“it will take about close to a decade to realize the goals of the government’s ambitious biomedical science initiative”

My guess is Singapore will never be a world leader in biomedical science or any other research areas. Why? Talented Singaporeans will emigrate. The real top international talent will not come. The Singapore Government’s thinking that money and top class facilities are the answer to attracting talent is fundamentally flawed. They do not seem to understand that not all people are like them ie motivated principally by money. There are other things in life which are far far more important.

Secondly, how long will it be before Singapore becomes a Chinese colony a la Tibet? No soldiers are required here. Just get enough Chinese to become permanent residents and then citizens to colonise Singapore. Very simple and straight-forward, that is, if they think it is something worth doing. They might not bother though since Singapore is such small fry. Total population here is equivalent to that of a small town in China.

Imagine when the pop goes to 6.5.
By then many of our children need to go uni and compete with limited seats?
More good years?

SMA graduates do have not to serve bond, local and foreigner alike.

In many graduate schools across the world, including some top-class universities, the foreign student population exceeds the local student population. At several well-known UK universities you would be hard-pressed to find local graduate students, especially in finance, economics and engineering courses.

@ B on December 14th, 2009 9.26 am

What you said is true , but there has to be a distinction between state funded universities and private universities .

The former has funds coming in from the government and indirectly from the tax money of the local populace . The top universities are often private institutions, and most students have to pay the hefty full school fees with a smaller number getting the coveted scholarships.

In Singapore’s case , the school fees are definitely “cheap” compared to the world’s top universities , and so even to the 2nd tier universities . And this “cheap” fee is not the result of any efficiency in cost cutting in our education sector , but it arises from grants coming from the public coffers .

It is not to say we should deny bright talents from coming into Singapore to study , but at least do not make our population pay and subsidise these people which we are not even remotely assured that they will stay to contribute to our city after they had achieved their academic goals .

nocityforoldmen:

Most good PhD programs in the States, public or private, provide full tuition remission, health insurance, and a living stipend for all PhD students that are admitted (except those students who already have outside funds, etc.). The public-private distinction is a red herring when it comes to funding for PhD programs. Admittedly, I don’t know what the situation is like for overseas medical schools, which form the more appropriate comparison class.

The foreign students in Duke-NUS have to serve a 5-year bond, so I’m not sure why you think we are ‘not even remotely assured’ that they will stay in Singapore.

Die-Hard Singaporean:

You are giving the Singapore government too much credit. They are not even offering enough money when it comes to stemming the outflow of Singaporean talent. If you are Singaporean with an overseas PhD and you want to return to work in NUS or AStar, you get no moving allowance and no housing allowance. A foreigner would get all that for exactly the same job. The housing allowance especially amounts to a substantial difference in wages.

I wont be surprised if CHINA already has some secret program to take over Singapore in 20 years time. all it needs to do is continue to flood Singapore with

a) immigrants migrating here
b) prostitutes to marry singapore chinese men

even if it is not having such a program, 20 years from now Singapore will become a voice of China. how long more do you think it takes for China Chinese to take up important positions in ministries. already now they are given jobs in ministries with high security clearance. so at policy level they will become aligned with China in 20 years

in terms of R&D, well China Chinese who have a reputation for robbing IP, will simply pay off our A*Star employees and get access to research secrets. i mean PRCs make up such a large percentage of A*Star employees.

in terms of industries, once PRCs start dominating management of Singapore companies, they will relocate the profitable ones to china. sell the good ones and crown jewels to china.

it is so silly of LKY to think that PRCs are a solution to Singapore and its even more silly that our local chinese community is behind 66% of the votes to PAP. its a matter of time, PRCs will prove to be the worst imagined nightmares of Singapore.

//Singaporeee

The whole policy is to support the property market which allows the govt to sell land at expensive price and for the pigs who had invested in private property to save their hide from a falling property market.

//Singaporeee

All this at the expense of public expenditure… since these fts are funded by govt funding i.e. public expenditure.

if the pigs got through this election without problems, i assure you there will be another rouund of tax increases and salary increase to cover some of the loses these pigs had made.

@twasher on December 14th, 2009 11.53 am

I am sure many good PhD programs do offer as what as you said . But the question is how many and what proportional of the total students are on such benefits . The few such positions available for grabs make them so coveted . There are such positions available within Singapore’s universities if I am not wrong.

