SINGAPORE : Household income from work fell in real terms across all income groups in Singapore last year.  This is according to figures released by the Department of Statistics on ‘Key Household Income Trends, 2009′.  Findings indicate that Singapore’s bottom 10 per cent was the hardest hit.  2009 was a rough year for all. Each member of the poorest group of households got a monthly income of S$334, down from S$340 in 2008.

Source: CNA

The fall across the various income groups is accounted for by the weak labour market conditions last year, which saw higher unemployment rates and lower wages. This also led to an increase in the number of persons not working in a household.  

Singaporeans are still recovering from a tough year, made tougher by fee hikes in ITE and Poly fees kicking in on 1 April.  Tuition fees were last raised in 2006.  Republic Polytechnic principal Yeo Li Pheow said: ‘The Government decided to keep fees at the status quo last year because of the economic recession but this year, as the economy turns, it is timely to raise the fees.

Clearly, the government continues to be slow to lower but quick to raise fees.  I wonder what is the proportion of ITE students that come from lower income families.  While the hikes are lower compared to PRs, it’s still a burden for our less well-off families.  Such is the compassion of the PAP government.  Or lack thereof.

 

SINGAPOREANS are holding their own against foreigners when it comes to studies.  Although recent examination results have put the spotlight on the achievements of foreigners, principals and others contacted said that Singaporeans are still at the top of the tree in this regard.  Checks by The Straits Times also show that Singaporeans are outperforming their foreign counterparts.

Source: ST

Given that the Straits Times is really the State Times, it’s a habit for most of us to look beneath the iceberg to discern the underlying state propaganda.  Quite a few of my friends agree that this report was to ’sayang’ the population after the rebuke by our founding father (see ‘National Geographic Interviews a Dinosaur’).

The government is playing a delicate balancing act.  While showing off the results of its foreign talent attraction policies, it also has to assuage the fears of locals who think they may be falling behind.  Singaporeans are, by nature, kiasi and kiasu, all thanks to the education system as many would say.  In this case, should parents be worried that a foreigner topped her cohort?  I think not.  Most will worry over their own children’s results and whether they make it to the schools of their choice.  I believe the marking system is fair and without favour - parents know this and understand that anyone else could be the top student.

What the State Times have done is to fan the flames of locals vs foreigners by overcompensating for what they, or the government actually, think are Singaporeans’ concerns that locals are falling behind (exacerbated by Lee Kuan Yew’s lack of ‘empathy’ – “If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide,” that is their problem“).  Singaporeans will worry if foreigners are taking away slots in schools and of course our jobs.  We aren’t sore losers who worry when a talent out-scores our children.

SINGAPORE: At half time in June, the Education Ministry has already surpassed its annual target of recruiting 3,000 teachers this year.  Speaking at the National Institute of Education’s teachers’ investiture on Monday, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen assured that although the ministry has stepped up hiring, it has also continued to be rigorous in selecting teachers and educators.   He said this is to ensure that only those with passion, aptitude and commitment towards teaching are selected.

Source:  CNA

In this economically-trying time, I assume many will suddenly decide to be teachers.  And soaking up these unemployed graduates helps stem the rise of our  unemployment rate (unemployment rose to 2.3 per cent in the second quarter this year), perhaps a secondary objective for the government in this recruitment exercise.  I hope the MOE is really able to sieve out ‘only those with passion, aptitude and commitment towards teaching’.

SINGAPORE : The Ministry of Education (MOE) has decided to suspend the engagement of external vendors running sexuality programmes in schools, until it completes the vetting of their content. The move came after it investigated feedback received on the school sexuality education programme conducted by women’s advocacy group AWARE, and other lesson materials not by AWARE.

Source:  CNA

For the past few years, schools have been allowed to engage external vendors to supplement their sexuality education programmes.  The ministry said it has reviewed schools’ internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors, and found that it can be ‘improved’.  It said it will put in place more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with MOE’s framework on sexuality education. 

Typical, isn’t it?  In the first place, such processes ought to be in place, we’re talking about young minds here and there is no room for misjudgement, negligence and incompetence.  Second, if systems are found wanting, why can’t the MOE just admit it so?  The lack of moral courage can be so sickening. And the one time that the government admits a mistake, the top man says “what to do?  it has happened“  Yes, what can we do but just to sigh and wait for the next general elections.

Since we’re on this topic, I do hope Mas Selamat will be tried in open court.  By escaping from detention, I’m sure he has broken laws none-too-sensitive that warrants the judicial due process.

NUS and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) said they do indeed send acceptance letters to applicants before the closing dates.  NTU’s deadline is the same as NUS.  The closing date for applications to Singapore Management University (SMU) is 8 Apr, but SMU said it does not send out early acceptance letters.  Some applicants think that what NUS and NTU are doing is unfair. Miss Kwek Yi Lin, 19, had applied to NTU’s accountancy course during the week that applications closed, and has yet to hear from the university. She has one A and three Bs.  ‘I think it’s fair for the straight-A students to get early offers, since it’s likely they’d get accepted sooner or later anyway,’ she said.  

Source:  TNP

Apparently this is the first year that both universities are issuing early offers. Professor Lalit Goel, NTU’s Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, said the university does it to attract exemplary students who ‘may otherwise go to top universities overseas to pursue their tertiary education’.  He pointed out that many overseas universities make early offers to woo academically bright students.

At first read, I thought to myself, “another reason why our society is so kia si and kia su“.  After all, the system seems to be urging young Singaporeans to send in their applications early as vacancies are falling by the day even before the closing date.  Having read the Universities’ explanations, I do think they have valid concerns. 

However, I wonder if it could have been done better.  For instance, they could set aside a fixed number of vacancies meant for these straight A students that they do not want to lose to external universities, and separate this system from the usual mainstream one where all applications received before the closing dates are evaluated together based on merit.  This could be more palatable to the public.