now systematically being replaced by hungry 3rd world talents and rogues from the West.
 
The question, what would Singapore be like in the future if the true blue Singaporeans become insignificant? Would Singapore still be a safe, rich and attractive place for the foreigners to come here to live and work?
 
Would the island still be a good and safe place to bring up children, low drug problems, women and children can go home safely in the early hours of the night without being raped, mugged and robbed?
 
Would the streets be clean and safe? Would the housing estate be rundown and turned into slums? Would there be law and order, rule of the law? Or would the streets be full of litters and shit? Would there be rioting, fighting and rapes every day?
 
Would the businesses and industries continue to thrive and to have the same vitality and productivity?
 
Would the foreigners turn this island into a better place or into hell? Would Singapore return to the 3rd World like where the foreigners came from?

Kopi Level - Green

WHO Ranked NTU?

By MIKOspace

The DARK SIDES of QS World Universities Ranker

Singapore Universities have recently been ranked at the Top by what most Academics and the United Nations Education agency, UNESCO, generally considered to be Bogus Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. 

Singapore University NTU has secured top placing as the world's best young university, according to Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Universities Ranking, one of three major international university ranking systems.  The London-based QS World Universities Ranking has been called “a Fraud on the public.” Another Eminent Professor said: “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”. 

Eminent Professor Simon Marginson of then Melbourne University remarked of QS that: “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”. 

A Reporter also claimed that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics. “QS has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action”.

The QS World Universities Ranking, like other Universities Rankings, is in essence deficient in terms of social science, but QS has been criticized for more than just its unsound, questionable and unscientific Methodology:

1)     THES DID drop QS for Methodological Reasons. QS’ use of peer and industry surveys is highly questionable with very low response rate returns from huge number of unspecified respondents of unknown expertise.  Read the best explanation by QS’s former partner …  

2)     The Most Stinging Criticism is the Sale of Dubious QS-Star Ratings. One wonders which self-respecting University would “buy” QS-Stars and actually use them for Marketing.  Singapore NTU (39) and MIT (1) both have 5+QS-Stars. As did the Universities of Waterloo (169), Monash (70) and Queensland (43). However, the Universities of of Cambridge (2), Harvard (3), Stanford University (4), Caltech (5) … have only 5 QS-Stars.  Brackets contain QS 2014 Rankings.  Note the UNRELIBILITY of QS Rankings vs QS-Stars, and therefore their absurd claims to VALIDITY and Credibility.

3)     And the Highly Lucrative "Consultancy" to help Universities Rise Up the QS Rankings.  Need to say more regarding QS’ commercial rather than Academic or Quality motivation?

4)     QS offers "Opportunities" for Branding from just $80,000 with QS Showcase. Another QS’ innovative commercial “Value” Service if Academic Reputation of Excellence is not enough to attract students.

5)     QS Reputation Survey has Weak Protocols, as demonstrated by this case of blatant manipulation. An Irish University President has, AGAINST QS’ Expressed Rules, asked all faculty members and other academic employees at his institution to each recruit three people from other universities to register to vote in the survey of university reputations.  QS allows Universities to encouraging people to sign up for the QS peer review survey, as long as they don't suggest favoring any one institution. Now, how does this actually work, seriously? 

6)     Finally, QS's business practices (fined GBP 80,000 or US$ 128,648 for using unlicensed software) leave an awful lot to be desired. Maybe, it’s just bad planning, inadequate IT policies or simply a lack of awareness.  Clearly, an Integrity issue for any Company desiring its Products to be viewed with Respect and Credibility.  

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Article with References:

Dark Sides of A Global Universities Ranker

To Singapore With Love – A communist hangover?

The story untold of the communists in the founding years of Singapore and their fight against colonialism and struggle for political power is still very skimpy today. The film by Tan Pin Pin has received the highest disregard censorship category, not allowed to be screened commercially under any category except for private viewing. She is still fighting very hard to get the rating reviewed.
 
From the look of things, from what Yaacob commented in Parliament and the reasons for his objections, ‘one sided portrayals, whitewashing the past, and self serving accounts, conveniently inaccuracies’, it is unlikely that this film will see the light of the day unless there is a new govt in power.
 
I am wondering if Bill Clinton were to sell his bibliography here and conveniently left out his relationship with the intern, would his book be allowed for sale here, or would his film version also received a NAR rating. On the other hand, would To Singapore With Love be allowed for screening if Tan Pin Pin were to call it fiction instead of a historical account of what happened? There is no room for alternative views as far as history is concerned. There is only one correct version.
 
How, Tan Pin Pin, why not try to tell Yaacob that your film is fiction and should be viewed as fiction? At least there is a higher chance of getting a PG rating. Then let the people judge if it is fiction or truth or otherwise.
 
Today, Communism has been defeated and rejected. Communism is history and so is the CPM. Even if the govt allows political parties to contest for election, European countries have allowed it, would it draw any meaning support and followers from the people? And would the personal histories of some of these old veterans of a bygone era, of a defeated ideology, be a threat to our national security? The current threat, as rightly pointed out be Chee Hean, is IS. This one got to handle with absolute care and sensitivity.
 