Ultimately where does all these money come from for all the paid expenses and living stipend in the U.S. ? Are they from the donations of past alumni , corporate sponsorship on the project which the researchers are working on ? Or are the bulk of the money simply coming out indirectly from public funds? Is the source of funding for the programs as what you had mentioned similar to the majority of the post grad students in Singapore ? Forgive my ignorance here as i had never been bright enough to get such scholarships.

I am not saying the foreign students will not serve out their full 5 years bond , our local students had to serve 4 years too . Is that a very big deal for the foreigners to do so ?
For argument sake ,can I also say we have conveniently provide 5 years of precious real work experience for them after which they are more equipped to set off for greener pastures elsewhere ?

Maybe you will find it irrelevant , but I do know of foreign students who after completing their degree studies in Singapore , registered companies here and then listed themselves “working for Singaporean companies” when they are physically back in their own countries. Technically they are “fulfilling their bonds” without making any contributions. Of course there are other creative ways to achieve this same aim too.

“What is the reason behind the assumed high proportion of foreign students relative to the locals?”

In Singapore, everything is about profit. Foreign students pay higher fees than local students thus in any “commercialised” government or private university, they see it more profitable to enrol foreign students who paid higher fee than local students. Thus the objective of developing local talents is another aspiration and not practical to PAP when shareholders earnings are affected.

The moral of the story is, never trust that PAP will take care of the people when they see their profit hurts. When they said they wanted to help local talent, the “help” is actually helping them to stay in power.

IF the grad schools foreign population were paying full fees and not subsidised, I have no issues with that. But if they are not and taking places from singaporean children then I can say we need to relook what on earth went wrong.

I’m less able to fault foreign PHD depts because these belong to established societies that have provided the best for their own students. So only the most deserving candidates enter the PHD, regardless of where they are from. And the checks are stringent.

Everyone must prove decent competency in english, verify their transcripts, write CVs and letters of intent etc. And, there is the chance that sponsorship can be WITHDRAWN if the student fails.

In Singapore, is this genuine meritocracy applied? Or are schools taking in 2nd-rate foreigners for the sake of it?

Folks, better be kind to these foreign talent, they will be your masters in the near future. They get the best education, jobs and opportunities in the name of meritocracy. I already see many foreigner civil servants and entrepreneurs (some even get generous government grants to start their own businesses.) Foreigner is the flavour of the day, locals are passe.

On the contrary, our local boys and girls are forced to study overseas where they will eventually settle down in the foreign land that gave them opportunities. Something that Singapore didn’t.

Terence Goh

post #15 on December 14th, 2009 5.35 pm

////Folks, better be kind to these foreign talent, they will be your masters in the near future… ////

tthat’s sad, looks like the subjugation of locals is 1 step nearer to completion… & that S’pore future is on the decline.

though i hope not.

Even the contractor building the Duke-NUS is a foreign company – as seen in the photo above.

In the eyes of our govt, local talent (assuming there is even such a thing) is indeed inferior to foreign talent.

As far as all those local tertiary education are concerned – a process of gentrification of the foreign student kind has already taken root as in all other aspects of housing , job etc etc…. and once the floodgate is undiscriminately opened further – majority of local will be slowly bull dozed and their status wantonly aggrieved – so much blah blah blah about wanting to deliver a Swiss stndard of living or first world living .hor……

“In the eyes of our govt, local talent (assuming there is even such a thing) is indeed inferior to foreign talent.”

that is why if they do not care a hoot about us locals, why should we locals care a hoot about them loh.

// B
in all uk universities, the foreign students pay 10 times what the local pay.

I don’t know why in s’pore, it is the other way round.

The PAP government, the ruling elite and all connected to the PAP wnat to keep their status. They are bullying Singaporeans e.g. do NS, low pay, high HDB prices and high GST tax rates.

Vote the PAP out and call for organisations like GIC , Temasek to account and be more transparent.

Why should I pay taxes to subsidise foreign students?

