Private Educational Organisations- Accountability needed in the system

Hi friends,

I have written to Straits Times Forum about the ongoing debacle that has struck Singapore’s Private Education System.

I have strong feelings about this as I had enrolled in 2 Private Educational Organisations (PEO) in the past 3-4 years ( and I enjoyed it).

The first PEO was an University of London accredited college and I spent one year on the London School of Economics (external program). I then jumped track after one year and embarked on a PEO which helped me get my MBA with a university in south Australia.

I guess I was lucky as I was not fleeced by PEO’s who were degree-mills ( unlike Brookes Business School).

I made many friends in both institutions and what struck me most was that these students who are already disadvantaged ( as most of them are there by default as the official Uni’s -NUS/NTU/SMU, had either rejected them or made it not practical to enroll in), now face risks of wasting time in degree mills and being victims of scams.

In the Bachelor’s program, my classmates were mainly polytechnic graduates (20-30 years olds) trying to advance their careers with a recognizable degree ( UOL-LSE) and despite the gulf in age, we had a great time. I had to do Maths/Stats/Econs/Marketing/Accounting with people less than half my age! I think only one or two lecturers were older than I. haha.

In the MBA program, my classmates were a mixture of locals and foreignors, degree holders as well as mature polytechnic graduates. Only Mr. S.A. was older than O and I! Projects and presentations were the order of the day and we survived it and most of us convocated in Adelaide last year. ( we also had wine and song ( no women) there!).

However,there are many who are not as lucky as us and we read about them in the Brookes saga and in so many horror stories that I cannot recall these PEO's names as they come and go as surely as the wind.

I honestly feel that if some people were not sleeping on their jobs, there would have been less broken hearts and dreams.

To those in the PEO system, please fight on. Don’t let the system's failure distract you from your dreams and aspirations. Yes you can! ( even pass Statistics & Accounting)

The letter to the Forum page demanding accountability

July 26, 2009

Dear editor,

Singapore’s reputation as a hub of educational excellence had been dealt a serious dent, by what I can only describe as, a string of gaffes which I do not expect from our efficient civil service and government related bodies.

Involvement of Case;EDB;Spring Singapore;MTI

I refer to Sunday Times’ write-up yesterday (Academic checks not our job: Case), where Case (Consumer Association of Singapore) disavowed any responsibility for ensuring academic excellence in the Private Educational Organisations (PEO) who pay money to be accredited with the Casetrust mark, without which these PEO’s would not have been able to enrol foreign students.

Case’ executive director, Mr. Seah Seng Choon, also explained that in 2004, Economic Development Board (EDB) developed the Education Excellence Framework which consisted of three components: organizational excellence; academic excellence and excellence in student protection and welfare practices and that Casetrust’s purview was limited to the last component. Organizational excellence was run by Spring Singapore and most tellingly, an accreditation council which was supposed to be set up by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to oversee the academic component, ensuring delivery of quality programmes by the PEO’s, did not “materialize” despite official EDB press statements.

In essence, one leg of the tripod was missing, hence contributing to the present pathetic saga amongst PEO’s.

Involvement of MOE

Furthermore, Australia’s RMIT had officially complained to our Ministry of Education in April 2007 about Brooke’s false claims and Senior Minister of State for Education, Mr. S Iswaran, revealed to parliament recently, that apart from warning Brookes two months later, no further significant action was taken by MOE.

Accountability and explanations please!

Although the main culprit is obviously Brookes, Singapore’s public and students left in the lurch by the Brookes saga still deserve a coherent explanation of how the implementation of a much heralded public policy had failed and the interests of stakeholders of Singapore’s private educational system were left unprotected.

I totally understand why these students feel let down. After all, they had put their faith in Case and other official bodies only to find out after the fact that Singapore’s reputation as an efficient and well-oiled city-state was to them, more imaginary than real.

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

UNSW finally starting to do the right thing?

Hi Friends,

From the Australian media, UNSW has apparently come out with a substantially improved package for those UNSW Asia campus students who had fallen victim due to UNSW's poor management decision and its subsequent flip-flop.

UNSW may finally be taking the correct steps to right a wrong.

I do not think my comments to UNSW ( which I wrote to UNSW or someone close to it) had anything to do with this turnaround?

