Mar 21st, 2007
Of scholars and bonds
Email This Post
Print This Post
Mr Philip Yeo posted this clarification of the episode between him and Mr Chng Hee Kok over the issue of scholars who broke bonds. The absolute chronology of the exchange was not too important to me. Rather, the key issue is whether it is alright for a scholar to break the bond on his or her scholarship.
Barring extenuating circumstances, I don’t think it is right for a scholar to break a bond. From the legal standpoint, perhaps there is nothing wrong with breaking bonds because it’s just a legal contract. As long as the scholar pays up the damages as specified in the bond, everything is settled. However, I think that bonds are more than just a contract; it’s a promise, or if you like, a covenant.
In fact, I don’t understand why some people view bonds as a legal contract. At it’s core, it’s plain and simple: a promise to serve in return for the provision of an opportunity to seek higher education. I’m not sure about other people, but if I’m going to make a promise, I’ll jolly well keep to it to the best of my ability. I think it’s very rude to just throw a pile of money on the table and then walk out of a promise without even making an effort to keep the promise.
Furthermore, most cases of bond-breakers (as far as I know) do not break their bonds due to extenuating circumstances. It’s usually because they found better opportunities than what was offered in their scholarship contract while studying (usually overseas). While it is true that time and tide wait for no man, should that be an excuse not to behave honorably?
Just because another hot and nubile 18 year-old babe comes along with the promise of great bedroom action doesn’t mean that I should break off my engagement. I think that keeping a promise is a fundamental human value and one should strive to keep promises that were made, of course, barring exceptional circumstances. Besides, it doesn’t look good to break promises without a good reason. If I call off my engagement for a hot and nubile 18-year old and she walks out on me after a while, which other woman will ever dare trust their future with me? After all, if I have done it once, what’s stopping me from doing it again?
Hmmm…i agree…having partaken the fruits of the scholarship (the free education in a prestigious university and the not inconsiderable amount of monthy allowance) its only fair that u “pay back” by serving for the requisite number of years. There are tales however of people breaking bonds because MNCs come with better offers (some stories also say that the MNC pays the penalty of breaking the bond!)
Anyway i think a bond is a contract, and breaking it is a civil wrong. Thats why if broken the person has to pay damages…i think.
Another thought, the competition for scholarships is quite intense. Being the lucky few to have obtained one, u throw it away. Having deprived one other person the prestige a scholarship confers, u now proceed to throw it away…in a sense u have denied the other person his chance…
nice analogy haha…
Your analogy of a man ditching his fiancée for a nubile 18-year old raises a bigger issue — can Singapore as we know it survive, if the bright and talented are only interested in opportunities for themselves, and if “giving back to society” is merely a catchphrase for the scholarship interview?
It is a thought which crossed my mind, as I wrote a previous entry with some recommendations for modifying the scholarship system: Scholarships: of bonds and bondage
Speranza Nuova,
Your comment raised an even bigger issue. What kind of values are being imbibed into the kids these days? And, I’m not laying the blame solely at the door of MoE. Parents need to examine their own value systems as well.
Ned,
It’s true that bond breakers deprive others of a chance. However, I’m didn’t intend to go to that level of discussion. Taken down to the basic level, it’s all about being trustworthy and honoring one’s word. One can be extremely brilliant, but if one has a reputation for being a habitual promise-breaker (and by my analogy, a heart-breaker), who would dare to venture beyond a superficial relationship with this person?
Aaron,
True, however there may be those who believe that as long as u pay back the organisation, then its fair. This is because rather than serving the organisation u pay the organisation instead. The organisation doesnt lose that much. U did not work for them true; but u also did not free ride. Some may hold being made to pay and shamed is enough; personally i dun, cuz the bondbreaker has also screwed with someone elses life (possibly).
Breaking bond is more of a moral issue then legal wise. You break it and you just pay the cash. The problem is can you trust the person integrity in future? A bond to me is like a special relationship and love that becos you are talented and you wanna serve the national thats why you wanna take up, Not becos you are so poor that you have no money to study and you take up for the sake of studying free. I think the mindset is pretty wrong. If you can change your mindset easily, I don’t think you will serve as a good employee next time as you can betray your company anytime for any gains.
Rather than addressing the underlying challenges of retaining scholars, a lot of the discussion around bondbreaking is merely chatter around the symptoms. It’s very easy to take a high ground on the issue, but realistically it’s also a little hard to imagine that all bondbreakers deliberately do so with such insight when they accepted the scholarship.
People’s interests change, especially after 4 years of maturing in a university. When you graduate and suddenly you are in a position to get jobs that start at over US$100K a year, with a track to potentially grow to seven figures after several years, suddenly the decision becomes harder to return home to a stat board position which you may have no perspective on. Maybe they also get to work with world class professionals in an area of interest. It’s all just not very black and white.
In the professional world, people sign employment contracts all the time and it’s common to break them to move on. The terms of scholarships are also more arduous today, with penalties a lot higher… I believe it’s a 10% annualized rate… not a bad return on govt funds.
I’m not attempting to justify bond breaking but it’s just not a very clear cut situation. Rather than attempting to improve the situation by harping on integrity and moralities, perhaps it’s even more incumbent on scholarship agencies to educate candidates on the attractive career prospects, or to do a better job of screening… perhaps rebalancing need/qualifications in a way to ensure returnees.
Francis,
I know that issues are not necessarily black and white, which is why I left the caveat that we should not be evaluating those with extenuating circumstances at the same level as those without.
So would you advise me to call off my engagement if I meet a hot nubile 18 year-old babe that promises the best bedroom action that I’ll ever have? Well, 1 woman for another one might not be a sufficient comparison, considering that scholars are looking at much more attractive packages. How about this, would you recommend me to call off my engagement if there are 5 hot nubile 18 year-old babes that promise the top notch bedroom action?
(Don’t take me too seriously about the hot babes part; I was kidding)
“In fact, I don’t understand why some people view bonds as a legal contract.”
You have got to be kidding me. Have you ever seen a scholarship document? There is a list of things the scholarship agency will provide for the scholar, and a list of obligations the scholar will fulfill, with clauses that describe the procedure to be followed should the agreement not be upheld.
People sign legal documents to enforce contracts, and have some recourse when things fall apart. Of course scholarship agreements are legally binding contracts. One should expect no less.
Seriously, WTF. This is by far the most idiotic thing you have ever written.
Aaron, if having great sex with a hot nubile girls is the most/only important thing in the world and the main reason why you are with your fiance today, then by all means you should consider the breakup. But presumably you value your relationship with your fiance because of a lot more elements than just sex… the intellectual element, the shared memories, similar goals, common priorities and established familiarities. Therefore you shouldn’t call off your engagement.
I don’t mean to be cavelier about this but your analogy is somewhat off the mark.
Congrats on your engagement btw!
Scholarship bonds are legal contracts primarily. However, the discussion of morality/integrity in the context of the bond is not misplaced since morality provides for the conventions of how parties interact, with the law (read: contracts) established to specify the rules and enforcement of agreements.
I think everyone’s in agreement that legal contracts are black and white generally, so enforcement, rights, duties and compensations are relatively clear. The application of morality however is much more ‘gray’ and harder to contextualize because every situation can be interpreted and justified differently - a scholar has a ‘moral’ obligation to serve the scholarship provider, but he also has a ‘moral’ obligation to ensure the financial security of his family or the ‘moral’ duty to finish up important research, etc.
The question then is given the problems of retaining scholars in the admin/govt service, how should it be addressed? Some of it can be redressed through contractual obligations as is already the case with higher hurdles to break bonds. But any official moves at addressing it beyond the legal/contractual element starts to toe a pretty fine and dangerous line. Are proclamations that a valid breach of a legal contract as immoral going to then dilute the efficacy of actual contracts? Does it provide a fallback trump card that authorities/one can pull when they are not happy with contractual settlements to draw additional damages? As long as it remains in the realm of public discussion and condemnation it’s fine. But if it gets to the point of retroactively naming bondbreakers when that was not an agreed upon remedy/threat when the scholarship was granted, it crosses the line.
I guess it depends how you would like to view the scholarship? Unfortunately, while I like to think of scholarships as opportunities to groom the younger “smarter” generation, we might not want to forget the scholarship provider has much to gain from this “transaction”.
Sigh… Has the initially well-intended purposes of scholarships retrogressed to a series of legally-binding clauses?
Elia,
I will respectfully disagree with you, and my reason is simple. The reason why legal contracts have to be drafted up for scholarships is because not all humans can keep their promise. And, most of the time, the people that can’t keep their promises are the scholarship holders. Scholarship holders don’t have to worry about organizations reneging on their contract, because no organization will be dumb enough to tell a scholar that it has invested 6 figure sum in that they don’t have to serve bond anymore. All these are barring extenuating circumstances for the organization of course, which is the same standard I apply to scholarship holders.
If you wish to debate on the legal level, so be it. We will never be able to agree because I don’t see signing scholarship contracts as a legal issue. I see it as an issue of personal integrity. Like I’ve mentioned, and I will say it again, if people can be trusted to keep their promise, why is there a need for the law? I trust that you are intelligent enough to see my point, and unless I hit a raw nerve of somewhere, I don’t see why you have to call the entry “idiotic”.
“Sigh… Has the initially well-intended purposes of scholarships retrogressed to a series of legally-binding clauses?”
Kelvin, I’m not too worried about this aspect. It’s a reflection of a developing and wealthier society where talent has more opportunities. So in the big picture it’s just a new challenge of progress. Comparing and complaining about today’s bolting ex-scholars versus the more loyal scholars of the past is not forward looking or realistic about the world today. It also does not solve the underlying challenge/problem of attracting and keeping talent into public service.
Francis,
So if the only most important thing for a scholar is his personal interests, the scholar should consider breaking the bond. However, if the scholar values other things like personal honor and integrity, gratitude to the organization for giving the opportunity to study and service to the country (in the case of a government scholarship), the scholar should not break the bond.
Anyway, don’t worry about things. I’m easy-going.
Thanks for the congratulations. You might have to say a second round soon, for the follow up to the engagement four years ago.
Francis,
Then is the solution to the bond breaking problem of today’s wealthier and more materialistic Singaporean society to put the damages rocket high? Then we run into another problem: we get the person but we don’t get the heart.
Aaron:
“So if the only most important thing for a scholar is his personal interests, the scholar should consider breaking the bond. However, if the scholar values other things like personal honor and integrity, gratitude to the organization for giving the opportunity to study and service to the country (in the case of a government scholarship), the scholar should not break the bond.”
Yes, to a certain extent. Because if a scholar is only out for his own interests all the time, he’s probably not suited for public service, so him leaving likely solves a long-term problem for the scholarship provider… since he’s likely to leave after real responsibilities have been vested in him when he starts work. In that regard, some accountability may also have to be placed in the hands of the screening process (although I won’t go as far as to say blame lies with the scholarship provider).
Congratulations on the wedding then!
Francis,
Perhaps the screening process needs to be improved. I’m going to read Speranza Nuova’s entry more carefully. You might want to check it out too. Scroll up for the link.
Raymond: A bond to me is like a special relationship and love that becos you are talented and you wanna serve the national thats why you wanna take up, Not becos you are so poor that you have no money to study and you take up for the sake of studying free.
I know many people who are scholarship holders in overseas universities. That’s not what goes on in the minds of most of these scholarship holders.
Most people take up the bond for the following reasons:
1. The opportunity of living and studying overseas in the UK and US, where social/economic/academic opportunities are more plentiful.
2. The prestige of being a scholarship holder.
3. The guarantee of a stable job in Singapore after graduation. Hopefully, the job will be one that he/she is suited for/interested in.
I doubt that the scholarship organisations don’t realise that. After all, they can remove US/UK universities from their lists and offer only scholarships to PRC and India.
I tend to agree with Elia on this one. To me, scholarship agreements are legal contracts, with clearly specified terms of agreement. They are really no different from say a contract drawn up between a buyer and seller of a house. In fact, by slapping a “immoral” tag on bondbreakers, the government has gone beyond what is specified in the scholarship contract. A lot of times, scholars break their bonds because the organization is unable to provide the challenge that they have come to expect (remember these are our brightest people who have spent four years with the best brains in the top schools and have many opportunities open to them). The SAF is somewhat better in this respect because it places scholars on a different, accelerated path, with more opportunities and faster promotion.
Aaron: “Then is the solution to the bond breaking problem of today’s wealthier and more materialistic Singaporean society to put the damages rocket high? Then we run into another problem: we get the person but we don’t get the heart. ”
Having a high enough damage forces would-be recipients to think about their obligations better and also helps ease any ‘pain’ on the part of the scholarship entity.
In fact, I’ve made the point before that the govt should actually offer MORE scholarships but with higher punitive bond breaking penalties… that way if they don’t get the scholar to return, at least they make a great return on their funds. At a >10% p.a. penalty level, it’s a fantastic return… perhaps even better than some/many of the investments made by GIC/Temasek! I’m actually quite serious about the idea.
