http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=71413.1

Forum: the Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop ™ Forum
Subject: Philip Yeo threatens blogger legal act
From: (MATTEO66)
To: (ALL)
DateTime: 27/04/2005 07:58:45

I dont think this was posted here yet....Philip Yeo head of A*star has
threatened an anonymous blogger named Acidflask with legal action over his
comments on what Philip has said before like:
http://it.asia1.com.sg/newsdaily/news003_20021102.html
or perhaps comments here http://www.tnp.sg/story/0,4136,86038,00.html

so whats so threatening to Philip Yeo of A*star. Why so threatened by an
anonymous S'pore blogger read by perhaps only a few hundred readers that he must
resort to lawsuit?
Thank God I m emigrating.
------------------------------------------------------
see here:
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~chen6/blog/

Unfortunately in recent days, the price of maintaining the content which used to
be accessible at this URL has become too high for the author to afford.
AcidFlask thanks readers for their past
support and regrets the inconvenience caused.

AcidFlask would like to apologize in particular to Mr. Philip Yeo, Chairman of
the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, for having
hosted or made remarks which Mr. Yeo
felt were defamatory to him and the agency that he leads. AcidFlask promises to
not make such remarks again on this website.
--------------------------------------------------------

so what happended to

"Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional
ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust
debate, so as [to] understand our
problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces.... Ours must be an
open and inclusive Singapore."
- Lee Hsien Loong.

EMPTY TALK.

=================================================
DelphiForums.com: Home to the Web's most vibrant
online communities. Explore more than 100,000 Forums
or create your own at http://www.delphiforums.com
=================================================

BRIAN LYNCH
Texas, USA
11 Aug 2003

Higher degrees no key to success

THE speed of innovation and change is a major reason why formal education is no
longer the key to success that it once was.

Acquiring new job skills and mastering the application of relevant new
technology while working boosts a career more than having several higher
degrees.

The material taught in an academic setting is usually based on technology and
knowledge that is about 10 years behind what is happening in business at the
moment.

It takes about that long for business knowledge to move from direct experiences
to a form where it can be packaged and taught in a university course, by a
professor with sufficient knowledge.

One facet of American business that is hard to grasp for people who have spent
many years earning higher degrees is the number of people with a bachelor's
degree whose earnings and advancement outpace those with several master's
degrees.

However, the reasons are not mysterious when the differences between academia
and work are understood.

A person who has spent 10 years earning degrees has effectively removed himself
from business or work.

By contrast, a person who has spent most of that time working will have direct
experience, which has a higher economic value.

More critically, the experience of the person who has been working is far more
up to date than that of the student.

This indicates that the formal education systems of the past, which effectively
removed people from work, are now obsolete.

Universities will need to adopt far more flexible approaches to teaching,
including online and evening courses as well as other non-traditional methods.

If they cannot innovate, then the value of their degrees will drop as graduates
find themselves falling farther behind colleagues who do not pursue academic
achievements.

BRIAN LYNCH
Texas, USA


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


Subject: EDUCATION & UNEMPLOYMENT: SUBSTANCE OVER FORM PLEASE

By: Mellanie Hewlitt
22 Jan 203
Singapore Review

Many would recall Philip Yeo's comments in the 2nd Nov 2002 issue of
the Straits Times:"Got a basic degree? Wash test tubes then".

The comments raised quite afew eye brows in the community and
provoked a backlash of replies from critics. In his reply to his
critics Philip Yeo posed two questions;

a) If you were terminally ill, would you trust a surgeon who was a
college drop-out?; and
b) Would you take a drug that was designed by a college drop-out?

The questions reveal an innate bias and myopia that permeates the
senior ranks of the government bureaucracy and explains in part the
dismal performance of the GLCs and State Owned Entities, which are
affectionately known by locals as "Scholar Havens".

Replying to Mr Yeo's first question, if I was terminally ill I would
want to the most experienced surgeon oversee the operation. The
emphasis here is on the actual experience as opposed to mere paper
qualifications. The last thing I want at my bedside is an
arrogant "professional student" whose only experience is scoring
straight As in an exam hall, and who has no actual experience.

Afterall, a degree is merely a means to an end. An efficient
education system ensures that graduates are equipped with specific
skill sets that will address actual needs of the practical work
place. Looking again at Mr Yeo's analogy, it would be a wasteful
allocation of resource to have even an A' level student wash test-
tubes, let alone a graduate or post-graduate student.

The first sensible rational question is, do we need an undergraduate
to wash test-tubes? The answer is obvious. Why then are we faced with
this inane question? The startling fact is that with a worsening
economy and soaring unemployment rates, 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.

And the problem does not just stop there as there is a domino effect
and the repercussions are felt throughout the labour market. A Human
Resource Manager with a fixed budget for a junior position suddenly
found that he could engage an older more experienced and more
qualified professional to do more, for less. But where does that
leave the fresh graduate who would have otherwise filled this
opening? He is unemployed, or forced to look for more menial work.

