Maid Gina's fairy tale dashed by MOM's rigid bureaucracy

Hi Friends,

The Straits Times published my letter of appeal for Jourgina (Gina) Dagoplo to be allowed to come back to Singapore.

I know the social climate has become increasingly anti-immigration as a reaction to what many perceived as overly porous government policies, but I think Gina's case deserves a relook.

The original story can be found in the link here.

When I "Google(d)" Gina's name, I was surprised that in 2005, she was a "cause celebre"and was sort of a showcase of what a land of opportunity Singapore was and everyone in the official and alternative media was head over heals about her "rags to riches" story then.

Cheers,

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

The published letter to the ST Forum (2nd Nov 2010):

I WAS shocked to read about a former maid whose dreams were dashed on the rocks of a rigid bureaucracy ('Ex-maid with new job runs out of time'; last Saturday). It is like a fairy tale with an unhappy ending.

Miss Jourgina Dagoplo arrived on our shores as a maid in 1992. She studied hard on her days off (Sundays) and graduated in 2005 from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) with a certificate in electronics, and that landed her a job at IT giant IBM, where she was promoted to senior technician and earned $1,200 a month when she left.

Five years into her job, she was asked to go home by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), all because of a rule which stipulates that a skilled worker on a work permit pass can work here only for a maximum of 18 years - not a day longer, no matter what. Now she is back in the Philippines working as a maid for $5 a day.

IBM had found her to be a 'good performer' and after failing to renew her work permit, had appealed twice to MOM but to no avail.

The irony is that Miss Dagoplo was already doing a part-time diploma course which would have helped her case for staying on here.

Miss Dagoplo is the type of worker that we need more of in our economy - someone who is hungry, ready to take on challenges and not prepared to accept as fate what life dished out to her.

Instead of asking her to leave, the authorities should have offered her a citizenship to reward her for her tenacity and to signal to others that we are a meritocratic society that looks beyond your background and so long as you can contribute to Singapore, you are in. The authorities should review her case and welcome her back to Singapore.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

A Top-Ranking I am not Proud of

PM Lee tops list of 10 best-paid world politicians
Thursday, 2 April 2009, 3:27 pm

From Times:

There is nothing like a scandal involving porn films claimed on Commons expenses to focus attention on the pay and perks enjoyed, sorry earned, by our public servants.

Even before Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, was forced to apologise for her husband’s blue movies there had been calls for the whole system to be overturned. The committee on standards in public life which has promised to report on MP pay and expenses by the end of the year is under pressure to do something radical.

Whenever MPs come under attack over pay they are quick to argue that compared to executives in the private and public sector they are not particularly well paid.

With the G20 leaders in the country we thought it was worth getting a snapshot of how much the highest paid presidents and prime ministers around the world earn. For comparison’s sake all earnings have been converted into dollars. It also shows basic annual salary only, not the expenses claimed on top.

So, where does our own Gordon Brown stand?

1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore
Salary in dollars - $2.47 million
Salary in local currency - S$3.76 million

2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong
Salary in dollars - $516,000
Salary in local currency - HK$4 million

3. Barack Obama - United States
Salary in dollars - $400,000

4. Brian Cowen - Ireland
Salary in dollars - $341,000
Salary in local currency - €257,000

5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France Salary in dollars - $318,000
Salary in local currency - €240,000

6. Angela Merkel - Germany
Salary in dollars - $303,000
Salary in local currency - €228,000

7. Gordon Brown - UK
Salary in dollars - $279,000
Salary in local currency - £194,250

8. Stephen Harper - Canada
Salary in dollars - $246,000
Salary in local currency - C$311,000

9. Taro Aso - Japan
Salary in dollars - $243,000
Salary in local currency - Y24 million

10. Kevin Rudd - Australia
Salary in dollars - $229,000
Salary in local currency - A$330,000

My comments

Hi Friends,

I am proud to be Singaporean.

There are many aspects of Singaporean life that I am thankful for and indeed proud of.

However this does not include the fact that almost all of Singapore’s political leaders (from the President, Prime Minister, Minister Mentor, Senior Ministers and all the too many Cabinet Ministers) would occupy all the top places in the league of highest-paid political leaders of the whole wide world.