The analogy with running off with a more nubile partner is flawed. In the case of a domestic partnership, the unspoken agreement is usually one of faithfulness come what may. The ‘agreement’ does not contain a clause that one must compensate one’s partner monetarily if one leaves the relationship. If it does contain that clause, and one runs off with a nubile interloper without coughing up the compensation as previously agreed, then one is committing a moral wrong. On the other hand, if both parties voluntarily enter into an agreement where there is such a clause that unfaithfulness should be compensated monetarily, and the adulterer does compensate his/her partner as stipulated, then there is no moral wrong committed. After all, even the partner who was wronged had agreed that a severance of the relationship by the other partner constituted sufficient compensation.
Using this more accurate analogy, the scholarship agency voluntarily enters into an agreement where it is compensated a certain amount if the scholar leaves prematurely. Unlike most romantic relationships, it is not an agreement that the scholar should serve the agency come what may. So it is not being cheated of anything if the scholar leaves and pays up as required. Furthermore, as Francis has pointed out, the returns on investment on bond-breakers are probably much higher than what the scholar could have contributed with his manpower. Typical terms are 10-15% compound interest. I challenge you to find govt investments that bring in anywhere close to that proportion of returns.
The one argument that I think could plausibly make a case for the immorality of bond-breaking is that by taking up the scholarship and not fulfilling it, one has deprived other potential scholars of a chance to study overseas. However, most bond-breakers I know did not, at the time of taking up the scholarship, have the intention of breaking their bonds. By the time they’d decided the civil service was not their cup of tea, they’d already signed the contract, and couldn’t give up their place to someone else if they wanted to. So their act of breaking their bonds didn’t really deprive anyone of a chance to study overseas — their taking up the scholarship did, but when they took up the scholarship they had no idea they were going to break their bonds, so they could have had no intention of depriving others of a chance of studying overseas.
Twasher,
The ‘agreement’ does not contain a clause that one must compensate one’s partner monetarily if one leaves the relationship. If it does contain that clause, and one runs off with a nubile interloper without coughing up the compensation as previously agreed, then one is committing a moral wrong.
Only money is involved then a moral wrong is commited? I don’t get it. Must there be compensation involved only for something to be wrong? Just because in an engagement there is no backing of the law for either party to be able to claim compensation means that it’s ok to break it? Must it come down to punitive measures to decide morality?
Pardon me if I’m being idealistic, but where’s the sense of honoring one’s word? Do we need the law these days to ensure that every promise made is kept? If so, that’s very sad you know.
Yun,
Then why don’t the scholars not sign on the dotted line and go seek personal sources of funding? I don’t see your reason as a good excuse. If the scholar did not find out whether he will be offered a job to his liking before signing, that’s his fault, not the fault of the organization who offered the scholarship. If one doesn’t like the offer, leave it. Others who want the offer will take it up.
Aaron,
I should have made this clearer. In a ‘normal’ relationship where there is no monetary compensation clause involved, the unspoken agreement is to be faithful come what may. In which case, adultery is immoral no matter what. If there is monetary clause, and the adulterer coughs up as agreed, I fail to see what is immoral. My point was exactly that the scholarship case is not like a romantic relationship because it has that monetary clause.
Hi Aaron, it seems like you only reply to ppl who sings your tune. Of course, you have your reasons and understandable. But perhaps, you might want to extrapolate your perception becauses the world is constantly changing.
Regards to your post, i disagree that breaking a bond is a question of integrity. The procedure is fair and straightforward, and within the law. In fact, scholarship is a waste of talented individuals on the public sector. Why not create an environment for talents to grow ie. entrepeuneur area, which will help to improve our economy and society?
Aaron,
The problem, I think, is that one side takes the ‘word’ to be honoured as an unconditional declaration of faithfulness. The other side takes the ‘word’ to be honoured as a declaration according to the terms of the legal agreement. Now in a romantic relationship (prior to marriage), there is no official legal agreement, and the ‘word’ is implicitly taken to be the unconditional declaration. However, I don’t see how you can argue that that is the case for scholarships, where there is clearly a legal agreement. I don’t dispute that you can validly state that as an opinion you think there is an implicit agreement of unconditional commitment on the part of scholarship holders. However, since you are neither a scholarship holder nor a scholarship provider, I don’t see how you can prove that both parties have this implicit agreement behind the legalese. And if you can’t prove that both parties voluntarily agreed to the implicit agreement, then you don’t have a case for its immorality. One can only violate an agreement if one was party to the agreement in the first place. If you can’t show that the scholars and the scholarship agencies were party to that implicit agreement (and I don’t see how you can unless you read their minds), then you don’t have an argument to back up what is, as of now, merely an opinion.
Basically, an immoral act must have immoral intentions behind it (otherwise doctors who unwittingly caused the death of their patients when they thought they were helping them would be immoral). If scholars interpret the bond as a mere legal obligation, then they are not being immoral when they break it, for they had no intention of committing an immoral act. The trick, therefore, is to show that scholars interpret the bond as you do, i.e. an unconditional declaration of commitment. In which case, when they do break their bonds, they would be committing an immoral act. Maybe they do interpret it as an unconditional declaration of commitment. But you have yet to show that.
This argument would also entail that, if the govt wants bond-breaking to be an immoral act, it has to make it clear to scholars that the contract is a declaration of unconditional commitment, and it has to get scholars to agree that it is. Once again, it is not clear that this has happened.
[...] opines that breaking scholarship bonds is immoral. I say opines, because he has basically provided no [...]
Hey Aaron,
I personally think that your analogy of an engaged couple is suspect. Let’s say I meet a char bor now. I think she’s the one for me, and we get engaged, but she insists that we sign a pre-nup. Now after I married her, it turns out that she wasn’t what I imagined her to be. In fact, maybe she might have intensionally tricked/seduced me into falling for her in the first place.
Then later, I meet another woman. In addition to being nubile, but there is also attraction in other areas, like the intellectual element, common goals, shared memories and other spiritual elements. Overall a better package. Now, I am perfectly willing to abide with the terms of the pre-nup (liquidated damages + 10% compound interest) with my wife in order to divorce her and be with this new woman of my life.
Is it still immoral for me to divorce my wife? Perhaps so, maybe you think that ALL divorces are immoral, since marraiges are about keeping promises. But if you have a pre-nup, doesn’t make the situation much greyer? Or does this come under your “extentuating circumstances”? If so, I’m under the impression that most bond breakers break under such circumstances.
I didn’t know people still debate abt bond breaking…maybe i’ll write a post about this myself. =P
Then why don’t the scholars not sign on the dotted line and go seek personal sources of funding? I don’t see your reason as a good excuse. If the scholar did not find out whether he will be offered a job to his liking before signing, that’s his fault, not the fault of the organization who offered the scholarship. If one doesn’t like the offer, leave it. Others who want the offer will take it up.
I believe Yun’s point is that at the time of signing, scholars do in fact like their offers (from my own anecdotal experience, I think this is true). This is largely due to ignorance of better offers overseas. I fail to see how it is the scholar’s fault that he/she had no idea that there would be better opportunities overseas. Basically, at the time of signing, most scholars are like frogs in the well thinking they have got the best deal they possibly could. Are you going to blame them for having their perspectives involuntarily limited (they didn’t choose to be born in the well, after all)?
I agree that promises have to be kept. But if I view the scholarship as a promise, to me, it will sound like: “I promise to do A if you pay for my education. If I can’t do A, I will return the money, +X% interest, to you.”
Either doing A, or paying X% fulfills the promise.
Shcolarships really should be given to worthy people who really need financial aid to further their education. Not to those who are just after the “prestige” of being called a scholar.
Thanks twasher.
Indeed, most scholars when they sign on the dotted line simply cannot know for sure what they are getting into. They may do some basic research on the organization, they may talk to some people on what to expect, but it is unlikely that they will find out what the organizational culture is really like, what the job scope would be like etc. If a wide-eyed teenager saw the Army ad, he would probably be inspired to join Army although he will quickly learn that it can’t be further from the truth when he actually reports for duty. Furthermore, organizations change with time (new management etc) and scholars only join after 4-6 years and more often than not, scholars have no idea where they will be posted to and it will depend on job availability upon their graduation. Following your analogy, if I sign a legally binding agreement to marry a gal in 6 year’s time, but she turns out to be very different then, should I be morally obliged to marry her so that both of us suffer together till death do us part? Or should we be enlightened enough to acknowledge that we are a mismatch so it will be better if we go our separate ways based on what was agreed?
Frankly, if my kid is good enough to get a prestigious scholarship, why should I cough up money to send him to the top schools even if I could afford it? I jolly well tell him to get the scholarship first then assess his opportunities upon graduation. If he likes the organization and job, then good for him. If not, he could still choose to move on (if we can afford it of course).
It’s flawed but that just how the system works. That’s why I am not a fan of our scholarship system.
While it has been established that a scholarship is a legal contract, there is another non monetary side to it.
There are people who believe that those who can afford an overseas education should not apply for a scholarship. I dun hold that view; this is because a scholarship is awared based solely on merit; the above is applicable for a bursary. Demand for scholarships is also in part due to the prestige attached to being a scholar. It is this prestige which distinguishes the scholarship from a normal contract. Breaking bonds after one has obtained the prestige at the expense of another…that is a thought we should consider…
However it would be better if we hear the views of scholars themselves…
Just a quick word, usually, being held to one’s words applies if the person who gave the words are either in possession of great repute, and s/he is known publicly to have the capacity to do the promised actions.
I also think it is a matter of scale, while most people can be held to keep to their promise on things that have lower levels of commitments, it is unlikely and even unreasonable to expect one to be able to do the same for a much higher level of commitment that also possess a threat of penalty, just on the basis of keeping to one’s words.
Hi Ned,
I’m a scholar myself.
I think a scholarship transgresses the framework of financing a tertiary education per se. It’s an entire package. Just looking at a scholarship in terms of ‘how-much-i-stand-to-gain’ i.e. money for education, prestige, is perhaps a narrow minded way of looking at it.
A scholarship (now, I’m going to restrict my discussion to the context of scholarships involving bonds) is a career choice. It’s where you want to be for the next X years. It’s what you want to study, what kind of work you’d want to do, what you want to spearhead, within the framework of the institution that’s offering you that scholarship. It involves an intimate knowledge of the institution that you’re applying to for a scholarship.
Here’s an example to illustrate my point. Before Joe signs on as a Guards officer in the army, Joe would know that his job entails ‘chiong sua’, rubbing camo-paint on one’s face, carrying out regimental duties, and so on. If Joe doesn’t like doing all these and would rather push pencils, I would suggest Joe go look for another job, one that’s more suitable, rather than signing on with it just for the money and the Guards tab and taukwa on his brown beret.
One must not forget, that we are still building our nation. Despite us having moved from third world to ‘first-world’ in such a short time, we are in dire need for talent to bring our country forward. If one has that vision, to want to see Singapore through, to make decisions that affect Singapore Society, then go for it. Go get that scholarship and do some damage. At least during that bond period, do your fair share for the taxpayers who paid for your education. After that, go ahead at pursue greener pastures put on hold after graduation, by all means. On the other hand, if you are just looking for someone to finance your education, and cannot see any further beyond your graduation, I’d suggest a rethink. Perhaps working your way through college may not be such a bad idea. At least it leaves all your options open.
A scholarship is an opportunity. A career. It is not a lucky draw prize.
Twasher,
Your replies are based on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. I do not disagree that a scholarship is a legal contract, but as I have always maintained, the reason why scholarships have to be bounded by the law is because people cannot keep their promise. I never intended to take the debate to the technical level because it serves no purpose. What is important is to understand why there is a need for the law in the first place.
Anyway, I don’t see why there isn’t an implicit agreement behind the legalese. No one forces the scholar to agree to accept the scholarship. If the scholars sign on the dotted line, it means that the scholar agrees to the terms of the scholarship. Would you sign your name on any contract if you do not agree with it? I don’t think so. If you sign on a contract, you have a moral obligation to fulfil the contract to the best of your ability. If you are not reasonably sure of your ability to commit to the contract, why sign it?
Ironically, it is normally the most capable of people who actually break bonds. The apathetic(and even useless) ones stay back and finish their bonds because the closed, protected system is the only kind of environment they are able to survive in.
Justifying why bond-breaking is wrong is not only naive, it is detrimental to the development of the country. You want to attract the bond-breakers back, not piss them off.
Capable people want to work with other equally capable(or more capable) people. No smart, talented person wants to work with idiots. And an organization like a gov stat board, GLC or civil service is filled with idiots. Therein lies the problem. Putting smart people together with mediocre people just doesn’t make sense because mediocre people hate change, can’t think straight and don’t encourage new ideas. Smart people get pissed off and give up. In the end, nothing gets accomplished.
The fundamental problem in Singapore is not the scholarship system, but rather, the way organizations are run. The main issue is that many of these organizations are run by the wrong people e.g Philip Yeo, a person who knows nothing about research tries to run a major research organization… or any of the ex-generals who try to run a GLC.
