On making “Every School a Good School”

Each year in Singapore, hordes of anxious parents apply to a handful of established “brand name” primary schools to register their children as students.  It is a stressful time for these parents, as there is fierce competition to enter into the few brand name schools available in Singapore.

Many parents believe that brand name schools provide their children with better education, better academic grades and better opportunities in life, compared to the unbranded neighbourhood schools.  Few parents want their children to start their education at “unbranded” neighbourhood schools, which are often perceived as inferior, and as a result, the primary school registration exercise often leaves many of the neighbourhood schools nearly vacant, while the brand name schools are oversubscribed.  At the recent exercise in 2013, Hong Kah Primary School had only 23 pupil registered, Qiaonan Primary School had 30 pupils, and Bedok West Primary School had 35 pupils.

The parents’ belief that brand name schools are superior is pervasive, even though the primary schools in Singapore do not hold entrance exams for registration, and the new students are not tested for and sorted according to the academic ability.  There is no evidence to show that the new students in a brand name school are superior to those in an unbranded neighbourhood school, merely by virtue of their being registered in the brand name primary school.  All things being equal, it is arguable that the academic potential of the new students in each primary school is comparable.

This problem of selective primary school registration is so acute that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took pains at the recent National Day Rally to assert that “every school is a good school”.  It is doubtful however, that the Prime Minister’s assertion, and his government’s proposed minor tweaks to the primary school system, would do anything to change most parents’ mindset that only the brand name schools are good.

So here’s a radical proposal on how we can make every school a “good school”:  how about encouraging the brand name schools to acquire the neighbourhood schools?  For example, the Anglo-Chinese School (“ACS”) – which is considered a “brand name” school – can acquire Hong Kah Primary, and rename it as “ACS (Hong Kah campus)”.  The Nanyang Primary School – another popular brand name school – can acquire Qiaonan Primary, and rename it as “Nanyang Primary (Qiaonan campus)”.  These brand name schools may then introduce their branding, education methodologies and even teachers to these branch campuses, and conceivably raise the prestige and education standard of these neighbourhood schools.  This would also allow the brand name schools to reach out to a far greater number of students than before.

The concept of multi-campus schools is not altogether unknown – a few schools, such as ACS and CHIJ, already have successful multiple campuses.  But why limit branch campuses to only these few?  Let’s allow and encourage all the brand name schools to acquire the neighbourhood schools.  Neighbourhood schools may be eventually phased out, and rebranded and madeover as brand name schools.  Kiasu parents may then be assured that their children have at least attended a “brand name” primary school.  All the present stress and frenzy of registering for limited places in brand name schools (including parents’ attempts to manipulate the school registration system for preferential treatment, such as by volunteering at schools, or moving closer to the schools etc.) – all that can be eliminated at a single stroke simply by changing the name of a school, since every school would then be a “good school”.

What do you think?  Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

On housing and wealth creation

This author recently came across a 2009 Herald article which provided an excellent, incisive critique of the real estate bubble in the United Kingdom.

Singapore should learn from the housing situation in the United Kingdom:

“Between 1997 and 2001, house prices nearly doubled. They nearly doubled again by 2005. It was as if the government had given every homeowner an average of £100,000. No wonder they voted Labour. We were all corrupted by the housing boom, to some extent.

People talked endlessly about how their houses were earning more than they did, never asking where all this free money was coming from. Well the truth is that it was being stolen from the next generation.

Houses don't produce wealth, they merely transfer it from the young to the old - from the coming generation of families who have to burden themselves with colossal debts if they want to get a roof over their heads, to the baby boomers who are about to retire and live on the cash they make when they downsize.

MPs were the most egregious example of this, but in a sense we were all invested in the housing scam. Well, it's time to call a halt. Our property obsession has been an economic and political disaster.”

On foreigners owning property in Singapore

Local news reported today that resale prices for private homes have shot through the roof this year. According to one analysis, foreigners make up the majority (60 to 70%) of the buyers of private homes in Singapore, thereby propping the prices up.

Even foreign celebrities, such as Jackie Chan and Emil Chau, have gotten into the act, and purchased a number of condominium units last week, spending in excess of S$10 million.

But Singapore is land scarce, and many local citizens face great difficulty affording their own homes. The incredible rate at which housing prices have been permitted to go up compared to local salary rates is an extremely disappointing reflection of the PAP government’s understanding of the local populace’s housing difficulties.

This author is of the opinion that foreigners should only be allowed to purchase residential properties in Singapore if they actually live in them. Singapore is far too small a country to allow foreigners to speculate in and drive up the prices of residential properties beyond the affordability of the main local populace.

Actually, this author views that ideally, foreigners should not be permitted to purchase properties in Singapore at all. Given Singapore’s limited land area, there is no good reason why foreigners should be allowed to acquire property at the hardship and expense of Singapore citizens (who should be given a decent chance to aspire to owning a private home someday). The PAP government should not have permitted foreigners to purchase private homes, much less, the majority of private homes in Singapore.

On the City Harvest Church and S$310 million

When this author first heard about how City Harvest Church was going to invest S$310 million in a Suntec stake, this author’s initial thoughts were:

1. Does God need all this money?



2. I don’t think God needs any part of this money. Why doesn’t the church (being a registered charity) donate the money to charity?

It appears that in these modern times, many religious institutions have immense sums of money sitting in their coffers, and they even go to financial institutions to invest all this money.

But… God (and by God, I mean any god of any religion) doesn’t need money. It’s only human beings who have a need for money. Why don’t these religions institutions donate all the money to charity? That seems to be a benevolent and godly use of the funds. God would have approved.

