What I am about to write somewhat pertains to education, so the standard disclaimer applies: this is solely my view and not that of my employer’s, you know the drill.
The Singapore papers reported recently that Singaporean students were turning away from scholarships that came attached with conditions (in this case being in the employ of the sponsor for a specified number of years) and choosing instead scholarships that came without those conditions.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
In the Straits Times online forums, 2 responses were published:
- Mr Jason Chiam who wrote that “scholars have a moral obligation to the sponsoring organisation” and;
- Ms Corinne Hoo who feels disappointed that “today’s youth have little capacity for resilience and perseverance”
In 2000 I enrolled in the University of Arizona. I did not apply for a scholarship of any kind, but they offered me a bond-free scholarship via an email. I replied to ask if there were any conditions attached, specifically a bond of employment. While the details were that I had to maintain certain grades in order to keep the scholarship money going for the whole duration of undergraduate study, there was no bond of any kind. They wrote back, saying they were giving me the scholarship because they believed I could contribute to society after graduation. Not American society. Humankind.
I flew back the moment my undergraduate studies were completed. I made a promise to a girl in Singapore and I did not want to keep her waiting. So I left America and the University of Arizona. I left the people who provided me the most fulfilling phase of my formal education. Even today my heart feels the weight of gratitude towards the university, the country of America and her people. Maybe that is the “moral obligation” Mr Jason Chiam speaks of. Maybe he would consider me an ingrate for returning so soon, but Arizona has never solicited a single cent from me, nor has she made me feel guilty for the unpaid debt.
I decided to pay it forward, hoping to apply myself in the improvement of my home country. As many of you know, I now work for the Ministry of Education, helping her communicate in the increasingly complex spectrum of online media parents and students use today. I have endeavoured to go the extra mile, often engaging in efforts to improve the online communications of the Singapore Government as a whole. This is me paying it forward. Not out of moral obligation or for a fixed term stipulated on a piece of paper. I am driven by the faith shown in me by an organisation and a people not at all related to me.
Jason and Corrine are probably right to point out that some scholars feel entitled to a free education free of responsibility and obligation. But we need to bear in mind that it is a cultural problem not solved by the chains of forced labour.
Scholarships and bonds (I’ll use the term to describe the conditional scholarships) are totally different in nature. The former is crafted with hope and in good faith, the latter carved in the hard letter of the law. The first is a gift, the second a contract.
That our students no longer feel beholden when presented a gift of good faith is a failure on our part. We have not taught them gratitude. We haven’t given them many opportunities to learn. Our purely pragmatic perspective of the world doesn’t allow us to give without expecting anything in return. Our bonds are carefully calculated and embedded with repayment clauses to reduce risk because we view these top students as human capital, not humans. After years of conditioning, many of our children have forgotten the beat of their own heart.
It is all business, and they take what they can.
Moral responsibility isn’t a bond. Perseverance isn’t gritting one’s teeth while in chains. The claustrophobia of being bound to words on a page, signed while barely adolescent, destroys the human spirit. The display of the intrinsic good, human to human, just as the folks of Arizona showed me, will live in me all my life.
That is my bond. And I serve it gladly.
Superbly written.
I think its only an Asian culture that scholarship comes with a bond.
Over here in Australia, is the same as U in us where the scholarship only requires U to maintain a certain great, no catch to it at all…
Amen! If you ever saw the details of the contract that we had to sign for the government scholarships, you’d know exactly how much of a contract it is too.
You put something I had at the back of my mind in words. I had seen those two forum letters to the newspaper and they just resonated the hardened opinion that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”, something we in Singapore are so accustomed to. What people here don’t realise is that academia is probably the best avenue to instill in people that the there’s much more to life than being a rat in a race. A university education is meant to provide not just some sort of tertiary vocational training, but an opportunity to explore your academic thirsts, desires and do some ground-breaking soul-searching. I am glad the University of Arizona provided you with the freedom to do all that, regardless of the outcome.
Yo Luciano,
Just some comments. My 2 cents’ worth lah, really.
As much as I favour a bond-free scholarship myself, I think we can’t afford not to bond our scholars-lah. How to answer to tax-payers if they do not return, after having realised, life elsewhere could be better, like NZ for example :D. Bearing in mind a single scholarship can cost up to a few hundreds of thousand per person!
Maybe universities, or other private institutions can afford to do so cos they don’t have to answer to the public in that way. I know one student in NUS now who is on a bond-free scholarship. I’m sure there are many more.
Yes I agree, it’s more of a cultural issue, so to speak. Ideally, if we can get our scholars to come back without making them sign a contract, that will be best. But I think we’re not ready yet. The mindset of the people is as much to be blamed as the ‘institution’ itself.
Besides, a small country like ours can’t afford to have them ‘running’ away from their obligations. Probably you can quote a few countries that are comparable in size in terms of population and they still have bond-free scholarships, like NZ. But really, can you compare Singapore to NZ in terms of what it has to offer, apart from food, family and friends? :D
Mat Kiwi.
But really, can you compare Singapore to NZ in terms of what it has to offer, apart from food, family and friends?
Isn’t this the issue we should be tackling? Rather than ‘resign’ ourselves to having to resort to bonds, shouldn’t we be asking how we can improve the local environment so that it is seen as at least as desirable as overseas environments?
The government’s mantra is that it cannot retain talent unless it gives out expensive scholarships and bonds the scholars. But has it considered using the scholarship money instead to improve the working and living environment here, to stem the brain drain? Is it so obvious that it is more cost-effective to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars on one person who will likely return only unhappily to work unmotivatedly, as opposed to spending the money to change the local environment so that you get motivated people returning of their own accord? Giving out scholarships is like treating the symptoms but not curing the disease.
I am not opposed to the awarding of bonded ‘scholarships’, but it befuddles me how you can bind someone with an intricate contract and beat on the drums of moralism at the same time.
Amen Agagooga.
Western countries are perfectly fine with rewarding academic excellence with cash awards all the way from elementary school upwards.
Thus, they have no problem with giving bond free scholarships. Being bonded is against human rights and labor mobility.
In Singapore, we always reward academic excellence with book prizes, book vouchers, gold medals etc etc, never with cash.
Thus, when we start to give “cash”, through these scholarships, we insist on bonding them.
Its all about cultural values and cultural relativism
Hi Lucian
I think you articulated the dilemma very well. On the one hand, we want our students to feel gratitude when they receive a paid for education. On the other, to ensure that they don’t just feel a moral obligation to serve, but that they ACTUALLY do serve, we make them sign contracts.
I should also note that there is a distinction between scholarships of different kinds. Yours was a uni scholarship, others have scholarships with commercial entities. These scholarships are part of the company’s policy of nuturing of talent. It is one thing to be nurtured as talent for a company and one thing to be gifted with an education to serve mankind.
Maybe the issue is with government scholarships. Its a bit of a grey area. On the one hand, the govt wants to nurture the best to serve the country. On the other, there is just the idea that scholarships should be given to those who can rise to the top, if only they had some help.
I think until the govt decides what it wants - to nurture talent (hence bond the guy for taking a scholarship) or to help its brightest get to the top (and those who can’t afford it) without a bond - you will always have this moral obligation being underwritten by an amoral piece of paper.
RE Kelvin Tan’s comment:
“In Singapore, we always reward academic excellence with book prizes, book vouchers, gold medals etc etc, never with cash.
Thus, when we start to give “cash”, through these scholarships, we insist on bonding them.”
That is absolutely NOT true - Singaporean children are routinely given Edusave merit bursaries and monetary awards for improvements in their grades. Cash. Children who are among the top 5% of their level/stream in government/govt-aided schools will receive $500 each. The next 5% receive $300.
Students who are in low-income households and are in the top 25% of their level/stream also receive cash.
These bursaries are bond-free, serving as incentives and encouragement to students who have done well. I myself have been a recipient of cash awards for student competitions for poetry/short-story writing, etc.
But I suppose primary-secondary school students are less likely to migrate, and lower-income students even less so.
same here. everytime i get a scholarship (sweden & australia), the first thing my parents ask is “how many years bond?”
It is not true that all scholarships in the US come with no bonds. For example, scholarships offered by the US military (ROTC, navy, etc) come with ‘service obligations’.
And yes, they call them ‘scholarships’ too.
All the moralizing merely disguises the fact that scholars hold the keys to their freedom. Demonizing them only accentuates how effete bondage really is.
It’s a very touching story. Love the part where they replied that they believe you could contribute to society after you graduate.
I think the perception of education in the american culture is very different from our perception here. That is a country which treasures freedom so much and they believe in so many things - like they believe that their students will graduate and do something great for the society with the opportunity given. They have the American dream.
What do we have? The Singaporean dream - strike toto and don’t need to work anymore? Our students here basically just graduate from univerity and go to work in the society day after day don’t know wtf they’re doing or wtf they are heading, waste their time bitching about the wrong choice of course and basically just hoping to earn enough to go on a long holiday trip before they run out of money and have to start working and saving again.
The bottom line is, we see education like a mandatory pass to the working society. Most of us will think that we study for a few more years to get a little bit more starting pay. We never see education as a gift which we receive and contribute to the society. That’s why our scholarship also has the same meaning tied to them - study and then work. We never see it as study, work, and then give back. That’s why our scholarship must force us to give back.
I’ve never felt that education in Singapore has any deeper meaning other than finding a better job. 13 years of education and I never once felt that there was anything deeper than completing my studies faster and go enjoy my holidays. It’s only when I step into the working society then I was taught a deeper meaning to life. We need to work on our education system.
He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it
I think there shouldn’t be any bond for research degrees as the output/thesis/research papers/etc are the ‘payment’ for the sponsoring body… In our case, the goverment funded research institutes get their ‘payment’ through new knowledge researched by the students.
As for undergrad and non-research degrees, I guess it is not unreasonable to attach a bond to the scholarship. At the end of the day, no one is forcing you to take up the scholarship… it is just a case of supply and demand..
“I think the perception of education in the american culture is very different from our perception here. That is a country which treasures freedom so much and they believe in so many things - like they believe that their students will graduate and do something great for the society with the opportunity given. They have the American dream.” by KH.
Particularly, I agree with KH when he propose that the Americans have the American dream.
I’m currently in college, taking my A levels very soon. When I was in year 1, quality grades have always been my top priority. That was until it suddenly dawned unto me that there is more to life than the rat’s race every Singaporean is engaged in.
Personally, I feel that the Singapore Education System should give everyone the opportunity to pursue his or her own passion. Searching for the one’s innate desire cannot be done overnight since it is often formulated after serious thinking have been done.
Naysayers may disagree with me because Singapore is small and is heavily dependent on her people. Yet, economic development solely does not make Singapore a very much enlightened society after all. Where should we stand then?
Interesting thought for a teaching scholar going to the University of Arizona like myself.
As with the overarching discourse to justify racial-less unity, education in Singapore is just different, in that it functions overtly, often even solely, as pragmatism, whereas education systems like U of A’s are probably much more mathetic.
Sometimes I wonder if we MOE civil servants can actually fuse both when economic discourse about globalisation and whatnot continues to singularise education into merely a tool for survival.
Hi there, I am interested to know how much you got for U of Arizona. Yes, most universities offer scholarships and financial aid to students, but most of the time it isn’t anywhere near to the amount offered by a full Singapore government scholarship. Typically the government scholarships cover tuition, room and board, and return airfare to Singapore every year for the duration on undergraduate studies. In private US universities, this goes into the 6 figures. How much was your scholarship from Arizona worth?
I do agree though with Tym though. It’s not a “contract” if there’s a clause in the “contract” saying that one party of the contract can change the terms at any time, it’s putting yourself at the mercy of an entity that you hope will act fairly, but often doesnt.