UNSW call it quits after 3 months, $250million wasted
-
This bloody stupid gov knows how 2 play hard ball on Sillyporeans only,when come to foreigners their balls shrink n dont know wat 2 do!!!
f all these corrupted EDB officers only give loan to all their own ppls and f care of commoners like us. -
what is $250 million to the government, they can lose $2 billion in Thailand in less than a year, sup sup waterOriginally posted by sg mata:maybe $250 million to the gahmen not alot of money, coz they can get more $$$$ from raising more taxes.......
-
I think the casino at marina and sentosa will follow the foot step of UNSWOriginally posted by will4:Crazy Horse has closed down already. -
UNSW closure not a breach of Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act: CASE
By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 01 June 2007 1930 hrs
SINGAPORE : When the University of New South Wales (UNSW) closed its campus in Singapore last month, it did not breach the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act.
This is according to the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) Yeo Guat Kwang.
He was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a forum on Friday.
Many of the students from the UNSW Asia campus were left in a lurch when the university announced it was closing its operations in Singapore.
Some are considering the scholarship offered by the university to help them continue their studies.
So far, none of the affected UNSW students has approached CASE for help.
Mr Yeo said the university's redress package offered to the students was reasonable.
He added that right now, the authorities were handling the matter and students could also turn to adequate resources for help.
So Mr Yeo felt it was not necessary for CASE to step in at this point.
He said, "On the winding up case, I think it's different because I think they didn't make any misrepresentations or (tried) to mislead the students in a sense. I think in a sense, at the end of the day, as it starts to roll out their plans for the students, they found that it may not be viable for them to continue. But it's a good thing that at least now they offer the students a choice to actually go over to Australia to complete their studies. "
Meanwhile foreign students studying at private institutions in Singapore have said the UNSW closure has set them thinking.
A student from China, Liu Lei, said, "At first I was not affected, as I trusted my school. After that incident, I became a little worried. I was worried that if the school closed down, I would not know where to go for help."
He added, "(But) I am not (too) worried yet. I believe that the school deserves our trust."
And trust in the reputation of Singapore as an education hub has not been broken by the UNSW closure, according to an association which advises foreign students and private education organisations here.
Daniel Chu, President, Association of Consultants for International Students (Singapore), said, "It may cause the investors who may want to invest in Singapore for private education to understand the market a bit more, before they pump in millions of dollars.
"(The) Singapore brand name has been established internationally. (The) Singapore brand name is still good. This small incident will not affect students who want to come here, they'll still come."
To make sure they continue to come, Mr Chu's association, which has some 40 members, is also planning to step up professionalism in the education industry, through accreditation and training. - CNA/ms
-
Actually, this highlights another issue about this regime being the safe haven it claims to be. For all the safety of the low crime rates (well, God knows how many unsolved and unreported crime incidents there are), it's easy to forget this regime is so safe there's hardly any avenue (afterall, going to CASE for the abovementioned is not much different from expecting NTUC to safeguard the rights of the workers) for one to turn to if one had been shortchanged in a manner by a source whose interests remotely represent that of the fascists.
UNSW closure not a breach of Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act: CASE
By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 01 June 2007 1930 hrs
SINGAPORE : When the University of New South Wales (UNSW) closed its campus in Singapore last month, it did not breach the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act.
This is according to the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) Yeo Guat Kwang.
He was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a forum on Friday.
Many of the students from the UNSW Asia campus were left in a lurch when the university announced it was closing its operations in Singapore.
Some are considering the scholarship offered by the university to help them continue their studies.
So far, none of the affected UNSW students has approached CASE for help.
Mr Yeo said the university's redress package offered to the students was reasonable.
He added that right now, the authorities were handling the matter and students could also turn to adequate resources for help.
So Mr Yeo felt it was not necessary for CASE to step in at this point.
He said, "On the winding up case, I think it's different because I think they didn't make any misrepresentations or (tried) to mislead the students in a sense. I think in a sense, at the end of the day, as it starts to roll out their plans for the students, they found that it may not be viable for them to continue. But it's a good thing that at least now they offer the students a choice to actually go over to Australia to complete their studies. "
Meanwhile foreign students studying at private institutions in Singapore have said the UNSW closure has set them thinking.
A student from China, Liu Lei, said, "At first I was not affected, as I trusted my school. After that incident, I became a little worried. I was worried that if the school closed down, I would not know where to go for help."