Arguably, this situation benefits the employer and it is an
employer's market. But viewed on a macro level, it is a far from
ideal situation. There is a tremendous amount of wastage of scarce
human resources as graduates are unable to put their professional
skills to good use.

With the current economic situation going from bad to worse, 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 drive a cab or fry Char Kway Teow? Do you actually
need a PHD to be a hawker or a cab-driver?

What is even more amusing is the attempt by the local papers and
mass media, to glorify such cases (e.g. 12 Jan 2003 issue of the New
Paper "From banking man (earning five-digit monthly pay) to Golden
Mile nasi lemak man Why") We can only hope that Mr Yeo's latest
investment in PHD graduates (see previous column) will not add to the
growing ranks of the unemployed professionals.

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. Health care is an excellent
example.

For decades it was common knowledge that there was a
severe shortage in supply of doctors in Singapore. This had
contributed to escalating health care costs to the extent that the
paternalistic government found it necessary to increase medi-save
contributions in CPF accounts. One would have expected the Medical
Faculty to increase student intake and also increase employment of
foreign doctors to alleviate the dismal situation. But they had
steadfastly refused to do either, allowing
the situation to go from bad to worse.

What compounded the situation was the archaic admissions criteria in the
medical faculty which placed a strict quota on female graduates who would
otherwise be admissible. The rationale behind this policy can best be described
as medieval, resting perhaps on the argument that female doctors will
ultimately marry and abandon their medical professions in pursuit of
domestic life. This archaic medieval policy was only lifted last
year, after being in effect for decades.

Fortunately, the mismatch between demand and supply is much less
acute for professions which are less subject to government
regulation, and more exposed to the international market. Some
examples are banking, accounting, IT etc. Successful professionals in
these industries see employment in MNCs which are in sync with
market conditions. And market forces are able to address any
weaknesses or kinks in the demand-supply chain and weed out
inefficient unproductive elements. The same cannot be said of State
Runned Enterprises and GLCs which have a free hand into public funds
and tax dollars. These are a safe haven in difficult times for fat
bacon meat which would otherwise have seen the short end of a shot-
gun in the competitive private sector.

But the disturbing fact remains that these lumbering unproductive
loss making enterprises, occupied by government bureaucrats and
scholars, will continue to be a burden on the economy and private
sector.

The underlying issue here is that due to the inability of the
domestic economy to generate higher echelon jobs, and a very weak
employment market, graduates (and PHD holders) are often unable to
find jobs in positions that they were academically trained for. This
is not a failing on the part of the individual, but rather a failing
on the part of the system, and yes, ultimately the government. And
looking at Mr Yeo's latest project, it appears that no progress will
be made in this area for at least another few years.

Moving away from the grey area of public policies, we must look
towards substance over form. Substance in this context refers to the
actual experience and ability to perform the job. Form is a
decorative facade which is a vague indication (which may be
inaccurate) that the person has such ability. Which would you trust
if you were terminally ill, a PHD who has never touched a scalpel or
a self-thought albeit non-graduate physician who worked her way up as
a nurse, and who has successfully treated 1,000 cases similiar to
yours? You decide, but the answer is clear to me.

But there is also a more crucial question that lies beyond policy
matters waiting to be addressed;

CAN THE CURRENT PAP LEADERS IDENTIFY WITH THE NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS
OF THE AVERAGE SINGAPOREAN CITIZEN IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES.

If we do not have leaders who can understand and relate to the plight
of the common man on the street, how can we have faith on these same
leaders to lead us out of stormy waters?

Can a leader who continues to receive handsome remuneration in tax
dollars ever relate to the plight of the average wage earner who
earns less then 10% of his take home pay? How can he even start to
appreciate the ramifications of his far-reaching policies (on ERP,
petrol, electricity, motor insurance, bus and MRT fares, and now
hospital fees) which were all too likely drawn up in a clinical
environment?

As unemployment rates soar to new highs, there are also repeated
calls by the government for Singaporeans to be less "less choosy"
about work . In the JAN 13, 2003 issue of the Straits Times, Lim
Boon Heng has called on Singaporeans to "Expect smaller wage rises in
future". But this is also akin to a bad tailor who is encouraging a
paying customer to be satisfied with very poor workmanship! AFTER SO
MANY YEARS OF SLOGGING AND SWEATING in our supposedly elite world
class universities, why are we being told to settle for less in terms
of careers and expectations?

Perhaps Mr Lim should start applying this sentiment to Singapore's
million dollar ministers who continue to take home millions of tax
dollars per year even in these difficult times. In the past, the
merits of such handsome remunerations have always been that these
would be needed to attract the best talents and to ensure elite
performance. But in the current circumstances, I am still struggling
to identify what qualifies as resounding performance from our elite
leaders, especially when they have repeated (and admitted) several
times over that the economy recovery will be led by external forces.
Perhaps our leaders may have more pressing issues on their hands then
tuddongs and head-dresses at schools.

Oh yes, as for Mr Yeo's second question, I would have no problems
taking a drug that is designed by a college drop-out, if the drug is
safe and it works. That is substance. But am I to understand that Mr
Yeo would he be willing to take a defective drug if it was developed
by a PHD holder?

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