At the height of the anti communist struggle and policies, the Govt even banned contacts and travelling to China and other communist countries. Today we are allowed to travel freely to these countries and China is even our biggest trading partner. The communists from these countries too can come here quite freely as well. Has anything changed? Should we come to terms with our historical past and move on? Are we suffering from some obsessions or phobia of the communist past or hang ups? Is the Singapore polity so fragile, the people so daft that a film of the irrelevant past could post a national security threat and lead to the break up of social order?
 
Communism and communist ideologies for anyone?

Kopi Level - Green

Indian, Indonesian, Thai bourses top performers

This is the headline of a ST report today. India was top with its index gaining 27% for the first nine months of the year. Thailand was second with a 24.5% gain while Indonesia came in third with a 21.5% gain. Singapore and Japan were joint fifth with a 3.5% gain.
 
What are the common factors of the three top Asian bourses? They did not allow external super computers to be plugged into their bourses computers to gain special advantage for the big boys. And I think their derivative markets are very small or non existent. Thirdly, I don’t think they spent millions to hire foreign talents to run their bourses. And fourthly, they did not turn their bourses into mini replicas of the NYSE in norms and substance.
 
Is that the way to go or is the Singapore way, aka American system the way to go? Or shall I rephrase that, what is the way to go up or to go down the gutters?

Kopi Level - Green

Saving Roy

The tag of heckling Special Needs Children has been hung on the necks of Roy and Hui Hui. And it is not only some jokers saying it. The main media are saying it, the MPs and Ministers are saying it. So far no one from the establishment is saying other wise. So, would this tag be burnt on the skins of Roy and Hui Hui?

The social media have risen in protest to tell another story. Ok, I must say that the only person who was directly involved in this ‘heckling’ thing did not say it. There were many eyewitnesses from the social media, the uncles and aunties. There were photos and video clips to show exactly what had happened. And the police are investigating the incident like a crime had taken place. Would it be enough or would a Commission of Inquiry be conducted on this ‘heckling’ incident? Heckling Special Needs Children is now a very, very serious thing in this island, more serious than gum chewing and graffiti I think.

Why is this so? Compare to the Little India Riot, this is definitely a more dangerous incident. Firstly, the rioters in Little India were very nice people, and very happy. In this case, the uncles and aunties were very angry people for they were fighting for their CPF money, their life time savings that they believed must be returned to them. They have a grudge, a grouse to settle. So there was a valid reason to he angry. And Roy and Hui Hui were very, very fierce. Roy was seen shouting until his veins were protruding from his neck and his facial expression was that of an angry young man. Hui Hui was worse. She was challenging and bullying the NPark Director and the policemen not in uniform. How not to fear her? And their voices were deafening, very much louder than those rioters in Little India, with the help of loudspeakers of course. The only thing they did not do was burning police vehicles.

But that is nothing compares to heckling children, and not only ordinary children but Special Needs Children. If this fact is proven, it is going to be ugly. No one is accusing them of heckling the minister. Either this is not true or not important enough.

So, why Saving Roy but not Saving Hui Hui as well? You see, all the uncles and aunties were above 55. So they would be spared the cane even if the crime is ‘caneable’. As for Hui Hui, she is lucky that as a female she is not ‘caneable’. As for Roy, ‘chiat lat’ man. He is a man, and if this serious crime warrants caning, his ‘pantat’ sure ‘pitcha’, open flower.

Now you see why my title is Saving Roy? And if a COI is convened, we have two freshly cooked and very experienced ex judge and ex Police Commissioner with just the right skill sets for this job. Perhaps they may think the Police could have acted earlier, and more decisive to prevent this heckling incident from happening. Perhaps they could tell the NPark that they should have foreseen this possibility and should not have approved the two events to be held at the same place and same time. Perhaps they could tell the parents that they should not have brought their children to a protest site. There are a lot of perhaps that a COI could talk about.

What are the facts so far? The most authoritative person in the centre of this fracas said the protesters were there for him. Would this be enough to say that they were not after the children, to disrupt or heckle the children? The protesters were at least 20m or 30m from the children, shouting ‘Return Our CPF’ and ‘Vote them Out’. The distance was reasonably far away from the children though the sound could reach them because of the loudspeakers. But the two slogans shouted had nothing to do with the children. And from all their actions, were they clear enough that they were not there to heckle the children?

Special Needs Children are extra sensitive. Some have disputed this claim. Autistic children are highly sensitive and intimidated by the presence of crowds. Are those children up on stage autistic children or Special Needs Children that are highly sensitive to the crowd and noise?

One of the childen performing on stage missed a bit. So it must be due to the ‘heckling’ and nothing else? Did they stumble on the beat for some other reasons? Remember, they are Special Needs Children. And another Special Needs Children needed comforting by the Minister. Did the child say he/she was frightened or heckled by the protesters?

Would the evidence from video clips and eye witnesses be enough to save Roy and Hui Hui for this extraordinary and exceptionally hideous crime against the Special Needs Children, called heckling? Would this tag be branded on them for life, as Special Needs Children Hecklers?

Kopi Level - Green