blog
annakat
-ben
AkikonomuAgain, the Singapore press trots out, from the usual sources, the hackneyed complaint that people who break their bonds are morally deficient ingrates.
There is nothing new in these arguments.
What’s more interesting, though, lies beneath that veneer of smear. On the same day comes more comments on complacency:
‘Our people must realise that being No.1 is very temporal.
‘We better keep on honing that…Make sure that our young people are hungry. If our young people are not hungry enough, bring in hungrier ones from overseas. Make them feel hungry, increase the hungriness index.’
Strip away the rhetoric, and the stark truth is exposed: Singapore simply cannot continue to grow along its current trajectory. Other countries, other economies, they’ll catch up.
We already know that. We already know the solution: move toward economic activities that require more brain cells that what Fox calls the Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V type job. We have moved away from physically menial jobs to mentally menial jobs, but in order to stay one step ahead, we’ve got to move yet again toward something more ‘value-added’.
We need people to do creative jobs, and yet we cannot find the people to do them. Singapore simply lacks people of appropriate caliber to do them. It’s a problem not unique to Singapore either. The world lacks such people, and desperately wants them. That’s why talent in this century can serve a global pool, not merely a local or even national one.
This is not news either. What perhaps is new, though, is looking at both threads together. Who are the people taking advantage of the global labor pool? There are the scholars that return and others that leave. Are those who leave deficient in moral fiber, or are they simply gravitating toward better deals spun in a free-for-all international arena?
Which scholars leave? Perhaps if these scholarship agencies were to examine their personnel files more closely, they may one day realize that ironically, the people who leave are disproportionately their best and brightest. Bond-breakers aren’t leaving in a huff and then working double-shifts at an assembly line job to pay their liquidate damages; many of them end up at big-name companies like Google, Microsoft, UBS and Merrill Lynch.
Why do scholars leave? If it is as simple as taking the better of two deals, why are scholarship agencies offering the worse deal, despite what they claim during their marketing sessions of taking their charges seriously and offering to nurture them properly? Are scholarship agencies offering careers commensurate with the rates on the global labor market - rates almost certainly higher than those on the regular market? And how about opportunities? perks? fringe benefits? work environment?
Why would people want to get stuck with staid, stolid government careers when they think other people can offer them more challenging, more exciting, better-paid jobs? The proletariat classes have found job security to be based on nothing more than empty promises. Six years of indentured labor is not an asset, it is a fatal liability, a sign that Singapore scholarship agencies don’t trust their recipients to do the right thing. Is it any surprise, then, that the recipients chafe under this paternalistic, supercilious arrogance?
The government agencies handing out scholarships have the power to tilt the balance. They set the rates, they set the agenda. They can make better deals than the ones that have served our country so well in the twentieth century. The government makes a big deal about maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness, and not being complacent. Yet it seems to turn its blind spot on its immense complacence regarding Singapore’s competitiveness in the top-echelon labor markets.
Low-wage policies can only go so far in the current economic climate, as inflation eats away at real incomes and other rapidly-developing economies undercut large swathes of jobs held by Singaporeans in the late 20th century. The only way is up and forward, yet their policies are still firmly entrenched in the vision and rhetoric of our Founding Father. It is no different with the crème de la crème that is so actively sought out by so many people.
Now for the last interesting twist - are the poor better scholarship holders? No doubt that it’s fantastic policy for upward social mobility, but the flip side is that they are obviously the ones that can least afford to bail themselves out. Controlling for that one factor, I cannot think of any reason why they would be less likely to break their bonds. Gratitude can very quickly give way to resentment in the realization of the vast array of opportunities that open up in the process of schooling.
The missing ingredient is this: scholarships are not the only route to a college education at a good school abroad. The ever-growing list at the Incomplete Guide to Financial Aid for Singaporeans is testament to the opportunities being created by universities and private foundations to fund students falling into precisely this category: the bright but underprivileged. And in fact, the increasing number of needs-blind financial aid sponsors shows that one doesn’t even need to be poor to have a foot in the door - there is no significant reason to think that merit and poverty are in any way correlated. The Singapore scholarship agencies are already falling heads-over-heels to clarify that being poor has nothing to do with being any more or less deserving of opportunities for higher education.
