Leong Sze Hian

I am somewhat puzzled by the statistics on university admissions.

Surely, what is more important is the number of applicants, rather than the number of applications, since many may apply to all three universities.

What is the break-down of the applicants for Singaporeans, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners?
Since 20 per cent of the three universities’ total offering of 14,700 places this year is reserved for foreigners, does it mean that the places for Singaporeans and PRs is 11,760?

Therefore, what Singaporeans may like to know is what percentage of Singaporeans and PRs who apply, will be offered places?

This may be a more meaningful figure than saying that “25 per cent of the graduating cohort would be offered places, compared to 23 per cent last year”.

The Ministry of Education said in July last year that the actual number of foreign students admitted was 4,218.

Since the three local universities provided 14,685 places last year, dividing 4,218 by 14,685 gives a foreign students enrolment of 28.7 per cent.

So, was the foreign students admitted last year 20 or 28.7 per cent of the total intake?

What was the first-year intake percentage of Singaporeans after adjusting for PRs?

What is the break-down of the percentage of Singaporean and PR polytechnic graduate applicants, and foreigner applicants, who are admitted?

Is the admission success rate of Singaporean polytechnic graduates lower than foreigners?

So, I think in order to clear up the confusion on university admissions, what Singaporeans may really want to know is what is the actual percentage of Singaporeans, PRs, and foreigners admitted, instead of the number of applications, applicants or the number offered places ?

References:

Charlene Sng’s letter “Uni entry still hard for most poly graduates” (ST, May 26)

Khoo Lih-Han’s letter “Govt should subsidise private courses” (ST, May 16)

Patrick Sio’s letter “Universities should be clearer about entry criteria” (ST, May 16)

“Smaller cohort, but universities getting more applications” (ST, May 14)

“University education: Economics of choice” (ST, May 17).

Employment: Who actually get jobs?

I refer to the articles “More jobs created, but number of jobless still up” (ST, May 1) and “Jobs for Singaporeans: WP challenged to act on its words” (ST, May 2).

I would like to point out the following worrying employment trends :-

Another quarter of record employment growth – employment grew by 68,400 in the first quarter, but the seasonally adjusted resident (Singaporeans and PRs) unemployment rate increased from 2.4 per cent in the last quarter of 2007 to 2.9 per cent this quarter. This increase of 0.5 per cent is higher than the 0.3 per cent overall unemployment rate increase, from 1.7 in December to 2.0 in March.

Despite employment growing by 68,400, the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed residents grew to 54,400.

In 2006, 52 per cent of jobs created went to residents, of which 37 per cent went to citizens.

In 2007, the percentage of jobs created that went to residents declined to 38 per cent. Of this, what percentage went to Singaporeans ?

Has this trend of declining jobs for citizens persisted in the first quarter of 2008 ? What is the percentage of jobs to residents, and to citizens, for the first quarter ?

A record 46,900 became PRs, in the first nine months of 2007, and 7,300 became citizens in the first half of 2007. Has this trend persisted since 1 October 2007 for new PRs, and 1 July 2007 for new citizens, to the quarter ended 31 March 2008 ?

How many of the new jobs for residents, went to such new residents ?

Labour stakeholders like NTUC should analyse the cause of the above worrying trends for Singaporean workers, explore what can be done to reverse or slow down the trend, and how to mitigate the effect and implications on citizens?

In this connection, according to the Department of Statistics’ Monthly Digest of Statistics April 2008, the ratio of job seekers placed in employment to job seekers attended to at Career Link Centres, has declined from 29 per cent in 2006, to 28 and 24 per cent in 2007 and March 2008, respectively.

Also, the total population in Singapore is growing at it’s fastest rate since 1990, at 4.3 per cent, compared to the resident (citizens and PRs) population growing at only 1.6 per cent since 1990.

GST increase statistics

I refer to the article “An exclusive club to help the needy” (Today, May 24).

The North-West Community Development Council is asking companies and individuals to donate $100 or more each month towards the North-West Food Aid Fund, because demand for food packages from the needy has more than doubled since December, as inflation hit another 26-year high, at 7.5 per cent in April.

