SMRT accident – So difficult to state the facts?

Reports in the Today paper on 23 Mar stated this, ‘However, SMRT Corporation chief executive officer Desmond Kwek maintains that the two victims were walking behind their supervisor and the 15 member team were walking in single file on the 0.5m wide walkway…They were 50m away from the location of the signaling equipment at the time of the tragedy.’

My contention, if the team was walking in single file in a path for maintenance personnel, the path should be safe enough to walk on, passing safety guidelines. The train would go pass them, with a bit of squeeze, but safely.  The fact that the supervisor was in front of the single file, he would be the first to be hit if the train could hit the two behind him. What supposedly happened, the train missed hitting the first man, but could hit the second and the third, and missed the rest behind the third man. This was only possible if the train jumped track after going pass the first man, hit two men, then jumped back to the main track. Of course this was highly unlikely, impossible.

Today’s reports on 24 Mar have a bit more detail, with timeline of what happened but still left a lot of blanks to be filled. It went with the 15men team walking in single file, and ‘SMRT said before the team was allowed to step back onto the trackway it had to coordinate with the station’s signal unit “for oncoming trains to be brought to a stop and to ensure that no trains enter the affected sector”. “Our records do not show that this procedure took place.” SMRT said.’

So, were the men crossing onto the track to the signal equipment or 50 meters away? The above statement suggested that the men or some of the men were crossing the track or on the track near the equipment.  It was only in such a position, on the track that they could be hit by the oncoming train.

What is strange is that the report did not say whether they were on the track or otherwise. What was also strange is that it was a procedural lapse, never get permission to cross onto the track.

Remember, even if there was no permission requested or granted, 15 men were at the scene. Did anyone see or hear the train coming? Did anyone shout for whoever were on the track to jump off the track?  All the 15 men were blind and deaf? No one see the train coming?  How does a chicken cross the road? Wait for the traffic light to turn red.  Then look left, look right, all clear then cross. Would anyone in the middle of a road, or in this case in a train track, would be oblivious of oncoming train, no need to pay attention to look out for on coming train?

What is the true story? Were the men on the train track? Did anyone see the train coming? Did anyone shout to those on the train? Silent movie?

Oh ST quoted one of the men saying they were crossing onto the track and saying, “We didn’t realize that there was a train coming towards us…After I put my foot over the rail, my senior technical officer behind shouted: ‘Train is coming! Train is coming!’” This is about as complete as you can get. Still a question goes abegging. Why no one was assigned to watch out for oncoming trains in a ‘live firing’ area?

The train cannot hit anyone on the walkpath. If it could, it would hit the first man and the rest of the team unless it came to an immediate halt.

Even if the procedure was not followed, no record, there were 15 pairs of eyes and ears to see and hear the train coming? It was dangerous, but could the accident be avoided if the eyes and ears were open?

What do you think?

Paul Tambyah is a better choice for the by election

There was an article posted in TRE claiming that Paul Tambyah would make a better candidate in Bukit Batok. I must agree with the assertion but not necessarily the arguments. Some commentators were questioning the intent of the author, Jeremy Chen, who was once an SDP member but fell out with the party and wanting to drive a wedge between the two top SDP leaders.

Paul Tambyah is a good man and a very safe candidate for the by election. He is less controversial and has the credential and stature to be a PAP minister if he chose to join the PAP. He is a big cut above many of the ministers in the govt.

The very decision for Paul Tambyah to join the SDP is telling enough to say that he not only shared a lot of things with Chee Soon Juan but also is there to support him. No one can drive a wedge into their relationship. There is chemistry and mutual respect in the two men and Paul Tambyah would be fully behind Chee and supporting him fully in this by election. Don’t have any doubt about it.

Paul Tambyah is a very comfortable and secure man, in all aspects of his life and will be doing very well in what he is doing now. He is likely to defer to allow Chee to have a go at this by election knowing how hard and how much effort Chee has put into his political cause. There is no need to put up a case on why Chee is better or Paul is better as a candidate for the Bukit Batok by election.

