Published by ST Forum

Mutual respect, not a bond, ensures scholars return

I APPLAUD the move by DBS Bank to allow scholars to convert their bonds into loans at reasonable rates, as reported in "DBS open to converting scholarships to loans" (ST, April 13).

This move is in stark contrast to the policy practised by the Economic Development Board (EDB).

Students who take up offers at the age of 18 cannot possibly know what they want in life.

More often than not, they are simply "fishing" for the best offer, to fulfil their aspiration of an education abroad.

Often, they realise that their interests have changed and may decide not to serve out their bonds on their return.

In the new globalised economy, talent is, as has been said often enough, mobile.

The "naming and shaming" policy, as practised by the EDB, seems short-sighted, as people today have enough options not to work in Singapore if necessary.

Worse, such an anachronistic policy may even turn off those who might have decided to come back eventually to contribute to society.

This method, which is reminiscent of the method used in old China of naming enemies of the state publicly, can only be counterproductive in the long run.

A scholarship is a moral obligation, which can be engendered only through mutual respect.

Scholars come back even though they have received tempting offers elsewhere because they feel a certain bond to the organisation.

This bond is not merely pecuniary, but could be because they feel they have been well-treated personally and that they matter to the organisation.

This is the reason for feeling obliged morally to serve out the bond, and not the 10-per-cent compound interest due if they do not or the signature on the dotted line.

A contract buys the right to performance, but is negated when damages are paid. Only an emotional bond can ensure 100-per-cent performance.

Forcing people to do something against their will is not a hallmark of an enlightened policy.

EDB scholars must serve the nation

MR ADRIAN Low applauds the move by DBS Bank to let scholars convert their bonds into loans to be repaid with interest in "Mutual respect, not a bond, ensures scholars return" (ST, April 14).

As a financial institute, DBS Bank, even if it loses a scholar, gains a loan customer.

The Economic Development Board is not a bank. We are not in the loan business. Our scholarship programme is funded by taxpayers, on top of corporate sponsorship and private donations.

We support the position stated in the letter, "A govt scholarship is not simply a study loan" (ST, April 17), from the Public Service Division.

Our intent is to find talented young men and women of integrity and commitment to serve in the public and private sectors, to realise the economic potential for Singapore.

Those who sign a deed with EDB are expected to honour their commitment to the board and to Singapore. Anything less would be doing a disservice to their sponsoring organisation and the nation.

Not all scholars serve their entire bond, and some may have good reasons for not doing so. But to opt for another career before even starting work is not only irresponsible but also unfair to the many unsuccessful candidates who could otherwise have another chance to get an EDB scholarship.

Mr Low says students cannot know what they want at age 18. Scholars who have so far broken their bonds were men who took up the scholarship around the age of 21, after serving 2-1/2 years' full-time national service. They certainly are not immature boys.

No scholarship applicant has ever been forced or coerced into signing a bond with EDB. Our officers spend much time counselling candidates, their parents and sureties, before they sign the deed.

So if students are "fishing" for an EDB scholarship, as Mr Low puts it, they do so with their eyes open. How then can they suddenly express surprise or shock when they are named publicly for not having served at all?

TIMOTHY SEBASTIAN
Deputy Director
Human Resources
EDB

A govt scholarship is not simply a study loan

IN APPLAUDING the move by DBS Bank to allow its scholars to convert their bonds into loans, Mr Adrian Low, in "Mutual respect, not a bond, ensures scholars return" (ST, April 14), commented that the practice of naming bond-breakers seemed short-sighted, and that "forcing people to do something against their will is not a hallmark of an enlightened policy".

Nobody is forced against his will to accept a scholarship from the Government.

Parliament debated the issue of bond-breaking at length in March 1998.

DPM Lee Hsien Loong has stated the Government's position: A government scholarship is not simply a study loan, with an option to serve in lieu of repaying the loan.

Nor is it a commercial contract, which may be settled purely by paying the liquidated damages.

Apart from the legal obligation, scholars also bear a moral responsibility to serve the nation.

Government scholars are carefully selected, based not just on academic results, but also on their leadership qualities and sense of service to the nation.

Outstanding academic results do not automatically guarantee a government scholarship.

During their studies, the sponsoring agencies stay in touch with the scholars. They organise activities for them, and keep them updated on developments at home.

Ministers and senior managers of the sponsoring agencies make it a point to meet scholars when they are overseas.

They would not be doing all this if the scholarships were purely commercial contracts.

This does not mean that the scholar must always serve willy-nilly till the last day of his bond.

Unforeseen circumstances may arise, making it unfeasible or awkward for the scholar to continue serving.

Then the break clause provides a way out.

But preferring a non-government career even before starting work is not such a situation.

DBS Bank may have its own reasons for changing the treatment of its scholarship bonds. But this government position on the obligations of its scholars has not changed.

JOYCE CHIA
Public Affairs Manager for Permanent Secretary
Prime Minister's Office
Public Service Division

Rejected by ST Forum

What's fair depends on one's reference

I refer to the comments on scholarship bonds by Mr Adrian Low, as well as the replies from PSD and EDB.

I would argue that the term "scholarships" do not apply in Singapore, evident from our intent to shame bond breakers. I would rather we call these scholarships "labour contracts" where the organization is forking out money to secure the services of bright Singaporeans by dangling in from of them the opportunity of an overseas education.

This is in contrast to the situation in the United States, where scholarships are given on academic merit. Thus, I would suspect one reason why some of our scholars break their bonds is because of equity issues. It is very easy to be proud of being a "bonded scholar" when you are still in Singapore, because your reference group encompasses only your fellow Singaporeans.

In the United States, however, these Singaporean scholars inevitably expand their reference group to include fellow bright Americans, who may or may not be as good as them academically, and these Americans hold scholarships with no bonds attached. Furthermore, the Singaporean scholars, in many cases, are also able to apply for these "no bonds attached" scholarships from the American universities after some time. It is easy then to see how a perceived inequity can arise in the their minds.

In this aspect, I find it rather amusing that both PSD and EDB emphasize that no scholarship applicant has ever been forced or coerced into signing a bond. I hope they understand that, once our scholars expand their reference group from the overseas exposure, that argument above will not help in any way.

It is hard for these scholars to realize what is going on in the US before they sign the bond. As human beings, our notion of equity is primarily based on whom we choose to be our reference group, similar to the fable of the frog in the well.

Thus, I agree with Mr Low that mutual respect is important. Organizations in Singapore should decide what they want: Do they want their scholars to return on their own free will or to return because they fear being shamed in Singapore?