PSLE is Dead, Long Live PSLE! WTF?

PM Lee said PSLE is no more, or rather repackaged it a bit some time down in the future. When nobody knows. As PM said, as we all know already from kopitiam uncles to NUS academics, to decide a child's education path and fate at 12 on PSLE results is outright meaningless, however "meritocratic" it is.

Whether it is good or not, depends on whether you think the PSLE is similar to O Levels or not is good. The stress to students and their parents is still there, just that instead of the knee shaking T-score, it is now the nail-biting point system A1 - 1 point A2 - 2 points etc. Smokes and mirrors. LPPL. Anyway, PSLE is just a cultural Albatross around parents' necks. Parents conform to the belief that PSLE is the be all and end all in their children's education what. Even if they claim they don't believe in it, they participate in the chase nonetheless. The reason, if you speak to a friend, uncle, aunty, brother, sister who is a parent of a P6 kid, is that if they don't strive, there is a risk their boyboy or girlgirl would fall behind as other children and parents are way ahead hothousing for 4 A*.  LOL Time to run faster on the hamster wheel.

NDR 2013: PSLE scores to use wide bands for grades like O' levels
Tham Yuen-C

The PSLE T-score, long a source of stress for students and parents, will eventually be removed and replaced with bands similar to those used for O' and A' levels, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday.

He said the move was to the remove the fine distinctions in the T-score and ease excessive competition to chase every point: "An A* is still an A*, whether you score 91 marks or 99 marks."

The move would not take place immediately, however. He said it would take several years to do.

Calling the PSLE one of the most important examinations, he said that many believe it "determines a large part of a student's future", and felt tremendous stress. Doing away with the T-score would help to lessen this pressure, said Mr Lee who added that he does not know his own PSLE score.

When he took the exams in 1963, the scores were kept confidential, he said, and students were only told whether they had passed or failed and which school they were posted to. "Luckily I passed," he quipped.

The changes to PSLE scoring, though, will only kick in in a few years time.

In an effort to make sure that top secondary schools are accessible to more students, the Ministry of Education will also broaden Direct School Admissions categories, he said.

With this change, "special qualities" such as character, resilience, drive and leadership, will also be considered in admitting students into these schools.

Another change Mr Lee announced will let all secondary one students take a subject at a higher level. But this is provided they have done well in it in the PSLE.

Currently, only students in upper secondary levels are allowed to do so.

This will provide more flexibility in tailoring their education to their abilities and development, he said.

Polys Are Jewels, Real or Bluff?

Polys are now different from before. Years ago when porn meant smuggling in Penthouse magazines from overseas instead of just surfing for it on your LTE phone, polys were meant for those who could not make it into JCs. Polys were for those who cannot make it academically and were to be drafted into the technical skills-based blue-collared workforce. JC was the path into local universities and that was it.

Nowadays, the demographics of poly students is more varied. More of the O level students if they know what industry they want to end up in life, chose to go into polys. So as to get a head start on the practical aspects of their preferred industry, even though they could make it into a branded JC. Polys were also how less stellar students hedged their career crossroads, they get a diploma first and if they really cut it academically, can then go to university overseas if they have papamama scholarhsip. They can even get into the local unis if they are top what, 10% in their cohort, despite NUS saying that this quota is an urban legend. Disadvantaged compared to JC students still. How many president scholars are from polys BTW?

The new LKC medicine school in NTU is interviewing prospective students from polys and JCs. How many do you think would be from polys? In NUS, how many poly grads are admitted into law and medicine school? In fact, how many poly grads apply for and are enrolled in NTU and NUS compared to JC students? Nonetheless, the new Singapore Institute of Technology and Singapore University of Technology and Design seems like it would be much more open to poly grads than JC kids, so there's that too.

Polys are more relevant as a stepping stone tertiary education system with the 2 technical unis in the horizon. They still roll out grads with applied and ready skills for the industries. The grads however don't get paid as much as uni grads, although as tertiary grads they are paid better than A level and vocational ITE grads. BTW that's why poly kids such suck it up about their lack of transport concession as tertiary students stop comparing with JC students about cheaper bus or train fares. Back to the topic, with entry pay as the yardstick, polys grads are important, but they are not as valued as much as uni grads by employers. Polys are jewels in the education system, yes, but...

Polytechnics a ‘jewel’ in Singapore’s education system: PM
By Saifulbahri Ismail


SINGAPORE — While some polytechnic graduates may see their time at the institutions as the basis from which to upgrade themselves educationally and in their careers, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said they need not see a degree as the only avenue up, as he affirmed the role of polytechnics yesterday.

Speaking at Ngee Ann Polytechnic’s (NP) 50th anniversary dinner, Mr Lee called polytechnics a “jewel” in Singapore’s education system that offer a “first-rate” tertiary education for their students.