At the end of the day, who’s the bigger fool - the Singaporeans who are leaving, or the Singaporeans who continue to harass and mock ex-scholars ten years after the fact, and despite their grandiose schemes have little to show for their efforts?
People are free to mock us who have chosen to leave, but they choose to do so at the expense of revealing their own ignorance.
Thanks to Fox who told me about these articles.
References
- Fox, Next Stop Wonderland, ST: Still adamant that scholarship holders serve their bonds, 2008-07-23.
- Zakir Hussain, Straits Times, Still adamant that scholarship holders serve their bonds, 2008-07-24.
- Jeremy Au Yong, Straits Times, ‘Closet socialist’ Philip Yeo favours poorer students, 2008-07-24.
- Jeremy Au Yong, Straits Times, Key to staying No. 1 - young people who are hungry, 2008-07-24.
- Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia, PSC, A*STAR clarify scholarship policies following Philip Yeo remarks, 2008-07-26.
“hungriness index”? Last time I checked the noun was “hunger”. But maybe I’m not poor enough to know what real “hungriness” means.
People might want to get stuck with staid, stolid government careers if they cared about the country. Since criticisms of bond-breakers don’t work, how about making Singapore a place worth staying for for a change, rather than a mere vessel of 9th August platitudes?
Singaporeans deserve more than that.
“Are scholarship agencies offering careers commensurate with the rates on the global labor market - rates almost certainly higher than those on the regular market? And how about opportunities? perks? fringe benefits? work environment?”
I think the whole point of having scholarships is to avoid having to pay people at the rates on the global labour market. If we had to pay people astronomical salaries, we might as well buy high-end labour off the rack.
In some way, it is cheaper to buy that kind of labour when people are less informed about their career options at the age of 18. Unfortunately, people are better informed about their options nowadays and it is harder to profit from that sort of adolescent ignorance.
“Why would people want to get stuck with staid, stolid government careers when they think other people can offer them more challenging, more exciting, better-paid jobs?”
There may be people who are genuinely interested in public service. Some of them may just be in it because they want to be soldiers, teachers, ISD operatives, etc. I personally harbour the romantic notion that being a high school teacher can be a genuinely rewarding job.
pls dont make sweeping statements like since all bond breakers go to big companies (who have the capacity to pay), non bond breakers cant go to big ones coz they arnt the best. reminds me of that other sweeping statement since all bond breakers are guys. admittedly, labeling all bond breakers under one category isnt too fair either.
my take on bond breaking is thus:
(myself + the world > one country)
in itself is a valid view and cannot be argued against,
but its quite separate from making a promise to A, and then citing (myself + everyone else > A) to justify breaking that promise.
i wonder if there is anyone who told the interviewers “hey this is just a contract not a promise right, Im going to break it if google hires me and I hav the right to do so”, and got the scholarship. i would salute that person and admit that morality is on his side. at the same time i would wonder what kind of civil servants we are getting.
ok your turn to poke holes, wasnt too fair that i got to poke after seeing your argumanet.
sorry forgot to include name and all in previous comment. not fair to remain anonymous right
those scholars who break the bond are those who are good and manage to find a better job and higher pay…
those surf the bond are those are cannot do it well….
so end up the sg gov get hose who are cannot make it, and those who are good actually hired by others….
[...] have to worry about their families otherwise sound like the right type of people? Read Fox and Elia Diodati for arguments on why we should stop and examine ourselves rather than launch ad hominem attacks on [...]
Waiting for Philip Yeo (The Crane) to show up on this blog post, hahaha. You seem to be directing a reply towards him wrt this post.
Cheers,
Trout
felumpfus:
Surprise, surprise: ‘hungriness’ is listed in the Merrian-Webster and the OED!
