Friday, 30 October 2015

Preventing Fraudulent Singapore Research

Audit Singapore Research to Prevent Fraud    
Need to battle Singapore Universities Research Fraud

The recent opening of the S$450m Fusionopolis Two complex provides more opportunities for research and startup collaboration between the private and public sectors. At its Opening Ceremony, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong envisioned a network of Singapore enterprises and people who "are never satisfied with the world as it is and constantly strive to improve, and are forever hungry and bold."  PM Lee said that what is needed to realise the vision to make the latest Singapore's Research & Development (R&D) and innovation hub work are "ideas, initiative and a strong network of enterprises and institutions, driven by the spirit of research and entrepreneurship"

To his list, I would add un-impeachable levels of integrity and exceptional authenticity as well as honesty.

As the bulk of Singapore R&D is government-funded, it is incumbent on public research funding bodies such as A*Star and the Singapore Research Foundation, as well as Government Ministries and Statutory Boards, among others, to have concrete measures to audit research claims and publications of prospective public research fund recipients, who are mostly University Professors and Research Fellows. No research audit measures for research claims authentication and genuine authorships of research papers are presently deployed.

As research grants using public funds grow, the need to exercise for due diligence to root out and prevent fraudulent research practices become more urgent and imperative.

Promoting honest research means weeding out fraudulent researchers with multiple-cloned research papers. The multiplication of research papers University Professors and Research Fellows is not obvious from a simple listing of publications, since the same paper could appear with different titles. Some have multiplied a single paper more than five times, and over a few years.  

Government Research Funding bodies can start with current recipients of public research funds, which are channeled mostly to local Universities. Research fund recipients should submit copies of all their past research papers. Funds should be granted only to actual research investigators, and not to their supervisors or managers to prevent opportunities for 'gift' authorships. This is where supervisors and managers are often included as research paper 'authors' when they did not contribute significantly or at all.

Public research grant providers should monitor the number of research groups of which recipients have claimed membership. As research is time-consuming, time-intensive and knowledge-driven, it is important to limit research group membership to no more than three or, at most, four.

Fewer research group memberships are preferred for diverse research focus to ensure a more equitable spread of research funds, as well as prevent supervisors and managers from dominating research for fraudulent purposes.

Singapore research excellence must embrace honest research with a high level of conscious integrity by actively weeding out fraudulent researchers and their managers.

Research publication listings must be audited. A new culture that emphasises the more meaningful research impact of patents, inventions and discoveries would also prevent research fraud.

Researchers should also demonstrate the continuous relevance and currency of their expert knowledge through regular high-level consulting assignments with industry and social organisations.





Thursday, 29 October 2015

Can You Count - Financial Literacy 001.1

A Financial Literacy Test
Can you actually count?

3 friends went to a buffet.  Each contributed $10.  One of them collected the money and paid the cashier $30.  At the end of the meal, the cashier realized that the restaurant has a special buffet offer of just $25 for a group of 3 persons.  The cashier refunded $5 to the friends.  The 3 friends were so happy that they decided to give the cashier a tip of $2, and then divided the remaining $3 equally among them; with each receiving $1.   Each one of them therefore actually paid only $9 for their share of the buffet, making a total of $27.  When added the $2 tip to the cashier, the total spent was only $29. 

Share your Answer here.


Wednesday, 28 October 2015

No Race in Singapore Race Relations Future

No Race in the Future of Singapore Race Relations
Multiculturalism - Is there enough trust? “LIVE Video”
Trust in Singapore Multi-Culturalism

Are Singaporeans ready to put aside historical CIMO (Chinese, Indian, Malay, Others) racial categories for a better united, truly cohesive and harmonious Singapore?  What would it take to create a truly multi-cultural, cosmopolitan Singapore society which demonstrates genuine respect for cultural diversity?

These were some of the questions discussed “live” by Inconvenient Questions (IQ), Singapore’s emergent public conversation square on 28 October 2015.  I was on the Panel with Ho Kwon Ping, Executive Chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and Dr Nazry Bahrawi, Lecturer, SUTD. The Moderator was Viswa Sadasivan, IQ Editor-in-Chief in their University Town studio, National University of Singapore

First, my take on the issues:

Trust is the Force Multiplier in the War Against Racism and Racialism. 
It is the policy weapon of choice with a specific Goal in Singapore politics as well as socio-economic policies – the creation of a just and equal society regardless of race, language or religion.

The social reality of Multi-Culturalism is Cultural Diversity. 
We need to address the Overlapping Webs of Cultural Diversity; which is made up of Layers of Cultural Fabrics (“norms”, religions, diet, food, dressings, and various social practices, and than some). The Fabrics weaved together form the Multicultural Canvas of Singapore.

Trust measures the density or emotive strength of cohesion and resilience at specific and various parts of the Multicultural Canvas.

On the Top Surface, the Multicultural Canvas operates at the National Level where a strong demonstration of racial co-existence and harmony have existed for most of the past 50 years; surviving national economic and social crisis eg economic recessions, CPF cuts, SARS and JI.   

At the Middle of the Multicultural Canvas are the various socializing domains of Education, Defense, Housing, Employment, Business Contracting, Cultural Expression Opportunities, Family and Community Life, Medical and other Social Benefits … and where the distributions of benefits and privileges are regulated by the rules of meritocracy and equal opportunities access.  The Trust density varies in respective Domains.  Perceptions of equal opportunities differ across ethnic groups, and Meritocracy has its own peculiar path to favour those who can afford to prepare better to qualify for its award criteria.  There is as yet no final absolute consensus that the rules of meritocracy and equal opportunity access actually resulted in a more just and more equal society; especially given the widening income disparity across Singaporean society.

At the Bottom-most, the Multi-Cultural Canvas is made up of the day-to-day interaction of ordinary Singaporeans whose perceptions of relative social mobility vis-à-vis other ethnic members affects the Trust Value.  Perceptions of discrimination in employment, in job promotion opportunities, in exclusion from selecting choice HDB apartment, or from enrolment into elitist exclusively Mandarin-speaking schools only serve to undermine the Trust density, thereby weakening the Multicultural Canvas.      

The New Singapore Multicultural Canvas now includes MORE ethnic groups beyond the traditional CIMO.  New Chinese, New Indians and New Others have created “patchworks” on the Multicultural Canvas, rather than reinforcing the C, I or O.  Fault lines at the patchwork boundaries will crisscross the traditional fault lines of the CIMO, and make enhanced Trust even more challenging and daunting.

The Conversation was further distracted by referencing some who imported the concept of “Chinese Majority” privilege which I have argued in my MIKOspace Blog to be wholly inapplicable to the Singapore’s race relations.  

The immediate imperative is to create a Stronger Sense of Common Citizenship, instead of a Greater Sense of Multi-Racialism.  We need to imbue in our emergent generations a greater acceptance of Cultural Diversity instead of encouraging a deeper sense of their respective racial or ethnic identity.  We need to build a “united” Society by trusting the things that strengthen us as Singaporeans, and not on the things which potentially separate us. Remember, our cherished values of Family and Community reached “beyond race, language or religion” to overcome the national crisis of SARS, JI Terrorism and Recessions. 

Singapore Exceptionalism is in our National Resilience, our National Servicemen, our Community and our Family.  This is Our Very Own Small Red Dot, the Home of the Daring and Land of Opportunities for all.     

WATCH the Video: “Multiculturalism - Is there enough trust?”

Video brief:
Singapore has won the respect and admiration of many for effectively maintaining harmony in a multiracial and multi-religious society. Something that few multicultural societies have achieved; particularly as we promoted ethnic identity and pride at the same time.  This was achieved through a combination of measures - recognition of the official and inalienable rights of the major ethnic communities (CMIO policy and other legislative measures), rules and conventions that prohibit blatant and insensitive discourse, a mother tongue policy, and the active promotion of racial and religious harmony at various levels, including the mass media.

After 50 years of independence, is it time to review how we approach this important issue of multiculturalism?

While some of the initiatives promote multicultural harmony, going forward, do we now need to encourage more open discourse - albeit in managed forums - to allow for some of the more deeply felt emotions and stereotypes to be addressed?  Are we ready for this? If we don’t do this, are we at risk of having harmony but not true cohesiveness that is based on deep trust. While, as a society we are clear about our stance against racism and discrimination, should we also ask if we should to be less racialised?

These are important but thorny issues which do not have a simple, straightforward answer.

IQ believes that the time is right to start a serious and more open – yet calibrated - discussions on this important issue.  Watch the Conversation.



Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Malaysia's Phony Class War

The Phony Class War in Malaysia
“A silent Civil War fought among unseen Enemies by unthinking Soldiers led by cowardly Leaders with their own vested Agenda hiding in plain sight behind Racial Fire-walls. And where Winning was Never their Mission Goal.” 
Nobody knew when the Malaysian phony class war actually began.  Some said it became public in the 2008 Malaysian General Elections between aspiring but frustrated young Malays and long-suffering frustrated ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities against the rich, powerful Malaysian political and economic elite consisting of the Malay ruling class together with their non-Malay cronies in the Chinese and Indian political parties.  By this time, a mature class-based alliance has already been carefully nurtured and cultivated out of the “Racial Bargain” arrangements of 1948 when Malaya was formed.
The 1948 Racial Bargain was a compromise agreement among the three major ethnic groups – Malay, Chinese and Indian - when none actually constituted more than 50% of the population. They agreed to a separation of economic and political powers whereby the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), representing the Chinese and Indians respectively, would not challenge the political pre-eminence of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) representing the Malays.  In return, the Chinese and Indians shall be granted cultural and religious freedoms and citizenship rights, as well as enjoy “exclusive” economic dominance.  Politically, they also formed the National Front which to this day has continued to form a coalition-like government ever since.
Conceptually, the “bargain” was full of internal contradictions and unfair to all the Parties concerned. It was not sustainable. The Malay leaders had to depend on Chinese economic wealth to maintain its prestige, ostensible expenses and various outward extravaganzas like palaces, houses, mosques and harems.  The Chinese were in turn generously granted “Datukships” (akin to Malay royal “knighthoods”) as well as bank licenses and various exclusive economic businesses and industries.
By the early 1960’s prelude to the formation of Malaysia, Malay dominance began to be challenged by many who were parties to the 1948 “bargain” as well as those who were new-comers to Malayan politics eg Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.  UMNO stalwarts also questioned their “exclusion” from lucrative economic deals, and some Chinese groups began to visibly participate actively in the emergent Malaysian politics.  It was the beginning of the end for the 1948 Racial Bargain.
Competing, mutually exclusive visions to the “racial bargain” polarised between a “Malaysian Malaysia” where equality and multiracial principles would prevail, and a “Malay Malaysia”, an unequal society with Malay dominance and supremacy.  In 1965, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia for her strong advocacy of a “Malaysian Malaysia”, which was later proven to be a superior political and economic principle when applied in a multi-racial, just and equal “Singaporean Singapore” who had over 75% Chinese population.
In 1969, after a series of racial riots in Singapore and Malaysia, rumored to be instigated by UMNO elements, a State of Emergency was declared to be subsequently followed by a new Malaysian Constitution which enshrined and entrenched Malay dominance and Malay supremacy in all and various economic, social and cultural sectors of Malaysia.  Non-Malay indigeneous tribes were also added to Malays to create a new privileged group known as “Bumiputra” or “Sons of the Soil” which would provide numerical superiority justification for Malay dominance and supremacy 
Political Islam was officially adopted and all critics to the new Malaysian Constitution would also be branded anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.      
Malaysia thus entered the 1970’s in a golden era for its Malay ruling elites who were now in possession of desirable and lucrative economic licenses to be shared, for a price, with their family members, relatives, cronies, and especially with non-Malay power elite “partners” to create “Ali-Baba” companies, where the Malays (“Ali”) would provide the license and the Chinese (“Baba”) would appoint them on Company Boards with attractive compensation.  The “Baba’s” would of course do all the requisite work. 
The emergent class-based alliance between the Malaysian upper-class power elites composing Malays, Chinese and Indians political, social and industrial leaders would multiply its strength and pervasiveness under Prime Minister Mahathir from and beyond 1981.  For over 22 years under Mahathir’s Administration, Malaysia prospered much with the bulk of its wealth accruing to the political elites of the three major Malay, Chinese and Indian political parties in the ruling United Front coalition.
Under his leadership, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir’s economic and business agenda has also created a large number of politically connected Bumiputra rent seekers promoting a business system riddled with kickbacks and corruption.  As surely as power would corrupt and absolute power will corrupt absolutely, the “Bumiputra” Malays-first policies began to unpack as they develop complacency, gross mismanagement, discrimination against Malays; giving rise to class and religious divisions among the Malay elites and ordinary Malays.  
Government and local authority contracts, permits and licenses are given to people who are linked to the major ruling political parties and other powerful Bumiputra politicians who in turn rent out their licenses and permits for a fee or a percentage of profit, thus depriving others of these lucrative contracts. They would take a huge cut of any privileged contract before re-awarding the crumbs to the mostly Malay contractors; since 80% of registered contractors are Bumiputra.
Economic and commercial policies favour largely the already rich with lucrative government contracts awarded according to cronyism and nepotism facilitated by widespread systematic corruption practices. The mostly Malay sub-contractors therefore earned little compared with the power elites. 
Also neglected is a majority of the urban poor who are also Malays, and who hailed from other poorer states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Perak and Kedah and Indians who are pre-dominantly Tamils displaced from the plantations and estates during 80’s and the 90’s. 
For poor Malaysians, uncontrolled cheap labour from Indonesia, The Philippines and Myanmar also acted to suppress their already low wages. Most are from low-income families, and the majority of whom are also Malays.  Many simply give up instead of competing with the foreign labour. Those who did not quit would end up working in large government-owned corporation for low wages, even if they are members of the privileged Bumiputra group.
The poor economic attainment of many in the privileged Malay majority in Malaysia can now be better understood. Not in racial terms, but in the context of a class structure of social inequality created by their own Malay power and political elites.
Failed economic policies, corruption, cronyism and class-based institutional practices have locked-in a large proportion of Malaysians in a perpetual low-income-low-productive social stratum which few could escape from.  As the largest racial group, more Malays have suffered despite the numerous pro-Bumiputra and other explicit privileges granted to and for them. 
Rumours will continue to persist of a phony class war in Malaysia in spite of widespread disenchantment with growing income inequality fueled by corruption and cronyism, social and racial discrimination.  The slowly rising middle-class of various ethnic group members also has no stomach for a class war and is even less committed to racial politics.  They instead prefer secular policies not in favour of any racial groups.  
This is understandable as they are quite blinded to the reality of their own political enslavement after more than 50 years of subjugation to the combination of class and racially based political and economic forces.  Such is the Stockholm Syndrome nature in Malaysian race relations. For while they may complain and agitate against the extreme symptoms of her corrupt and racialist political system, the minority ethnic groups (as well as the vast number of poor Malays) seem strangely incapable of comprehending the precise nature of their situation so as to formulate feasible solutions to escape or reform the political-economic and social status quo.     
The REAL Class War in Malaysia shall begin only when a critical mass of “good” Malaysians recover from their “Stockholm Syndrome” which has "brain-washed" them to embrace the false social reality of non-existent Malay privileges and to reject the bogus "fundamental" social principles of Malay “dominance and supremacy”. The only effective and sustainable recovery therapy for a truly prosperous Malaysia is to recognize and embrace the actual social-demographic geo-political realities, and develop the new, necessary capabilities and social institutions to nurse the great country towards the potential road to eventually seize her day of glory and multi-racial acclaims. Basically, nothing short of radical constitutional reforms, perhaps involving revolutionary political re-calibrations with a popular mass movement to dismantle the current man-made class-based Malaysian society would be needed to drive the current “delusional” aspirations of change towards any realistic hope of attainable success.


Tuesday, 13 October 2015

One Month After GE2015 - What's the Big Fuss?

The Big Fuss over Singapore GE2015 – One Month After
“A Great Victory for Singapore and Democracy”

To insiders who know the people, activists and workings inside the PAP, its organisation, values, activities, unshakeable grass-roots network and governance performance record, the outcome of Singapore General Elections or GE2015 was never in the slightest doubt. Pre-GE2015 pundits had probably created the Big Fuss of uncertainties and predicting disaster for PAP in order to encourage bets to profit themselves. 

Many explanations and analysis have been offered for the landslide victory on 11 September 2015 by Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) as if it was like finding water on Mars or discovering how to make gold out of lead.  Never mind that the PAP has always been repeatedly returned to power to form the government with comfortable majorities in Parliament for the past 50 years of Singapore’s existence.   

On an ordinary General Elections day on 11 September 2015, the PAP secured an exceptional 69.9% popular vote share to return to power again. It secured 83 out of 89 parliamentary seats in 29 constituencies, where 15 constituencies gave the PAP more than 70% of their votes. Overall, Singaporeans decisively awarded the PAP with widespread popular vote-swings from the 2011 GE with many from more than 10% to 15%.  Bottom-line, the PAP won almost 10% more votes, from a larger electorate base, from just 60.1% in GE2011. 

Many have pointed to generous SG50 “goodies” distributed by the Government to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Singapore as a major reason for PAP votes.  These may have a little positive effect but could not have been even a decisive factor in GE2015.  After all, the people are accustomed to regular “goodies” by the Government annually even during non-Elections years.   

Some cited the failed strategy by Opposition parties to contest every constituency, and thereby created a “fear” in the minds of the electorate of a “freakish (?)” elections outcome whereby the PAP may not win enough seats to form the next government. This argument is bizarre and absurd because the Opposition parties have adopted similar strategies to contest more than 50% of seats, and repeatedly failed, in previous elections. And if the PAP had indeed been performing sub-par to deserve being replaced, then this “100% contests” strategy would be best for the eventual Opposition alternative government. Unless of course, either the PAP performance was never an electoral issue (why change the government then?) or/and the electorate did not have any confidence in an Opposition alternative government (why vote for the Opposition?).    

Were there no issues worthy of General Elections showdown?  In fact, there were many and plentiful issues to anyone following the web-sites, Blogs and Speakers Corner speeches of the various Opposition parties as well as many armchair-bound commentators over the previous 18+ months.  The issues ranged from emotional CPF withdrawals, high medical costs, immigrant workers, Town Council mis-management, national service, university places and public transport inefficiencies.  These issues were actively argued and engaged in public conversations, public-square, Blog-sites as well as vigorously debated in Parliament.  Alternative solutions were also suggested in the various Manifestos of the Opposition Parties and formed the content of election rally speeches which were also widely published in the local newspapers.  Yet, judging from the final votes on GE Day, the PAP had won over the hearts and minds of the electorates with its narratives, conversations and proposed solutions on all the issues.  And then some.

Perhaps, the respective quality of the Opposition candidates as compared with PAP candidates, were found deficient and sorely wanting in experience and educational qualifications. Actually, the slate of Opposition candidates is about the best ever mustered in any Singapore General Elections. To be fair, just comparing them to the new PAP candidates is sufficient to conclude that they are probably quite evenly matched in their relative lack of political and grassroots experience.  Yet, the new PAP candidates fared generally much better than Opposition candidates from their respective final vote-count.  Individual candidate’s family backgrounds, educational qualifications and their political experience (or lack thereof) did not appear to matter to the electorates.  Sitting PAP candidates did well; the PAP’s overall distributed vote counts attest to and confirm the PAP as indeed and still THE Party of the People”.

The most obvious and true explanation for the landslide GE2015 outcome is the PAP itself.

The untimely demise in March 2015 of Singapore’s Founding Father and First Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) brought forth such over-flowing and out-pouring of national grief and gratitude to the one who led the nation from a Third World island state to First World metropolis as he had promised.    

Throughout the National Mourning Week at the end of March 2015, PAP activists discarded their customary “white” attires as they joined common cause with the “People-in-Black” united in the common painful sorrow of the death of the People’s Champion.  The PAP’s Men-in-White (“MIW”) were indistinguishable. Then dressed in common black, the MIW and people entwined in painful grief as they comfort one another to make the transition easier to bear.  The pain grew deep and unbearable as to be intolerable at times during the funeral procession.  Together, they – the Party and the People - were one; united in loss, side-by-side as one people, facing tomorrow as one nation and reaching beyond our grasp towards realizing the fuller vision of the remarkably extraordinary man who took us on the road of no return arriving at the Metropolis as he promised.

That week in March 2015, almost 6 months earlier, was the defining moment for GE2015.  A grateful nation would demonstrate its eternal loyalty to her Founder by re-affirming his Party’s rightful and well-deserving place as the continuing Government by a landslide mandate later the year.  

As a political party founded in 1955 to fight for independence from British colonial rule, the PAP has been in power since self-government in 1959.  Over these 60 years, the PAP has seen the rise and fall of many political parties from Europe, US, Americas, Africa and neighbouring South-East Asian countries.  Far too many political parties who had fought for independence have become victims to its own greed for power and money corruption; and with many others have also suppressed and repressed their own people in order to remain in power undemocratically.  Very few corrupt political leaders actually want to remember that the purpose of forming democratic governments is to create wealth and prosperity for its people with opportunities leading to the greatest benefits for the largest number.     

The landslide victory of GE2015 for the PAP augurs well for Singapore into the future towards SG100, our 100th anniversary in 2065, as we continue to build on what we have been entrusted and bequeathed by LKY – to be One People and One Nation forever.

For the PAP, its transparency and anti-corruption values have created a tremendous social capital deserving of unshakeable public trust, which translated repeatedly into decisive electoral votes in General Elections like GE2015.  



Sunday, 11 October 2015

Singapore in Fraudulent 2015 World Universities Rankings

Singapore in 2015 World Universities Rankings Fraud … AGAIN!
WHY Do We Continue to Risk Our Brand of Honesty, Trust-worthiness, Reliability, Integrity, Probity and Incorruptibility?

Have we no shame?  No sense of decency?

Is this the way to Honour our Late Founding Mentor LKY?

Is this the manner to celebrate 50 years of Authenticity and Integrity?

Are we so Unthinkingly STUPID and DESPERATE to allow those who tweaked their “Criteria” to elevate us on their False pedestal of dubious Excellence that we should therefore wear their Shameful Badge of Bogus Acclaim?

In the 2015 ranking by London-based education consultancy Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), the National University of Singapore (NUS) took the 12th spot this year, up from 22nd last year, and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was placed 13th, up from 39th last year. 

Wow, indeed! NUS and NTU have leapt incredibly into the top 13 of the annual World University Rankings, partly due to a change in how research citation is evaluated. 

Hold it, people … ! An Eminent Professor has once called the QS Rankings “a Fraud on the public.” Another Eminent Professor said: “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”. 

“University world rankings are pointless”, said University College London’s President, “because there is no definition of the ‘ideal’ university.

Under vigorous academic evaluation, the QS Ranking Methodology failed to withstand penetrative scientific scrutiny. In essence, World Universities Rankings contain serious fundamental conceptual and methodological flaws to render Word Universities Rankings practically useless, irrelevant and immaterial for any serious educational policy purpose. 

An European Union Research Centre concluded that the Rankings was not statistically robust in numerous aspects and highly unreliable for inter-University comparisons.  Their different Ranking Methodologies are also fragile in their ranking approaches and often inconsistent in its treatment of objective data and subjective variables extracted from surveys. 

In fact some survey results used in QS study were strangely re-cycled for 3 years for unknown reasons and in accordance with no associated research methods. 

IT IS OUR RIGHT AS SINGAPOREANS TO DEMAND ANSWERS AS TO WHY, in 2015, OUR UNIVERSITIES ARE STILL Participating in Bogus Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence?

In fact, the United Nations Education agency, UNESCO, has challenged the validity and reliability of University Rankings:

“Global university rankings fail to capture either the meaning or diverse qualities of a university or the characteristics of universities in a way that values and respects their educational and social purposes, missions and goals. At present, these rankings are of dubious value, are underpinned by questionable social science, arbitrarily privilege particular indicators, and use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.”

UNESCO’s found it “difficult to argue that the benefits offered by the information they provide, given the lack of transparency that we have observed, are greater than the ‘unwanted consequences of rankings’. For there is a danger that time invested by universities in collecting and using data and statistics in order to improve their performance in the rankings may detract from efforts to progress in other areas such as teaching and learning or community involvement”.

I have an unshakable belief in mySingapore’s Destiny and Place in the World.  Our reputation for honesty, reliability and trust-worthiness over half a century has earned us our rightful place among the few nations of integrity, probity and incorruptibility.  Our high international rankings attest to these, whether it is with Transparency International, the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) or the World Bank.

But Singapore’s Exceptionalism goes beyond the rankings. These core virtues of our young, determined Nation as we nurture a deep, genuine authenticity and lasting value significance in the world have become ingrained into the Singaporean psyche and into our culture; in our people, our companies, our institutions and our communities. 

Singapore universities should maintain our Integrity and be honestly professional, and reject using the spurious World Universities Rankings to position our great Institutions of Higher Learning because of their lack of validity and reliability in Methodology and questionable measures of learning and research excellence.

Singapore universities should never have participated in the “Global Universities Rankings” Frauds.  Singapore’s presence in the Global Universities Rankings invariably lends our hard-earned Reputation for Authenticity and Honesty to mask their lack of credibility, validity and reliability. OUR Universities MUST be held to the same high standards of integrity and authenticity as the rest of the Nation. 

And “Yes”; even Nunzio Quacquarelli who is the Founder of QS has publicly urged that Governments should Ignore QS Rankings precisely because they were never intended for strategic education policy use. 

Our new Ministers for Education should launch an investigation into NUS/NTU’s continuing annual participation in the ongoing Fraud. 

We must continue to uphold the honest Truth before the World and ourselves, not because of laws and penalties but because this is WHO WE ARE.  Our High Standards of integrity and honesty reflects the Society we want to live in, and the values we uphold and hold ourselves to embrace.