He added, "(But) I am not (too) worried yet. I believe that the school deserves our trust."
And trust in the reputation of Singapore as an education hub has not been broken by the UNSW closure, according to an association which advises foreign students and private education organisations here.
Daniel Chu, President, Association of Consultants for International Students (Singapore), said, "It may cause the investors who may want to invest in Singapore for private education to understand the market a bit more, before they pump in millions of dollars.
"(The) Singapore brand name has been established internationally. (The) Singapore brand name is still good. This small incident will not affect students who want to come here, they'll still come."
To make sure they continue to come, Mr Chu's association, which has some 40 members, is also planning to step up professionalism in the education industry, through accreditation and training. - CNA/ms
Pretty curious how such a brand of "safety" that is so uniquely Singapore isn't scrutinised enough...
-
hm gahmen hiding something again?
-
CASE is a pro-Govt toothless lapdog. That shouldn't be surprising.Originally posted by walesa:Actually, this highlights another issue about this regime being the safe haven it claims to be. For all the safety of the low crime rates (well, God knows how many unsolved and unreported crime incidents there are), it's easy to forget this regime is so safe there's hardly any avenue (afterall, going to CASE for the abovementioned is not much different from expecting NTUC to safeguard the rights of the workers) for one to turn to if one had been shortchanged in a manner by a source whose interests remotely represent that of the fascists.
Pretty curious how such a brand of "safety" that is so uniquely Singapore isn't scrutinised enough... -
Have anyone seem the channel 8 6.30pm news? Case spokeman said UNSW closed down is not a big issue. Anyone heard that? $250m taxspayer money is not big issue?
-
The same with the billions dollar Thaksin deal.Originally posted by (human):Have anyone seem the channel 8 6.30pm news? Case spokeman said UNSW closed down is not a big issue. Anyone heard that? $250m taxspayer money is not big issue? -
How can the $250 million be any big issue, when the same amount is needed in the pay hike for Cabinet Ministers and the Civil Servants ?
When one is numbed to losing big time, and when the money is not one's own, how can we expect the ONEs to know what is the value of money ?
How can they appreciate the value of money, when they simply put on the tax pressure to come up with new ideas of extracting the cash reserves of Singaporeans ?
It is typical of this Government to attempt to extract the best mileage for itself, at the expense of the Investors.
If it had been the Singapore Government's ambitions to make Singapore into an Educational Hub, why will EDB play 'hardball' towards UNSW - whose sole purpose in providing education is for the sake of profits.
With these two divergent goals that cause a deeper rift, UNSW can only pull out of this project - not when ''EDB decide to cut funding based on a lower set of student intake goals proposed by UNSW''.
Like the Forumula ONE races, the Singapore Government is attempting to profit from this Education Hub venture.
Unfortunately, UNSW was more hard headed, and decide that it was best to be at home in Australia, instead of continueing with a decision that was seemingly made in haste. -
In other words Atobe, you're saying that the EDB shouldn't have scaled down their package, even when UNSW decided to scale down their operations? Thereby putting the interest of the students ahead of profit motivations?
-
No, the problem here is not that the interest of the students (really, who really cares about them anyway?), but rather the goal of an education hub. The problem is that EDB has no bargaining chips to bargain with and yet they tried to bargain anyway. Who lost? The Govt.Originally posted by Quincey:In other words Atobe, you're saying that the EDB shouldn't have scaled down their package, even when UNSW decided to scale down their operations? Thereby putting the interest of the students ahead of profit motivations? -
Fingolfin-Noldor post provided part of the answer that I would have given.Originally posted by Quincey:In other words Atobe, you're saying that the EDB shouldn't have scaled down their package, even when UNSW decided to scale down their operations? Thereby putting the interest of the students ahead of profit motivations?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
However, this disaster is more then just funding the UNSW and acheiving the goal of having an Education Hub as originally planned.
No, the problem here is not that the interest of the students (really, who really cares about them anyway?), but rather the goal of an education hub. The problem is that EDB has no bargaining chips to bargain with and yet they tried to bargain anyway. Who lost? The Govt.
Starting an Education Hub and expecting UNSW to be profitable in the First Year without any 'subsidy or funding' - is EDB being realistic ?
Was EDB expecting UNSW to be altruistic, and fund EDB's dream of Singapore being an Education Hub ?
This will require a giant leap of faith in UNSW's charity - and EDB failed miserably on this score.