To: “7) twasher on December 14th, 2009 11.57 am

Die-Hard Singaporean:

You are giving the Singapore government too much credit. They are not even offering enough money when it comes to stemming the outflow of Singaporean talent. If you are Singaporean with an overseas PhD and you want to return to work in NUS or AStar, you get no moving allowance and no housing allowance. A foreigner would get all that for exactly the same job. The housing allowance especially amounts to a substantial difference in wages. ”

I would like to point out that when I decided to return to spore, to work at NTU, in 2005, i was given a fairly generous reallocation allowance. I guess this has changed… a pity.

Anyway, after 4 traumatic turbulent years at NTU, I decided that being outnumbered by the foreigners, mainly PRCs, who prefer to hire their own people rather than true-blue sporeans, is not going to help me in my long-term career at NTU, so I left for a university overseas. I am much happier now; I can come back anytime should the PAP regime announce GE day. :>

None of these foreign students can compare to me in terms of monetary wealth. Which is fine if their intentions in matriculation are to pursue knowledge and not jobs and wealth. But that’s not the case. Which brings the question: why do people even bother? A perusal of the billionaire’s list will show that a degree is not requisite to monetary success. You would be hard pressed to find highly educated men amongst the rich. And for those with qualifications to boot, few of those have any relation to their field of work. I’m talking about a Mexican billionaire businessman who only ever studied in engineering. The chairman of LVMH is another one of those engineer-turned-businessman billionaires. So instead of worrying about the “foreign invasion” we should be ambivalent about them, just as I am. Not sure about any of you but I need these people to slog like dogs for me when I’m the poorly educated one. Anyone heard of the word “irony”?

You guys are looking at it all wrong. NUS and Duke? Do you know how prestigous such a degree is? Is it worth $35,000. You bet. An equivalent degree in the US will cost much more than SGD 35,000.

If you think the government – or, rather, we taxpayers – should subsidise more, then that’s a completely different question. I personally don’t want to subsidise you so that you can have such a prestigous degree and earn more than me. Why should I? Indeed, why should I subsidise ANY amount at all?

As for the percentage of the locals – why should the school have a policy fixing the number of locals at a certain percentage? If few locals want to study there – perhaps because they’re unwilling to fork out the money, why don’t give the opening to foreign students?

And NUS-Duke, if I’m not wrong, is also into medical research. Why not open up to foreign students to get as large a pool of research talent as possible? If we limit it to only the small population of Singapore, how many such talents would be available? Not many. If we open it up to the whole world, we gain access to the populations of Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and more.

As for sending local talents overseas, isn’t that what we’ve been doing? I seem to recall people complaining also about ’scholars’.

Philip

post #24 on December 15th, 2009 11.21 am

////As for the percentage of the locals – why should the school have a policy fixing the number of locals at a certain percentage?////

isn’t it our country’s goal to have an educated workforce? it should be viewed as a long term investment for our coutry’s own sake, afterall, time & again its been said S’pore got nothing but people.

////perhaps because they’re unwilling to fork out the money, why don’t give the opening to foreign students?////

while not totally false, there are also people who can ill afford to pay unfront. likewise, the same can be said of foreign students. why the double standards? you do not want to compete with local students, but not mind competing with foreign 1s? (o.O)

////If we limit it to only the small population of Singapore, how many such talents would be available?////

sometimes its not that there is not enough talent. it could be that the environment does not promote & nurture talent. talents are like plants, & not all plants can germinate & thrive in any kind of environment.

////If we open it up to the whole world, we gain access to the populations of Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and more.////

want to gain access to the whole world also must check if got enough of quality teaching staff, facilities, so on. another way to gain access is to have local born & nurtured teaching staff going regionally or globally, by setting up such schools abroad. that is one very good way to build on S’pore’s brand name also.

1 2 think big must 1st handle the tiny details to the tee.

@Philip

You seem pretty adamant on not subsidising anyone at all. If I may note, even the most capitalist society (i.e: USA) has state-subsidised locally-targeted universities, because they, unlike you, recognise the importance of developing local talents rather than importing foreign labour at the expense of a underserved populace who would otherwise have little to no opportunities elsewhere due to the issues of the poverty trap and likewise.

Furthermore, you appear to be of the belief that a quota will undeniable wreak havoc on enrollment. You seem unaware that quotas are implemented after taking into consideration both local demand and long-term needs. Woe betide us all if you happen to be the ignorant policymaker who implements your much-hated quota without taking into consideration all factors. The important point of note is that the quota allows the gains from long-term needs for local talent to be better realised than allowing university administrators to pick and choose what best suits their account sheets or short term PR stunts.

