Lebanon: the world’s choice


Lebanon: the world’s choice from Open Democracy of course in response to a commentator asking for the topic to be brought up in an unrelated thread.
Paul Rogers
28 – 7 – 2006


The first two weeks of August will be decisive in determining whether the Lebanon war escalates further or can be contained.

The failure of the emergency Rome summit on the middle east on 26 July to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon has been taken by the Ehud Olmert government in Israel to be a green light for intensified military operations.

Israel is calling up three divisions of reservists – initially around 15,000 troops, leading eventually to 30,000 – for what is likely to be a protracted operation in southern Lebanon. This, however, may not take the form of an all-out invasion and occupation, not least because memories of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) retreat from the region in the early 1980s are still a strong deterrent to that option.

Instead, the more likely development is devastating air operations to clear localities, allowing IDF troops to operate afterwards with less risk to themselves. Olmert’s close ally, the justice minister Haim Ramon, stated on Israeli army radio on 27 July that the Israeli government had given sufficient opportunity for civilians to leave southern Lebanon, and Israel could therefore assume that “…all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbollah”.

to continue reading…

Lebanon: the world’s choice

Published Saturday, July 29, 2006 by soci.   


Lebanon: the world’s choice from Open Democracy of course in response to a commentator asking for the topic to be brought up in an unrelated thread.
Paul Rogers
28 – 7 – 2006


The first two weeks of August will be decisive in determining whether the Lebanon war escalates further or can be contained.

The failure of the emergency Rome summit on the middle east on 26 July to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon has been taken by the Ehud Olmert government in Israel to be a green light for intensified military operations.

Israel is calling up three divisions of reservists – initially around 15,000 troops, leading eventually to 30,000 – for what is likely to be a protracted operation in southern Lebanon. This, however, may not take the form of an all-out invasion and occupation, not least because memories of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) retreat from the region in the early 1980s are still a strong deterrent to that option.

Instead, the more likely development is devastating air operations to clear localities, allowing IDF troops to operate afterwards with less risk to themselves. Olmert’s close ally, the justice minister Haim Ramon, stated on Israeli army radio on 27 July that the Israeli government had given sufficient opportunity for civilians to leave southern Lebanon, and Israel could therefore assume that “…all those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbollah”.

to continue reading…

Information for Civil Society Organizations

2006 Annual Meetings

Information for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

As of: June 28, 2006

UPDATED !!!!

The Annual Meetings of Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WB) have customarily been held in Washington, DC for two consecutive years and in another member country in the third year. In 2006, the Annual Meetings and related events will be held in Singapore between September 13-20.

All CSO representatives who wish to participate in the 2006 Annual Meetings will need to obtain formal accreditation. The accreditation system is fully web-based. It opened on June 2 and will close on August 4, 2006. If you are planning to attend the Annual Meetings, please apply for accreditation as early as possible. Please note that no applications will be accepted past the deadline.

As in previous years, the Civil Society Teams at the Bank and IMF will organize a Civil Society Forum for accredited CSOs during the 2006 Annual Meetings.

We would like to encourage representatives from established CSOs that focus on development issues and other issues relevant to the work of the World Bank and the IMF, and have a track record in these areas, to apply for accreditation.

Please note that at the present time the World Bank and the IMF do not have any funding to enable CSO participation in the Annual Meetings. Accredited CSOs are responsible for obtaining a visa, if necessary, to enter Singapore.

If you have any questions about the Annual Meetings and/or the accreditation Information on visa requirementsprocess, please contact us at: civilsociety@worldbank.org.

Information for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

2006 Annual Meetings

AMs 2006 logo

Information for
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)


 

As of: June 28, 2006

UPDATED !!!! 

The Annual Meetings of Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WB) have customarily been held in Washington, DC for two consecutive years and in another member country in the third year.  In 2006, the Annual Meetings and related events will be held in Singapore between September 13-20.

All CSO representatives who wish to participate in the 2006 Annual Meetings will need to obtain formal accreditation.  The accreditation system is fully web-based.  It opened on June 2 and will close on August 4, 2006.  If you are planning to attend the Annual Meetings, please apply for accreditation as early as possible.  Please note that no applications will be accepted past the deadline.

As in previous years, the Civil Society Teams at the Bank and IMF will organize a Civil Society Forum for accredited CSOs during the 2006 Annual Meetings. 