In the list above, only the highest paid leader of each country was represented in the table. This is like in some tournaments where each country is restricted to only one competitor. If all of Singapore ministers’remuneration were considered (eg in tournaments with no restriction from each country) , we will take all the spots available on the list.

Not something I would be proud of, and I suspect, not something that the PAP would be proud of too!

I have blogged about this before here,

1. Sarkozys' Pay Rise: French will flip...

2. Poor Politicians and civil servants

and I am still convinced that to say that only if Singapore’s political office-holders are paid astronomical salaries, could we have a non-corrupt and clean government is a false dichotomy and an insult to each and every Singaporean’s intelligence. The words "altruism" and "self-sacrifice" are obviously alien to the PAP and not present in their vocabulary!

My friends, Watch this space ( or akan dating)- for in a few months from now, when our economy starts to recover from this financial crisis and Singapore’s GDP becomes positive again, our political leaders will become smug again and insist that their astronomical salaries be restored to their previous even loftier levels on the excuse that their remuneration are pegged to Singapore’s economic growth.

Might as well peg it to the rising of the sun!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

What think ye of SDP?

Hi

Alex Au of Yawning Bread has written an excellent exposition about the Singapore Democratic Party.

Please read it. It very succinctly discusses both sides of the coin. That SDP is a trouble-maker or a change agent. A villain or a victim?

Let me say that my mind is still not made up about them. My brain-washed mind wishes that they are less confrontational but my heart says that maybe they are pushed to the wall and have few alternatives to what they are doing.

But don’t let anyone decide for you. Think it through yourself!

I had previously written something about the Politics of Retreat that Alex and Russel Heng ( a academic) had alluded to :

1.click here (Retreat from Power: Who will lead us?)

2. click here ( Havel,Walesa,Tutu: Living Proof that evil does not always triumph)

Happy reading.

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Lessons about Discrimination from the Book of St James

Hi Friends,


Introduction

Would you go to an entertainment joint eg St Jude Nuclear Station, that :

1.Allows people of certain race in for free but not for others ? Eg All Greens free but Chinese/Malays/Indians/Caucasians etc have to pay

2.Allows certain nationalities in for free but charges the rest? Eg Singoopooleans free but non-Singoopooleans like Malaysians, Indians,Singaporeans,Americans etc have to pay

3.Allows certain occupations in for free but not for others ? Eg Air Line pilots free but PAP ministers, doctors, students etc have to pay.

4.Allows free entry on certain nights for people of certain sexual orientations ? Eg Heterosexuals free but homosexuals and bisexuals and others have to pay.

5.Allows entry for those who pay but not for those who will not ? Duh!

I think most of you get the idea by now.

There are discriminations and there are discriminations

Most clubs already have some discriminatory entry policies such as all women nights or free entry for airline crew or even beautiful people of the “glam” circuit etc.

Most patrons find these acceptable but not when St James Power Station allowed in for free foreign tertiary students whilst charging their local counterparts.

This controversial move by St James ( before the U-turn) triggered some raw and mangled nerves. It would be instructive for everyone to know why. Why is it that certain discriminations are acceptable market practice whereas others could lead to boycotts and uproars ?

Acceptable discriminations in Singapore

My personal take is that Singapore society prides itself for its meritocracy and feels perfectly at home with discriminations based on wealth and ability. Most feel that if one does well academically or have talents in special skill-sets (music/creative industry), society would reward them with not just higher pay packets but also higher status.

But try telling these same Singaporeans that even if you are a tertiary student of a solid university (with GPA 4.0 no less), that they will be treated as second class just because their identity cards showed that they are not foreigners, they will not take it lying down! I further postulate that the uproar would be less loud if all tertiary students who are on the dean’s list got entry fee waivers. This is because one can work towards a dean’s listing or get a certain bank’s "tritalinium" credit care but one generally cannot help being a citizen of one’s nation.

If St Jude wants to charge a premium for entry? Good! I will earn that money and you let me in! If Singapore Island Country Club's membership costs $250000? Good! I will show you the money and you let me play golf on the signature championship Bukit course! (NB I will tell you how LKY forced open the white-only “race barrier” at SICC at another occasion).

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is also discriminatory but it has not started any riots! You want to use the road, pay lah!

Whatever it is, don’t tell me that even if I am willing to pay the sky-high price and work to be the best of the best that I am barred because I am not Green or not Singoopoolean!

So how, Dennis?