I said ( in comments in my blog),

“It is a moot point but this wouldn’t have been necessary if UNSW had not pulled the plug.

I am sure famous case studies like the "New Coke" market failure and how Johnson & Johnson dealt with the aftermath of the Tylenol poisoning episode showed all of us how to behave in a damage control situation.

Those students are victims- overwhelm them with “goodies” so that UNSW would come out of this smelling of roses. How many students are there?- 143 plus foundation students and UNSW seems tardy and reluctant to assist them unreservedly. Why split hairs about non-Singaporeans and Singaporeans? Think about the goodwill gained if they get more than they asked for! Anyway it is a once off and UNSW is unlikely to do any silly things like this in Prof's lifetime right?”
End of quote

Now UNSW would not be labeled as being “Penny Wise-Pound Foolish” and these latest steps may go some way in repairing its damaged reputation.

So, is the EDB going to come clean too? Damage control lessons like the J&J case also applies for Singapore Government agencies.

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

The article

UNSW to assist Singapore campus students
The Age June 2

The University of NSW will pay students up to $85,000 to study in Sydney after the collapse of its Singapore campus.

Up to 148 students who enrolled at the campus will have their travel, visa and accommodation costs in Sydney covered by the university until the end of their degrees, with students to receive as much as $85,000 each.

The university will compensate a further 126 students with return airfares to Australia and a year's housing after the collapse of the Tanglin campus, which may end up costing the university more than $40 million in lost revenue, compensation and redundancies, Fairfax reports on Saturday.

The university had anticipated first semester enrolments of 300 and the shortfall was expected to cost $15 million in revenue.

UNSW Vice-Chancellor Fred Hilmer said the university had spent $17.5 million on the campus before it opened.

An Australian academic, who wanted to remain anonymous, told Fairfax many professors had given up senior positions to move to Singapore.

He said the reputation of UNSW and other Australian universities had been damaged by the collapse.

"UNSW has killed off any hope of ever marketing itself as an international university, certainly in our lifetime," he said.

"It has been a monumental mismanagement."

UNSW student representative council president Jesse Young said it was a disappointing waste of taxpayers money that could have been spent on the Sydney campus.

A team of people from the university have flown to Singapore to help students with visas.
© 2007 AAP

Did EDB give too much to lure UNSW here? or "Ang Mo Tuah Liap"

Hi Friends,

The article below from Channelnewsasia.com represents what I think is a balanced view of the whole UNSW saga.

It seems to many that UNSW had been allowed to come and go as it pleases without a thought for responsibility of its actions.

It apparently decided that it had a good deal going and after signing some MOU’s amidst great fanfare embarked on UNSW Asia.

However, just as quickly, it decided to pull the plug after a new Vice-Chancellor had come on board.

Just like that. No different from going to the store and then changing one’s mind and returning home.

But the fallout is much more complex than that. Unlike flip-flopping about going to the store, there are real people who are hurt by UNSW's change of heart.

Who does UNSW think it is? What kind of institution makes major decisions over a 30 second period ( as mentioned in some news reports) and then at the whims and fancy of some head honcho, just decides to pack up and go as if nothing had happened?

And what kind of institution is EDB to allow UNSW to treat us like dirt?

Before signing on the dotted line, does EDB not have legal teams to pore over the minutiae in the MOU’s/contracts to ensure that this exact situation does not arise? So is someone from EDB going to take responsibility for this fiasco? I do not expect any official to commit Hara-kiri like the Japanese, but an apology would be nice.

Otherwise, what are we telling the whole world about Singapore?- that we will stoop as low as we need to get your business? Have we joined the world’s oldest profession- Whoring?

Is it still “ Ang moh tuah liap” Hokkien for “The white man’s is bigger”?

Suddenly, I feel very inadequate as a Singaporean.

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

The faculty of accountability (Channelnewasia.com 30th May 07)
By Siew Kum Hong- I just found out that the article is by Siew ( no wonder it is SO GOOD!) 31.5.07

Anger, disbelief, fear, shock and tears. Those were just some of the reactions to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Asia's announcement that it was giving up after just one term.

Even as UNSW, the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other educational institutions (including the three local universities) continue to try to help UNSW students deal with the aftermath, there are other issues that merit debate on a more macro level.