We would like to encourage representatives from established CSOs that focus on development issues and other issues relevant to the work of the World Bank and the IMF, and have a track record in these areas, to apply for accreditation.

Please note that at the present time the World Bank and the IMF do not have any funding to enable CSO participation in the Annual Meetings.  Accredited CSOs are responsible for obtaining a visa, if necessary, to enter Singapore.  Information on visa requirements

If you have any questions about the Annual Meetings and/or the accreditation process, please contact us at: civilsociety@worldbank.org.

Singapore to ban outdoor protests at IMF meeting

(Updated 05:15 p.m.)

2006/7/28
SINGAPORE (AP)

Singapore will not allow outdoor demonstrations during the upcoming annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank, but will set up an indoor venue for registered civil groups, the police chief of staff announced Friday.

Soh Wai Wah told a news conference that outdoor protests during the Sept. 11-20 meetings would compromise security, could be exploited by terrorists, and disrupt the day-to-day activities of the area, making things “unpleasant” for residents.

“In the current security climate, the priority is to ensure the safety and security of our residents, visitors and delegates to the meetings,” Soh said.

But in recognition of the IMF/WB’s tradition of “constructive engagement” with accredited civil society organizations, Singapore will set up a private area in the lobby of the conference venue for these groups to gather and engage with delegates.

“The police recognize the importance of the participation of civil security organizations in the event. We have made maximum effort to facilitate their involvement, within the framework of our laws,” Soh said. “However, we are unable to waive the current rules which prohibit outdoor demonstrations and processions, so as not to compromise security.”

Under national law, permits are required for any outdoor gathering of more than four people, Singaporean or foreigner, amounting to an effective ban on protests and demonstrations. Singaporeans can freely hold indoor meetings without a permit as long as the topic does not deal with race or religion. Foreign groups or foreign speakers must apply for a permit.

Soh said the civil groups must be accredited by the World Bank to gain access to the indoor venue.

The police official said Singapore was mobilizing its entire police force and its police national service to provide 24-hour security for the meetings, which are expected to gather 16,000 delegates and visitors. Security measures would include aerial monitoring of the venue and screening of visitors to the country.

“If any laws will be broken, the police will not hesitate to take firm and fair action to prosecute or to arrest any individuals. The action that we take will be proportionate to the actions of any lawbreakers,” Soh said.

Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said earlier this year that Singapore could use severe punishments _ such as caning _ against protesters who commit violent acts such as vandalism, arson or causing harm during the IMF meetings.

Singapore, Unused to Protests, Girds for World Bank Meetings

July 28 (Bloomberg) — Singapore police last week clashed with about 30 Molotov cocktail-wielding demonstrators, dispersing the crowd with a water cannon and a charge by baton-wielding officers clad in body armor.

U.K.-based “security experts” and local police officers played the role of rioters in the battle, a dress rehearsal for International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings here in September which are expected to attract protests from anti- globalization and other groups.

The meetings, to be attended by European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and more than 16,000 other officials, will be a key test for Singapore police, who are scheduled to announce their public order policy today. After race riots in the 1960s, the government imposed curbs on public assembly, and large-scale protests are almost unknown in the city-state.

“The Singapore government has activated very considerable resources to deal with this event,” said Steven Vickers, chief executive of Hong Kong-based International Risk Ltd. Groups ranging from South Korean farmers to Taiwan rice growers are expected to protest at the meetings, Vickers said.

At the World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong in December, police used tear gas and batons in clashes with demonstrators and arrested more than 1,000 people. At the 2000 IMF meetings in Prague, 600 people were hurt when protesters pulled cobblestones from the streets and flung them at police.

“Our level of force will be proportionate to the level of violence,” Soh Wai Wah, chief-of-staff at the Singapore Police Force, said after the mock battle on July 19.

Showcase

For Singapore, the Sept. 12-20 meetings are an opportunity to showcase itself as a financial center and base for doing business in Asia.

The city is ranked second, after Hong Kong, in terms of economic freedom by the Heritage Foundation, and was named the best place in the world for Asians to live in a survey released April by human resource consultancy ECA International.

