Every Singaporean really does count

UPDATED: MOS Wong posted a clarification on his FB page. It addresses the insensitivity of the comments reported by TODAY, although surely the original comment -- presumably accurately reported, since there was no suggestion of a misquote -- still should not have been made in the way it was made. I am not sure that there is any context in which that comment is acceptable. In any case, the FB post is simply an expansion of the same fundamental philosophy that I criticise below. Let's not forget that it is always harder for people to start work and then go back to school (either part-time or full-time), even though life-long learning is now accepted as a necessity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore has the second freest economy in the world (after Hong Kong). But there is one aspect of Singapore that has always felt to me like a command economy: the way the Government tries to calibrate supply and demand in higher education.

On 8 February, the TODAY newspaper reported that further education was hotly-discussed when Minister of State for Education Mr Lawrence Wong conducted a dialogue with around 100 ITE students. Some ITE students asked about the possibility of increasing the number of polytechnic places available to them after graduating from ITE.

This is what TODAY reported:

“Mr Wong said he understood their aspirations but not everyone would be able to pursue a diploma at a polytechnic immediately after obtaining their Higher NITEC.

This was due to limited places at local polytechnics and employers' demand for ITE graduates. "If everyone can move up, we will not have enough ITE graduates out there in the workforce," he said.

"At the end, it's the number of places we can provide … I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone, frankly," he said.”

MOS Wong also warned against a situation of too many degree- and diploma-holders seeking jobs, citing the example of the Singapore embassy in Paris, who had received only applications from degree-holders for a receptionist job. He also went on to explain that ITE was a foundation for polytechnic education, and hence ITE graduates would not be allowed to apply for polytechnic courses unrelated to their areas of study.

As Mr Brown put it on Facebook:

“Translation: “If we allow everyone to be well-educated, who will be the serfs?””

This is the sort of misguided social engineering that leaves a bad taste in many Singaporeans’ mouths. It stems from a fundamentally-misconceived view of higher education as being a means to the end of creating people to fill the jobs out there. And mind you, the sort of logic has been applied in the past, to limit the number of polytechnic graduates who are allowed to pursue undergraduate courses in our universities.

Never mind that the Government has a poor record at central planning with higher education to guide Singaporeans towards, or to deter or exclude Singaporeans from, this or that sector. Witness the shortage of lawyers in recent years. Witness also the angst of biotechnology graduates today, who were induced to enter that course of study by the heavy promotion by the Government, only to find that a basic biotechnology degree was, to paraphrase Mr Philip Yeo, only good enough for washing test-tubes.

Never mind that nowadays, most people view education as being at least as much about self-actualisation. Viewing higher education solely in terms of an assembly line for workers is nothing less than anachronistic.

Never mind that education is almost universally recognized as one of the key drivers of social mobility, and this message tells ITE graduates that they need to look for another way – besides education -- to do better in life.

Never mind that deliberately limiting the number of places available to ITE graduates, effectively imposes an artificial restriction on how far ITE graduates can go in their education. Don’t we pride ourselves in meritocracy? Where is the meritocracy in not allowing those ITE graduates who are good enough for polytechnics, to enter them?

Never mind that an education is meant to equip one for life, while the jobs out there today will not be the jobs available in 10 years’ time. Without giving ITE graduates who want to do so, the opportunity to equip themselves with skills going beyond today’s jobs, the Government may be deliberately disadvantaging ITE graduates for years into the future, if not for life.

Never mind that even if ITE graduates are not allowed to enter polytechnics, many will still pursue part-time private courses at their own expense.

Never mind that a diploma-holder who is good will succeed, while a diploma-holder who is not good will not succeed. And that is regardless of whether or not that diploma-holder entered the polytechnic after graduating from ITE, JC or secondary school.

Never mind that the Paris embassy example cited by MOS Wong is not at all analogous. France is experiencing economic troubles including very high unemployment, which is the more likely reason why degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job. Correlation does not mean causation, and the fact that degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job does not prove that there are too many degree-holders in France.

Never mind that polytechnic courses are varied enough that there will be some, if not many, courses that ITE, JCs and secondary schools do not prepare students for. In which case, why restrict only ITE graduates, but not JC or secondary school graduates, from applying for such courses?