You also speculate that simply because Singapore’s population is so small, it already has far too many university places. In truth, Singapore has far too few universities (and places) for its population. In fact, Hong Kong, far outstrips it, and that’s even before taking into consideration the fact that mainland Chinese students don’t make up a large proportion of university students there. In contrast, Singapore seems to be trying to upstage HK for having more foreign students in its ranks, but to what ends and purpose? There are more than enough local talents in Singapore, but no thanks to the PAP’s government of shoehorning the population into its unilaterally-chosen ‘industries of importance’, the local talents are left to either leave for greener pastures or, if they are unable to afford overseas study, choose courses they would otherwise dislike.

What is wrong with giving more seats to foreign students and subsidising their studies? These are all highly talented foreign students! Singapore should be glad that they did not choose to study in countries like US and UK!

If more seats are allocated to Singaporean students, the school will soon end up with less qualified students which in turn will bring down the school’s standard and reputation.

//My Views
Yeah right, Singapore locals had created enterprises like Creative.

what have FT done beside sucking up to Pig@parliament.

Refer to comment 28 by [mon] :

Without the foreign talents and foreign workers, do you think Singapore’s economy could withstand the Wall Street Crisis and Subprime Crisis? Comeon, put your hand on your chest and answer this question honestly.

To “My views”

My answer is YES, singapore can more than weather a crisis with the talent it has. In fact, it was local talent that made singapore what it is today, so what can they not deal with? Either you’re an opportunistic foreigner or a knave who is brainwashed by PAP propaganda, which has belittled locals for so many years.

And singapore will be even stronger if it can attract back all the top brains it has lost of first-world countries. It has one of the highest immigration rates in the world! The overseas ex-singaporeans are the true talents, at the top of their fields and doing well in top economies. Too bad they hate living under the PAP.

Yep. I for one don’t think tertiary education should be subsidised. Those who want the education, should be prepared to pay the full cost of such an education. There is a benefit to this – it’ll sharpen the minds of students choosing which course to study. They will really have to ask themselves which are the best value for their money. So, instead of choosing the humanities, they will choose engineering. [FULL DISCLOSURE: I chose Philosophy instead of Law! ;p]

I think government subsidies distort the market. You end up with a pool of people who don’t have the necessary training or skills that the job market demands.

With regards to ensuring that those who are talented get access to education, I think that is a really good point. This is what scholarships are for, originally. What I really would like to see is a stronger civic society that plays an important role in providing scholarships for those who can hack it.

This is what happens in the US. You will find that the best schools in the US such as Harvard, the Chicago School of Business, etc. have endowments that provide scholarships for students who cannot afford the very expensive education provided by these universities.

Such a system, of course, is not without flaws, like our current system. But all these flawed systems will still be better than the ‘closed door’ one of heavily subsidised local students being allocated large proportions of places. It’ll definitely lead to mediocre standards and poorly prepared graduates who cannot compete in the real world.

@30) angry_one on December 16th, 2009 11.34 am

Completely agrees. We survived the asian finance crisis, the dot-com burst, and 1985 recession, so we singaporeans can certainly weather this subprime crisis, without foreigners..

Philip

post #31 on December 16th, 2009 12.28 pm

please refrain from citing the extreme, how many here actually want foreigners shut out totally? if you read most comments its about how much or wide the door should open to them.

////one of heavily subsidised local students being allocated large proportions of places.////

not totally flawed, but sometimes, success is born from failure. just like babies who fall while learning to walk on 2 legs. some talents are born, others are made, & maybe the rest are cultivated over time.

some people learn & failed, others fail to learn, but no one should be deprived of a chance to learn. 8)

George W Bush is a Yale and Harvard alumnus.

34) OriginalResonance on December 16th, 2009 5.21 pm
George W Bush is a Yale and Harvard alumnus.

And your point from this cogent and objective post is?

36) OriginalResonance on December 16th, 2009 7.19 pm

Interpret as you wish.

Wow that reply is so cogent and objective.

Like it or not, Singapore depends on foreigners. Without direct foreign investment, there is no job in Singapore. Without foreign demands for good, there is no job in Singapore.

And for those who are bitter about foreigners taking up jobs in Singapore, perhaps it is time for you to think about taking away someone else’s job in other countries.