Chee is no push over. And despite his controversial history and relationship with the opposition parties, deep down, the opposition camp knows that Chee is the right man to stand in this by election. There is this unspoken respect and admiration for Chee and what Chee has done as a politician. And no worthy or honourable opposition politician would want to go into Bukit Batok to spoil the broth for Chee literally.

And if elected, Chee would create a real impact in parliament and the politics of Singapore like you have never seen before. He would stand out, even if as a solitary representative of SDP, as the de facto opposition leader if in parliament. You will hear him, see him and not to miss him as a leader in the opposition camp. The opposition bench would gain more respect and weight if Chee is with them and working in unison with them in parliament.

There is no candidate today in the opposition camp that is the equal of Chee Soon Juan in the ability to articulate a political cause or a political issue in parliament. There is no one that has the same stature internationally and domestically as Chee Soon Juan as an opposition politician.

Like him or against him, Chee Soon Juan stands a head above the crowd.

Bukit Batok by election – Who to win?

One gave 10 reasons why Chee Soon Juan should win and one said otherwise with 10 reasons to back up. Let me put a few reasons why Chee should win despite the odds and the bad showing of SDP in the GE. The most important reason is God’s will. Heaven is on the side of SDP and Chee Soon Juan. When God is helping him, there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome.  Ok, I am using God’s will for convenience. I could have used feng shui and the name Bukit Buttock to justify my argument. Maybe some other time.

The first point, there is no chance for Chee or anyone to get into Parliament until the next GE. It needs a little miracle or indiscretion to force a rerun. And this rerun can be anywhere, in any constituency, in a GRC. But it has to be in a SMC and in Bukit Batok, not in any other SMC. And when it comes to Bukit Batok, the only candidate that has been working so hard for so many years is Chee Soon Juan. Why not the last SDP candidate that ran for the GE? This is a by election and only the best candidate will do, and PAP is putting up its best candidate, the very best candidate in its stable of candidate. Murali Pillai is the best the PAP has and putting up anyone in SDP will get an even bigger rubbing. See the hands of God at work?

Even the by election is crafted in Chee’s name. No one is calling it a Murali by election. It is called a Chee by election. Don’t have naughty ideas please. It is all about Chee Soon Juan, the come back kid.

And of course this is not going to be easy and PAP would make it even harder. The PAP is going to put up its best and most hardworking candidate supported by the whole PAP machinery to win this by election. Murali is even more hardworking than David Ong, and have excellent relations with the grassroots. According to Tharman, an old auntie was asking for him to come back to serve Bukit Batok.

But there is a catch that many people did not see. PAP is like giving away this by election, conceding an own goal before it even started. How’s that, many of you would not get it. PAP is putting its very best, how to concede an own goal?

Think GRC? Why GRC? There were two key assumptions when the concept of GRC was mooted. To ensure minority representation in Parliament through GRC. Why? One, minority candidates are weaker. Two, the voters would vote on racial grounds. So minority candidates would stand on weak grounds and fighting in SMC is a losing proposition. Then why put up a minority candidate in Bukit Batok? So he is the best candidate, though a minority. This part is like saying my logic is ‘head I win, tail you lose’.  Heard of ‘mao矛 dun 盾’? So what if Murali is the strongest minority candidate, and that he is better than a majority candidate? The people would still vote on racial ground he sure to lose. This kind of logic, not I say one huh. I only parrot this clever logic.

But now things have changed. According to Tharman and other PAP politicians, the voters are smart and not racist, and would not vote on racial ground. This argument I also parrot.  Not I say one, not my logic. Head I win, tail you lose.

If this logic is true, if things have changed, the voters have matured, not daft anymore, not racist, it must mean that there is no need for GRCs anymore. True or not? If PAP believes in this logic, there must come out with an amendment in Parliament that henceforth there is no need for GRCs and all will be single wards.

Would the PAP do this? If not, then it must mean they don’t believe the people will not vote on racial grounds. Then Murali will be a sacrificial lamb.  Tiok or not? Do I sound logical or illogical? I am just trying to practice the art of ‘mao dun’.