“They are high quality, practice-oriented technical training for jobs. They lay a solid academic foundation, especially in technical subjects in Maths and Science, for those who go on to further their studies,” Mr Lee said.

Those who choose to get a degree should not do so just to gain a paper qualification, but because of their interest in the subject and relevance to their future plans, he said, pointing to the diversity of NP’s Alumni Award winners, which shows that many other “good options” are available, such as working for a few years or starting a business.

These options allow graduates to gain experience and understand themselves better, and such life lessons will complement their education and help them go further in life, he added.

Mr Lee also reiterated the need to prepare students for the future as it makes a critical transition “amid a fast-changing and uncertain world”, and said the Government will continue to strengthen the polytechnic sector to ensure it continues to produce graduates with a wide range of skills.

In addition, he commended NP for developing in tandem with Singapore’s progress, first by offering diploma programmes in response to demand from industry as Singapore’s economy took off, and then expanding its role with a focus on hands-on, industry-oriented training, into a “vibrant” tertiary educational institution.

NP yesterday launched its fourth Strategic Plan, which aims to forge a closer nexus with industry.

As part of new initiatives, polytechnic students will form multidisciplinary teams while on attachments.

Ms Jeanne Liew, Registrar and Senior Director at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, said: “It could be, for example, engineering and business students coming together because engineering problems today may not just be engineering problems, it could be things like the business model, it could be marketing, it could be also the design of the product.”

NP will also introduce more overseas programmes to broaden students’ perspectives.

Rumpole is a Funny Actor!

WTF! Horny professor Tey aka Sammyboy Rumpole deserves a Razzies award for worst lead actor in a comedy. He is now back to playing stressed and insane victim in his courtroom comedy drama. He screwed his students, has a family-breaking mistress working in CRA and now looks like trying to bed the 2 lawyers working for him too! LOL

Aiyoyoh! Look at his crotch - looks like a hard on!

SDP Chee Soon Juan Purposely Sabo Yale-NUS!

Since Dr Chee Soon Juan is no longer a bankrupt, he can leave the country and the first thing he did, was to head over to the USA, and complain about Singapore. Which is not really new as he likes to whine and wring his hands about Singapore in front of foreigners, especially Americans. However the new twist is that he is complaining in Yale to Yale about the Yale-NUS College in Singapore and that it is a big bad thing for Yale as NUS and Singapore is a big bad place better left alone. Let me lay it out straight that I'm biased against SDP, so you know where I'm coming from.

Chee is also biased, let me lay it out. Biased against PAP which he often equates with Singapore, and biased against his former employer NUS. Let me explain if you have not joined the dots about his gritty personal vendetta dressed up as glam political reformation.

Chee was kicked out of NUS for ridiculous charges of making false taxi fare claims. Whatever. He was damn pissed as his former NUS boss Dr Vasoo was a PAP MP then and it was all a PAP-NUS conspiracy to fix him as Chee just entered politics and was, Chiam See Tong's protege in SDP. Ever since then, the former NUS lecturer turned Red politician has gone head to head with the PAP, providing good political black comedy to many onlookers as it made him and his archenemy the PAP look ridiculous at the same time, from his shouting in a market to him being dumbly sued constantly by the PAP. Since Chee is no longer a bankrupt, that means he can and will be sued to bankruptcy again so bring out the popcorn!

In a nutshell, this is why Chee is still upset with NUS and does not want a Yale collaboration. Even though it would benefit students here who would want a Yale experience, albeit in Singapore. Better than nothing if can't go all the way to Yale what. Even though it would benefit Singapore's education industry. Even though it would boost NUS' reputation and research. Even though Yale was promised that NUS would not inhibit academic freedom in the Yale-NUS college. Even though by Yale being here, it is the seed that would grow more critical Singaporeans who will see different sides to stories and be more balanced.

You don't hear the other opposition political parties complaining about Yale-NUS as they see the big picture. Chee doesn't see the big picture about Yale-NUS. He just sees it as a way to get back at his former employer, a personal grudge, nothing more. Serious.

NUS Disciplinary Board Bukkake on Alvin Tan

OK by talking cock about him, it only feeds his wanton desire for attention and publicity. He probably gets a woody every time he thinks people Google for his videos of him doing his gal or talks about his brazen sexcapades. But I can't help it. I have to say something especially since now Alvin Tan says he wants to cum back to NUS and study. I thought he earlier defiantly said he was going to screw NUS law school and dismissed with stoic bravado he doesn't need it as he was doing his own business? Err OK


I'm not a legs-shut-tight prude. If he wants to do his girlfriend and allow her to show her frightful-looking pussy to the world in photos and videos in the internet, so be it lor. I support amateur videos, so gotta give them credit for courage and confidence. OK the cynics would say it is instead stupidity and delusions. Anyway, weirdo Alvin should have realised the storm coming once his sex story would be out eventually.