PS: Note when I mean talent, I mean REAL Talent. Scholar != Talent . A talent can be a polytechnic grad(Sim Wong Hoo), a scholarship holder, a NUS grad or a great musician.
Examples of Non-Talents include people who boast about their 3.8 GPAs during college as the greatest thing they have accomplished in their lives but haven’t done a damn thing in their lives since graduating. Those are some pretty worthless individuals and it shouldn’t be too difficult to find those sorts of individuals in the public sector.
Amatu,
You are entitled to your opinion that I reply only to people who “sing to my tune”. I try my best to reply to everyone, but that doesn’t mean that I reply when I feel I don’t have anything to contribute.
If I might reduce your argument, you are looking at things from the standpoint of the law. However, I would like to request that you think beyond what is stated in a legal contract to think about why is there a need for a legal contract in the first place. If people can be trusted not to kill, steal, rape, traffick drugs etc, why do we need a legal system? Fundamentally, the legal system exists to regulate human behavior. If people can all behave honorably, there’s no need for the law, right? (Of course if you define bond breaking as honorable, then I have no case at all.
)
Yun,
Then we come back to the same old question. Is it alright to break an agreement that was previously made, even though the agreement was made as a result of incomplete information? I think both you and I have different paradigms, which is why we cannot come to an agreement. I am of the opinion that if I agreed to a sucky deal, I’ll see through my part of the bargain before I renegotiate for a better deal. That I can “buy” my way out of the agreement is of no relevance to me because by my paradigm, my agreement cannot be measured in monetary terms. I think no matter how we argue, we won’t be able to come to any common ground.
Fearfully Opinionated,
That depends on whether you choose to exercise the pre-nup of course. In my explanation to Yun, the pre-nup is of no relevance to me because my agreement is not worth money at all. Perhaps I’m just being idealistic and weird, but I really think that we should try and keep agreements, even when it turns out to be a sucky one.
Ted,
Perhaps the problem is indeed a matter of scale. For some people, they might not think twice about breaking a bond, but they would never stand a family member up for a promised dinner. My question would then be, what makes the two promises different? I am of the opinion that there are no differentials in promises. A promise is a promise.
Troodon,
Then isn’t it ironic that such capable people signed on the bonds in the first place? Hmmm…
I just think that people should err on the side of caution when it comes to scholarships. If one is not confident enough to see through the contract come what may, then please don’t sign it.
Therein lies the difference. A promise is indeed a promise but a scholarship (with contractual bond) is and may not be a promise.
Ted,
I don’t understand why a scholarship may not be a promise. Does the presence of a contractual bond nullify the fact that the scholar agreed to serve the organisation after completing his or her studies in exchange for the organisation providing for the cost of education? I would think that a scholarship is BOTH a promise and a contractual bond.
Aaron,
I like the your analogy of a marriage engagement in your original post. Relevant, and strikingly similar. One can point out differences, but the similiarities hold merit.
On a lighter note, the lessons that can be distilled from Aaron’s example:
1. If you still want to bonk nubile 18 year old nymphs (note plural) after you get married, consider not getting married.
2. If you want to bonk them after getting married, be prepared to get divorce letter thrown at you. Get acquainted with this word:
A-L-I-M-O-N-Y.
3. Follow up from point 2, be prepared to be looked at differently by your peers. Your ex-classmates, colleagues, mahjong kakis, whatever. Unless of course, they are doing the same thing too.
Of course, if one thinks that bonking women outside marriage is honorable, then there’s no case at all.
Troodon
I have to agree with Aaron on this one.
If one were THAT capable, and intelligent as you put it, one would not have signed on the dotted line in the first place.
True, that there are many bozos in the workplace. But isn’t it the same everywhere? Private sector’s not suffering from a lack of them. To put all of them in government-linked organizations without considering the alternative is perhaps being a wee bit ignorant?
“I just think that people should err on the side of caution when it comes to scholarships. If one is not confident enough to see through the contract come what may, then please don’t sign it.”
Aaron, that is a rather naive way to view the issue. People get older and change over a span of 4(or more) years. And people change the most during college/university. I do agree that quite a lot of people take up scholarships for the prestige, ignoring what their real interests are and those people shouldn’t take up scholarships in the first place.
However, this shouldn’t play down the fact that shaming bond -breakers is a rather petty thing to do. Taiwan for example has tons of overseas citizens that leave the country in their youth but quite a lot eventually go back and contribute to their country after a number of years. This should be the model that Singapore is aiming for instead of condemning the very talent they need. There is a difference between being a great country and being a country pretending to be great. Singapore is the latter, the kid in school who tries to act cool but really doesn’t “get it”. Great countries recognize that you can’t force your citizens to work or live their lives in a certain fashion. Rather, treat your citizens well and eventually you will gain in the long term. Likewise, Singapore should not view bond-breakers as a loss but more of a long term investment. As in any investment, you lose some and you gain some. However, one fantastic investment will have returns that more than justify the loss. This is especially the case for human talent.
There are a ton of things you can’t learn in Singapore, no matter how smart or talented you are. It doesn’t matter if your organization gives you a huge responsibility on something in the country… it still doesn’t compare with the wealth of knowledge and experiences one can learn outside of Singapore. Singapore needs such people with these experiences. There are a lot of very talented Singaporeans overseas(quite a few bond-breakers) that have experiences which more than justify their bond-breaking cost if they do return. Because when they return, they bring with them things that 10 years in a fast-track civil service job can never teach.
Sometimes in life, you have to look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on petty issues. Part of growing up as nation also involves letting go, dealing with loss and understanding her people.
Aaron,
My point is exactly that you have not shown that the scholars have made a promise of unconditional commitment. You say “If the scholars sign on the dotted line, it means that the scholar agrees to the terms of the scholarship.” as support for the fact that the scholars have made a promise. However, the fact that you have to bring that up as evidence shows that the only evidence we have that they have made any sort of promise is evidence that they have made the promise as stated in the legal contract. I did not at any point say that the scholarship is merely a legal contract. My comments make it clear that I am open to the possibility that scholars make an implicit promise of unconditional commitment to the scholarship agency when they sign on. However, you cannot show that such an implicit promise was made by appealing to the fact that scholars signed a legal contract. The promise of unconditional commitment that you claim they are making is clearly distinct from the legal promise they make in the act of putting their signatures on the contract, so you need separate evidence for the fact that they made that implicit promise.
Aaron,
Oh my!,…50+ comments, you are almost as popular as xiaxue!!
This is a religious debate based more on beliefs that on logic.
The central question is what to you believe a scholarship to be:
a) A legal business contract.
b) Something sacred like marriage…its a big deal to break.
(a) or (b)?
Is it wrong to believe it is (a)? I know a few bond breakers personally they are not “bad” unethical people.
Asking whether bond breaking is okay is like asking people if “not believing God exists” is okay?
However, an interviewer for a scholarship can make it more interesting by asking what the applicant would do if “a better opportunity emerges” while he is on scholarship. Let the interviewee state clearly his commitment and sign it together with the scholarship as a moral obligation. Most people I know would do what they say and if they don’t, you can argue the are unethical.
Also, it helps if the scholarship administrator briefs the applicant clearly on its policies - if the applicant takes a Masters scholarship, what happens if gets a chance to do a PHD? ….I don’t think there are so many strange odd situations that cannot be clearly stated upfront.
I was in the US for about a year and found out many good people are on study aid or some kind of free scholarships, professors may get funding NSF or DARPA. Typically, the US companies don’t bond people and they have pretty generous sabatical schemes etc…except for a number from the military. …and for these guys the path is well established and bond-breaking is ‘probably unheard-of’.
If you sign on a contract, you have a moral obligation to fulfil the contract to the best of your ability.
Do you not see that I am in complete agreement with this? The problem with you trying to use this to justify the implicit promise of unconditional commitment is that the contract does not stipulate unconditional commitment. I, too, agree that there is no reason “why there isn’t an implicit agreement behind the legalese.” But that’s exactly the point — the agreement has to be behind the legalese. You cannot use the fact that they committed themselves to the legalese to show that there is something behind the legalese, since we agree that, if there is an implicit agreement, then the legalese is only something “on the surface”, and doesn’t say anything about the implicit agreement.
Here’s the deal, Aaron, in a nutshell:
I am completely open to the possibility that there is such a thing as the “spirit” of a scholarship agreement behind the legalese. However, you have to show that
1) This spirit is understood by both scholars and scholarship agencies as part of the agreement (since, as I said, you can’t violate an agreement you didn’t make in the first place)
You cannot prove 1) by pointing to the fact that scholars sign a contract, since the contract, being “only” a legal document, says nothing about 1). You yourself, after all, make the distinction between the legalese and the actual ’spirit’, so there is no way you can take an agreement about the legalese to imply an agreement about the ’spirit’.
By the way, it is completely OK to have an opinion that scholarship agreements should contain an implicit agreement of unconditional commitment. However, the issue at hand is whether bond-breakers are immoral. This is wholly a function of whether they have broken the agreement that they made. Therefore, whether you think that scholarship agreements should contain an unconditional commitment is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is whether scholars did indeed make that agreement. If they did, then it be immoral to break their bonds. If they didn’t, then it would not. It is entirely possible that they did make such an agreement (we will never know for sure, since it is not put into writing like legalese is). However, whether you think they should have made it has nothing to do with whether they actually made it. It doesn’t matter what you think should have happened, if they never actually made that implicit agreement, then they could not possibly violate it.
eh, just a side thought. So you think we should not break agreements, so divorce is immoral? So maybe we ought to disallow divorces?
“At least during that bond period, do your fair share for the taxpayers who paid for your education. After that, go ahead at pursue greener pastures put on hold after graduation, by all means.”
Indeed Sparky, thats a good way of putting it. Didnt think of it that way. Another example of the pros of debate.
“There are a ton of things you can’t learn in Singapore, no matter how smart or talented you are.”
Thats why most agencies send their fellas overseas?
Wow this 50+ comment discussion made me think alot harder about the topic and this is what I came out with.
Anyone breaking a bond given by EDB, A* and all the great singapore organisations are not unethical but stupid fools!!!! We should let these people go because they are out of their minds to miss out on such great opportunities. It is literally unwise to keep them if they want to go, take their money and give it to smarter people!!!
Here’s why breaking a bond is so stupid:
Look at a bond as a job guarantee & iron rice bowl. These days where got such good deal, get paid then get job security. I see people break bonds to get jobs in the US, no doubt they might get paid slightly more but if they don’t perform “better than the best”, get get booted out. ..compare that to a relax job at A* with a constant stream of govt funding, assured bonus and no bottom line to answer to. ..your biggest headache is to come up with topics to soak up next year’s budget.
Any one wants to break their bonds go ahead, they are going to miss out on opportunities to work in world class well funded organisations.
We can take back the money and give it to someone smarter.
something with regards to aaron’s analogy.
twasher: i once mused that marriage is akin to getting a scholarship just that you have a bond for life, supposedly. the price is to pay if you were to break that bond is to obviously pay alimony. from an economic point of view, it seems to be more painful to have a divorce than breaking a scholarship bond, where you only have to pay once.
i don’t really agree with aaron’s point that parents should be blamed, but rather the society on the whole should be blamed, because it’s prevalent in our culture to quantify everything, and that includes the perks and benefits which we will receive after graduation. at the same time, young 18, 19 year old are being (misled) by various media to believe that scholarship is a sign that they have arrived, and that their future is secured. so you can’t blame them or their parents for treating the bond as a contract which can be bought over.
what this essentially shows is the weakness in human flaw, which is implicitly manifested by aaron’s analogy itself. the offer is supposedly more enticing when the number of nubile babes is up from 1 to 5. and what is it’s up to 10. up to a certain figure, i am sure everyone (assuming having a high preference for nubile babes) will obviously say screw the engagement. go for the babes.
this stems from my belief that everything has a price - it just might not be money.
it’s easy to stand on the moral pedestal when its broad and wide, but when it becomes narrow, then we try to come up with excuses like “extenuating circumstances”. but what are extenuating circumstances? it just varies between different individuals.
Twasher,
Ok. Points noted. Perhaps the disagreement isn’t that big afterall. As for whether bondbreakers are immoral or not, that’s subjective. I won’t label them as being generally immoral, but I would say that it would be harder for organizations to place future trust in people who break bonds for no good reason, just like how it would be harder for women to trust a playboy to be faithful.
Troodon,
I don’t agree that it is only the most capable of scholars who break their bonds. It is typically only the ones who can afford to pay the penalties, i.e. those scholars who come from rich families, who break the bonds to seek for better opportunities overseas.
My fiance is a scholar bonded to the SAF. He had harboured hopes of breaking his bonds but knew that his family would not have been able to shoulder the immense debt that would have arose from his breach of the scholarship contract.
There are several people whom I know of who have broken their bonds. They are not the most brilliant of people, but they broke their bonds simply because their family could support that.