Incidentally, for those who are still guessing what is this art called ‘mao dun’, let me explain. It is about a super talented salesman trying to sell his spears and his shields. He claimed that his spears were the best and can penetrate through any shield. Then he also claimed his shields were world best and no spears could penetrate them. One time said could poke through, one time said could not poke through. Which is right?  Some one asked what would happen if his spear would to be used against his shield? This was how the phrase ‘mao dun’ came about. ‘Mao’ is spear in Chinese, and ‘dun’ is shield.

So what do you think of this ‘mao dun’ logic and the chances of Murali against Chee? Is Murali put there to win or to lose? I just find the ‘mao dun’ logic of fielding Murali a bit difficult to accept and thus conclude that Chee should win. I may be wrong, because I am not a super talent and therefore unable to understand the logic of super talents.

So, Chee wins or Murali wins?

Singapore Fooled AGAIN By 2016 World University Rankings

 

By MIKOspace

Singapore Retains Brand of Questionable Authenticity

Need to Restore Authenticity and Integrity in Our Universities

Once again, 2 of Singapore’s top 4 Universities are ranked among the global top 10 for 15 subjects, according to the 2016 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings by Subjects.  The National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) are at top 10 in the QS 2016 World University Rankings just-released by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS).  And since only UK and US Universities were ranked better, it means that Singapore NUS and NTU are the best Universities in Asia.

The other 2 Universities, the Singapore Management University (SMU) and SIM University, did not participate in “The Big Lie” propagated by such annual beauty contests of Universities.

See:  Singapore in Fraudulent 2015 World Universities Rankings

And yes, this is the same QS Ranker whose annual QS World University Ranking was condemned by eminent Chicago University Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, as “a fraud on the public”.   Another scholar, Professor Simon Marginson, an eminent scholar in international higher education, had also criticized “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”.  

It is common knowledge that QS methodology contains serious fundamental conceptual and methodological flaws to render QS Rankings practically useless, irrelevant and immaterial for any serious educational policy purpose.  Under scrutiny, the QS Ranking Methodology should have failed to withstand the penetrative professional scrutiny of truly Top Academics and Research Institutions like NTU and NUS, who instead now endorse the spurious Rankings results so as to position themselves dishonestly in full knowledge of the lack of validity and reliability of their proxy measures and methodology.

In return for dancing and cavorting with bogus University Rankers like QS and THE, we received for our legacy excellent Universities a Brand of Questionable Authenticity. This is a disservice to Singapore and Singaporeans.

By embracing misleading University Rankers like QS and THE, NTU and NUS administrators, senior manager and Professors have been disingenuous and unprincipled in conferring legitimacy on the meaningless results of what essentially are bogus ranking standards of dubious University excellence. 

The successful Annual seduction of NTU and NUS by “beauty contest” University rankings can only be attributed to either sheer mindless stupidity, or the abject ignorance of rigorous, sophisticated and transparent scientific research methods.

In fact, one of QS’ competitors, the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranker, had in fact pointed out that QS employed a “very, very weak and simplistic methodology” to assess universities worldwide.  According to THE, the QS’ “weak” methodology has actually ranked undeserving Malaysian Universities to be of world-class status when they were “way off” from being so, and thereby gave Malaysian education authority an “over-optimistic, distorted” idea of how local varsities actually fare.

All the World University Rankers use different factors and criteria to “measure” University excellence. None has any scientific basis for their choice of proxies for University quality. None have in fact published their methodology nor subject it to the vigorous due diligence expected of a simple research paradigm. 

No wonder the United Nations education body, UNESCO, concluded that “these rankings are of dubious value, are underpinned by questionable social science, arbitrarily privilege particular indicators, and use shallow proxies as correlates of quality”.