So Dennis Foo, why did you "nearly (fall) off (your) chair" when you read about the uproar over the controversial policy in the newspaper? I am surprised that you are surprised!

How about trying free entry for Dean’s list scholars or for Mensa members?

Guaranteed that there will be less uproar! But then who wants to be part of a crowd of nerds, right? Ha ha.

Back to the drawing board?!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

St James does a U-turn

The S'pore nightspot's reversal comes after the press reported local students were upset that their foreign counterparts got in free while they had to pay a cover charge.

Fri, Jun 06, 2008AsiaOne

Local nightspot St James Power Station has decided to drop its unpopular door policy of waiving club entry fees for foreign tertiary students while imposing a cover charge on local ones.

The reverse in policy comes following a My Paper article on Wednesday that reported local students being upset at such a policy, which they protested as unfair and discriminatory.

Powerhouse, the nightspot's main dance room, had a sign at its door stating the policy, but it still came as a surprise to Mr Matthew Rao, 25, a National University of Singapore student, who had flashed his identity card at the door of the popular nightclub and was asked to pay the $20 cover charge. His foriegn friends, who were with him, got in for free.

"I thought the IC was for age verification, but the bouncers said I had to pay because it was proof I was Singaporean," recalled Mr Rao in the My Paper report.

"Why should foreign students get different treatment? If they live here, why shouldn't they pay as well?"

In an interview with The Strait Times Life! on Wednesday night, St James chief executive Dennis Foo said that he "nearly fell off his chair" when he read about the uproar over the controversial policy in the newspaper.

Acknowledging that "St James has erred", an apologetic Mr Foo announced that all tertiary students over 18, both local and foreign , will get in free before 11pm to its main dance club, Powerhouse, if they produce a valid student pass.

Powerhouse is opened on Wednedays, Fridays and Saturdays.

On why such a policy was introduced in the first place, Mr Foo explained: "Powerhouse, being a dance club, targets the younger set, some of whom are tertiary students.""But there are so many tertiary instituitions here. We can't offer it to all, so we chose foreign students to start with. It was also to give the place a more cosmopolitan feel."

Other nightspots

A check with other popular nightspots such as Zouk and Ministry of Sound (MOS) reveals that they do not have such nationality-specific policies in place.

Zouk, however, does offer free entry for certain credit card-holders on some nights and has industry nights such as Aircrew Night on Saturday when aircrew get free entry and 40 per cent discount on drinks.

There are no entry benefits for students there.

Over at Ministry of Sound, local students do have something to cheer about as both local and foreign students are granted free entry before 11pm on Wednesday and Thursday. MOS also offers free entry to air crew, who also get discounts on drinks at the club's Sky Lounge.As for St James' U-turn, it remains to be seen whether local students will continue frequenting the club.

I almost stopped writing… but then came a phone call

Hi Friends,

The music stopped

I stopped writing to the newspapers’ forum pages for just about a year.

Many reasons accounted for the hiatus- primary one being constraint of time. I was just finishing a course and I needed more than 24 hours a day. But a more important reason was that my creative juices sort of just dried up.

I was also feeling the futility of ranting and shouting like a madman in the wilderness. I felt that if no one else cared whether this place went to the pigs, why should I? “They deserve what they get” I said to myself.

In the past, I had opinions about many facets of Singapore’s society. These ranged from the overbearing arrogance of the ruling elite to other more mundane topics like the neglect of our forgotten poor as well as the inhumane working contracts of maids.

In fact, it seemed like I had opinions just about everything and for a time, I was shooting letters like Billy the Kid shot his guns- from the hips. There were occasions when the Straits Times and Today printing two different edited versions of the same letter on the same day!

However unbeknownst to all, I was burdened with doubts. Doubts that perhaps I was writing too much. Perhaps no one was interested in what I had to say. Perhaps I was the weird discontented one and everyone else was happy and gay ( in a non-sexual sense).

My gloom was compounded by the forum editors rejecting what I felt were several legitimate and balanced accounts of topics of the day. The standard replies such as “ we regret that we are unable to publish…. because we get more than 70 letters a day… blah blah” do sound disingenuous when one reads sycophantic letters from obsequious and ingratiating writers that more or less say, “ When the wind blows ...Praise be to the rulers”.( Creative license- exaggeration used here to prove a point)

The phone call

But there was a phone call that stopped this rut!

