| Scholarships remain way to noble ends
"I am not a priest, and a scholarship is not exactly a
marriage. But it is a solemn long-term commitment, and its
award marks a milestone in your life. So perhaps I should pause
now, so that those among you who still harbour any doubts may
leave. For the rest, accept the scholarship and live up honourably
to your obligations.'
-- BG Lee, to those receiving their
scholarships
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday defended the Government's
scholarship system, saying that the fundamental reasons for the
schemes being set up in the 1960s and 1970s are still valid today.
This is the full text of the speech he delivered at the Mandarin
Hotel, before presenting awards to this year's recipients of the
Public Service Commission (Open) Scholarship.
MANY sponsoring organisations hold scholarship
presentations regularly. But today's event organised by the
Public Service Commission is particularly significant.
Not only is this the first time PSC is organising such a ceremony,
but this ceremony takes place against the backdrop of recent
public debate on scholarships and bond breaking.
This debate has raised serious questions about government
scholarships, and about the motivations and values of a younger
generation of Singaporeans.
It has focussed attention on a key system that we have developed
for inducting and grooming talent for the public sector.
I, therefore, propose to recount how scholarships came to play
such a central role, and to restate and reaffirm the fundamental
issues at stake. EVOLUTION OF THE SCHOLARSHIP
SYSTEM IN THE 1960s and 1970s, we were in the early
phases of nation-building and economic development.
The few scholarships the Government could afford to offer were
supplemented by Colombo Plan and Commonwealth scholarships
to study in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and UK.
Parents were poorer and opportunities were few.
Scholarships were the only way many able students could go to
university, especially overseas.
At a time when unemployment was high, the assurance of a
government job after graduation was an important plus.
The early batches of scholars thus felt a deep sense of obligation
and gratitude.
This generation produced many of the outstanding officers who
occupy public-service leadership positions today.
As economic development took off and incomes rose, university
education became more accessible and affordable.
But scholarships continued to be the means by which the public
sector got its fair share of talent, and steered talent to areas of
need, for example, teaching and now life sciences.
The scholarship system also drove top students to excel at their
O and A levels, and in competitions and Olympiads.
When the donor countries graduated us from their Colombo Plan
schemes, the PSC increased its own scholarships to more than
make up.
Later, statutory boards and government-linked companies, too,
started offering their own scholarships, for their specific needs.
The scholarship system has worked well.
Scholars occupy key posts throughout the public sector, at all
levels.
Most scholars have faithfully served out their bonds, except
during periods when our salaries fell too far behind the private
sector.
Superiors report that young scholars are ambitious and
impatient to get ahead, but they show commitment, work hard
and deliver results.
However, between the scholars now in service, and those now
starting on their university studies, is a difference of at least 10
years. That is a very long time in the Internet age.
Today, not only has university education become totally
affordable, but because of the knowledge economy, talent is in
great demand.
Unlike a generation ago, able young people wanting to go to
university now have many alternatives to a government
scholarship.
PSC scholarships have to compete against many other
scholarship schemes.
And all scholarship schemes compete against the ability of
parents to pay for their children's tertiary education, plus the
challenge and excitement of many private sector careers, both in
Singapore and abroad, particularly in the IT and biotech
industries.
Scholarship schemes must recognise and keep up with these
changes.
The Government has not stood still.
We have shortened the bond period from eight to six years.
We allow scholars to pursue a much wider range of disciplines,
and to proceed on to master's and even PhD courses, as well as
industrial and research attachments.
We are also more flexible in deploying scholars, and trying to
match their interests and aptitudes with the organisation's
needs.
We will continue to modify and update the scholarship schemes
to keep them effective and in step with the times.
But we cannot do away with government scholarships.
Nor can we replace them with study loans or bond-free grants.
As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in April last year: ""We
should help every Singaporean to realise his full potential... but
the Government should not use public funds for an individual's
self-fulfilment.
""They should be used only for national interests. Hence, the
Government will continue to give only scholarships for courses of
study in areas where the state thinks it needs talent and
expertise.''
The fundamental principles underlying our scholarship system
remain valid today and are worth reiterating.
These include building a first-class public service, upholding the
principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity, and a moral
obligation on the part of scholars to serve after graduation.
TALENT FOR FIRST- CLASS PUBLIC SERVICE
TO BUILD a first-class public service calls for a
continuing flow of talent.
Without a fair share of the ablest and most committed in each
cohort, we cannot maintain a public service that is regularly
rated as one of the most efficient and competent in the world.
No system or set of rules can substitute for people with integrity,
drive, creativity and leadership.
The public service needs talent not only in terms of academic
excellence and IQ, but also in terms of character.
We need people with the right leadership qualities, motivation
and commitment to serve.
Scholarships provide an avenue for us to identify, induct and
develop such talent in the service.
An alternative to awarding scholarships would be for the
Government to recruit outstanding people after they graduate,
offering attractive sign-on bonuses and perks.
This is what investment banks and top MNCs do, head-hunting
at universities around graduation time.
The Government does recruit graduates who did not study on
scholarships, but it would be a mistake for it to rely solely on
graduate recruitment.
The problem is not just difficulty in recruiting the numbers we
need.
More fundamentally, we will have missed the opportunity to
commit the officer early, even before he goes to university.
Then, while studying, the scholar can mentally prepare himself
for a public sector career, and the Government can mould and
nurture him, to develop in him the mindset of public service, and
to prepare him for his future responsibilities.
This is why we put PSC scholarship recipients through a
pre-departure programme that includes a stint at the Outward
Bound School and a week of learning and discussion on national
issues.
During the course of their studies, we continue to keep in touch
with the scholars.
We organise programmes and activities to update and engage
them in discussions on what is happening in Singapore.
We arrange vacation attachments to government agencies.
We arrange for more senior scholars to be their mentors, to keep
an eye on them, guide and advise them.
So, by the time a scholar graduates and joins the public service,
he is no longer a complete rookie. MERITOCRACY AND
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY THE scholarship system also
expresses the fundamental values of meritocracy and equal
opportunity which underpin our government and society.
We award scholarships strictly on the basis of merit.
Merit includes both academic and non-academic achievements,
intellect as well as character.
But it is blind to the race, religion or family background of a
candidate.
We do not hold against a candidate the fact that his parents are
poor, nor do we discriminate against a candidate who comes from
an affluent family.
In the earlier years, most scholarship recipients came from very
humble backgrounds.
Their parents had ability and drive, but through force of
circumstance, missed the chance to be properly educated and to
rise in their careers.
After 30 years of rapid growth and equal opportunities, in the
present generation, fewer people with ability and drive remain
poor.
Our heavy investment in education and training, and economic
growth has paid off.
Talented Singaporeans have moved ahead, with better paying
jobs and a higher standard of living.
Their children also tend to do well in schools, and are
over-represented among scholarship recipients.
Professionals make up 40 per cent of the total workforce. But 49
per cent of the scholars (54 out of 110) receiving awards today
have at least one parent who is a professional or manager.
Among the Overseas Merit Scholarship and Local-Overseas
Merit Scholarship scholars, where competition is keenest, the
proportion is 54 per cent (28 out of 52).
But scholarships are still an important avenue up for
lower-income families, who would otherwise be unable to afford
to send their talented children to study in top universities
abroad.
Among the 110 scholars today, 39 live in three- or four-room
HDB flats, and 45 have parents who are in working-class
occupations.
They include hawker assistants, taxi- and bus-drivers, cooks,
production operators, cleaners and a fishmonger.
One scholar, during his scholarship interview, revealed that it
was only when he was called up for national service that he slept
for the first time on a spring mattress; he had slept on a foam
mattress all his life, and has since found it difficult to associate
the word ""austerity'' with national service!
The success of these scholars testifies to the determination and
achievement both of themselves and their families, and to our
system of meritocracy which has given them the chance to make
good.
Scholarships are, therefore, a great equaliser in our society.
They enable talented Singaporeans to receive the best possible
education, regardless of family background.
They show that hard work and ability are the way to succeed,
giving hope to many others.
And they keep our society open, preventing class and privilege
from hardening social stratification.
In the recent debate on scholarship bonds, some have expressed
the view that scholarships should be confined to lower-income
households, and candidates from well-off families should be
excluded. This is totally wrong.
Firstly, we would deprive the public service of some of the best
candidates.
Secondly, it is wrong to judge the commitment and character of a
candidate based on whether his family is rich or poor.
We cannot even say that a scholar is more likely to break his
bond if his parents can afford to pay up.
Any scholar intent on leaving can find a new employer to buy
him out; he does not have to depend on his parents.
Worst of all, we would send a powerful signal that we are
abandoning the fundamental principles of meritocracy and
equality of opportunity, in favour of affirmative action and
equality of outcome.
Instead of levelling up the less successful Singaporeans, we
would be holding back the more successful ones, in the name of
equality. This would be disastrous.
Levelling down is what the old Labour Party in Britain sought to
do, and what the New Labour government under Prime Minister
Tony Blair is trying to change.
It is only slightly different from what happened in China during
the Cultural Revolution, when university admission depended on
your revolutionary credentials, meaning that children of
bourgeois families were disqualified.
The result was a wasted generation, an immense loss of human
capital which China will feel for decades.
The Chinese have realised this, and now in China, university
admission is based strictly on entrance examinations.
You can see pictures of the precious (offspring) studying, with the
mother or father standing by fanning him, to keep him cool.
And students and parents take it so seriously that they put the
most zealous Singaporean bookworms to shame.
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.
The National University of Singapore and the Nanyang
Technological University have a needs-blind admission policy.
Students in financial need can apply for tuition loans which
cover 80 per cent of fees.
Students already holding tuition loans can further apply for
study loans, which cover the remaining 20 per cent of fees plus
possibly a living allowance.
Nobody will be deprived of a university education who deserves
one.
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.
MORAL OBLIGATIONS OF SCHOLARS THE last
fundamental principle that underpins the scholarship scheme is
that scholars have a moral obligation to serve after they
graduate.
Scholarships are not study loans, much less entitlements.
They represent a use of public funds to train a carefully-selected
group of promising young men and women, to achieve a public
purpose.
This moral obligation arises firstly because successful
Singaporeans owe their success to the society which nurtured
them.
Parents and teachers, the society you belong to and the system
that Singaporeans have together built, all have played a part in
your success.
Imagine that by a twist of fate you had been born in some other
part of the world. You don't have to imagine Zimbabwe, just
think of East Timor and being born there instead of Singapore,
with the same talent and ability.
Is it likely that you would have had the same upbringing, the
same education and the same chance to study in the best
institutions in the world? You have worked hard, but you have
not arrived solely by your own efforts.
Therefore, you have a responsibility to contribute back to
Singapore, to help others to enjoy the same opportunities that
you have had.
Secondly, by going on scholarship, you have been granted a
precious opportunity which has been denied to others. Resources
for scholarships are not limitless. The cost of an overseas
scholarship is high -- about $250,000 per scholarship.
Furthermore, many US universities limit the number of
Singapore students they will take each year.
A recommendation from the PSC or a Singapore government
agency like the Economic Development Board or the Monetary
Authority of Singapore carries weight when students apply for
admission, because the universities know our stringent
standards and take our recommendations seriously.
So when the government sponsors a scholar for his university
studies, it is giving one of these precious and limited places to
him, instead of to some other candidate.
Thirdly, the scholarship entails mutual obligations between the
scholar and his sponsor.
The sponsor will develop and nurture the scholar, and provide a
challenging and enabling environment for the scholars to learn
and grow in their careers.
