'I don

[Sosaria]

100% agreed!!! i have this thinking 20 years ago! when i apply for NUS degree course. saw so many PRC student there, but NUS rejected my application 3 times!!! (my female classmate with same result can get in after 1 reject!)

only recently, got to know from wife, her PRC colleague husband and wife only paid 10% tution fee in NUS. they are selected by MXE in China (Yes, Singapore send people there to pick up FT!). they only need to stay here work for 3 years and can go back.

 

No offence, but I strongly believe that educational institutions should remain meritocratic. I also have frens who made it to local unis without trouble, but need sterling results of course. Especially if the courses are 'hot' and competitive with many applicants. This has always been the case.

 

I don't question the fact I could not study, e.g. Medicine, years ago - because results simply not perfect enough. I also don't doubt that those who got into the course were better academic achievers. So be it, perfectly fair competition.

 

I don't think we should impose 'quotas' on the proportion of locals vs. foreigners. Then there will emerge one (lower) standard for locals vs. foreigners (generally higher if they're on scholarship). Then how? When these two separate standards meet in the common exams, the glaring difference will be rather embarrassing. Maybe next time we even need one separate category of awards for locals?? And how about employment? Employers would necessarily choose the best graduates if possible, and locals would be seriously disadvantaged once they're categorised or labelled with lower standard of achievement.

[Sosaria]

Hahaha, yeah, there are actually 3 camps here regarding this young man.

 

1) Those who agree with him

 

2) Those who don't

 

3) Those who feels he got balls (but not neccesary agree with him)

 

I think so...

 

1) This camp consists of younger people in their 20s maybe, just started working and feel overwhelmed (when actually, to some extent, they dug their own graves by free spending, and not enough saving )

 

2) Older generation camp here, mid 30s and above. "I had it tough, but I still made it. You should be able to! But you're too soft like strawberry "

 

3) The majority camp here. But individually don't dare to speak up

Edited November 1, 2010 by Sosaria

[Jman888]

I think so...

 

1) This camp consists of younger people in their 20s maybe, just started working and feel overwhelmed (when actually, to some extent, they dug their own graves by free spending, and not enough saving )

 

2) Older generation camp here, mid 30s and above. "I had it tough, but I still made it. You should be able to! But you're too soft like strawberry "

 

3) The majority camp here. But individually don't dare to speak up

 

 

another camp .... 'huh, what you all talking about?'

[Wishcumstrue]

Mr Lim told SM Goh,

Edited November 2, 2010 by Wishcumstrue

[Carbonfac3d]

guys...ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country.

 

remember that.

 

I never had any problems with this foreigner policy thing because I understood why they are neccessary.

 

 

I believe you are insulated from the policy.........................not till you are replaced by a foreigner that is 1/2 yur salary.Then it hurts. Because they will go back. we have no where to go back except here.

[Mazdaowner]

In reply to the thread title.......

 

I knew before...but now....not.

[Thargor]

In reply to the thread title.......

 

I knew before...but now....not.

 

Because you were once a soldier, but now...MR liao....

[Viceroymenthol]

Mr Lim told SM Goh,

[Timex1441]

While it's true that no one owes anyone a living, we don't live in a well, so we should compare with other countries to see what's the deal that we're getting.

If interested, can read the full article at http://www.socwork.net/2007/1/articles/mendes which compares Australia's and Singapore's welfare policy, and take a look at the list below. If CPF is not taken into consideration, Singapore's expenditure is about 8% (read the article for details); if CPF is taken into consideration, then it goes up to 20%, which is still nothing to really boast about.

 

The welfare state and social expenditure (% of GDP), year 2001

# 1 Denmark: 29.2

# 2 Sweden: 28.9

# 3 France: 28.5

# 4 Germany: 27.4

# 5 Belgium: 27.2

# 6 Switzerland: 26.4

# 7 Austria: 26

# 8 Finland: 24.8

# 9 Italy: 24.4

= 10 Greece: 24.3

= 10 Netherlands: 24.3

# 12 Norway: 23.9

# 13 Poland: 23

# 14 United Kingdom: 21.8

# 15 Portugal: 21.1

# 16 Luxembourg: 20.8

= 17 Czech Republic: 20.1

= 17 Hungary: 20.1

# 19 Iceland: 19.8

# 20 Spain: 19.6

# 21 New Zealand: 18.5

# 22 Australia: 18

# 23 Slovakia: 17.9

# 24 Canada: 17.8

# 25 Japan: 16.9

# 26 United States: 14.8

# 27 Ireland: 13.8

# 28 Mexico: 11.8

# 29 Korea, South: 6.1

 

[1fast1]

or he pretended not to get it thus avoiding a c--k-in-mouth situation.

 

He tries and tries but can't help it. Anyone as "wooden" as him can't avoid the occasional wood-in-mouth situation.

[Unfair]

If this guy runs for politics, whether MIW or opposition, he gets my vote

[Mazdaowner]

Once a soldier....always a soldier.

Because you were once a soldier, but now...MR liao....

 

[Playtime]

No offence, but I strongly believe that educational institutions should remain meritocratic. I also have frens who made it to local unis without trouble, but need sterling results of course. Especially if the courses are 'hot' and competitive with many applicants. This has always been the case.

 

I don't question the fact I could not study, e.g. Medicine, years ago - because results simply not perfect enough. I also don't doubt that those who got into the course were better academic achievers. So be it, perfectly fair competition.

 

I don't think we should impose 'quotas' on the proportion of locals vs. foreigners. Then there will emerge one (lower) standard for locals vs. foreigners (generally higher if they're on scholarship). Then how? When these two separate standards meet in the common exams, the glaring difference will be rather embarrassing. Maybe next time we even need one separate category of awards for locals?? And how about employment? Employers would necessarily choose the best graduates if possible, and locals would be seriously disadvantaged once they're categorised or labelled with lower standard of achievement.

 

 

What is "Meritocracy" then? Have you wondered how to apply it "meritocratically"?

 

Apply it to singaporeans by all means, its fine. Or apply it to the entire world??

 

3 million Singaporeans Vs 6 Billion... or even just 1 Billion PRCs. Statistically, there will only be at best 3M/1B or 3/1000 chance of any locals getting in.

 

Locals are being rejected not because they arent good enough.. its because places are being reserved... GIVEN FOC to foreigners, thats the problem.

[Zniper]

 

[Sosaria]

...

Locals are being rejected not because they arent good enough.. its because places are being reserved... GIVEN FOC to foreigners, thats the problem.

 

Not sure, neither can I verify this is happening. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as "good enough" - the level of what is acceptable, or not, changes with the cohort. If the cohort is very, very good - then it sets the bar very high. Maybe the influx of foreigners have pushed the bar higher - this is why there are so many complaints.

 

But I think we always have to be careful about 'reserving' places for locals. Just look at the universities across the causeway for a good example of what happens when places are 'reserved'. It's a short-term, popular strategy but really a 'slippery slope' that is hard to climb out of once you go down this path. If you happen to be able to enter a university on a 'reserved' place - not sure about how you would feel - but I think it's embarrassing if people were to compare the different standards.

 

What I do support, though, are higher fees and longer bond periods for foreigners - maybe this will limit the numbers naturally. But by all means, let them come and raise the standard of competition. I don't think we're unable to compete, from my personal experience.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Sosaria

[Hokk7777]

While it's true that no one owes anyone a living, we don't live in a well, so we should compare with other countries to see what's the deal that we're getting.

If interested, can read the full article at http://www.socwork.net/2007/1/articles/mendes which compares Australia's and Singapore's welfare policy, and take a look at the list below. If CPF is not taken into consideration, Singapore's expenditure is about 8% (read the article for details); if CPF is taken into consideration, then it goes up to 20%, which is still nothing to really boast about.

 

The welfare state and social expenditure (% of GDP), year 2001

# 1 Denmark: 29.2

# 2 Sweden: 28.9

# 3 France: 28.5

# 4 Germany: 27.4

# 5 Belgium: 27.2

# 6 Switzerland: 26.4

# 7 Austria: 26

# 8 Finland: 24.8

# 9 Italy: 24.4

= 10 Greece: 24.3

= 10 Netherlands: 24.3

# 12 Norway: 23.9

# 13 Poland: 23

# 14 United Kingdom: 21.8

# 15 Portugal: 21.1

# 16 Luxembourg: 20.8

= 17 Czech Republic: 20.1

= 17 Hungary: 20.1

# 19 Iceland: 19.8

# 20 Spain: 19.6

# 21 New Zealand: 18.5

# 22 Australia: 18

# 23 Slovakia: 17.9

# 24 Canada: 17.8

# 25 Japan: 16.9

# 26 United States: 14.8

# 27 Ireland: 13.8

# 28 Mexico: 11.8

# 29 Korea, South: 6.1

 

Most of these welfare states are European countries and we all know Europeans taxes are sky high, mainly around 40 - 50% bracket.

Imagine 1/2 of your pay goes to nothing! And believe me, they are not happy with it. Most of my european friends complained about it and that is the main reason they choose to migrate to places like singapore.

 

Although SG has CPF, which pp may complain same as high taxes, at least money saved in CPF can use to buy an apartment and help pay for medicals, not forgetting that your employer matches a certain percentage. And regardless of people saying gov eating our CPF, and given the not so favourable positions to most singaporean, at least you still can draw out some money in your later life.

 

Working people in europe pay high taxes to government to support those not-working people.

If non-working people are due to injuries or life threatening situation making them not able to work, I will be happy to pay high taxes to support them. Unfortunately, due to their good welfare, many able bodied young men choose not to work and go queue for welfare allowances.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Hokk7777

[Unfair]

Should sinkies get places in university first ?

 

No saying put someone with shitty results into university but put all those okay ones first then consider foreigners for extra places.

 

Else Singaporeans dun have much choices but go overseas or go pariah universities.....

 

How fair isit when you get good results but have to watch some chinese scholar take ur place in uni.

Then the ah tiong finishes his bond then moves on overseas after completing the bond.

How many such scholars stay in SG after completing their bond? We are just a stepping stone. FARK

[Playtime]

Not sure, neither can I verify this is happening. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as "good enough" - the level of what is acceptable, or not, changes with the cohort. If the cohort is very, very good - then it sets the bar very high. Maybe the influx of foreigners have pushed the bar higher - this is why there are so many complaints.

 

But I think we always have to be careful about 'reserving' places for locals. Just look at the universities across the causeway for a good example of what happens when places are 'reserved'. It's a short-term, popular strategy but really a 'slippery slope' that is hard to climb out of once you go down this path. If you happen to be able to enter a university on a 'reserved' place - not sure about how you would feel - but I think it's embarrassing if people were to compare the different standards.

 

What I do support, though, are higher fees and longer bond periods for foreigners - maybe this will limit the numbers naturally. But by all means, let them come and raise the standard of competition. I don't think we're unable to compete, from my personal experience.

 

 

Its not about "reserving" places for unqualified locals, its AGAINST reserving places for foreigners at the expense of qualified locals. What Malaysia does is totally different and out of context.

 

Its a fact that countless perfectly good locals are forced to give up or go overseas for their studies... at great expense. While we see foreigners given free slots in our Unis at our taxpayers expense. By all means give some places to foreigners, is it necessary to give sooo many? Surely it makes more sense to develope more of our deserving own rather than give free training to people we all know wont stay, its a failed policy.