Someone that I respected greatly and who is a giant in my profession called me in the office. He said that he always looked for my letters in the forum page. He encouraged me to write on as my views closely represented his opinions and those of his friends.

Truth be told- the sentiment expressed by this gentleman was not the first. I will sound conceited here if I go on in this vein. Suffice it to say that I am often self-deprecating and do not take others’ tributes easily. When someone stepped up to me to say, “ Hey, I read your letter the other day and …” I would quickly change the subject.

On thinking back, I now realize that by having this false sense of modesty and dismissing well-intended encouragements from readers, I am actually not respecting their right to an opinion.

Perhaps in my small way I am articulating the views of some who feel helpless and without a voice. Notwithstanding the editorial policies of the forum pages, a fraction of our common sense of frustration and indignation do get expressed. Perhaps that is better than not saying anything at all. ( I may be wrong- some may say that participation with them gives them undeserved legitimacy).

So readers, thank you for reading. Whether you like it or not, I will be here- right in their face!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

TOC's mole affair - My personal opinion

Hi Friends,

Much has been said of the sordid affair about how Remy Choo Zheng Xi , could be part of a PAP-inspired counter-insurgency campaign to control the blogosphere (via The Online Citizen "TOC") in favour of the PAP.

False premises

My observation is that this allegation is based on false premises.

The main false premise is that the TOC ( and the blogosphere at large) is anti-PAP. This premise probably comes from the deep-seated needs in some readers who want to read alternative views which are grossly under-represented in the official news media.

As TOC has already clarified that this is untrue and that TOC is not anti-PAP, nor anti-establishment nor anti-government. Then it seems the matter is settled and this “cloak-and-daggersque” affair should be allowed to die a natural death.

Or should it?

Confict of interests

Some will argue that Choo’s role as a paid worker ( albeit as an honorarium) brings him in conflict with his job as TOC’s editor. Come to think of it, his job as TOC’s editor (where he may now and again allow to be published some very anti-PAP stuff) may prevent him from working wholeheartedly for the PAP MP. I wonder if the MP knows about this? She may not be getting the full $500’s worth!

In all probability, Choo has a clear conscience and feels that he can be impartial as a PAP MP’s paid assistant as well as be TOC’s editor. I am not so sure that it is possible.

Except in Utopia, any MP’s job is to make the electorate happy so that he/she can get re-elected. This occurs in all constituencies so that the party with the most MP’s ( which is inevitably the PAP) gets to be the government of the day. So, even Choo would agree that his monthly $500 is part of the deal to help the government continue being the government the next time the GE comes around. I know the string (that links all this ) is very long- but that is the crux of the matter.

I am not for one second saying that Choo is despicable (or wrong) for helping the PAP MP. No, if he so believes that the MP is good and that the PAP is great, then he should do more for the MP or party (and ask for more pay in the process).

Way out

May I suggest that Choo continues with the TOC as a writer and let Andrew remain editor and hence having to agonise over which articles to publish ( be they pro- or anti-PAP). The alternative ( which is more painful) is to reject the honorarium and work as an unpaid volunteer for the MP whilst remaining TOC’s editor. (To most people, being paid or not makes the world of difference.)

Anyway, TOC- you guys have done great work and I will continue reading the stuff here ( even if Choo just sits on his hands and does nothing). I can be open-minded but not everyone is like me.

Before I forget, the rest of the allegations are just plain rubbish.

Cheers,

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Ngiam Tong Dow and danger of Group Think

Hi Friends,

Ngiam Tong Dow is yet again trying to get the ruling class to listen to his opinions about where the system needs tweaking.

His mind is a treasure trove that the government would do well to take advantage of.

I have already written about this here ( yes, I know it was also a well-disguised shameless plug for my alma mater, ACS!).

The argument can be succinctly summarised in one sentence:

If all our future leaders , who are today’s smart kids, are schooled in only 1 or 2 schools, it is highly likely that they will see the world through the same set of lenses- and that is not ideal.

I agree with Ngiam that a diversity of opinions and solutions for Singapore’s complex problems is preferable to the situation now where scholars who will likely be senior civil servants or politicians pass through the same well-trodden path which their seniors had trodden upon. The risk-free path.

The talking is the easy part.

