From: "cylent_assassin" <cylent_assassin@...>
20 April 2005
Singapore Review
Scholar under fire: more than just about racism

The story of the PSC scholar making racist remarks blew recently and
sparked a flurry of comments about the conduct of Chua Cheng Zhan, a
maths scholar at Northwestern University in Illinois USA.

Basically he complained that the Singapore charter in his university
was being swamped by Indians and Pinoys and he found dark-skinned
people gross.

You can read his (censored) blog at:
http://www.chengzhan.net/main/blog/12157914.html.

You can also read an archive of his comments at:
http://ivan.ivanandxia.com/history/2005-04-14/stop-talking-cock/

Naturally the numerous hypocritical netters crawled out of the
woodwork and started commenting about how public funding was spent on
a racist.

However, it gets more interesting when you read into what he wrote.
The thing that obviously jumps out is the alleged racism but his 2nd
posting strikes me of elitism. Elitism in its worst sense. Pure
arrogance of his perceived high place in society. His comment on
comparing Proton Sagas to Jaguars was the most galling and highlights
this arrogance.

His family is obviously rich (father is MD of an investment firm) and
wealth brings many advantages, including financial support in
schooling, the ability to "grease the schooling palms", hire maids so
you don't have to waste time doing chores and many other perks.

I have never been a fan of MOE's policies and that includes the PSC.
What exactly is the PSC's commitment to the people regarding public
money for scholars? I really question the board's selection process.
Here is a man that has an extremely comfortable background and let's
face it, rich people generally do better in Singapore's education
(tuition, home PCs, internet, etc). Does this man really need a
scholarship? Shouldn't a scholarship be given to NEEDY students? Why
are we still giving scholarships to people who see them as merely
status symbols to boast during family pow-wows?

Perhaps the PSC board was following the PAP's stand for fermenting an
Elite, where the money stays with the Elite, and that includes public
money. What better way to keep public money in your pockets than to
give it to the sons and daughters of Elites?

Has the PSC been farming Public Commission White Horses since the
beginning?

Many can jump to his defense claiming he wasn't writing in his own
persona. While that might be possible for his racist comments, I
believe it isn't for his 2nd comment. By drawing personal feelings
and family members/emotions into his comment, he is drawing from his
own psyche.

I for one hope to see this fool's scholarship withdrawn.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Scholar under fire for racist blog entries--PSC scholarship holder
studying in US removes offending remarks and says sorry; his shocked
family here also apologises. PSC investigating issue", by Jeremy Au
Yong:

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is investigating one of its
scholarship holders for putting racist remarks on his Internet site.

Maths major Chua Cheng Zhan, 21, has since taken the material off his
website and replaced it with a profuse apology. His shocked family
has also apologised on his behalf.

Mr Chua, a third-year student at Northwestern University in Illinois,
made disparaging remarks about other races on his personal online
journal or weblog.

Since then, at least two forums have been discussing his comments and
one angry Net user even e-mailed the PSC to complain.

When contacted, the commission would only say that it was
investigating the issue.

Much of the flak Mr Chua is receiving seems to stem from three errant
posts among the hundreds on his weblog.

He used words like 'repulsive' to describe some races, and talked
about their 'irksome features'.

This issue has come just a few weeks after a Nanyang Technological
University student sparked debates when he remarked at a public forum
that watching a man hold the hand of a woman with a different skin
colour 'made his skin crawl'.

Those who know Mr Chua, who has a younger brother and sister, said it
was out of character of him. By all accounts, he is an accomplished
scholar.

The former Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Junior College student
has a spotless academic record. He scored full distinctions for his A
levels and is now maintaining a 3.8 grade-point average at university.

He is also heavily involved in student leadership positions at
Northwestern University and has been very active in volunteer work.

So what got into him?

He said: 'I guess I was not myself when I wrote those things. I don't
use my own persona when I write on my blog. I realise they were in
very poor taste and I deeply regret my actions. I am not like that.'

The weblog, he added, was never meant to be read by anyone but his
closest friends. He had locked the site with a password but now
admits it may have been too easy to crack.

He added: 'I don't know who cracked it, or who would even want to.'

Somebody did, and spread the word about it on Net forums.

Many Internet users have posted angry messages calling him names.
Some have even asked that his scholarship be revoked. One, calling
himself thesaint888, said: 'The thought that a racist is using public
money frivolously while casting his racial slurs around absolutely
makes my blood boil.'

Another, Juliet Chan, actually compiled a dossier of the posts and e-
mailed them to the PSC and the media. In her e-mail, she wrote: 'His
utter disdain for minority races here in Singapore is worrying and
completely unacceptable for a potential civil servant.'

The Sunday Times tried to contact Juliet several times but she did
not reply to the e-mail.

Not all Net users, though, are calling for his head.

One, called jane, wrote: 'They (racist comments) certainly weren't
meant to perpetuate racial hatred, neither were they a real
reflection on what the writer really feels.

'In fact, any sane person reading it would know they were just made
in jest, and were meant to be read by people who would know and put
his comments in their proper context.'

Mr Chua's friends and family say the comments were completely unlike
him.

His father, 51-year-old Larry Chua, managing director of an
investment company, said: 'He's a racist? He volunteered for three
months, teaching English in Nepal at his own expense. He volunteered
to teach English to Vietnamese and Hispanic immigrants in the United
States. You can draw your own conclusions.'

Mr Daniel Quek, 22, who attended Hwa Chong with Mr Chua and who is
now studying in the University of Illinois, said: 'I never once
thought of him as racist. He's always been a nice, cheerful guy.'

Now, Mr Chua and his family just want to put the matter behind them.
He said: 'I really regret posting what I did. I admit I did something
wrong and I am very, very sorry.'"