The first concerns the accountability of government agencies.

The MOE had reportedly played an important role in attracting UNSW to Singapore in the first place. Furthermore, all private schools must register with the MOE.

Yet, when students and parents wanted to meet with the latter after UNSW's decision, the MOE's response was that UNSW had ultimate responsibility.

As for the EDB, it had sealed the deal with UNSW and had invested heavily in the project. Yet, it has declined to reveal the losses resulting from UNSW's pullout.

While disclosing the figures could affect the EDB's bargaining position in future negotiations with other universities, the fact remains that this is taxpayers' money. The Financial Times has reported the amount to be as high as $80 million.

The EDB has also not provided information on how the deal was structured. What sort of guarantees and commitments were extracted from UNSW? How could UNSW simply quit after just one term, when construction work on the new campus was already underway, apparently without having to pay compensation?

Did we give away too much to lure UNSW here?

The onus is on the EDB to explain what had happened and give an indication of our losses, while not compromising its ability to negotiate future deals.

Its continued silence does not sit well with Singaporeans, particularly in light of the Public Accounts Committee's recent findings of significant lapses in the EDB's internal controls and governance.

Singaporeans expect greater accountability from ministers and civil servants, given the recent public service pay hike. The handling of this case may not have met the enhanced standards expected by the public.

A more fundamental question concerns the Singapore model, which relies heavily on foreign investments to drive the economy. UNSW's departure demonstrates the risks inherent in playing this game, especially in an increasingly globalised world where competitors are everywhere and funds come and go easily.

Investors are understandably fickle, coming to seek returns and leaving if there are none. As with UNSW and other multinational corporations, when they pull out, Singaporeans have to pick up the pieces, whether they be lost jobs, missed opportunities or dashed dreams.

This could come without warning, such as when there is a management change and hardnosed businessmen such as UNSW vice-chancellor Professor Fred Hilmer disagree with the previous decisions made.

So long as we persist with this economic model, the risk will remain. I am not saying we should abandon this model — it has served us well in the past, and it could continue to work for the future.

But we have to be aware of the inherent risks, make sure our eyes are open to what could happen if things go wrong, and do our best to mitigate the risks.

Just as foreign investments have a multiplier effect on the economy, the negative repercussions of capital outflows will similarly be amplified.

And that brings us back to the EDB's role in attracting investments. Yes, capital should be able to flow in and out of Singapore freely, and we cannot stop an investor from leaving.

But surely it is not too much to ask that where public funds are spent to entice foreign investments, we also extract some assurances and commitments to stay in Singapore. This not only minimises the wastage of taxpayers' money, but also mitigates the risk of lives being disrupted by premature departures.

Ultimately, our model of foreign investments requires us to keep foreign investors happy, to ensure that the business case presented is realistic and justifiable, and to ensure a long-term binding commitment.

But, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the need to grow indigenous players who can compete internationally while retaining local roots.

Otherwise, we will always remain hostage to the whims of foreign investors.
- /so

UNSW exits before it enters: Shocking!

Hi Friends,

Shocking news!

UNSW is withdrawing from Singapore- even before it had actually started its campus!

It is not surprising to me.

1.The idea of an education in an overseas instutition must surely be the experience of tasting life overseas! Ask yourself, who would pay the same amount as another undergrad in Sydney, yet study in Singapore?

Answer:

i. Singapore Kids still tied to mama’s apron string.

ii Those parents who think that Sydney is so dangerous that only safe sterile Singapore is good enough for their kids

iii Foreigners who fall for the spin about Singapore being the gateway to China.

If one wants a Australian degree in Singapore, there are already so many options now. Many Australian programs are already co-hosted by Singaporean partners eg APMI Kaplan for University of South Australia, and they cost a fraction of UNSW’s deal and their programs are quite well run . I know because I am doing the MBA by U of South Australia at APMI. ( I am assuming their undergrad program is as good as their post-grad one)

Anyway, options for tertiary education are so varied now!

1.Local universities : National University of Singapore; Nanyang Technological University; Singapore Management University. Although I was from NUS, I am really excited about what’s happening at SMU!

2.Singaporean polytechnics followed by local U’s or better still- overseas universities

3.Overseas U’s – either straight after O levels or A levels and for Singapore boys, after National Service.

