Policy on foreign talent contradictory THE logic that lies behind the Government's drive to attract foreign talent is easily understood. Quite simply, to have world-class institutions, we need a worldwide talent pool. Together with a global marketplace, is a global labour force. This is the reality, we are told. Judging by the recent story on DBS Bank (ST, Aug 20), it appears that the prerequisite for a top job in the organisation is years of experience with leaders of the banking industry like J.P. Morgan, UBS, Citibank. It seemed from the interview with chairman S. Dhanabalan that world-class Singaporean banking managers are hard to come by. These are reasonable comments. I would, however, like to draw your readers' attention to the recent debate about scholarship bonds. The reality is that many of the brightest young Singaporeans are already bonded to the public sector at the age of 18. Many are ready for careers with the PSC and the many statutory boards and GLCs that sponsor them. However, the few who broke their bonds to join the private sector or to further their studies were treated negatively in the media. The Government seemed upset at the loss of a few scholars, and not many would dispute the fact that publishing the names of bond breakers was intended to cause disgrace. This is a rather glaring double standard. On one hand, the Government encourages hiring from the global labour marketplace, but on the other, it is reluctant to accept the fact that young talented Singaporeans have the right to aspire to be somewhere else. The Government should accept the fact that young scholars have the right to participate in the global labour market. Shaming bond breakers contradicts the Government's professed open-door policy and liberal labour management. Is it fair for the front door to be open only for foreign talent to walk in and out, while our scholars exit by the door of shame? Moreover, how can we train talented young Singaporeans to be world-class managers if they have to serve in the public sector for so many years? How can we build up a world-class workforce if our scholars are not allowed to venture and gain experience elsewhere? How would a returning DBS scholar feel upon realising that a person's experience with other world-class banks like J. P. Morgan is valued over his loyalty towards the organisation? Would he have been better off breaking the bond, possibly with help from other world-class banks? My conclusion is that either the Government's scholarship policy is out of touch with today's global reality, or the Government is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It wants Singaporeans to accept the necessity and inevitability of foreign talent, but at the same time, applies legal and ethical bonds to many young Singaporeans. I use the word "ethical" because the Government's position on bond-breaking scholars is that the bond is not just another work contract. There is always an ethical dimension to the Government's argument that scholars have a duty, not merely a contract, to serve. On yet another level, I feel that the Government's position on foreign talent lacks a certain philosophical backbone. In truth, Singapore Inc is always at odds with Singapore the Nation. Singapore Inc can scout around the world for the best managers, the best talent and the best professionals to serve its needs in return for world-class renumeration. Singapore the Nation needs citizens who are willing to put up with some sacrifice for the common good. The Government's governing philosophy is a confused conundrum of wanting to be a Singapore Inc of world-class standards, while at the same time trying to forge a nation. The latter task, I feel, is infinitely more difficult, and will always require a higher rationale than simple economic success. THIA JANG PING