I think it smacks of elitism and snobbery when you suggest that only best people break bonds and it is the least capable of people who lack drive, initiatve and motivation to return to Singapore to work.
I feel a great sense of admiration for my fiance who decided to come back to Singapore. Of course, it would have been fantastic to pursue his dreams overseas a pursue a career in research but he chose not to. I think it takes selflessness and morals to have done what he did.
I will like to limit my opinion to the situation as I described in the situation below - scholars with the freedom to choose due to their economic circumstance.
I don’t agree that the scholarship provider stands much more to gain from the contractual relationship than the scholarship holder. I also don’t agree that scholarship holders are the best, brightest and most capable people that Singapore has. I have met many scholarship holders who have no common sense but have a huge mass of ego, and met many brilliant and capable non-scholar.
I do feel that many scholarship holders, inparticular the scholars from rich families, pursue scholarships without any intention of keeping to their contractual obligations. I am not saying that they are being necessarily dishonest, but I think that upon signing the contract, they are very keenly aware of the privileges they will get as a scholar: prestige of being a scholar, a chance for free education in the US or UK with daily expenses all paid for, a travel-around-the-Europe/US tour at prices that are unobtainable in Singapore, and in addition to that, will always have a choice to opt out of the scholarship bond because their parents, being rich, will pay the penalty should their precious children want to pursue their dreams of working in London or New York at all costs.
These students as described above, whether subconsciously or consciously, are not completely subject to the thinking that signing a scholarship contract is a career choice. They may have done their research, they may also have been vaguely aware of what the job will requires of them, but methinks they are also aware, they will not be as tightly bound as the scholars who do not have that freedom of choice because they are poor or not as well off.
And unlike many suggestions, it is not really accurate to say that the scholarship provider/scholarship holder relationship is similar to the employer/employee relationship. One of the most important differences lies in the difference in expectations of the employer versus the scholarship provider are different. The scholarship provider does not give a scholarship with the intention that the scholarship holder breaks it. The severe penalties that accompany such breach of the bond is testament to that. In contrast, in a typical employment contract, employees can leave employment with one month’s notice, or payment of their one month’s salary.
I don’t agree with Aaron when he equates a scholarship bond to a marriage, or a promise to marry.
However, I do feel that Aaron is right when such people as I described above (i.e. rich scholars who take up scholarships with no intentions of abiding by them) who take up scholarships do not possess the best values or life perspectives. It’s not quite ‘immoral’, but it is more ‘middle-ground’ like, as Aaron says, it is telling about society’s ‘ME’, ‘ME’, ‘ME!!!!’ values nowadays.
Fearfully Opinionated,
That something is immoral doesn’t mean it should always be subjected to punitive action. I think immorality is a continuum. As for me, I won’t call for outlaw of divorce because I respect individual choice. That doesn’t stop me from having the opinion that divorce is immoral (barring exceptional circumstances, such as prolonged spousal abuse). In anycase, I don’t really think divorce is immoral. I would say that it’s moral to stay in a marriage covenant, but whether one is immoral breaking that covenant would depend on circumstances.
Lucky Tan,
This issue is certainly very problematic because it stretches our fundamental assumptions about what is a scholarship. A legal contract? A scared promise? A secure job and future? Depending on what your personal inclinations are, you will come to different conclusions. I accept the merits of the arguments postulated by those who have expressed different views from mine, but because I operate on a different set of assumptions and ideals, I will not be convinced that bond breaking can be justified by paying up the legal damages. I think it’s a good exercise because everyone who has comment probably now has a clearer conviction on their stand.
Aaron,
What you’re saying is you like blue colored shoes nobody can convince you that the green colored ones are also good.
I blame Philip Yeo for starting this useless, time wasting debate which can never be concluded or won by either side.
If anyone watched Naruto, being a bond breaker is like either being Uchiha Sasuke running off after Orichimaru to gain greater power, or can be likened to be those Akatsuki gang members (the missing ninjas) who are dangerous Special Class criminals.
Either way they still get condemned or are supported by fans.
Perhaps people do not behave honourably because they feel like those at the top of society, leaders perhaps, are not behaving honourably. Singapore is not a society driven by honour anyway. This is a society that rewards the sneaky, the crafty, and the wealthy. Not the honourable. Honourable people end up bankrupt.
[...] Thu 22 Mar 2007 Of a useless debate about scholarships Posted by lamerooze under Blog-o-think Titled very similarly to Aaron Ng’s blog on scholarship contracts and bonds: http://aaron-ng.info/blog/of-scholars-and-bonds.html [...]
Shae,
Interesting points, however this is a bit unrelated… have u read A Song of Ice and Fire?
For the people who argue on moral high ground of a scholarship, I have this to say: The way Singapore is run has nothing to do with morals. Singapore is Singapore Inc. and the citizens are mere worker units. The day the country starts treating its citizens like citizens is the day we can start talking about how moral bond-breaking really is. Look at the way the government treats old folk(making them work past their retirement age), the lack of social welfare, raising of GST to “help the poor”(a running joke) and the discrimination of males having to serve NS. Is it any wonder why people who break bonds have little or no guilt in their hearts? You only feel guilty about something if the person/people you were dealing with were worth your respect. This is certainly not the case with Singapore.
“Fundamentally, the legal system exists to regulate human behavior. If people can all behave honorably, there’s no need for the law, right?”
What you are refering is moral but, sadly, the laws are not regulating our morals but our behaviour. For eg, how can someone who breaks a contract be determined as not trustworthy compare to the backstabber, who spread rumors or frame friends in order to gain advantage over promotion? If you think the latter has a higher or better moral than the former, of course, there is no case for me.
And since you think, in general, singaporeans may require to be moralistic, then you probably have implied that our education system is flawed which produces gradutes who can break a bond or promise so easily without the thought of the consequences or before they enter into an agreement.
What im saying is, a bond-breaker doesnt equate to low moral but merely an option in a contract that if they wish not to be bounded by any obligation in the future.
The purpose of having it written in document is to ensure both parties fulfil their obligations recognised by law, which is also to protect the “injured” party. Hence, i dont understand how moral is implicated into the contract.
Mr Philip Yeo is a visionary but not everyone can understand from his point of view. Hence, we have to work harder to see from his view and form our own.
Btw, im not here to change your thoughts but to share. No one can change you except yourself.
Cheers.
Why do scholars break bonds?
Are we not brought up that way? I hate to say it, but sometimes it strikes me as if many amongst us have given up our morals for the paper/money/whatever chase. Meritocracy from the start, meritocracy to the very bitter end. The good get to the top and there are no points for second place.
We were brought up to think just that. Is it any question then that scholars break bonds? Yes, it’s breaking a promise, breaking a legal contract. But breaking a bond, or, conversely, fulfilling it, normally must serve some purpose to the person in question.
I’ll fulfill my bond, because i do want the experience before considering my options. Another decides to break it because he got a better deal. That’s the mentality we’ve been indoctrinated with, so, i find it really hypocritical for the govt to brand bondbreakers with the stigma of immorality (hell, you can be immoral for sleeping with someone else’s wife too) but still go right ahead with indoctrinating the same principles time and time again.
Sorry for being so fired up…hahaha…just sharing my viewpoint. Passion, sia.
and additionally:
we should ask ‘whose morals?’ Universal morals say that we should not break a promise. Thus, we should be bound to the truth. But, would you lie to, say, prevent someone from getting killed? Of course you would.
similarly, scholars shouldn’t break their bonds. But if the opportunity is THE opportunity and they don’t see it in any other way, then perhaps we should just let them live their own lives…
[...] Aaron started a really interesting discussion when he wrote a post on scholars and bond breaking. [...]
Wouldn’t the analogy be better if we were talking about an arranged marriage? A person takes up a scholarship because of the benefits offered by the organisation and the organisation is giving the scholarship because of the perceived benefits they can gain from the person.
each case needs to be considered individually. i don’t think there can be generalizations made from scholarship contracts, but these are important points that shd guide scholars:
1) liquidated damages: this ranges from 10-15% p.a. if you think that bond-breakers deprive others of good scholarship opportunities, the 10-15% return will guarantee that the organization can send *more* scholars abroad if they want to. in some cases, the LD is useful because the organizations realize that they have too much headcount.
2) over-selling of scholarships: when you’re doing your ‘A’ Levels, the only thing on your mind is how to get a scholarship because your peers and teachers have conditioned you to think that way. it is a bit like buying insurance - it is generally a good thing but could at times be mis-represented. after all, nobody told you that there are actually some bond-free scholarships elsewhere, and absolutely nobody told you about the real working environment in the organization you signed up for, or the opportunities you could get if you went overseas on your own $.
3) contracts are only as good as the people who write them: i think that contracts are largely a formality, at least in the private sector in singapore. you would not sign a good contract with an unreliable person (that’s just dumb), but are more likely to sign a vague (less watertight) contract with a very trustworthy business associate. both parties need to trust each other before putting their signatures to the contract. if scholars fail to live up to their obligations perhaps the scholars are to blame, but likewise if the working environment in the organization is rubbish, then you can’t blame the scholar from breaking his/her bond and having to pay a hefty LD fee.
to put some context to things:
1) scholars are not exactly clear of whether singapore’s bio-medical or whatever-hub sector will take off. if organizations don’t deliver on this, then i don’t see how scholars should be obliged to stick to their bonds. the scholarship bond is a 2-way street. both parties should do their utmost to live up to their obligations.
2) if organizations were really very good, do you *think* that they need to offer scholarships? do you need a google scholarship to want to work for google? pls, if an organization offers scholarships, do not for 1 moment think that the job in question is fantastic. some organizations offer scholarships because of the high turnover in certain positions. i know because i know someone in hr who sadly has to play these tricks on unsuspecting undergrads at local unis.
that said, i m abt to start on my own 2 yr bond myself. i will do what is needed to get the job done, and we’ll see how things go from there. there is still some pride/integrity in many scholars, but like bad recruits there are also bad scholars, and there are bad organizations too.
do your research. go in with both eyes open. stop arguing as if there is a clear-cut answer to this debate. there isn’t, really.
Basically we are reaping what we have sowed since the 80s once the nation survived the 70s. We were also not fully conscious of the consequences of the social engineering that took place since the 60s.
Google does not invest in talent. It just buy talent.
Govt invest in talent and once their bond is expired, they are free to leave for greener grass. Would you pay for your nephew/niece PhD education and not expect a reasonable service period? I doubt it.
For those who angst about scholarships and bonds, just don’t apply. There is no free lunch even in the Land of the Free, or the Beach or the Sheep.
Those who bitch and wine, are immature.
Those who bitch and whine, are immature.
Fair.
___________________
that said, i m abt to start on my own 2 yr bond myself. i will do what is needed to get the job done, and we’ll see how things go from there. there is still some pride/integrity in many scholars, but like bad recruits there are also bad scholars, and there are bad organizations too.
There is no heaven on earth.
___________________________________
but like bad recruits there are also bad scholars, and there are bad organizations too.
Your analogy doesn’t apply entirely to this context. Put some thought into it, you can’t serve through your bond whilst holding on to a more lucrative job. On the other hand, I can have “hot bedroom action”, as you call it, and at the same time stay engaged, lest my partner doesn’t find out…
Has it occurred to anyone that Philip Yeo had started the whole debate, knowing there is no right or wrong in this whole thing for the deterrent effect?
His sole purchase maybe to deter bond breakers and make people more cautious when they sign the bond. Bond breakers are a real headache because they foul up alot of the man power planning. He APPEARED fiece, moralistic, righteous and religious just to get his job done.
Most top civil servants are pragmatists, they are not moralistic. They have a job to do, they get it done. If bond breakers have no negative end effect on the broad strategy then they wouldn’t care less.
Here we are debating for nothing….again!
From a legal point of view, the inclusion of a liquidated damages clause in a contract is intended to quantify a satisfactory level of compensation for the non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation. For a liquidated damages clause to be enforceable, it has to be that the damages for non-fulfillment cannot be accurately computed after the fact. Which is to say that a liquidated damages clause in a scholarship addresses both the financial cost of providing the scholarship (which can be readily quantified), as well as the opportunity cost of offering a scholarship to a recipient who later decides not to serve, as opposed to one who would have fulfilled the bond (which is difficult to estimate).
If however, the liquidated damages clause in a scholarship contact were intended only to compensate for the financial value of the scholarship, then it would more accurately be a penalty clause, which would then not be upheld in most legal systems.
I agree that there are both tangible and intangible damages to a scholarship board when a scholar breaks the bond. However, a scholarship board by virtue of including a liquidated damages clause has agreed to a pre-determined level of financial compensation for all the damages it has suffered. It therefore forfeited any legal or moral right to publicly shame a scholar for breaking the bond.
The previous comments have touched accurately on an important aspect of the phenomena of bond-breaking, which is that Singaporean students who perform well academically have been conditioned from an early age to view a scholarship as a natural and almost inevitable course of action.