Actually, QS themselves have "been surprised by the extent to which governments and university leaders use the rankings to set strategic targets. We at QS think this is wrong.  …" And added: "Ranks should not be a primary driver of university mission statements and visions.  …. "

NTU became a full-fledged University in 1991. It is noteworthy that by April 2001, NTU's research had resulted in 20 spin-off companies with many funded by venture firms, with 150 disclosures, 76 patents filed and 30 patents granted.  The research papers of its staff and students in refereed international journals also won numerous awards in international competitions and conferences. 

In the recent 8 years, NTU has re-directed its energy and resource to satisfy the bogus criteria/standard of dubious University excellence purveyed by Rankers such as QS and THE.  And as it improved on its meaningless Rankings on the QS and THE, its earlier highly visible impact of entrepreneurship, patents and innovations disappeared strangely from its list of true achievements.  These never returned.  

The impact of NTU and NUS on Singapore students and society cannot be measured by the degrees of newly ascribed dubious proxies of excellence defined by bogus “World University Ranking” Standards.  It can only be measured in terms of their contribution to the happiness and well-being of stakeholders and of the Singapore and global communities to which we belong and serve.

It is more important what we think of our own Universities and what they have achieved for our young people, our communities and our nation.  What foreigners think of us using irrelevant and bogus criteria should not make us unhappy.

A University’s contribution to society is its sufficient measure. The important thing is to let other people think whatever they want, and not to lose one’s self-esteem by letting others diminish the accolades of our genuine acclaims and true achievements, so that we can lend them our excellent reputation of authenticity and honesty to cover up their lack of credibility, validity and reliability. 

We should stop participating in any and all the fraudulent World Universities Rankings, so as to stop endorsing such bogus standards of dubious quality excellence.

Related:

Singapore in World Universities Rankings Fraud

Laws Broken for Top Universities Rankings

Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for Top Universities Rankings

Why We Should Not Trust Global University League Tables

True Lies about World Universities Ranking     

Singapore NTU is Number 1 University

QS Ranking - A Fraud on the Public

Scrutiny of QS Universities Ranking

UNESCO - University Rankings of Dubious Value

Quoting and misquoting LKY’s legacy

On his first year anniversary, it is like LKY returning to life on the TV sets and appearing in every home. You see him, you hear him and you can feel him. He is shouting down into everyone his wisdoms and wise quotes. ‘Go chase the rainbow’, or ‘Do not mortgage the future of your children’.

It is so easy to parrot what LKY was saying like quoting verses from the bible, ‘Whoever believes in me shall have ever lasting life’. Many people are mouthing about living his legacies, and living his wisdoms. But in reality do these people really understand what LKY was saying, what were his intentions?  Or they took his legacy and wisdom and turned them upside down, turning his wise words into mockery, instead of doing good for the people, actually doing more harm than good?

When LKY talked about chasing the rainbow, he was talking to Singaporeans, the young and not so young. He was not talking to the foreigners. He wanted Singaporeans to be successful, to step on what he had built and get a lift to better things in life. It was never about foreigners. It was never about giving our rainbows to the foreigners, allowing foreigners to pluck the low hanging fruits that we grew by our sweat and tears. Did I get this part wrong, that LKY was telling the foreigners to go chase after the rainbow? Did LKY say take the rainbow and give it to foreigners?  I did not read it that way? Anyone thinks LKY is telling them to snatch the rainbow away from Singaporeans to give it to foreigners?

The other part is about not mortgaging the future of our children away. Has anyone done that, mortgaging the future of our children away? No, no one is silly enough to mortgage the future of our children away. But has anyone give Singapore away, to foreigners? How much of Singapore has been given away to foreigners? No, we are only sharing our Singapore and our wealth and assets with foreigners. No one is giving them away. Please take this, it is a Singapore passport to prosperity, to a share of Singapore. It is complimentary.

Did I read LKY rightly or wrongly, in mortgaging the future of our children away? Quoting LKY is very easy. Primary school children also can do that. But understanding him, his intent, and the meaning of his wise words are a totally different thing altogether. One thing that people should not do is to turn LKY on his head, destroy his legacy and abuse his wise quotes or misquoting him.

What have we done to his legacy and his wise quotes?