Sorry Mr Wong. It’s not just ITE students who disagree with you. I would hazard that most Singaporeans would also be disappointed with these comments. In our hearts, we want all Singaporeans to have equal opportunities, and to support those Singaporeans in going as far as they can. There actually are Singaporeans who truly believe that every Singaporean really does count.

Answering the question you wish had been asked

Former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara once said: “Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.” I was somewhat amused at just how blatantly this rule was used in two recent letters to the Straits Times Forum, to completely ignore what the questions that had actually been asked.

Why preschool funding is extended only to PCF kindergartens

On Thursday 10 March, ST Forum published two letters asking if, and why, the S$290 million in funding announced by the Government would go only to preschools operated by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

In one letter, Yee Jenn Jong said:

"In my 15-year involvement in the industry, I have not known of any government funding for upgrading the facilities of privately owned centres, so I cannot see how this can lower the cost of preschool education in such centres.

There is also no reason for the Government to fund the upgrading of centres run by NTUC and PCF as they have their own fund sources and are usually already paying rent that is below market rates."

In the other letter, Ms Yvonne Lee shared her elation upon learning that the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) will be extended to grant financial relief to families whose monthly incomes do not exceed S$3500, but was then told by the Ministry of Education that only pupils in PCF kindergartens would be eligible.

Both letter-writers queried why government funding should be extended (or limited) to PCF kindergartens, and also called for the funding to be extended to privately-run preschools as well.

On Wednesday (16 March), ST Forum published a joint reply from MCYS and MOE. These are the pertinent paragraphs from the letter (the rest was pretty much just corporate PR boilerplate):

"The Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, disbursed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), aims to ensure that children are not deprived of a preschool education because of the family's financial circumstances.

The increase in the eligible monthly household income criterion from $1,800 to $3,500 from April 1 will let more families benefit from the scheme's subsidies.

Eligibility requires kindergartens to be registered with the Ministry of Education (MOE), be non-profit, secular and in a good financial position to provide quality preschool education.

These criteria serve to ensure that assistance is targeted at kindergartens which serve lower- and middle- income households. There are about 240 eligible kindergartens which are well-distributed across Singapore."

Nothing at all about PCF kindergartens, and nothing at all about why the funding did not extend to privately-run preschools. Probably not coincidentally, the PCF states on its website that it runs 247 kindergartens located across Singapore. A cynic would wonder why MCYS and MOE chose to cite the "about 240 eligible kindergartens" statistic, without addressing the question of whether all of these are run by PCF, and if so why.

NTUC's "symbiotic relationship" with the PAP

A letter from Ang Miah Boon was published on Wednesday 9 March, noting the recent reports about a number of potential PAP candidates from the civil service resigning to join NTUC and asking the following questions (quoted verbatim from the letter):

"- How is NTUC able to absorb these people? In any corporation, positions are based on needs. Were the positions specially created for these candidates?

- Why is NTUC providing candidates only for the PAP? Can senior executives of NTUC stand as opposition candidates? Can one be part of the NTUC leadership and remain an opposition party member? Can we separate these jobs from politics?

- Do MPs who work for NTUC take directions from NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, who is Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, in Parliament?

- Finally, how many MPs should come from the NTUC? While I acknowledge that the voices of the union members should be heard, I am less certain about the number who should represent the congress in the House."

NTUC's reply, signed by NTUC President John De Payva and Sec-Gen (and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office) Lim Swee Say, was published on Tuesday 15 March. It essentially repeated the well-known (and frankly, tired) statements about why it is good for workers for NTUC to be so close to PAP.

It also completely ignored and disregarded the questions posed in the letter -- to the extent that it addressed any of the concerns raised in the letter, it would be the implied conclusion that NTUC, being a symbiotic partner of the PAP, would never, ever allow its members to stand as opposition candidates.

Let's just have a honest debate

I personally found the responses tremendously disappointing. The letter-writers felt strongly enough to take the trouble to write in to ST Forum, posing very pointed and direct questions. The replies did not do justice to, and to my mind did not respect, the letter-writers. These are valid questions that deserve answers -- but it seems that the answers will not be forthcoming.

