The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education.
During last year’s National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced plans to set up a fourth university in Singapore, targeting 30 per cent of each cohort to enter publicly-funded universities.
However, based on the past week’s news, it appears the Government is now preparing the ground for a possible downgrading of these plans.
More education could mean less growth: Minister
On 11 June, TODAY reported that Singapore Polytechnic had just launched a scholarship programme to groom top students to be future ministers. The report hinted that university degrees may not even be necessary to reach the highest offices in the land. Polytechnic diplomas could suffice.
Later that day, in his first major speech since his appointment, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen told an Australian university alumni gathering that “more education does not necessarily mean more growth”. He cautioned against a “fixation” with numerical targets for undergraduate enrolment, and said that “expanding education thoughtlessly may actually weaken the link with growth”.
This was also reported on by TODAY on June 12th.
The minister then sounded another alarm that increasing university numbers may reduce the overall quality of education. He further warned that universities could drain teachers from secondary schools. (It is puzzling why the minister thinks future universities will be staffed by National Institute of Education graduates, rather than PhD holders.)
Most of Dr Ng’s postulations were quoted from the book, Does Education Matter?: Myths about Education and Economic Growth by Alison Wolf, a professor at King’s College London. The minister’s press secretary pointed this out in a reply to TODAY on 14 June, wherein she accused the paper of “inaccurate and misleading” reporting.
Having read the minister’s entire 18-page speech, I thought there was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the article ran by TODAY. The minister quoted extensively from that book, and spent the next five pages of his speech arguing that more university education may not lead to economic growth, and that our technical institutes (ITEs) and polytechnics are serving our needs wonderfully. It is not unreasonable to assume then that Prof Wolf’s theories lined up with Dr Ng’s own views and, by extension, those of the Government.
Foreign talent and the “flexible labour policy”
The Government has always been unapologetic about its utilitarian approach in moulding the education system to meet market needs. However, foreign employment figures over the past few years point to a failure of the education system in producing the skilled manpower that employers are demanding.
As of December 2006, there were about 83,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore[i]. The EP is a work pass for foreigners, usually degree holders, whose monthly salary ranges exceeds $2,500. These professionals are commonly referred to as “foreign talent”, who possess the skills and talents that our local graduates lack — or so we are told.
This means that Singapore is short of about 80,000 university graduates to support the economy. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly lament about the shortage of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it can solve this problem by providing more university places and financial support for Singaporeans to complete their higher education.
The Government has explained that it wants to maintain a “flexible labour policy”, which sees it issuing more work passes during boom years, and cutting back during economic downturns.
While that sounds good in theory, the reality on the ground may not be so straightforward. There is no guarantee that during lean years, employers will suddenly awaken to their patriotic duty to retrench only foreigners and retain Singaporeans.
In fact, the additional costs of employing Singaporeans — paying CPF, granting National Service and maternity leave — mean that the pragmatic choice for employers would be to fire the Singaporeans and keep the foreigners when profits are down.
One step forward, two steps back
The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education. Back in 2003, a committee helmed by Dr Ng himself rejected the idea of setting up a fourth university. Now even with the commitment from the Prime Minister to expand local university places, he seems to be tempering expectations.
The argument that having more universities will lower overall standards is a red herring. No one wants the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) to lower their standards and rankings. There is no reason to expect this to happen if a fourth or fifth university were to be set up. Why can’t each university be the “best in its class”? A culture of excellence is, after all, the Singaporean way.
Even if Singapore were to go into recession, Singaporeans will still be better off as unemployed graduates than as unemployed non-graduates. After all, if graduates can’t find jobs locally, they can more easily seek employment overseas. This is one of the key benefits of making Singaporeans “world ready”, as the Government aims to do.
Political cost of higher education
Why does the Government seem reluctant to drastically expand graduate numbers? Compared to other developed countries, Singapore‘s proportion of graduates is dismal. Only 23 per cent of each cohort in Singapore graduates from university. In Australia, 60 per cent hold degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent.
Perhaps the Government realises that having “too many” educated citizens may be politically inconvenient, especially if the economy does poorly and graduate unemployment numbers increase. With their stronger ability to articulate grievances, vocal graduates may require our highly-paid ministers to spend much more time thinking of the right way to “fix” them or “buy” them over.
Already, support in Singapore for a more pluralistic government is highest among the educated classes. A post-2006 election survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies found that most Workers’ Party supporters were from the upper-middle and above household income group. A higher proportion of respondents with university qualifications also felt there is a need to reform the election system.
The fourth university: yes but not quite?
We can expect that in the coming months, the Ministry of Education and its “nation-building” press will continue to wax lyrical about how wonderful our ITEs and polytechnics are, and how their graduates find jobs much faster than university graduates. They will sound more warnings about how more graduates could mean poorer overall quality — just like “those other countries”.