“People here believe Singapore is safe,” said Bruce Gale, an independent consultant to businesses in the region on political risk, in an interview in the city on June 23. “Foreign businesses, large numbers of them, have their regional headquarters in Singapore. This is what they intend to protect and I think they’re doing a pretty good job of it.”

Fine Balance

Still, Singapore is known as a “fine city” where instant penalties are meted out for misdemeanors ranging from spitting to littering. Amnesty International says the government curbs freedom of expression. In a 2005 report on human rights in the city, the U.S. Department of State cited “restriction of freedom of assembly and freedom of association” as a problem.

“Singapore has our own sets of laws, and we appeal to everyone to respect them,” Soh said. “If these laws are broken, we will have to enforce them firmly, but also fairly and reasonably.”

Under Singapore law, any public protest of more than four people without a police permit is deemed illegal and permission must be sought before public assemblies and speeches are held. The government says the rules help maintain harmony in the city, where 36 people were killed in 1964 riots between the Chinese and Malay communities.

Peaceful Protests

The IMF and World Bank meetings are being held at Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, in the center of the city. Civic groups are hoping that local authorities will allow peaceful protests to be staged near the meeting venue.

“Our position is that any group should be able to participate without being excluded from decisions based on the whims and fancies of the IMF or the World Bank,” said Ruki Fernando, a spokesman for the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, a Bangkok-based human rights advocacy group.

“Decisions and policies drafted at this particular meeting are going to affect millions of people in over 200 countries, and those people have the right to be heard,” he said.

Singapore police have been studying the way other countries handle protests, Soh said, adding that the city deployed riot police during general elections in 2001.

“Our officers do have some experience, and definitely adequate training, to deal with various contingencies we can foresee in the coming event,” Soh said. Police and immigration authorities will also prevent groups or individuals who could pose a security threat from entering Singapore, he said.

The July 19 rehearsal included anti-riot vehicles and a helicopter, with the “rioters” hurling bottles and a real Molotov cocktail.

The meeting will be the largest international gathering ever held in Singapore. Some S$110 million ($69 million) of business for local companies and S$50 million of tourism may be generated during the event, the government said.

“We are trying all means to hope to have a peaceful event, but if disorder should indeed break out, we will be ready,” said police spokesman Tan Puay Kern.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Keith Lin in Singapore at klin15@bloomberg.net

Singapore to ban outdoor protests at IMF meeting

Published Friday, July 28, 2006 by soci.   

(Updated 05:15 p.m.)

2006/7/28
SINGAPORE (AP)

Singapore will not allow outdoor demonstrations during the upcoming annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank, but will set up an indoor venue for registered civil groups, the police chief of staff announced Friday.

Soh Wai Wah told a news conference that outdoor protests during the Sept. 11-20 meetings would compromise security, could be exploited by terrorists, and disrupt the day-to-day activities of the area, making things “unpleasant” for residents.

“In the current security climate, the priority is to ensure the safety and security of our residents, visitors and delegates to the meetings,” Soh said.

But in recognition of the IMF/WB’s tradition of “constructive engagement” with accredited civil society organizations, Singapore will set up a private area in the lobby of the conference venue for these groups to gather and engage with delegates.

“The police recognize the importance of the participation of civil security organizations in the event. We have made maximum effort to facilitate their involvement, within the framework of our laws,” Soh said. “However, we are unable to waive the current rules which prohibit outdoor demonstrations and processions, so as not to compromise security.”

Under national law, permits are required for any outdoor gathering of more than four people, Singaporean or foreigner, amounting to an effective ban on protests and demonstrations. Singaporeans can freely hold indoor meetings without a permit as long as the topic does not deal with race or religion. Foreign groups or foreign speakers must apply for a permit.

Soh said the civil groups must be accredited by the World Bank to gain access to the indoor venue.

The police official said Singapore was mobilizing its entire police force and its police national service to provide 24-hour security for the meetings, which are expected to gather 16,000 delegates and visitors. Security measures would include aerial monitoring of the venue and screening of visitors to the country.

“If any laws will be broken, the police will not hesitate to take firm and fair action to prosecute or to arrest any individuals. The action that we take will be proportionate to the actions of any lawbreakers,” Soh said.

Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said earlier this year that Singapore could use severe punishments _ such as caning _ against protesters who commit violent acts such as vandalism, arson or causing harm during the IMF meetings.

