Malaysia red shirt protest rally

Yesterday Malaysia celebrated Malaysia Day in a different manner. A group of Malays donning on red shirts and calling themselves the Himpunan Rakyat Bersatu took to the streets to assert Malay dominance in Malaysia. They wanted the minority races to know that they are guests to the country, there are only allowed to live in Malaysia under the grace and generosity of the Malays. Malaysia belongs to the Malays.

The protest rally came about in response to an earlier rally a month ago called Bersih 4 calling for a clean govt after the 1MDB incident. Though that protest was attended by all the races, including Mahathir Mohammed and Muhyiddin, and the issue was corruption, it has been interpreted or turned into a racial issue. It becomes a Chinese and Indian insult to the Malays and Islam and Malay dominance in Malaysia.

The protest march in the centre of Kuala Lumpur was intended to move through the Chinese majority districts and Bukit Bintang where past racial riots were at its worst. It was a show of force to intimidate the Chinese and other minority races not to trifle or insult the Malays. How the Bersih 4 protest against corruption can become an insult and challenge to Malay rights, dominance and Islam is only a matter of politicking. And the protest was very real, tension very high, fear was everywhere. The threats of another racial riots and bloodbath were clear and imminent. Credits should go to the police to keep the protestors under control and not to break into another killing field. Businesses in the district were at a stand still, all shops closed.

The Sultan of Johore has taken a very strong stand against promoters of hatred and instability. He warned anyone trying to do it in Johore that he would deal with the agitator personally.  ‘Anyone who creates disharmony and spreads hatred here by promoting racism, will have to deal with me personally.  Take this as a warning. This is not the stone age, do not be ungrateful – the Malays, Chinese and Indians all played their part. Johor Darul Ta’zim is home to the Malays, Chinese and Indians; they are Bangsa Johor.’

Looking from across the Causeway, Singaporeans must be very grateful that we don’t have to face such threats and tension every now and then. The non Malay Malaysians must take this incident very seriously as to how far they could go. Race and religion are highly sensitive issues that can be hijacked and turned into an inflammable political issue. All Singaporeans must also not to take the good inter racial relations for granted. New citizens must also take note of the effort the govt and Singaporeans have put in to keep racial and religious harmony as a top priority agenda in this city state. The govt also must take note that keeping 4 major ethnic communities living peacefully is not an easy task. To add into this mixed pot with more diverse ethnic groups from all over the world would risk creating more troubles down the road.

Singapore is good as it is. Tempering with the concoction that has stabilized over the years by adding more inflammable mixes into it would ensure a very unstable future. Don’t be stupid to think that race and religion are so easy to handle and manage. They are age old ingredients for wars among people, ageless.

The new political profiles of Singaporeans

With the experience and hindsight of this GE I would like to re classify the Singaporeans into 6 categories. The Seniors, the Young, the New Citizens, Thinking adults, the Fun Loving and the Ideal Singaporeans.

The Seniors, this group is quite easy to please. Look at their vulnerabilities and you can actually understand the kind of stimuli they would react to. Not much thinking required. They are old, unemployed and without an income, what can you expect them to do when they have little or no savings? They have returned to Maslow’s first level of needs, to survive, food and shelter. Yes, throw them the meat or crumbs and they would chase for it. The Pioneer Generation Package is the perfect gift and motivating factor to this group of Singaporeans. Throw in Medishield Life and a quarterly stipend from Silver Support Scheme for life and you have them sewn up in the bag.

The Young is not too difficult to please either. Tell them a good story and a good ending and throw them a big party and promise them a great future, a futuristic Singapore where they can indulge in Star Wars contraptions and romance. They love a good adventure of modern gadgetry and living in space or underground. These are the generations of Sci fi and wi fi and a good lie. The SG50 party was enough to win them over. They would be looking for the good life in the future.

The New Citizens. This group is easy to please too. Coming from little villages of poorly managed and disorganized and dysfunctional societies, and countries when nothing works, when living is to rough it out with nature and garbage, this island is paradise to them, where they can make their dreams come true and be clean, everything is clean and orderly in this island. Our streets are cleaner than their homes. Our shopping malls and MRT stations are more comfortable than the best homes in their villages. They will die to come here. Being here is already a great incentive and reason to die for. Oh, there is also the super rich in this group too, running away from high taxation, why not, and can throw their weights and punches around too.

The fourth group is thinks a bit and always doubting when snake oil salesmen went on their rounds saying every will be fine, especially in the long run. This group consists of the cynics, those that would not take things at face value, not easily persuaded or conned, but always doubtful and never satisfied with the status quo. This group would always be the minority and odd man out, and could simply be ignored. They are too small and inconsequential. Often their stories of a bad endings were ignored. Many would eventually flee the island. Oops, I mean migrated, not as quitters I hope. They are the pain in the arse type, very hard to please.