M:
Somehow that one sounds familiar. Romance and naïveté look so good on paper, but never quite seem to be worth the print it’s fabricated off of. *sigh*
Fox:
“I think the whole point of having scholarships is to avoid having to pay people at the rates on the global labour market. If we had to pay people astronomical salaries, we might as well buy high-end labour off the rack.”
That sounds like ex post facto reasoning. I think it’s pretty clear from various sources (my hazy recollection of LKY’s memoirs come to mind) that the Singapore government first launched scholarships as a vehicle for upward social mobility for the smart but underprivileged. Is that justifiable today, in today’s vastly different higher education and skilled labor markets? That’s what I’m trying to get at.
Profiting off people’s ignorance is clearly an unsustainable strategy. Something really needs to change before the country lives to regret it.
ignorance:
Thank you for living up to your name. If you think I make sweeping statements about where ex-scholars end up, I suggest you start looking up the case files. I don’t think ‘many’ is an overstatement.
Regarding the contractual promise argument:
1. Does entering into a contract mean that one is obliged to honor it? Yes.
2. Is bond-breaking and paying off the LD honoring the contract? Yes, because it’s in the contract. Many scholars work the six years or so to fulfill the contract. Others bail out, but they are still fulfilling the contract.
3. Does getting a scholarship mean you are stuck with it, even if on day one of school some big name company offers to buy you out with their own no-holds-barred scholarship and a nice job, or at the end of the first year of the bond you realize that the career promised is something you are really uncomfortable with, and not as advertised? Of course not. You have the right to bail out. You just have to figure out if the cost of the liquidate damages is worth it.
4. Bond breakers pay a significant chunk in interest and fees that can be about 50-100% on top of the actual received benefits. That’s pure profit going into the agencies’ coffers.
Bond-breaking by paying the liquidated damages is a way of fulfilling the contract, and the scholarship agencies actually profit monetarily from it. Therefore the ‘moral deficiency’ claim is irrational.
Elia Diodati:
Im not argueing that many ex scholars end up successful (in fact i hope that they end up successful), Im saying your statement conveniently implies that scholars are below ex scholars, assuming that all scholars want to break bond, ignoring the existance of other groups such as those who can break but choose not to. You dont see me argueing that scholars are above ex scholars in a certain aspect do you.
On contracts, I agree with all your points except
“Bond-breaking by paying the liquidated damages is a way of fulfilling the contract, and the scholarship agencies actually profit monetarily from it. Therefore the ‘moral deficiency’ claim is irrational.”
I am aware of this argument before you brought it up. Im not saying that breaking bond in itself makes one morally deficient. That way of labelling all ex scholars is problematic.
Im saying that the civil service scholarship is quite different from normal contracts. What you said about normal contracts is all true, as long as you honour the terms (including paying damages for breaking), there is no moral problem.
On the other hand, unlike normal contracts, to get that scholarship, ppl hav to giv their word that they wont be breaking it (lets not argue whether this in itself is problematic or not). Point me to a person who openly told the interviewers he would break if he could and got it. In this case breaking the bond in itself is going against your word (outside the terms of the contract). If you argue that that decision at 18 was too early, that your perception changed, fair enough, it justifies going against your word, there should not be any moral accusations. Doesnt change the fact that one went against his word (which doesnt happen with normal contracts), but no one was in the wrong.
Then there is this other group of ppl who went against their word (planned from the start or change of perception) and refuse to admit the slightest responsibility, choosing to blame everything on everyone else (be it truthful or not). Im not saying that its all the ex scholars fault or that everyone else is not at fault.
As you can see, I believe that there are morally upright ppl among ex scholars, doesnt mean all ex scholars are morally upright though, based on their actions leading up to bond breaking and the stance they take thereafter to justify themselves. Ppl accusing ex scholars as a whole might be irrational, but retaliating by taking the exact opposite stance…
Ignorance:
Dude, I have never heard of any scholar who had to promise in her scholarship interview or whatever that she would not break her bond. It’s not usually a question that comes up in these interviews. Furthermore, you still haven’t shown what the difference between the scholarship contracts and ‘normal’ contracts is. If you are interviewed for any contract-based job, would you admit to your potential employers that you’d break it if the right offer comes along? Is it then immoral for you not to admit it to your employers? The fact is, there is no word of any sort given, outside of the contract. You may want to argue that there was some kind of implicit promise or whatever but you need some kind of evidence for why this implicit promise exists in some cases and not others, and all you’ve done so far is insist that it exists in some cases and not others (e.g. “ppl hav to giv their word that they wont be breaking it”). Mere assertion of a point does not justify it, you know. My insistence that my partner is an adulterer is no evidence for the fact that she is one.
If scholarship bodies want to push the ‘moral obligation’ point then they’d better start videotaping their scholars making vows to never break their bonds. Otherwise, anyone can accuse anyone else of having made an implicit promise.
twasher:
im sorry if i came across as blindly making assertions. i assumed that readers would hav the same understanding of events as myself. i tried my best to gather what evidence i could in such a short time. i hope they can answers your queries:
burnt my weekend looking for that newspaper article about the 2000 psc scholarship ceremony where a rep was chosen from the scholars to pledge about not breaking bond or something along that line, although unfortunately i couldnt find it. 1999 was particularly bad if i remember right, prompting a stronger focus on getting scholars in the 2000 batch to understand that scholarship is not just about a contract. pardon me if its slightly different, 8 years ago. anyway, the other “evidence” i could gather.
From the site
http://www.
getforme.com/education_scholarships
.html
” Scholarship holders planning to break their bonds should do the right thing and give up their scholarships now, before going to university “under false pretenses”. The Public Service Commission, Public Service Division and 20 statutory boards sent a joint statement to The Straits Times on 11 Jul 2000 in response to a report in The Sunday Times headlined “We’ll break bonds, say 11 scholarship holders”.”
“The Public Service Commission (PSC), Public Service Division and 20 statutory boards, in a joint statement to The Straits Times on 20 Jul 2000, urged the 11 scholarship holders who intend to break their bonds to come out in the open and identify themselves. The statement said that by choosing to remain anonymous, “these 11 persons have cast an unjust cloud over the integrity of many other scholars”.”
there is more stuff written in that site for those interested. also i quote
“A PSC scholarship bond is not simply a commercial contract. There are obligations beyond the legal agreement. To understand this, you have to appreciate the larger purpose behind the scholarship. When we give you a scholarship, we repose our faith in you, and trust that you would return to serve the country after your studies. It is not to develop your potential for your personal benefit only. We are investing in you for national good so that you can contribute more than just to yourself and your family. In accepting the scholarship, you are, in fact, agreeing to serve the country after graduation in public office. This is the larger purpose of PSC scholarships. Scholars must have the desire and conviction of wanting to serve their country before they accept PSC scholarships.”
- Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, 2001 PSC Scholarships Award Ceremony
there might be older speeches and articles as “evidence” but at this point this will hav to surfice.
unless ppl going for the interviews hav not read these speeches/articles or choose to ignore them or shut themselves in their own world believing that psc scholarship=contract, i believe that there is a strong msg being sent that psc sholarship not equals just a contract, and ppl who take them up are giving a promise not to break them.
sorry Elia Diodati for multiple comments. Please delete all of my comemnts awaiting moderation because my comment is already posted (July 27th, 2008 at 5:59). sorry for the inconvenience
hey, i agree with Elia Diodati that philip and the establishment in Singapore are out to create a false moral impression by harassing and mocking the same person, in this case Hector Yee.
It seems that Strait Times went to Google to interview Hector Yee (to showcase Singaporean Googlers) roughly two months before we have Philip Yeo badmouthing Hector yee in the same propaganda shitty paper.
If I remember correctly, Philip badmouth Singaporean guys who went through NS. But from what I know, there are Singaporean girls who received the NSS-PhD scholarship and never serve a single-day bond upon graduation, e.g., Tracey Ho from Caltech. I think Tracey Ho is a high-quality researcher and should not rot in Singapore. Neither should Hector Yee.
All talented Singaporeans who are worth their salts, fuck off from Singapore.
1. Immoral person = a person who doesn’t do what I tell him/her to do. Also applies in the context of rights for homosexuals, etc.
2. Hungry for what? In a society that tells us that the highest good to work for is money and social status, when [some of] our parents have already achieved a certain level of both, what do we have to be hungry for?
3. In the words of an ex-scholar I know: “Morality? Don’t change the terms of the contract willy nilly, then we’ll talk about morality!”
4. Scholarships aren’t necessarily bad for everyone, even the brightest. I think personal circumstances, financial or otherwise, play a larger role. People choose to take up scholarships / terminate contracts / stay on the scholarship despite having better opportunities elsewhere / etc. for reasons that can’t be boiled down into sound bites.
5. It might be easy for me to say this on my perch atop the Rocky Mountains*, but going to NUS, etc, doesn’t necessarily lead to dead end jobs. Neither does going to [insert brand name school] necessarily lead to a fulfilling and well-paid career. If only more 18 year olds realize this instead of buying into the hype.
* Actually, atop said Rocky Mountains was where I got hit with a dose of reality, where people make decisions on more than illusions of prestige, instead of the circles of my junior college.
Ignorance:
1. don’t worry about the extra comments. It’s all taken care of. Just give me more time next time to process them. Also, correcting your spelling would improve your chances of making it through the spam filters.
2. “Im saying your statement conveniently implies that scholars are below ex scholars, assuming that all scholars want to break bond, ignoring the existance of other groups such as those who can break but choose not to. You dont see me argueing that scholars are above ex scholars in a certain aspect do you.”
You appear to be committing a logical error when interpreting what I’ve written. I wrote that scholars who leave tend to be those who are among the most capable. This does NOT mean that I said that there are no scholars who remain that are capable. I am not implying that.
What I am saying is something different, which if you were to examine the distribution of scholarship recipients (ex and current) along some (hypothetical) variable or merit, you would find that ex-scholars would disproportionately cluster among the smarter, more meritorious end of the spectrum. The reason is simple: they are the people who have more opportunities to be lured away to do something else.
I do not deny that there smart and capable scholars who could easily leave, but choose not to. I respect their decisions to stay. However that isn’t really the point I was trying to make.
3. “Point me to a person who openly told the interviewers he would break if he could and got it. In this case breaking the bond in itself is going against your word (outside the terms of the contract).”
Scholarship agencies have the right to select recipients whom (at least initially) do not intend to break bond. But theoretically speaking, recipients have the right to lie to such questions if they were posed.
Outright lying on day one is, of course, morally less acceptable than the alternative situation, which is later on realizing that things aren’t working out, and then breaking bond. However there is still an onus on the scholarship boards to figure out who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. If they made a mistake awarding the scholarship to some lying scum, is it the entirely the scholar’s fault for being a lying scum who managed to cheat his way into a scholarship?
Again I hasten to point out that I’m not defending people who lie to get scholarships. I’m merely pointing out that it takes two parties to enter a contract. Many of the arguments regarding scholarship contracts focus on the scholar, the recipient. I am merely stating my opinion that the role of scholarship agencies in awarding scholarships has been severely understated.
4. “If you argue that that decision at 18 was too early, that your perception changed, fair enough, it justifies going against your word, there should not be any moral accusations. Doesnt change the fact that one went against his word (which doesnt happen with normal contracts), but no one was in the wrong.”
That is my point exactly. The criticisms leveled against bond breakers lump together those who lie through their teeth to get scholarships, and those whose contracts have materially changed, causing them to bail out of unfavorable terms, and those whose attitudes have changed over the course of their studies, and so on.
5. http://www.getforme.com/education_scholarships.html
This URL seems to be broken.
6. Quoting SM Goh is merely the fallacy of appeal to higher authority. You are not strengthening your case by dipping into more logical fallacies.
But anyway let’s examine the quote:
“When we give you a scholarship, we repose our faith in you, and trust that you would return to serve the country after your studies. It is not to develop your potential for your personal benefit only. We are investing in you for national good so that you can contribute more than just to yourself and your family. In accepting the scholarship, you are, in fact, agreeing to serve the country after graduation in public office. This is the larger purpose of PSC scholarships. Scholars must have the desire and conviction of wanting to serve their country before they accept PSC scholarships.”
I agree with the sentiment that a government scholarship carries some notion of goodwill in that the recipient scholar will ultimately contribute back to the country. What I don’t agree with, however, is the paternalistic assumption that only the scholarship agencies know what’s best for the country, and therefore their scholars.
In fact I would argue that scholarship agencies don’t trust their scholars enough. If scholars are the best and brightest, why wouldn’t you want to nurture them to their fullest, in the trust that they will contribute back in their own ways, ways that might not even be immediately obvious to the agencies or the country? And why wouldn’t you trust them to figure out for themselves how they can contribute back to their own country? If scholarship agencies restrain their scholars to overly restrictive policies to the point that they cannot develop themselves fully, then aren’t they ultimately doing both the scholars and the country a massive disservice?
In these strict policies that agencies set for themselves in the interests of “accountability” and “fairness” there is an overly conformist, illogical attitude toward managing scholars that doesn’t fully take into account the individual scholars’ interests and capabilities. If you examine Hector Yee’s rationale for leaving, it appears that it ultimately boils down to him wanting to further his studies while EDB refused to approve his request. Why shouldn’t Yee be allowed this if he thinks it will make him a better scholar? Is it in the interest of “fairness”? Not everyone has the aptitude for a PhD (though this is another topic in itself). Why do agencies persist in logic that is tantamount to assuming that everything is a zero-sum game, that individual scholars can only benefit at the expense of others, and that’s why “to be fair” only certain things are allowed. It’s just illogical.
We all act through the lenses of our own experience. In my particular case, I wanted to serve the country in my own way. The scholarship agency felt strongly otherwise for no other reason than it was not according to their policy. Their ridiculous hideboundness forced me to reconsider why I entered into the scholarship in the first place. In my idealistic naïveté, I wanted to change the country for the better. Clearly the most efficacious way would have been from the inside out. I ultimately was forced to face the reality that the government doesn’t actually want change in public service, it’s merely paying lip service to such ideals while in reality doing whatever it wants. Hell, LKY was the one who proudly eschewed higher ideals for blunt pragmatism. I should’ve known better!
lol, told you I wasn’t hungry enough; amusingly I should point out definition #3 of “hungriness” as per Merriam-Webster: “3: not rich or fertile : barren”
Back on topic, er, I feel compelled to query why 1999 was a “bad” batch for bond-breaking? (hey, that’s MY batch!) I don’t recall there being a spike in number, at least any that I’ve heard of. Most of my peers are still diligently working off their bond period.
[...] Discourse - e pur si muove: Scholarship agencies: old hat in a global labor market - The Rot Within: Scattered Comments on PY, A*Star and Singapore - Random Thoughts Of A Free [...]
Not everyone agrees with what he says. I remember the brotherhood guy darkness once told him in Aaron blog, the crane point blank right in his arrogant face, he didnt think very much about his great singaporean name and shame sour pussy cat witch hunting program.
Came down on the crane like a ton of fire bricks, now he is back on his soap box again defending his crappy go to citibank then, but if u accept and you want to quit, dont accept. Tell me, maybe I am the only one but bfr I signed up on the dotted line, they tell told me, Ive never had it so good before its seaview all the way, but when I get in, its just a hole in the ground with a peek at the window once a month.
What kinda a person stays in a hole? A hungry one or maybe one thats too fat to move around.
Elia Diodati:
Many good points. Agree with some but hav no time to discuss, hav to go chiong sua. by the time im back this topic prob dead.
also that link should end with .htm not .html.
just a few things. i believe that bond breakers can also serve the country. also that quote on SM Goh, agree with it or not, ppl who go to interviews are expected to be aware of such sentiments attached to a scholarship, and if they still sign regardless whether they agree with it or not….
was not argueing for the content of the quote,
eg.
“only the scholarship agencies know what’s best for the country, and therefore their scholars.”
Hi,
Interesting take. Down my road, as I am into my 3rd and scheduled to return home on my 5th.