On providing public transport for the disabled

The PAP government has steadfastly to this day refused to introduce laws to require that public transport companies provide free or reduced fares for the physically or intellectually disabled.

The public transport companies, SBS Transit Ltd and SMRT Corporation Ltd have also refused to provide free or reduced fares for the disabled on their own initiative.

Now, public transport for the disabled is a matter of recognising that many disabled persons face financial difficulties in day to day living, and that as a society, we have a moral responsibility to look after our less fortunate members.

It is not asking for too much. Please understand that this is only a minority segment of society who deserves our care and concern. There are no substantial profit reductions asked for or floodgates unleashed here.

This sad, heartless state of affairs cannot continue.

The government should make the laws.

The public transport companies should practise corporate social responsibility.

But given that these institutions have failed to do so.. this author would like to make an appeal to all shareholders of SBS Transit Ltd, SMRT Corporation Ltd and even ComfortDelgro Corporation Ltd (which is the holding company of SBS Transit Ltd) to bring up this issue at the next general meeting of each company. As shareholders, you own the company and you have the ability and the right to require that the company do something for the less abled. Alternatively, this author would like to ask those who can and are willing to do so, to purchase the smallest possible portion of shares in any of these companies and make the request at the next general meeting of the relevant company.

If enough caring shareholders vote for it, free/discounted public transport for the disabled can happen.

Please feel free to pass on this message.

On COE prices and quotas

Today’s news reported that COE prices had gone up by as much as S$14,411 in the latest bidding exercise, with the most expensive COE (the open category COE) costing S$42,001.

The huge increases were because the government was going to limit the supply of COEs from April 2010 onwards by pegging it to actual vehicle deregistrations.

The present cost of a COE makes car ownership prohibitively expensive and out of reach from the common population of Singapore.

Is there a way to alleviate this cost of car ownership? Well, how about having a COE quota for foreigners? Say, a 25% quota, which means that 25% of the COEs released each month will go to foreigners, while 75% of the COEs will go to Singapore citizens.

Having such separate categories of COEs for foreigners and citizens will likely reduce the COE prices for citizens (because there will be more available COEs for them), and in effect make foreigners subsidise some of the high costs of car ownership (as the foreigners will probably pay a higher rate of COE given a limited quota). More importantly, it would also benefit citizens (who have long term interests vested here compared to foreigners who are here for the short term) by giving them priority in owning cars and driving on the roads of their own country.

On Singapore citizenship and permanent residency

There’s been a lot of buzz of late on how Singapore citizens don’t have much of an advantage compared to Singapore permanent residents. In fact, citizens are at a distinct disadvantage in many instances, e.g. compulsory National Service obligations (which also frequently negatively affect employers’ preferences) and the prohibition of dual citizenships.

In an attempt (weak, in this author’s opinion) to placate some of these complaints, the PAP government tried to fix the problem by giving citizens slightly better benefits, such as better subsidies or priorities in health, education, housing etc.

But the unasked question so far is: is there a need for this creature, permanent residency?

What is permanent residency? Generally, permanent residency refers to a person’s visa status, and a permanent resident is allowed to reside indefinitely within a country despite not having citizenship.

Not all countries have a permanent residency scheme. Those that do, usually have a good reason, such as special ties with certain other countries. For example, an EU national who moves to another EU country can attain permanent resident status after residing there for five years. Also, permanent residence rights are granted automatically between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

But Singapore has no such special ties with other countries, even with Malaysia, its closest geographical neighbour.

Hence, in today’s terms, why not abolish the permanent residency regime in Singapore?

In other words, a person is either a citizen or a foreigner. After all, a permanent resident is still a foreign citizen at the end of the day. There are many permanent residents in Singapore who will never consider converting to citizenship despite living, studying and working here most of their lives, and frankly, it’s usually an emotional thing with them. They do not see Singapore as their home country, and there is no loyalty to Singapore at all. In fact, permanent residents ought not to be considered as Singaporeans.. that just unhelpfully blurs the line between a genuine Singaporean national and a person who is not.

Abolishing the permanent residency regime in Singapore is not only a good idea, it is also right for Singapore. The rationale is that Singapore is a small country with limited natural resources. All nationality benefits (and obligations, such as National Service and Central Provident Fund contributions) should only be reserved for and belong to citizens, who are the ones with the right to vote. Hence, for example, given that land is a scarce and valuable resource in Singapore, only citizens should be permitted to own HDB flats.

If a person doesn’t want to be a citizen, that’s fine. He or she can always choose to be a foreigner working and living in Singapore under an employment pass or work permit – there is no problem with that. The expression “permanent resident” is really a misnomer.. the person isn’t residing in Singapore permanently at all, only temporarily. If a person truly wants to make Singapore a permanent home, just be a citizen. There is no need for a hybrid creation like “permanent resident”.

There are many benefits which can be gained from abolishing the permanent residency regime, which will far outweigh the downsides, if any. Housing will be freed up, and the red hot inflated prices will have a chance to be at a normal realistic level. Jobs will be freed up as some permanent residents (who never intended to be citizens anyway) choose to leave. Lots of governmental savings can be made because all the subsidies and benefits that used to go to permanent residents will no longer be required. Overcrowding will be alleviated. All the headaches and problems which the PAP government had futilely been trying to address regarding citizen vs. permanent resident benefits will go away.

The permanent residency scheme can be phased out. All eligible permanent residents can be offered the chance to become a citizen of Singapore. As for the ineligible permanent residents, they simply revert to being plain foreigners, which is exactly who they were all along anyway.

What do you think?