-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
POFMA
- Thread starter rusty
- Start date
Make POFMA your bitch today!
Since pap likes to hide behind a cloud of ambiguity by publishing abstract figures such as:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/12/17/roy-ngerng-questions-moes-non-transparency-on-bursaries/
MOE claims: “$238M [is] attributed to foreign students” and “$167M … refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students”.
1. What is the amount of bursaries for other Singaporean non-tertiary students?
2. Why didn’t the PAP government provide this figure in its so-called clarification?
3. Do these “foreign students” get bursaries too?
4. How much bursaries do they get?
5. And what other forms of funding do they receive?
The MOE says that “$167M and $238M are therefore not comparable”, then why not provide comparable figures?
Let's say Lim Tean publish a set of MOE's bursaries, scholarships, and tuition grants breakdown figures that is derived from his own assumption.
Under POFMA, MOE have to correct those breakdown figures to show the "true" facts thus providing the micro details of where these funds goes to.
Don't play by pap abstract and ambiguous rules of just providing an ambiguous amounts without any details breakdown of these big figures.
Want to know a state secret?
Lim Tean could also publish hoching salary as sgd $300k per day since it's a state secret, hoching salary could only be derived through his own assumption.
Under POFMA, pap have to correct this with hoching salary. No more state secret.
Why pap dare not POFMA Philip Ang?
https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/
Philip Ang don't play by pap rules, he publications is done with thorough research and pap's abstract and ambiguous figures are broken down with details.
If pap POFMA Philip Ang, then pap have to provide all the details and figures of pap's abstract and ambiguous publications with the "true facts".
Play pap at their own game.
Just come up with your own breakdown figures derived through his own assumption and let POFMA fill in the "true" figures for you.
Make POFMA your bitch today!
Since pap likes to hide behind a cloud of ambiguity by publishing abstract figures such as:
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/12/17/roy-ngerng-questions-moes-non-transparency-on-bursaries/
MOE claims: “$238M [is] attributed to foreign students” and “$167M … refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students”.
1. What is the amount of bursaries for other Singaporean non-tertiary students?
2. Why didn’t the PAP government provide this figure in its so-called clarification?
3. Do these “foreign students” get bursaries too?
4. How much bursaries do they get?
5. And what other forms of funding do they receive?
The MOE says that “$167M and $238M are therefore not comparable”, then why not provide comparable figures?
Let's say Lim Tean publish a set of MOE's bursaries, scholarships, and tuition grants breakdown figures that is derived from his own assumption.
Under POFMA, MOE have to correct those breakdown figures to show the "true" facts thus providing the micro details of where these funds goes to.
Don't play by pap abstract and ambiguous rules of just providing an ambiguous amounts without any details breakdown of these big figures.
Want to know a state secret?
Lim Tean could also publish hoching salary as sgd $300k per day since it's a state secret, hoching salary could only be derived through his own assumption.
Under POFMA, pap have to correct this with hoching salary. No more state secret.
Why pap dare not POFMA Philip Ang?
https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/
Philip Ang don't play by pap rules, he publications is done with thorough research and pap's abstract and ambiguous figures are broken down with details.
If pap POFMA Philip Ang, then pap have to provide all the details and figures of pap's abstract and ambiguous publications with the "true facts".
Play pap at their own game.
Just come up with your own breakdown figures derived through his own assumption and let POFMA fill in the "true" figures for you.
Make POFMA your bitch today!
Last edited:
The only way PAP-pigs can try to suppress oppies.
Use POFMA whenever, however they want, against whoever they want. Nobody can POFMA them, though.
The problem is with stinkies.
As hongkies have shown very well. If Stinkies had balls, then eunuch loong or whore jinx would not have stayed in power.
His own younger siblings are at odds with him. Says a lot about his character.
Use POFMA whenever, however they want, against whoever they want. Nobody can POFMA them, though.
The problem is with stinkies.
As hongkies have shown very well. If Stinkies had balls, then eunuch loong or whore jinx would not have stayed in power.
His own younger siblings are at odds with him. Says a lot about his character.
U have balls? Why U not go back Malaysia tell mahathir get lost he sitting too long there?
U have balls? Why U not go back Malaysia tell mahathir get lost he sitting too long there?
What are you talking abt?
Malaysia is a loooot freer than stinkypore.
Dr M left power in 2003. He led UMNO back then.
In 2018, he regained power after campaigning for Bersatu and his chosen alliance Pakatan Harapan.
The press is much freer.
No POFMA. He straightaway rejected the idea in a conference with eunuch Loong.
Was that a bad joke by you?
don't tell me you can't tell the difference between the two countries
at least when it comes to pofma
Roy Ngerng questions MOE’s non-transparency on bursaries and express disgust of its use over POFMA
The Online Citizen 2019-12-17 Opinion
by Roy Ngerng
The People’s Action Party (PAP) government is really disgusting.
So, the Ministry of Education (MOE) now decides to use the POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) anti-fake news law on Peoples Voices’ leader Lim Tean, saying that Lim Tean is making “misleading and false statements”.
1. What is the exact amount of bursaries for Singaporean students?
Lim Tean had said in his post: “PAP spends $167 million on Grants & Bursaries for Singaporeans, but $238 million on foreign students”.
MOE claims: “$238M [is] attributed to foreign students” and “$167M … refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students”.
As MOE states that $167 million refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students, then what is the amount of bursaries for other Singaporean non-tertiary students?
Why didn’t the PAP government provide this figure in its so-called clarification?
By not revealing this amount, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
2. MOE corrects “false statement” with non-comparable figures
Also, do you know that the $238M is only for scholarships and tuition grants for international students?
But all the MOE said in its so-called clarification was that this $238M is spent on “foreign students”.
Then, do these “foreign students” get bursaries too? How much bursaries do they get? And what other forms of funding do they receive?
The MOE says that “$167M and $238M are therefore not comparable”, then why not provide comparable figures?
Why didn’t the MOE reveal this?
By not saying exactly in its so-called clarification that the S$238M is spent specifically on ‘scholarships’ and ‘tuition grants’, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
By not revealing whether foreign students also receive bursaries and other forms of funding as well, and how much they are receiving, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
By not providing comparable figures, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
3. Is MOE or Times Higher Education lying about foreign students ratio?
MOE also said in its statement that there is a “small proportion of foreign students (currently 5%) in the system”.
But actually, according to the government itself, “foreign students make up only around 10% of the universities’ total undergraduate intake“.
And yet, according to the Times Higher Education, international students actually make up 30.5% of the students at the National University of Singapore and 30.8% of the students at the Nanyang Technological University.
So, which is right? Is it 10% or 30%? If the Times Higher Education is lying, shouldn’t the PAP government and its MOE use POFMA on the Times Higher Education for lying?
If the Times Higher Education is right and the MOE is lying, then how?
The PAP government has given their own ministers the power to use POFMA, but Singaporeans do not have the power to use POFMA against the government. And the PAP can also exempt people they want from the POFMA law.
If the PAP lies, will Singaporeans be able to know? And when the PAP lies, how can Singaporeans persecute the PAP?
Moreover, if 5% of the students in the entire education system are foreign students, then what is the proportion of foreign students at each level, at the primary, secondary and tertiary level?
Why didn’t the MOE say? By not giving the breakdown, isn’t the ministry spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
4. Why no breakdown of spending?
MOE said in its statement: “the $238M attributed to foreign students comprises these fixed and non-variable costs”.
What are these fixed and non-variable costs? How much are they? And how much actually goes to the actual scholarships and tuition grants, and how much goes into these other costs?
Why didn’t the MOE say? By not giving the breakdown of these costs, isn’t the ministry spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
MOM also said in its statement that nearly all the nearly $13B budget for MOE is spent on Singaporean students. What is the breakdown? Why didn’t they give a breakdown?
So, I had to dig up MOE’s budget to try to know what the breakdown is (in image below).
Then, can the MOE give us the exact breakdown based on the budget – where exactly does the funding for bursaries, scholarships and tuition fees come from? Can the ministry give us a line by line breakdown?
By not giving Singaporeans an exact breakdown, isn’t the PAP spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
5. No full figures and breakdowns by government
Also, why didn’t the PAP provide the full figures and breakdowns for the bursaries, scholarships and tuition fees on an annual basis?
Why do opposition politicians have to go into parliament to beg for the figures before the PAP government is willing to give only incomplete figures, and only for some years?
By not giving the complete figures on an annual basis, isn’t the ministry under the PAP government, spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
6. Government accuse others of making misleading statement when it does not provide complete statistics
By not providing complete statistics, and then turning around to accuse others of making misleading statements, when these individuals are making statements with the only public information available, does this mean these individuals are making misleading statements because of the government’s decision to give incomplete information and provide half-truths in the first place?
There is simply no complete public information available because the PAP refuses to provide them.
Also, by claiming to clarify misleading statements on Factually, while at the same time still providing half-truths, isn’t the PAP then spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
The PAP government is so disgusting. It cannot hold itself accountable to any proper and transparent standards, and is unwilling to provide complete information, then turns around to use the law against other individuals, by using half-truths to malign them. This is utterly disgusting.
If this is the government that you want, which uses half-truths and the law to malign and persecute other people, and you think this is the right and fair thing to do, go ahead, keep voting for them. Keep being complicit.
Vote Opposition.
The Online Citizen 2019-12-17 Opinion
by Roy Ngerng
The People’s Action Party (PAP) government is really disgusting.
So, the Ministry of Education (MOE) now decides to use the POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) anti-fake news law on Peoples Voices’ leader Lim Tean, saying that Lim Tean is making “misleading and false statements”.
1. What is the exact amount of bursaries for Singaporean students?
Lim Tean had said in his post: “PAP spends $167 million on Grants & Bursaries for Singaporeans, but $238 million on foreign students”.
MOE claims: “$238M [is] attributed to foreign students” and “$167M … refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students”.
As MOE states that $167 million refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students, then what is the amount of bursaries for other Singaporean non-tertiary students?
Why didn’t the PAP government provide this figure in its so-called clarification?
By not revealing this amount, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
2. MOE corrects “false statement” with non-comparable figures
Also, do you know that the $238M is only for scholarships and tuition grants for international students?
But all the MOE said in its so-called clarification was that this $238M is spent on “foreign students”.
Then, do these “foreign students” get bursaries too? How much bursaries do they get? And what other forms of funding do they receive?
The MOE says that “$167M and $238M are therefore not comparable”, then why not provide comparable figures?
Why didn’t the MOE reveal this?
By not saying exactly in its so-called clarification that the S$238M is spent specifically on ‘scholarships’ and ‘tuition grants’, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
By not revealing whether foreign students also receive bursaries and other forms of funding as well, and how much they are receiving, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
By not providing comparable figures, isn’t the MOE spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
3. Is MOE or Times Higher Education lying about foreign students ratio?
MOE also said in its statement that there is a “small proportion of foreign students (currently 5%) in the system”.
But actually, according to the government itself, “foreign students make up only around 10% of the universities’ total undergraduate intake“.
And yet, according to the Times Higher Education, international students actually make up 30.5% of the students at the National University of Singapore and 30.8% of the students at the Nanyang Technological University.
So, which is right? Is it 10% or 30%? If the Times Higher Education is lying, shouldn’t the PAP government and its MOE use POFMA on the Times Higher Education for lying?
If the Times Higher Education is right and the MOE is lying, then how?
The PAP government has given their own ministers the power to use POFMA, but Singaporeans do not have the power to use POFMA against the government. And the PAP can also exempt people they want from the POFMA law.
If the PAP lies, will Singaporeans be able to know? And when the PAP lies, how can Singaporeans persecute the PAP?
Moreover, if 5% of the students in the entire education system are foreign students, then what is the proportion of foreign students at each level, at the primary, secondary and tertiary level?
Why didn’t the MOE say? By not giving the breakdown, isn’t the ministry spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
4. Why no breakdown of spending?
MOE said in its statement: “the $238M attributed to foreign students comprises these fixed and non-variable costs”.
What are these fixed and non-variable costs? How much are they? And how much actually goes to the actual scholarships and tuition grants, and how much goes into these other costs?
Why didn’t the MOE say? By not giving the breakdown of these costs, isn’t the ministry spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
MOM also said in its statement that nearly all the nearly $13B budget for MOE is spent on Singaporean students. What is the breakdown? Why didn’t they give a breakdown?
So, I had to dig up MOE’s budget to try to know what the breakdown is (in image below).
Then, can the MOE give us the exact breakdown based on the budget – where exactly does the funding for bursaries, scholarships and tuition fees come from? Can the ministry give us a line by line breakdown?
By not giving Singaporeans an exact breakdown, isn’t the PAP spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
5. No full figures and breakdowns by government
Also, why didn’t the PAP provide the full figures and breakdowns for the bursaries, scholarships and tuition fees on an annual basis?
Why do opposition politicians have to go into parliament to beg for the figures before the PAP government is willing to give only incomplete figures, and only for some years?
By not giving the complete figures on an annual basis, isn’t the ministry under the PAP government, spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
6. Government accuse others of making misleading statement when it does not provide complete statistics
By not providing complete statistics, and then turning around to accuse others of making misleading statements, when these individuals are making statements with the only public information available, does this mean these individuals are making misleading statements because of the government’s decision to give incomplete information and provide half-truths in the first place?
There is simply no complete public information available because the PAP refuses to provide them.
Also, by claiming to clarify misleading statements on Factually, while at the same time still providing half-truths, isn’t the PAP then spreading half truths as well, and spreading misleading statements?
The PAP government is so disgusting. It cannot hold itself accountable to any proper and transparent standards, and is unwilling to provide complete information, then turns around to use the law against other individuals, by using half-truths to malign them. This is utterly disgusting.
If this is the government that you want, which uses half-truths and the law to malign and persecute other people, and you think this is the right and fair thing to do, go ahead, keep voting for them. Keep being complicit.
Vote Opposition.
Last edited:
Similar threads