The gargantuan task is this (warning-Long sentence) –

Since Singapore’s educational system is purportedly meritocratic, and “risk-averse” parents being “risk-averse” Singaporeans would naturally take the path most well-trodden and prod their kids onto this self-same well trodden path, how do we tell these parents that for the sake of diversity of ideas and for the good of the nation, their kids should not go to the “R” schools even though they got A* for all subjects at the Primary School Leaving Exams and are already representing the state in Wushu/Youth Orchestra/Five Stones by virtue of attending enrichment classes since the time they popped out of the womb, but should attend secondary school and Junior College in the Best of the Rest instead?

Tough sell!

Only diehard ACSians ( and others from St Joseph/ Chinese High) will contemplate such folly!

For the records, I have nothing against the R schools. I even have many friends from these fine schools! (haha)

Cheers and have great weekend!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Addendum (9 Sept 07 8.55pm): I just remember that I wrote about Mr. Ngiam some time ago and here it was about "Singapore the Nation is Bigger than Singapore the Country" Enjoy

S'pore in need of a talent spread?

Don't crowd bright students in a handful of top schools: Ngiam

Jasmine Yinjasmine@mediacorp.com.sg (Today 7th Sept 07)

EVEN after retirement, one of Singapore's most prominent former civil servants cannot resist bringing up a pet topic whenever he bumps into the political leadership.
.
The Republic's best and brightest should be "spread out" across the public and private sectors — and across schools — believes former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow (picture), 70.
.
Trained by different mentors and with diverse sets of thinking and skills, they would then be in good stead to tackle the challenges of a highly-competitive world.
.
For instance, bright Primary 6 school-leavers should be sent to different schools, instead of congregating at a handful of top schools.
.
"It's very dangerous to hot-house them ... I think we should spread out our talents … to support a stronger country.
.
"I'm still trying whenever I meet the younger ministers. I try to tell them … but so far, I don't think I'm making much headway," he said, to laughter, in reply to a question at a lecture on Friday organised by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
.
He has a similar concern about government scholars.
.
Recalling a discussion with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew "long ago", Mr Ngiam said he had asked if it was necessary for everyone to serve their bond in the public sector, as opposed to allowing some scholarship holders to work in the private sector.
.
After all, they are still working in Singapore for the country, he had argued.
.
Mr Lee, in turn, questioned the availability of talent in the civil service to accommodate such an arrangement, among other points of dissent.
.
"Intellectually, MM Lee could not accept such an argument," said Mr Ngiam, who retired from the civil service in 1999 after a 40-year career.
.
Over time, though, the public sector has changed, and Mr Lee even said three years ago that the public sector is too talent-heavy, and suggested that half its scholars should be released into the private sector after six or seven years.
.
Currently, there are also selected private-sector attachment schemes for government scholars.
.
Mr Ngiam, the chairman of Surbana Corporation, the privatised arm of the Housing and Development Board, gave the thumbs-up to the Government's focus on education.
.
"As a tax-paying citizen, I do not begrudge for one moment the billions of dollars we are spending on our schools, polytechnics and universities," said the mandarin who became the youngest-ever Permanent Secretary in 1972, at age 35.
.
Equal opportunities for education are the "well-spring of Singapore's social and economic success" and form the "bedrock of the social compact between the Government and the people", he pointed out.
.
It is through competition in knowledge that the Republic got to where it is today, he noted.

