- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,563
- Points
- 113
Clearly US, UK, West don't care what Singapore does.
Serious PAP Jo Teo Issues POFMA Against SDP For Spreading Lies About Sinkie PMETs! SDP, Please Stop Telling Lies!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 28,963
- Points
- 113
KNN how to apply for the post of pofma screening officer with pap KNN it should be a home based job KNN
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2018
- Messages
- 4,351
- Points
- 113
Dear Minister Josephine Teo, We refer to the Correction Notices you sent to the SDP on 14 December 2019. We state our case below. Post 1: The SDP article which you refer to dated 8 June 2019 states: “The SDP's proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs getting retrenched.” This statement is based on a Straits Times (ST) report “PMETs make up rising share of retrenched locals” (15 March 2019). The report states: “Professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) made up about three in four or 76 per centof the locals – Singaporeans and permanent residents – who were retrenched last year, the highest figure in at least a decade. It rose from 72 per cent in 2017 and is significantly higher than the share of PMETs in the resident workforce, which is about 57 per cent.” The report includes a figure labelled: “PMETs make up growing share of locals laid off” with MOM stated as its source. As the said newspaper is a government-controlled newspaper, we have no reason to believe that it would publish fake news about the government. As such, the MOM should take the matter up with the ST. If the ST states that its information, or the interpretation of it, is incorrect, we would be happy to amend our statement correspondingly. In a separate report by Yahoo! (3 October 2019), DBS senior economist Irvin Seah was quoted, saying: “PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce.” Post 2: In our infograph posted on 30 November 2019, we made the statement: “Local PMET unemployment has increased”. In its report “More workers were retrenched in Q1 – here’s why most of them were PMETs”, the Business Insider (13 June 2019) said: “Retrenchment in Q1 2019 is up from the previous quarter, and most of those who were retrenched were professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), a report by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has revealed.” Other newspapers such as ST and TODAY also published similar reports. In the second quarter of 2019, the above-cited Yahoo! report headlined “PMET unemployment in Singapore continues to climb” stated that the “number of PMETs who lost their jobs increased from 1,440 to 1,680, making them the bulk of those retrenched.” The report also cited Mr Irvin Seah's comment that the rate of PMETs re-entering the workforce after six months of retrenchment was “persistently much lower”. Our statement is based on publicly available information cited in the reports mentioned. Post 3: In our infograph posted on 2 December 2019, we made the statement: “Local PMET employment has decreased”. This is similar to Case 2. In addition, the low re-entry numbers suggest that the absolute numbers of unemployed and under-employed PMETs would have increased. Be that as it may, 2019 isn't over, yet you say that local PMET employment has risen for the year.
This raises questions about your conclusion.
Sincerely,
John Tan Vice-Chairman
Singapore Democratic Party
It would appear that if the PAP government declares it is fake, they can pofma it. Such dictatorial powers without any real safeguards. Jo Teo is such a disgrace! She and her government need to stop abusing their powers against freedom of speech and the right to the real truth.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2018
- Messages
- 18,194
- Points
- 113
Yes PMET employment went up because foreigners are given citizenship.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 28,963
- Points
- 113
KNN the only correct way to honour a pofma is to soon par aka make a death vow KNN rike sbf got members steady type KNN
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,270
- Points
- 113
SDP plans to challenge POFMA Correction Directions against its posts on PMET unemployment
The SDP said multiple reports said the same thing.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) on Sunday (Dec. 15) disputed the Correction Directions issued by the Ministry of Manpower against their social media posts and an article, invoked under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Act (POFMA).
Advertisement
The opposition party also said, in an update to its original post, that it plans to apply to cancel the correction directions issued against them.
SDP’s initial posts and article said that local PMET employment in Singapore had dropped.
In response, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) cited its Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, and stated that local PMET employment has risen steadily since 2015.
SDP explained what led them to make the initial claim
But in a Facebook post signed off by SDP vice-chairman John Tan on Dec. 15, the SDP cited the sources that led them to make their original claim.
MOM issued a Correction Notice against a June 8 article on the SDP’s website, specifically the line: “The SDP’s proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs getting retrenched.”
However, the SDP said the statement they made was based off a Straits Times (ST) report titled “PMETs make up rising share of retrenched locals”, published on March 15 this year.
