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

Amos Yee convicted on two charges, acquitted on third

16-year old blogger, Amos Yee, has been found guilty of the two…

马国死囚家属、律师和公民组织代表 到新驻马专员署请命

死囚家属、律师和公民组织代表,齐聚新加坡驻马最高专员署,呈交备忘录,要求新加坡政府停止处决四名马国死x囚,给予他们第二次生命机会。 这4名死囚分别是达奇那穆迪(Datchinamurthy Kataiah)、戈比(Gobi Avedian)、阿都希米(Abd Helmi Ab Halim)以及拉末(Rahmat Karimon)。 昨早,维权律师和公民组织代表,陪同死囚家属,他们一行约50人,前往新加坡驻马最高专员署提呈备忘录,呼吁总统和新加坡政府,重新考量以死刑处决上述四名死囚,因为以死刑处决这些毒骡,但真正的贩毒集团首脑仍逍遥法外,仍无助解决毒品走私问题。 出席的律师和公民组织代表,马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL)董事玛丽莎(Melissa Sasidaran)、国际特赦组织代表、觉之家、以及其中两名死囚的家属。至于此前获上诉庭批准暂缓死刑,向总统申请特赦的潘尼尔家属,也随同出席声援活动。 捍卫自由律师团顾问苏仁德兰则申诉,原本要求让死囚家属各派一名代表,提成备忘录,但最高专员署回应只能允许制定人数前往提呈,若不满可将备忘录留在保安室,令他感到不满。…

Ramadan festive stall closed by NEA for two weeks

A festive goodies stall set up for Ramadan in Bukit Batok has…

总检察署要求高庭罚款范国瀚 、监禁陈两裕

社运份子范国瀚和民主党党要陈两裕,于去年10月被判藐视法庭罪成立。在昨日(20日)的最高法院审讯中,总检察署要求高庭判处两人返款和监禁。 总检察署政府律师森迪古玛兰,要求法官判处范国瀚一万元至1万5000元的罚款,以及监禁陈两裕15天。 与此同时,两人辩护律师尤金则要求罚款应定在四千元至六千元之间,而陈只需判处七天监禁。陈两裕也是民主党副主席。辩方律师寻求判决监禁,是因为在新加坡,公民若曾被判处两千元罚款或监禁超过一年,将失去竞选国会议员资格。 法官吴必理仍保留对案件的判决。 范国瀚是在去年4月,于脸书的贴文称,马来西亚法庭处理政治个案比新加坡司法更独立,而被总检察署指控藐视法庭。有关贴文也转载新闻:“《当今大马》挑战反假新闻法违宪”。 随后,新加坡民主党党要陈两裕在脸书为范国瀚抱不平,指出总检察署的举措,更加证实范国瀚的批评所言不虚。结果也同样被控藐视法庭罪。 2016年司法(保护)法令自2017年10月生效,上述两人“抢了头香”,成为该法令生效以来首两位被指控藐视法庭的个案。被判藐视法庭罪者,可被罚款最高10万新元,或监禁3年,或两者兼施。 范陈仍未移除贴文 古玛兰在庭上抗议范陈二人至今都还未移除有关贴文。例如范国瀚的贴文已经刊载了长达10个月21天。他形容两人“显然完全不尊重法庭权威,也否定法庭对他们的判决。”他们也从未就贴文内容道歉,毫无悔意。 不过,法官吴必理认为贴文存在多久不重要,关键是范陈两人都拒绝撤下贴文。 古玛兰也指出,陈两裕“有前科”,在2008年,甚至曾穿着印有穿法官长袍的袋鼠,被控藐视法庭,为此被监禁15天。对此,古玛兰认为陈两裕一再屡犯,不应轻判。 总检察署也要求范国瀚和陈两裕移除贴文,并公开道歉。…