This is unfortunate, since at the age of 18, one typically lacks the necessary self-awareness to wholeheartedly and unreservedly enter into a commitment that will last until the age of 28 (4 years of studies + 6 year bond). Students at that age simply lack sufficient perspective, maturity, and wisdom, to fully comprehend the full implications of the contractual obligations they are entering into when accepting a scholarship.
While from a legal perspective, an 18 year old might be considered sufficiently competent to enter into such a contract, is it that difficult to believe that many bond-breakers accepted a scholarship with the honest intention of honoring their bond, but with growing maturity, exposure, and self-awareness, come to realize that that is not where their heart lies?
In reference to your analogy between bonds and relationships, you are not doing your spouse any favors by staying in an emotionless relationship.
> Google does not invest in talent. It just buy talent.
it doesn’t need to buy talent. it attracts talent naturally.
> Would you pay for your nephew/niece PhD
> education and not expect a reasonable service
> period? I doubt it.
this is something that we have been conditioned to believe. u would be surprised at how many philanthropic organizations would do exactly that. but it’s singaporean taxpayers’ money, so there would be some expectations.
when frogs in the well get scholarships, it’s difficult to predict how they will react once they are out of it. do you expect all of them to willingly return to the well? it may be a matter of principle to you, but unless you are confronted with the situation i won’t easily place my bet on your return. i would place a 10-15% interest on the scholarship instead
> There is no free lunch even in the Land of the Free
in some ways yes, but perhaps you have not experienced what true freedom really is.
Morally pragmatic?
___________________________________________
Most top civil servants are pragmatists, they are not moralistic. They have a job to do, they get it done. If bond breakers have no negative end effect on the broad strategy then they wouldn’t care less.
Sounds heavenly.
Show it to me.
__________________________
in some ways yes, but perhaps you have not experienced what true freedom really is.
Singapore boys do their NSF and then go off for their scholarship funded studies at 22 years old. Not wet babies.
PSC makes the mistake disrupting 18 year old wet boys from NSF.
Thus PSC suffers the most in bond breaking.
Singapore girls at 18 years old are at least 2 years older in maturity.
When they go off to study, they are 19 years old and in maturity 21 years old alcohol imbibing legal age.
______________________________________________
This is unfortunate, since at the age of 18, one typically lacks the necessary self-awareness to wholeheartedly and unreservedly enter into a commitment that will last until the age of 28 (4 years of studies + 6 year bond).
If they have morals, they should withdraw from the scholarship early in the first or second year. Cheaper LD.
Why cheat on the sponsor for 4 years and then break bond.
All these hand wringing for 18 years old wet boys is pathetic.
______________________
commitment that will last until the age of 28 (4 years of studies + 6 year bond).
Where is the moral high ground in taking advantage of the naivete of youth?
Scholarship boards should simply accept that no selection process is perfect, and that a given percentage of their scholars will choose to break their bonds. They should then appropriately increase the number of scholarships they award each year to ensure that their manpower requirements are adequately met. Any added cost associated with this approach would be more than sufficiently covered by the liquidated damages from the bond-breakers.
Am I the only one who finds it obvious that “The Crane” is really Philip Yeo? (Hint: the distinctive writing style, and the fact that cranes eat frogs.) So much for slamming anonymous bloggers.
Would you pay for your nephew/niece PhD education and not expect a reasonable service period? I doubt it.
>> I would, if I get my principle back plus 10% compounded interest if he/she breaks the bond.
For those who angst about scholarships and bonds, just don’t apply. There is no free lunch even in the Land of the Free, or the Beach or the Sheep.
>> Fair enough. Similarly, for those who angst about bond breakers, just don’t give out scholarships. Or write into the legal contract that bondbreakers are immoral and thus will be shamed publicly to be fair to the scholar-to-be.
If they have morals, they should withdraw from the scholarship early in the first or second year. Cheaper LD.
Why cheat on the sponsor for 4 years and then break bond.
>> Because it’s only smart to break the bond after they have secured a job opening elsewhere. Every man for himself.
Those who bitch and wine, are immature.
>> Fully agree. Blame the system.
Better to scare away the potential bond breakers.
Otherwise waste of energy and time mothering whining wet chaps.
________________________________________________
They should then appropriately increase the number of scholarships they award each year to ensure that their manpower requirements are adequately met.
Cranes like tasty frog legs.
Done.
___________________________
Or write into the legal contract that bond breakers are immoral and thus will be shamed publicly to be fair to the scholar-to-be.
Same game.
_______________________
The Human GERMANY // Mar 23, 2007 at 11:52 am
Am I the only one who finds it obvious that “The Crane†is really Philip Yeo? (Hint: the distinctive writing style, and the fact that cranes eat frogs.) So much for slamming anonymous bloggers.
Fwah. Just half a day and so many posts. Amazing. Truly more popular than xiaxue.
After some thought, I managed to come up with a few more points regarding the right attitude when applying for a scholarship. Again, this is restricted to local scholarships involving bonds.
1. If you do not share the vision of the institution you are applying to for funding,
Don’t apply.
2. If you think that you are capable of something much better somewhere else in some other country, and want to chase that dream,
Don’t apply.
3. If the only factors influencing you to apply for a scholarship are your father or mother or friends or your teachers in JC,
Don’t apply.
Having read so many posts entailing legal analysis of the ‘contractual agreement’, I kind of find it pointless somewhat, as it all boils down to the CHOICE of the applicant.
It’s funny how people can make a wrong choice, and blame it on so many other immaterial things, e.g. bad contract, institutions exploiting naivete of youth. There are so many other options out there, and applicants should really do their homework before applying. To all the males out there, don’t use ‘lack-of-time-because-i’m-in-the-army’ as an excuse. Can defend country, must be able to take care of yourself. Big boy already.
Good advice.
To circulate to PSC, A*STAR, etc etc,
_______________________
1. If you do not share the vision of the institution you are applying to for funding,
Don’t apply.
2. If you think that you are capable of something much better somewhere else in some other country, and want to chase that dream,
Don’t apply.
3. If the only factors influencing you to apply for a scholarship are your father or mother or friends or your teachers in JC,
Don’t apply.
Elia,
has it ever occurred to you that the scholarship deed is drafted like a legal document because of people like you?
It is a contract with the accompanying moral obligations. I do not believe any scholar has a doubt about this. Try telling the interviewer that it is only a contract and see if you get a scholarship.
Are you telling me that our brightest 18 years olds do not know of the opportunities available to them outside the country or the scholarship system?
I can totally understand bond breakers who cannot give up big opportunities. But to break your bond and then point finger at the system is a little pathetic.
“an important aspect of the phenomena of bond-breaking, which is that Singaporean students who perform well academically have been conditioned from an early age to view a scholarship as a natural and almost inevitable course of action.”
This conditioning has to stop somewhere.
Otherwise there’ll be a whole generation of mindless Pavlovian dogs who just see scholarships as ‘free ah kong money to see me through college’. They fail to see what follows.
The lack of foresight is certainly not a characteristic we want our brightest students to have.
Right on!
_________________________
Sparky Twoshoes SINGAPORE // Mar 23, 2007 at 3:23 pm
To all the males out there, don’t use ‘lack-of-time-because-i’m-in-the-army’ as an excuse. Can defend country, must be able to take care of yourself. Big boy already.
Chap is insulting the intelligence of other 18 years old.
___________________________________________________________
yh SINGAPORE // Mar 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Are you telling me that our brightest 18 years olds do not know of the opportunities available to them outside the country or the scholarship system?
I can totally understand bond breakers who cannot give up big opportunities.
But to break your bond and then point finger at the system is a little pathetic.
eh….scholars…on a bond is like buying timeshare…
Well said YH…
Have read the entry on your blog, Ian, regarding this issue.
Good words, and well pronounced.
“Are you telling me that our brightest 18 years olds do not know of the opportunities available to them outside the country or the scholarship system”
It think is has nothing to do IQ but maturity. Not eveyone at 18 knows what he wants for life. They just take up the scholarship because it is a good offer that allows many choices. When you do not know what to do, choose the best option.
Studying overseas in top uni would definitely change a person’s perspective. People no longer constraint by normal singaporean mentality. It frees people to make more choices decision. Maybe some people choose to pursuit their passion or some more worthy cause in their research.
I see slapping bond breakers with an immoral label as counter productive. The reason is simply because that is just an emotional blackmail to make the scholar go on a guilt trip even after they pay their dues. Most who break bond(my guess not verified) know exactly what they want to do. They are not going to feel remoseful about it. In fact it might contribute to the brain drain if they are not welcome in the government sectors. I think it would be a mistake to judge this people based on their bond breaking.
If the bottom line is to keep these people then more have to be done to understand these people.
Putting a label on them gives our government agency a sense of moral superiority but alienate potential talent. You never know one of these bond breakers might be a future nobel prize winner.
I believe the way forwards if we want to retain scholars is to understand them and offer them the space to develope.
Palmist,
I find this line of yours very interesting.
You never know one of these bond breakers might be a future nobel prize winner.
It sounds to me like those kind of cases in school where teachers turn a blind eye to the some trangession of rules by students if they are star performers. Does it mean that if one is bright, one can break the rules? Just wondering your take on the matter.
I am fortunate to have been the recipient of a bond-free Singaporean undergraduate scholarship. Over the years, numerous students interested in applying for this bond-free scholarship have contacted me.
Given the small number of such bond-free scholarships in any given year, my advice, particularly to students who have professed a passion for an academic career, and do not have the financial means to self-support their educational expenses, has always been to apply for financial aid when seeking admission to US universities, even if it might potentially affect one’s chances of admission. Failing that, I would advocate attending NUS for an undergraduate education, and applying to graduate school upon graduation.
Scholarships however have an almost Faustian appeal, and too many students simply lack the strength of will at that age to turn it down. While I feel that it bond-breakers have done their scholarship board a disservice, I am not so prideful and unyielding as to believe that it is in the long-term interest of our nation to publicly shame these youthful offenders. Such an action provides a cathartic release to one’s righteous indignation, but it is ultimately a Pyrrhic victory, as we effectively close the door on ex-scholars ever returning to Singapore to contribute in their own way.
I disagree with you.
Sounds good in theory.
In practice, they have not come back.
And if they do, if it because they did not make it out in the Land of the Free.
But your pontification makes a mockery of those who stay and honour their commitment.
The chicken gives his egg, that is involvement.
The pig gives his bacon, that is real commitment.
__________________
I am not so prideful and unyielding as to believe that it is in the long-term interest of our nation to publicly shame these youthful offenders. Such an action provides a cathartic release to one’s righteous indignation, but it is ultimately a Pyrrhic victory, as we effectively close the door on ex-scholars ever returning to Singapore to contribute in their own way.
Fully agree with you.
Brains, full stomach (rich) but no heart.
Better to give to brains, hungry (poor) and with heart.
The latter, all things equal, should be given the scholarship.
___________________________________________________
Shae SINGAPORE // Mar 22, 2007 at 5:48 pm
However, I do feel that Aaron is right when such people as I described above (i.e. rich scholars who take up scholarships with no intentions of abiding by them) who take up scholarships do not possess the best values or life perspectives. It’s not quite ‘immoral’, but it is more ‘middle-ground’ like, as Aaron says, it is telling about society’s ‘ME’, ‘ME’, ‘ME!!!!’ values nowadays.
Are you telling me that our brightest 18 years olds do not know of the opportunities available to them outside the country or the scholarship system?
Yes. “Brightness” has nothing to do with ignorance. Singapore produces a lot of very bright frogs who don’t know what the outside world is like. Studying overseas, I can testify that about half of all Singaporeans I know who was not on scholarships had, over the course of three years, discovered new interests and changed to a major different from the one they had intended. No Singaporean has been in a situation where investment banking companies come to campus begging students to join them, for ridiculous salaries. No Singaporean has been in a situation where they are exposed to so many possible academic and career paths. No one signs a contract intending to break the bond. As Mr Yeo points out, it would be cheaper not to take up the scholarship in the first place — no LD. Are you telling people that our best and brightest students are so stupid that they would sign a bond with the intention of breaking it and paying more than they would otherwise have to for the same education?
When he was managing R&D in Mindef and the Defence Industries, you were possibly still in your pampers sucking your thumb or worse a mere unfertilized egg in a Fallopian tube. >:-}
______________________________________________________________
troodon UNITED STATES // Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53 pm
The fundamental problem in Singapore is not the scholarship system, but rather, the way organizations are run. The main issue is that many of these organizations are run by the wrong people e.g Philip Yeo, a person who knows nothing about research tries to run a major research organization… or any of the ex-generals who try to run a GLC.
Same game.
_______________________
The Human GERMANY // Mar 23, 2007 at 11:52 am
Am I the only one who finds it obvious that “The Crane†is really Philip Yeo? (Hint: the distinctive writing style, and the fact that cranes eat frogs.) So much for slamming anonymous bloggers.
Nah. Hypocrisy is a different game. No one besides you has slammed anonymous bloggers/commenters. No one else is being a hypocrite if they post anonymously.
“Sounds good in theory.
In practice, they have not come back.
And if they do, if it because they did not make it out in the Land of the Free.”
In practice, Philip Yeo can barely write up a convincing sentence(or argument) to save his life.
In practice, countries like Taiwan and China have overseas talents returning after many years overseas.
In practice, an overtly anal way of dealing with issues like how philip yeo does it results in real talent not wanting to return because they want to see a real man/woman in charge. Someone real who can actually handle and understand the issues, instead of hiding behind the iron rice bowl of the civil service, calling other people frogs in the well when this person is actually the real frog(or toad since he likes using that term) in the well.
You are condescending to Singaporeans.
An arrogant chap flying the US flag.
Cannot even manage the Middle East war.
________________________
troodon UNITED STATES // Mar 23, 2007 at 1:29 am
For the people who argue on moral high ground of a scholarship, I have this to say: The way Singapore is run has nothing to do with morals. Singapore is Singapore Inc. and the citizens are mere worker units. The day the country starts treating its citizens like citizens is the day we can start talking about how moral bond-breaking really is.
“When he was managing R&D in Mindef and the Defence Industries, you were possibly still in your pampers sucking your thumb or worse a mere unfertilized egg in a Fallopian tube. >:-}”
LOL. DUDE. Wake up man. Seriously. I couldn’t care less what you did before. You worked in a protected enviroment your entire life. An iron rice-bowl. You haven’t stepped into the real world. I work in the real world in a real company with real customers. Therein lies the difference. I don’t see a person like you surviving outside for too long. It’s alright, you can always run back to your little iron-rice bowl shelter when things go wrong
In a mask ball,when all wear masks to have fun, then one should wear mask too to have fun. >:-}
Why are you so upset? Are you a nudist in a swimming trunks required zone?
Poor arrogant chap.
____________________
The Human GERMANY // Mar 23, 2007 at 11:52 am
Blog Code of Conduct:
Be polite to those who are polite.
Be rude to those who are rude.
It does not pay to be polite to rude people (toads/frogs?)
Wow! You are so real. Ha!
A real wet one.
___________________
I work in the real world in a real company with real customers.
“Wow! You are so real. Ha!
A real wet one.”
Is that the best you can do? Come on man… as the person who “Managed R&D in Mindef” I’m expecting better from you.
Try learning to write in a more convincing fashion for your next reply. Do the people you work with also write like you or are you the only person in the organization who needs an english lesson?
So what is this all about in the first place?
People chill off about the PY, he’s no longer in any position to influence scholarship policies and seriously, I know of no policy making models that solely adopts a moralistic paradigm as a primary driver.
So chill.
I agree with Ted.
But let’s be real pple. The Crane can’t be the real PY. He wouldn’t have risen to the where he is today with these kinds of arguments and logic. Anyway, I can’t imagine a top civil servant like PY being so free to entertain us with his toad and frog story.
Cheers
Yun:
You gotta be kidding. “The Crane” has in effect admitted that he is PY.
You overestimate the importance of arguments and logic in the real workplace. Arguments and logic are paramount only in the restricted circles of academia. Most civil servants can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag. For them, people skills matter more than anything else.
twasher
Of course The Crane can admit that he is PY. He could jolly well admit to be MM Lee for all he wants. But that’ll take even more convincing given his strength of arguments and logic that I’ve read so far. I do not know PY personally, but I do respect him for what he has achieved and I think it would be a shame if someone is masquerading as him.
I beg to disagree on the second point though. I think arguments and logic are as important as people skills in any workplace, even in our civil service. It’s a package thingy. Nobody likes to surround themselves with a bunch of idiots right? It’s not gonna do them any good for their own promotion. Anyway, it’s kinda unfair to generalize civil servants that way. I think most of our civil servants are a highly competent bunch.
Btw, there are many people in the academia who can’t argue/teach with much logic either.
Cheers
Never reason with the unreasonable.
There seems to exist a certain population of wet (immature) and rude bloggers who righteously demand than those who work for the government must be CIVIL (they reserve it to themselves to be uncivil!) and such must be treated as SERVANTS to be looked down and scolded.
Such real arrogance will not take them far in the real world selling to real customers.
I wonder if it is green eyed ENVY that galls them and make them croak so unreasonably?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, it’s kinda unfair to generalize civil servants that way.
I think most of our civil servants are a highly competent bunch.
Quoted from twasher:
“Brightness†has nothing to do with ignorance. Singapore produces a lot of very bright frogs who don’t know what the outside world is like.
———————————————————
I don’t agree with this. Brightness and Ignorance are opposite ends on a spectrum.
If you ain’t bright, you’re ignorant. Mutual exclusivity.
Can you name me a person who is bright and ignorant?
Doesn’t make sense.
Those flying flags of the USA here,
Are you guys recipients of a scholarship other than the F&M scholarship?
Again to those flying flags of the USA here,
Are you in college or are pursuing your career there?
It helps to understand what you’re writing here, with a little help from your background.
Strange logic or really illogical reasoning.
Is there a bright light bulb there does not shine?
Maybe a light bulb manufactured by arrogant bloggers?
_____________________________________________________________
twasher UNITED STATES // Mar 23, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Yes. “Brightness†has nothing to do with ignorance. Singapore produces a lot of very bright frogs who don’t know what the outside world is like.
A wet frog screening mechanism? A crane?
_________________________________________
anon_scholar SINGAPORE // Mar 23, 2007 at 10:40 am
when frogs in the well get scholarships, it’s difficult to predict how they will react once they are out of it.
Quoted from troodon:
“LOL. DUDE. Wake up man. Seriously. I couldn’t care less what you did before. You worked in a protected enviroment your entire life. An iron rice-bowl. You haven’t stepped into the real world. I work in the real world in a real company with real customers. Therein lies the difference. I don’t see a person like you surviving outside for too long. It’s alright, you can always run back to your little iron-rice bowl shelter when things go wrong”
__________________________________
So… if Mindef and NCB aren’t very real organizations, then what are they?
I think there is a good basis for the moral argument especially with our esteemed government setting the example of great sacrifice.
If you read the newspapers yesterday, our esteemed ministers have made a great financial sacrifice to $1M so that they can serve the people of Singapore. This sets the moral tone and fibre our society that our ministers can forego reasonable financial incentives out of a sense of duty.
I have written extensively about this painful sacrifice in my blog:
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com
Given this practice of sacrifice with our leaders showing the finest example, I think it there is an onus on our scholarship winners to forego various opportunities to serve their bond. It becomes immoral to quit just because they see a better opportunity. The only reason to break the bond when they have found themselves not competent enough to fulfil the duties required of them when they serve the bond.
Our top leaders painful sacrifice provide the strongest argument that we have more than a legal duty towards our nation and its institutes…we all have a moral obligation.
Read about our leader’s painful sacrifice in my blog : http://singaporemind.blogspot.com and you will understand the magnitude of their love for our country.
These US flagged chaps blog condescendingly on Singapore and Singaporeans. Real toady chaps.
_________________________
Sparky Twoshoes SINGAPORE // Mar 24, 2007 at 10:12 am
Those flying flags of the USA here,
Are you guys recipients of a scholarship other than the F&M scholarship?
132 Sparky Twoshoes SINGAPORE // Mar 24, 2007 at 10:13 am
Again to those flying flags of the USA here,
Are you in college or are pursuing your career there?
It helps to understand what you’re writing here, with a little help from your background.
These US flagged chaps blog condescendingly on Singapore and Singaporeans. Real toady chaps.
Every man had his own quirks and twists” Harriet Beecher Stowe.
I read with great admiration Shae’s post above:
http://aaron-ng.info/blog/of-scholars-and-bonds.html#comment-12154
I’ve already declared previously in this comment thread, that I am a scholar.
I’m looking forward to serve out my ‘bond’, except that I do not see it as a bond. It’s a chance to serve my country the best way I know how. To contribute my skills to the betterment of the country, to bring up its market value, and in an indirect way, create a magnet in Singapore for foreign investment and yes, jobs.
As I walk the streets of this country I call home, I see the individuals that have provided for me, this opportunity to further my knowledge. They have put me up on a pedestal.
Although it may not be a big thing to a lot of people, but it is to me.
I owe a great debt to this country, to the people who fly the flag proudly on National Day, and I’m grateful. It’s time now for me to give back.
I really hope that more people, especially scholars-to-be, can share my view.
This is what’s driving me to fulfill not a just a moral obligation, but a covenant, to use Aaron’s words.
“Do what is right, because it is right”.
-Quote from the movie “Letters from Iwo Jima, 硫黄島ã®æ‰‹ç´™”, a letter from an American mother’s words to her dead son.
hi aaron
“It sounds to me like those kind of cases in school where teachers turn a blind eye to the some trangession of rules by students if they are star performers. Does it mean that if one is bright, one can break the rules? Just wondering your take on the matter.”
I am not sure which part of my writing suggest turning a blind eye to transgression of rules by students because they are star performer.
The agreement with the scholar is either you serve the bond or you pay it back with interest. So if someone chooses to leave, they’ll have to pay back whatever they owe with interest. I did not excuse the scholar from their responsibility.
I would consider a person immoral if they took up the scholarship and disappear after graduating without repaying what is due.
Furthermore the agreement is not entered by one party but also by the agency. If the agency thinks that 10% interest on top of the expenses is the fair amount, why are they complaining that bond breakers are immoral?
To me they are just going by rules as our government has taught us.
i see PY brought out some back up today from his toadies ….
sombebody 2
Toads and frogs are noisy, envious and arrogant life forms on the blogsphere.
Obviously you are ignorant (stupid?) of the definition of toads and frogs.
Most probably you did not know you are of the same species?
They make tasty morsels for The Crane.
Singapore needs more of the likes of your fiance.
If he really wants to do research, there must be some way for The Crane (after fattening up on nasty frogs and toads.
) to help him
____________________________________________
Shae SINGAPORE // Mar 22, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I feel a great sense of admiration for my fiance who decided to come back to Singapore.
Of course, it would have been fantastic to pursue his dreams overseas and pursue a career in research but he chose not to. I think it takes selflessness and morals to have done what he did.
Can you name me a person who is bright and ignorant?
Doesn’t make sense.
Brightness measures intelligence, or talent in one particular field. Brightness is knowing how. Knowledge is knowing facts. Beethoven, Wolfgang Pauli, Norbert Wiener were all geniuses who were ignorant of the real world, lost in their own ivory towers. Any academic is ignorant of all the other subfields that are not his. A chemist is ignorant of sociology, a sociologist is ignorant of chemistry. A mathematician can do his groundbreaking work without reading the newspapers at all. Where’s the contradiction?
I am sad that our scholars cannot carry out simple reasoning. I think the performance of our civil servants in this thread has proven my point that you don’t have to be able to reason to succeed in the civil service.
Leonardo da Vinci? Roger Bacon? Richard Feynman
You really suffer from an acute form of arrogance! Poor toady soul.
______________________________________
twasher UNITED STATES // Mar 25, 2007 at 12:49 am
Can you name me a person who is bright and ignorant?
Doesn’t make sense.
Brightness measures intelligence, or talent in one particular field. Brightness is knowing how. Knowledge is knowing facts. Beethoven, Wolfgang Pauli, Norbert Wiener were all geniuses who were ignorant of the real world, lost in their own ivory towers. Any academic is ignorant of all the other subfields that are not his. A chemist is ignorant of sociology, a sociologist is ignorant of chemistry. A mathematician can do his groundbreaking work without reading the newspapers at all. Where’s the contradiction?
I am sad that our scholars cannot carry out simple reasoning. I think the performance of our civil servants in this thread has proven my point that you don’t have to be able to reason to succeed in the civil service.
1. Dick Feynman knew nothing about philosophy. In fact, he hated it.
2. All I was asked to show is that bright people can be ignorant, not that all bright people are not ignorant. By conflating the two, you demonstrate once again that civil servants cannot carry out simple reasoning.
Sparky Twoshoes,
Do not try to reason with the Unreasonable.
The Unreasonable suffers from an acute disease called Arrogance.
Those with US flags on the blog here are of this sad stock.
Knowing just a little, they croak loudly boasting of their “superior” intellect.
Best that we ignore such.
Singapore is not their home.
They are safe in their Land of the Free.
Yet denying others in the Middle East of their Freedom.
Freedom of Expression.
————————————
Play About Iraq War Divides a Connecticut School
By ALISON LEIGH COWAN
WILTON, Conn., March 22  Student productions at Wilton High School range from splashy musicals like last year’s “West Side Story,†performed in the state-of-the-art, $10 million auditorium, to weightier works like Arthur Miller’s “Crucible,†on stage last fall in the school’s smaller theater.
For the spring semester, students in the advanced theater class took on a bigger challenge: creating an original play about the war in Iraq. They compiled reflections of soldiers and others involved, including a heartbreaking letter from a 2005 Wilton High graduate killed in Iraq last September at age 19, and quickly found their largely sheltered lives somewhat transformed.