This outcome does nobody, least of all Singapore, any good. People will speculate about why MOE, MCYS and NTUC deliberately chose not to engage directly, and they will draw adverse inferences. The outcome? A more cynical and disillusioned public, which is understandable but certainly not desirable.

When school and grassroots work do not mix

UPDATE: Apropos of nothing, this article by the current president of BLYC was recently published in the PAP's magazine.

I've been on leave the past few weeks, and TODAY happened to ask if I wanted to start writing for them again. Seemed like a good idea to me. This was my bugbear at the time, so here it is.

When school and grassroots work do not mix

by Siew Kum Hong
05:55 AM Jan 04, 2011

Those familiar with Singapore's political history will remember the role played by student activists in the '50s and early '60s. But that ended when schools were depoliticised after independence.

For better or worse, schools have been neutral and independent institutions of learning for the past few decades. So I was surprised to read a Dec 24 story in The Straits Times, about a co-curricular activity (CCA) in Raffles Institution (Junior College) called the Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC).

BLYC was set up by five students, including the son of Madam Ho Geok Choo, who is the Member of Parliament in the Boon Lay ward of West Coast GRC.

The BLYC describes itself as the "first youth club in a grassroots setting", and its activities have included volunteering at meet-the-people-sessions, among other things..

I actually see student activism, in and of itself, as a good thing, and a necessary foundation for an active and concerned citizenry.

But partisan activities that favour a specific political party or politician should not be officially sanctioned and endorsed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) or schools.

And that is where I think MOE and RI(JC) got it wrong with BLYC.

I believe most Singaporeans would agree with me that it is inappropriate and undesirable, if not harmful, for schools to be used as vehicles for partisan political activities.

Campaigning for political parties and politicians is clearly improper in schools and workplaces. By extension, it is inappropriate for MOE and schools to officially sanction and endorse activities that directly or indirectly support any specific political party or politician.

After all, we expect our schools to be impartial and independent. Mixing politics and education like this is dangerous.

It risks compromising the professionalism of our schools and devaluing what is taught.

The crux here is that MOE and schools must remain impartial and clearly stand above the political fray.

Lawyers always say that the law not only has to be fair, it also has to be seen as being fair. Similarly, the educational system must stay scrupulously clear of politics and avoid favouring any political party. And it must be seen to be doing so.

The existence of BLYC and its official recognition as a CCA, may arguably be acceptable, if it is a purely student-driven initiative and if it does not even engage in political activities in the first place. But is this the case?

Firstly, BLYC was initially not officially recognised. As a result, the founders had difficulty recruiting volunteers.

According to The Straits Times' report, it was only after Madam Ho raised the matter with then-Senior Minister of State for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam that the club was made an official CCA.

This might suggest that, BLYC may not have survived without MOE's and RI(JC)'s official support and sanction.

Secondly, some may have asserted that BLYC engages only in grassroots activities and not politics. But in Singapore, that is an illusory distinction.

The People's Association is widely seen as being aligned and intertwined with the People's Action Party (PAP).

Tellingly also, The Straits Times decided to run the story on BLYC as a sidebar to an article on the electoral situation in West Coast GRC.

A past president of BLYC was quoted as saying: "Our intentions are not to get involved in politics, our intentions are to serve". But the students' intentions are beside the point.

After all, if the students truly only want to serve, they are always free to volunteer directly, without needing an official CCA. The point is that MOE's and RI(JC)'s official sanctioning and support of this sort of activity undermines the impartiality of our education system.

The only way in which grassroots activism can legitimately be an official CCA, is if it is irreproachably non-partisan.

Otherwise, having an official CCA like BLYC will only raise doubts about the integrity and impartiality of our schools.

The writer is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

Politics and policy-making

Last Friday, I spoke to a class of NIE students. These were Masters students doing a class on curriculum in Singapore, and it seems that the tutor has traditionally done a forum in the last class of the course. I spoke together with NMP Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Lisa Lee, a JC teacher.