And it was not a video in a handphone stolen by a jealous guy or lesbo gal who wanted to do Vivian but lost to Alvin. Neither was it that Alvin brought his PC for repair and the shop found the video and a community-spirited sharing-is-caring staff uploaded into the internet. He and Vivian did it - both sex and uploaded it themselves. Cum to think of it, they really did themselves in.

So how would NUS react this time. Sun Xu the Tiong MOE scholar was fined $3,000 and sentenced to 3 months community service for his Singaporeans=dogs comment. So for his so-called crime of sexing up NUS law school like Darinne Ko and Rumpole Teh Tsun Hang did, would NUS suspend Alvin Tan for 1 year as he brought disrepute to NUS, long enough to make people forget, and for him to decide to go to another university instead. That might be the best strategy for NUS - manage him out, not expel him outright.

Must Mind the Child-Care Sector

The childcare sector is a sensitive and popular topic as it is related to education and couples having more children/brats. Many parents bitch that it is too expensive to bring up a kid and childcare is neither convenient nor cheap. Blablablabla. Depends. PAP aka PCF kindergartens are cheap (less than $200/month), give out lots of homework and are everywhere in a void deck near you, but people want to send to those branded $1,000++ a month Eton or Pats what. Of course those are expensive! Other parents complain that it is stressful to bring up a child in Singapore's no-mercy stream and stream some more education system.  Then don't ask the government to put one leg into the childcare sector as it would be more stressful! Facepalm.

PAP promised during the rally that the government would use taxpayers' money to support and expand the anchor operators in the childcare sector. OK they didn't mention "taxpayers" but obviously it as where else is the money coming from.

Who are the anchor operators? They are - PCF (PAP) and NTUC (PAP)! On one hand it is good as there are standards and standardisation since 2 giants are getting into the pen. On the other hand, it crushes the competition. Once public money is pumped into PCF and NTUC and make these giants even bigger, from an unfair business competition understanding, small-medium childcare centres would bleed to death.

Hence, this is something I truly like about WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong, who is the SME champion and in the past, he complained about NTUC with its economies of scale and resources, finishing off SMEs retailers and service providers. SMEs are the foundation of Singapore's businesses and employers and they should be given their space to grow and innovate. In parliament, while it is hard to ignore that PCF and First Campus' expansion is good for parents, the WP NCMP said that it should not be at the expense of the little guy. Branded Eton, Pat, Julia Gabriel etc would not suffer as they target a different market and demand for them would not be affected as people would still be biased in favour of their supposed better quality childcare and education, compared to the anchor operators.

However, the other smaller childcare centres either the non-profit or the profit ones, would face unfair competition as public money is used to subsidise the anchor operators. Not the same but good to compare, think of SMRT and SBS and how crap they are because they don't have real competition. What the NCMP suggested in the end is that if public money is used, better than giving it to PCF or NTUC outright, it can be in the form of subsidies and rent control for childcare businesses if they meet strict conditions e.g. hygiene, staff-student ratio,

Proposal for transforming the child care sector

In the child care industry, there are many private operators, most with one or a few centres while several run chain stores.

We also have non-profit operators, dominated by NTUC First Campus and PCF Sparkletots. They are called Anchor Operators, so determined after an exercise in 2009. The criteria used included: (a) $5 million paid-up capital, (b) non-profit and (c) without any religious or racial affiliation.

Anchor Operators function mostly from HDB void decks, at rents of between $2 to $4 per square metre as disclosed by MCYS. For a typical centre of 400-500 sqm, this means monthly rent of $1,000 onwards. They receive generous set-up and furnishing grants for each new centre. In addition, Anchors get recurrent grant for manpower development and learning programmes which is estimated to go into $30 million per year.

MCYS publishes upcoming new centres from HDB and SLA. From its website, I see just a few centres available to private and non profit operators. Yet at the opening of the 100th NTUC centre in October last year, NTUC declared it will open 50 new centres over the next 2 years, which is one every fortnight. PCF too had been growing just as rapidly in the last three years. Just five years ago, PCF was a small child care player. Today, it is number 2 with 90 centres, just behind NTUC. The many new centres by these two do not match the very small number of published centres for non profit operators. Are they given unpublished quotas?

We are told that the role of non profit and Anchor operators is to bring cost down while maintaining quality.

Sir, there is no magic in non profit or in Anchor Operators. The lower fees they provide can be matched by private operators. I will now demonstrate that if private operators get the same benefits as non profit and indeed the Anchor Operators, they have shown that they could match the fees of non profit peers.

Financial modelling for child care is straightforward. The main start-up cost is renovation, fitting out, and investment in resources. Set-up cost can be high, running into several hundred thousand dollars per centre.