Singapore, Unused to Protests, Girds for World Bank Meetings

Published by soci.   

July 28 (Bloomberg) — Singapore police last week clashed with about 30 Molotov cocktail-wielding demonstrators, dispersing the crowd with a water cannon and a charge by baton-wielding officers clad in body armor.

U.K.-based “security experts” and local police officers played the role of rioters in the battle, a dress rehearsal for International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings here in September which are expected to attract protests from anti- globalization and other groups.

The meetings, to be attended by European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and more than 16,000 other officials, will be a key test for Singapore police, who are scheduled to announce their public order policy today. After race riots in the 1960s, the government imposed curbs on public assembly, and large-scale protests are almost unknown in the city-state.

“The Singapore government has activated very considerable resources to deal with this event,” said Steven Vickers, chief executive of Hong Kong-based International Risk Ltd. Groups ranging from South Korean farmers to Taiwan rice growers are expected to protest at the meetings, Vickers said.

At the World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong in December, police used tear gas and batons in clashes with demonstrators and arrested more than 1,000 people. At the 2000 IMF meetings in Prague, 600 people were hurt when protesters pulled cobblestones from the streets and flung them at police.

“Our level of force will be proportionate to the level of violence,” Soh Wai Wah, chief-of-staff at the Singapore Police Force, said after the mock battle on July 19.

Showcase

For Singapore, the Sept. 12-20 meetings are an opportunity to showcase itself as a financial center and base for doing business in Asia.

The city is ranked second, after Hong Kong, in terms of economic freedom by the Heritage Foundation, and was named the best place in the world for Asians to live in a survey released April by human resource consultancy ECA International.

“People here believe Singapore is safe,” said Bruce Gale, an independent consultant to businesses in the region on political risk, in an interview in the city on June 23. “Foreign businesses, large numbers of them, have their regional headquarters in Singapore. This is what they intend to protect and I think they’re doing a pretty good job of it.”

Fine Balance

Still, Singapore is known as a “fine city” where instant penalties are meted out for misdemeanors ranging from spitting to littering. Amnesty International says the government curbs freedom of expression. In a 2005 report on human rights in the city, the U.S. Department of State cited “restriction of freedom of assembly and freedom of association” as a problem.

“Singapore has our own sets of laws, and we appeal to everyone to respect them,” Soh said. “If these laws are broken, we will have to enforce them firmly, but also fairly and reasonably.”

Under Singapore law, any public protest of more than four people without a police permit is deemed illegal and permission must be sought before public assemblies and speeches are held. The government says the rules help maintain harmony in the city, where 36 people were killed in 1964 riots between the Chinese and Malay communities.

Peaceful Protests

The IMF and World Bank meetings are being held at Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, in the center of the city. Civic groups are hoping that local authorities will allow peaceful protests to be staged near the meeting venue.

“Our position is that any group should be able to participate without being excluded from decisions based on the whims and fancies of the IMF or the World Bank,” said Ruki Fernando, a spokesman for the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, a Bangkok-based human rights advocacy group.

“Decisions and policies drafted at this particular meeting are going to affect millions of people in over 200 countries, and those people have the right to be heard,” he said.

Singapore police have been studying the way other countries handle protests, Soh said, adding that the city deployed riot police during general elections in 2001.

“Our officers do have some experience, and definitely adequate training, to deal with various contingencies we can foresee in the coming event,” Soh said. Police and immigration authorities will also prevent groups or individuals who could pose a security threat from entering Singapore, he said.

The July 19 rehearsal included anti-riot vehicles and a helicopter, with the “rioters” hurling bottles and a real Molotov cocktail.

The meeting will be the largest international gathering ever held in Singapore. Some S$110 million ($69 million) of business for local companies and S$50 million of tourism may be generated during the event, the government said.

“We are trying all means to hope to have a peaceful event, but if disorder should indeed break out, we will be ready,” said police spokesman Tan Puay Kern.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Keith Lin in Singapore at klin15@bloomberg.net

Johns Hopkins v. A*STAR: American higher education pays attention

Published by Elia Diodati.   

Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Johns Hopkins fallout, entitled A Divorce in Singapore:

Nearly a decade ago, when Johns Hopkins University started a program in Singapore to train doctoral students and conduct research in several cutting-edge biomedical fields, the effort was seen as a model for international collaboration. Here was a university internationally known for its expertise in medicine setting up shop in Singapore, opening up the possibility of educating students who might never be able to enroll in Baltimore.

