What happens when a leadership and a people forget the constraints we face? Lee Kuan Yew

A reminder of how we can go down, and go down very quickly.

Because we have had success for the past 50 years , some have forgotten that we are an improbable nation. Perhaps they do not even understand what it means to be an improbable nation, a small island without any natural resources.

In fact, success has turned to arrogance when people think companies have no choice but to come here to do business.

In any parliamentary debate, the outcome is either Singapore wins, or Singapore loses.

Parliament is a place to further the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, not a place to further the political agendas of any political party.

Global companies are here to play the global game. They are not here to serve the Singapore market. They are here to serve the region and the world. They want to bring together an international team. That is our value proposition to them and that is why they find Singapore attractive. If they cannot bring in an international team, why would they find Singapore attractive?

Would you turn away a company that has 69 high end jobs for Singaporeans because they want to bring in 31 foreigners?

PSP Leong Mun Wai calls for a 30% quota on foreign talents.

PSP calls for a 30% quota. On top of that, they want a 10% on nationality. They also want top management positions to be ringfenced for Singaporeans.

PSP's policies will make the environment so hostile, that no foreign investor will consider Singapore to build any new business. They will also yurn Singapore into a mediocre country with their protectionism.

When companies come here, they hire Singaporeans and also foreigners. But they are also committed to training Singaporeans to take over more jobs.

Dr Tan See Leng said in his speech in Parliament:

"Indeed many companies tell us that they prefer to hire locals over foreigners, so long as they can find the skills here. Even if there is initially a shortage of skills, many are willing to develop local talent to fill these roles

Take for example PayPal.

When it first started, it had to rely more heavily on global talent for specialised technical skills and more senior roles that required managing regional teams.

However, PayPal committed to hire and train 150 Singaporeans across tech and business roles over 3 years."

The PAP Government's strategy is to attract good investments here first to entrench the jobs here even if we do not have enough local talent. We train up our people. In this way, they create good jobs not just for current Singaporeans but also future Singaporeans.

Because we welcomed Mizuho Bank in the early 2000s and allowed them to employ 60% foreigners, today, more Singaporeans have access to good jobs in the bank.

Populism is always shortsighted, focuses only on the present and uses an emotional argument. But thankfully, Singaporeans are mostly rational, reasonable and pragmatic because ultimately, it is about them and their children's future.

Job creation is not a simple matter of getting rid of the foreign workers, and all the jobs will go to Singaporeans.

Job creation is not a simple matter of getting rid of the foreign workers, and all the jobs will go to Singaporeans.

THE PAP Government helps the Singaporean worker remains competitive and employable through training, upgrading, and lifelong learning, so that he has the skills to match the jobs on offer.

The PSP has focused only on numbers.. Not once have they encouraged the worker to upgrade themselves or pick new skills. It shows that they do not have a real concern for the Singaporean workers.

The Singapore economy requires 3.4 million people to support the entire breadth and depth of activities.

The local workforce is just 2.3 million. Get rid of the 1.1 million (tens of thousands) foreign workers, and YOU will be jobless.

By remaining open and providing businesses with the access to global expertise, the Government has anchored many good jobs for Singaporeans that could have gone elsewhere.

𝐏𝐒𝐏 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬, 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.

Between 2010 and 2020, EP and S pass holders grew by about 110,000.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐌𝐄𝐓 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝟑𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝.

The PSP assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here; then all these jobs will automatically go to Singaporeans.

In a Facebook post, Leong Mun Wai said that we can get rid of 'tens of thousands' of workpass holders and he thinks Singaporeans can fill these jobs.

"But that thinking is fatally flawed," Lawrence Wong said.

"First, we already have more than 25,000 PMET vacancies today, with many companies still looking to hire.

With so many companies having difficulties filling these vacancies, how would we find people with the relevant skill-sets to take on the additional “tens of thousands” of jobs that Mr Leong thinks can be created by getting rid of the foreigners?"

Chan Chun Sing and the closure of Yale-NUS College

Why weren't the student body and staff consulted?

Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said it was because the discussions involved the senior leadership of the two universities and with their respective boards on sensitive issues of strategy and finances.

Minister Chan said:

"𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐘𝐍𝐂 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐔𝐒. 𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞, 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞.

But we accepted this because we saw value in having a liberal arts college in our tertiary system.

YNC hoped to raise over $300m to reach an endowment fund size of around $1 billion 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬.

This would have reduced the burden on the annual operating income of fees and government subsidies. 𝐘𝐍𝐂 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭.

Transitioning to the New College will give us economies of scale, and reduce costs to some extent. This was a relevant consideration, but not the main motivation for the change." (end of quote)

What we also learn from an article from Yale Daily:

45% of each intake at Yale-NUS are foreign students.

The article wrote:

"Yale-NUS required resources from the Singaporean government, and many of the funds financed the education of foreign talent. According to a previous article reported in the News at the time of Yale-NUS’ conception, the government of Singapore was meant to finance the college for at least its first decade, but administrators also tried to build up an endowment. Officials hoped the endowment would be on par with those of Williams College and Amherst College, which were valued at about $1.5 billion at the time, according to a 2008 Ministry of Education report.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐘𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐔.𝐒.-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏. While the Singaporean government funded the college’s construction and subsidized most of the costs in its first decade, the college aimed to be funded by one-third government subsidy, one-third tuition and other fees and one-third gifts and endowments by 2030, according to The Octant." (end of quote)

So we can gather from what Mr Chan said and from the article from Yale Daily that Yale did not want to fund the college.

So here's what it is:

The Singapore government funded the construction of the college and subsidised the very expensive cost of education at Yale-NUS.

And almost half the enrolment in the college are international students with an education financed by the Singapore's taxpayers. That's a very high proportion of foreign students.

Yale did not want to contribute funds to this college.

Well, looking at these facts, it makes perfect sense to merge Yale-NUS with USP to form a new college for economy of scale, to make education more affordable (and therefore more inclusive) to Singaporeans.

NUS is a leading university. There's no reason why a merge college cannot do well or even better.

Education Minister Chan Chun Sing's reply to the question on the impact of the merger of Yale-NUS and USP (University Scholars Programme) on academic freedom:

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐘𝐚𝐥𝐞-𝐍𝐔𝐒 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 (𝐘𝐍𝐂) 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐔𝐒 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐘𝐍𝐂.

1. First, there had been similar concerns about a perceived lack of academic freedom when YNC was established. They proved unfounded.

In fact, few believed then that YNC would live up to its ambition. Even fewer would own it. It is perhaps ironic, and a testimony to NUS and YNC’s efforts all these years, that YNC is now seen as a paragon of academic freedom in Singapore.

2. 𝐘𝐍𝐂’𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐍𝐔𝐒’𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐔𝐒 and other Autonomous Universities (AUs) also have 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐍𝐂.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲-𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, and attract distinguished scholars. It would be grossly unfair to faculty members in NUS and other AUs to suggest that their teaching or research is in any way less rigorous, of lower quality or less free than that of YNC faculty.