There have also been media reports of hospitals raising funds to help needy patients pay for their medical fees.

Since the reason given for raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) by another two per cent, was to help the poor, aren’t the CDCs and hospitals getting more money to help the poor?

In this connection, I understand that GST collections after the two per cent increase is estimated to be $ 1.9 billion, which is more than the initial estimate of about $1.5 billion because of a booming economy.

Moreover, in addition, I understand that co-operatives in Singapore have had healthy surpluses, of which up to 20 per cent are contributed to the Central Co-operative Fund under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Some of these funds are also available to help the needy.

What are the statistics on how the increased GST collections have been used to help the poor, on a comparative basis, before and after the GST hike?

—————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

印尼政府查封20家涉林火外企 九家与狮城有关联

印尼环境与森林部声称,至少20家外国企业涉嫌印尼烧森林引发林火,其中有九家为来自或办公处设在新加坡的公司,以及六家马来西亚公司。 根据印尼媒体《Tempo.co》报导,最新调查指出,共有64家企业涉嫌引发林火,其中20家为外国企业,涉及与新加坡与马来西亚有关联的公司,主要在印尼经营棕榈树种植与木材种植园,大多位于西加里曼丹省、廖内省、中加里曼丹省、占碑省和南苏门答腊省。 印尼环境和林业部执法组主任萨尼周二(1日)指出,该企业的土地目前已被查封,将进一步调查是否涉嫌蓄意违法烧森林。 他也强调,当局并不会因为企业的背景而有所偏颇,绝对会一视同仁。 “无论是谁,只要犯下违法焚烧森林的罪行,均需为此负责。“他说。 任萨尼也强调,涉嫌焚烧森林的公司将会绳之以法,他们可以透过地点、时间以及地区追踪与鉴证土地情况到公司。他也呼吁相关的地方政府,加强监管这些企业,防止林火问题重演。 此前,印尼环境议题新闻网站Foresthints发表文章揭发至少三家办公处设在新加坡的种植公司,被点名涉嫌导致引起林火。其中一家Hutan Ketapang Industri,是Sampoerna Agri Resources的旗下公司。 至于另外两家,为亚洲纸浆纸品公司(Asia…

张媛容:选区范围检讨委会成立 理应立即公告国民

在野政治人物张媛容认为,新加坡人有权通过自由和公平选举,选出人民领导,这也意味着,鉴于群众利益,选区范围检讨委员会什么时候成立,也应立即公告国民。 本月4日,选举局在官网发布文告,宣布总理已召开成立了选区范围检讨委员会。据媒体报导,早在上月该委会就以成立。 对此张媛容质疑,为何上述委会成立时,不立即公告国民? “在2015年选举前夕,当总理在7月13日在国会受到提问时,才透露选区范围检讨委会已成立,但委会早已成立了两个月。” 她指出,在新加坡选举规章下,固然没有任何条规,要求委会成立时,必须立即作出立即通知。 然而,有鉴于选举的重大和重要,以及关乎群众利益和热切期盼来届选举,她认为或有必要加上上述规定,即一旦委会成立必须马上公告国民。 “新加坡人有权通过公平和自由的选举,选出他们属意的领袖。” 对此,他认为有鉴于公平自由选举的利益,理应设下规定,确保在选区范围检讨委会一旦成立,就立即公布。而不是在国会被质询时,或者执政党选择在什么时候公布。 今年7月,工人党秘书长毕丹星在国会询问有关委会是否已成立, 惟贸工部长陈振声代表总理答复,尚未。当时已是他第二次在国会提问有关问题。 今年3月1日,毕丹星曾质问,为何不在上述委会成立后政府自行作出宣布,但贸工部长陈振声则代总理回答,惯例是让委会专业地进行工作,不受不必要媒体关注或公共压力影响。

SDP urges the public to not “manufacture fake news” and spread rumours regarding the Wuhan virus

On Wednesday (29 January), the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) took to its…