Hopkins also set up a clinic in Singapore, which appears to be thriving. But the research and education program is ending — with Singapore and Hopkins exchanging less than diplomatic words in the Asian press. Singapore officials, who have provided millions to Hopkins for the program, say that the university has not recruited the graduate students or sent senior professors to Asia, as promised. A Baltimore-based spokesman for Hopkins said Wednesday that the university was preparing a statement about the collapse of the partnership, but as of late yesterday, it hadn’t released anything.

With many American universities starting or contemplating international partnerships in which full degrees are offered abroad, the Hopkins-Singapore divorce raises some questions: Is this dissolution indicative of problems other institutions may face, or just an isolated incident? How will the experience affect other relationships between American universities and foreign countries? What are the keys to making such relationships work?

Not surprisingly given the fast-changing nature of international relationships in higher education, some experts think this does mean something (namely that American universities need to be sure they can deliver on more than their names). Others think this is just a case of a program running its course.

With Hopkins not talking, it’s hard to know exactly why the program isn’t working. But Singapore has been paying for much of the program throughout its lifetime. And after a Hopkins spokesman was quoted in the Singapore press as saying that the nation-state did not fulfill its end of the bargain, the country’s science agency released a blistering counterattack. In it, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research said that Singapore had provided more than $50 million to pay for the program, but that Hopkins had failed to meet specific obligations.

For example, it said Hopkins committed to having at least 8 Ph.D. students enrolled by now, but that there are none. The university was supposed to have 12 “senior investigators with international reputations” in residence in Singapore, but the country said that the university had recruited 13 people, only 1 of whom met those criteria. Two of those recruited by Hopkins were based in Baltimore.

The agency in Singapore said that it was “deeply dismayed” at any impression it was responsible for the problems facing the junior faculty and students who are doing work at Hopkins-Singapore.

So what does this mean beyond Hopkins and Singapore?

Philip G. Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education, at Boston College, said he doesn’t know why the Singapore-Hopkins relationship soured, but thinks that other universities should pay attention. “Singapore clearly wanted both a brand name — brand names are very important in the Asian context — and it wanted the substance behind the name. If they don’t get both, there’s a problem,” Altbach said.

The problem for many American colleges (and other colleges in English-speaking countries) is that there are plenty of Asian nations right now where governments or private entities care only about brand name, and the brand just needs to be Western, not necessarily a “name” institution, Altbach said. As a result, many programs being set up don’t have standards equivalent to those of home campuses.

Altbach said American educators need to do more to make potential partners abroad understand that the excellence of American higher education isn’t just a matter of names. He recently wrote an article for a Chinese newspaper that said “you need to be more careful about who you are letting in the door — please be aware that every foreign institution that wants to get into China is not necessarily there for mutual benefit on both sides.”

In the case of Singapore, Altbach said that officials there have a tough attitude about making sure that American educational partners fully deliver. When setting up foreign relationships, he said, “both sides need to be careful.” He added: “I think this business is getting bigger and more sophisticated and both sides are beginning to learn that it’s not going to be a walk in the park and you need to be careful about long-term commitments.

D. Bruce Johnstone, director of the Center for Comparative and Global Studies in Education, at the State University of New York at Buffalo, said that amid “the flurry” of partnerships being created, it may be good for all that Singapore and Hopkins are calling it quits. “The high-end partnership is exceedingly difficult to maintain,” he said. “This is a rather healthy development, suggesting that Hopkins doesn’t need this, is not clinging to it as a profit-making activity, nor does Singapore need it. It is an almost welcome development for a partnership to say it’s not serving a mutual interest,” he said.

Why are such partnerships so difficult to maintain? “Part of it is that this can’t all be done by e-mail. It takes a lot of traveling. However developed and pleasant a country and however comfortable the airline, it’s a hell of a long ways away to Singapore,” he said. “And the kinds of people who the Singaporeans want to see more of are people whose time is enormously precious.” Johnstone said that the Hopkins program in Singapore had a lot of prominence because of the university’s reputation, so he expected plenty of people to now examine what went wrong.

There are signs that some universities are getting hesitant about making big leaps abroad — even when lots of money is available. The University of Washington turned down a $100 million deal last month that would have involved the creation of a branch campus in China.