In a typical centre paying competitive rents, manpower and rent account for some 80% of all ongoing operating costs. Private operators function from landed houses, commercial and government-owned buildings or purpose-built HDB void decks. Tenancy is often subjected to bidding. When tenancy expires, there is usually open bidding or adjustments to market rate.Competition has caused rents to be in excess of $10,000 to even as high as $40,000 per month in recent tenders.

Anchor Operators getchoice new sites regularly at highly subsidized rents. They receive start-up, furnishing, maintenance and recurrent grants. These give them huge operating benefits over competitors.

The difference in monthly rent between non profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children. That works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortization of investment. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet with these cost advantages, non-profit’s median fees is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of Anchor Operators. Are Anchor Operators with all these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable?

Sir, there are other industry data to support my claim.

In a parliament reply this year, MCYS disclosed that EtonHouse, a premium operator with fees of $1,500 per month, charges only $728 per month at its Hampton Preschool. The centre is a collaboration with PCF. PCF secured the site at low rent, and can enjoy other grants. EtonHouse is responsible for programme delivery, set-up and pedagogy. According to a speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2009 , EtonHouse manages the centre and was selected because PCF wanted to work with a private operator that could deliver ‘high quality programmes’. While there could be variations in operations compared to a typical EtonHouse’s centre, the fact is, EtonHouse could deliver ‘high quality programmes’ atless than halfof its usual fees when it operates at a void deck that enjoys subsidised rents and grants.

In the 1990s, government buildings started to provide for workplace childcare. There was an interesting practice then to charge $1 or other token monthly rent for purpose-built child care facilities which catered to children of staff working in the building. Bids were called. I noted that in open competition, these sites went to established private players whose own centres charged in the mid to upper price range.

The condition for low rent then was that fees for children of staff in the buildings must be kept low. Premium private operators could match prevailing fees of non profit operators.

Today, costs are escalating due mainly to rent and manpower. Manpower cost affects all in the industry. Anchor Operators with recurrent grants can better retain staff, head-huntfrom other centres and deal with rising costs. Rent is steadily rising in our competitive market.

This has caused fees to rise. Out of pocket payments by parents in many private centres today are higher than before subsidies were increased in 2008. MCYS has no control over fees. Centres just need to give ‘ample’ notice to parents, which MCYS recommends as 3 months, and then fees will go up.

The government has announced new measures for the industry. While they may be initiated with good intent, I fear it could end up creating more unfair competition, destroying the diversity and innovation in our current system.

I have a proposal to bring costs down while pushing for quality and diversity – Child care as a public good with private partnership through contestability.

I noted that in delivering public goods such as transport, the government has pumped billions in rail and bus investments without expecting payback from private operators or charging infrastructure at market rent to them. We were told this is to bring the cost of public transport to a level that people can accept.

If we wish for young working couples to be able to afford child care and be encouraged to have more children, then we have a case to use a public good’s approach for child care.

Government can build and lease out centres at managed low rent. All its existing sites can come under the model. Based on answers in parliament, there are 290 void deck centres for non profit and 176 for private operators in void deck and JTC buildings, and another 52 in government buildings. That’s 518 centres, roughly 52.4% of all child care in Singapore. With 200 more centres to be built mostly in government controlled spaces, the share of sites under government‘s control will rise.

Old schools, disused community centres and other SLA spaces can be purpose-built by the government into mega child care facilities, even housing different operators under one roof. Child care generally should be within 2-3 km of workplaces or homes. Many small void decks in new flats are not ideal for child care, limiting options in new towns. We can have mega child care sites as long as we ensure there is easy access by parents, with roads and parking well planned.

We can utilise unused land parcels next to primary schools. There are small plots around some primary schools which are not big enough for meaningful commercial projects. We can tap on infrastructure of the primary schools to add new preschool facilities. This will make use of unutilised space, save on infrastructure costs and cultivate exchange between preschool and primary school.

The government can negotiate as main tenant with large private landlords for sites as a bloc to supplement their bank of child care sites. It can work with property developers who get additional Gross Floor Area when they set aside preschool space at cheap rents and let the government use the space for any type of operator. We should actively pursue all options to increase the state’s child care bank to cater to the mass market.

How do we allocate these centres? Rather than have more Anchor Operators, I have another suggestion.

The Anchor Operators concept has skewed the market. It is like giving a boxer super glooves and energy boosters while tying the hands of the competitor and asking them to fight each other. The stated objective for Anchor Operators was to “develop childcare operators that will set the benchmark for quality and affordable childcare services.”

It may have allowed Anchor Operators to achieve higher quality as they get resources, economy of scale, and certainty of their leases. Is it fair to expect other operators to keep pace? Other operators get little or no state funding. They hesitate to invest, worried if others will outbid them for their centres at each renewal, which will wipe out sunk investment. New HDB sites are so few compared to unannounced sites for Anchor Operators. Anchor Operators could lure their staff away with scholarships. Instead of encouraging other operators to step up, it cancause some to think short term and extract as much out of their investment while they can.

