(25-06-2014, 02:20 PM)DP28 Wrote: [ -> ] (25-06-2014, 12:04 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (24-06-2014, 11:05 PM)em2nre5u Wrote: [ -> ]if the PRC scholars stay and find jobs here, Singaporeans will say more foreign talent compete for jobs ?
If they went back to china without serving bond, singaporeans will say waste scholarship money ?
So best is dont even award the scholarship ?
Just to clarify a common misconception on why we bother to offer scholarship and bond them for 6 years here.
It is about networking, and hopefully we get one of the top decision making guys as part of our network.
Imagine if one of the China politburo member came from the PRC scholars. Or a CEO of an MNC. That is the main idea of why we offer scholarships using our taxpayers' money for overseas students. Taken in isolation it is a cost... but looking at the bigger strategic picture it does make sense
In this case, it will be a costly network exercise that hasnt yield any fruit yet. Even if there is a potential.. How many cream will be from the lot? Just look at our SG sports paddler for an example.. I believe Singaporeans can be nurtured.. but are we ever given a chance to be consider?
(25-06-2014, 03:55 PM)Harvest Time Wrote: [ -> ]You can't grow the population too quickly thru immigration. Neither can you grow the workforce by foreign talents too quickly.
Once the ratio of FT vs LT or Foreigners vs Citizen become too high, it will have a lot social impacts.
Yes agree it's a balance. The problem with Singapore mentality is we have too much an MNC mentality since the days of our independence, which had served us well in the past
Hence we rely on foreigners to be running the top of the organisation. And not realising that sometimes Singaporean can do the job. Even looking at our local banks to could-have-been Temasek CEO.
On the other hand the reward for networking has a pretty long gestation period. If we offer a guy scholarship today, it will take some time before the guy become a top decision maker. It's probably too early to say whether it is effective.
We can look at how China model works and taking the rail as an example:
The first rail is built by foreigners. It is implicit that the client wants to reverse engineer the technologies so as to "understand" the product better. That's why Americans stay out except for those countries that need money for eg France
The second rail is a JV. Now learning not only about the product but also the management.
The third rail is made in China. Sure there are hiccups but they will constantly improve on mistakes.
It doesn't end there. The fourth rail is exported.
I think this is where our mentality have to shift, albeit more challenging due to our small domestic market. Expertise have to transfer from foreigners to citizens, or the foreigner has to eventually become citizen. Then as a collective whole we can progress further in this knowledge economy... That should be the real aim of the FT policies.
(25-06-2014, 09:55 AM)kazukirai Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all,
I'm also of the view that VB is primarily a Investing forum (that's the original mission of the forum) and all non-investing related topics should be kept off the forum.
In sum, what I'm saying is that VB is an investing/personal finance/money matters forum. If you wish to talk about other matters, please take it elsewhere. There are other forums where you'll find views and opinions on such matters.
(25-06-2014, 10:51 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (25-06-2014, 10:46 AM)thefarside Wrote: [ -> ] (25-06-2014, 10:17 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]The treatment can be the same as advertisements. If the topic is deemed to be political with not much linkage with investment, it can be relegated to another sub board discussion that will not hog the recent topics.
The lovers and haters can then continue their squabbles until the cows come home.
Second that! Moderators please consider. Recent topics should be Companies or stock discussions only.
I am assuring all that moderators are working hard to do the DD, not on investment, but to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of our forum.
We don't want to do a quick job, and revert later which might confuse buddies here.
Thanks for all the comments. We are listening.
Regards
Moderator
IMHO discussing investments without considering the sociopolitical structure is like analysing a company without considering management. In stock threads we also see many pro-company and anti-company comments that hardly changes even when events change.
I'm not sure if these "political" threads are overwhelming the forum, but certainly sometimes accounting most of the traffic, so there is a misconception. It is not difficult to count the number of threads that are "political" vs those not in the "recent topics"
So moderators should identify the issue correctly. Removing the volume might have adverse impact on the forum traffic as well. My 2 cents