TR EMERITUS

Heng Swee Keat wants every school to be a good school. Apparently, his Nanyang Technological University’s business school seemed to do better than what he had asked for – it “beats” world prestigious business schools like Harvard and Wharton! The state-controlled media quoted a survey done by a foreign magazine, concluding that NTU’s MBA program offered better financial return to its students than other world prestigious institutions. How? Select the statistics that favour you! In this case, compare the percentage of salary increase of your graduates, before they started the MBA program and 12 months after they graduated. So, if you are a PRC citizen earning the equivalent of S$1,500 in China before you enrolled into the NTU MBA program on a Singapore scholarship, and you secured a job in Singapore paying you S$2,500 after your graduation – that is an increase of 67% salary! Or perhaps you are a Singaporean who was tired of your company squeezing you with a S$2,000 salary; you resigned and enrolled into NTU’s MBA. Upon graduation, after spending months searching and competing against many “foreign talents” here for jobs, you decided that you had no choice but to take up another underpaid job with huge responsibilities that only pays you S$3,000. However, mathematically, your salary increased by 50%! Going by the above logic, if you received a 0.5% salary increase in the year where Singapore’s Prime Minister took a 36% reduction on his basic salary, it meant you had done bloody well than the prime minister! Any survey that compared salaries of graduates from various business schools has to be taken with a pinch (if not a bucket) of salt. First and foremost, one has to assume that the salary figures given by graduates are reliable – which in many cases, they are not. Personal pride is a factor. Scope of duties and responsibilities is also a major factor. A lower salary may be compensated with better perks. Also, industry switch usually means one has to accept a pay cut. Moreover, remuneration package for an overseas hardship posting cannot be compared to a job located in local financial district. What I find it most distasteful is that our Media Corp and SPH were willing to glamorise such a meaningless statistics. The quality of education should never be measured by how much a student could earn upon leaving the school. A student’s choice of school should not be based on expected future financial returns. What message is the state-controlled media trying to give to our children and parents? When you sent your children to RGS, Nanyang Girls’ High or a neighbourhood school, it was never because you expected them to earn $x sum of salary in future. You chose St Nicholas Girls’ for your children because of the school’s values or culture. You chose River Valley High or Raffles Institution because you believed its learning environment cannot be replicated outside that school. I am sure there are other ways to market our universities. To resort to using such a meaningless statistics to sell our business school as better than Harvard or Wharton is making a mockery on ourselves! I am not saying that students of Harvard or Wharton will end up as successful persons, but we ought to be honest that most people in the world do not see any of our local universities in the same league of Harvard and Wharton. My worry is that our government may see the need to maintain such foolish statistics in this area and start to pour in more resources to ensure NTU remains a school that offers “best financial return” on students’ investment. We may then see more scholarship awarded to students from third world countries in our universities - just like universities that hired more foreign teaching staff to boost its diversity statistics! http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ntu-mba-offers-better/1108838.html Celia Lim * This article is intended for consumption on TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the express permission of the author.  Read More →

Narendra Modi’s first declaration of victory didn’t come in the capital New Delhi, or his home state of Gujarat or even Hinduism’s holiest city of Varanasi, where he ran for parliament. It came in the form of a message on his Twitter Inc. account. “India has won. Good days are ahead,” Modi wrote to his more than four million followers on the microblogging platform, after official results released May 16 showed his Bharatiya Janata Party winning a landslide victory over the Congress party led by the Gandhi dynasty. That his victory message was retweeted over 69,000 times was as much evidence of Modi’s popularity among an electorate of about 800 million as it was of his campaign’s use of social media to reach voters, 150 million of whom were casting a ballot for the first time. The Congress party, by contrast, didn’t embrace such platforms, with the campaign chief Rahul Gandhi, who doesn’t have a Twitter account, making his concession in a 30-second speech at party headquarters in New Delhi. “Mr. Modi has a massive apparatus in Gandhinagar,” said Ajay Singh, a member of the BJP’s central publicity committee, referring to the capital of Gujarat state, which Modi has run as chief minister since 2001. “We wanted to communicate with people, specially the young audience in a language that they would understand and not stick to traditional campaign language,” he said, refusing to divulge specific details of the party’s digital strategy. Modi tapped into an increasingly connected electorate. About 70 percent of people in the world’s largest democracy own mobile phones and India is the third-largest smartphone market, according to data from consultant Paul Budde Communication. India has an estimated 205 million Internet users, according to Arnab Mitra, managing director of LIQVD Asia, a digital advertising company. He forecasts the number will rise to as many as 370 million by 2015, in a country of 1.2 billion people. While Congress President and Rahul’s mother Sonia Gandhi joined her son in conceding defeat, Modi’s digital team rolled out an online “victory wall” where his supporters could post messages and pictures. Use of new media was “the biggest differentiator between Modi and rest of the leaders in the country,” said N. Bhaskara Rao, chairman of the Centre for Media Studies in New Delhi. Read more: www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-18/modi-taps-india-selfie-generation-to-oust-twitter-absent-gandhis.html  Read More →