Anyway, I am a freak for life-long education, so my eyes light up whenever I read anything related to education. Any other such freaks out there?

Regarding the UNSW retreat, University of Warwick must be feeling smug now and saying " I told you so!"

Cheers,

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

University of New South Wales Singapore campus to shut in June
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 23 May 2007 1715 hrs

SINGAPORE: The University of New South Wales (UNSW) will close its campus in Singapore next month.

The announcement came less than two months after its grand opening.

The school said it was facing a financial shortfall of $15 million a year due to lower-than-anticipated student enrolment numbers. Its target was 300 students in its first semester.

But it only got 148 students, 100 of whom are Singaporeans.

If it were to continue building its campus in Changi, it would have to borrow $140 million.

The school said both factors led to an unsustainable financial burden and it decided to call it quits in Singapore.

Students have already paid their fees, which range between S$26,000 and S$29,000 a year.

UNSW says these students will be offered a place at its home campus in Sydney.

There will also be scholarships to help with the cost of travel and accommodation.

UNSW has already invested over S$22 million (A$17.5 million) in its Singapore campus.

It was invited by Singapore's Economic Development Board in 2004 to establish what would have been the first private comprehensive university in Singapore.

The EDB had said the school was expected to contribute at least $500 million a year to the economy in direct spending. The EDB refuses to reveal how much it invested in the school.

The episode is clearly damaging to Singapore's aim to be a global schoolhouse.

But the EDB, which drives the global schoolhouse initiatives, believes it will still reach its target of attracting 150,000 international students by 2015.

There are currently 80,000 foreign students in Singapore.

Aw Kah Peng, EDB's Assistant Managing Director, said: "The learning point is that we have to continue working very hard. Truly, with every institution, it will be different. With each one, we have to put everything we can to think about all these issues of whether we can make it work, how long it will take for us to make it work, what will it take for us to make it work. We will then have to step forward on that basis."

UNSW says it would have stayed on in Singapore if it has been allowed to scale down its student enrolment numbers to 2,000 students by 2012.

But this would be quite far from the original bargain with the EDB which had set a target of 15,000 UNSW students by 2020.

The UNSW closure does not mean that the EDB will no longer work with the school.

The EDB says there are many areas of cooperation between UNSW and Singapore which are mutually beneficial.

These include foundation schooling for university entry, research collaborations, University of New South Wales school competitions and joint programmes with Singapore institutions.

EDB says it will continue to pursue these areas and strengthen its relationship with UNSW. - CNA/ir

Education & Children- Food for thought

April 19, 2007
Parents should allow their kids to follow their hearts and not their brains
By Heng Cho Choon

Online forum Straits Times

I WAS attracted to the Review article, 'Einstein: The patron saint of distracted schoolkids' (ST, April 13), in which the writer advocated the importance of imagination and creativity.

Be that as it may, it may be pertinent to note that Einstein's road to success was paved with cobblestones of failures for in 1895 he failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich.

Nonetheless, he went on to win the Nobel prize in 1921 for his theories in Theoretical Physics and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.

Sim Wong Hoo's theory of NUTS (No U-Turn Syndrome) may be food for thought for our Ministry of Education officials as our schoolkids and civil servants have grown used to the entrenched culture of NUTS.

In the US, when there is no sign on the road, it means that you can make a U-turn. In Singapore it is the reverse. When there is no sign on the road, you are not allowed to make a U-turn. When the authorities allow you to make U-turns then they will put up signs to give you that right.

The end result is that the social behaviour of Singaporeans is unique for their mindset is one of unquestioning conformity to higher authorities before taking any action. The tenet, 'If it ain't broke don't fix it', is pervasive in our society.

The recent triumph of the United World College in the 'Arena' debate series clearly shows its superiority in elocutionary skills. Its students out-talked the best debaters from Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Institution as they were able to think out of the box and were fast and furious in their rebuttals.

Steven Paul Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple, is now the largest shareholder of Disney and is considered a leading figure in both the computer and entertainment industries.

In 1972, Jobs graduated from high school and enrolled in Reed College in Oregon but he dropped out after only one semester. When years later he was invited to give a speech at Stanford University he spoke frankly about his opinions on entrepreneurship, work and life. He reflected on what kept him going through challenging times.

