TR EMERITUS

By Low Wei Xiang Singaporeans might have plenty to cheer with the government’s announcement of price hikes and changes in the primary school balloting system to enhance the privileges of citizens, but they could be losing sight of the big picture. Last week, the government announced that PRs and foreigners will pay higher fees to study in government primary and secondary schools. Singapore citizens also get twice the number of chances when balloting for places in popular primary schools.  These changes are in a bid to draw a clearer distinction between citizens and non-citizens. However the government might have lost focus on the more important issues. Changes across primary and secondary school levels are likely to be well-received by citizens, but there would have been little difference with or without these changes. Citizens and foreigners alike would still get their respective places in government primary and secondary schools.  Perhaps the only difference would be that citizens now have an edge in popular primary schools – but an education in a primary school that is more or less popular would not result in substantial differences. In addition, the effects of these changes are minimal, since only 4% of the primary and secondary school students are foreigners. In contrast, foreigners account for 8% of polytechnic and ITE students and 20% of university students.1 While citizens should be heartened by the changes, we should bear in mind the bigger picture. If the government wants to enhance the privileges of citizens, there are bigger, more impactful issues in education of the higher levels to address. Issue 1: School Fees Between Citizens and Non-Citizens in Tertiary Institutes School fees for foreign students in Singapore’s government tertiary institutes are comparatively low since they receive the same amount of government subsidies extended to citizens and PRs, but how fair is this measure? Scenario: If a student was newly enrolled into the following courses for Academic Year 09/10, the tuition fees payable annually for the 2nd year onwards would be as bolded (fees for the 1st year are lower for some schools) – Course Citizenship Status Government Subsidies or Tuition Grants ($)2 Fees Payable by Student ($) NUS / NTU Business Citizen 19,000 7,000 PR 7,700 Foreigner 10,500 NUS Medicine / Dentistry Citizen 88,200 18,960 PR 20,860 Foreigner 28,440 SMU Business Citizen 21,900 9,600 PR 10,560 Foreigner 14,400 Polytechnics Citizen 13,600 2,100 PR 2,310 Foreigner 3,150 The government has set the fees payable at 10% more for PRs and 50% for foreigners, however it is barely substantial in absolute terms especially when compared to the government subsidy.  For example, to study a full year in NUS or NTU Business, a foreigner pays only $3,500 more than a Singapore citizen. The question is this – why is the same subsidy extended to PRs or even foreigners? Compared to subsidies awarded by other countries, if they even exist, Singapore arguably extends the highest subsidies to foreign students. Many countries and education hubs around the world bank considerably on foreign students to generate money. For example, citizens of European Union countries pay £3,290 per year to study at Cambridge University, while foreigners pay £10,752 to £26,028 depending on the course.3 Closer to home at the University of Hong Kong, one of the top Asian universities consistently ranked higher than Singapore’s, citizens pay a composition fee of HK$42,000 while foreigners pay HK$100,000.4 Singapore intends to be an education hub, but does it intend to make money out of this venture too?  The year-by-year increase of foreign students paying full tuition fees to study in local private institutions has generated substantial revenue, but has it all been channeled to subsidizing foreigners in government tertiary institutions instead? One of the hallmarks of Singapore’s education system is that nobody deserving is denied because he or she cannot afford it.  Ironically, this principle seems to apply to even foreigners. The government has to justify the reason for such high subsidies extended to foreign students, and where the money comes from. Issue 2: Scholarships Between Citizens and Non-Citizens in Universities Recent statistics are unavailable, but from 2001 to 2005, there were twice as many foreign as local undergraduates on scholarships in NUS and NTU.  Most, if not all, of these scholarships are awarded by Singapore and its various agencies.5 The government needs to justify their preference in awarding scholarships to foreigners over citizens. Coupled with the heavy subsidies, this certainly makes Singapore an attractive destination for many foreign undergraduates.  The question is have we achieved our aim of attracting the top brains from around the world? The origins of most foreign students in Singapore are restricted to countries from ASEAN, China, and India.  It seems as if Singapore has not succeeded in attracting talents from the international stage, including those from the US and UK. If even the high number of scholarships and subsidies do not attract bright students from around the world, perhaps it is time to revise our policies on making Singapore a top educational destination. More importantly, this comes when the government is seeking to draw clearer distinctions between citizens, PRs and foreigners.  