We can apply contestability. Contest clusters of sites openly based on concept rather than on rent. This was done before, when government building sites charged token rent and selection was on other factors such as quality and fees.

There is no need for a one-time selection of new Anchor Operators which will strengthen only a select few and weaken everyone else. Worst, it may become impossible for new operators to enter the market, killing off future innovation. We need active competition to raise standards and to continuously drive innovation.

Recurrent and other grants should apply to all qualifying participants as long as they meet strict selection criteria on fees and quality. There should be no differentiation between private and non profit operators. We already know what the current Anchor Operators can do with the support they had been given. Why have we been limiting ourselves to think only selected non profit players can bring cost down? Let’s open up and see how all others, including private operators can better that in terms of price and quality, if given similar support. I believe fair competition may even force current Anchor Operators to better their pricing, ultimately benefiting consumers.

New operators can surface from time to time. Small operators may band together into economic groups to better compete.

Contestability will drive diversity and quality. Operators cannot increase fees without approval. The government will regain control over the fee process to ensure affordability.

Government can better direct its key programmes. MCYS had found it hard to get private operators to go along with some of its programmes, such as SPARK. Last month, we were told only 115 preschools had attained SPARK accreditation, of which just 39 were private operators. This is way way below the target of 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, a figure established by Minister of State for Education, Mr Masagos in November 2010. We can allow only SPARK-accredited operators to contest these sites.

There may not even be a need for state-run preschools. The call for nationalisation was made by many frustrated with differing standards and high costs. We can improve quality even at the low cost segment by having a critical mass of centres available in this public-good model, and the state regulate to steer quality and pricing. It can designate some centres for the low income group by packaging centres for different market segments in each tender exercise.

While this proposal is in the context of child care, it can also be used for kindergartens.

In summary, I am calling for child care to be a public good with fair contestability of sites at managed rents for all types of operators, with tighter control of fees and quality by the state. This will benefit Singaporeans as fees will drop industry-wide while preserving diversity and driving up quality and innovation. I hope the government can carefully consider this proposal.

Alex Tan, Not Hero, Still Zero

Alex Tan is a zero in so many ways. Every Day Party caught Alex Tan's The Real Singapore with its pants down, not only for faking news, but for faking originality and plagiarising an article, and even abused those who chided him.

A TRS and Alex Tan Fan Club - Every Day Party

Now, this former RP candidate for AMK GRC in GE 2011, is not only a cheat for faking news and taking articles without attribution and pretending it to be a TRS original, but actually was crass and dumb enough to send a profanity-filled complaint to SBS. Classy. Real style! SBS then made a police report. Alex Tan loves the controversy from stoking xenophobia to trolling people, and SBS bit the bait in this textbook David vs Goliath contest. Alex Tan is a loser, who talked about migrating but is still around. One thing for sure, he makes being a loser an art form.

One Tan talking about another Tan

Looks like it is a race to the bottom among TRE, TT and TRS. TRS is leading the pack. TRE with its increased collaboration with TOC and hoping that whatever is left of TOC's dwindling respectability is rubbed off on TRE, is trailing far, far behind in 3rd place. Kinda fun to see Alex Tan get sued and I'm waiting for that day as I'm sure many would be openly or secretly pleased. Come on Alex, don't disappoint!

More Universities More Hope or Despair?

Good with more universities! Depending on whether the graduates churned out are needed by industries or not though. If they get useless degrees like BSc Modernist Flower Arrangement for the local economy, then lots of unhappy unemployed grads around unless Singapore turns into a global decorative flower export hub. Even if there is abundance of jobs for grads in the market, these grads expect cushy high pays, to be advanced upwards fast, all hopefully with minimal and maximum office politics.

What should be in the works for courses in the universities? Easy to say have more unis but exactly what courses which the 6 universities each have their own niche and therefore customer-student base? NUS and NTU are increasingly so alike that they are just monkey see monkey do. If I'm a million $ salaried minister, I would say - technical and applied skills, those with logical degree extensions of current poly diplomas as an alternative of going to some bush university in Australia. Do you know that with the current AUD exchange rate, it might be cheaper to send your child to USA rather than Australia! Traditionally unglam skills like cooking, nursing, maritime and shipping, contracting and construction? Besides, 2 more universities in Singapore also not much use unless these unis are kept "affordable". SMU! With real estate like that, of course it is expensive!

Also, if 40% of each cohort is a grad, there would be more competition in the job market, like in Korea and China, and everyone wants to be a management associate or something equivalently glam sounding. While menial and technical jobs still need available are snapped up by hungrier and more desperate foreigners. Getting a degree does not guarantee that someone gets a job or raises employment rates. Might be the reverse!

Higher education participation rate to rise to 40% by 2020 – PM
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has announced that the proportion of young people attending higher education will rise to 40% by 2020 compared to 27% now, with two new publicly-backed universities slated for the city-state.