'I am convinced that the only thing that kept me going is that I loved what I did. You have got to find what you love.' He spoke of the importance of 'following your own inner voice'. The message is that parents should allow their kids to follow their hearts and not their brains.

Enrico Fermi won the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on induced radioactivity. He once said: 'There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery.'

Our school kids should be taught to formulate their own hypotheses and learn to question what they have learnt from the teacher and their textbooks.

Heng Cho Choon

My comments:

Dear friends,

I read this nice and succinct letter to the online forum page by Mr. Heng.

It more or less encapsulates what I feel about education and Singapore life.

I have already ranted about this topic before, so I will just spare you guys the agony this once.

But not before quoting Mark Twain:

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Cheers

Dr. Huang Shoou Chyuan

On education: A Touchy subject for some!!

Hi friends,

Mdm Lam Mun Wai’s letter (Which school would students rather be in? 17 Mar 07) seems to have touched some raw nerves.

Steffen Toh Hai Chew (A different - positive - view of S'pore schools) and Kenneth Cheng Jing Wen (This student is happy to be in a local school) were moved to write with a stout defence of the status quo. But why?

Our education system good but…

No one would argue that our education system has not done well. After all, do not we hear of the Yanks using our Maths textbooks? Also do not our kids top many maths and science Olympiads? It is not a secret anymore that RJC has more successful applicants into Ivy League colleges than many very expensive and exclusive “prep” colleges stateside.

So, is Mdm Lam just talking nonsense? Does the end justify the means and hence, we should continue educating our kids the same way we ourselves were taught?

Although I personally feel that Mdm Lam was a tad generous in her praise of the International school system, (and conversely made some sweeping statements about local schools), there is much that she has written that holds true for some parents ( at least anecdotally).

Only anecdotal evidence?

How many times have I heard from my friends that their children have actually started to look forward to going to school after they transferred out of the local school system.

(NB: Some non-local schools that I am talking about include United World College/Overseas Family School/S’pore Amercan School (now famous for having educated MM Lee’s grandson)/ ACS ( International) etc).

Of course, if one is mean, one would claim that such positive comments from these parents are biased as they probably would not tell you that transferring the child was a move that they have regretted and that it was all an expensive mistake. Perhaps, just like a punter who only tells about the 4-D winnings and never ever mentioning how much he had lost on a regular basis over the years.

My personal gut feelings

I am in sympathy with Mdm Lam on many points and would recommend the following:

We should allow more individual expressions and not “worship” conformity. We should pay more attention to the process of learning more than just the accumulation of facts that students regurgitate in the examinations.

How many questions did you ask today?”

Teachers should welcome questioning students and not wish them away like pests.

I read somewhere that Jewish parents would ask their children ,” How many questions did you ask today?” in contrast to “ Did you get 100 marks today?” or “ Did you answer all your questions correctly today?”

And what’s wrong with loosening up? And why is it that with so many single-session schools that lessons still have to start at 7.30 am ?

And…

Fatal attraction for TUITION?

Why do our parents spend millions ( at least) on tuition for the same subjects that our teachers are already paid (well) to teach? Extra classes should be for enrichment of the arts/music and other stuff that schools do not have time or resources for.

What say you?

Cheers,

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

PS: I am posting this via email as my blogger is really and truly screwed-up. So some features ( like links etc) may not work. And… I can’t edit it once I post it!!

Lam Mun Wai (Mdm)’s letter that sparked this debate:

Which school would students rather be in?

LET me contrast the approaches taken by an international school and an autonomous school in Singapore.

Guess which school offers customer-service orientation to parents and students (teachers respect students and do not scream at them); later-starting school hours; curriculum that allows learning to take place (teach less, learn more); good and motivated teachers; small class sizes; no pressure on students/

staff to win accolades (the journey is more important than the destination); minimal homework and tests/

exams; hiphop dancing exercise for PE and, best of all, cellphone and laptop usage.

Students and parents are welcome to see the teachers and the principal himself whenever possible - no bureaucratic system to block access, even the security is friendly.