Finally, Singaporeans will be informed that the fourth university will be set up as promised, but it will be just a small liberal arts college with a cosy 200 or so students.
Meanwhile, thousands of Singaporeans, desperate for a university education, will continue to flock to overseas universities each year, in pursuit of that degree that they could have obtained at a much lower cost had there been more places in local universities.
More graduates needed for knowledge economy
A fundamental shift in mindsets with respect to university education is needed. Our knowledge economy needs many more graduates, and it will be better to fill the skilled positions with Singaporeans rather than importing more foreign talent.
——————–
Related articles:
· Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore
· Education is the best social welfare
————
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Could it be cheaper to get university graduate from other country rather than develping them internally… the so call subsidies that our student enjoyed thru to university may be more than what our government is willingly to spend….. who knows.
My hunch is that the govt is wriggling away its responsibility for a 4th university and allows more of the private universities to set up campus here. What’s the catch?
Enrolling in private universities means paying market rates which without subsidies, will rise persistently. A govt funded university is considered a liability to the govt. Well, to make it simple, it’s another capitalist move.
The profiting intention will attract some foreign universities to set up campus here as announced by a couple of them recently. At the end of the day, Singaporeans are the ones sacrificing again because having contributed taxes, etc, the majority will be forced to sign up with the private universities here.
It’s a win-win solution for and from the govt. Another crooked business opportunity to justify the ministers’ astronomical salary at the expense of none other than the citizens, children and parents alike.
Gerald. great articles!
Here we have many Singaporeans aspire for a good tertiary education but beyond their financial reach to do it abroad. On the other hand, our gov policy is allowing an influx of foreign students to study in our local U, depriving our locals the place. No wonder so many singaporeans are completely disiilusioned with the gov.
They are managing your expectations and telling citizens to just go to poly and let the FT’s have the degress from some unknown universities to take the better paying jobs lah. Don’t you notice that this is the period where many citizens have been rejected into the local Uni’s. Get it? Hahahaha..
“It’s a win-win solution for and from the govt. Another crooked business opportunity to justify the ministers’ astronomical salary at the expense of none other than the citizens, children and parents alike.”
Notwithstanding that government can even tax university who setup here higher and higher. You see, PayAndPay again, this time from university to the coffer’s pocket ! And then university jerk up the price, and coffers start blaming on globalization again.
PAP think we are stupid, is it ?
Anyway, what can we expect from the bunch of expenive inept clowns who live in Ivory Tower and always think they know it best ? Their solution only world-class in Singapore because no one want to tell the emperor that he is naked.
Same kind of attitude from them. Arrogancy, rhetoric, nonsense, rubbish, shitty, indecisive. KengKing trying to push the responsibility away from themselves.
Everything goes down to the responsibility of the government. What is the role of the government? Aren’t they supposed to look after the interest of the people? Sadly, Singapore seems like a country, but worked like a corporation. Simple example like:
Money is used as a tool to attract top people to become minister. From what I believe, these people are less likely to know the needs of the people. They are only worried about their performance. Performance as in how to make money for their departments. To make money is to squeeze the money from the people?
I have the same view as Harrison. What is win-win situation when Singaporeans do not deserve the rights of being a Singaporeans in the first place? Singaporeans need to serve and contribute to the safety of Singapore however, we are denied to be given subsidy for our education.
Unable to get into local university, Singaporeans like me are forced to study in foreign university locally. I need to pay more while the knowing that foreigners are taking up bursary to study in OUR University. Being a Singaporean, I feel that I am being discriminated.
The following is a very disturbing fact. I was told by one of my friends that, being a full-time foreign university student in Singapore, he faces problems when applying for National service deferment. He was asked to go for his re-service even though he will be having lessons during the re-service duration. His deferment was only approved only when he talked to his minister. What the hell!!
I, myself is a student of a private university. From my personal experience, I was told that I have to go for my ICT Training course because I am a student of a PRIVATE university even though I will be having exam during that time.
Let’s compare to what locals from the local university would be treated. It seems to me that Singaporeans who study in local university have special rights while Singaporeans studying in private university do not have. What the hell!!!
The policy, obviously discriminates locals who do not get a place in a local university. (There are more examples of discrimination, ask around) This partly is due to the FT policy. I am very disturbed. Since the policy in place is already unbearable, tell me what the purpose of having a fourth university?
So, what so wonderful about holding a pink IC when there are so many liabilities? Unless there is a change, I would likely move my family away to a place where my family and I truly being treated as a citizen rather than somebody that is worse than foreigners. (when there is an opportunity)
“So, what so wonderful about holding a pink IC when there are so many liabilities?”