I agree with PY. He does make some sense. I dont agree with bondbreaking. However that darkness did put across got points when he wrapped him around his tiny finger.
btw, just asking don’t bite my head off, but there is a rumor spreading around campus the Brotherhood press has closed shop.
True? Or false?
I believe that applicants of top scholarships should deeply consider the commitment aspect before they sign up.
If they have agreed to take up the scholarship, they should do their best to complete the programme and fulfill their bond requirement.
On the other hand, if they do not wish to commit for so many years, as you have shown, then there are many alternate ways to find financial support for their education.
To me, the act of “bond-breaking” on its own isn’t necessarily negative. I feel that there is a clear moral distinction between people who break their bonds because the prestige of the scholarship itself has given them powerful new opportunities, and those who break their bonds a few years down the road because circumstances have worsened and they can no longer stay.
So I’m actually more suspicious of those who succeed skyhigh after breaking their bonds, compared to the others.
In any case, individuals who break their bonds can still contribute to Singapore someday, realizing that Singapore is not made up entirely of adminstrative power brokers, elite school snobs and unquestioning citizen-automata.
I await a day when some “bond-breaker” returns to Singapore and set up an education fund, or social programme, or even enters politics to help make life better for the poor and the disadvantaged.
[...] Discourse - e pur si muove: Scholarship agencies: old hat in a global labor market - The Rot Within: Scattered Comments on PY, A*Star and Singapore - Random Thoughts Of A Free [...]
Why do they still keep giving out scholarships? Knowing full well that they will be disappointed again and again when people choose to leave. Knowing that if you want to have an obedient army of bureaucrats, it is better to have them in NUS rather than - say Berkeley - where they can get a lot of weird and radical left field ideas about freedom and independence. No disrespect to NUS grads, many of whom I know and many of whom are not found wanting in the ability to think for themselves when put along side graduates of more prestigious schools.
The answer must be prestige. I am reminded of some remarks made in a book about consulting firms. They hire grads from brand name colleges for the prestige, and they do the work of “professional call girls”. They are there to massage the egos of top management and in some ways reassure them that they are doing the right thing. Some of them are sounding boards, even though like sounding boards of musical instruments they are hollow inside.
In this paradigm you will have scholarship agencies viewing bond breakers as being severe blows to their prestige, which is consistent with what we’ve seen so far.
So even before you have people like Philip Yeo attempting to criticise bond breakers for being “immoral” we need to ask why you need to spend so much money on square pegs just so that you can fit them into round holes.
If young people aren’t hungry enough, can it be possible that the food tastes like shit?
Of course, you can try to bring in people who are desperate for anything to eat. But gradually the quality of the food will go down, until you get to the stage where you’re feeding rotten vegetables to emanciated POWs.
1st world country employing slave labour. Yeah.
But wait. Aren’t we approaching this the wrong way? We should be thinking of how to improve the taste of the food instead. Even better, make the food cheaper as well.
So much for analogies. I’d get to the point. The government hasn’t been spending anything considerable towards problems that are uniquely peculiar to us to improve the
taste of the foodquality of life.For example, to combat traffic congestion LTA has spent money putting more ERP gantries but almost nothing on alternative transport research. I haven’t even begun to criticise the atrocious standards of public transport during peak hours.
When I was in Kaohsiung city, Taiwan I was struck by the abscence of cars and public transport(buses/MRT) and large vehicles. In contrast everyone rode scooters. Nobody walked for any considerable distance. In fact pedestrian crossing lights are non-existent for most junctions, making crossing them quite hazardous for the uninitated.
No longer bound to unreliable/limited timetables of public transport, all designed to channel traffic into prime real-estate under control of interested parties, entrepreneurs are free to open their shops anywhere without fear of being unaccessable to their customers. Consequently, shop rental prices are really low.
Why would they need to build a Kaohsuing MRT I wouldn’t really understand. Probably corruption.
Of course I wouldn’t expect the government leadership to be enlightened since their tounges are numbed from gargling in shark-fin’s soup.