Education is “Singapore’s most important long-term investment in its people and it is a key response to the changing world”, Lee said during his annual National Day Rally policy speech, delivered at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) on 26 August.

Lee said that SIT and the Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM) would be upgraded to become Singapore’s fifth and sixth universities offering applied as well as part time degrees.

This would open up an additional 3,000 full time university places, offering 16,000 university places by 2020 against 13,000 now.

The Ministry of Education, in a statement on 28 August, described the expansion as “carefully calibrated”.

The figures include planned increases in enrolment at Singapore’s main existing universities, including National University of Singapore incollaboration with Yale University in the US, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, the new Singapore University of Technology and Design in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and two arts education institutions.

Panel review of university education

The prime minister’s announcement comes a year after he initiated a wide ranging review of university education, to investigate how to increase the number of university places available for Singaporeans.

Lee said the review panel led by Senior Minister of State for Education Lawrence Wong “concluded that we should create more university places”, but the “we should focus on applied practice-oriented degrees, for example, engineers, physiotherapists, social workers – skills that are in demand and which will help get graduates jobs, and we should not just churn out graduates regardless of the quality or employment opportunities.”

Pointing to some other countries, including Britain, the United States and China, with unemployment or underemployment of graduates, he added: "Singapore must avoid leading people up the wrong path, misleading them that if you spend three years of your life doing this, at the end you will have a happy outcome.”

"We must make sure that if we encourage people to go that way, that at the end the prospects are good."

UniSIM, a private college that is part of the Singapore Institute of Management, currently offers only part-time programmes but will add full-time programmes.

Meanwhile, part-time undergraduate students, including working adults at UniSIM, could become eligible for government grants and loans to enable them to “get the same support” as students at the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, Lee said – although UniSIM would remain a private university.

Providing more details, the Ministry of Education said UniSIM had a strong track record in providing part-time degree programmes in close collaboration with industry, and provided “a good balance of theoretical and real-world education”.

The review panel noted in its final report published this month: “UniSIM remains the only private institution to date that the Ministry of Education has assessed as being of sufficient quality to be accorded university status and degree-awarding powers.”

SIT, a multi-campus institution designed to allow polytechnic students to upgrade their qualifications, would begin to award its own degrees, the ministry said.

Instructive experience of other countries

The decision to increase university enrolment without expanding Singapore’s research-intensive universities further, or opening new research universities, was based on an examination by the review panel of higher education in the UK, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Canada and Finland.

The panel said problems with the UK university system had been “particularly instructive”.

In 1992 the UK government granted university status to polytechnics, which had been mainly teaching institutions

“This proved to be a double loss for the wider higher education sector – the vast majority of these post-1992 new universities still struggle with their new mission and are unable to rise in quality and standing; and the UK tertiary system is now devoid of a tier of institutions that was previously instrumental in producing a technically-skilled workforce,” the panel said.

“Therefore, it would be prudent for us to avoid this path while there are other more viable options.”

Singapore also has around 70 registered private higher education institutions offering external degree programmes of overseas university partners. They enrolled some 47,500 Singaporean students full-time and part-time in 2011.

Rumpole Tey the Self-Pwn Law Lecturer

I love Sammyboy. You never know what treasures you can find in the trash. The trick is to sort it out and that is half the fun while waiting for the bus, in the car, when taking a shit or during a boring team meeting in the office. The latest tale that made me laugh till I cried was about some unknown law professor Tey Tsun Hang who was screwing his law student. It's all consenting adults despite the dodgy ethics so WTF if they want to do it in the lecture hall or office wearing those white curly wigs and black gowns, and students outside waiting impatiently for consultation. It adds kinky to the quicky sex.

 Hee haw! I want some young ass too!

However, CPIB got into the picture because she offered her young body in exchange for better grades. Jealous law students show how it is done to get ahead and put down the competition! All this time, pretty basic JAV stuff and just waiting for the court case to start and hanky panky sexposed in Wanbao and TNP - like how many times of BBBJ, CIM or golden shower in the car in some ulu car park, or maybe how many times simple guilty missionary sex between teacher and student at Bt Timah campus. Mmmm nose bleed.

Then it got interesting. This Tey fella, feeling the cage closing on him, started a Sammyboy account Rumpole just this month in his one-man-internet-brigade! And so far with only 5 posts, and went defending the law lecturer in a thread he started, saying he the law lecturer was some heroic PAP critic and was therefore persecuted! Oh. Like that ah. He even said "First, I need to clarify that I do not know and have not met the law professor." All the more it is him in guilty conscience self-pwn! LOL

Rumpole Teh Self-Pwn

Who is Tey? PAP critic? Seriously ah? Sorry, never heard of him. And if the PAP wanted to fix Tey, they would have just shipped him out on the first Air Asia since he is a foreigner, or sued him until sarong drop. Simpler PAP neck chop for vocal critics on the judiciary like Shadrake and Gopolan Nair. PAP bullying 101. PAP pattern to whack their own people like Peter Lim, Ng Boon Gay, Bernard Lim is to use CPIB instead in public shame mode, we all know that from Teh Cheang Wan days. Same surname!!?? The use of CPIB and not a PAP attack dog lawyer to sue him bankrupt thus means that Tey is one of their own asses being sacrificed.  Facepalm.

