A couple of months ago, I was asked by a professor J in the office building to review the credentials of a graduate school applicant X from my alma mater, the National University of Singapore. X is a 4th year Electrical and Computer Engineering student and should have completed his studies by now. Prof. J handed me the dossier file containing X's application materials - his transcript, resume, statement, recommendation letters, etc. I went through all of them. His application was pretty solid. Straight A's in his engineering classes according to his transcript. Top 5 in his cohort, said one of his professors in his recommendation letters. I don't even know why Prof. J asked me to look over his application.
Then, I noticed that X was from the PRC. More specifically, X is an MOE scholarship holder (as stated in his resume), the kind that is obliged to serve out his/her bond in Singapore for 6 years after graduation in exchange for a tax-money sponsored university education in Singapore. What on earth was he doing, applying to go to graduate school in the US immediately after graduation when he has signed a 6-year contract with the MOE? As far as I know, the bond does not allow its signee to undertake any postgraduate studies overseas unless he/she obtains Singapore citizenship. If the ECE department accepts X's application, there is no way they will defer his entry for 6 years. So, the only logical conclusion is that X is going to break his bond and come to the US for graduate school. Applying to graduate school is not cheap and something you do on a whim as it involves doing the GRE, TOEFl and getting people to write recommendation letters.
The irony is, for people like X who will probably 'break' his bond and mind you, not fulfill the terms of his contract, i.e. not pay the financial penalty of not serving out his bond, the Singapore government will stay silent, very very silent. By letting someone like X go, at least 100 to 150 thousand dollars of Singaporeans' tax money spent subsidizing his eduction has gone down the drain. Where is the accountability so often trumpeted by our civil service?
On the other hand, in contrast, when one of our PSC/EDB scholars does not serve out his/her bond but pays back the money to the government, plus a little bit more, the national broadsheets scream bloody murder and an esteemed, very senior civil servant, who is more likely than not to be aware of MOE scholarships for people like X, threatens to award scholarships only to females and foreigners because they are supposedly less likely to break their bonds. (Guess what? Someone in this university, who used to be an undergraduate scholarship holder from the organization formerly chaired by the aforementioned civil servant, is a female non-Singaporean bond-breaker.) We have to bear in mind that the government is financially compensated in this case and terms of the contract are indeed fulfilled to the letter, whereas for people like X, there is a clear monetary loss.
The hypocrisy of it all...
Then, I noticed that X was from the PRC. More specifically, X is an MOE scholarship holder (as stated in his resume), the kind that is obliged to serve out his/her bond in Singapore for 6 years after graduation in exchange for a tax-money sponsored university education in Singapore. What on earth was he doing, applying to go to graduate school in the US immediately after graduation when he has signed a 6-year contract with the MOE? As far as I know, the bond does not allow its signee to undertake any postgraduate studies overseas unless he/she obtains Singapore citizenship. If the ECE department accepts X's application, there is no way they will defer his entry for 6 years. So, the only logical conclusion is that X is going to break his bond and come to the US for graduate school. Applying to graduate school is not cheap and something you do on a whim as it involves doing the GRE, TOEFl and getting people to write recommendation letters.
The irony is, for people like X who will probably 'break' his bond and mind you, not fulfill the terms of his contract, i.e. not pay the financial penalty of not serving out his bond, the Singapore government will stay silent, very very silent. By letting someone like X go, at least 100 to 150 thousand dollars of Singaporeans' tax money spent subsidizing his eduction has gone down the drain. Where is the accountability so often trumpeted by our civil service?
On the other hand, in contrast, when one of our PSC/EDB scholars does not serve out his/her bond but pays back the money to the government, plus a little bit more, the national broadsheets scream bloody murder and an esteemed, very senior civil servant, who is more likely than not to be aware of MOE scholarships for people like X, threatens to award scholarships only to females and foreigners because they are supposedly less likely to break their bonds. (Guess what? Someone in this university, who used to be an undergraduate scholarship holder from the organization formerly chaired by the aforementioned civil servant, is a female non-Singaporean bond-breaker.) We have to bear in mind that the government is financially compensated in this case and terms of the contract are indeed fulfilled to the letter, whereas for people like X, there is a clear monetary loss.
The hypocrisy of it all...
16 comments:
Did you then apprise Professor J of the contract issue?
Yes but I also told Prof. J that the bond should not be a factor in deciding his admission because the other ECE departments that X applied to are probably unaware of X's contractual obligation.
I think when considering the application, the character and integrity of the applicant should also be taken into account.
This has been happening for quite sometime and it is a well know fact among the PRC community in singapore. An unknown number of MOE PRC scholars have been moving back to China or out of Singapore discreetly. Apparently that particular graduate studies applicant is too aware of this and as a result didn't even bother to try to fulfill a single day of his six years of contractual obligation to Singapore. It is indeed a waste of tax payers money to support the studies of these freeloaders. To make matters worse, a lot to these PRC scholars are ingrates who make really nasty comments about singapore on their china based BBS and blogs.
Thank you all for your comments.
To 1:23am Anonymous,
I don't think it is fair for Americans to be involved in what is essentially a Singaporean matter.
To 6:49am Anonymous,
I am against the current practice of sponsoring large numbers of international undergraduate students in our local universities because I simply don't see the benefit to Singapore of doing so. Some people have claimed that they are here to improve our universities. I've always found that claim to be rather dubious since there is no demonstrated link between the presence of these international students and the ability of our universities to do research and to provide quality education owed to Singaporeans. Others claim that they are here to supplement our labour pool but again, there is no evidence to suggest that the option of importing youngsters from China and India (and providing them with free education) is any more effective than directly recruiting university-educated workers from India and China.
Fox
This is a problem I had been writing endlessly to MOE, Straits Times, etc. about. But no authority bothers to deal with it. Besides going to graduate school, many of these PRC scholars would set up shell companies in Singapore, and set it up that they are employed by these companies, thereby "fulfilling" the obligations. That done, they frequently go back to China to work, their qualifications bolstered by the 6 years of English education in Singapore. The hypocrisy of the Singapore Government.
What I take to be the standard government response is that it doesn't matter if some of the PRCs leave since those who stay behind add a lot of value to the economy.
Besides ignoring the principles of cost-benefit analysis, it's funny they don't apply this to Singaporean overseas scholars.
Agagooga:
I believe it's called hypocrisy.
Also, those who manage to leave are usually the better ones.
Fox
Fox, you should state down the name of this bond breaker, unless something is holding you back. Need to get some justice done
Anonymous at 1:08am,
Technically, the person in question hasn't broken his bond. After all, it is remotely possible for him to obtain some form of deferment.
it's not even your money
Anonymous at 11:28am:
I'm sorry but what exactly do you mean by it's not my money?
Fox
It's possible to defer the 6-year bond by paying a deposit and/or getting some sureties.
Of course but where is X going to find the banker's guarantee and the two Singapore citizens to be his sureties?
Not trying to discriminate against PRCs or what, but it seems that this lack of integrity in advancing self interests will implode badly in their own country to the extent that the country ends up screwing itself (pardon my bluntness).
Look what happened to their bid to cover up the melanine-tainted goods during the Olympics? They end up screwing their own countrymen. Sure they can make nasty comments about Singapore in their BBS blog, but maybe they should just be on the lookout to ensure that no melanine is present in whatever they are going to consume.
I think it will be donkey years before they can get host the Olympics again.
"bolstered by 6 years of English education in Singapore"? Seriously, without the motivation of scholarship, few intelligent/top FT students would consider Singapore. The training is much less vigorous, and discrimination/hatred heaped on FT students since their first days landed on the island. Btw, that's Singlish, not English.
Post a Comment