I think we should take the overall context into consideration as well.
Overall, Singaporeans don’t really apply for graduate schools- most people will just stop at bachelors. This is very different from US, where there is a strong culture of graduate studies.

For singaporeans who do want to do (and qualify) for a masters/phd, their first inclination is to go overseas to do it. Not that Singaporean schools are bad, but in academia, it is useful to have exposure to different learning culture and different ideas/inclinations. If you were to do a phd track with NUS, their phd candidate to do the phD overseas. NUS will give a scholarship to the candidate, in exchange for a teaching bond after they return. I think A*star has the same program too.

My main pt is people all want to move upwards in terms of opportunities.
The reason why we don’t see so many singaporeans in these local institutions is not because we have no talent but because they aspire to go further and they will have taken the opportunities to go there already. But of course, if they took a scholarship, they will have to return. Singapore is a gd place for education (top 30?) but we must remember there are still 29 other unis that are better.

If we assume all the best singaporeans have left on scholarships to overseas, the next best group of singaporeans will take the spaces in our local universities, together with the foreign students.

Now the question is should we throw out the foreign students and open the spaces for the third best singaporeans?

it really depends on the yardstick you use. if we go for nationality, it means we should not accept any foreign students at all and give the space to the third best group of singaporeans. of course, that might run the risk of mismatch of skills and people. if we go fore meritocracy, may the best person win, regardless of Singaporean or foreigner. when dealing with issues such as this, many get tangled up with two core beliefs of SIngapore- nationalism and meritocracy.

Refer to Comment (30) by [angry_one] and (32) by [lim] :

Without foreign talents and foreign workers, the first thing that goes down in Singapore is domestic demands. Many private schools would have to close down, stalls in food courts couldn’t afford their rents, MRT and buses would see their revenue fell drastically.

@ 39) My Views on December 17th, 2009 4.27 am

You seem to argue along the same line as LKY , a recent quote from him “Supposing we remove 1.2 million of our foreigners, we’ll find suddenly, all the restaurants, theatres, everything is one-third empty. Some will close shop.”

Is domestic demand meaningful to the average singaporeans ? What most Singaporeans have experienced from the influx of foreigners are the increased costs of living , lower quality of life & services, and depressed wages from (unfair?) competition .

May I ask if the public policy should be directed to ensuring that that shops , restaurants and public transports be filled up to their maximum capacity ? And that the property owners obtain the highest rental yield possible from increased business activities and housing demands? Yes , from the government viewpoint , more taxes and revenues will be collected from a higher GDP , but how does that translate into benefits for the average Singaporean ? Instead , we see higher food price from stalls and more communters having to cramp into packed trains and buses . Or should the policy have been to focus on making life better for Singaporeans ?

And last , no one is asking all the foreigners to suddenly leave at once , a gradual approach allows time for the market to adjust the supply of the affected business to divert the resources into other more promising sectors . If you cite extremities, of course you will get extreme consequences.

The argument whether to restrict number of foreigners intake in Universities or job placements is childish. We are living in a globalized and competitive world. Even if there is no foreigner working on a cheaper wage in Singapore, any firm could still outsource it to India or China. Or worse, these firms will move out of Singapore, and more Singaporeans will lose their jobs. We are not talking chain-effect here; it is not as simple as one-dimension phenomenon here. And to be fair, how many talented Singaporeans who went overseas and took away someone else’s job? How many Singaporeans are there in Oxbridge, Ivies or top-notch university out there? If you have talent, anyone will take you in. So, for all people who are bitter here, suck it up. Life is unfair

@41) Ritz on December 17th, 2009 12.33 pm

True , We live in a competitive world , but how globalised is the human labour is questionable ? Most developed countries have stringent requirements to allow only for qualified professionals or employees which businesses cannot suitable local candidates. Many of the foreigners and PR in Singapore would not have been able to make it into these developed countries or even into less developed ones like Malaysia .

