• 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.

The proof is out. CECAs are not good compared to Sinkies.

A Singaporean

Alfrescian
Loyal

The Online Citizen




No Indian universities among world’s top 100 but NUS and NTU top 2 in Asia
Firms in financial and professional service sectors prefer to hire graduates from India
Correspondent
by Correspondent
4 September 2020
4 min read

IIT-nus-ntu-750x375.jpg



In Jun, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings released its annual university rankings showing that National University of Singapore (NUS) continues to hold its top spot in Asia. Overall in the world, NUS ranked 11th, just after University College London. Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was ranked 2nd in Asia and 13th in the world.
The top 15 universities ranked by QS World University Rankings:
  1. MIT, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. Harvard University, United States
  4. Caltech, United States
  5. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  6. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  7. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  8. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  9. University of Chicago, United States
  10. University College London, United Kingdom
  11. NUS, Singapore
  12. Princeton University, United States
  13. NTU, Singapore
  14. EPFL, Switzerland
  15. Tsinghua University, China
Top university in US and UK was MIT and University of Oxford respectively. Singapore did well for having 2 of its universities ranked in the top-15, considering its small population size compared with those of US and UK.
Mr Ben Sowter, director of research at QS, said, “The (Singapore) local universities have contributed to such extraordinary achievement by boosting the innovation capability of the city state and by educating a large proportion of its highly skilled workforce.”
“NUS continues to lead nationally and regionally, followed closely by NTU. The latter, despite a small drop, continues to improve in our research impact indicator, rising 11 places year on year,” said Mr Sowter. He added that the ranking is dynamic and extremely competitive. This is especially true of universities in the top echelon.

QS uses six indicators to compile the ranking, including research impact, faculty-student ratio and how the university is regarded by other academics and employers, as well as proportion of international students and faculty.
No Indian universities among top 100
Meanwhile, after the release of QS World Rankings, the Indian media lamented that none of the Indian universities have made it to the top-100 in the rankings. Indian media is asking what India has done wrong with its university education (‘No Indian institute among top 100 in QS World University Rankings 2021: What is India doing wrong?‘, 11 Jun).
India Today wrote, “India’s performance wasn’t all that good. No Indian institute secured a position among the top 100 universities of the world.”
Only a total of 21 Indian institutes made it to the top 1,000 in the QS World Rankings. Do note that India has over 1000 universities in the country.
The top 3 Indian universities did rank in the top-200 of QS World Rankings:

  • 172 – IIT Bombay (dropped 20 spots from last year’s 152)
  • 185 – IISC Bengaluru (dropped 1 spot from last year’s 184)
  • 193 – IIT Delhi (dropped 11 spots from last year’s 182)
“IITs and Indian universities seem to have scored poorly in these QS Ranking parameters – Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation, International Faculty, and International Students,” explains TG Sitharaman, Director at IIT Guwahati.
Vice-chairman of University Grants Commission of India (UGC) Bhushan Patwardhan attributed the drop in rankings of Indian institutes to the quality of education and research. “We need to focus on quality and relevance over quantity and degrees. Even the central government’s centre of excellence initiative did not salvage the institutes in the ranking. A more detailed study is needed to know what happened to centres of excellence,” he said.
UGC is a statutory body under India’s Ministry of Education, and is charged with coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of higher education in India.
Replying to Indian media, Mr Sowter from QS attributed the overall ranking drop in Indian universities to also other universities in the world making efforts to improve themselves. He said, “Though India’s universities have dropped as a group this year, this is because of other universities across the world making increasingly intense efforts to enhance their educational offerings.”
Companies prefer to hire Indian nationals
Despite the poorer rankings of Indian universities, many companies in Singapore appear to prefer to hire Indian nationals, on doubt mostly were graduates from their universities. This is especially so for firms in the financial and professional services.
Early last month (5 Aug), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announced that another 47 companies with suspected discriminatory hiring practices have been placed on its Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist (‘MOM places firms with “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities” in FCF watchlist‘).
This is on top of the 1,000 firms in the watchlist as announced by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament earlier this year – an increase of about 400 more firms than what was on the watchlist a year ago.
The latest announcement came after the recent General Election which saw the ruling PAP government lose another GRC and perform worse than it had anticipated.
Of the said 47 companies, 30 are in the financial and professional service sectors. They include banks, fund management firms, management consulting companies, as well as firms that provide project management and engineering services.
MOM said that all the 30 firms have had a “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities”. In one financial institution, almost three-quarters of their PMETs are of the same nationality and in another bank, almost two-thirds of the PMETs are also of the same nationality, MOM revealed.
MOM did not name the companies nor the “single nationalities” involved but on social media, most netizens are pointing to Indian nationals. Even PAP MP Ang Wei Neng recently commented in Parliament that he felt like a foreigner in his own country when he visited the Changi Business Park, a place dominated by Indian nationals working there (‘MP Ang Wei Neng takes 9 yrs to feel like a foreigner in own country when visiting Changi Business Park‘).
In their defence, some of the the firms accused of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices said that Singaporeans lacked the “global exposure” necessary to function effectively across the multiple countries that they operate in
 

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
Indian universities couldn't be bothered to pay and complete time wasting formalities and procedures just to get on the many so called top universities list.
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Online Citizen



No Indian universities among world’s top 100 but NUS and NTU top 2 in Asia
Firms in financial and professional service sectors prefer to hire graduates from India
Correspondent
by Correspondent
4 September 2020
4 min read

IIT-nus-ntu-750x375.jpg



In Jun, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings released its annual university rankings showing that National University of Singapore (NUS) continues to hold its top spot in Asia. Overall in the world, NUS ranked 11th, just after University College London. Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was ranked 2nd in Asia and 13th in the world.
The top 15 universities ranked by QS World University Rankings:
  1. MIT, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. Harvard University, United States
  4. Caltech, United States
  5. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  6. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  7. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  8. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  9. University of Chicago, United States
  10. University College London, United Kingdom
  11. NUS, Singapore
  12. Princeton University, United States
  13. NTU, Singapore
  14. EPFL, Switzerland
  15. Tsinghua University, China
Top university in US and UK was MIT and University of Oxford respectively. Singapore did well for having 2 of its universities ranked in the top-15, considering its small population size compared with those of US and UK.
Mr Ben Sowter, director of research at QS, said, “The (Singapore) local universities have contributed to such extraordinary achievement by boosting the innovation capability of the city state and by educating a large proportion of its highly skilled workforce.”
“NUS continues to lead nationally and regionally, followed closely by NTU. The latter, despite a small drop, continues to improve in our research impact indicator, rising 11 places year on year,” said Mr Sowter. He added that the ranking is dynamic and extremely competitive. This is especially true of universities in the top echelon.

QS uses six indicators to compile the ranking, including research impact, faculty-student ratio and how the university is regarded by other academics and employers, as well as proportion of international students and faculty.
No Indian universities among top 100
Meanwhile, after the release of QS World Rankings, the Indian media lamented that none of the Indian universities have made it to the top-100 in the rankings. Indian media is asking what India has done wrong with its university education (‘No Indian institute among top 100 in QS World University Rankings 2021: What is India doing wrong?‘, 11 Jun).
India Today wrote, “India’s performance wasn’t all that good. No Indian institute secured a position among the top 100 universities of the world.”
Only a total of 21 Indian institutes made it to the top 1,000 in the QS World Rankings. Do note that India has over 1000 universities in the country.
The top 3 Indian universities did rank in the top-200 of QS World Rankings:

  • 172 – IIT Bombay (dropped 20 spots from last year’s 152)
  • 185 – IISC Bengaluru (dropped 1 spot from last year’s 184)
  • 193 – IIT Delhi (dropped 11 spots from last year’s 182)
“IITs and Indian universities seem to have scored poorly in these QS Ranking parameters – Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation, International Faculty, and International Students,” explains TG Sitharaman, Director at IIT Guwahati.
Vice-chairman of University Grants Commission of India (UGC) Bhushan Patwardhan attributed the drop in rankings of Indian institutes to the quality of education and research. “We need to focus on quality and relevance over quantity and degrees. Even the central government’s centre of excellence initiative did not salvage the institutes in the ranking. A more detailed study is needed to know what happened to centres of excellence,” he said.
UGC is a statutory body under India’s Ministry of Education, and is charged with coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of higher education in India.
Replying to Indian media, Mr Sowter from QS attributed the overall ranking drop in Indian universities to also other universities in the world making efforts to improve themselves. He said, “Though India’s universities have dropped as a group this year, this is because of other universities across the world making increasingly intense efforts to enhance their educational offerings.”
Companies prefer to hire Indian nationals
Despite the poorer rankings of Indian universities, many companies in Singapore appear to prefer to hire Indian nationals, on doubt mostly were graduates from their universities. This is especially so for firms in the financial and professional services.
Early last month (5 Aug), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announced that another 47 companies with suspected discriminatory hiring practices have been placed on its Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist (‘MOM places firms with “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities” in FCF watchlist‘).
This is on top of the 1,000 firms in the watchlist as announced by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament earlier this year – an increase of about 400 more firms than what was on the watchlist a year ago.
The latest announcement came after the recent General Election which saw the ruling PAP government lose another GRC and perform worse than it had anticipated.
Of the said 47 companies, 30 are in the financial and professional service sectors. They include banks, fund management firms, management consulting companies, as well as firms that provide project management and engineering services.
MOM said that all the 30 firms have had a “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities”. In one financial institution, almost three-quarters of their PMETs are of the same nationality and in another bank, almost two-thirds of the PMETs are also of the same nationality, MOM revealed.
MOM did not name the companies nor the “single nationalities” involved but on social media, most netizens are pointing to Indian nationals. Even PAP MP Ang Wei Neng recently commented in Parliament that he felt like a foreigner in his own country when he visited the Changi Business Park, a place dominated by Indian nationals working there (‘MP Ang Wei Neng takes 9 yrs to feel like a foreigner in own country when visiting Changi Business Park‘).
In their defence, some of the the firms accused of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices said that Singaporeans lacked the “global exposure” necessary to function effectively across the multiple countries that they operate in

This is the reason need Covid19 to cleanup dirt rubbish Indians workers worldwide with no single bullet fired warfare.
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
The psp ncmps don't seem to be doing tat well...but it did bring up y no singkies CEO for DBs bank. And another smart move would be to question DBs profits n how many singkies are in senior mgt.
Ministers respond in Parliament to NCMP Leong Mun Wai's comments on not having 'homegrown' DBS CEO
Minister for Communications and Information S Iswaran (left) and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai debate in Parliament on Sep 4, 2020.Bookmark
SINGAPORE: Minister for Communications and Information S Iswaran said on Friday (Sep 4) that he is "troubled" by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai's remarks that DBS Bank does not have a "homegrown CEO", comments which led to exchanges in the House between Mr Leong and three ministers.
Mr Leong, who is from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), had said in Parliament on Tuesday that he is "deeply disappointed" that DBS did not have a homegrown CEO 22 years after former JP Morgan executive John Olds was made chief executive of the local bank.
The current CEO of DBS, Piyush Gupta, was born in India and became Singaporean.
“I was troubled when NCMP Leong Mun Wai lamented that we don’t have a homegrown CEO for DBS,” said Mr Iswaran in his speech during the debate on the President’s Address.
“By all means, let us passionately argue the case to do more for Singaporeans. But, as parliamentarians, let us also be careful about what our words convey; in this case, the message we send to those who – to paraphrase Mr S Rajaratnam – have chosen out of conviction to become citizens of Singapore.”
Mr Iswaran highlighted that it is important for the country to remain open – to create jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans - and be inclusive at the same time.
“But, this is easier said than done. Staying open means greater competition, disruption, and adaptation to change,” he said.
“Being inclusive is therefore a vital complement. Our efforts to embrace openness must be matched by an equal if not greater effort to achieve an equitable distribution of the benefits and the access to opportunities; to preserve a sense of fairness.”
Mr Iswaran added that to sustain the balance between staying open and being inclusive, "the foundation must be trust".
"Our citizens must know that the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans are always our priority; that we have their backs," he said.
The Government agrees "in principle" to livestreaming Parliamentary proceedings and Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran said his ministry will study the technical and implementation details. He said the aim will be to achieve transparency, accountability and accessibility while preserving the integrity and dignity of proceedings in the House. In Parliament on Friday (Sep 4), he also spoke about how Singapore must balance staying open - which has benefited its economy, especially the infocomm sector - with ensuring that economic transformation brings benefits for all.
Mr Iswaran also reflected on the role of Parliament and the duty of MPs in his speech, saying that Parliament can and should play a significant role in the ongoing effort to strike a balance between staying open and being inclusive.
"The aim is this: We must express the hopes, aspirations, concerns and fears of our citizens at the highest forum in our country. But we should not and must not stop there. We must also be the voice of reason," he said.
"To be candid about the challenges we face, honest about the choices and trade-offs ... and ultimately what we believe to be in the long term interest of our citizens."
Parliament should also lend people hope, Mr Iswaran added.
"Now more than ever, as we deal with unprecedented challenges and seek solutions, we must work with Singaporeans to draw confidence from what we have built up over the past five and a half decades, the challenges that we have faced and overcome, and have deep conviction in our strengths and capabilities, and look to the future with belief,” he said.
"WHAT IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE SENDING TO OUR CITIZENS?"
Following Mr Iswaran's speech, Mr Leong rose to seek clarifications, while adding that the PSP is "committed to an open and inclusive society and economy".
"I want to ask the minister whether the debate that we are conducting over the last few days, when we are questioning certain issues, rebalancing certain issues ... is (it) against the spirit that he is trying to explain to us just now," he said.
In response, Mr Iswaran said: "We can always advocate the case for doing more for Singaporeans ... The issue is when we lament that a Singaporean occupying a certain position is somehow not homegrown. Then I think we really have to ask ourselves the question - as parliamentarians, as elected representatives, what is the message we are sending to our citizens?"
He added: "What does it say to those who are the spouses, the children of Singapore citizens who have become naturalised Singaporeans?"
He then asked Mr Leong: "After this debate and all the information that's been shared, does he still lament that DBS does not have a homegrown CEO?"
Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran gave his response to clarifications sought by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and NCMP Leong Mun Wai. Transport Minister and MAS board member Ong Ye Kung, Second Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng and Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat also rose to comment.
Mr Iswaran also asked if Mr Leong acknowledges that there is a large number of Singaporeans at the senior levels of DBS Bank, an issue that had been addressed on Tuesday after a clarification by Nee Soon GRC MP Derrick Goh.
Mr Leong said that he appreciates the clarification made by Mr Goh, but stood by his comments on DBS, saying: "I still hold on to my disappointment, I still keep to that."
He emphasised that in his speech, he had said that it was "over a period of 22 years".
"Why didn't the Government, in the process, put in certain safeguards or certain other rules to ensure that we have these skills transfer ... at least to ensure that Singaporeans will be groomed to take over the job," Mr Leong said.
"In that context, I don't think it will be taken very negatively by the international community. Singapore is open enough, foreigners know that we are very, very open. In fact, if we fail to do certain things to safeguard the interests of Singaporeans, I am afraid we may be laughed at."
"GROW OUR OWN TIMBER"
This drew a response from Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, a board member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, who said that this was not the case, and that he had taken pains to explain in the House how Singapore had grown its local talent pool in the finance sector in the past decades.
"That process started when we bring in foreign expertise and then put in a lot of effort to groom local talent, grow our own timber, learn from the foreign expertise and from there, many of our own ... rose up to take senior positions, and I gave quite a lot of data requested by various members to show that we're holding our own by being open to the world," he said.
Mr Ong added that it would be the "wrong approach" to achieve this by setting a quota or insisting that a company must have a Singaporean CEO who must be "born here".
READ: MAS will ensure ‘fair hiring practices’ in financial services sector, create opportunities for Singaporeans: Ong Ye Kung
Mr Iswaran then reiterated his point on how parliamentarians should conduct themselves, saying: "What we say cannot be unsaid, it is there for the record, for the future and everyone, Singaporeans - new citizens or Singapore-born - others who are here, will all be looking at us. And I think we in this House, as elected representatives, must hold ourselves up to a higher standard.
"If we don't, then I think we fail our duties as Members of Parliament and I think we ultimately do a disservice to Singaporeans."
Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Tan See Leng then asked Mr Leong, who is the CEO of private equity firm Timbre Capital, if he would "freely and happily invest in" companies if it is clearly stated that a certain percentage of the senior management had to be of a certain nationality.
Mr Leong said: "When we want to invest in a particular market, we are more concerned whether the company really has the local connections and, so by implication, whether they have enough local talent including the CEO of the company."
 

mudhatter

Alfrescian
Loyal
Indian universities couldn't be bothered to pay and complete time wasting formalities and procedures just to get on the many so called top universities list.

yeah
but ceca will tell you, they can't wait to leave their sh*thole of a country

number 1 destination is of course yankees
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
They're imported as part of the deal to allow Ho Ching to 'access India's market' with her GLCs. :wink:
which means more buy high sell low opportunities. at the rate and intensity that shitdia screws jv’s involving foreign entities and investors, it will be buy high, pay more, and can’t sell except to write off.
 

lightbulb

Alfrescian
Loyal
It's strange. I work in Japanese company, the head is Japanese. I work in Korean company, the head is Korean. I even work for a Malaysian company, the head is Malaysian. Now I work for a Singapore company, the head is from India. Really strange.
 

Peiweh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Consider top SAF scholars turned ministers with military trained intelligent S2 unit cannot defend citizens from Indian cheaters are ashamed to ruling part PAP...

PAP please resign...
Comrade Tan of the CCP wouldnt it be better if Xi resigns? Before he starts WWIII?

ifDlBmq.jpg
 
Top