The Fun Loving. This group can be seen during the GE hustings, attending rallies after rallies, for fun. They just enjoyed the speeches and theatres as entertainment. They are harmless and without depth. These are superficial people that have nothing better to do than to attend political rallies to amuse themselves. They are the ‘chiat par’ and nothing to do type, like the socialites in the aristocracy but belonging to the middle class, not the elite class.

And there is a final group, the Ideal Singaporeans. This group, not sure how big, can think and understand what they want. They want a govt made up of politicians that are honest, men and women of impeccable integrity, no ‘how seow’ type of politicians, serious talks, and very intelligent, and would not indulge in mud slinging or underhand tactics. These are people who understand logic and good reasons and will vote for good people and good govt. Not every citizen is thinking and intelligent like this group though all thinks they could think and reason like this group of Ideal Singaporeans.

So, which group do you belong to?

How relevant is international experience?

‘Mr Chan said companies which set up headquarters in Singapore look for people who know the regional market in Southeast Asia and can connect with the international market as well.

"They need teams of people who have the global and regional perspective. They don't care whether it's a Singaporean or non-Singaporean, that's the blunt truth, they only care about whether their team has the global perspective," noted Mr Chan, secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).’

The above is quoted from an ST article dated 27 Jul 15.

I think this is a practical advice, go for your overseas exposure to earn that spur to compete with foreigners in Singapore. Without the international exposure, you don’t stand a chance against the 3^rd World villagers that came here to work and claimed Singapore as an international experience. To these villagers, Singapore  is big city and they can go around flashing their working experience here. Does working in Singapore for Singaporeans mean anything? Or does an American or British who had worked in New York or London meant so much difference from Singaporeans working in Singapore? Would someone from Mumbai, Manila or Shanghai coming to Singapore be more advantageous because they already got experience in their home countries but no experience here?

What if a Singaporean is working in a local firm or MNC whose business is local, in Singapore, like a ‘chai tow kuey’ company or kopitiam? What about local banks/businesses when the operation is all local with local clients? Do they need international experience like working in London and New York? Must a Singaporean seeking a job in a local bank whose business is here needs to compete with a foreigner, like a New Yorker or Londoner, and lost out because they had worked in the two big cities and coming to work in a local bank here, whose business is here? Would he also lose out to someone from Mumbai, Manila or Shanghai? Is local knowledge and experience more important for working here?

I am just asking questions about this very important criterion called international experience as a badge of honour and a rite of passage. A MNC operating here, doing business here, would it be more advantages for the organisation to employ Singaporeans with local knowledge? What is the relevance of working experience in New York and London, when the businesses and customers are Singapore and Singaporeans? What is the advantage if he comes from Mumbai, Manila or Shanghai?

Actually I dunno the answer. I only hear people said got international experience must be good.  Do we need our politicians to work in London and New York or for that matter in Jakarta or Medan to make him a better politician? At one time everyone said must have a MBA then good. Does an organisation need to hire an MBA to run his ‘chai tow kuey’ or kopitiam store?

Please enlighten me? If international experience is that important, we better recruit our politicians from New York and London.

By the way, when all the talents are coming here to make their fortunes, why are we telling our PMEs to go overseas to make their rupees and rupiahs? And why are we issuing so many employment agency licenses to foreigners to bring in foreigners to work here and putting our Singaporeans at their mercy? Our country, jobs in our country, Singaporeans need to beg foreigners running recruiting agencies for job placements and allowing foreigners to tell the Singaporeans that they preferred to bring in foreigners, because foreigners best and Singaporeans no skill sets?

The Mathematician won – recomputation

My earlier two articles, ‘The Mathematician won’ and ‘What could the results be’, were based on the assumption that there were 300,000 new citizens. The official figure was 110,000 ie 2.46m less 2.35m eligible voters. Given the low birth rate, death and emigration, the net growth from the local population is near to zero, thus the 110,000 increase is likely to come from new citizens. My earlier assumption of 300,000 was thus wrong and the figure to use is 110,000 or about 1/3. The variable positions or findings thus would have to be adjusted accordingly. I also assumed that overseas Singaporeans were not allowed to vote thus raising the query whether the 2.46m eligible voters included or excluded them. I have found out that overseas Singaporeans did vote and thus were included in the 2.46m eligible voters. According to the media only 3,415 voted out of 4,868 eligible overseas Singaporeans. The number of overseas Singaporeans is 212,000.

Let me put the figures together again to clear up the confusion. When the assumptions were wrong, the result, though logical will be wrong. The conclusion would thus be different proportionally. Similarly, conclusions were based on the given data and how reliable the data would affect the end results.

Official facts

2.46m eligible voters and 93.56% cast their votes. Total voted was 2.304m.

PAP received 69.9% of the votes cast or 1.610m (Reported was 1.576m)

Opposition would receive 30.1% or 691,000 votes.

The 110,000 additional voters/new citizens were an equivalent of 4.5% of 2.46m

Applying this 4.5% change into the 60:40 equation, if 4.5% went to the 60 side, the impact would be 64.5/104.5 to 40/104.5 or 62% to 38%, ie a 2% shift on each side or a net 4% shift. If the 4.5% was added on the 40% side the new position would be 57.5% to 42.5%.

As my two articles were based on a single factor analysis, to get a 10% swing, the other factors must come into play. The 110,000 new citizen factor contributed to a 4% swing and the other factors, PGP, subsidies, stipends, Medishield Life etc would add the balance 6% to make the 10% swing in my previous articles.

A blogger raised the issue of an unaccounted 240,000 votes using the loss of 120,000 votes by the opposition and the gain of 360,000 votes by the PAP from 2011 to 2015.  This can be explained by the 2.304m votes cast. If the share of votes were to be 60:40, PAP should get 1.382m and oppo would get 922k votes. The actual votes of PAP were 1.576 and oppo 680k. The difference was what oppo should get ie 922k less 680k or 242K.  Oppo thus lost 100k plus the percentage increase in eligible votes. That would make up the missing 240k for the 360,000 gained by PAP. The numbers are not exact due to some mulitiplication margins.

In summary, only 4% shift was due to new citizens based on the statistics available and 6% due to other factors. The PAP’s winning percentage should go down by 4% while the oppo’s percentage should go up by 4% point when the new citizen factor was in play.  I hope this would help to make the picture clearer.

PS. We are taking the official data on population at face value in this discussion, as the truth. There is also a cumulative effect of new citizens that will continue to think like new citizens for some years to come. There will be exceptions when new citizens will think like the true blue Singaporeans and could emphatise with us and knowing that we share the same fate and destiny.

NUS and NTU better than Yale and Cornell Universities

According to the latest Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, NUS and NTU ranked above Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and King’s College of London. NUS is not only the top university in Asia but ranked 12^th in the world.  NTU is ranked 13^th.  What a great achievement! Beida, Xinhua, Tokyo, Waseda, Hongkong, move aside. We have the best universities in the whole world. There is no need to go to the US or UK to get quality education. No need to waste money going to lowly ranked universities in Australia and the rest of the world.  That is, if you believe the ranking equates to quality of universities and quality of its output, ie students.

The criteria for the rankings are academic and employer reputations, student to faculty ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio and international student ratio and also research excellence. How would these criteria affect or benefit the students? Academic and employer reputations, presumably the graduates are highly sough after by employers. Is that so? We only know that our junks did not have the right skill sets and are often rejected by employers that preferred to hire from the 3^rd World unranked universities. Fake degrees and degree mills also better, or can do.

Student to faculty ratio, presumably a smaller ratio would mean closer and personal attention on the students and can be translated to better grades. Enrol Ah Meng and check if better student to faculty ratio would make Ah Meng smarter. Citations per faculty and research excellence would mean better academics and thus benefit the students and their quality. Use the Ah Meng to confirm if this is also true. International faculty ratio and international student ratio, both imply that with more foreign faces, the universities are better. So just pump in more 3^rd world lecturers and students also can. How would these improve the quality of the graduates, more international friends, can relate and socialize with foreigners better, easier to integrate with them? EQ is important, what about grades?

What the rankings said is that we are world best. When we were not world best, we need to borrow international names, pay them, bring the whole faculties here, to say we have world best universities. Now we can do the reverse, the universities of the world would want to have joint campuses with us, bring our whole faculties to their countries and pay them good rupiahs, rupees and renminbis. Maybe can get Japanese Yen also.  There will be many joint campuses in other countries with the NUS/NTU brand and our lecturers would be in demand. We can send all our foreign lecturers to these countries and hire more foreign lecturers to replace them. What about Singaporean lecturers? What is that?

My recommendation, there is no need to send our students to the universities. The employers would still not hire them. Maybe in 30 years time. So a better recommendation would be to send them to the unranked universities in the 3^rd World. That is where the employers find all their good employees. Not in our world class top universities.

Why so funny? Paying for such good reputation but no market value, no demand. If the high rankings would lead to a situation where the employers are queuing up to snatch all the graduates from our top universities then it would make sense. To be real, to be able to get employed, it is better to go to universities in the 3^rd World and sign up with employment agencies from the 3^rd World given a licence to operate here. They are the game changer. They will get the applicants the right jobs, not the piece of paper from our top universities. They still cannot produce the right graduates with the right skill sets for the job market.

Maybe the Quacquarelli Symonds System may want to add a new criteria, the universities must produce graduates with the right skill sets for the job market. If their graduates are not wanted by the employers, did not have the right skill sets, give them a big F.

What do you think? Are we wasting public money for the wrong things, for a superficial branding without substance?

PS. Watch MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, we are going to over take you. We will bring in more foreign faculty staff and foreign students to improve our rankings further. And watch out students, the fees will increase with the improvement in quality, I mean rankings.