@“Even if there is no foreigner working on a cheaper wage in Singapore, any firm could still outsource it to India or China.”
Is this is your admission that foreigner competes with Singaporean on the basis of cheaper wage instead of higher capability or talent ?
If being cheap is all that matters , even southeast asian countries like Indonesia , Philippines , Cambodia and Myanmar can provide labor at a fraction of the typical cheap labor cost in Singapore of SGD800 . So is our cheap labor even cheap enough to compete or should we cheapen ourselves more ? What about the millions of starving population in Africa who earns less than USD3 a day , so all the movable firms and businesses in this world should move to Africa , then India and China next to save costs ? There are other important considerations beside labor costs, and a good government works on improving these aspects to attract and retain foreign investments instead of making its people sacrificing on their income.

Perhaps , it will do us good to see how countries like Japan , South Korea , Sweden and Norway manage to move forward and progress without mass importing foreign workers and yet improved the earnings of their people.

@”. And to be fair, how many talented Singaporeans who went overseas and took away someone else’s job? How many Singaporeans are there in Oxbridge, Ivies or top-notch university out there?”

Is your statement even fair if you consider the proportion of foreigners /PR in Singapore compare to the Singaporeans overseas who took away employment and educational opportunities. The foreigners/PR/new citizens here probably make up more than 1/ 4 or even 1/3 of the total population . ( 1.5 million out of 5 million compared to 10 -20 k out of 20 million and above ??? ) Consider the burden on the original population to that of the examples you cite. Is it even meaningful to compare ? I am sure many many Singaporeans will not even make the slightest noise if the ratio was a 5 – 10% . And Singaporeans have to pay huge fees to study in these foreign institutions from their own pockets or from scholarships which they won, but we subsidies foreigners for their education here. Is that comparable??

Having talked about talents , many of the foreigners are not even talents to start with , many of them compete on the basis of cheaper wages and longer work hours.

Right that life is unfair , but isn’t it the duty of any government to protect the interests of its citizens first . In the event of any failure to do so , is it too much for the people who voice out instead of suffering in bitter silence ?

Refer to Comment (40) by [nocityforoldmen].

If businessmen and investors do not make profits, they will leave for other countries. Unemployment rate will go up. The foreign talents, given their talents, will have no problem because they could simply pack and leave for greener pasture. What about Singaporeans? They have nowhere to go.

I am surprised Singaporeans complained about the foreign talent policy. Your job or your children’s jobs may be taken over by foreign talents, but don’t forget these foreign talents also created jobs for your parents, cousins, aunts, uncles and neighours. Look at the big picture!

#43, A talents that unable to survive and innovate in their own country, that has to escape into other land to make a better living, according to one of our MIW, they are “Quitter”. These quitter most probably be the first “Quitter” again when they see something unsound in this region, will leave behind your parents, cousins, aunts, uncles and neighours without jobs too. Yet your feel wholeheartedly they are so indispensable. No wonder one of our MIW said Singaporean are poorer stock.

Don’t you think that we should rely ourself on job creation rather than rely on unreliable foreigner? Do you prefer to continue rely on Malaysia for drinking water or self dependent? Please look at the big picture too!

So, the government has failed to understand your needs and protect your rights. Make sure you get your voice heard in the next election instead of bashing foreigners here! And if you are not happy with the country, I suggest pack your bag and seek a greener pasture out there, just like how foreigners come to Singapore for a better life.

On a separate note, why do Singaporean students cry whenever they receive their exam results? What’s the big deal, if I may ask?

What is Singapore’s population? 3 million? 4 million? How many of these people are talented? Even the Prime Minister has to double up as the Finance Minister – that explained how severe the problems of talent shortage in this island!

But when you source talents from overseas, you have that great advantage of selecting only the cream of crop.

Retention of foreign talents should never be a concern. It is simply common sense that if you treat them well, they will not want to leave. They will stay and like this country. It is only when they could not benefit from Singapore that they would leave. So, safeguard their interests and make them happy when they are here.

“that explained how severe the problems of talent shortage in this island!”

If you keep on talking like this, foreign talent will keep on eclipsing and shadowing locals who will not have the important opportunities to build up the necessary competence in key positions for our own local continuity.

The tendency is always there for foreigners, those holding key positions, to try bringing in their own kind to work as working partners, and why not given the good sanction offered by officialdom who has openly elevated them to such glorified level.

Even for hard menial jobs like labourers and cleaners or semi-skilled workers who cannot beat the low wage that low-cost foreigners are doing. We are only perpetuating and setting a very low cost benchmark that no local can ever match and do and hence in turn create the circular argument that ‘locals are too choosy and refuse to do dirty work’.

It is alright to allow the foreigners if the economy & situation allows, however we must also be flexible to turn off the inflow if necessary.

My Views

post #47 on December 20th, 2009 4.01 pm

////It is only when they could not benefit from Singapore that they would leave.////

S’pore can do without people who only look out for their self-interest. the shorter their stay, the better (for S’pore). having them here does not bode well for S’pore’s image.

I second #45

Refer to (49) by mice :

“S’pore can do without people who only look out for their self-interest. the shorter their stay, the better (for S’pore). having them here does not bode well for S’pore’s image.”

Say that to the countless number of foreign students currently studying in Singapore’s universities and private educational centres; say it to the foreign workers currently building up Singapore’s economy!

You know what would happen if these students and workers leave? Singapore’s economy grinds to a halt. Period!

The Straits Times Index falls below 1,000 points. Period!

Kiss your a** to these non-tradtional source of “foreign talents” (China & India)! The PRC’s are only good at fouling our “sanitized” society with their cadaverous slimy trails of odious “swamping”. Even the skoes in Geylang are called “foreign talents” by our blinded one-party ruled government. DICTATOR! Pack your bags n’ leave for some pacific islands before you knave yourselves to these Reds! Can’t believe you are still rootin’ for ‘em after wat they have done to your wallets. Tax, tax, tax n’ still TAX (so as to “invest” your $ in some godforsaken plot of desert in Cathay)!

//My Views

We needn’t tell these foreign students.

Most of them didn’t want to stay here.

Ask lots of them and you will understand.

Zhang Yuan Yuan didn’t just happen like that.

What a joke!

//The Straits Times Index falls below 1,000 points. Period!

This is a joke.

The last time it happened was because of the Asian Financial Crisis.

So, by introducing FTs, we have create the seeds of such a crisis in Singapore.

BTW, Singapore made monies through exports…

If the ST index did fall to 1000 because of FT, I will buy like crazy because it will raise in no time above that.

A country’s index dependent on FTs. What a joke!

We have lots of “poor” people with high CPF that if released, they can consume.

One of most stupid thing I ever heard: FT hold Singapore hostage?!

Refer to (53) by [cat].

It is Singapore as a nation that needs foreign students due to its strategy of becoming an international education hub. When these foreign students completed their studies, they are given one year to consider whether to take up a job in Singapore and contribute to SIngapore’s economy.

As a result, not only Singapore’s education industry grows – office property, construction (more private schools and hostels are built), food and beverage, airlines, recruitment and entertainment industries are all being pulled along!

Just imagine, how much values have been added!

//My Views

That is common knowledge, provided that Singaporeans are not subsidizing for these students.

The fact is we are.

Refer to (56) by [cat].

Foreign students studying in Singapore’s private schools and universities are not subsidised. They paid the same rates as what Singaporeans are paying.

For those foreign students studying in public universities under scholarships or subsidies, it is SIngapore’s privilege that they are willing to study here. These students could have chosen to study in world class universities in UK or US.

Refer to (48) by [Singaporean].

Incidentally, who was this year’s top PSLE student? A girl who came from PRC. Yes, you heard it right, from the People’s Republic of China! Handicapped with a poor command of English when she first arrived and without the advantage of studying in popular or prestigious primary school, she topped the whole nation in that examination which is of paramount importance to all Singaporean parents and students! What does this mean? The country is robbing invaluable talents from China!

My Views

post #55 on December 26th, 2009 7.00 pm

why are those students given a year to decide to stay & contribute to our economy?

hmmm, how many locals are employed in the construction industry? what is the foreign/local ratio?

maybe a detail breakdown of their contribution to airline (which 1? lol…), F&B, entertainment industries? i dare say our public transport operaters are more than happy that they do earn more from a larger influx of these students. that’s alot of details to show, take your time though. :P

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If you have not yet heard about the exciting news, here it is :

Singapore’s top GCE “A” level student came from China (Shanghai – to be precise)!!! 

May be I should also take this opportunity to refresh your memory :

Top GCE “O” level student came from Malaysia.

Top PSLE student came from China!!!

You guys still doubting the effectiveness of the government’s foreign talent policy?  Still sore about the petty sum of scholarship invested on foreign scholars?  The government got back every cent!