Anyway, at the end of the day, did Tey take advantage of his position, and I don't mean sexual position like doggy or reverse cowboy, and get corrupt sex from Darinne Ko? BTW she hired Subhas. This already tells you a lot.

Got Primary One Registration Priority? Think Again!

On the surface, citizens can rejoice, pop champagne or a non-alcoholic drink and thank Ganesha, Allah, Jesus, Guanyin, Buddha or Monkey God that citizens finally, finally have a proper head start in education over foreigners. A few days ago, MOE announced that Singaporeans have a priority over PRs in primary one registration. Whenever there is balloting, which is confirmed 100% in popular or branded schools like Nanyang, ACS, Tao Nan and some elitist others, PRs would not stand a chance unless there is no ballot required.

Happy? KNS. YOU SHOULDN"T BE IF YOU ARE A 100% LOCAL. Why? This is because MOE just said that citizens should be given absolute priority in each phase. Not absolute priority in primary one registration. There is an important difference!

There are 3 main phases in the annual primary one registration.

• Phase 1 - for a child who has a sibling in the primary school
• Phase 2 -  2A1, for a child whose parent is a former student of the primary school and is an alumni member, 2A2, the same, but the parent is not an alumni member, 2B is when the parent is from the same clan or church related to the school or a parent volunteer, 2C is for the child who cannot qualify for Phase 1, 2A and 2B.
• Phase 3 - for non-citizens and non-PR.

What MOE is telling you is that PR can still qualify for each phase as long as there is no balloting in that phase. So that means a Tiong or Pinoy PR can still qualify and be ahead of other Singaporeans in a later phase e.g. a PR who is a parent volunteer in branded school X (qualify for phase 2B) is still ahead of a local parent who stays near the branded school X but did not volunteer in the school (qualify for phase 2C) in the primary one registration.  Is this fair to Singaporeans? Not really if we value citizenship, the responsibility of NS etc. Volunteering in a school, alumni, church-clan ties in primary school registration are perfectly fine and is a useful checklist to distinguish locals from locals, and their desperation however misguided to put their kid in a branded school. However, as PRs do not wish to commit their stake in Singapore, why should they have the same access to branded schools as Singaporeans? Why should they have the same privileges as citizens?

PRs should be restricted to Phase 3 registration only, and not anything earlier. PRs can enrol their kids into a primary school only when all the citizens who want to put their son or daughter in that school have done so under Phase 1 or Phase 2. Any remaining seats can then be given to PRs. That is what priority is about. Simple as that. This recent MOE pledge to keep Singaporeans happy and give citizenship a premium is just hollow.

Fewer PR children in top schools after P1 rule change?
By Sharon See | Posted: 26 March 2012 2141 hrs

SINGAPORE: The more popular primary schools may have fewer Permanent Resident (PR) children from now on, said observers.

They said this is one possible outcome, following the government's move to tighten the Primary One (P1) registration exercise.

Under the change announced on Sunday, PRs will remain eligible for the same phases of the P1 registration exercise as citizens. However, when balloting is necessary in a specific phase of the registration exercise, citizens will be given absolute priority over PRs, even before home-to-school distance is considered.

The change will take place from the P1 registration exercise this July.

Last year, nearly half of all primary schools held ballots for the P1 registration exercise.

With the latest change, some popular schools told Channel NewsAsia they are expecting a much smaller intake of PR children.

Competition for the popular schools is already fierce, even among Singaporeans, and one MP said it would make sense for PRs to avoid "brand name schools" - where balloting will most likely take place.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, chairman of Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, said: "If they think that they want their child to go to a certain school, they have to consider whether that school would require balloting or not. If it does, quite honestly, they should put their efforts in volunteering in a school where balloting may not take place."

Property analysts also expect a slowdown in PRs going after HDB resale flats near popular schools.

Mr Eugene Lim, ERA Realty Network's key executive officer, said: "The premium that buyers have been known to pay for being located near good schools is as much as 10, sometimes even 15 per cent.

"So, if there are less buyers competing for these units near these good schools, technically the premium would go down. But it's still early days. It's very hard to say at this point if the prices will be affected, because for the gap that is vacated by the PRs, the locals will come in and fill it, as locals still have to compete for the 1km rule if there are more locals applying for the limited places available in each school."

Mr Lim added that buying a residential property with the intention of being near "good schools" is more prevalent among Singaporeans than PRs. He said HDB flats near "good schools" would likely be in greater demand than private properties.