It is thus also time to consider if the subsidies and scholarships extended to foreigners are unfair to citizens and their tax money, especially since they have done little in attracting the intended crowd to our shores in the first place. Issue 3: Bond Periods of Non-Citizens PRs and foreigners who accept the subsidies must serve a 3-year cumulative “bond period” in the form of employment in a Singapore-based company upon graduation. The exceptions are those in NUS Medicine and Dentistry, the most expensive courses.  Citizens and non-citizens alike who graduate from these courses have to serve a bond period with the Ministry of Health What raises eyebrows, however, is that their bond period lasts for the same number of years. The need for an obligatory bond is understandable due to the high subsidy, but why is the length for PRs and foreigners the same as citizens?  If the reason is that tuition grants awarded are of the same amounts, this goes back to the initial question – why do they receive the same government subsidy as citizens? From the table above, students in these two faculties receive the same government subsidy of $88,200. In other words, for a year in these highly competitive courses worth over $100,000 (adding government subsidy and payable fees), a foreigner has to pay merely $9,480 more than a Singapore citizen. For a foreigner, does this mean that $9,480 is the price tag of remaining a foreigner instead of a PR or citizen, since the subsidy and obligatory bond period are the same? Unofficial sources also mention that the 3-year bond period for foreigners can be dissolved without monetary penalty if they are unable to find a job.  These foreigners are thereafter barred from living, working or studying in Singapore, although it would barely affect those who use Singapore as a stepping stone to foreign lucrative markets.6 The above is confirmed by the MOE Tuition Grant agreement.  Clause 2(1)(c) states that the student “shall (unless unable to obtain any employment within one (1) year after completion of the Course or re-employment within (1) year after his/her resignation or dismissal from or cessation of his/her employment) work in Singapore for a period or periods totaling in the aggregate three (3) years”.1 If these foreigners receive the same subsidies and are then allowed to go “scot-free”, are we being fair to the citizens and their money? What makes a citizen different from a non-citizen then? These are questions that the government has to answer so that being a citizen still has its privileges. Issue 4: Places in University Between Citizens and Non-Citizens The government also has some way in dealing with ground sentiments that there are too many foreigners in our local universities, who could be potentially taking up places of equally deserving locals. In 1998, then Minister for Education Mr Teo Chee Hean assured that places taken up by foreign students in local universities are capped at 20 percent7, although it seems to have been overshot in 2007 when foreign students got 4,218, or 22.2 percent, out of the 18,999 places in the 3 local universities.8 It is pertinent then to note that in the top 10 universities ranked by Times Higher Education, competition for places by foreign students are arguably stiffer compared to Singapore’s. However these universities, especially those from the US, generally have a lower proportion of foreign entrants. This can be seen in the table below. Course Country Ranking by Times Higher Education Proportion of Foreign Undergraduates From various sources* From Times Higher Education website Harvard University US 1 8.9% 8.3% University of Cambridge UK 2 15% 14.8% Yale University US 3 9% 18.4% University College London (UCL) UK 4 26.7% 26.9% Imperial College London UK 5 34.4% 34.7% University of Oxford UK 5 14% 12.8% University of Chicago US 7 13% 7.8% Princeton University US 8 10% 9.6% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) US 9 9% 9.1% California Institute of Technology (Caltech) US 10 11% 9.4% National University of Singapore (NUS) SG 30 Unavailable 26.7% Nanyang Technological University (NTU) SG 73 19% 25.7% Singapore Management University (SMU) SG - 17% 23.0% *Sources are listed at the end of the article. Note that some figures provided by sources could be rounded or from recent years due to the unavailability of figures for this year.  Statistics only account for undergraduates, i.e. postgraduates are not included. From the above table: A comparison with the Times Higher Education (THE) website against other sources reveals different figures for various reasons.  While differences for most schools involve less than 2 percentage points, a few (in red font) paint rather different pictures of the proportion of foreign undergraduates in the respective universities. Unfortunately, these universities include that of our local ones, possibly because PRs are included as “foreign nationals” by THE.  Perhaps the government would like to clarify with THE on how the figures were obtained. Regardless of the accuracy of the figures, the crux is this. The mix of foreign presence brings immeasurable benefits, but there are some who would be interested in the government’s justification for the cap of 20 percent compared to say, 15 percent, which seems to be the trend with at least 7 of the top 10 universities.  This is also despite the higher competition for places by foreigners in these universities. While 20 percent might also be an acceptable figure to many, the government certainly needs to provide more assurance when they say citizens are given priority over foreigners in local universities.  