UNSW clearly showed their willingness to continue even with the existing low intake, and had simply asked EDB to lower their expectations to the numbers achievable by the targetted year.
It was stupid that EDB attempted to play hardball by counter demanding that if student intake were reduced, then the amount of funding will similarly be reduced.
This can only result in UNSW having to put more of their own money to continue in Singapore, and help EDB achieved its goal of making Singapore an Education Hub.
Did EDB not realised the spin-off in continuing to fund UNSW ability to survive financially during the first year, and any other remaining subsequent years until they have achieve a reputable track record of its quality education standards in Singapore ?
As matters stand, it was reported that for one South Korean student enrolled in the UNSW First Semester, the entire South Korean family had moved to Singapore.
Did EDB calculate the financial spin-off that this South Korean family would have brought to Singapore ?
Are we having Scholars in the EDB that are only good at 'theorectical black and white numbers', but have no empathy or business acument to sense the other unspoken and unwritten benefits that could have been achieved for Singapore ?
It seems that EDB is staffed by Scholarly Technocrats with little experience in the personal nuances in Human Relationship to overcome the differences in negotiations.
UNSW is a big fish that was reeled into the boat, and was allowed to get away, simply due to the fact that a budget size aquarium is too small to keep a big fish alive.
Singapore will be a laughing stock when the World finds out that it has a limited budget that could not match its big ego for wanting to have the best in the World. -
Unrealistic is simply too accurate. Private US universities have far smaller enrollments than Public universities for the same reason that university education is expensive. Here in Singapore where the salaries do not match the high cost of living and university funding support is pathetic, UNSW simply charged the full amount and hoped the name of the university is enough to attract candidates. Then couple to geography, of course we would have a limited market to cater to.
UNSW is a public institution and they rely heavily on Govt funding to function. As such, they do not have enough funds for something as grandiose as what EDB seeks. 20000 over students for a university charging private fees with no huge scholarship, grant support? Who is anyone kidding? It's a huge and expensive endeavour, not least Singapore is by no means a cheap place to set up any business, unlike M'sia.
And EDB simply doesn't understand, or is too stupid and arrogant to, that UNSW is practically doing us a service at their expense. This is akin to dealing with a customer and offering him a tough bargain. Customers can walk away, just so in case EDB does not know that. -
well ANOTHER lesson learnt.. lets MOVE ON...again..
-
The irony of it all stems from the fact that those bureaucrats handpicked by this regime to oversee its state agencies like the EDB are inept to the extent of being unable to comprehend the intangible details which render the educational landscape here being different to that of the US or UK.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Unrealistic is simply too accurate. Private US universities have far smaller enrollments than Public universities for the same reason that university education is expensive. Here in Singapore where the salaries do not match the high cost of living and university funding support is pathetic, UNSW simply charged the full amount and hoped the name of the university is enough to attract candidates. Then couple to geography, of course we would have a limited market to cater to.
UNSW is a public institution and they rely heavily on Govt funding to function. As such, they do not have enough funds for something as grandiose as what EDB seeks. 20000 over students for a university charging private fees with no huge scholarship, grant support? Who is anyone kidding? It's a huge and expensive endeavour, not least Singapore is by no means a cheap place to set up any business, unlike M'sia.
And EDB simply doesn't understand, or is too stupid and arrogant to, that UNSW is practically doing us a service at their expense. This is akin to dealing with a customer and offering him a tough bargain. Customers can walk away, just so in case EDB does not know that.
For all the talk from the fascists about wanting NUS and NTU to be among the world's best universities (in their lingo, being comparable to the Harvards, UC Berkeleys, Oxfords, Cambridges and Princetons of this world), they don't even seem to have been able to comprehend the dynamics and distinction between public and private institutions, much less the different demographic composition integral to such institutions. The whole UNSW debacle is nothing more than an extension of such fallacious "foresight" backfiring spectacularly on them.
In short, their disgraceful effort (with UNSW) to establish this regime as an educational hub in the region is, at best, nothing more than a wild attempt at trying to conquer Mt Everest with just a pair of slippers... -
Originally posted by 4getmenot:
Are you sure they ever learn?
well [b]ANOTHER lesson learnt.. lets MOVE ON...again.. [/b] -
A better idea would have been, is to run the university the same way US Public Universities are run: Charge local students much much less, like 1/2 the private fee, and then charge the foreign students much more. Even the 22K SGD is only a few thousand dollars off what some US universities charge. It's ridiculous that they even charged that much. Then next is the Govt to provide real financial support to the university so that they can subsidise local students. Then you might consider a huge student population. Anything else is plain stupid and unrealistic.Originally posted by walesa:The irony of it all stems from the fact that those bureaucrats handpicked by this regime to oversee its state agencies like the EDB are inept to the extent of being unable to comprehend the intangible details which render the educational landscape here being different to that of the US or UK.
For all the talk from the fascists about wanting NUS and NTU to be among the world's best universities (in their lingo, being comparable to the Harvards, UC Berkeleys, Oxfords, Cambridges and Princetons of this world), they don't even seem to have been able to comprehend the dynamics and distinction between public and private institutions, much less the different demographic composition integral to such institutions. The whole UNSW debacle is nothing more than an extension of such fallacious "foresight" backfiring spectacularly on them.
In short, their disgraceful effort (with UNSW) to establish this regime as an educational hub in the region is, at best, nothing more than a wild attempt at trying to conquer Mt Everest with just a pair of slippers...
But given how this damn Govt thinks, such a plan is highly unlikely, seeing how it operates in general and no doubt the other NTU and NUS would squawk at seeing their potential funds wither away and then you have the backdoor realpolitik the Govt is full of.
That said, it is obvious the Govt is targeting foreigners. That's a definite. But, obviously, they totally overestimated their self-worth as usual. They must be smoking pot when they thought people would buy the whole "Singapore is a safe, secure country" bull shit. -
Well done. They've turned Singapore into a laughing stock yet again.
*slaps forehead* Mee Siam mai hum. -
yup..the gahmen seem to be losing more money than ever aat a much faster ratio... i'd expect another GST increase in two years time to try to top up the losses in the reservesOriginally posted by maurizio13:Are you sure they ever learn? -
i guess case was probably talking bout the effects on the students who enrolled there..since we all know case has no role to play in this venture between EDB and UNSW imagine what would happended if it came right out from the mouth of an EDB spokesman..Originally posted by (human):Have anyone seem the channel 8 6.30pm news? Case spokeman said UNSW closed down is not a big issue. Anyone heard that? $250m taxspayer money is not big issue? -
With the size of profit that the national reserve can yield from investment, citizens of Singapore should be enjoying lower cost of living. But this is not the case, after listening to repeated losses due to making of wrong decision or errors made by the government or those so called talents. Singaporeans have to bear the costs and penalty for thier faults.Originally posted by 4getmenot:yup..the gahmen seem to be losing more money than ever aat a much faster ratio... i'd expect another GST increase in two years time to try to top up the losses in the reserves
A small leak can sink a great ship, no matter how big our national reserve is, if they carry on to move on with such performance, eventually Singaporeans are going to suffer. -
I think the key point of all the key points that come out of these debacles is accountability. Sure, ventures fail. But in the real world, when ventures fail, the individuals who orchestrate and operate these very ventures have to account for their failings. It is not about pointing the finger and going on a witch hunt, it is more than that. Accountability, if i could use it in such loose terms, shows what went wrong and god willing, that such mistakes not repeat itself. If a recipe doesn't work out, or for that matter a tried and tested recipe doesnt work out in a new enviroment, surely its about time we try something differnet?
-
What they lose overseas, they just take back from Singaporeans lor, be it through GST or ERP or whatever.Originally posted by (human):With the size of profit that the national reserve can yield from investment, citizens of Singapore should be enjoying lower cost of living. But this is not the case, after listening to repeated losses due to making of wrong decision or errors made by the government or those so called talents. Singaporeans have to bear the costs and penalty for thier faults.
A small leak can sink a great ship, no matter how big our national reserve is, if they carry on to move on with such performance, eventually Singaporeans are going to suffer.
They just need to take $100 from each Singaporean and voila, they have 250 million dollars.
So simple. -
i think the singaporeans are already suffering...Originally posted by (human):With the size of profit that the national reserve can yield from investment, citizens of Singapore should be enjoying lower cost of living. But this is not the case, after listening to repeated losses due to making of wrong decision or errors made by the government or those so called talents. Singaporeans have to bear the costs and penalty for thier faults.
A small leak can sink a great ship, no matter how big our national reserve is, if they carry on to move on with such performance, eventually Singaporeans are going to suffer.