Blogger Roy Ngerng I was surprised to read that Roy Ng, who blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/, was served with a letter of demand from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong via his legal attack dog - Senior Counsel (SC) Davinder Singh. The letter is reproduced below (Ed: see Link). I did say I was surprised, although naturally legal letters and lawsuits have always been 'par for the course' in Singapore politics. Many people have formed the view that the ruling party (PAP) have used this 'tried and tested method' to silence its' critics. The PAP and its supporters of course take the opposite view - lawsuits and the like are necessary tools to ensure that the truth gets out and irresponsible and inaccurate speeches, words, statements and writings are exposed and those behind it made to stop or brought to their knees. In fact Lee Kuan Yew earned his moniker 'The Hatchet Man' because he unashamedly said that he 'carried a hatchet in his bag' and would not hesitate to use it against those he perceived were out to destroy the PAP, in this instance to then Workers Party chief - J B Jeyaretnam. No my surprise was with Roy Ng falling so afoul of the PAP, that he too would be the latest to get a legal letter of demand regarding defamation. You see Roy Ng is quite an intelligent fellow and his blog posts while being decidedly anti-Govt. had always thread a fine line. He researches data meticulously and uses it to debunk the Govt's own data. It's an interesting blog but although much bigger than mine obviously, it's only mildly popular. This is primarily because Roy's entries contain a lot of data and is quite long-winded (I know I am, but Roy is the Gold Medallist in the long winded category). Most blog readers especially when it's republished on social media websites like Facebook and platforms like TR Emeritus, Singapore Daily, etc, do not bother to read lengthy articles, they usually skim through the posts or just focus on the headline or title. So if for example, I title my article - Why the PAP will still win GE 2016 (but go on in the article to criticise the PAP), you'll still find the bulk of the comments on FB, chiding me for being a PAP stooge. While many readers may not delve into such articles, you can be sure that certain people especially those targeted, will. Roy knows this and I am sure so do many others, even myself. The key therefore is to write about socio-political matters with your head not your heart. My articles also tend to have anti-PAP bias to it, but I always caution readers never to believe what's written in an opinion piece as the Gospel truth, in the same way you must also approach editorials written in the main stream media, which unashamedly praise the PAP and condemn the opposition as failures or 'disasters in waiting'. The truth is usually somewhere in between, so don't get taken in by a plethora of words or charts and data. Be discerning, take in what you think is relevant and discard what you don't believe or doubt. 1 very crucial thing about writing especially personal blogs, is not to be taken in by the 'gallery.' If your articles are decidedly anti-Govt, you'll find many comments in full agreement with you, but if you for example try to highlight something that supports the establishment, the opposite happens. It's also important not to push the 'envelope' too far. You may get away with a number of articles that criticise the Govt and specific PAP leaders, but that doesn't mean you should take it as a license to write anything you like which is not supported by direct evidence or facts but based only on your perception, which usually is biased in your favour. Some people argue, 'but the PAP does that, they throw allegations at opposition candidates all the time, calling them liars and even inferring them as cheats' (in the case of SDP leader Chee Soon Juan), so why can't we do the same? Well you can have your private views or share it with a certain close group of friends, but once you pen it to an article or have them republished on a public platform like social media, then you are taking a stand, for which the opposing party can and will challenge. Just because the PAP gets away with it, doesn't mean you also can - for the simple reason, 2 wrongs can never equal a right. After 50 years of 1 party rule, the PAP is in a commanding position, they have drafted the laws and rules, they control the media and they are by no means a poor party. Theirs is a well oiled machinery, with party members and supporters able to pour through every single action made by an opponent or a writer and haul it up. Opposition parties do not have the means or financial muscle to oppose or challenge them when they are on the receiving end. For example during Aljuneid GRC's 'Ceiling Gate', PAP MPs and Ministers made allegations against the WP and openly challenged them to sue. But the WP was not taken in by 'the gallery', they knew a long drawn out court case is something they needn't bother expanding energy despite a fair number of people openly supporting them in the matter. You see they realised it's better to win in the 'court of public opinion' than in a court of law. Coming back to Roy, I don't know what made him decide to publish the 'offending article', maybe he got too carried away with his writings, maybe he was egged on by others or maybe he felt very passionately about the latest increase in the CPF minimum sum, and decided to lambast the PAP about it. I know I will get a lot of flak for my opinion on the matter, but when I write, it's just my view, if people agree, good, if they disagree, it's also good. I do not blog for the 'gallery', I blog to write my personal opinion, it may be wrong, it may be right. I may even change positions over time, I might completely disagree later on with something I wrote earlier. But hey, I'm not running for office, I'm not seeking to gain supporters and I readily admit I'm no expert, I'm just writing as an ordinary person who's decided to put his thoughts down on paper. As such, it's my view in this matter that Roy Ng has made a mistake and gone overboard with his criticisms on a justifiable issue - the CPF minimum sums and the way the whole policy is structured. Linking the CHC trial and the alleged deceit by Kong Hee and gang to the PM and PAP is very tenuous. In fact I will say mischievous - the CHC matter is a criminal trial with accused persons charged with grave crimes, linking it with the way PM and Govt runs the GIC and CPF, does create an impression with laypersons that the latter's also guilty of the same crimes. Yes the PAP is a bully that routinely takes people to court over sometimes the most unnecessary stuff. Their never ending pursuit of JBJ even for the most innocuous of remarks - like holding up and announcing a police report made by Tang Liang Hong. All these things are unlikely to happen in other democracies. Unfavourable commentaries by foreign journals have seen their circulation cut. However there's 1 thing they sue for, which I think is justifiable - allegations of corruption or criminal conduct. You want to call the PM stupid, fair enough, call him a fool, up to you, call policy flawed, unfair and improper, all acceptable. But when you say he's corrupt, you gotta either prove it or withdraw and apologise. The allegations that the CPF is somehow used to further the interests of the PAP is not new. Even allegations that money has run out, that's why the withdrawal age has a minimum sum. And others along these lines. You've probably heard it at some time or the other. Conspiracy theories abound around this, and like all conspiracy theories, people like to believe them over the truth, which is usually dull. But the key question to ask, is whether you can prove it? Another chestnut - the courts will favour the PAP, judges are either too scared or have been told what to do. It's very easy to make all these statements, but can you prove it? Do you have evidence to show it? Has any judge ever come out to say he's been pressured? Has any lawyer raised it? Has any senior civil servant ever come out and exposed the rumours circulating about the CPF as true? The answer is no. You can be cynical and say, they are all too frightened or know 'which apples to polish' or how not to jeopardise their own cushy positions. Well you can say that and have that opinion, that's your right. However once you start to repeat these allegations online and in public, then it's only fair that you back it up. Roy states in his blog: 'Hello everyone, I am Roy Ngerng. I am an ordinary citizen in Singapore who believes in speaking up for my country and my fellow citizens. Over the past 2 years, I have written nearly 400 articles about what is happening in Singapore. I have advocated for a fairer and more equal Singapore where every Singapore and every person in Singapore can be taken care of and protected by our country. Today, I received an email from Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer. I am being sued for defamation. I have tried my best to speak up for my country. I have tried my best to advocate for my fellow citizens. However, today, I am sued by the very government which should be protecting its citizens, such as me. This is disappointing.' Indeed Roy has advocated for a fairer system in Singapore, indeed he has spoken up and raised many points. But he cannot on the one hand say, I'm just an ordinary citizen....and then accuse the Govt of suing him, instead of protecting him, when in between he has been writing article after article, not as a plain ordinary guy but a vociferous blogger and critic of the Govt. You are free to criticise, you are free to write and we all as bloggers champion that, but you must draw the line between fact and supposition. Yes many people are fed-up with the CPF policies, I am too. It's shocking that a Govt treats us like kids and refuses to return our monies by the promised date (55) and instead does it by piecemeal because you don't have enough for an ever increasing minimum sum. And this minimum sum can never be met because the bulk of it is spent on ever increasing public housing that was supposed to be cheap and affordable. If Roy had stuck to this, then no issue, but instead he went off tandem and accused the PM of running a criminal enterprise as alleged in the trial of Kong Hee and his cohorts. Why shouldn't the PM demand that he either withdraws or backs it up in court? Roy Ng cannot go on a 'suicide mission' firing off all cylinders and then demand for protection when there's a return of fire. We can salute his courage and conviction for writing and raising stuff, but Roy must never assume he's a larger than life figure that will come and save Singapore from the PAP's tyranny (as he puts it). You raise your points, you educate, you encourage, but at the end of the day, you let the people decide. There's no need to let your emotions get the better of you. Point out the facts and flaws of the policy but steer clear of linking acts or omissions that have a criminal element until and unless you have solid evidence. You can write from the heart, so long as you think with your head. Sir Nelspruit * The author blogs at Anyhow Hantam.  Read More →