AdvertisementSDP took information from Straits Times article
ST‘s article said that PMETs made up 76 per cent or three in four of the Singaporeans and permanent residents retrenched in 2018, the highest figure in “at least a decade”.
The article also included an infographic with the header “PMETs make up growing share of locals laid off”.
The SDP said it had no reason to believe that ST would publish “fake news”, and suggested that MOM should take up the matter with the paper.
The SDP added that they would be happy to amend their statement if ST states that its information, or its interpretation thereof, was incorrect.
It also cited a Yahoo News article on Oct. 3, titled “PMET unemployment in Singapore continues to climb”.
It quoted DBS Senior Economist Irvin Seah as saying that “PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce”.
Correction Directions against Facebook posts
Correction Directions were also issued against SDP’s Nov. 30 and Dec. 2 Facebook posts.
To support its statement in its Nov. 30 post that “local PMET unemployment has increased”, the SDP cited a June 13 article by Business Insider, as well as “similar reports” from ST and Today.
The Business Insider article reported that Q1 2019 retrenchment was up from the previous quarter, and “most of those” who were retrenched were PMETs. It cited an MOM Labour Market report released on June 13.
The SDP again cited the Oct. 3 Yahoo News article, which said: “…the number of PMETs who lost their jobs increased from 1,440 to 1,680, making them the bulk of those retrenched.”
AdvertisementDefended Facebook infographic
The SDP added that the infographic on its Dec. 2 Facebook post, which stated that “Local PMET employment has decreased”, was similarly based on the reported information.
It added that “low re-entry numbers” suggest that the absolute numbers of unemployed and underemployed PMETs would have increased.
The SDP also disputed MOM’s assertion that local PMET employment has risen in 2019, as the year has not yet ended.
You can see the SDP’s post in full below:
SDP complied with Correction Notices
Despite their disagreement, the SDP complied with the Correction Direction against the Nov. 30 Facebook post.
As of 4:30 pm, the Nov. 30 post contains the Correction Notice at the top as required under POFMA. You can see it below:
However, the post includes another note to the top note, saying: “Under POFMA, we have to comply with the order but we will be applying to cancel the Correction Directions.”
The other Facebook post of Dec. 2 and the website article also contains includes Correction Notices, both with similar caveats.
They posted another follow-up Facebook post stating their intention to appeal against the correction directions:
POFMA allows appeals to be made in court against Correction Directions, if the Minister refuses the application to cancel the Direction.
AdvertisementFirst use of POFMA against posts made by a political party
This latest POFMA invocation by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo is the first to be used against posts made by a Singaporean political party.
Previously, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat invoked POFMA against a post made by Progress Singapore Party member Brad Bowyer.
However, that post was on Bowyer’s personal Facebook page. He complied with the correction notice.
The Home Affairs Minister later invoked POFMA against a Facebook post on the States Times Review.
When its editor, Alex Tan, refused to comply, POFMA was then invoked against Facebook itself.
Past uses of POFMA since it kicked in:
Top image from SDP and MOM’s Facebook pages.
The SDP said multiple reports said the same thing.
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) on Sunday (Dec. 15) disputed the Correction Directions issued by the Ministry of Manpower against their social media posts and an article, invoked under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Act (POFMA).
Advertisement
The opposition party also said, in an update to its original post, that it plans to apply to cancel the correction directions issued against them.
SDP’s initial posts and article said that local PMET employment in Singapore had dropped.
In response, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) cited its Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, and stated that local PMET employment has risen steadily since 2015.
SDP explained what led them to make the initial claim
But in a Facebook post signed off by SDP vice-chairman John Tan on Dec. 15, the SDP cited the sources that led them to make their original claim.
MOM issued a Correction Notice against a June 8 article on the SDP’s website, specifically the line: “The SDP’s proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs getting retrenched.”
However, the SDP said the statement they made was based off a Straits Times (ST) report titled “PMETs make up rising share of retrenched locals”, published on March 15 this year.
AdvertisementSDP took information from Straits Times article
ST‘s article said that PMETs made up 76 per cent or three in four of the Singaporeans and permanent residents retrenched in 2018, the highest figure in “at least a decade”.
The article also included an infographic with the header “PMETs make up growing share of locals laid off”.
The SDP said it had no reason to believe that ST would publish “fake news”, and suggested that MOM should take up the matter with the paper.
The SDP added that they would be happy to amend their statement if ST states that its information, or its interpretation thereof, was incorrect.
It also cited a Yahoo News article on Oct. 3, titled “PMET unemployment in Singapore continues to climb”.
It quoted DBS Senior Economist Irvin Seah as saying that “PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce”.
Correction Directions against Facebook posts
Correction Directions were also issued against SDP’s Nov. 30 and Dec. 2 Facebook posts.
To support its statement in its Nov. 30 post that “local PMET unemployment has increased”, the SDP cited a June 13 article by Business Insider, as well as “similar reports” from ST and Today.
The Business Insider article reported that Q1 2019 retrenchment was up from the previous quarter, and “most of those” who were retrenched were PMETs. It cited an MOM Labour Market report released on June 13.
The SDP again cited the Oct. 3 Yahoo News article, which said: “…the number of PMETs who lost their jobs increased from 1,440 to 1,680, making them the bulk of those retrenched.”
AdvertisementDefended Facebook infographic
The SDP added that the infographic on its Dec. 2 Facebook post, which stated that “Local PMET employment has decreased”, was similarly based on the reported information.
It added that “low re-entry numbers” suggest that the absolute numbers of unemployed and underemployed PMETs would have increased.
The SDP also disputed MOM’s assertion that local PMET employment has risen in 2019, as the year has not yet ended.
You can see the SDP’s post in full below:
SDP complied with Correction Notices
Despite their disagreement, the SDP complied with the Correction Direction against the Nov. 30 Facebook post.
As of 4:30 pm, the Nov. 30 post contains the Correction Notice at the top as required under POFMA. You can see it below:
However, the post includes another note to the top note, saying: “Under POFMA, we have to comply with the order but we will be applying to cancel the Correction Directions.”
The other Facebook post of Dec. 2 and the website article also contains includes Correction Notices, both with similar caveats.
They posted another follow-up Facebook post stating their intention to appeal against the correction directions:
POFMA allows appeals to be made in court against Correction Directions, if the Minister refuses the application to cancel the Direction.
AdvertisementFirst use of POFMA against posts made by a political party
This latest POFMA invocation by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo is the first to be used against posts made by a Singaporean political party.
Previously, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat invoked POFMA against a post made by Progress Singapore Party member Brad Bowyer.
However, that post was on Bowyer’s personal Facebook page. He complied with the correction notice.
The Home Affairs Minister later invoked POFMA against a Facebook post on the States Times Review.
When its editor, Alex Tan, refused to comply, POFMA was then invoked against Facebook itself.
Past uses of POFMA since it kicked in:
Top image from SDP and MOM’s Facebook pages.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 19,430
- Points
- 113
Contrary to this, added the MOM, there has been no rising trend of local PMET retrenchment since 2015.
It added that the number of retrenched local PMETs has declined from 6,460 in 2015 to 5,360 in 2018, the lowest since 2014.
MOM also said that local PMETs retrenched, as a proportion of all local PMET employees, has also declined since 2015.
These figures they just anyhow say....can be plucked from anywhere and window dressed?
It added that the number of retrenched local PMETs has declined from 6,460 in 2015 to 5,360 in 2018, the lowest since 2014.
MOM also said that local PMETs retrenched, as a proportion of all local PMET employees, has also declined since 2015.
These figures they just anyhow say....can be plucked from anywhere and window dressed?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,079
- Points
- 83
An old PAP minister once said to ignore statistics as political parties slice numbers to depict the most favorable data for them. All you have to do is go to the ground and see for yourself. Do you feel local PMET employment is great? I can surely tell you that friends around me are losing their job. They find employment after a long time at a much lower grade and some have gone to full time Grab drivers. All these, while we see more and more Indians in Singapore with plush and cushy jobs.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
The singapore property market is doing well. Lots of sinkies flock to condo showrooms, BTO applications far exceed supply and the malls are packed with shoppers and diners. Kindly stop spreading fear by fanning the flames of racism and xenophobia. It will not be tolerated, especially by Bro Chun Sing.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 28,132
- Points
- 113
Let's have total transparency. We want to see the raw data, not those statements issued by the ministry.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 6,840
- Points
- 113
I don't get why his party does not have more supporters.
Why his party does not draw more voters.
Why his party does not attract more volunteers.
You find me a better stinkyporean politician today who in a no nonsense manner calls a spade a spade, and stands up for stinkies, and I can agree to ask stinkies to vote for him/her/them.
Lim Tean, SDP, PSP should call out PAP-pigs for public debate.
If there is false information propagated by the oppies, why would their much revered ang mohs rate stinky PAP-pigs media 154th?
Why does PAP-pig have to post a notice on govt website to dismiss what they claim is fake news?
They can use a public forum, to debate and discuss facts, with evidence (photographic, video, audio, statistics, interviews, comments and other forms) to support each side's statements.
Let the public decide which side is telling the truth.
The masses should be able to tell - at least somewhat well - which sides' words ring hollow and whose words match their personal, everyday experiences.
Not only are PAP-pigs abusing power, there is also a conflict of interest for PAP-pigs to use a govt body to fight their political party's battle.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,270
- Points
- 113
No rising trend of local PMET retrenchment: MOM rebuts SDP
The Ministry of Manpower building. (File photo: Calvin Oh)
16 Dec 2019 09:31AM
(Updated: 16 Dec 2019 09:43AM)
Share this content
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: There has been no "rising trend" of retrenchment for local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said on Sunday night (Dec 15) in response to Facebook posts by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
"There is no rising trend of local PMET retrenchment. Local PMET employment has in fact increased consistently and continues to do so," the ministry said, as SDP doubled down on its claims that "local PMET unemployment has increased".
On Saturday, MOM had issued Correction Directions to the SDP under online falsehoods legislation on two Facebook posts and an article on employment trends among PMETs.
SDP on Sunday complied with the orders by posting correction notices on its article and earlier Facebook posts, but put up another statement on Facebook to state its case.
"The SDP has issued the Correction Notices for the three posts as specified by MOM. However, as stated in our previous statement, the conclusions that Manpower Minister Josephine Teo has come to are disputable," it said under the correction notices.
SDP has said it will be applying to cancel the Correction Directions.
READ: SDP complies with POFMA order but will apply to cancel correction directions
In response, MOM said that it will "consider the grounds of their application should it be submitted".
Further clarification was made in MOM's statement to "the more salient points" in SDP's Sunday Facebook post, although MOM noted that it was "not intended to provide an exhaustive response".
The SDP claimed it had based its assertion about "a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs getting retrenched” on news reports, including one by The Straits Times on Mar 15, 2019 titled PMETs Make Up Rising Share Of Retrenched Locals.
According to MOM, what the ST report meant was that among all retrenched locals (7,070 in 2018), the number of PMETs among them has risen.
This is "fundamentally different" from what the SDP said it its Facebook post, which is that among Singapore PMETs (1,254,000 in 2018), the number getting retrenched has risen, MOM said.
READ: POFMA Office directs Brad Bowyer to correct Facebook post in first use of 'fake news' law
Among local PMETs, the number retrenched has declined from 6,460 in 2015 to 5,360 in 2018, said MOM.
MOM said the context was further explained in Parliament on Apr 1, in a Parliamentary response stating that that there are now more locals employed in PMET jobs, and that as a result, in a retrenchment exercise, more of the locals affected could be PMETs.
The Ministry of Manpower building. (File photo: Calvin Oh)
16 Dec 2019 09:31AM
(Updated: 16 Dec 2019 09:43AM)
Share this content
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: There has been no "rising trend" of retrenchment for local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said on Sunday night (Dec 15) in response to Facebook posts by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
"There is no rising trend of local PMET retrenchment. Local PMET employment has in fact increased consistently and continues to do so," the ministry said, as SDP doubled down on its claims that "local PMET unemployment has increased".
On Saturday, MOM had issued Correction Directions to the SDP under online falsehoods legislation on two Facebook posts and an article on employment trends among PMETs.
SDP on Sunday complied with the orders by posting correction notices on its article and earlier Facebook posts, but put up another statement on Facebook to state its case.
"The SDP has issued the Correction Notices for the three posts as specified by MOM. However, as stated in our previous statement, the conclusions that Manpower Minister Josephine Teo has come to are disputable," it said under the correction notices.
SDP has said it will be applying to cancel the Correction Directions.
READ: SDP complies with POFMA order but will apply to cancel correction directions
In response, MOM said that it will "consider the grounds of their application should it be submitted".
Further clarification was made in MOM's statement to "the more salient points" in SDP's Sunday Facebook post, although MOM noted that it was "not intended to provide an exhaustive response".
The SDP claimed it had based its assertion about "a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs getting retrenched” on news reports, including one by The Straits Times on Mar 15, 2019 titled PMETs Make Up Rising Share Of Retrenched Locals.
According to MOM, what the ST report meant was that among all retrenched locals (7,070 in 2018), the number of PMETs among them has risen.
This is "fundamentally different" from what the SDP said it its Facebook post, which is that among Singapore PMETs (1,254,000 in 2018), the number getting retrenched has risen, MOM said.
READ: POFMA Office directs Brad Bowyer to correct Facebook post in first use of 'fake news' law
Among local PMETs, the number retrenched has declined from 6,460 in 2015 to 5,360 in 2018, said MOM.
MOM said the context was further explained in Parliament on Apr 1, in a Parliamentary response stating that that there are now more locals employed in PMET jobs, and that as a result, in a retrenchment exercise, more of the locals affected could be PMETs.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 28,963
- Points
- 113
KNN why mom needs to rebut KNN by doing this it means they want to claim credits when it is false KNN then when those being leetrenched ones meet them they also never say they are responsible for it KNN that means mom only want to claim credit isn't it KNN else trend rise also they are not responsible KNN likewise why did sdp needs to post false news since they also know mom is not responsible for it KNN so what is happening here KNN if it really true that sdp posted false news then sdp can jia sai also KNN since sinkie also know mom is not responsible for it KNN so in summary does the politicians both pap and sdp use their farking brains does it matter if is real or fake news KNN
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,270
- Points
- 113
Pap seems to be getting desperate. They are now targeting Ah Tean.
Lawyer Lim Tean directed to correct Facebook posts under online falsehoods law
Lim Tean, lawyer for Leong Sze Hian, outside the Supreme Court on Sep 27, 2019. (Photo: Trisno Foo)
16 Dec 2019 10:37AM
(Updated: 16 Dec 2019 12:41PM)
Share this content
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: Singaporean lawyer Lim Tean has been directed to correct two Facebook posts related to the Ministry of Education's (MOE) spending on local and foreign students, the authorities said on Monday (Dec 16).
MOE said it has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office to issue a Correction Direction to Mr Lim Tean, on the false statements made in two of his Facebook posts.
READ: No rising trend of local PMET retrenchment: MOM rebuts SDP
"The Correction Direction requires Mr Lim to carry, in full, a correction notice at the top of both Facebook posts," it said.
This is the fourth time correction directions have been issued since the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) came into force in October. On Saturday, directions were issued to Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Previously, directions were issued to Progress Singapore Party member Brad Bowyer and the States Times Review.
"FALSE AND MISLEADING"
Two Facebook posts shared on Dec 12 by Lim Tean contain false and misleading statements, according to an article on the Government's fact-checking website, Factually.
In his Facebook posts, Mr Lim, the leader of political party Peoples Voice, stated that "the total pot available to Singaporean students [is] S$167 million compared to the S$238 million that is spent on foreign students".
“PAP spends S$167 million on Grants & Bursaries for Singaporeans, but S$238 million on foreign students??” wrote Mr Lim, who is representing blogger Leong Sze Hian in a defamation case involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
This implies that MOE spends less on Singaporean students than on foreign students, which is "false and misleading", states the Factually article.
The annual budget of MOE is S$13 billion, almost all of which is spent on Singapore citizens, and the S$167 million cited by Mr Lim refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students.
READ: Parliament passes Bill to tackle online falsehoods after lengthy debate over two days
According to the Factually article, this "grossly understates MOE’s total spending on Singaporean citizens for education", with the figures of S$167 million and S$238 million not being comparable.
The article also notes that a more appropriate comparison would be the S$13 billion spent on Singaporean students to provide subsidised education for all Singaporean students at all levels against the S$238M attributed to foreign students referred to by Mr Lim, which is less than 2 per cent of the total education budget.
MOE's budget also goes towards costs such as infrastructure, facilities, laboratories, faculty and the teaching force, which are either fixed or non-variable up to the medium term, to provide education for Singaporean students.
NO SINGAPOREAN STUDENT DEPRIVED OF A PLACE BY A FOREIGN STUDENT
"A large part of the S$238 million attributed to foreign students comprises these fixed and non-variable costs that we have to incur anyway, whether or not we admit a small proportion of foreign students (currently 5 per cent) in the system," said the Factually article, citing Education Minister Ong Ye Kung's parliamentary reply on Aug 5.
Lawyer Lim Tean directed to correct Facebook posts under online falsehoods law
Lim Tean, lawyer for Leong Sze Hian, outside the Supreme Court on Sep 27, 2019. (Photo: Trisno Foo)
16 Dec 2019 10:37AM
(Updated: 16 Dec 2019 12:41PM)
Share this content
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: Singaporean lawyer Lim Tean has been directed to correct two Facebook posts related to the Ministry of Education's (MOE) spending on local and foreign students, the authorities said on Monday (Dec 16).
MOE said it has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office to issue a Correction Direction to Mr Lim Tean, on the false statements made in two of his Facebook posts.
READ: No rising trend of local PMET retrenchment: MOM rebuts SDP
"The Correction Direction requires Mr Lim to carry, in full, a correction notice at the top of both Facebook posts," it said.
This is the fourth time correction directions have been issued since the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) came into force in October. On Saturday, directions were issued to Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Previously, directions were issued to Progress Singapore Party member Brad Bowyer and the States Times Review.
"FALSE AND MISLEADING"
Two Facebook posts shared on Dec 12 by Lim Tean contain false and misleading statements, according to an article on the Government's fact-checking website, Factually.
In his Facebook posts, Mr Lim, the leader of political party Peoples Voice, stated that "the total pot available to Singaporean students [is] S$167 million compared to the S$238 million that is spent on foreign students".
“PAP spends S$167 million on Grants & Bursaries for Singaporeans, but S$238 million on foreign students??” wrote Mr Lim, who is representing blogger Leong Sze Hian in a defamation case involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
This implies that MOE spends less on Singaporean students than on foreign students, which is "false and misleading", states the Factually article.
The annual budget of MOE is S$13 billion, almost all of which is spent on Singapore citizens, and the S$167 million cited by Mr Lim refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students.
READ: Parliament passes Bill to tackle online falsehoods after lengthy debate over two days
According to the Factually article, this "grossly understates MOE’s total spending on Singaporean citizens for education", with the figures of S$167 million and S$238 million not being comparable.
The article also notes that a more appropriate comparison would be the S$13 billion spent on Singaporean students to provide subsidised education for all Singaporean students at all levels against the S$238M attributed to foreign students referred to by Mr Lim, which is less than 2 per cent of the total education budget.
MOE's budget also goes towards costs such as infrastructure, facilities, laboratories, faculty and the teaching force, which are either fixed or non-variable up to the medium term, to provide education for Singaporean students.
NO SINGAPOREAN STUDENT DEPRIVED OF A PLACE BY A FOREIGN STUDENT
"A large part of the S$238 million attributed to foreign students comprises these fixed and non-variable costs that we have to incur anyway, whether or not we admit a small proportion of foreign students (currently 5 per cent) in the system," said the Factually article, citing Education Minister Ong Ye Kung's parliamentary reply on Aug 5.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 6,840
- Points
- 113
hold on..
how many are true blue stinkyporeans?
how many are ceca new citizens?
coz this one is also a new citizen, and officially a stinkyporean.
and this one also a true blue stinkyporean giving a piece of his mind to ceca virus ah neh
He wrote, “It’s about a certain Ramesh Erramalli who is making his living in my country, but thought it was ok to not only verbally abuse a poor old local uncle who was just doing his job as a security guard, but also had the pompousness to disparage 80% of my people who lived in HDB flats”.
He also wrote, “I do not understand why he behaved the way he did. Maybe it’s just poor upbringing, maybe he does feel a sense of entitlement, or maybe because Singaporeans are just too nice and letting him getting (sic) his way most of the time by being louder”.
Tay concluded his post by saying, “Yes Ramesh Erramalli, I know you bought “your f**king property for S$1.5 million…”. But really, So What?”
Similar threads