At the same time, many others are opening full-fledged programs in China, Qatar, and elsewhere. Just this month, Singapore and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced plans for a new joint research center.

And as a result, some experts say that it would be wrong to read too much into the Hopkins situation. SUNY-Buffalo, for example, has been offering programs in Singapore for close to a decade, generally in business and education, starting with one program and growing gradually. “Programs succeed and fail all the time,” in the United States, Singapore, or anywhere, said Stephen Dunnett, vice provost for international education at Buffalo. He predicted that the Hopkins experience would not alter the growth of American programs in Asia or elsewhere.

“There are going to be others that will take its place,” he said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the Hopkins-Singapore problems could lead to more questions for American institutions offering programs abroad. Dunnett was recently in Singapore and attended a recruiting session for prospective students and their parents. One of the top questions, he said, was “How do we know Buffalo won’t change its mind?” because “there is concern that Americans can be fickle.”

Dunnett said that the way American institutions need to respond is by making clear a long-term commitment. Buffalo currently enrolls about 400 students in Singapore and expects that to increase. But he said that it was only by offering courses for a few years without desired enrollment levels that the university built confidence in itself. “They had to trust us and feel we had staying power,” he said.

Given that, post-9/11, more students from outside the United States want an American-style education but either can’t or won’t get to the United States, Dunnett said that these sorts of arrangements will grow. To work, he said, “there has to be a mutuality of interest.”

— Scott Jaschik

Absolutely fascinating, the kinds of things Americans think (correctly or otherwise) about us.

For more information on what other bloggers think, look here.

, , , , ,

Singapore’s Reputation Frightens Academics Away

Published Thursday, July 27, 2006 by soci.   

[Cartoon from the very impressive Sketchbook]
So it’s an issue of reputation on the international stage – again. Attracting top notch academics to Singapore was also an issue raised by Warwick University when it pulled out of a deal in 2005. The worry then was that the campus could not attract academics of a high nature to live in a country were academics had to live and work in conditions…

[where The University of NSW’s] […] management has conceded it cannot guarantee protection of its academic staff in Singapore, given the city-state’s harsh laws governing public comment and defamation.

And a situation where

[The University of NSW] would be powerless to protect its academics should they fall foul of the Government over issues of public comment.

It is yet again the case of an old formula losing impact in a new world. How long will these experiments of trying to attract top notch academics while at the same time threatening them with sanctions if they discuss certain topics last?

This issue has been going on since July 2004 and beyond. The People’s Action Party must realise that their policies are keeping academics away, their empty promises of ‘opening up’, out-of-bound markers and dare I say it – nepotism – are what is frightening top notch academics away.

“Peter Sever of Imperial College London said the UK Royal College of Physicians “should consider advising its members of the potential dangers of accepting future posts in Singapore” because of a “lack of fairness” that “can impact upon an individual’s professional reputation”. The case of Simon Shorvon, who served as director of Singapore’s National Neuroscience Institute

Research agency refutes accusations that it failed to meet goals

Singapore – Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) refuted accusations by a prestigious US university that it failed to meet its side of the bargain in supporting Johns Hopkins University’s research arm, news reports said on Tuesday.

The decision to wind down the facility after eight years in Singapore was ‘not taken hastily and was based on nearly three years of monitoring and scrutiny,’ The Straits Times quoted Dr Andre Wan, director of A*Star’s biomedical research council, as saying.

The research facility failed to attract top scientists and had not met eight out of 13 performance benchmarks with the 83 million Singapore dollars (53 million US dollars) in funding, A*Star said.

The Division of Johns Hopkins Singapore (DJHS) is to be closed within 12 months.

The Baltimore, Maryland-based university was quoted as saying that A*Star had not met its ‘financial and educational obligations.’

The closure was expected to leave dozens and faculty and staff without jobs and disrupt the education of four graduate students who had been offered places.

The university said this was a ‘reputational issue’ for Singapore and A*Star.

The city-state has been aiming to achieve the status of a major research centre and has attracted many well known specialists from abroad.

Dr Edison Liu, chairman of the scientific advisory committee appointed by DJHS, said he hoped that ‘cooler heads would prevail’ so that two great institutions would not fight each other.

© 2006 dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur