A new perspective about the bond breaking issue

    In typical Singapore style whenever social issues are debated, after everyone has offered their comments and suggestions over the Straits Times, Talking Point etc, the final say comes from the government.  In this case, BG Lee has effectively closed the bond breaking issue with his lengthy speech during the PSC scholarship award ceremony.  Two comments by him caught my eye:

    "For students who do not win scholarships, our policy is to make sure that everybody who qualifies for admission to a local university can take up the place without worrying whether he or his family can afford it." 

    "But nobody is entitled to enter an overseas university, at taxpayers' expense, just because he has gained admission, contrary to what some letter writers have argued."

    I would think that the term "some letter writers" is referring to the one who suggested bond-free scholarships.  I had sent a letter to the Straits Times pushing for the voucher scheme instead of the current fixed subsidy scheme that applies to the subsidy in tertiary education, which I argued at length here..  It was unpublished and thus I believe that he cannot be referring to my letter.

    Yet, I believe the above 2 quotations would also have been used to counter my above proposal.  The basic point still applies that tax payers' money would never be used to finance an overseas education, not even in the form of a guaranteed loan by the government, much less in the form of a voucher that I had suggested.  Obviously, Singapore's attitude is that, tax payer's money must reap some benefit to society, not just to the individual.  

    Well, I have no quarrel with that.  The strange thing is that, when I was having my night shower on the 23rd July 2000, the same day BG Lee's speech appeared in the Sunday Times, I suddenly recalled the American system and how the difference between the American and the Singapore system in rewarding scholastic achievements could shed some new light on this subject.  

The argument

    I recalled my time in ACJC 1990-91, where this American exchange student stated, in an interview with the college newsletter, Line-In, that one difference between the 2 systems, Singapore and the US,  is that, in the US, students are rewarded with money when they get good results; whereas in Singapore, we would only give medals or book prizes.  I received further confirmation of this principle because as I was applying to US graduate schools, I found out that graduate students in US universities could qualify for all kinds of cash rewards in their studies, for the best dissertation, the best 3rd year paper, etc.  See here and here for some examples.

    Being a native Singaporean coming to 27 years, I know that it is a big no-no to reward scholastic achievements with money in Singapore.  It is discomforting in the eyes of Singapore society to do things like that.  Perhaps the incident that happen in my university days would be a good example:  During my International Economics II class, the lecturer wanted to reward the best project group with a cash reward, I think it was about $300 for a group of 4.  When she did that, everyone in the class was so uncomfortable.  In the end, the leader of the winning group returned the money to the lecturer.

    As I was showering, the thought hit my brain, "That explains why Singaporeans are so averse to giving bond free scholarships!"  My argument is as follows:

Lemma (or Premise) 1:    In Singapore, giving money for scholastic achievement is not "natural" to us.

Lemma 2:                        Overseas scholarships is giving money to scholastic achievers to pursue an overseas education.

Conclusion (or Proposition):    That is why we insist on some kind of sacrifice on the part of the scholars, in this case, they must give up a few years of their freedom to serve the country.

Remark:    While in the US, rewarding scholastic achievements with cash has always been ingrained in their culture, thus they have no problems in offering scholarships based strictly on academic achievements.  The idea of a bond for the cash award is alien to them, other than scholarships for high level government appointments.  

    As most of you know, I am one of the beneficiary of such a culture.  My first year fees in Iowa State University, because my academic record impresses them, will be fully paid for in the form of a tuition scholarship from Iowa, with no strings attached whatsoever.  I guess, like what my earlier rejected letter had stated here, my fellow Singaporeans who signed the various government scholarships at the age of 18 did not realize this until its too late, leading to a cognitive dissonance that may explain their eagerness to break their bonds.

    The interesting corollary to my above argument is this: Singaporeans like myself would have great difficulty getting the majority of Singaporeans accepting the proposal of a bond free scholarship.  To make any headway in this area,  Singapore society must first get used to the concept of giving money for scholastic achievements from young, i.e. rewarding top PSLE students, top 'O' level students, as well as top NUS graduates with cash awards.  If Singapore continues to be uncomfortable with such schemes, suggestions of bond free overseas scholarships or overseas voucher schemes would never take root here.

    I have never realized this perspective until last night in the shower (23/07/2000).  It may not be as earth shattering an idea as Archimedes had in his famous "Eureka" water displacement idea, but it is novel to me in its own way.  I hope that, when I go on to Iowa as a doctoral apprentice, more of such new ideas would come in the shower, with regards to my dissertation J!

Conclusion

    Well, I have always considered myself a sort of misfit in Singapore society.  My main problem is that I am too idealistic.  I am not willing to be sucked into the Singapore system where pragmatism and materialism rules, like what I have described here in my review of the Matrix.  I simply refuse to swallow the blue pill even though I am quite miserable having swallowed the red pill earlier, as described here.  Again I thank God for giving me such an inquisitive nature and also paving a way for this frog, that is me, to get out of the well to see the outside world.