The typical Singapore school's philosophy is that 'children should be seen and not heard'. The moment they arrive in school, they have to sit down quietly in the hall to read. During recess, there is no time to play. They are not allowed to talk in class (too noisy). Small wonder many do not grow up articulate and find school to be, at best, a forgettable experience.

Shoes, socks and hair pose no big issues in the international school (don't sweat the small stuff). Students are free to show individualism (and do they look good). But not the stern Singapore school - it wants the students to look like factory-produced robots. I do not think this is the only way to instil discipline. I recall the time I had to go out late at night to buy white school shoes with laces for my child (velcro not allowed).

Education should reflect changes in the workplace and society - including cellphone usage. Everyone is using cellphones everywhere, except in our conservative schools. How do you expect students to learn to use their phones properly in public if they are not allowed to do so in school? Education is also about teaching them responsible use of the phone during lessons.

Ultimately, it boils down to mindset and how a school manages the students. It is time for the local schools to loosen up.

By the way, ask the international school students if they are happy and the answer is an affirmative 'Yes'. The students also do reasonably well academically, in case you wonder.

Lam Mun Wai (Mdm)

And two responses that I feel where “knee-jerky” and excessively “defensive”

March 20, 2007

A different - positive - view of S'pore schools

IN THE letter, 'Which school would students rather be in?' (ST, March 17), Mdm Lam Mun Wai made a comparison between an international school and an autonomous school in Singapore, and concluded that the former was superior to the typical Singapore school in every respect.

The picture that she paints of this international school is indeed very appealing.

Yet, as someone who has been on both the receiving and delivering end of this system, I find her observations to be overly negative and sweeping.

I offer my perspective of local schools instead: students are encouraged to talk in class, if they do so productively; they often play during recess; they express their individualism even while adhering to the dress code; and school, for many of them, is an unforgettable experience.

Also, should one judge the system that an international school has adopted against one that has to serve all Singapore schools?

It would make a lot more sense to compare the said international school with other international schools, or perhaps with Singaporean international schools abroad.

Having taught in a commercial school abroad, I have noted that there are fundamental differences in philosophy between the two.

They have different amounts and sources of funds, different priorities and cater to a different segment of the population. A customer-service orientation is practised, not as a matter of principle but out of necessity, as parents are paying a lot more to keep their children in school.

Singapore schools, even autonomous ones, need to fulfil national needs to a certain extent. Our education system and philosophy is the way it is today because a workforce that was skilled and efficient, if slightly programmed, was essential to our survival.

It is true that the workplace has evolved and education should also change to keep up, which is why changes and new initiatives have been introduced.

It is perhaps easy to be cynical about initiatives such as Teach Less, Learn More, but we have to start somewhere.

Schools have been given more autonomy, but it would be unfair and unrealistic, not to mention dangerous, to expect a revolution.

The subject of use of cellphones in the classroom will likely pit two equally passionate camps against each other.

In the meantime, we should allow schools the time to come to their own conclusions based on their own sets of criteria.

Steffen Toh Hai Chew

March 20, 2007

This student is happy to be in a local school

I REFER to the letter by Mdm Lam Mun Wai, 'Which school would students rather be in?' (ST, March 17). As a student in a local secondary school, I would like to correct some of the misperceptions the writer has about local schools.

She wrote that students and parents of international schools 'are welcome to see the teachers and the principal himself whenever possible - no bureaucratic system to block access, even the security is friendly'. It is no different in local schools. In fact, many principals are now encouraging students and parents to give them feedback about the school directly - something which I do constantly.

The writer also bristled at the stern rules and regulations in Singapore schools, while 'shoes, socks and hair pose no big issues in the international school'. I shudder to think what would have become of our schools if these stern regulations were non-existent. We certainly would not want to see students sporting outlandish hairdos or tinting their hair bright pink, would we?

The writer also questioned how students can learn to use their phones properly in public if they are not allowed to do so in school.

I beg to differ. If the use of mobile phones in schools is allowed, students would be too distracted to pay attention in class.

Moreover, there is no 'responsible use of the phone during lessons'. To use the phone during lessons already indicates a serious lack of respect for the teacher.

School rules shape students to become morally-upright, law-abiding and socially-responsible citizens.

And just in case the writer wonders, I am happy to be in a local school.

Kenneth Cheng Jing Wen