Do not worry. A lot of people are asking the same question nowadays. Last time when the internet was not around for like minded views to be consolidated / openly made known, I thought I was in the minority to feel this way.
No wonder they are so afraid of people gathering together and requires permit for this and that.
The so-called “Education Policy” in Singapore speak is really an “Economic Policy” in another guise. Education has never been a social policy as in the case of Scandinavian countries. That has never changed since the PAP took power and not likely to change in the foreseeable future even when LKY has left the scene.
There is an element of truth about the lack of correlation between economic growth and eduction, especially University level, attainment of a nation. As usual the PAP has spin it to suit it’s own fix mindset. That mindset is fixated on “Economic Growth”. It is also worth pointing out that Economic Growth, as is understood, in PAP is really focussed on infrastructure and tangible growth. The hullabaloo about wanting to make Singapore a “knowldege-based” economy is nothing more than bazz word for the sake of it.
If one were to examine Singapore’s GDP growth a high proportion of it is not driven by so-called “Knowledge” driven economy. Take bio-tech, a large portion is driven by drug manufacturing, rather than research component (judging by the number of start ups).
Take Information Technology (IT), the growth has been driven by massive investment in infrastructure (cabling, buildings to house data warehouse) rather than contents. Contrast this to a slightly less industrial Scandinavian country like Norway, fairly similar in economic size to Singapore. In the realm of IT it has developed at least two world beating technology startups (Qt and Opera Web browser) both of which were sold for no less than US$100 mil. In a knowledge based economy, wealth is going to be generated by startups and entrepreneurship. Singapore is no where near that point. Contrast with Taiwan, in the knowledge based front it is no where to be seen. Mind you Taiwan is a place under siege and yet, whilst GDP growth may not be as impressive, but it has managed to generate enough growth in several technology sector to sustain itself during tough times.
As for entrepreneurship, here is where a University education in itself is not important. Look at all the major tech startups like Microsoft (Bill drop out of university), Yahoo (Jerry and partner left before completing PhD), facebook (started by a college drop out) and Google (one of the founders left before completing PhD) . If you study major computing tech gurus many have not had degrees in computing and some only had degrees in the Arts. Even in the field of biotech, much of the economic activity did not come from academia but from people leaving to startup. And even in academia, these people were not “taught” their craft but the universities merely provided them with an environment to “develop” their own craft.
But in the Singapore context, here is where the Education Minister, Ng and possibly the PAP is being disingenuous about proclaiming the lack of correlation as justification for not wanting to expand university education.
I suspect that the fixation of economic growth in the sense that I outline above, may have been the primary driver for the change of heart. To sustain the kind of developing country status rate of growth, it is finding that link between university education is becoming unimportant and rather than change tack, it opted for the growth. After all that is what keeps it in power. If the PAP was genuine about wanting a knowledge based economy, it would have had to settle for a slower paced and different kind of growth. But I suspect it is finding that route is not without political pain. All-in-all, they are boxed in by their own mindset.
On the other hand, there is a bigger cultural issue at large that is not only with the PAP. In Singapore, there is this cultural fixation that Education and certification means the same thing. Hence, to be considered skill full all one needs is a certificate. And education means being “taught” rather than one develop by one’s own initiative. Hence in Singapore you will notice many graduate lacking skills despite their qualification. I remember reading about an Australian pilot, who was not a graduate, was able to restore an RSAF fighter jet on his own. How many Singaporean Engineering graduate would take up such a challenge and for that matter really have the skills to do that?
I suspect many Singaporean Graduate will be able to sit for an exam on how to build a plane but doubt if they have the practical skill to build one. Here is where PAP have been able exploit this cultural attitude and spin a “foreign” talent policy.
And finally on this point:
Even if Singapore were to go into recession, Singaporeans will still be better off as unemployed graduates than as unemployed non-graduates. After all, if graduates can’t find jobs locally, they can more easily seek employment overseas. This is one of the key benefits of making Singaporeans “world ready”, as the Government aims to do.
In theory, it may be true that a “graduate” may be able to seek employment overseas, it is worth remembering that by being a “graduate” alone is not sufficient criterion nor necessarily helpful. Take the case of Australia, if you have a vocational skill like brick laying or plumbing or nursing or even a music teacher, you have more chance of migrating there than say a economic graduate or for that matter a GP!
Skills and certifications are not necessarily the same thing. My personal believe is that everyone should have the opportunity to experience university education but at the same time don’t forget to develop real skills on your own.
I think you really need to read Prof Wolf’s book and her other articles and writings to get her point. A degree is primarily a signal of ability and competence. If too many possess the same signal, it loses its discriminatory value. In other words, at least some of the value of a degree is its use as a judge of a person’s ability relative to others in his/her cohort. By definition, your degree matters less the more others are able to get one too.
The danger with dramatically expanding enrolment numbers is that it erodes this value. For most of us, the degree we take is of minimal relevance to our future working life (except for doctors, lawyers, engineers, and even then much of the knowledge is earned on the job).
What happens in fact, is that if the govt expands higher education, employers will find it a lot more difficult to discriminate between job candidates. They will start using other less reliable rules – where you studied, who you know, and possible social clues – accent, language, dress, address etc. Obviously all of these tilt the scales to the already wealthy and well connected, which perpetuates any social inequalities (which we don’t want of any good education policy).
Already this is becoming a big problem. It is not the case that the economy or Singapore needs 80,000 graduates; Singapore needs 80,000 people of a particular competence level signalled by the possession of an undergraduate degree. A degree by itself is NOT (much of) a signal of intrinsic value, only your value relative to others, a positional good in other words. If you expand the number of graduates, you will find that employers will be calling for 80,000 master’s degrees holders instead. In other words, the issue is not the shortage of degree holders, but the shortage of sufficiently competent people, whether they have degrees or not. The UK converted their polytechnics to universities and didn’t fool employers, who continued to discriminate against graduates of former polys.
i think cx missed the whole point of the issue. You must consider the student admissions as a relative figure rather than nominal. If you consider it that way, current trend only suggests that local tertiary rates will go down.
It’s true that a large number of applicants may dilute the worth of each degree but thats the whole basis of the market economy isnt it? The whole point of why we seek to improve ourselves. The true concern is that people arent given a chance to display their merits because of something beyond their control. ‘A fair go’ as some of my Australian friends would put it.
Besides, the way the economy is built in Singapore. We have no choice but to strive for good marks and certificates. Its a horrendus system that perpatuates itself even when the ppl know its bad. Places like ITE and poly should be a skills college rather than being labelled ‘the place for ppl who couldnt get into JC’. If things don’t change, we’ll only continue as a number crunching and soulless community that we are right now.
Also, its not true that only graduates can leave Singapore for work. Skilled technical workers are in high demand in the region. You just need to know where to look and who to ask. A skilled construction worker is able to earn over 80k annually. It’s just that Singapore has this classist view over menial workers. When was the last time you appreciated the street cleaners?
sorry for any mistakes in my paragraphs, its 2 am over here. Out
When we are powerless without freedom of speech / assembly, people will step/spit on us cos they know we cannot fight back. We can talk until the cow come home but ask yourself what is the chances of they changing their present old way of treating us. Those of you who still think by talking and discussing , we are heading some where. Look at our 2 opposition MP, what changes are done. NOTHING. Unless we are really represented by the same number of votes for opposition ( 40% ), 40% opposition member of parliament then can we talk and discuss with hope of change. Other than that, I see no hope in this country progress unless ‘someone and his companies’ willing to step down. FAT HOPE that is. I think I got better chance to realize this wish if I go to temple to pray for DIVINE INTENVENTION on these people.
Click here for an interview given by Prof Wolf on the subject.
sk,
Why do people buy 4d and toto because of hope in winning them? The same can be said of political change. How long is the gahmen going to behave like one instead of a bully? Looking at recent events highlighting the incompetency of the gahmen, the time for change isnt far. Don be dishearted.
FG
Strangely, this is one of the few things in which I agree with a minster. There are too many degree holders in the world because of lowering standards and grade inflation.
A degree is useful to the individual because of its scarcity. With so many degrees, we have ended up with a situation where not all degrees are created equal. A degree from an Ivy League or oxbridge may have more ‘value’ than say a degree obtained from private schools here.
But since everyone has a degree, you have to waste more money and time to be ‘equal’; which to me is an unproductive waste of time.
Furthermore, I seem to be seeing a case of more highly educated morons. More education doesn’t necessarily make one smart (especially when you see some of the mickey mouse courses around). Whats worse it gives a hypothetical stupid person the illusion of intelligence and that could make such people dangerous.
You see the case in Malaysia where you have incompetent doctors and engineers getting into universities based on some quota.
Wow, we are paying the Education Minister sky-high salary plus fat pension plus atronomical performance bonus to persuade Singaporeans to cut down on expectations to enter local universities. This is truly despicable management of Singaporeans’ expectation to the extreme. By limiting university education to only the upper class, are we trying to preserve and magnify the already pronounced class distinction between the haves and have-nots in Singapore?
Our children are pushed very hard in schools; no childhood’s memories except extra tutions, enhancements, so-called profitable extra-activities in school and outside school. Later, they get worried and discouraged when the local universities turn them away for their very reasons. Frankly speaking, I detest the Singaporean mentality: the kiasu, kiasi … and may I ask where do all this concept derive from? I feel very sad that Singapore has no local talents except to depend on foreign talents to gain spotlight in sports and what else? I, a Singaporean, do not feel at all proud of my country.
re: Mr Kit
I really don’t understand the point you are trying to make – there is no issue at all if the proportion of graduates goes down – or at the very least, this is something that has to be argued for, it’s not intrinsically bad.
“The true concern is that people arent given a chance to display their merits because of something beyond their control. ‘A fair go’ as some of my Australian friends would put it.”
This statement is rather missing the point isn’t it? A degree is meant to signal a particular level of competence relative to the rest of the cohort, a prize awarded to podium finishers in the education tournament. It’s true that organisers don’t award gold medals to both teams in a football finals, but does that imply the losing team hasn’t a chance to display its merit? Students compete to get into universitry and the competition process is largely fair however many (few) places are up for grabs.
The concern of course and Prof Wolf’s concern is that the link between the education tournament and the workplace tournament will be eroded if a government blindly pursues a quantitave (percentage of cohort) target. In other words, employers will have less assurance that a first place finisher in university will be any good the workplace.
The ITE and Polys are skills colleges. Look at it this way – 14,000 people get into JCs; possibly 30-40 per cent didn’t get into a university. And employers definitely prefer poly grads to say someone with a basic arts degree, looking at the employment figures.
An alternative is to encourage people who can afford to go overseas to enrol in overseas colleges. This may come in the form of parents’ endowment or scholarships. Singaporeans have been deemed as adequately educated to perform well in foreign prestigious colleges. Then people who are unable to get into a local university can fill up the vacancies here. In this way, more Singaporeans can get a degree.
I don’t understand why some of you are hiding behind anonymous nicks. It’s not as if you are liable for any charges, simply based on what you feel about the system.
I for one feel that until the day when we, Singaporeans, are allowed to speak and decided for ourselves, there’s no hope really. We can talk till the cows come home but eventually, we, the locals will suffer.
I don’t know about you but if I ever have the slight opportunity to leave I’d be more than glad to. Like many I questioned, just how valuable is my Pink IC really?
Some courses in SG unis are catered for o/s people rather than Singaporeans. A prime example is the much vaunted MPP. Don’t expect local unis to be pro-Singaporean or Singaporean-first.
Its a question of supply and demand. SG unis want to be first so they need to supply only the best graduates so the demand is for the best graduates (and it is up to them to consider if Singaporeans are considered that)
Only institutions like pri/sec sch, ITE are meant to be Singapore-first cos this provides the base option.
Ultimately, the responsibility for education rests with the individual. Already people who can’t go to uni in SG just turn to the alternatives available. Its not like there aren’t any.
My advice: If you need the govt to think for you, then perhaps higher education is not your cup of tea.
Lim,
Well, if the govt’s role is defined according to your expectation, please take this entire govt and incorporate it into a Pte Ltd concern. This will eliminate all the negatives that Singaporeans harbour for the ruling party. They can pay themselves billions without Singaporeans’ expectation of accountability. Simple, short and sharp.
At the same time, we Singaporeans will elect a true govt to manage the country. We shall be glad to be given this option in the very near future.
“My advice: If you need the govt to think for you, then perhaps higher education is not your cup of tea.”
Hello, hello fellow Singaporeans. Listen and listen good about this statement “If you need the govt to think for you, then perhaps higher education is not your cup of tea.”
Perhaps, we really need to do something in the future to make sure that our govt will think for us and about our own higher education or that of our kids if you are parents.
I do not know why the gahmen of most other countries always think of their own citizens first when it comes to higher education and ours seems to be very unique leh.
CX
You said:
.… A degree is meant to signal a particular level of competence relative to the rest of the cohort, a prize awarded to podium finishers in the education tournament. It’s true that organisers don’t award gold medals to both teams in a football finals, but does that imply the losing team hasn’t a chance to display its merit? Students compete to get into universitry and the competition process is largely fair however many (few) places are up for grabs.
That may be true in society with a highly elitist view of educational system. The US, UK and, in particular, Singapore to some extent falls into this category. Now elitism is not necessarily a bad thing.
In Scandinavian societies, the attitude towards educational achievement is somewhat different. It tends to view education as a measure of competence rather than a measure relative achievement. I guess the analogy is like a driving test where you either pass or fail a driving test. You don’t have people getting first class honours or US equivalent for being the best driver of a batch. You meet a minimum requirement you pass that’s it.
In the Singapore and American universities systems, your ranking is relative to the batch you belong, for example, only some numbers get first class or us equivalent.
In the UK systems, it is quite varied as Universities are quite independent in their operations, some operate on the basis of classifying by competence (you get a percentage point, you get a class of degree regardless of how many have attained that percentage, I believe LSE operates such a system) some by relative ranking (limited to some).
Whether a elitist approach or a “competence” approach is better or not depends on cultural views. Scandinavia being a relatively egalitarian society would be suited for a so-called “competence” approach. I remember talking to a Swedish professor about the danger of diluting the “value” of a degree with respect to employers. He’s answer was that the value of a degree is very much in the eyes of the beholder. At the end of the day, society’s (Scandinavian) role is to make sure the individual is competent to handle life’s (not just workplace) requirement. It is not society’s role to classify an individual. How an individual finds his/her place in life is up to him when he leaves school! He added that it is not up to academic to determine an individual place in society but it is the academic job to pass on knowledge.
In a highly hierarchical society like Singapore, I suspect the kind of Scandinavian approach would not work too well. Individual Singaporeans are too wrapped up with academic qualification — by that I mean certification — as a social status symbol. From a government’s (well PAP’s) perspective, their main concerned is really all about dividing the economic pie. Hence, I suspect all the talk about ensuring “quality” is very much a way of managing people’s expectation on who can eat what portion of pie.
As for Prof Wolf’s argument, you have got to see it in the context of UK society. It is an argument about what is the best approach to ensure individuals in society do not get seriously disadvantage because of artificial barriers — particularly entry to educational achievement or employment prospects (i.e. whether employers are asking for degree level training when none is needed). It is also about what role does universities play? Is it a store of knowledge (i.e. where people use the knowledge-base to develop their own abilities) for the nation or a training (i.e. where people are taught a skill) institutions — i.e. the research vs teaching argument?
None of these I think are in the PAP’s agenda.
The UDHR only advocates compulsory education to the primary level. There’s a reason why.
Those that think that the Govt should do the thinking for us, what exactly do you guys propose that the Govt should do? Take our exams as well? lol. Might as well give the degree to the Govt.
I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me. If you guys think you need others to think for you, I’m ok with that. Some people can’t think for themselves, that’s a fact of life. Best Regards.
lim
>>what exactly do you guys propose that the Govt should do? Take our exams as well? lol. Might as well give the degree to the Govt.
I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me. If you guys think you need others to think for you, I’m ok with that. Some people can’t think for themselves, that’s a fact of life. Best Regards.
>>
I notice that lim wrote this some before:
>>I would also like to point out a part in article 12 of the UDHR which is normally not discussed…
“No one shall be subjected…. to attacks upon his honor and reputation.”
No matter how much one disagrees with the other party, I like to think this is a right that should be upheld.
>>
Lim is definitely practicing what he/she preach with unkind remarks about others such as those he/she wrote here.
Can anyone highlight whose honor and reputation did I infringe?
All I said is there are people who can’t think for themselves. Can mongoloids think for themselves? They need people to take care of them isn’t it? Did I call anyone a mongoloid? No.
@lim
Proposition 1: I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me.
Proposition 2: Some people can’t think for themselves
Conclusion: Some people don’t have a brain
“Those that think that the Govt should do the thinking for us, what exactly do you guys propose that the Govt should do? Take our exams as well? lol. Might as well give the degree to the Govt.”
What a lame and dumb statement! Why don’t you tell the whole PAP govt to resign?
“I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me. If you guys think you need others to think for you, I’m ok with that.”
Another dumb statement.! Everyone has a brain. The only difference is whether it’s lop-sided or brain dead.
“All I said is there are people who can’t think for themselves.”
No kidding. Are you referring to yourself?
lol. Reminds me of a story:
A: U’ know, the sky is blue
B: How dare you insult me!
A: How is that an insult?
B: In Tsivaragiust, blue means bad!
A: But are you, tsivaragiust?
B: No, I’m chinese, that’s another insult there!
A: So how does it apply to a chinese?
B: It doesn’t matter, its still an insult.
A: So if the sky is not blue, then what colour is it?
B: …
Sounds familiar?
As much as the attempted attacks try to distract from the issue, my proposition remains….
The responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government. I don’t need the government (or others) to think or decide for me whether I should or should not go for higher education.
For Harrison & co, I’m not going to fall for your baiting tactics. If you think otherwise from the above, that’s your view and I respect that. Thanks and have a nice day.
lim on June 18th, 2008 7.17 pm
“Those that think that the Govt should do the thinking for us, what exactly do you guys propose that the Govt should do? Take our exams as well? lol. Might as well give the degree to the Govt.”
I do not need the Govt do the thinking for us (or me). I just need them (my proposal) to have a hands-off attitude and not come with policies which we need to finance them (to take care of them instead) so that we can have more resources to take care of ourselves.
They are talented to play with words whenever they come out with new policies to make it sound as though they are helping us a lot and sometimes I just pray that they can stop helping us. Get it.
Frankly, I do not think they are doing us any favour very much as they would like us to believe.
Every time when a new education minister is in charge, he will come up new ideas, to change this that revamp this that and so on. We will be the guinea pigs. They say, need a 4th Uni, then now they say another thing….. keep ppl confused. Different minister has different ideas. They are not really talented. They try to be so as to justify their million dollar pay. You know their scheme all flaw from graduate mother scheme to streaming of pri 3 students, gifted programme, SAP, EM 1,2,3, MT etc….. you check other countries education system, dont have so many schemes. Good students can cope, but not so goood students, how ?
Dear all,
Any comments posted must be scrutinised and must be able to stand up to scrutiny. That’s the whole purpose of TOC. We are not here to sway people’s opinion but rather to publish our opinion formed through information received.
Be game to put forth your views in sensible but not far-fetched manner. Please refrain from posting absurb examples to justify your viewpoint because it simply makes one invalid.
“The responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government. I don’t need the government (or others) to think or decide for me whether I should or should not go for higher education. ”
What a twist of argument!!! Of course you and your parents will decide how well you want or can be educated. Since when did the govt becomes responsible for your decision to pursue or not pursue higher education???
Are you missing the point of contention or are you trying to wriggle away from your posted views?
@lim
I said that you are not quite respectful of others who disagree with you based on your propositions :
Proposition 1: I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me. (made by lim)
Proposition 2: Some people can’t think for themselves (made by lim immediately after proposition 1)
Conclusion: Some people don’t have a brain (lim’s thinly-veiled and objectionable conclusion)
What’s with your the “sky’s blue” story? Don’t see any link to your conclusion disparaging others with disagree with you as “brainless”.
I have put forth why i think you are being disrespectful to others. Till now, you STILL HAVE NOT DIRECTLY REBUT my illustration. No answer from you on your unkind remarks? I think THAT SETTLES THE ISSUE then.
@lim
“The responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government. I don’t need the government (or others) to think or decide for me whether I should or should not go for higher education.”
For that, should lim and his/herchild have received any form of higher education in any of the three universities where public funds are involved, lim and family should be charged the FULL AMOUNT OF UNIVERSITY TUITION FEES PLUS 7% GST ON TOP OF THAT. They SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED ANY STUDENT CONCESSIONS in transport as well. Why? Because lim and his/her child’s higher education is none of the business of this government as lim himself and herself have said. So is lim ready to be “martyred” for his/her beliefs in this way? If not, i think its better for lim to preach and pontificate to the wall instead.
@ harrison & co,
If you think my arguments are inconsistent, pls re-read again. The thrust that individuals must be responsible for their own education is clearly stated in my FIRST post of this thread rather than the twist as highlighted.
You can continue your attacks that mischievously misconstrues my arguments but it does not distract from the above.
What is twisted is how education can somehow become an issue of transport concession and how I should be a martyr. I disagree with this.
For myself, I didn’t get a single cent of govt subsidy on my higher education (I don’t need to defend my education choices).
I do note somehow martyrdom seems to be a favoured choice of some people.
If you still don’t understand what I’m saying, too bad. I can’t help you there cos I think education is your own responsibility.
Lim,
I think P@P would treasure you as a citizen.
As, for me, I still prefer to have my rights for being a Singaporean who have to serve the nation just because I am born here. Well, if you do not feel different or feel somewhat different, what is the point to serve right?
I think you are trying to say we Singaporeans should fight for whatever privileges that is given to the foreigners. However, I believe most people are looking at the rights of being a Singaporean more than the ability to be a Singaporean.
The rights of being a Singaporean become very clear when Singaporeans are being different from the foreigners when Singaporeans need to serve. Are we being compensated adequately? This question I shall leave it to you to answer.
Just look at our fellow friends who had left us and the report which I have read from some where showing that 50% (anyone who is able to find the article pls contribute cos I don’t remember where did I read it from) of the Singaporeans intended to give up the pink IC if they have an opportunity. This reflects badly on the current policy. It is forcing local to leave this place.
Like what I have always say if you are not thinking of what most Singaporeans are thinking, I believe that you are irrational. Being irrational does not mean that you are not right. It is just that you think differently from most people.
Hi Tiredman,
The rights to higher education is not a universal right. As mentioned, UDHR only specifies the compulsory right to primary education not higher education.
As to the argument that the right to higher education is a right applied to foreigners, that is open to debate.
My understanding is that in Europe and the US, no citizen is guaranteed a place in university. As far as I understand, a minimum requirement and a limit to places is applied.
If you have a different understanding, do share the facts with us. I don’t claim to know everything.
Best Regards
@lim
I noticed that you are remain silent about your unkind remarks? Still no answer?
>>For myself, I didn’t get a single cent of govt subsidy on my higher education (I don’t need to defend my education choices).
>>
Now i think we all get the picture: Here is a rich kid born with a silver spoon in the mouth who enjoys the luxury of getting higher education (anywhere in the world even if he/she may not qualify for any of the local universities) pontificating to the majority of heartlander youths about how “responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government”. Being out of touch is pretty scary, don’t lim agree?
I can say the sky is blue but you can think it is an insult. If you can’t or choose not to understand what I say, that is your choice not my problem. Too bad. you can continue too with your insults. That’s your choice. Have a nice day.
It is sad too (at least to me) when a person’s education can be a target of insults. I am not ashamed of my education. Best Regards.
@lim
“The rights to higher education is not a universal right. As mentioned, UDHR only specifies the compulsory right to primary education not higher education.”
In the local context, if this Government, which prides itself on being fiscally prudent, will only charge a JC student 17 bucks for school and misc. fees as compared to the market rate ranging from $225-$400, what makes you think that the right to higher education should not not be applied as far as possible in the Singaporean society’s context?
@lim
>>I can say the sky is blue but you can think it is an insult. If you can’t or choose not to understand what I say, that is your choice not my problem. Too bad. you can continue too with your insults. That’s your choice. Have a nice day.
>>
Nobody says that “the sky is blue” is an insult. The point is insinuating those who don’t agree with you as brainless is an indisputable and irrefutable example of an insult to others.Selective amnesia seems to be working on someone though.
@lim
>>I am not ashamed of my education. Best Regards.
>>
Nobody tells you to be ashamed of your education. Just be ashamed of your failure to empathize with fellow Singaporeans who are materially less fortunate than you. Best Regards.
Hi, I think you confuse human rights with fiscal/pricing measures. Human rights are the basic fundamentals of what humans should have. Deciding whether university or pre-u fees should be $16 or $17, $x or $y is not a question of human rights but a question of economics and governance. As repeated for the third time, there is no universal human right to higher education.
“insinuating those who don’t agree with you as brainless is an indisputable and irrefutable example of an insult to others.”
That is something I did not say. Thanks. What I did say was “Some people can’t think for themselves, that’s a fact of life.”
Babies can’t think for themselves. Babies are people. Is that an insult?
You can twist it to mean whatever you think it means. That’s up to you. If you think being responsible for own education = not empathising with people who are materially less well off. That’s your choice.
I am tired of being insulted. So my apologies if I no longer respond to your posts. Thanks and have a nice day.
@lim
“If you think my arguments are inconsistent, pls re-read again. The thrust that individuals must be responsible for their own education is clearly stated in my FIRST post of this thread rather than the twist as highlighted.”
I understand your point FULLY and THOROUGHLY. Convinced by your argument, i decided to demand you pay FULL SCHOOL FEES WITH GST. Since you said you NEVER receive a single cent on education from public funds, CAN YOU PROMISE THAT YOUR KIDS in future WILL PAY FULL FEES PLUS GST once they enter the education system here? Can’t promise? Then I think that settles the credibility of your stand.
@lim
>>That is something I did not say. Thanks. What I did say was “Some people can’t think for themselves, that’s a fact of life.”
>>
You conveniently drop your preceding statement. SO let me quote that preceding sentence in BOLD for you.
Lim on June 18th, 2008 7.17 pm said,
“I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me. If you guys think you need others to think for you, I’m ok with that. Some people can’t think for themselves, that’s a fact of life.”
lim, don’t you agree that selective amnesia is a very scary disease? Have a nice day.
@lim
“If you think being responsible for own education = not empathising with people who are materially less well off.”
For a person like you who can well afford not to receive a single cent of government subsidies for your higher education to lecture the majority of heartland youths whose only hope for upward social mobility lies in getting a place in the local universities where fees are substantially subsidized, what does it show? If this is not being out of touch and fail to empathize with the less well-off, then what is?
@lim
“Hi, I think you confuse human rights with fiscal/pricing measures. Human rights are the basic fundamentals of what humans should have. Deciding whether university or pre-u fees should be $16 or $17, $x or $y is not a question of human rights but a question of economics and governance. As repeated for the third time, there is no universal human right to higher education.”
Human rights entails FREEDOM FROM WANT. That means that it is a right for anyone to have a decent living that is above the the bare subsistence level in his society. My point is: Does a primary school education ALONE allow a Singaporean to find a decent living in this competitive knowledge-based economy of today and tomorrow? My answer is a NO.
If we as a society thinks that primary school education ALONE gives Singaporeans FREEDOM FROM WANT, we wouldn’t be spending 3% of our GDP on education, the bulk of which goes to tertiary education subsidies.