According to Mr Lim, PRs currently make up about 20 percent of the HDB resale market and 13 percent of the private property resale market.

What Holistic Education?

Singapore's education is arguably solid internationally according to PISA standards at least in primary school maths. Although it has no mercy for those who are slower if you hear the anecdotes on how students and parents are equally stressed about schoolwork. Tsk Tsk Tsk

MOE now wants to dabble in "holistic education", nice fancy wordplay for something to learn beyond maths, science and languages. However, MOE's quest for holistic education is going to flop even before it starts particularly if holistic education classes are outside of regular curriculum time. It's a fact that most parents don't give a shit about anything that is not graded.

They just want their kids to get A* in Math, Science, English and 2nd language and then go on to a "branded" rather than a "neighbourhood" school, and preferably one with an IP. We hear stories of parents sending their children to all sorts of enrichment and tuition classes just to give their Johns and Janes a headstart over the other kids in life. Except that the other parents and kids are also doing the same thing as it is the norm, which means nobody is really ahead of anybody. Not ahead of anybody except parents who don't care about the race, or don't have the money to keep up with the kiasu pack.

Minister outlines MOE's plans for holistic education
Posted: 08 March 2012 2350 hrs

SINGAPORE: Education Minister Heng Swee Keat has outlined his ministry's plans to create a holistic education system and one where no child is left behind.

Speaking in Parliament on Thursday, Mr Heng said that to prepare our students for the future, education must develop the whole person.

"It is less about content knowledge, as content will have to be re-learnt and even un-learnt during one's lifetime," he said.

"It is more about how to process information, discern truths from untruths, connect seemingly disparate dots, and create knowledge even as the context changes. It is about developing an enduring core of competencies, values and character to anchor our young and ensure they have the resilience to succeed."

"Developing the whole child must first begin with instilling the right character and values. We must adopt a student-centric, values-driven approach," added Mr Heng.

And to reflect the emphasis on a holistic, values-driven education, Mr Heng said that there will be a new Edusave Character Award to recognise students who exhibit exemplary values, such as resilience and tenacity, integrity, care and respect, as well as civic responsibility.

The minister said the Community Involvement Programme is an important part of character building as it builds a spirit of volunteerism.

It will therefore be enhanced and reframed as Values in Action to place a stronger emphasis across all schools on the inculcation of values through community involvement.

Under Values in Action, students will undertake personal and group reflections to discuss their experience and the role they can play in the community.

Students will be encouraged to choose community issues they are concerned about, understand them better and decide how they can make a difference.

Schools will also be encouraged to develop 4-year or 6-year development plans to move towards more sustainable learning through community involvement.

To ensure opportunities for all students, the Ministry of Education is significantly increasing its coverage of financial support for needy students.

More funds will also be given to financial assistance schemes.

The income limit for eligibility for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme or FAS will be raised from S$1,500 to S$2,500.

Besides assessing applicants by household income, the ministry will assess them using a new Per Capita Income (PCI) criterion so that more students from larger families can qualify.

This means that students from households with a per capita income not exceeding S$625 per month will now be eligible.

For example, a family of six comprising two children, two parents and two grandparents living together, with a monthly income of S$3,600 (that is, per capita income of S$600) will now qualify.

Schools will also be given additional annual grants of up to S$15,000 per school every year, for the next three years.

This will allow schools to provide additional targeted support in specific ways or to students who might have just missed the FAS criteria but are deserving.

The ministry will also triple the annual funding allocated to the School Breakfast Programme, from S$4 million to S$12 million.

This is to ensure children do not start their day on an empty stomach.

However Education Minister Heng said: "But let me emphasise. It is not just about money, but an integrated approach, addressing financial, socio-emotional and learning support, in partnership with parents and the broader community.

"Ultimately, being inclusive is about giving each child the best opportunity to realise his or her potential, and in turn be able to fully participate in the workplace and in society thereafter."

The ministry will also grow the number of school-based student care centres over the next two years.

The ministry is looking to increase the number of student care centres located within schools from the current 57 to 70 by 2014.

The centres provide structured care for students, whether it's help with homework or with problems at home.

Constant interaction between the centre's staff and school teachers also means potential problems can be flagged quickly.

These centres are just one way in which the Education Ministry is lifting up students who fall behind.

The ministry also has learning support programmes in primary schools to pull up those weak in English and Maths.

Such early intervention programmes are also in place in preschools, where students from disadvantaged families are given help in English.

About 6,000 children have gone through the scheme, and another 2,200 will be included this year.

Besides helping the low-income, the ministry will also raise the level of resources to schools for them to offer more customised programmes for students.

Addressing the anxiety of parents over getting their child into a good school, Mr Heng outlined improvements made over the years, adding that his aim is to ensure that all schools are good schools.