Barring discretionary admission, this would mean that the lowest admission grades of foreign students, including non-scholarship holders, are higher than that of citizens. Amidst complaints that admission criteria are inconsistent and unclear, the 3 local universities have put up representative grade profiles on their websites showing the grades attained by students admitted the previous year into the respective courses. This should be taken one step further – perhaps there should be a further differentiation between the grades of admitted citizens and foreigners to prove that citizens indeed given priority, especially in competitive faculties like engineering with a high number of foreigners. With rising cries that foreigners are taking the places of locals, it is time for transparency by the government and assurance that this is not the case and that the interests of citizens are not disregarded. Conclusion While the changes for primary and secondary schools do go some way in placating citizens, the real and important issues of education have not been answered.  If the government aims to draw a clearer distinction between citizens, PRs and foreigners, it should look into the above issues.  Only then will Singaporeans be assured that our interests as citizens are safeguarded and still matter to the government. Sources 1http://www.filmo.com/singapore.htm 2http://sam11.moe.gov.sg/tass/menu/index.htm 3http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/international/finance.html 4http://www.hku.hk/acad/ugp/finance_fee.html 5http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2006/pq20060213.htm#Scholarship 6http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=267341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 7http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1998/010898.htm 8http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20070720-19051.html *Sources for table Harvard University http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/03/harvard_admissi.html University of Cambridge http://www.cam.ac.uk/international/life.html Yale University http://www.yale.edu/admit/international/index.html University College London (UCL), Imperial College London http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualifiers/download/institution0607.xls University of Oxford http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/international_students/index.html http://www.cherwell.org/content/8122 University of Chicago https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml Princeton University http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2009.pdf Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) http://www.universityparent.com/mit/2009/08/20/mit-international-students-and-scholars California Institute of Technology (Caltech) http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats Nanyang Technological University (NTU) http://www.ntu.edu.sg/AboutNTU/NTUataglance/Pages/UndergraduateStudentenrolment.aspx Singapore Management University (SMU) http://www.smu.edu.sg/about_smu/pdf/Statistical_Highlights.pdf Other sources https://share.nus.edu.sg/registrar/info/ug/UGTuitionCurrent.pdf http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/oad2/website_files/finaid/tutionFees.pdf http://www.smu.edu.sg/admissions/fees/tuition/index.asp http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v3n2/v3n2.pdf http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2005/pq19042005.htm http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20070720-19051.html http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/09/impact-of-international-students-in.html http://frankcomment.blogspot.com/2007/07/foreign-undergrads-is-20-target-or-cap.html About the Author: Low Wei Xiang, a self-dubbed writer with journalistic aspirations, has found himself graduated from Hwachong Institution, released from the army, and is currently thrown back onto the streets.  He is also a self-confessed owl and sleeping is his secret passion, although it clashes with his other interests.  Aged 20, he writes short stories on top of serious stuff, and will be entering NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information in 2010.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent According to the latest Global Wages Report from the International Labor Organization (ILO), Singapore workers clock the most hours at hour, just below the mandatory cap of 44 hours a week, more than workers in 12 other countries used for comparison. The report shows 11 of these 13 countries posted a fall in working time in 2008 and the first three months of 2009, compared with 2007. Average working hours in the 13 countries declined from 39 to 38.2 per week. Taiwanese, South Korean, Japanese and Hong Kong workers all clocked fewer hours than Singapore workers. While the majority of countries show positive wage growth in 2008, real wages in Singapore slipped by one per cent. As Singapore is heavily dependent on foreign direct investment, its workers are hardest hit by the global financial crisis in 2008. Singapore workers were urged by NTUC to accept wage freezes and cuts in order to "save" their jobs. Due to the ruling party's liberal immigration policies, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore's job market has helped depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans. Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. While foreigners are only allowed to work in sectors shunned by Singaporeans in the past, many semi-skilled workers are now competing directly with locals for the limited number of jobs available in the market. The monthly median wage of a Singaporean worker is only $2,600. Despite working for long hours for a pittance, Singapore's multi-millionaire ministers still feel that Singaporeans are not competitive enough. Minister in Prime Minister's Office and Secretary-General of NTUC urged Singapore workers to be "cheaper, faster and better." Another minister without portfolio Lim Boon Heng exhorts Singaporeans to work for "as long as they can." Singapore has the highest income gap among developed nations after Hong Kong whose figures is skewed by an unusually high number of billionaires. Its octogenarian leader MM Lee Kuan Yew dismissed the importance of the widening income gap during a ministerial forum at NUS last year, saying that it doesn't matter as long the government continue to provide jobs for Singaporeans. In a recent interview with National Geographic magazine, Lee said it is a "good idea" that Singapore has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants as they are more "hard-driving" and "hard-striving" than the locals. “If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide,” that is their problem,” he was quoted as saying in the article “The Singapore Solution.” [Source: National Geographic] Lee's ruling party has governed Singapore uninterrupted for 50 years since 1959. There is no opposition in parliament to check on it. Neither are there any independent trade unions to represent the interests of Singapore workers. The largest trade union in Singapore, NTUC is a pseudo-government organization which is always headed by a minister.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Ms Yenny Young, the wife of Mr Tong Kok Wai, a victim of the double hit-and-run accident at Bukit Panjang three weeks ago involving a vehicle from the Romanian embassy has expressed her disappointment that the prime suspect in the case Dr Silviu Ionescu has been recalled back to Romania. In an email reply to Temasek Review, Ms Young wondered how the Romanian authorities are going to conduct a proper trial if Dr Silviu Ionescu is found guilty of causing the accident since all the witnesses are in Singapore. "Don't tell me Romanian government are willing to fly them to Romania to go court," she asked. A Romanian online daily click.ro had earlier reported that a staff from the Romanian embassy in Singapore had contacted them to offer its condolences and help. Ms Young denied that she received any call from the Romanian embassy. Dr Silviu Ionescu had initially told the Singapore media and police that he discovered the embassy car to be stolen at around 3am in the morning which was later found to be abandoned at Sungei Kadut. Fresh evidence had since emerged to implicate Dr Silviu in the accident. A cab driver claimed to have picked up a Caucasian man resembling Dr Silviu at Sungei Kadut who called the police to report a car theft in his cab. Two eye witnesses at the accident scene also saw the driver who winded down the window of the vehicle to hurl vulgarities at them. Another driver said he saw the driver quarreling with a young Chinese lady in the black Audi A6 belonging to the embassy minutes before the accident. For some inexplicable reasons, Dr Silviu was allowed to leave Singapore three laters day on the day Mr Tong Kok Wai was declared brain dead. He met the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs this Monday. Two days later, it recalled him from his position in Singapore and submitted a formal request to the Romanian prosecutors to investigate the case. It also issued an official press statement on its website to express regret for the accident. In the meantime, the Singapore police declined to elaborate on the matter when contacted by the state media, saying investigations into the case were ongoing. Three weeks after the accident, Singapore Foreign Minister told reporters that "what happened was very bad". There were no other official statements from the ministry. The accident which has attracted public attention in both Singapore and Romania has been a PR nightmare for the Singapore police which had allowed Dr Silviu to leave Singapore in the first place. There is no extradition treaty between Romania and Singapore. Now that Dr Silviu is recalled back to Romania, the case will be entirely in the hands of the Romanian authorities. It is time the Singapore police stop their "investigations" as it will make little difference to the case anyway. Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review (If you are going to reproduce this article on your blog or forum, please provide a link back to ours) Related articles: 1. Investigating or procrastinating: Dr Silviu Ionescu still holidaying in Romania 2. George Yeo on Romanian embassy car crash: What happened is “very bad” 3. Online petition calls on Romanian govt to make ex gratias payment 4. Dr Silviu Ionescu: I took cab to notify car theft 5. Eye witness saw driver quarreling with a young girl in the car 6. Dr Silviu Ionescu: I have no connection with the case 7. Dr Silviu Ionescu flagged taxi at Sungei Kadut 8. From Romania with love: The Great Singapore escape of Dr Silviu Ionescu 9. Singapore police has not ruled out Dr Silviu Ionescu as a suspect in its investigations 10. Romanian diplomat suspected to be driver of Audi in hit and run accident at Bukit Panjang  Read More →