Don't crowd bright students in a handful of top schools: Ngiam

Jasmine Yinjasmine@mediacorp.com.sg

EVEN after retirement, one of Singapore's most prominent former civil servants cannot resist bringing up a pet topic whenever he bumps into the political leadership.
.
The Republic's best and brightest should be "spread out" across the public and private sectors — and across schools — believes former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow (picture), 70.
.
Trained by different mentors and with diverse sets of thinking and skills, they would then be in good stead to tackle the challenges of a highly-competitive world.
.
For instance, bright Primary 6 school-leavers should be sent to different schools, instead of congregating at a handful of top schools.
.
"It's very dangerous to hot-house them ... I think we should spread out our talents … to support a stronger country.
.
"I'm still trying whenever I meet the younger ministers. I try to tell them … but so far, I don't think I'm making much headway," he said, to laughter, in reply to a question at a lecture on Friday organised by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
.
He has a similar concern about government scholars.
.
Recalling a discussion with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew "long ago", Mr Ngiam said he had asked if it was necessary for everyone to serve their bond in the public sector, as opposed to allowing some scholarship holders to work in the private sector.
.
After all, they are still working in Singapore for the country, he had argued.
.
Mr Lee, in turn, questioned the availability of talent in the civil service to accommodate such an arrangement, among other points of dissent.
.
"Intellectually, MM Lee could not accept such an argument," said Mr Ngiam, who retired from the civil service in 1999 after a 40-year career.
.
Over time, though, the public sector has changed, and Mr Lee even said three years ago that the public sector is too talent-heavy, and suggested that half its scholars should be released into the private sector after six or seven years.
.
Currently, there are also selected private-sector attachment schemes for government scholars.
.
Mr Ngiam, the chairman of Surbana Corporation, the privatised arm of the Housing and Development Board, gave the thumbs-up to the Government's focus on education.
.
"As a tax-paying citizen, I do not begrudge for one moment the billions of dollars we are spending on our schools, polytechnics and universities," said the mandarin who became the youngest-ever Permanent Secretary in 1972, at age 35.
.
Equal opportunities for education are the "well-spring of Singapore's social and economic success" and form the "bedrock of the social compact between the Government and the people", he pointed out.
.
It is through competition in knowledge that the Republic got to where it is today, he noted.
Don't crowd bright students in a handful of top schools: Ngiam

Jasmine Yinjasmine@mediacorp.com.sg

EVEN after retirement, one of Singapore's most prominent former civil servants cannot resist bringing up a pet topic whenever he bumps into the political leadership.
.
The Republic's best and brightest should be "spread out" across the public and private sectors — and across schools — believes former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow (picture), 70.
.
Trained by different mentors and with diverse sets of thinking and skills, they would then be in good stead to tackle the challenges of a highly-competitive world.
.
For instance, bright Primary 6 school-leavers should be sent to different schools, instead of congregating at a handful of top schools.
.
"It's very dangerous to hot-house them ... I think we should spread out our talents … to support a stronger country.
.
"I'm still trying whenever I meet the younger ministers. I try to tell them … but so far, I don't think I'm making much headway," he said, to laughter, in reply to a question at a lecture on Friday organised by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
.
He has a similar concern about government scholars.
.
Recalling a discussion with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew "long ago", Mr Ngiam said he had asked if it was necessary for everyone to serve their bond in the public sector, as opposed to allowing some scholarship holders to work in the private sector.
.
After all, they are still working in Singapore for the country, he had argued.
.
Mr Lee, in turn, questioned the availability of talent in the civil service to accommodate such an arrangement, among other points of dissent.
.
"Intellectually, MM Lee could not accept such an argument," said Mr Ngiam, who retired from the civil service in 1999 after a 40-year career.
.
Over time, though, the public sector has changed, and Mr Lee even said three years ago that the public sector is too talent-heavy, and suggested that half its scholars should be released into the private sector after six or seven years.
.
Currently, there are also selected private-sector attachment schemes for government scholars.
.
Mr Ngiam, the chairman of Surbana Corporation, the privatised arm of the Housing and Development Board, gave the thumbs-up to the Government's focus on education.
.
"As a tax-paying citizen, I do not begrudge for one moment the billions of dollars we are spending on our schools, polytechnics and universities," said the mandarin who became the youngest-ever Permanent Secretary in 1972, at age 35.
.
Equal opportunities for education are the "well-spring of Singapore's social and economic success" and form the "bedrock of the social compact between the Government and the people", he pointed out.
.
It is through competition in knowledge that the Republic got to where it is today, he noted.
Don't crowd bright students in a handful of top schools: Ngiam