Scholars will be rewarded in a timely and fair way for their
performance, including being paid competitive salaries.
In return, the scholars must give their best to the organisation,
as they have promised to do. DEBATE ON BOND
BREAKING IT IS, therefore, ridiculous to describe the
bond as an instrument of exploitation or servitude.
The bond is to give certainty to both sides as to what they can
expect and what is expected of them, on the basis of best efforts
and mutual commitment.
When a scholar completes his bond by his early 30s, he can
decide whether he wishes to stay on, or change careers.
In all probability, he will do well in whatever field he chooses,
because the training, the discipline and the moral values that he
has imbibed in the years with the public sector will remain with
him.
We do not expect everyone to serve till the last day of his bond,
come what may. We recognise that the future is unpredictable,
and scholars in their teens find it difficult to commit themselves
irrevocably to where they will be and what they will do with their
lives for a good number of years, even before they begin their
university studies.
Conditions may change, unforeseen events may intervene and
things may fail to work out.
In which case, the break clause provides an amicable way out for
both parties.
But it is totally wrong for scholars to plan to leave even before
starting their studies, as 11 anonymous scholars were reported
by The Sunday Times to have resolved to do.
This is like making arrangements for divorce while waiting for
the bride to arrive at the wedding!
The PSC, the Public Service Division and the statutory boards
that sponsor scholarships have stated their position clearly and
unambiguously.
It is wrong for scholars to think that the scholarship is a purely
mercenary contract, and that they are entitled to try to maximise
their own careers and prospects in this selfish way.
It is also a matter of honour to make every effort to fulfil a
promise one has made, and to stand ashamed when breaking
that promise.
I am saddened that these young people with such obvious talent
and potential do not realise that what they plan to do is wrong,
and should be a cause for shame both for them and their family.
In mitigation, it might perhaps be said that the scholars had not
thought through their positions when first asked by The Straits
Times journalists; that they did not expect The Straits Times to
splash their views on the front page, not once but twice, under
provocative and defiant banner headlines -- ""We'll break bonds,
say 11 scholarship holders'' (The Sunday Times, July 9) and
""We're still breaking our bonds, say 11'' (ST, July 19) -- and then
parlay the story into a full-blown hot national issue out of
proportion to its significance; that when pushed by the
journalists to confirm their position, after their sponsors had
advised them to reconsider, they had no choice but to dig in as a
matter of face; and that they did not expect the same newspaper
which had reported their views so sympathetically to then
condemn them in a blistering editorial as being worse than
immoral, in fact ""amoral'' and ""beyond saving'' -- ""The 11 must
come clean'' (ST, July 20).
If so, let this be a learning experience for them and the other
scholars.
As their sponsors have stated, we hope that with time and
maturity, they will modify their views, and reach a more
balanced understanding of their duties and obligations as
scholars.
One useful outcome from this incident is that it has spurred the
PSC scholars to speak up publicly, and reaffirm their resolve to
fulfil the spirit of their commitments. One hundred and
twenty-seven of you did so, in a joint statement issued this week.
You have done credit to yourselves, your parents and teachers,
and the whole scholarship system that identified and selected
you. By standing up to be counted, you have shown that you
understand what is at stake.
It is thus a special pleasure for me to present you your
scholarships today.
It marks the beginning of an exciting journey for you as you
proceed for your university education, and then serve Singapore.
At Christian weddings, before the priest asks the couple to
exchange their marriage vows, he solemnly invites any person
who knows any reason why the marriage should not take place to
speak up, or forever hold his peace.
I am not a priest, and a scholarship is not exactly a marriage.
But it is a solemn long-term commitment, and its award marks a
milestone in your life.
So perhaps I should pause now, so that those among you who
still harbour any doubts may leave.
For the rest, accept the scholarship and live up honourably to
your obligations.
My heartiest congratulations to all of you, your parents and
teachers.
 
| 
