Interesting Quote:
'It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in a high hat and tuxedo.'
GARY ACKERMAN, US House of Representatives member, to chief executives from General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler who flew into Washington in their private jets to plead for US$25 billion (S$38 billion) in federal aid.
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Neo-Colonialism
I read this interesting thought by Dr Farish Noor, one of the most prominent Malaysian scholar-activists now based in Singapore.
In this particular article, No, Neo-Colonialism Is Never The Answer, he observed that the governments of South-East Asia share a common trait - the huge disconnect between the people and the ruling elite. In his view, this was a legacy of the colonial structure that was never dismantled fully. The governments, though locally elected, were still acting like the past colonial masters.
This is what he said:
"Today the structures of colonial rule persist with colonial laws such as Malaysia’s Internal Security Act still in place; and the ruling elite of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries are likewise distanced from their own people. Like the colonial masters of the past, they view their own fellow citizens with incredulity, and fail to understand how plural and complex their societies really are."
He also said:
"It is imperative therefore that we recognise two things: That postcolonial societies have yet to jettison the colonial mindset of colonial governmentality; and that we need to develop a new mode of representative politics that reflects the complexity of the societies we reside in.... The sooner the political elites of Indonesia (and Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines) realise this, and the sooner they behave like democratic representatives rather than colonial bureaucrats, the better it will be for everyone."
In this particular article, No, Neo-Colonialism Is Never The Answer, he observed that the governments of South-East Asia share a common trait - the huge disconnect between the people and the ruling elite. In his view, this was a legacy of the colonial structure that was never dismantled fully. The governments, though locally elected, were still acting like the past colonial masters.
This is what he said:
"Today the structures of colonial rule persist with colonial laws such as Malaysia’s Internal Security Act still in place; and the ruling elite of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries are likewise distanced from their own people. Like the colonial masters of the past, they view their own fellow citizens with incredulity, and fail to understand how plural and complex their societies really are."
He also said:
"It is imperative therefore that we recognise two things: That postcolonial societies have yet to jettison the colonial mindset of colonial governmentality; and that we need to develop a new mode of representative politics that reflects the complexity of the societies we reside in.... The sooner the political elites of Indonesia (and Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines) realise this, and the sooner they behave like democratic representatives rather than colonial bureaucrats, the better it will be for everyone."
Sunday, 9 November 2008
The Social Contract
I read this interesting interview with Tan Sri Dr Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman, 75, who was involved in drafting some of the laws in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots in Malaysia.
With his first-hand insight, there are a few things that are worth noting:
1 The term "Social Contract" was never used during the independence negotiations. The term merely describes the political relationship between the State and the people.
My take: The social contract ought to be an evolving agreement between the government and the electorate. When the people elect the government, they are in fact granting a new term for the government to rule based on the promises made during the elections. So I hope the BN government would stop bandying this term or heaven forbid, have it written down in our history textbooks as the truth of the agreement made between the races.
2 The term "Ketuanan Melayu" or "Malay Supremacy" is a term used to describe the privileges of the Rulers, not to signify the dominance of one race over another.
My take: This is an honest appraisal from a Malay. He is also honest in pinpointing that the main purpose of the NEP was to eradicate poverty for all races and its failure so far is due to the rampant corruption and cronyism that exist during implementation of the policies. We all know this, it is so blatantly done, and it is encouraging that there are more and more Malays who are coming out to say so.
3 Dr Abdul Aziz agrees with the privileges and special position given to the Malays "because they have always been there". He quotes Clause 19(1)(d) of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 which states that the British High Commissioner shall safeguard the special position of the Malays.
My take: Well, this is not 1948 and we are no longer under British rule. But I suppose we need to define what is this special position. Does it mean that the special position has to be protected even to the detriment of the other races? Although Dr Abdul Aziz vehemently denies the existence of a two-tier citizenship in the country, isn't this exactly what it means when we talk about the special position of any one race?
When YAB Datuk Abdullah Badawi says a member of any race can be PM in Malaysia, he is again showing how shallow his responses are to the real situation in the country. His counterpart in Singapore was more realistic when he told a Malay gathering that a non-Chinese PM in Singapore is unlikely in the near future. I would say that is what is called credibility - something we desperately need in our leaders.
With his first-hand insight, there are a few things that are worth noting:
1 The term "Social Contract" was never used during the independence negotiations. The term merely describes the political relationship between the State and the people.
My take: The social contract ought to be an evolving agreement between the government and the electorate. When the people elect the government, they are in fact granting a new term for the government to rule based on the promises made during the elections. So I hope the BN government would stop bandying this term or heaven forbid, have it written down in our history textbooks as the truth of the agreement made between the races.
2 The term "Ketuanan Melayu" or "Malay Supremacy" is a term used to describe the privileges of the Rulers, not to signify the dominance of one race over another.
My take: This is an honest appraisal from a Malay. He is also honest in pinpointing that the main purpose of the NEP was to eradicate poverty for all races and its failure so far is due to the rampant corruption and cronyism that exist during implementation of the policies. We all know this, it is so blatantly done, and it is encouraging that there are more and more Malays who are coming out to say so.
3 Dr Abdul Aziz agrees with the privileges and special position given to the Malays "because they have always been there". He quotes Clause 19(1)(d) of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 which states that the British High Commissioner shall safeguard the special position of the Malays.
My take: Well, this is not 1948 and we are no longer under British rule. But I suppose we need to define what is this special position. Does it mean that the special position has to be protected even to the detriment of the other races? Although Dr Abdul Aziz vehemently denies the existence of a two-tier citizenship in the country, isn't this exactly what it means when we talk about the special position of any one race?
When YAB Datuk Abdullah Badawi says a member of any race can be PM in Malaysia, he is again showing how shallow his responses are to the real situation in the country. His counterpart in Singapore was more realistic when he told a Malay gathering that a non-Chinese PM in Singapore is unlikely in the near future. I would say that is what is called credibility - something we desperately need in our leaders.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
US Presidential Victory
4th November 2008 will always be remembered as the day a black President of USA was elected into office.
I am happy for Barack Obama and for USA and for humanity.
To me, the true victory of this election is the evidence that racial divides can heal, if the will is there. It may have taken 143 years for blacks in the USA to leave their slavery past to reach the pinnacle of the nation, but it's done.
Malaysians can hope the same. After all, the racial injustices in the US were arguably deeper than what we have here.
We are a young nation of 51 years. We have already sounded the knell on 8th March 2008. What we need now is the relentless pursuit of our ideals, the united effort by all races to do what is right and the audacity of hope.
I am happy for Barack Obama and for USA and for humanity.
To me, the true victory of this election is the evidence that racial divides can heal, if the will is there. It may have taken 143 years for blacks in the USA to leave their slavery past to reach the pinnacle of the nation, but it's done.
Malaysians can hope the same. After all, the racial injustices in the US were arguably deeper than what we have here.
We are a young nation of 51 years. We have already sounded the knell on 8th March 2008. What we need now is the relentless pursuit of our ideals, the united effort by all races to do what is right and the audacity of hope.
Malay Rights
This is a reproduction of an article written by a Malay. There seems to be an increasing number of educated Malays who think the same - that the country's affirmative action policies, the NEP, are doing more harm than good to the Malay race.
Malay rights
By Shaik Rizal Sulaiman
The Malays are 'technically' in power governing the country but it is also this same controlling group that demands the right to correct economic imbalances and disparities for its own race.
What does this say about the 'majority governing' Malay race for the last 50 years? I dare say that most Malaysians (regardless of race) below the age of 40 would like to see all opportunities be spread amongst those who deserve it on meritocracy.
We do not need the keris anymore to tell others to be careful of what they say and do because in the survival of the fittest, the keris is of very little relevance!
If we continue to hide under the 'bumiputera' tempurung as most Malays have been in the last 50 years or more, the catch-up game will just get harder and the gap wider.
If we continue to expect without earning it, we will never learn how to be a race that succeeds on merit. There is NO substitute for merit. The Malay politicians continue to shout about Malay rights and bumiputera rights because the very nature of our local politics is sadly racially biased.
In this day and age, a great nation is built upon joint success stories, meritocracy and the combined hard work of its people WITHOUT any fear or favour of racial biased politics governing our daily policies. Sadly, the Malay politicians have ended up completely corrupt, racialists, twisted religious fanatics.
I am below 40 and as much as I love the 'idea' that Malaysia is tanah tumpahnya darah orang Melayu, I can't help but also feel that this country is for ALL Malaysians alike including the Chongs, the Kumars, the Xaviers, the Singhs & Kaurs etc who were born on the same day in the same hospital as me here in Malaysia.
If we feel that WE (the Malays) deserve this country more than THEM , then WE (the Malays) should have shown them a long time ago that we deserve the 'control all' status. We have to earn it. The policies FAILED because the very concept of Malay rights or the NEP/DEB is like a double-edged sword. On one hand, it aims to eradicate wealth disparity but on the other, it has made the Malays oblivious of what reality is. Our (Malays) success is only reflected in the 'perceived' political power which today can collapse in a matter of minutes.
I would also like to see my children succeed in their country, Malaysia, for reasons that true success should be based upon, which are merit and hard work and NOT because they are Malays or bumiputeras.
For as long as the Malays don't see this, there is very little point in fighting for Malay rights..It just makes us look more ridiculous. We have taken this notion of being privileged a bit too literally in that it now simply means we want this country and its fruits all for ourselves without accepting the responsibilities that come with it. I blame the MALAY politicians for this because we want to only fight the cause without strategising for the true substance and need of the cause. We have been given fish all the while without being taught how to fish.
It's funny how two different generations can be so diverse in their thinking and the recent elections proved just that.. We are no longer concerned with racial problems but more so the never-ending Malay agenda issues. The rakyat has spoken and the landscape has drastically changed. Is this change welcomed? Is it good?
The answer is 'NO'. Because we,the Malays, have been caught with our pants down - we are not ready to compete on any level playing field (we can't even compete on advantageous grounds!). Even with three or five more continuing policies for Malay rights or bumiputera privileges over the next 50 years, we will still be in exactly the same position as we are in today.
The truth hurts and the truth will always prevail. And the truth of what's to come will NOT go away. I am cynical perhaps because I feel that Malay rights is NOT relevant anymore.
The right to be safe, to be treated fairly, to have a world-class healthcare and education, to enjoy equal prosperity, to have good governance, to live in a clean environment and to be war-free is what I want for my Malaysia. NOT for MY race to be artificially powerful.
If we want the Malays to fail, then by all means continue the fight for Malay rights. Go and polish your keris..
Shaik Rizal Sulaiman
Posted by Malaysians Unplug
P/S In recent months we have seen the Syariah Courts allowing quite a few Malays to exercise their rights to a third or fourth wife. Fair, the guy may be able to provide for the financial & conjugal needs of his wives. However, question here is when he has a dozen kids, will he be able to provide a decent education and life to his kids or will he demand for his 'Rights' for subsidy and aid and be a burden to the govt and society.
Malay rights
By Shaik Rizal Sulaiman
The Malays are 'technically' in power governing the country but it is also this same controlling group that demands the right to correct economic imbalances and disparities for its own race.
What does this say about the 'majority governing' Malay race for the last 50 years? I dare say that most Malaysians (regardless of race) below the age of 40 would like to see all opportunities be spread amongst those who deserve it on meritocracy.
We do not need the keris anymore to tell others to be careful of what they say and do because in the survival of the fittest, the keris is of very little relevance!
If we continue to hide under the 'bumiputera' tempurung as most Malays have been in the last 50 years or more, the catch-up game will just get harder and the gap wider.
If we continue to expect without earning it, we will never learn how to be a race that succeeds on merit. There is NO substitute for merit. The Malay politicians continue to shout about Malay rights and bumiputera rights because the very nature of our local politics is sadly racially biased.
In this day and age, a great nation is built upon joint success stories, meritocracy and the combined hard work of its people WITHOUT any fear or favour of racial biased politics governing our daily policies. Sadly, the Malay politicians have ended up completely corrupt, racialists, twisted religious fanatics.
I am below 40 and as much as I love the 'idea' that Malaysia is tanah tumpahnya darah orang Melayu, I can't help but also feel that this country is for ALL Malaysians alike including the Chongs, the Kumars, the Xaviers, the Singhs & Kaurs etc who were born on the same day in the same hospital as me here in Malaysia.
If we feel that WE (the Malays) deserve this country more than THEM , then WE (the Malays) should have shown them a long time ago that we deserve the 'control all' status. We have to earn it. The policies FAILED because the very concept of Malay rights or the NEP/DEB is like a double-edged sword. On one hand, it aims to eradicate wealth disparity but on the other, it has made the Malays oblivious of what reality is. Our (Malays) success is only reflected in the 'perceived' political power which today can collapse in a matter of minutes.
I would also like to see my children succeed in their country, Malaysia, for reasons that true success should be based upon, which are merit and hard work and NOT because they are Malays or bumiputeras.
For as long as the Malays don't see this, there is very little point in fighting for Malay rights..It just makes us look more ridiculous. We have taken this notion of being privileged a bit too literally in that it now simply means we want this country and its fruits all for ourselves without accepting the responsibilities that come with it. I blame the MALAY politicians for this because we want to only fight the cause without strategising for the true substance and need of the cause. We have been given fish all the while without being taught how to fish.
It's funny how two different generations can be so diverse in their thinking and the recent elections proved just that.. We are no longer concerned with racial problems but more so the never-ending Malay agenda issues. The rakyat has spoken and the landscape has drastically changed. Is this change welcomed? Is it good?
The answer is 'NO'. Because we,the Malays, have been caught with our pants down - we are not ready to compete on any level playing field (we can't even compete on advantageous grounds!). Even with three or five more continuing policies for Malay rights or bumiputera privileges over the next 50 years, we will still be in exactly the same position as we are in today.
The truth hurts and the truth will always prevail. And the truth of what's to come will NOT go away. I am cynical perhaps because I feel that Malay rights is NOT relevant anymore.
The right to be safe, to be treated fairly, to have a world-class healthcare and education, to enjoy equal prosperity, to have good governance, to live in a clean environment and to be war-free is what I want for my Malaysia. NOT for MY race to be artificially powerful.
If we want the Malays to fail, then by all means continue the fight for Malay rights. Go and polish your keris..
Shaik Rizal Sulaiman
Posted by Malaysians Unplug
P/S In recent months we have seen the Syariah Courts allowing quite a few Malays to exercise their rights to a third or fourth wife. Fair, the guy may be able to provide for the financial & conjugal needs of his wives. However, question here is when he has a dozen kids, will he be able to provide a decent education and life to his kids or will he demand for his 'Rights' for subsidy and aid and be a burden to the govt and society.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Sack Those Errant Police!
This is another piece of news that makes my blood boil.
The Star reported today that "more than 60 police officers, including an Assistant Superintendent, and personnel from the narcotics department have been suspended, demoted or transferred in a nationwide clean-up exercise."
Some of these police officers were alleged to have close links with drug syndicates while others were said to be complacent and shoddy in their investigations.
Now, let me ask you, why are they not fired?
Suspending and demoting them will merely ensure that the wood continue to rot. There is no point applying anaesthesia to termites, they have to be exterminated.
Just as bad, transferring them to another department simply means that we are spreading the infestation. I hope the Inspector-General will do the public a favour and let us know where they are transferred to so that the public can be more alert.
Please-la, this smack of the wrist is not going to be a deterrent. We need to see stronger action if the government means to clean up the act.
The Star reported today that "more than 60 police officers, including an Assistant Superintendent, and personnel from the narcotics department have been suspended, demoted or transferred in a nationwide clean-up exercise."
Some of these police officers were alleged to have close links with drug syndicates while others were said to be complacent and shoddy in their investigations.
Now, let me ask you, why are they not fired?
Suspending and demoting them will merely ensure that the wood continue to rot. There is no point applying anaesthesia to termites, they have to be exterminated.
Just as bad, transferring them to another department simply means that we are spreading the infestation. I hope the Inspector-General will do the public a favour and let us know where they are transferred to so that the public can be more alert.
Please-la, this smack of the wrist is not going to be a deterrent. We need to see stronger action if the government means to clean up the act.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
What Meritocracy?
The Deputy Prime Minister announced today that the Matriculation Exam stays.
Entry into public universites in Malaysia is supposed to be based on meritocracy now. The former race-based quotas have been abolished. But the bumiputras here have learnt from Deng Xiaoping: it does not matter what colour is the cat so long as it catches the mouse. By devising a system with two university entrance examinations, it has again been institutionalised that there will be no true meritocracy in this land.
The Matriculation Examination was introduced in 1998 when the DPM was the Education Minister. It is now conducted in 9 centers in the country and 90% of the places are reserved for bumiputras. In two MARA colleges, all the places are reserved for bumiputras. Most of the non-bumiputras take the other university entrance exam, the STPM, which is equivalent to the GCE "A" Levels.
The Matriculation Examination is notoriously light-weight compared to the STPM. The STPM is widely recognised worldwide but the Matriculation Exam is not. The only route for Matriculation graduates is to join public universities here.
It begs the question why the country feels there is a need for two university entrance exams. The ministry says the standard and curriculum for both examinations are largely the same. This hardly answers the question. If so, why then is there a need to have two examinations?
This is merely paying lip-service to the concept of meritocracy. The DPM made this statement, “The selection process (into the matriculation programme) is based on meritocracy which is fair to all parties. I believe non-bumiputras too benefited as a quota of 10% has been set aside for them.’’ Such logic. Effectively, this is just shifting the race-based quotas downwards. Instead of applying them at the universities, the discrimination starts earlier.
There will never be a total level playing field. At the SPM (the high school certificate), bumiputras offer Islamic studies and other related subjects while non-bumiputras offer a compulsory subject called Moral Education, which is practically useless if you ask me, but the grade for Moral Education is taken as a compulsory subject when it comes to scholarship applications. Examination leaks are common in this country, especially at residential schools which again are catered mainly for bumiputra students. At SPM, a 70% score already garners an A1, thereby making it harder to distinguish the truly brilliant students from the average. And with the matriculation to bridge the gap to public universities, it is not surprising that the number of graduates from public universities with worthless degrees is on the rise in this country.
Don't get me wrong. There are some very good bumiputra students out there. However, with such education policies, these good bumiputra students will always need to fight for the recognition that they deserve in their own right.
Entry into public universites in Malaysia is supposed to be based on meritocracy now. The former race-based quotas have been abolished. But the bumiputras here have learnt from Deng Xiaoping: it does not matter what colour is the cat so long as it catches the mouse. By devising a system with two university entrance examinations, it has again been institutionalised that there will be no true meritocracy in this land.
The Matriculation Examination was introduced in 1998 when the DPM was the Education Minister. It is now conducted in 9 centers in the country and 90% of the places are reserved for bumiputras. In two MARA colleges, all the places are reserved for bumiputras. Most of the non-bumiputras take the other university entrance exam, the STPM, which is equivalent to the GCE "A" Levels.
The Matriculation Examination is notoriously light-weight compared to the STPM. The STPM is widely recognised worldwide but the Matriculation Exam is not. The only route for Matriculation graduates is to join public universities here.
It begs the question why the country feels there is a need for two university entrance exams. The ministry says the standard and curriculum for both examinations are largely the same. This hardly answers the question. If so, why then is there a need to have two examinations?
This is merely paying lip-service to the concept of meritocracy. The DPM made this statement, “The selection process (into the matriculation programme) is based on meritocracy which is fair to all parties. I believe non-bumiputras too benefited as a quota of 10% has been set aside for them.’’ Such logic. Effectively, this is just shifting the race-based quotas downwards. Instead of applying them at the universities, the discrimination starts earlier.
There will never be a total level playing field. At the SPM (the high school certificate), bumiputras offer Islamic studies and other related subjects while non-bumiputras offer a compulsory subject called Moral Education, which is practically useless if you ask me, but the grade for Moral Education is taken as a compulsory subject when it comes to scholarship applications. Examination leaks are common in this country, especially at residential schools which again are catered mainly for bumiputra students. At SPM, a 70% score already garners an A1, thereby making it harder to distinguish the truly brilliant students from the average. And with the matriculation to bridge the gap to public universities, it is not surprising that the number of graduates from public universities with worthless degrees is on the rise in this country.
Don't get me wrong. There are some very good bumiputra students out there. However, with such education policies, these good bumiputra students will always need to fight for the recognition that they deserve in their own right.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Curbing the Sales Culture In Banks?
In the Singapore press, there have been questions raised as to the role played by the aggressive sales culture in commercial banks that has led to the Lehman-linked investment products debacle.
The sales culture in banks started some time in the 90's and was imported from the US. Many local banks at that time engaged foreign consultants to jump-start their organizations because returns were not satisfactory and there was pressure to either upgrade or get merged.
Some of us will remember how the local banks used to operate and I am not sure if we want to go back to those days. The banking reforms have been good for the country. Although I can think of some controls to the sales culture, any changes will bring fresh issues so long as there is little attempt to educate the investors.
For example, there could be prohibition of the sale of investment-linked products at branches. The authorities could mandate that they be sold only via certain channels, like the internet (where the people are more likely to be educated) or on enquiry at the head office. Marketing activities can be controlled, much like the controls on advertisements on cigarettes. That will limit the exposure of small-time depositors to the availability of such products. However, this could be seen as effectively discriminating against the small-time deposit-holders, especially in a bullish market. Who knows, some of them may indeed want to earn higher returns on their deposits and do not mind taking on higher risks, but are unaware of the means to do so.
Another possibility is to eliminate the conflict of interest that resides in the job of the Relationship Manager as the salesperson as well as the financial risk advisor. This can be done through separation of duties. Have the RM work with a financial risk advisor. While the RM is compensated by a commission earned for bringing in a sale, the financial risk advisor is paid a fixed salary. The latter's role is to advise all customers of the potential risk before they sign on the dotted line. As the financial risk advisor does not benefit from the sale, there will be no conflict of interest. The onus is then on the RM to bring in the right customers, otherwise the RM's effort will be in vain. Obviously, there will be cost and efficiency implications if this is implemented, again new issues to be addressed.
Of course, the entire compensation structure of RMs can be changed. They can be salaried persons who just have a target to meet. Whether they meet the target or not, they will still earn their salary. It's just their advancement in their career that will be affected. This structure is reminiscent of yesteryears, this was how things were done before. Some pressure will be taken off the RMs but this may also blunt their motivation to sell and cross-sell. How this will affect the city-state as a financial centre will be another issue to address.
Liberalising the financial market is the direction that the city-state has chosen to take and any new regulation will need to be managed well as as not to be misconstrued. Some control is obviously good, but over-reacting due to the recent uproar over the sale or mis-sale of investment- or credit-linked products may not be to the benefit of all. Whatever it is, some form of investor education or investor awareness programme will not go amiss.
The sales culture in banks started some time in the 90's and was imported from the US. Many local banks at that time engaged foreign consultants to jump-start their organizations because returns were not satisfactory and there was pressure to either upgrade or get merged.
Some of us will remember how the local banks used to operate and I am not sure if we want to go back to those days. The banking reforms have been good for the country. Although I can think of some controls to the sales culture, any changes will bring fresh issues so long as there is little attempt to educate the investors.
For example, there could be prohibition of the sale of investment-linked products at branches. The authorities could mandate that they be sold only via certain channels, like the internet (where the people are more likely to be educated) or on enquiry at the head office. Marketing activities can be controlled, much like the controls on advertisements on cigarettes. That will limit the exposure of small-time depositors to the availability of such products. However, this could be seen as effectively discriminating against the small-time deposit-holders, especially in a bullish market. Who knows, some of them may indeed want to earn higher returns on their deposits and do not mind taking on higher risks, but are unaware of the means to do so.
Another possibility is to eliminate the conflict of interest that resides in the job of the Relationship Manager as the salesperson as well as the financial risk advisor. This can be done through separation of duties. Have the RM work with a financial risk advisor. While the RM is compensated by a commission earned for bringing in a sale, the financial risk advisor is paid a fixed salary. The latter's role is to advise all customers of the potential risk before they sign on the dotted line. As the financial risk advisor does not benefit from the sale, there will be no conflict of interest. The onus is then on the RM to bring in the right customers, otherwise the RM's effort will be in vain. Obviously, there will be cost and efficiency implications if this is implemented, again new issues to be addressed.
Of course, the entire compensation structure of RMs can be changed. They can be salaried persons who just have a target to meet. Whether they meet the target or not, they will still earn their salary. It's just their advancement in their career that will be affected. This structure is reminiscent of yesteryears, this was how things were done before. Some pressure will be taken off the RMs but this may also blunt their motivation to sell and cross-sell. How this will affect the city-state as a financial centre will be another issue to address.
Liberalising the financial market is the direction that the city-state has chosen to take and any new regulation will need to be managed well as as not to be misconstrued. Some control is obviously good, but over-reacting due to the recent uproar over the sale or mis-sale of investment- or credit-linked products may not be to the benefit of all. Whatever it is, some form of investor education or investor awareness programme will not go amiss.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Lehman-Linked Investments
In Singapore, many investors of Lehman-linked investment products are still upset about their loss. When Lehman collapsed, the value of their investments similarly collapsed to zero. Their main grouse is that they have been misled by the banks and relationship managers who sold them the products into believing that the notes were of low-risk.
The fixed deposit rates in Singapore are pittance, usually <1% while some of these investment products promised returns of up to 5% over a 5-year tenor. An investor with S$200,000 cash coolly collects $2,500 every quarter, versus the $500 per quarter he would otherwise have received under a fixed deposit. Isn't that an attractive proposition?
Now, even as the fixed deposit holders made the switch, surely they knew that there was no free lunch. Banks are not silly, not are they philanthropic. You can be sure that the risk of the product would be appropriately reflected in the differential in returns.
It may require a rocket scientist to understand the intricacies of these instruments, how it's priced and so on, so don't even try. [A certain bank I know did indeed employ several ex-nuclear scientists from the ex-Soviet bloc to do financial engineering.] But that's besides the point. To me, there is no need to sweat over the working of these products. Laymen like you and me can be guided by a simple rule: high risk = high returns. That's all. Investors who expect high returns should be aware that they need to take on higher risks. That's for sure. Don't fool yourself or let anyone fool you.
Then there are the complaints on how they are sold these products. I agree. Relationship managers can be very persuasive, or ruthless, however you look at it. Nevertheless, as adults living in an urban and competitive environment, potential investors must be responsible for their own decisions - they cannot plead naivete. Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign on the dotted line. Everyone knows the RMs earn a commission from the deals that they close. There would already be a conflict of interest right from the start. Push comes to shove, who will they take care of? The investor or their own pocket?
I may sound very unsympathetic but there are several lessons to be learnt, one of which is that one needs to take responsibility for one's action. Retirees or not, the same lesson needs to be learnt. Painful though it may be.
Other lessons: You win some, you lose some. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. There is no free lunch, caveat emptor. Finally, don't expect the government to bail you out.
If the banks choose to refund or compensate certain groups of investors (the retirees, for example, as suggested by the authorities), it should be clear that this is done out of goodwill. Investors have no right to demand or expect a full return of their capital. To think otherwise will have an impact on how the financial market operates and re-defines the notion of risk as it is understood today.
The fixed deposit rates in Singapore are pittance, usually <1% while some of these investment products promised returns of up to 5% over a 5-year tenor. An investor with S$200,000 cash coolly collects $2,500 every quarter, versus the $500 per quarter he would otherwise have received under a fixed deposit. Isn't that an attractive proposition?
Now, even as the fixed deposit holders made the switch, surely they knew that there was no free lunch. Banks are not silly, not are they philanthropic. You can be sure that the risk of the product would be appropriately reflected in the differential in returns.
It may require a rocket scientist to understand the intricacies of these instruments, how it's priced and so on, so don't even try. [A certain bank I know did indeed employ several ex-nuclear scientists from the ex-Soviet bloc to do financial engineering.] But that's besides the point. To me, there is no need to sweat over the working of these products. Laymen like you and me can be guided by a simple rule: high risk = high returns. That's all. Investors who expect high returns should be aware that they need to take on higher risks. That's for sure. Don't fool yourself or let anyone fool you.
Then there are the complaints on how they are sold these products. I agree. Relationship managers can be very persuasive, or ruthless, however you look at it. Nevertheless, as adults living in an urban and competitive environment, potential investors must be responsible for their own decisions - they cannot plead naivete. Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign on the dotted line. Everyone knows the RMs earn a commission from the deals that they close. There would already be a conflict of interest right from the start. Push comes to shove, who will they take care of? The investor or their own pocket?
I may sound very unsympathetic but there are several lessons to be learnt, one of which is that one needs to take responsibility for one's action. Retirees or not, the same lesson needs to be learnt. Painful though it may be.
Other lessons: You win some, you lose some. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. There is no free lunch, caveat emptor. Finally, don't expect the government to bail you out.
If the banks choose to refund or compensate certain groups of investors (the retirees, for example, as suggested by the authorities), it should be clear that this is done out of goodwill. Investors have no right to demand or expect a full return of their capital. To think otherwise will have an impact on how the financial market operates and re-defines the notion of risk as it is understood today.
Saturday, 18 October 2008
The Teaching of Math and Science in English
Much debate has been generated in Malaysia following the policy to switch the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science from Malay to English six years ago. The intensity of the debate heated up recently as the Minister Of Education has promised a review of this policy before 2010.
The current debate largely centers on whether this policy will achieve its stated objective, that is, to enhance the competency in English among Malaysians. Various views have been put forth and it is fair to say that both the proponents and detractors have raised valid points.
In a nutshell, those who support the current policy are of the view that teaching the two subjects in English will increase the students' exposure to the language. Coupled with effective teaching of the language, this should strengthen the students' command of the language. Moreover, much reference materials are written in English and the dominant language on the internet and in commerce is English. Thus, it makes good sense to equip our young from the start.
The detractors raise the point that the inability of Math and Science teachers in schools to switch effectively to English is a stumbling block. There are also doubts whether the learning of technical subjects in English can actually raise the standard of the language. The main concern is that students who are weak in English may fail to understand complex Math and Science concepts when they are taught in a non-mother language tongue.
Needless to say, the ministry will have a tough time finding a suitable solution to the dilemma and convincing stake-holders that its eventual decision is for the best of the country. However, weighing the two arguments, I would say that things need not be so cut and dried.
It might make sense for the ministry to consider a third alternative and that is to introduce Science as a formal subject at a later stage in primary school. Build up a strong foundation in language skills first.
There is a school of thought that early primary education should focus on getting the three R's right first: Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. I would suggest that our children focus on developing these literacy and numeracy skills before studying a subject like Science.
In our present school system, one of the criticisms is that the syllabus over-burdens the young child and robs the child of the joy of learning. All children in our schools learn at least two languages when they start formal education. This in itself is a challenge to many children. Although children tend to pick up languages easier at a young age, we need to be careful not to overwhelm young minds.
The many demands of the various subjects diffuse the key objectives of early primary school education, leaving the average child lost and stressed out. Policy-makers sometimes tend to forget that learning less may be more beneficial if the child learns well and develops a positive-learning attitude.
As a science educationist, I am qualified to say that Science is a subject that needs a considerable range of vocabulary for the concepts to be understood and appreciated. It is food for thought whether at lower primary school level, our students have that vocabulary range yet, in whichever language.
If one looks at the current lower primary school science syllabus, the focus is on fact-based learning, not inquiry-based. Lower primary school students learn the names of different flowers, animals, habitats, senses, materials, life cycles and the like. Most of it entails rote-learning - which is not serving the lofty aim of develop critical thinking skills. There is little room to discuss the whys and wherefores.
Thus, as we discussed the teaching of Math and Science, it is worthwhile to think about the value of learning Science the way it is taught in our lower primary schools now. The importance of science at this stage - the awareness of the environment and the natural world - can be brought into the classroom through language learning. When the children are older, say at Primary Three, it would then be more possible to explore scientific ideas and concepts with students.
Delaying the introduction of Science as a formal subject is not an avant garde idea. In fact, there are countries around the world which have postponed the teaching of Science until at least Primary Three. The students in these countries have not fared worse in Science than those countries which start teaching Science earlier. One of such country is Singapore. We know for a fact that their students are consistently ranked high in the achievement of Science in international competitions.
As for the learning of Mathematics, I would suggest that both Malay and English be used to teach the subject in national schools in the first two years. This is possible. We recall when the medium of instruction was switched from English to Malay some three decades ago, English-trained teachers all over Malaysia used this approach and succeeded within a short time frame. The teachers of today should be confident that they are of the same calibre. However, the message from the ministry must be clear that by the time the students reach Primary Three, Mathematics will be taught only in the English language.
There is generally no disagreement that a good command of the English language is key to employability in the private sector and career success in the globalised world. If the government is serious about upgrading the standard of English in the country, here is my call.
Let our students focus on getting the basics right in the English language during their first two years of primary education. Make sure they have access to the best teachers who have the right attitude and are trained in effective pedagogy. Nurture a conducive and supportive English learning environment created in the school, at home, in the media and the public.
We can succeed if the will is there.
The current debate largely centers on whether this policy will achieve its stated objective, that is, to enhance the competency in English among Malaysians. Various views have been put forth and it is fair to say that both the proponents and detractors have raised valid points.
In a nutshell, those who support the current policy are of the view that teaching the two subjects in English will increase the students' exposure to the language. Coupled with effective teaching of the language, this should strengthen the students' command of the language. Moreover, much reference materials are written in English and the dominant language on the internet and in commerce is English. Thus, it makes good sense to equip our young from the start.
The detractors raise the point that the inability of Math and Science teachers in schools to switch effectively to English is a stumbling block. There are also doubts whether the learning of technical subjects in English can actually raise the standard of the language. The main concern is that students who are weak in English may fail to understand complex Math and Science concepts when they are taught in a non-mother language tongue.
Needless to say, the ministry will have a tough time finding a suitable solution to the dilemma and convincing stake-holders that its eventual decision is for the best of the country. However, weighing the two arguments, I would say that things need not be so cut and dried.
It might make sense for the ministry to consider a third alternative and that is to introduce Science as a formal subject at a later stage in primary school. Build up a strong foundation in language skills first.
There is a school of thought that early primary education should focus on getting the three R's right first: Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. I would suggest that our children focus on developing these literacy and numeracy skills before studying a subject like Science.
In our present school system, one of the criticisms is that the syllabus over-burdens the young child and robs the child of the joy of learning. All children in our schools learn at least two languages when they start formal education. This in itself is a challenge to many children. Although children tend to pick up languages easier at a young age, we need to be careful not to overwhelm young minds.
The many demands of the various subjects diffuse the key objectives of early primary school education, leaving the average child lost and stressed out. Policy-makers sometimes tend to forget that learning less may be more beneficial if the child learns well and develops a positive-learning attitude.
As a science educationist, I am qualified to say that Science is a subject that needs a considerable range of vocabulary for the concepts to be understood and appreciated. It is food for thought whether at lower primary school level, our students have that vocabulary range yet, in whichever language.
If one looks at the current lower primary school science syllabus, the focus is on fact-based learning, not inquiry-based. Lower primary school students learn the names of different flowers, animals, habitats, senses, materials, life cycles and the like. Most of it entails rote-learning - which is not serving the lofty aim of develop critical thinking skills. There is little room to discuss the whys and wherefores.
Thus, as we discussed the teaching of Math and Science, it is worthwhile to think about the value of learning Science the way it is taught in our lower primary schools now. The importance of science at this stage - the awareness of the environment and the natural world - can be brought into the classroom through language learning. When the children are older, say at Primary Three, it would then be more possible to explore scientific ideas and concepts with students.
Delaying the introduction of Science as a formal subject is not an avant garde idea. In fact, there are countries around the world which have postponed the teaching of Science until at least Primary Three. The students in these countries have not fared worse in Science than those countries which start teaching Science earlier. One of such country is Singapore. We know for a fact that their students are consistently ranked high in the achievement of Science in international competitions.
As for the learning of Mathematics, I would suggest that both Malay and English be used to teach the subject in national schools in the first two years. This is possible. We recall when the medium of instruction was switched from English to Malay some three decades ago, English-trained teachers all over Malaysia used this approach and succeeded within a short time frame. The teachers of today should be confident that they are of the same calibre. However, the message from the ministry must be clear that by the time the students reach Primary Three, Mathematics will be taught only in the English language.
There is generally no disagreement that a good command of the English language is key to employability in the private sector and career success in the globalised world. If the government is serious about upgrading the standard of English in the country, here is my call.
Let our students focus on getting the basics right in the English language during their first two years of primary education. Make sure they have access to the best teachers who have the right attitude and are trained in effective pedagogy. Nurture a conducive and supportive English learning environment created in the school, at home, in the media and the public.
We can succeed if the will is there.
Friday, 17 October 2008
Playing Police And Thief
I haven't laughed out loud for a long time and I must thank Malaysian Home Minister, Syed Hamid, for providing yet another gem.
When asked in parliament why the police beat base in the notorious Chow Kit area was shut down, he said, in a written reply, that the “presence of criminals could make it unsafe” for police officers.
Laugh out loud, what are police officers for?
But it is more incredulous that the Home Minister can't see the irony of his answer. Is he just being blatantly honest or what?
The City Chief Police Officer immediately came to his rescue to say that the police beat base was not shut down but relocated to bigger premises so that the police can provide better services.
Ah, that sounds more like typical politician-cum-civil-servant-speak. It's an art that Syed Hamid has yet to master.
But then again, wouldn't it be wonderful if all our ministers and civil servants start to talk honestly like our dear Syed Hamid?
When asked in parliament why the police beat base in the notorious Chow Kit area was shut down, he said, in a written reply, that the “presence of criminals could make it unsafe” for police officers.
Laugh out loud, what are police officers for?
But it is more incredulous that the Home Minister can't see the irony of his answer. Is he just being blatantly honest or what?
The City Chief Police Officer immediately came to his rescue to say that the police beat base was not shut down but relocated to bigger premises so that the police can provide better services.
Ah, that sounds more like typical politician-cum-civil-servant-speak. It's an art that Syed Hamid has yet to master.
But then again, wouldn't it be wonderful if all our ministers and civil servants start to talk honestly like our dear Syed Hamid?
Thursday, 16 October 2008
No To History In Primary Schools
I refer to a letter written to The Star today, applauding the Malaysian PM's call to teach History in Primary School.
I am dead-set against it. The fact that the letter is written by a self-professed educationist agitates me further. What type of educationists do we have here?
I am against this idea for three reasons:
1) The children at primary school are already over-burdened with school work. Learning more does not equate better learning. On the contrary, primary school children should focus on building literacy and numeracy skills at this stage, instead of studying more content-based subjects. Yes, things like cooperative learning and inquiry learning should be built into the system instead.
2) Children in primary schools do not appreciate history because their thinking is still very much at the concrete stage - they rely much on the touch and feel to learn. They have much problem handling the abstract. Teaching history to them is likely to end up being another rote-learning exercise.
3) The writer wants primary school children to have knowledge of history. Well and good, but knowledge-based learning is a thing of the past. Children do not need to "learn" knowledge, really. They need to learn process-based skills that will lead them to get whatever knowledge they require, given the easy access to information nowadays.
On the whole, I think there is a need for the public to be educated on what constitutes an education and what learning is all about. Suffice to say, learning is not about amassing knowledge. Our educators and educationists should update their ideas.
Wake up to the 21st century, please.
I am dead-set against it. The fact that the letter is written by a self-professed educationist agitates me further. What type of educationists do we have here?
I am against this idea for three reasons:
1) The children at primary school are already over-burdened with school work. Learning more does not equate better learning. On the contrary, primary school children should focus on building literacy and numeracy skills at this stage, instead of studying more content-based subjects. Yes, things like cooperative learning and inquiry learning should be built into the system instead.
2) Children in primary schools do not appreciate history because their thinking is still very much at the concrete stage - they rely much on the touch and feel to learn. They have much problem handling the abstract. Teaching history to them is likely to end up being another rote-learning exercise.
3) The writer wants primary school children to have knowledge of history. Well and good, but knowledge-based learning is a thing of the past. Children do not need to "learn" knowledge, really. They need to learn process-based skills that will lead them to get whatever knowledge they require, given the easy access to information nowadays.
On the whole, I think there is a need for the public to be educated on what constitutes an education and what learning is all about. Suffice to say, learning is not about amassing knowledge. Our educators and educationists should update their ideas.
Wake up to the 21st century, please.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Food Court Etiquette
The Straits Times in Singapore has taken upon itself to launch a campaign to exhort food court patrons to return their used trays and dishes to designated areas. It started with a letter written by a foreigner to the Forum pages which caught the attention of all, including the Prime Minister.
Sure, the aim is noble but the approach is not. I do not have any strong views about this. If it is convenient and the designated clearing areas are accessible, I would probably do it. If I have to tend to three children and carry loads of shopping, I would probably not do it. To me, it is not a big thing. I have made payment for the food and services.
What I strongly abhor are the character attacks on Singaporeans by foreigners and the establishment whenever they deem there is an area for improvement. We of course recall the strong, uncalled for remarks made by the journalists of the Straits Times against the residents of Serangoon Gardens during the foreign dormitory saga.
And now, Singaporeans are labelled "inconsiderate and ungracious" just because they did not clear their tables after patronizing the food courts. There are three reasons why this is not justifiable:
1) If there were large designated clearing areas in place (like in Tokyo Disneyland) and the people are not responding in a civic manner, then there might be some cause for chastisement. As it is, visit any food court in Singapore and all you see are cleaning trolleys manned by workers who clear the tables and clean them in a systematic manner. There are NO designated areas for patrons to leave their used cutlery. So, don’t turn around and blame it on the patrons
2) Hello??? Since the days of the taverns and road-side stalls (think medieval England, ancient China or the Western frontier, if you like), it is an acceptable practice for patrons to eat and go. It is the same whether the food establishment is a high class restaurant or a cheap food stall. It is a market practice, the exchange of money for goods and services. And in food establishments, the exchange of money is for the food and services rendered which include the establishment clearing the table for the next guest. Again, don’t suddenly become uppity and attack food court patrons. And, if clearing tables is indeed the way to go, what’s next? Why stop at clearing the tables? Why don’t patrons wash their dishes too after using them?
3) If patrons clear the trays willingly, it is because they have been persuaded to do so - witness the relative success of fast food restaurants in this aspect. It is not because patrons have been shamed to doing so or chastised for not doing so. A campaign must be done on a positive note.
I am not denying that there is merit in asking patrons to clear the tables but the appeal should be aimed at the practical judiciousness of such an action. Like, yes, the quicker turnaround would be appreciated by all patrons, especially during the lunch-time rush hour. No character attack, please.
There is so much heat generated on this topic because Singaporeans once again are being sieged on all fronts: the government, the establishment and not least, the foreigners who are leading the attack on Singaporeans. Suddenly, the Singaporean way of life, their HAPPY way of life, is changing. Why? They have been happily eating at hawker stalls and food courts all their lives and now this? No wonder there is resistance - why should they have to assimilate to some new way of life, purported by global citizens?
And to rub salt to the wound, they are now told they are "inconsiderate and ungracious" for doing something that is as common as eating noodles with chopsticks.
Give Singaporeans a break. There are bigger things to worry about or to support.
Sure, the aim is noble but the approach is not. I do not have any strong views about this. If it is convenient and the designated clearing areas are accessible, I would probably do it. If I have to tend to three children and carry loads of shopping, I would probably not do it. To me, it is not a big thing. I have made payment for the food and services.
What I strongly abhor are the character attacks on Singaporeans by foreigners and the establishment whenever they deem there is an area for improvement. We of course recall the strong, uncalled for remarks made by the journalists of the Straits Times against the residents of Serangoon Gardens during the foreign dormitory saga.
And now, Singaporeans are labelled "inconsiderate and ungracious" just because they did not clear their tables after patronizing the food courts. There are three reasons why this is not justifiable:
1) If there were large designated clearing areas in place (like in Tokyo Disneyland) and the people are not responding in a civic manner, then there might be some cause for chastisement. As it is, visit any food court in Singapore and all you see are cleaning trolleys manned by workers who clear the tables and clean them in a systematic manner. There are NO designated areas for patrons to leave their used cutlery. So, don’t turn around and blame it on the patrons
2) Hello??? Since the days of the taverns and road-side stalls (think medieval England, ancient China or the Western frontier, if you like), it is an acceptable practice for patrons to eat and go. It is the same whether the food establishment is a high class restaurant or a cheap food stall. It is a market practice, the exchange of money for goods and services. And in food establishments, the exchange of money is for the food and services rendered which include the establishment clearing the table for the next guest. Again, don’t suddenly become uppity and attack food court patrons. And, if clearing tables is indeed the way to go, what’s next? Why stop at clearing the tables? Why don’t patrons wash their dishes too after using them?
3) If patrons clear the trays willingly, it is because they have been persuaded to do so - witness the relative success of fast food restaurants in this aspect. It is not because patrons have been shamed to doing so or chastised for not doing so. A campaign must be done on a positive note.
I am not denying that there is merit in asking patrons to clear the tables but the appeal should be aimed at the practical judiciousness of such an action. Like, yes, the quicker turnaround would be appreciated by all patrons, especially during the lunch-time rush hour. No character attack, please.
There is so much heat generated on this topic because Singaporeans once again are being sieged on all fronts: the government, the establishment and not least, the foreigners who are leading the attack on Singaporeans. Suddenly, the Singaporean way of life, their HAPPY way of life, is changing. Why? They have been happily eating at hawker stalls and food courts all their lives and now this? No wonder there is resistance - why should they have to assimilate to some new way of life, purported by global citizens?
And to rub salt to the wound, they are now told they are "inconsiderate and ungracious" for doing something that is as common as eating noodles with chopsticks.
Give Singaporeans a break. There are bigger things to worry about or to support.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
What Do Milk Scandal and Financial Meltdown Have In Common?
The melamine-tainted milk scandal in China.
The financial meltdown in the US.
What do these two events have in common?
To me, they confirm two trends that deserve attention:
1 Declining ethical standards in the world
Greed has reared its ugly head again - this time higher than ever before. The scale is unprecedented, mind-boggling. Coupled with a callous disregard to the value of life and well-being to fellow citizens of the world, it has yielded wide repercussions, as we have seen in the last few weeks.
In China, milk farmers and traders disguised milk protein content with harmful melamine, hardly caring about the impact this might have on infants and other consumers of milk products. Milk manufacturers kept quiet for months after the dalliances were discovered.
In the US, Wall Street traders, promised millions for turning in good financial numbers, recklessly took on unimaginable risks. They took short-term views and escaped when the going became tough.
The lives of millions are now in jeopardy because of the selfish actions of a few.
2 Lack of effective regulation
Centralised regulation is a denounced practice in capitalistic economies and those economies which are heading that direction. Nevetheless, it is now clear that laissez-faire practices must be coupled with authoritarian regulation to protect the common people. The State must assume the responsibility of governing seriously and effectively.
If rules are already in place, like in the case of China, make sure that they are enforced, with severe penalty for encroachment or outright defiance. If rules are not in place, like in the US, it is time to set those rules.
Will this be the last time we see such turmoil? I won't bet my last penny on it. But let's hope at least this generation has learnt its lesson.
The financial meltdown in the US.
What do these two events have in common?
To me, they confirm two trends that deserve attention:
1 Declining ethical standards in the world
Greed has reared its ugly head again - this time higher than ever before. The scale is unprecedented, mind-boggling. Coupled with a callous disregard to the value of life and well-being to fellow citizens of the world, it has yielded wide repercussions, as we have seen in the last few weeks.
In China, milk farmers and traders disguised milk protein content with harmful melamine, hardly caring about the impact this might have on infants and other consumers of milk products. Milk manufacturers kept quiet for months after the dalliances were discovered.
In the US, Wall Street traders, promised millions for turning in good financial numbers, recklessly took on unimaginable risks. They took short-term views and escaped when the going became tough.
The lives of millions are now in jeopardy because of the selfish actions of a few.
2 Lack of effective regulation
Centralised regulation is a denounced practice in capitalistic economies and those economies which are heading that direction. Nevetheless, it is now clear that laissez-faire practices must be coupled with authoritarian regulation to protect the common people. The State must assume the responsibility of governing seriously and effectively.
If rules are already in place, like in the case of China, make sure that they are enforced, with severe penalty for encroachment or outright defiance. If rules are not in place, like in the US, it is time to set those rules.
Will this be the last time we see such turmoil? I won't bet my last penny on it. But let's hope at least this generation has learnt its lesson.
Monday, 29 September 2008
How Successful Was Singapore F1?
Now I am the first to declare that I am not an F1 fan. The second to declare that is my hubby. Yet both of us ended up watching snippets of the first ever night F1 race last night which was telecasted live on TV. We couldn't help it. It was a news event and I was curious how the Singapore organizers would handle the mega-spectacle.
The day after, it was no surprise that the reporters from the nation's Straits Times declared the Singapore F1 a roaring success, and possibly the best ever Grand Prix.
But I was surprised to come across a reader's favourable comment from the on-line version of The Star of Malaysia. These unconfirmed statistics were quoted: Singapore spent SGD40million (note: other sources put it closer to SGD150million of which 60% is footed by the Singapore government) whilst Malaysia spent RM286million for initial outlay. Singapore sold more expensive tickets, had a wider TV audience because the night-timing suited Western audiences and did not have to set aside physical space for the project. Unconfirmed numbers put the profit so far to SGD 100million. Would that not be a good return on investment?
Pure speculation, the detractors commented.
It would indeed be interesting to see the true numbers but I doubt we ever will. Regardless, making money from the event is only a secondary objective of this venture.
From a marketing perspective, the event would have achieved its ultimate objective. That is, to put Singapore on the world map. That will tie in nicely with the overall tourism strategy for the country with the completion of the Marina Bay IR end-2009 and the Sentosa IR the year after.
There is obviously excellent synchronized strategic management in the Singapore civil servants - you have to give it to them. Wish I could say the same for the Malaysian counterparts. Would Azalina Othman ever be able to rise to the challenge?
The day after, it was no surprise that the reporters from the nation's Straits Times declared the Singapore F1 a roaring success, and possibly the best ever Grand Prix.
But I was surprised to come across a reader's favourable comment from the on-line version of The Star of Malaysia. These unconfirmed statistics were quoted: Singapore spent SGD40million (note: other sources put it closer to SGD150million of which 60% is footed by the Singapore government) whilst Malaysia spent RM286million for initial outlay. Singapore sold more expensive tickets, had a wider TV audience because the night-timing suited Western audiences and did not have to set aside physical space for the project. Unconfirmed numbers put the profit so far to SGD 100million. Would that not be a good return on investment?
Pure speculation, the detractors commented.
It would indeed be interesting to see the true numbers but I doubt we ever will. Regardless, making money from the event is only a secondary objective of this venture.
From a marketing perspective, the event would have achieved its ultimate objective. That is, to put Singapore on the world map. That will tie in nicely with the overall tourism strategy for the country with the completion of the Marina Bay IR end-2009 and the Sentosa IR the year after.
There is obviously excellent synchronized strategic management in the Singapore civil servants - you have to give it to them. Wish I could say the same for the Malaysian counterparts. Would Azalina Othman ever be able to rise to the challenge?
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Singapore: Primary School Overhaul
Education is my passion. Yesterday, I wrote to REACH, the Singapore Government's official feedback unit giving my views on the recent changes in the Singapore primary school, some of which I have blogged earlier (see my previous post). Below, I reproduce the full text:
"To recap, in the diagnosis of the Singapore education system, it has been found that it is too exam-oriented. That's why the new Minister of Education decided we needed to re-balance the system.
I am surprised therefore that MOE has not mentioned anything about exams in its initiatives. It seems to me the panacea is not addressing the root cause. I wonder when is it that MOE will realise that assessment/exams is an integral part of education.
Incorporating all the other changes is good, but it is not enough. Parents will not be convinced to support the new programme if the PSLE remains a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. This is the reason why the school system in Singapore is examination-oriented. Parents have little choice if they want their children to survive the school system here.
The same approach was taken when "Teach Less Learn More" was introduced and we all know now how parents responded - remember the litany of complaints that "nothing" is taught in school? With the new programme, I can only see more tuition centers fluorishing as schools aim to provide that well-rounded education which is not appreciated by most parents. There might even be more complaints from parents about schools not doing enough while the teachers are already tearing their hair out and walking the tight rope to meet the demands of MOE. It's a classic case of mismatched expectations. Ultimately, it's the students who will end up more stressed than ever.
There are many ways how we can place students in secondary schools. There are many ways how we can tweak the PSLE, if there is no derring-do to have a sweeping change, so that the end result is less emphasis on exams.
For a tweak, we can do away with having a single score for the PSLE. Really, is a student who scores 272 better than one who scores 270? WE know it is probably not true but the child is conditioned to think that way and it is not healthy. It leads to extreme competitiveness and an unbalanced life for the child.
Simply adopt the O level format, go by the number of A*, A etc. Too many students scoring 4A*'s? Then give schools the flexibility to choose students. This will introduce subjectivity to the selection system and then maybe parents and students will re-orientate their thinking and be less exam-focused.
Another variation is to have a mix of centralized exam and school-based assessment, to make up the final grade.
If we opt for more sweeping changes, we can forgo “streaming” as it is understood now. Students need not be streamed into Express, NA an NT strictly. This is a broad-brush approach, using the PSLE as the tool.
Instead, we can adopt the modular approach instead such that students can choose to take more advanced modules for the subjects they are good at and vice versa. Their aptitude is determined by their teachers who are well-qualified to be the judge. In the long run, this builds up the self-esteem of students and truly ensure that every individual reaches his maximum potential. The PSLE which is primarily a placement exam will then be made redundant.
As I say, if there’s a will to re-look at the PSLE, there are many ways that we can improve on the system."
"To recap, in the diagnosis of the Singapore education system, it has been found that it is too exam-oriented. That's why the new Minister of Education decided we needed to re-balance the system.
I am surprised therefore that MOE has not mentioned anything about exams in its initiatives. It seems to me the panacea is not addressing the root cause. I wonder when is it that MOE will realise that assessment/exams is an integral part of education.
Incorporating all the other changes is good, but it is not enough. Parents will not be convinced to support the new programme if the PSLE remains a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. This is the reason why the school system in Singapore is examination-oriented. Parents have little choice if they want their children to survive the school system here.
The same approach was taken when "Teach Less Learn More" was introduced and we all know now how parents responded - remember the litany of complaints that "nothing" is taught in school? With the new programme, I can only see more tuition centers fluorishing as schools aim to provide that well-rounded education which is not appreciated by most parents. There might even be more complaints from parents about schools not doing enough while the teachers are already tearing their hair out and walking the tight rope to meet the demands of MOE. It's a classic case of mismatched expectations. Ultimately, it's the students who will end up more stressed than ever.
There are many ways how we can place students in secondary schools. There are many ways how we can tweak the PSLE, if there is no derring-do to have a sweeping change, so that the end result is less emphasis on exams.
For a tweak, we can do away with having a single score for the PSLE. Really, is a student who scores 272 better than one who scores 270? WE know it is probably not true but the child is conditioned to think that way and it is not healthy. It leads to extreme competitiveness and an unbalanced life for the child.
Simply adopt the O level format, go by the number of A*, A etc. Too many students scoring 4A*'s? Then give schools the flexibility to choose students. This will introduce subjectivity to the selection system and then maybe parents and students will re-orientate their thinking and be less exam-focused.
Another variation is to have a mix of centralized exam and school-based assessment, to make up the final grade.
If we opt for more sweeping changes, we can forgo “streaming” as it is understood now. Students need not be streamed into Express, NA an NT strictly. This is a broad-brush approach, using the PSLE as the tool.
Instead, we can adopt the modular approach instead such that students can choose to take more advanced modules for the subjects they are good at and vice versa. Their aptitude is determined by their teachers who are well-qualified to be the judge. In the long run, this builds up the self-esteem of students and truly ensure that every individual reaches his maximum potential. The PSLE which is primarily a placement exam will then be made redundant.
As I say, if there’s a will to re-look at the PSLE, there are many ways that we can improve on the system."
Friday, 26 September 2008
Primary School Changes
Interestingly, both Singapore and Malaysia chose to announce changes to the primary school education system on the same day.
But what I find incomprehensible is that Malaysia opted to re-format their UPSR, the primary school leaving exam, to include school-based assessments, while Singapore did not. Singapore instead chose to re-focus and re-balance its curriculum to incorporate more life skills, to aim for single-session schools and to have an all-graduate primary teaching force by 2015. But there is no mention of any changes to the PSLE.
Why I find this incongruous is that Singapore is infinitely more capable to implement changes to the examination format. They have the skilled teachers, the relative homogeneity of students and a culture that champions systematic approach, transparency and objectivity. Malaysia does not have any of these - but it has the derring-do (some may call it foolhardiness).
I have been advocating changes to the Singapore's PSLE for years. To reduce a student's total ability to a single score which will determine the child's progress into the next stage of life is draconian. This is the reason why the school system in Singapore is examination-oriented. Parents have little choice if they want their children to survive the school system here.
At this stage when Singapore's MOE recognises the shortcomings of its education system as being too examination-oriented, I am surprised that nothing is done to the PSLE format. Incorporating all the other changes is good, but it is not enough. Parents will not be convinced to support the new programme if the PSLE remains a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. I can only see more tuition centers fluorishing as schools aim to provide that well-rounded education which is not appreciated by most parents. There will be more complaints from parents about schools not doing enough while the teachers are already tearing their hair out and walking the tight rope to meet the demands of MOE. It's a classic case of mismatched expectations. Ultimately, it's the students who will end up more stressed than ever.
For once, Singapore should take a leaf out of Malaysia's books and, as they say, just do it. Slaughter the sacred cow once and for all.
As for Malaysia, I do not think I need to comment on anything right now. I dare not think how many U-turns this new policy will have before we see anything happening. However, if you were to ask me, I would say, don't do anything to the UPSR format. Malaysia is just not ready to do anything fancy with the education system. It cannot think it can leapfrog ahead of others. Things are not so simple. Get the basics right first. Err.. by the way, are they going ahead with the teaching of Math and Science in English or are they reverting to Bahasa Malaysia?
But what I find incomprehensible is that Malaysia opted to re-format their UPSR, the primary school leaving exam, to include school-based assessments, while Singapore did not. Singapore instead chose to re-focus and re-balance its curriculum to incorporate more life skills, to aim for single-session schools and to have an all-graduate primary teaching force by 2015. But there is no mention of any changes to the PSLE.
Why I find this incongruous is that Singapore is infinitely more capable to implement changes to the examination format. They have the skilled teachers, the relative homogeneity of students and a culture that champions systematic approach, transparency and objectivity. Malaysia does not have any of these - but it has the derring-do (some may call it foolhardiness).
I have been advocating changes to the Singapore's PSLE for years. To reduce a student's total ability to a single score which will determine the child's progress into the next stage of life is draconian. This is the reason why the school system in Singapore is examination-oriented. Parents have little choice if they want their children to survive the school system here.
At this stage when Singapore's MOE recognises the shortcomings of its education system as being too examination-oriented, I am surprised that nothing is done to the PSLE format. Incorporating all the other changes is good, but it is not enough. Parents will not be convinced to support the new programme if the PSLE remains a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. I can only see more tuition centers fluorishing as schools aim to provide that well-rounded education which is not appreciated by most parents. There will be more complaints from parents about schools not doing enough while the teachers are already tearing their hair out and walking the tight rope to meet the demands of MOE. It's a classic case of mismatched expectations. Ultimately, it's the students who will end up more stressed than ever.
For once, Singapore should take a leaf out of Malaysia's books and, as they say, just do it. Slaughter the sacred cow once and for all.
As for Malaysia, I do not think I need to comment on anything right now. I dare not think how many U-turns this new policy will have before we see anything happening. However, if you were to ask me, I would say, don't do anything to the UPSR format. Malaysia is just not ready to do anything fancy with the education system. It cannot think it can leapfrog ahead of others. Things are not so simple. Get the basics right first. Err.. by the way, are they going ahead with the teaching of Math and Science in English or are they reverting to Bahasa Malaysia?
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Brainless Blaine
Can't stand this guy. This David Blaine and his stunts.
What's the point? He is wasting everybody's time. The doctor could use his talent better off elsewhere attending to the really sick. The newspapers and TV networks could use their journalists in more meaningful ways. And the public? Sigh, focus on something useful, please.
What's the point? He is wasting everybody's time. The doctor could use his talent better off elsewhere attending to the really sick. The newspapers and TV networks could use their journalists in more meaningful ways. And the public? Sigh, focus on something useful, please.
Thursday, 18 September 2008
A Popiah Story
I read this entry from The Star On-Line citizen blog and felt sad and indignant enough to post it here. This is one of the many manifestations of racism that still exists in the country. But I would like to assure the writer that not all Malaysians are like that. There are many of us who will do our own parts to make sure that we live harmoniously together.
"Posted by: kaleiselvi71
I was at a pasar malam just an hour ago about 5.30pm and as we passed by a popiah stall, my kid asked for some. So i went over and one guy was standing there while two ladies was serving. He asked me what i wanted and i said, popiah for RM2. While waiting, i took out my money and i noticed the ladies started serving (muslim) customers who came after me first. I waited, o..k... one customer, 2 customers.. 3 customers... then I looked at the guy enquiringly. He asked "u pun puasa ke?". I was not sure how to react. Then he kept repeating that to the other customers, "dia puasa kot!" and grinning away. Whatever he meant, I didn't want to know and I knew it was better to let it go for everyone's sake. So, i just said nevermind and walked away without buying. As we have always let things such things go for decades.
My 8 year old kid asked what was the problem, i wasn't sure whether i was ready to drag her into all this unpleasantness.I came home and an anger started in me.. not at the popiah guy .. but at the big people up in their towers.. who keep making decisions that they think will keep them in power but care the heck not at the deterioration that's taking place societal level."
"Posted by: kaleiselvi71
I was at a pasar malam just an hour ago about 5.30pm and as we passed by a popiah stall, my kid asked for some. So i went over and one guy was standing there while two ladies was serving. He asked me what i wanted and i said, popiah for RM2. While waiting, i took out my money and i noticed the ladies started serving (muslim) customers who came after me first. I waited, o..k... one customer, 2 customers.. 3 customers... then I looked at the guy enquiringly. He asked "u pun puasa ke?". I was not sure how to react. Then he kept repeating that to the other customers, "dia puasa kot!" and grinning away. Whatever he meant, I didn't want to know and I knew it was better to let it go for everyone's sake. So, i just said nevermind and walked away without buying. As we have always let things such things go for decades.
My 8 year old kid asked what was the problem, i wasn't sure whether i was ready to drag her into all this unpleasantness.I came home and an anger started in me.. not at the popiah guy .. but at the big people up in their towers.. who keep making decisions that they think will keep them in power but care the heck not at the deterioration that's taking place societal level."
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
SPM Students Suffer
It is proven again and again that the ordinary people ultimately suffer when the policy-makers and civil servants are inept.
This is a simple case of examination time-tabling, (or mis-time-tabling) The SPM is a major national exam, affecting thousands of students.
Let's see - this is the schedule for Nov 18:
Add Math Paper 1 8 - 10 am
Add Math Paper 2 10:30 - 1 pm
Moral Education 2:30 - 5 pm
Good job, civil servants.
In the first place, how can the Additional Math Paper 1 and 2 be scheduled on the same day? With just half an hour apart between the two papers? This makes a mockery of why there should be Paper 1 and 2. Essentially, it is 4.5 hours of straight math. My gut feel is that the people organizing the time table have never taken Math seriously nor are they good at it. That's why they probably do not know that Math requires Thinking and Concentration.
Worse, in the afternoon the students have to sit for the Moral Education paper. This paper can be organized to another day (19th Nov), as somebody has suggested, without any clash.
This is another example of how citizens suffer as they go about their daily lives when the civil servants do not think. I can think of countless other examples, starting with how traffic is organized, but that will mean writing until the cows come home.
Please-la, THINK, THINK, THINK!
This is a simple case of examination time-tabling, (or mis-time-tabling) The SPM is a major national exam, affecting thousands of students.
Let's see - this is the schedule for Nov 18:
Add Math Paper 1 8 - 10 am
Add Math Paper 2 10:30 - 1 pm
Moral Education 2:30 - 5 pm
Good job, civil servants.
In the first place, how can the Additional Math Paper 1 and 2 be scheduled on the same day? With just half an hour apart between the two papers? This makes a mockery of why there should be Paper 1 and 2. Essentially, it is 4.5 hours of straight math. My gut feel is that the people organizing the time table have never taken Math seriously nor are they good at it. That's why they probably do not know that Math requires Thinking and Concentration.
Worse, in the afternoon the students have to sit for the Moral Education paper. This paper can be organized to another day (19th Nov), as somebody has suggested, without any clash.
This is another example of how citizens suffer as they go about their daily lives when the civil servants do not think. I can think of countless other examples, starting with how traffic is organized, but that will mean writing until the cows come home.
Please-la, THINK, THINK, THINK!
Monday, 15 September 2008
ISA Stands For What-huh?
Incredibly Silly Acts
I-memang Suka Arrest-anyone
Insecure & Stupid, Alamak!
The above are all over the internet.
Yeah, this is something that Malaysians are very good at. Malaysia Boleh!
I-memang Suka Arrest-anyone
Insecure & Stupid, Alamak!
The above are all over the internet.
Yeah, this is something that Malaysians are very good at. Malaysia Boleh!
Halal Dim Sum For Buka Puasa
I was greatly encouraged to read this news report about a Malay businessman selling dim sum and chee cheong fun at a ramadan bazaar at Ipoh. The dim sum and chee cheong fun are halal, of course, made from chicken, prawn and crab meat and he is enjoying a roaring business.
Just shows how multi-racial Malaysia can be.
Just shows how multi-racial Malaysia can be.
Saturday, 13 September 2008
ISA Arrests In Malaysia
I am totally shocked at the arrest of the reporter Tan Hoon Cheng under ISA for "allegedly threatening security, peace and public order". Ms Tan is the reporter who wrote about the racist remarks made by UMNO Division Chief Ahmad Ibrahim, who called the Chinese "squatters" in the country. This created an uproar in the Chinese community, many of whom cited the role played by the Chinese during the fight for independence, the blood loss fighting alongside the Malays and Indians during World War 2 and the roots that have been firmly sunk in this land.
Ms Tan, an award-winning journalist from a chinese newspaper here, was merely doing her job when she reported what Ahmad Ibrahim said. For the record, Ahmad Ibrahim never denied what he said, he refused to apologise and his excuse was that his remarks were made in front of a totally Malay audience. For his racist remarks, he was only suspended by UMNO for three years.
This is a shocker. This can very well throw the country into turmoil. There will be cries of injustice. Is this a last-ditch political game played to retain power?
The arrest of popular DAP MP Teresa Kok is baffling, to put it mildly. It is believed that she was picked up over the role she played over some residents petition over a mosque. This is not a fresh happening. The question is: Why now? Is it not a provocative move?
I have nothing to say about Petra Kamaruddin's arrest. This guy, he has been going in and out of the police detention center and he seems to be able to take care of himself very well. His arrest, as cold as it may sound, is unlikely to make waves. But the two ladies?
The winds do not bode well....
Ms Tan, an award-winning journalist from a chinese newspaper here, was merely doing her job when she reported what Ahmad Ibrahim said. For the record, Ahmad Ibrahim never denied what he said, he refused to apologise and his excuse was that his remarks were made in front of a totally Malay audience. For his racist remarks, he was only suspended by UMNO for three years.
This is a shocker. This can very well throw the country into turmoil. There will be cries of injustice. Is this a last-ditch political game played to retain power?
The arrest of popular DAP MP Teresa Kok is baffling, to put it mildly. It is believed that she was picked up over the role she played over some residents petition over a mosque. This is not a fresh happening. The question is: Why now? Is it not a provocative move?
I have nothing to say about Petra Kamaruddin's arrest. This guy, he has been going in and out of the police detention center and he seems to be able to take care of himself very well. His arrest, as cold as it may sound, is unlikely to make waves. But the two ladies?
The winds do not bode well....
Friday, 12 September 2008
Foreign Workers Dormitories In Serangoon Gardens
The recent uproar from residents of Serangoon Gardens over the possibility of the conversion of an old school building to foreign workers dormitory quarters is understandable. Serangoon Gardens is a middle-class residential area that is different from most estates in Singapore because it is largely made up of landed properties.
I have known Serangoon Gardens for over 20 years and in spite of the recent upgrading of Chomp Chomp, the constant change in the faces of shops and the smattering of monstrosities built in place of the modest single storey houses, the complexion of the estate remains the same.
This begs the question: What were the government officials thinking of when they contemplated converting the unused school here to a dormitory for foreign workers? In short, factors considered when the Ministry of National Development assesses a site for foreign workers housing are as follows: 1) Availability of adequate infrastructure serving the site and 2) Sufficient parking spaces and enough ancillary facilities to serve the workers. That's all. If this is the type of guidelines that are typical in government bodies, no wonder our policies are often seen as hard and lacking in the heart factor.
There are many reasons why I do not support the housing of foreign workers in Serangoon Gardens or anywhere near existing housing estates.
In the first place, those who argue on the need for integration is way off the mark. The government has no intention of letting this group of foreign workers stay here for the long term. These are not the PRs or PR wannabes. They are here on a contract basis, with a job to fulfil and after that they will go home. This is the fact. No doubt if they are able to integrate into the society within the short time, that will be wonderful, but is it realistic and at what cost?
These foreign workers have a different way of life. I am not saying our way of life is better nor am I insinuating that we are socially superior. Culture is oft-said to be descriptive, not evaluative. What I am saying is that we are different.
Of course it is not impossible for different groups of people to live together and assimilate and grow a new blended culture, but it takes time. And time is something that we do not have because these are not permanent workers here. Most are here for two years. So the hardship that accompanies the change process will come to naught in the end. Is this fair to the Singapore residents?
Those who argue on humanitarian grounds have missed the point as well. We all agree we should treat our foreign guests well. We appreciate their contributions to the development in Singapore. We need to house them in suitable and decent accommodation.
Think about it. There are Chinatowns all over the world. Little Italy, Little India, Greek enclaves, little townships filled with the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Hispanics.... people like to live among their own kind when they are abroad. It is their home away from home. If we house the foreign workers in their own communities, I believe they will be more comfortable and happier. They need a place where they can be themselves after work, relax among their own people and do the things they are used to doing, away from the prying, and often critical eyes, of the locals.
I applaud the government's move to build self-contained foreign worker dormitories in Lim Chu Kang. Facilities such as shops and recreational spaces are catered for. Even then, there are the humanitarians who objected for various reasons. I wonder are they really assessing the situation objectively or are they blindly guided by an all-compassing moral compass?
There is no short-cut to the solution. George Yeo did mention that there are plans to create special townships for our foreign guests. I hope he sees it through.
We need foreign workers and we appreciate their contributions. The way I see it, there is only one decision that the government can make. The unused school can be used for other purposes. The most obvious is for it to be used to house an international school. Not to see the obvious will have deep political implications to the government.
I have known Serangoon Gardens for over 20 years and in spite of the recent upgrading of Chomp Chomp, the constant change in the faces of shops and the smattering of monstrosities built in place of the modest single storey houses, the complexion of the estate remains the same.
This begs the question: What were the government officials thinking of when they contemplated converting the unused school here to a dormitory for foreign workers? In short, factors considered when the Ministry of National Development assesses a site for foreign workers housing are as follows: 1) Availability of adequate infrastructure serving the site and 2) Sufficient parking spaces and enough ancillary facilities to serve the workers. That's all. If this is the type of guidelines that are typical in government bodies, no wonder our policies are often seen as hard and lacking in the heart factor.
There are many reasons why I do not support the housing of foreign workers in Serangoon Gardens or anywhere near existing housing estates.
In the first place, those who argue on the need for integration is way off the mark. The government has no intention of letting this group of foreign workers stay here for the long term. These are not the PRs or PR wannabes. They are here on a contract basis, with a job to fulfil and after that they will go home. This is the fact. No doubt if they are able to integrate into the society within the short time, that will be wonderful, but is it realistic and at what cost?
These foreign workers have a different way of life. I am not saying our way of life is better nor am I insinuating that we are socially superior. Culture is oft-said to be descriptive, not evaluative. What I am saying is that we are different.
Of course it is not impossible for different groups of people to live together and assimilate and grow a new blended culture, but it takes time. And time is something that we do not have because these are not permanent workers here. Most are here for two years. So the hardship that accompanies the change process will come to naught in the end. Is this fair to the Singapore residents?
Those who argue on humanitarian grounds have missed the point as well. We all agree we should treat our foreign guests well. We appreciate their contributions to the development in Singapore. We need to house them in suitable and decent accommodation.
Think about it. There are Chinatowns all over the world. Little Italy, Little India, Greek enclaves, little townships filled with the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Hispanics.... people like to live among their own kind when they are abroad. It is their home away from home. If we house the foreign workers in their own communities, I believe they will be more comfortable and happier. They need a place where they can be themselves after work, relax among their own people and do the things they are used to doing, away from the prying, and often critical eyes, of the locals.
I applaud the government's move to build self-contained foreign worker dormitories in Lim Chu Kang. Facilities such as shops and recreational spaces are catered for. Even then, there are the humanitarians who objected for various reasons. I wonder are they really assessing the situation objectively or are they blindly guided by an all-compassing moral compass?
There is no short-cut to the solution. George Yeo did mention that there are plans to create special townships for our foreign guests. I hope he sees it through.
We need foreign workers and we appreciate their contributions. The way I see it, there is only one decision that the government can make. The unused school can be used for other purposes. The most obvious is for it to be used to house an international school. Not to see the obvious will have deep political implications to the government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
