However the management style, that I have witnessed in these institutions, is as far as my humble opinion is concerned a joke. Loyalty and trust is demanded from the staff and yet that loyalty is not repaid by sound managerial decisions. Working in an 'educational' institution that demands your silence, that smothers criticism at birth and has one driving force - maximisation of profit - is a soul destroying experience. Yes they speak of 'education' on the rare occassion but only if it enhances their marketability. As soon as you get close enough and involved enough you realise that something lurks beneath the surface.
There is something rotten in the so-called 'Education Hub' of Singapore and it lies at the feet of the senior management and in Singapore that usually refers to the owners.
The suspension and expulsion of institutions from the CASE scheme is a worthy intervention. Case outlines its 'vision/mission' statement as
": Protect & enhance consumers' interest through information, education & to promote an environment of fair & ethical trading practices."
So what 'fair and ethical trading practices' have these institutions breached?
The only other issue I have is to ask 'when and how has this knowledge been disseminated to local Singaporean students?'
Chinese students are being warned not to apply to seven private schools and training centers in Singapore.
The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) recently disqualified seven private schools. They are the Oriental School of Business, Singapore Institute of Commerce, Louis Preston School of Business, Louis Preston Travel & Tourism Training Center, Stansfield College, Lions Club of Singapore Nanyang, and Froebel School of Education.
Chinese students can log on to China's Ministry of Education website as www.jsj.edu.cn, to check the qualifications of schools abroad.
Source: Xinhua
5 comments:
CASE only come into existence very recently. So what 'fair and ethical trading practices' have these schools, and possibly other private institution in Singapore, committed before that? The question then are the Singapore Ministry of Education not monitoring the quality of these institutions once they are granted the approval to run the school?
Of course not...
Once the 'school' is granted approval they have free reign to conduct their business as they see fit. So long as they act within the law of course. However schools will push the demands on staff and push financially on students. They tend to promise whatever the student desires, take the money off the 'costumer' then walk away laughing. It has been happening again and again.
CASE seems to be trying to intervene but is a rather toothless tiger as membership is at the discretion of the 'school'. In this instance it has acted and acted correctly. But ultimately the responsibility for education in Singapore should lie at the feet of the Ministry of Education of Singapore.
The recent drive to make Singapore an education hub has succeeded to an extent - the NUS and NTU are highly regarded institutions or rather their academics are. But the private sector is awash with owners who at their best are a joke and at their worst - Corrupt!
Allowing these now expelled and suspended institutions to operate for years with minimal intervention and oversight by the MOE is the fault of the MOE.
Well, first we have the shameful incident of charitable organisation-NKF. Now we are going to have another embarassing situation of our private schools and training centre.
If the authorities pay less attention to "fix" the opposition, situations like this cause greater damage to Singapore's reputation on the whole. The opposition actions only affect the reputation PAP.
Pl do not talk about Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
Again, its name is in the press, with another don charged in our court.
This PR from China spat on a security guard and drove in a rash manner.
(on the other earlier case, I feel sorry for the OTHER Prof who was cheated by a two-timer PRC - Chinawoman who got away and is now in China. It was never explained how she could have been allowed to leave as her marriage to a Singaporean was alleged as a scam).
My point is that - well, we have problems in other institutions besides the private ones...in different ways I suppose, as in this example. So the private institutions are not the only ones awashed with scandals involving their staff or their institutions.
Worse, in the latest case, the Prof was baffled 'how it became an issue involving the state's interest...'. He thought it was just an altercation between him and the security guard.
How patronising or hypocritical can one be ?
What does the prof expect ? For victims in Singapore to take things into their own hands. He thought he could bully a guard. Or he thought Singapore is a cowboy town. Is this how his country of origin works ?
We shall see whether such unwanted characters are sent back by our authorities and not be a bad example to our students, who might also spit at their bosses or anyone who they 'altercates' with.
What is more scandalous is the dispproportinate amount of money given to non-citizens to study here even in primary and secondary schools, using taxpayers' money.
I wonder how much are the foreign students getting in scholarships from our govt to study in our public institutions, annually, too.
I am not sure if they get special rates in the private institutions.
Our taxpayers' money is used to pay for the thousands of scholarships given to China students in our mainstream schools and tertiary institutions. And they do not even mingle with the local students, etc..I should know as we are students and have friends in other schools, too.
Why should this be allowed, esp with the PM saying that we citizens should be given better rights as citizens from health, education, etc...No wonder, the perception of a 'second class' citizens in one's own country.
Post a Comment