Jasmine Yinjasmine@mediacorp.com.sg

EVEN after retirement, one of Singapore's most prominent former civil servants cannot resist bringing up a pet topic whenever he bumps into the political leadership.
.
The Republic's best and brightest should be "spread out" across the public and private sectors — and across schools — believes former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow (picture), 70.
.
Trained by different mentors and with diverse sets of thinking and skills, they would then be in good stead to tackle the challenges of a highly-competitive world.
.
For instance, bright Primary 6 school-leavers should be sent to different schools, instead of congregating at a handful of top schools.
.
"It's very dangerous to hot-house them ... I think we should spread out our talents … to support a stronger country.
.
"I'm still trying whenever I meet the younger ministers. I try to tell them … but so far, I don't think I'm making much headway," he said, to laughter, in reply to a question at a lecture on Friday organised by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
.
He has a similar concern about government scholars.
.
Recalling a discussion with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew "long ago", Mr Ngiam said he had asked if it was necessary for everyone to serve their bond in the public sector, as opposed to allowing some scholarship holders to work in the private sector.
.
After all, they are still working in Singapore for the country, he had argued.
.
Mr Lee, in turn, questioned the availability of talent in the civil service to accommodate such an arrangement, among other points of dissent.
.
"Intellectually, MM Lee could not accept such an argument," said Mr Ngiam, who retired from the civil service in 1999 after a 40-year career.
.
Over time, though, the public sector has changed, and Mr Lee even said three years ago that the public sector is too talent-heavy, and suggested that half its scholars should be released into the private sector after six or seven years.
.
Currently, there are also selected private-sector attachment schemes for government scholars.
.
Mr Ngiam, the chairman of Surbana Corporation, the privatised arm of the Housing and Development Board, gave the thumbs-up to the Government's focus on education.
.
"As a tax-paying citizen, I do not begrudge for one moment the billions of dollars we are spending on our schools, polytechnics and universities," said the mandarin who became the youngest-ever Permanent Secretary in 1972, at age 35.
.
Equal opportunities for education are the "well-spring of Singapore's social and economic success" and form the "bedrock of the social compact between the Government and the people", he pointed out.
.
It is through competition in knowledge that the Republic got to where it is today, he noted.
http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com/2007/03/about-anglo-chinese-school-and-why.html

In support of Li Hongyi

Hi Friends,

After reading the complete account about Li Hongyi’s email (thanks to takchek.blogspot.com), I must say that I am in support of Li’s actions.

If we ignore the fact that he is PM’s son, what he had done was very idealistic though it may not be in line with established MINDEF procedure. About Mindef procedures... have we forgotten nebulous SAF laws such as “… conduct unbecoming of a SAF personnel.. etc” .

Anyone from a general to the recruit can be charged for having "conduct unbecoming of SAF... " and how many men had been thrown into the guard room on those charges? Uncountable! and no one can even tell us what "unbecoming conduct" actually meant ! How convenient.

(Dr.Huang (14.7.07 8pm)- I just remember the convenient catch-all law that the SAF uses to charge servicemen when more specific charges are not available. It is "conduct prejudicial to the SAF.. blah blah blah" Anyway, you get the idea.)

My personal opinion is that as we are already short of idealism, one more idealist is better than one less. ( Call me naïve or any other name you want).

I know I have my work cut out for me and will spend the next few days taking my foot out of my mouth as I get flames from fellow netizens, ... but that’s life.

Oh yes, I also sent another Dear Editor letter to the forum pages.

Cheers,

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan


Letter to the editors of ST & Today

July 13, 2007

Dear Editor,

Re: About 2Lt Li’s whistle blowing

I disagree with Mindef’s reprimanding 2Lt Li Hongyi.

Li brought the matter of a derelict fellow officer up through the proper channels but was met with typical bureaucratic red tape and inaction.

Instead of tossing his hands up in defeat and become cynical like most, Li did what only an idealistic person would do. He doggedly pursued the matter further and now suffers the consequences for this.

I know a reprimand sounds like a tap on the knuckle but it is an official black mark nonetheless.

This official reprimand sends an erroneous signal to the citizens that if even the PM’s son cannot beat the system, it would be folly for lesser mortals to try.

It is only idealists who dare challenge age-old traditions and who will most likely be the ones to slaughter the venerated sacred cows.

This reminds me of a similar incident in my old reservist unit.

A fellow officer bypassed the proper channels and wrote a letter of complaint directly to the Defence Minister. As expected, the matter was looked into and resolved expeditiously, but not before many feathers were ruffled and boats rocked.

That whistle blower was unexpectedly and summarily promoted to the next higher rank and he is still the only instance in the Army Medical Corp’s recent history in which an officer had been promoted without attending an advanced officers’ course (a sort of battlefield promotion)!

2Lt Li deserves no less and not because he is the PM’s son, but because he did the right thing!

If there are more idealistic young people like Li, there is hope yet!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan