The truth is out!

Refer to: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/news/288515_8/1/.html for what I'm about to say.

It has been months since UNSW pulled out of Singapore within a short period of the start of operations, leading to shocks among many students who had enrolled in the university. However, I guess the largest shock had arose from EDB as it fathomed the consequences of this pull-out, so much so that it could not lift it's curtain of silence until recently, to reveal the amount of damage that was done. In a country like Singapore where actions by the government or goverment-related organisations would be sure to attract speculations and rumours, the amount of the loan is of great interest as punters rub their hands in anticipation.

A failed investment is common in the business world. A failed investment by a seemingly "solid and efficient" government in a culture where a poor child gets 99 instead of the full 100 marks in a test gets reprimanded is unacceptable, or at least to the people. The brings us to the saga of NKF again where a certain minister's wife was the patron. Now what went wrong in this case? Although a failed investment of around $15m can be considered small considering the amount of assets the EDB possesses, it is significant in the eyes of the common folks who may never see $1m in their lifetime.

I would speculate that it is the failure of checks within the system that caused the damage. Just as a factory needs a supervisor to supervise the entire manufacturing process, there needs to be someone to check if investments are sound before loans and grants are lent or given. Saying "Investors know their business better than the government. In this case, UNSW – as the investor and the operator – is in the best position to assess the viability of its business plan. (The) government's role is to facilitate and support investors in their decisions, not to second-guess or guide those decisions." is the sign of shirking of responsibility. When banks loan out monies to businesses, they too make checks on the backgrounds of the company. Is it too difficult for the EDB to undertake such a task?

Of course trying to forecast if an investment will be a success or not is not a straightforward mission, and you can at most allocate a probability to it. But signalling for a pull-out within less than a month after operations shows signs that this probability is close to 100%. How could this not be detected unless checks weren't even made in the first place.

Another source of fault lies in the MOE. The eagerness of the MOE to turn Singapore into an education hub [What's this thing about creating Singapore into hubs for everything from medical to MICE to education? I say just focus on what you can.] in recent times has led to the search for the creation of a 4th university after SMU. Maybe the market in Singapore is indeed too small for a 4th one? Has anybody considered that? And when UNSW comes knocking on the door, it is put into plan without market analysis perhaps. This would probably pressure EDB to fork out the enormous loan and grants to UNSW as an incentive for them to build the building just so that Singapore will have a 4th university. Again, is it needed? Look at the damage it has done.

Taxpayers' money goes into that building and now it is an empty shell waiting to be filled. Even though I have not joined the ranks of a taxpayer, I will in the future, and if something like this happens to my money, you will definitely want some explanation and a decent one. But so far, nothing of the sort. Just the usual concern for their reputation. After that, it is back to the search for another university to fill the gap. Sigh.