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is a PHD "Talent" worth $900,000+++?
By MELLANIE HEWLITT
Singapore Review
2 Feb 2004

According to the 1 Feb 2005 issue of the Straits Times "A*Star's million-$
stars", by Bryan Lee (attached below), investments in PHDs are a guaranteed
success and the cost of paying these "professional scholars" a salary to study
at tax payers expense, is well justified. A similiar article was posted in the 4
Jan 2003 issue of the Straits Times (PhD pool to be expanded with new
scholarships), where Mr Philip Yeo adopted the analogy of PHDs as an investment.


Let me play devil's advocate and apply simple Cost/Benefits analysis to his
analogy.

"A full scholarship from undergraduate to PhD level, including salary, fees and
allowance, works out to a hefty $900,000 or so per student."

When can we expect to recover initial CAPEX and outlay of $900k? Definitely not
during the minimum 4-6 years when the scholar is completing his PHD. This is a
"Holding Period" for the investment horizon.

Now let's see the Benefits side of the equation. Going along the lines of Mr
Yeo's analogy, let us treat human capital like a stock or a bond and apply basic
Valuation Theory where:

“Total Expected ReturnPHD” = “Current YieldPHD” + “Capital Gains YieldPHD”

Quoting A*Star chairman Philip Yeo, "Eventually, they (the PHD scholars) will
become a key attraction to multinational companies to move their high-end
research projects to Singapore".What is the Current Yield on the PHD "Talent"?
PHD scholars are not productive assets and do not earn any cash returns whilst
in school. Also, unlike a share (or bond) there is no dividend (or coupon)
return during this 4 year Holding Period. So Current Yield of PHD is virtually
zero.

As for the Capital Gains Yield, that may or may not take place and is a function
of the scholar's estimated salary (the price of the investment) if and when he
does find gainful employment 4 years later. Unlike a share or bond, you also
cannot "liquidate" a scholar. So what is the potential return on a PHD "Talent"
in 4 years time? This potential return is even harder to estimate when you
consider that there is a Risk Premium to be weighted.

What is the Market Risk Premium here? There are several risks, the first and
most obvious being that after the 4 year Holding Period, conditions in the
labour market have changed so drastically that there is no avenue for employment
of these highly trained professional scholars. In that worst-case scenario, the
human capital will not reap any return at all.

Additionally, there is also the Asset Default Risk taken on the actual stock (or
in this case the scholar himself). What happens if he fails the course and has
to repeat an entire semester? This would delay his final entry into the labour
market and increase the Hold Period which also increases the window of risk
exposure. Or, what happens if we have a bond breaker? That would mean the entire
investment has to be written off.

Finally, the Holding Period itself is a window of risk that may not necessarily
be limited to only 4 years. Many of these graduates have already been in
university for 3-4 years for their undergraduate degree before embarking a
further 4 years on the PHD program. So this brings the sum total of the
gestation period or 'holding period to 7-8 years. Factor in another 2-3 years in
full time National Service, this would mean that the scholar will be close to 30
years old before he is finally ready to start work. Of cause, one way to reduce
this risk is to have the scholar pursue his PHD course whilst gainfully
employed.

So, is a PHD Talent worth $900k? The above valuation theory is unable to confirm
this conclusion.

What then is the object of this entire PHD exercise? Quoting A*Star chairman
Philip Yeo, "Eventually, they (the PHD scholars) will become a key attraction to
multinational companies to move their high-end research projects to Singapore".

This is a rather ambiguous, distant and vague outcome to wager an investment on.
The availability of research expertise is only one of a myriad of factors that
will influence a foreign MNC's decision in setting up shop here. Each MNC will
have its own individual needs and requirements. These include political/economic
environment, logistical factors, tax-incentives, operating/production cost base,
industrial factors, infrastructure and support … the list goes on.

And let us also not forget that talent and expertise can be bought and imported.
But I will not digress into a discussion on Foreign Talent today.

Given those numbers and odds, it is understandable why there is some doubt
regarding Mr Yeo's latest investment product and his overwhelming fascination
with the accumulation of paper qualifications, which also begets the question:
have we lost the better part of ourselves in this on-going paper chase?

With a growing number of graduates, MBA and PHD holders and overqualified
professionals undertaking work as cab drivers and hawkers, does the current
system work, or is it making an already bad unemployment situation even worse?
Only in Singapore do we have a government that is so engrossed with the
accumulation of paper qualifications, that they have long since forgotten the
original objective behind the education system, and have instead identified the
means as an end to itself.

In their blind pursuit of their version of a utopian society, educational
elitetism takes center stage above all else, eclipsing the actual needs of the
labour market itself. The distortions in the demand and supply chain is most
acute in industries that are dominated by State Owned Entities and Government
Linked Companies who are also affectionately known by locals as "Scholar Havens"

The startling fact is that even with a supposedly rosy economy, soaring
unemployment rates amongst Singaporeans remain above 4.5%. There is an over
supply of middle management professionals who are now forced to compete for
lower tiered jobs with fresh graduates and non-graduates.

It seems that the recovering economy that is much touted by local government
controled papers have not translated into reduced unemployment rates for local
Singaporeans. There are already many examples of overqualified professionals who
are forced into menial enterprise. Many become cab-drivers or hawkers to tide
over the bad times. Did these professionals spend years in university just to be
security guards, hawkers or cab drivers?

From an economic perspective, education is a scarce resource and there is huge
amount of wastage in terms of unutilised skills and talents.

Perhaps it’s time to step back and look at things in perspective.

[This article was forwarded to the Straits Times and SPH publications but was
never published.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
\
---------