I talked about various things, and two of the questions I posed for the class were:

• Who are the people making policies in education -- the politicians and bureaucrats, or the educational professionals?


• And what are their motivations in policy-making?

The point I was trying to drive at, is that policies -- in general, not just in education -- are frequently or usually made by politicians and bureaucrats, who may not or are usually not subject-matter experts in the particular area. The policies may be, at least partly, consciously or unconsciously motivated or driven by extraneous considerations.

I am not saying that policies are self-serving or are designed in such a way as deliberately benefit any particular class or that policy-makers do not sincerely believe that the policies are for the best. But I am saying that when politicians and bureaucrats make policy, especially in complex specialised areas like education, they may be driven by other considerations.

So what to make of Dr Ng Eng Hen's disclosure that the Ministry of Education is re-looking the relative weightage of Mother Tongue in the PSLE examinations? This is the latest in a long line of moves to reduce the consequences of students doing poorly in Mother Tongue, largely in response to longstanding complaints from certain parents and students about the difficulty in doing well in Chinese.

I don't have a great command of Chinese -- it's not even remotely near good. I can just about read a Chinese newspaper article, with some struggle and a fair bit of contextual guesswork -- having a dictionary helps a lot, but doesn't really speed things up all that much. Nowadays, I am almost exclusively English-speaking -- I speak Mandarin mostly to my mum, frequently to the office pantry auntie, and otherwise to service staff. The decline in my Chinese grades began in Primary 3, and culminated in an E8 the first time I took 'AO' Chinese -- by some fluke, I scored an A2 my second time. That's one instance where the truth probably literally lies somewhere in between.

So if anything, I'm a prime candidate to sympathise with the complaints of the English-speaking chattering classes. Except that I don't, not really.

After all, the playing field is level. Everybody goes through the same exam. We don't move the English-language academic goalposts for those who don't speak English at home and accordingly have a weak command of English (not coincidentally, they also tend to be from the lower- if not lowest-income households) -- why then do we always move the Mother Tongue (specifically, Chinese) academic goalposts for those who don't speak Mandarin at home and accordingly have a weak command of Chinese (who, not coincidentally, tend to come from the other end of the socio-economic spectrum)? [and the Learning Support Programme in P1 and P2 for kids who are week in English is not given enough time or resources to make a difference -- 30 minutes per day is far from enough and smacks of lip service]

We talk about meritocracy and equity of opportunity -- in fact, the Government consistently boasts about it. But true meritocracy and equity of opportunity assumes that the ground rules are fair to all, and do not permit hidden biases (admittedly perhaps unconsciously-held) resulting in different rules for different folks.

What flabbergasted me then, was the suggestion that the current PSLE weightage for Mother Tongue may be too high, because it deprived otherwise-deserving kids of places in so-called top secondary schools. When I read that, I thought there was some kind of disproportionate weightage. Well, Mother Tongue counts for 25% -- I know lawyers are supposed to be lousy at Math, but that seems about right to me since there are 4 subjects at PSLE. Seems fair to me.

Looked at it another way, reducing the weightage for Mother Tongue effectively advantages (in a relative sense) those who are unable (for whatever reason) to do well in Mother Tongue. Why don't we reduce the weightage for Math, for those who are great at multiple languages but really suck at numbers? Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses, why is one particular set of weaknesses picked out for crutches and other special treatment?

And really, is the inability to get into a so-called top secondary school really the end of the world? That is cited as the driving motivation to re-look the weightage for Mother Tongue -- but in the same breadth, we talk about the need for different measures of success beyond academic results. Irony and mixed messages, anyone?

Perspective is important in policy-making, to remain objective and keep an even keel. I don't see too much of that in this particular case.

OPQ 27 August 2007: Recruitment of teachers and relief teachers

In July, Eunice and I had separately filed a question each on relief teachers in schools. We did not discuss this beforehand. Both of us did so as a result of the incident surrounding MOE's rejection of Alfian Sa'at's application to become a relief teacher. I was quite surprised by that incident, if only because it has always seemed to me that anyone who had passed their A-Levels (or who hadn't even passed but were waiting for their results) and wanted to be a relief teacher could do so.

The transcript of the Minister of State's response is below.

Today's Straits Times ran an article titled "Debates that could have been...", questioning why Eunice Olsen and I had not pushed further. In particular, the journalist asked why we did not question the MOS's statement that it was "not appropriate" to discuss individual cases in Parliament, wondering why we raised the issue in the first place. He then went on speculate that maybe our "seeming listlessness" was because we were preocccupied with the issues raised in the National Day Rally. I am not able to link to this article, because it is not freely available online.

I won't purport to speak on Eunice's behalf. But I will respond a little to that article.

I would be the first to raise my hand and admit that my performance in Parliament, on the spot, could be better. It can always be better. I wish I could think as quickly on my feet in Parliament, as when I am outside Parliament. I wish I wasn't nervous when it's my turn, as I always am. I wish Parliament sat more often, so that I could get more experience more quickly. I wish I had the luxury of time, of being able to sit at my desk and formulate my thoughts and craft my words, instead of having only a minute or less to think about an angle and to craft the question before I have to speak.

Unfortunately, life is not about wishes. I'm not better than I am, and none of those wishes are going to come true, at least not the last two. Hopefully the first two will become less of a problem in future.

I can only say that I'm doing my best, and hopefully that's good enough. I did think about pushing further on the "inappropriateness" point. But I already know that if a minister does not want to answer, you will not get an answer. You will instead get the original response restated again, as in this case. The transcript shows that, unlike what the reporter had suggested, I did ask two follow-up questions. Just see the response to my second follow-up.

I personally have no wish to be a broken record, repeating myself over and over again. It's not my style. The record will speak for itself.

OPQ

RECRUITMENT OF TEACHERS AND RELIEF TEACHERS

(Criteria)

12. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the stringent criteria the Ministry sets in the recruitment of teachers and relief teachers; and (b) how much autonomy do Government schools have in choosing their relief teachers.

13. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the criteria for the hiring of relief teachers; (b) how many applicants to be relief teachers have been rejected in the past five years; and (c) what was the reason for rejecting the application of Mr Alfian Sa'at, who had scored A1s at the GCE 'O' Levels.

The Minister of State for Education (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will take Question Nos. 12 and 13 together.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach; engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives. Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in their professional and personal capacity.

To be engaged as teachers, applicants need to have the requisite educational qualifications, an acceptable level of content mastery of the subjects that they intend to teach and demonstrate the aptitude and a genuine passion for teaching. The values they hold and espouse are also an important consideration as they are important role models for our children.

Applicants for relief teaching can apply directly to MOE. On an annual basis, we receive about 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teachers and about 3% of these are rejected. Once provisionally accepted, their names are entered into MOE's central database of registered relief teachers and schools in need of relief teachers can then approach them directly. Schools can also engage relief teachers who have met minimum criteria but are not registered in the central database. Schools would then recommend these relief teachers to be registered with the Ministry.

Finally, let me say that it is not appropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in this House.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): I would like to thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions for him. First, I would like to ask him whether the Ministry informs the applicants who are rejected as relief teachers or teachers the reason as to why they do not meet the criteria and what criteria they do not meet. My second question is: what kind of a teaching force the Ministry is looking to build, what qualities a person might have to contribute to that, and what kind of liabilities will detract from that?

RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: In response to the first supplementary question, we may give applicants a general idea of the areas in which they have fallen short of the criteria. This depends on a case-to-case basis. And secondly, on the teaching force, our target is to have approximately 30,000 teachers in the teaching force by the end of 2010. We are on track to accomplish this target. The criteria that we look for in our teachers, as I had mentioned earlier, include not only their academic qualifications but also demonstrating a genuine passion for teaching, being able to engage people and children, as well as holding and espousing the right set of values.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the MOS. My first question is, from the numbers cited by the MOS, it seems that annually, about 90 applicants for registration will be rejected. I would like to ask the MOS what are the typical reasons for rejecting these 90 or so applicants every year. My second question is with regard to this specific application of Mr Alfian Sa'at, and I take the MOS' point that it is not appropriate to discuss specific applications in this House. Having said that, I understand from Mr Alfian Sa'at that the reason for the rejection of his application was not really explained to him. So I would like to ask the MOS whether it is the Ministry's position that it is appropriate to reject this sort of application without going to specific reasons, if only to let the applicant know how he or she may improve himself or herself, so that he or she may take up a teaching position in future.

RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: The Member is correct in that we have a rejection rate of about 3%, rounding up to about 100 cases that are rejected annually. The reasons vary. Some of them are because the applicants do not meet the minimum educational criteria. Or sometimes, it is really because of a variety of reasons like, for example, their past records, disciplinary cases, and so on. On Mr Sa'at's case, like I have said, I think the most appropriate thing to do would be for him to engage MOE directly and we can deal with the case on an individual basis.

17 July 2007: Admission into local universities

This was the question that led to an official clarification by the Ministry of Education and a barrage of criticism online. It gave me no pleasure to have caused it.

I asked a couple of supplementary questions, and the Minister of State for Education responded, but gave the wrong figures. If I remember correctly, he paused to check his papers before giving the number.

I had a fair bit of sympathy for the MOS, actually. The figure did seem suspiciously low. But it was an honest mistake. I think those who proclaimed some sort of attempted fraud on the nation, who attributed the correction to the derisive dismissals online, are being thoroughly unfair. They are not giving the Government enough credit, while giving themselves too much. I think there was some slight delay before the clarification was issued, but that's not surprising since figures need to be checked.

It was a mistake and an embarrassing one, but hardly important in the bigger scheme of things. And who doesn't make mistake?

ADMISSION INTO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education in light of local students not being able to gain admission to the three local universities despite the increase in the number of places (a) whether he will provide an update on the recent admission exercise for local universities; and (b) what measures are taken by his Ministry to ensure that local A-level and polytechnic students have sufficient places for accredited tertiary education in Singapore.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for Education (a) whether our local universities are producing enough graduates to meet the needs of our industries; (b) what is the average growth in the number of local university places in the last ten years; (c) whether local universities are able to cope with the increase in intake; and (d) whether the local universities' vision to have more international students is being achieved at the expense of local students.

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Gan Kim Yong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take both Questions No. 3 and 4 together?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, we have increased the number of university places over the years. The number of places at NUS, NTU and SMU together has increased by an average of about 5% each year over the past 10 years. The proportion of each cohort of local students entering the three universities will increase to about 23.5% this year, compared to 20.8% in 2000 and 15% in 1990.

[...]

We are progressively moving towards the current target of providing subsidised university education for 25% of each cohort of local students.

I would like to assure the House also that the local universities' vision to have more international students is not being achieved at the expense of local students. University places for foreign students are over and above those that are set aside for local students.

[...]

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is I would like to ask the MOS to clarify what he meant when he said that places for foreign students are over and above the places for local students. Does this mean that places are offered to foreign students only after all eligible local students have been offered and have accepted their places? My second question is the MOS has mentioned that there are 14,000-odd places for year of admission 2007. But of these 14,000-plus places, how many places will be going to foreign students?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, let me just give the House some benchmark numbers so that we can have a feel. During this year's admission exercise, a total of 28,000 local students applied to local universities. Out of that, 14,000 (49%) were offered places. Similarly, about 23,000 foreign students applied to the universities for the same admission year and only 987 were given places, that is, 4.3%. So on that basis, we want to demonstrate that the universities do give priority to our local students. And for our students who can qualify, based on the requirements of each discipline or faculty, they would have been given admission. Beyond that, the universities would want to ensure that there are also sufficient foreign students to provide diversity and it is part of the learning experience that we want our students to go through as well during their university education here.

[...]

Is Singapore still on track to become an education hub?

I took part in a live radio show at Temasek JC on Friday. It was a pretty fun experience, and some of the students there were really impressive. It sort of made me glad that I wasn't in JC now -- I'd certainly have to pull up my socks a lot more than I actually did!

I also had the privilege of doing this with Mr S. Iswaran, MOS for Trade and Industry. He's a really humourous gentleman, and I'm sure I wouldn't have found the experience quite as fun if not for him and the jokes we kept trading off-air.

Anyway, the podcast is available here.