“In Wilton, most kids only care about Britney Spears shaving her head or Tyra Banks gaining weight,†said Devon Fontaine, 16, a cast member. “What we wanted was to show kids what was going on overseas.â€
But even as 15 student actors were polishing the script and perfecting their accents for a planned April performance, the school principal last week canceled the play, titled “Voices in Conflict,†citing questions of political balance and context.
The principal, Timothy H. Canty, who has tangled with students before over free speech, said in an interview he was worried the play might hurt Wilton families “who had lost loved ones or who had individuals serving as we speak,†and that there was not enough classroom and rehearsal time to ensure it would provide “a legitimate instructional experience for our students.â€
“It would be easy to look at this case on first glance and decide this is a question of censorship or academic freedom,†said Mr. Canty, who attended Wilton High himself in the 1970s and has been its principal for three years. “In some minds, I can see how they would react this way. But quite frankly, it’s a false argument.â€
At least 10 students involved in the production, however, said that the principal had told them the material was too inflammatory, and that only someone who had actually served in the war could understand the experience. They said that Gabby Alessi-Friedlander, a Wilton junior whose brother is serving in Iraq, had complained about the play, and that the principal barred the class from performing it even after they changed the script to respond to concerns about balance.
“He told us the student body is unprepared to hear about the war from students, and we aren’t prepared to answer questions from the audience and it wasn’t our place to tell them what soldiers were thinking,†said Sarah Anderson, a 17-year-old senior who planned to play the role of a military policewoman.
Bonnie Dickinson, who has been teaching theater at the school for 13 years, said, “If I had just done ‘Grease,’ this would not be happening.â€
Frustration over the inelegant finale has quickly spread across campus and through Wilton, and has led to protest online through Facebook and other Web sites.
“To me, it was outrageous,’’ said Jim Anderson, Sarah’s father. “Here these kids are really trying to make a meaningful effort to educate, to illuminate their fellow students, and the administration, of all people, is shutting them down.â€
First Amendment lawyers said Mr. Canty had some leeway to limit speech that might be disruptive and to consider the educational merit of what goes on during the school day, when the play was scheduled to be performed. But thornier legal questions arise over students’ contention that they were also thwarted from trying to stage the play at night before a limited audience, and discouraged from doing so even off-campus. Just this week, an Alaska public high school was defending itself before the United States Supreme Court for having suspended a student who unfurled a banner extolling drug use at an off-campus parade.
The scrap over “Voices in Conflict†is the latest in a series of free-speech squabbles at Wilton High, a school of 1,250 students that is consistently one of Connecticut’s top performers and was the alma mater of Elizabeth Neuffer, the Boston Globe correspondent killed in Iraq in 2003.
The current issue of the student newspaper, The Forum, includes an article criticizing the administration for requiring that yearbook quotations come from well-known sources for fear of coded messages. After the Gay Straight Alliance wallpapered stairwells with posters a few years ago, the administration, citing public safety hazards, began insisting that all student posters be approved in advance.
Around the same time, the administration tried to ban bandanas because they could be associated with gangs, prompting hundreds of students to turn up wearing them until officials relented.
“Our school is all about censorship,†said James Presson, 16, a member of the “Voices of Conflict†cast. “People don’t talk about the things that matter.â€
After reading a book of first-person accounts of the war, Ms. Dickinson kicked off the spring semester  with the principal’s blessing  by asking her advanced students if they were open to creating a play about Iraq. In an interview, the teacher said the objective was to showcase people close to the same age as the students who were “experiencing very different things in their daily lives and to stand in the shoes of those people and then present them by speaking their words exactly in front of an audience.â€
What emerged was a compilation of monologues taken from the book that impressed Ms. Dickinson, “In Conflict: Iraq War Veterans Speak Out on Duty, Loss and the Fight to Stay Aliveâ€; a documentary, “The Ground Truthâ€; Web logs and other sources. The script consisted of the subjects’ own words, though some license was taken with identity: Lt. Charles Anderson became “Charlene†because, as Seth Koproski, a senior, put it, “we had a lot of women†in the cast.
In March, students said, Gabby, the junior whose brother is serving in the Army in Iraq, said she wanted to join the production, and soon circulated drafts of the script to parents and others in town. A school administrator who is a Vietnam veteran also raised questions about the wisdom of letting students explore such sensitive issues, Mr. Canty said.
In response to concerns that the script was too antiwar, Ms. Dickinson reworked it with the help of an English teacher. The revised version is more reflective and less angry, omitting graphic descriptions of killing, crude language and some things that reflect poorly on the Bush administration, like a comparison of how long it took various countries to get their troops bulletproof vests. A critical reference to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, was cut, along with a line from Cpl. Sean Huze saying of soldiers: “Your purpose is to kill.â€
Seven characters were added, including Maj. Tammy Duckworth of the National Guard, a helicopter pilot who lost both legs and returned from the war to run for Congress last fall.
The second version gives First Lt. Melissa Stockwell, who lost her left leg from the knee down, a new closing line: “But I’d go back. I wouldn’t want to go back, but I would go.â€
On March 13, Mr. Canty met with the class. He told us “no matter what we do, it’s not happening,†said one of the students, Erin Clancy. That night, on a Facebook chat group called “Support the Troops in Iraq,†a poster named GabriellaAF, who several students said was their classmate Gabby, posted a celebratory note saying, “We got the show canceled!!†(Reached by telephone, Gabby’s mother, Barbara Alessi, said she had no knowledge of the play or her daughter’s involvement in it.) In classrooms, teenage centers and at dinner tables around town, the drama students entertained the idea of staging the show at a local church, or perhaps al fresco just outside the school grounds. One possibility was Wilton Presbyterian Church.
“I would want to read the script before having it performed here, but from what I understand from the students who wrote it, they didn’t have a political agenda,†said the Rev. Jane Field, the church’s youth minister.
Mr. Canty said he had never discouraged the students from continuing to work on the play on their own. But Ms. Dickinson said he told her “we may not do the play outside of the four walls of the classroom,†adding, “I can’t have anything to do with it because we’re not allowed to perform the play and I have to stand behind my building principal.â€
Parents, even those who are critical of the decision, say the episode is out of character for a school system that is among the attractions of Wilton, a well-off town of 18,000 about an hour’s drive from Manhattan.
“The sad thing was this thing was a missed opportunity for growth from a school that I really have tremendous regard for,†said Emmalisa Lesica, whose son was in the play. Given the age of the performers and their peers who might have seen the show, she noted, “if we ended up in a further state of war, wouldn’t they be the next ones drafted or who choose to go to war? Why wouldn’t you let them know what this is about?â€
The latest draft of the script opens with the words of Pvt. Nicholas Madaras, the Wilton graduate who died last September and whose memory the town plans to soon honor by naming a soccer field for him. In a letter he wrote to the local paper last May, Private Madaras said Baqubah, north of Baghdad, sometimes “feels like you are on another planet,†and speaks wistfully about the life he left behind in Wilton.
“I never thought I’d ever say this, but I miss being in high school,†he wrote. “High school is really the foundation for the rest of your life, whether teenagers want to believe it or not.â€
Private Madaras’s parents said they had not read the play, and had no desire to meddle in a school matter. But his mother, Shalini Madaras, added, “We always like to think about him being part of us, and people talking about him, I think it’s wonderful.â€
Sparky Twoshoes:
I’m not in college. And I’m not a scholar either. I am working in the US so that I don’t have to work with incompetent people like The Crane.
LOL. Seriously this thread has been so much fun for me. It has confirmed by beliefs that certain scholars and prominent civil servants are incapable of logic, clear thinking and simple conclusive arguments. Then again, I wasn’t expecting much in the first place. What is a person who has been sheltered in a protected environment with a guaranteed job capable of anyway? Time and history are will tell the story of what happens to such organizations in a couple of years. My predictions are that they only go downhill from here and I believe I will be right.
cheers!
kh:
As I said to “the Crane”, all I was asked was to *name* people who were bright but ignorant. For sure, Da Vincis exist. I was responding to a request to give examples of bright people that were ignorant. Are you telling me that Beethoven, Pauli and Wiener were not bright? Or that they were not ignorant? I should think they are both by any *reasonable* definition of ‘bright’ and ‘ignorant’. Of course they are not ignorant about their own fields. Similarly, our scholars are not ignorant about what they study. But does that mean they are not ignorant about real-life career prospects, cultures, lifestyles, etc. in countries they’ve never been to before? Picking people like Wiener as examples of bright people does not commit me to any hypothesis about the nature of intelligence. It is simply using our commonly accepted notions of ‘brightness’. If you wish to deny that my examples conform to an acceptable notion of brightness, then this argument is useless.
You do not need a PhD in logic to see that the existence of counter-examples to the correlation between so-called intelligence and knowledge proves that intelligence does not imply knowledge. Logic is not everything, but you cannot carry out an argument without logic. If you wish to ignore logic, then all we have is an undifferentiated mass of opinions.
Singularly oppositional? I do not even have a stance on whether bond-breaking is immoral. The singularly oppositional people are those who put out blanket assertions that are not supported by anything resembling a sound argument. To clarify my stance, once and for all: everyone in this thread who has said that either
1) all bond-breaking is immoral
or
2) all bond-breaking is not immoral
has failed to justify their respective assertions.
I fully and unashamedly admit to singularly opposing bad arguments.
Completely off-topic, but an example of someone who, till the end of his life, knew next to nothing about his own field, but is considered one of the greatest practitioners in that field in the 20th century: Ludwig Wittgenstein.
That’s rubbish. As if you know what you’re talking about. That’s probably a snippet lifted from some popular accounts of Wittgenstein’s works written by others. Don’t pretend to be an expert on Wittgenstein when you obviously aren’t.
Sparky Twoshoes
I’m a scholar working in the States, who not unlike you, is also looking forward to finish serving out my bond…
There are also many other ways to give back to Singapore. Yours is but one way.
People do what they think is right. Who is to say what is right or wrong?
Cheers
Happy Kangaroo.
hogwasher:
I have read the Tractatus and the PI several times over, C&V and RPP Vols. I and II once. I have written term papers on Wittgenstein. I am not a Wittgenstein expert by any stretch — many philosophy students through the ages have done what I did. But I have read enough of him and thought enough about his philosophy to have a reasonably informed opinion. For what it’s worth, the comment about Wittgenstein not reading any philosophy has been corroborated by a couple of Wittgenstein experts I have studied with. Wittgenstein was familiar with Plato, Kierkegaard, Goethe, and of course his mentors Russell and Frege, but from the standpoint of a traditional philosophy education his knowledge of past philosophers was hopelessly inadequate.
kwokheng,
Every one of us is unique and therefore irreplaceable.
Even identical twins are unique.
Who ever succeeds any one of cannot be “us”.
Biological cloning of the body may be possible someday.
But the brain cannot be cloned.
Unless YOU have a brain transplant.
Have fun in the Crown casino. Haha!
Quoted from Yun:
“I’m a scholar working in the States, who not unlike you, is also looking forward to finish serving out my bond…
There are also many other ways to give back to Singapore. Yours is but one way.”
__________________________________
Agreed.
Not expecting everyone to follow in my footsteps.
Quoted from Troodon:
“I’m not in college. And I’m not a scholar either. I am working in the US so that I don’t have to work with incompetent people like The Crane. LOL. Seriously this thread has been so much fun for me. It has confirmed by beliefs that certain scholars and prominent civil servants are incapable of logic, clear thinking and simple conclusive arguments. Then again, I wasn’t expecting much in the first place. What is a person who has been sheltered in a protected environment with a guaranteed job capable of anyway? Time and history are will tell the story of what happens to such organizations in a couple of years. My predictions are that they only go downhill from here and I believe I will be right.”
__________________________________
Sparky don’t like US food… Sparky doesn’t like bread. Gives him gas.
Sparky’s having fun too, because sparky keeps laughing at your comments.
‘Nuff said. Your words speak for yourself.
A good sense of humour keep ALL sane.
Better than noisy and self righteous pontificating croaking.
KH I tend to agree on the below. Though slanted, but I have to say that we have had 5000 years of Chinese history ….
________________________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Mar 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Maybe those working in US should consider that they’ve (perhaps) already met someone who can guide them and help them stay.
Me not so lucky.
Le Grande Drama
Troodon is not impressed. ‘I think you are a very bad man,’ he says.
‘Oh, no, my dear,’ says Sparky Twoshoes. ‘I’m really a very good man; but I’m a very bad Scholar [read: 'elite']…’
—adapted from Margaret Atwood, “Prospero, the Wizard of Oz, Mephisto & Co.”, Negotiations with the Dead: A writer on writing, (Virago, 2003), p. 100
I’m a bondbreaker.
What’s an ‘extenuating circumstance’, Aaron? Is finding out that you aren’t at all the same person you were 3 years ago, when you were 18 and had done nothing and seen nothing, an ‘extenuating circumstance’? Is realising that you have a calling or aspirations with which the bond would be at odds, and that you are no longer the right person for the job they have for you, an ‘extenuating circumstance’?
I think there is a moral obligation attached with a scholarship. I just don’t think it’s a completely indefeasible moral obligation - just as I think, to use your example, there are moral obligations attached to being married to someone, or being engaged, so that there is a duty to try to make a good faith effort to have things work out, but if there are insurmounetable reasons why things won’t work out, I think it is a meaningless and empty morality that says you should sacrifice every prospect of personal happiness for a notional sense of commitment.
Ian has written a great article: Screwing The Girl Some Other Guy Really Loves.
We must applaud this Jol for being direct enough to say ultimately he believes in “Me. Me. And Me.”
Out of curiosity, Jol, were you able to afford your studies without scholarship funding?
Must be a PSC bond breaker!
Unlike, EDB and A*STAR, PSC does not name shame its bond breakers for fear that no one will apply.
Jol should NOT have applied, accepted the scholarship and then discovered his “calling or aspiration”.
Maybe he did it to momentarily escape NSF at 18 years old.
Denied another candidate the change of life.
Maybe a HDB kid.
So proud of himself. Sad!
—————————————————————————————-
Out of curiosity, Jol, were you able to afford your studies without scholarship funding?
Oops!
Unlike NCB, EDB and A*STAR, PSC does not name shame its bond breakers for fear that no one will apply.
Hello all, I am new here. I know for a fact the brotherhood are made up mainly of scholars. I am just wondering to myself. I could be just wrong lah ok. Why do they keep so quiet whenever this topic comes up? Just a thought, maybe I am just paranoid. I am just wondering why the ppl who know the most abt the subject keep mum! Just seems really odd to me. I smell a dead scholar rat some where!
Be good!
Sigh… Now I know why MrYeo came over to my blog and made the comment on the phrase Civil Servant and that it is demeaning.
Firstly, I believe it is a noble calling to be a civil servant. And that the people there are really trying their best. It can’t be easy to make sure the best for Singapore. To continue bashing civil servants and the organisations is doing them a great discredit. We can disagree with what they do and how they do it but there is a limit I think to how much we want to beat them down and dismiss them.
Another thing, why bash Singapore and its institutions if you aren’t here trying to make it better. Does it do your ego so much good to maintain that sort of superiority. I’m not saying that don’t criticise and don’t discuss. By all means, do so, but for what purpose?
to the scholar to be - it’s abt the $$$ and/or prestige to be able to go abroad to study.
to the organization - it’s supposed to be a manpower or talent recruitment exercise “into the unknown”.
it’s a contract drafted by the organization and signed by the scholar to be. the ‘drafter’ has the advantage of drafting the contract that the ‘draftee’ signs.
once signed, the scholar shd not break the contract. if not sure, dun ever sign. age is not an excuse since by 18 years old, one is presumed to know abt the birds and bees, and may even have practiced some of the rites.
ok, b4 u really sign ….
if u take it seriously, it is almost like a covenant to the organization, u sign one on one with the organization; whereas the organization signs with many scholars, not just one. Dun tink that just bcos u are one of many, the organization can retain the others.
all this debate is healthy since day one as it shd allow people to think and decide. the organization cannot guarantee u a challenging n rewarding career for you and you alone when you come back as things can change down the road - a fact of life. Promise may be one thing, guarantee, no such thing
therefore u shd really decide for yourself when contemplating this short term exercise followed by a longer term experience, with the understanding that you are cutting back on yr options in life. no one is forcing you, persuading u, inducing u, maybe.
so let’s not romanticise this whole thing. rather if u sign, stay convicted on why you sign and stay committed to a good extent if not all the way so that you can be blameless as having done your part. Blaming the organization later on also does not help.
if u dun sign, then find other ways to pursue your goals and dreams without infringing or depending on others.
lemme say also that scholar or no scholar, over time, your life perspective will change. even now, it could be prudent not to get so fixated on scholarship if you are really open to other options or choices.
to be fair, life is more than just the scholarship. if u bound yr happiness index to the scholarship and wat follows, that is pretty narrow like tunnel vision, pretty unfair to yrself as well actually.
I hope I have not oversimplified this ‘debate’, just decided that i shd add this hopefully fair comment into the conversations. no offence.
Plaz hor… meybi “The Crane” olso nod laike Chinese Crane.
Coz surve the ceeval aka ’sociitee’ nod good meh?
Ozzie there god idea of leedersheep beein ‘leeding the leeder’ iz betta then ‘leedeeng tha teem’.
Bud me England nod bery good lah. Leetle Ent carnod kompere. Cuz Leetle Ent dun laike Sinkarpoor. Sinkarpoor, leeder zi beeast.
Poor Ant,
Can you “speak” English, lah? Ha!
_______________________________
Little Ant AUSTRALIA // Mar 26, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Plaz hor… meybi “The Crane†olso nod laike Chinese Crane.
Coz surve the ceeval aka ’sociitee’ nod good meh?
Ozzie there god idea of leedersheep beein ‘leeding the leeder’ iz betta then ‘leedeeng tha teem’.
Bud me England nod bery good lah. Leetle Ent carnod kompere. Cuz Leetle Ent dun laike Sinkarpoor. Sinkarpoor, leeder zi beeast.
Karnot. Mee England bery bad.
Yew steel lawf ad mee….!
*sobs*
_______________________________
The Crane // Mar 26, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Poor Ant,
Can you “speak†English, lah? Ha!
Erneewey, Leetle Ent steel luvz Bratharlee Entz betta!
Expesciallee Ozzi Ents.
Sow keute en taelented!
The word “Civil Servant” was invented by the British colonial masters.
In America, at Harvard Biz school, there is a wicked saying:-
“Only Turkeys join the US Government.”
Why must civil servants be civil to “uncivilized” and “unreasonable” people?
Worst many of these “uncivilized” and “unreasonable” people pay no taxes in Singapore at all!
Yet dare to pontificate that they “also share the same desire that the taxpayers’ dollars allotted for that purpose are well spent.”
These “u and u” chaps who are still wet at a US graduate school (and may not even graduate!) dare to lecture A*STAR on how to select talent.
An ex PSC bond breaker who suffers from a deadly serious disease: Illusions of Extreme Grandeur.
The Head of the Singapore “Civil Service” should replace the awful title of “civil servant (CS)” to that of “government executive (GE)”. Then his title becomes a respectable Head of the Singapore Government Executive.
That would differentiate him/her from the Head of Singapore Elected Government.
___________________________________________________________________
Ian Timothy SINGAPORE // Mar 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Sigh… Now I know why Mr Yeo came over to my blog and made the comment on the phrase Civil Servant and that it is demeaning.
Firstly, I believe it is a noble calling to be a civil servant. And that the people there are really trying their best. It can’t be easy to make sure the best for Singapore. To continue bashing civil servants and the organisations is doing them a great discredit. We can disagree with what they do and how they do it but there is a limit I think to how much we want to beat them down and dismiss them.
Another thing, why bash Singapore and its institutions if you aren’t here trying to make it better. Does it do your ego so much good to maintain that sort of superiority. I’m not saying that don’t criticise and don’t discuss. By all means, do so, but for what purpose?
Words of wisdom? Ha!
Eating toads and frogs is more filling and appealing.
_____________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Methinks The Crane ought to study Literature to become, wiser.
Let’s not argue about the rights or wrongs in the contractual aspects or the morality of bonds & contracts. Let’s face it, without a proper system running, you cannot even have the infrastructure to start with. So when the government is trying to make the country prosper and along the way, make this place a better environment, we should all try to play a part in it. Comments can be made but not empty talk. For those with non-constructive remarks, you can look at yourself first and think hard, have you contributed to society yet, have you repay the help given to you. If you are born else where, would you still think the same?? Not everyone can be a leader, if you are not one, then follow one….If you think you are one, prove it, be it decades….
Peacelover wrote:
Agreed! I fear though that too many people these days have but one greater cause: The Singular Supremeness of the Self.
It becomes clear, with phrases like: (take your pick — all of these heard in real life!)
“I didn’t make the decision to be born. I have no obligation to where I was born or who I was born to.”
“My views have changed since when I agreed to the scholarship. Not my fault.”
“Actually the scholarship agency benefited because I broke the bond. With the LD they actually made a profit. I did them a favour.”
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.”
-From Romeo and Juliet
Morning, actually, I think even if you change the name, but people treat and think of our civil servants/government executives the same way then back to square one.
The key would be to change the public perception? But actually, maybe there isn’t such a problem with public perception only online got such problem among younger generation and not even all of the younger generation.
Oh well…anyway, I think no one online actually disagrees with the notion that you do not need to be civil to uncivil and unreasonable people. Internet very famous for flame wars one…part and parcel.
i personally think that scholarship holders should have the obligation to serve out the bond and contribute back to society….There are too many scholarships available here and elsewhere, it will be the same everywhere. To be disillusioned by the way things are handled by the government and break a bond is like walking away from a football match just becos the referee is going against you..To fully understand how a government runs may take months and years, but to build up a government may take a lifetime.
Money comes and goes, Morality comes and grows!
warrow. i dun comment a few days, so many comments liao. i’m sorry, my this comment may be 1) out of point; 2) repeated to death; 3) irrelevant. because i am not reading the whole thread of 205 comments. but i just thought i’d just share my 2 cents worth (or no cents, dep how u look at it) on this issue.
I don’t think tt scholarships and bonds is an issue of morality. But I do think tt there is no such thing as a free lunch - if they pay for your education, you pay them back. Hell, even for the Lee Foundation tt gives away free scholarships, they do want your patronage and donations in the future. And I think it’s only fair I guess tt someone who takes on a scholarship does give back. It’s not fair to deprive someone else who really wants the job badly because you decided to change your mind.
But of course, there is tt argument tt at 18, you don’t really know what you want. Right now, the law stands tt at 18, you can get married, you can shoot a gun if you’re in NS, and you can get hanged. But you are not deemed to have the mental capacity to sign contracts (amazing stuff!). However, such contracts don’t pertain to scholarships. That’s just one interesting point.
Not as a justification, but when I was 18 and 19 and most of my friends were rushing to apply for scholarships, most of them were thinking of this one thing - funding to study a subject of choice at an overseas university. I’m not sure how many really consider the job tt comes after tt. I’m sure some do, but most don’t give it tt much thought; most prefer to think about it later during university, or when they come back to serve their bond.
This is why I think tt when one applies for a scholarship, the most important thing to ask is: WHY are you applying for it? I think Twasher wrote about this on his SA piece, and I have to agree on tt point. What did you agree to exactly?
While I don’t want to bring in morality to this whole debate, I do believe tt there is an element of selfishness and materialism and self-seekingness in bond-breaking. Although personally, I can understand why some people will break bonds for much more lucrative-paying jobs overseas. I have cynical friends who believe tt “everybody has a price”. The talk of raising our ministerial pay rings very true on this.
A person’s price hinges on why he took the scholarship. If someone takes the scholarship simply to fund an overseas university education, his price for bond breaking will definitely be lower than someone who takes it because he wants the job, or because he feels obligated to serve out his bond in return for the education he got sponsored.
Personally, I think tt serving out the bond in return for a sponsored education is a good thing. The fact tt it gives me chances to do things and takes a load of my parents’ minds is a good thing. And to me the bond isn’t a problem because I want the job, even though I know tt my starting pay is almost half what I would get if I just started out in the private sector. But my circumstances are unique, so I can’t speak for everyone.
Peacelover & Kitana:
Nice.
If you take the total cost of the overseas education divided by the months of the bond and added that real opportunity cost to the monthly starting pay in the private sector, what will you get? Better than the private sector starting pay? THINK! After all the tertiary education! Wasted!
______________________
my starting pay is almost half what I would get if I just started out in the private sector.
My circumstances are unique. First and foremost, my scholarship is local in nature, so the dynamics are different. And most local scholars like myself take it for the job as well, and not so much the course fee.
Has it occurred to anyone that there are reasons other than shallow ones of money and prestige why someone might break their bond? Or is this just completely inconceivable to you?
There are reasons besides shallow ones of money and prestige and selfishness. But very few bondbreakers cite these.
By the way, Jol, would you have been able to study overseas without the scholarship?
Fully agree.
__________________
Sparky Twoshoes SINGAPORE // Mar 28, 2007 at 12:34 am
Peacelover & Kitana:
Nice.
Yes Jol,
We’d like to know too. Would you have been able to study overseas without the scholarship?
From an oldie:
——————————–
Hi Philip
Read the A*Star Spat report in the Sunday Times while in Shenzhen…..Great job!
I couldn’t agree with you more and three cheers to the generation who has given them the Changi Airport, Jurong, Sentosa, Starhub, SMU and Orchard Road.
In the words of SM Goh Chok Tong: The next generation has â€fu gui bingâ€
Their good fortunes were taken for granted and not earned.
We need more Attila and Genghis Khan.
You get my support.
Cheers
Chee Hon
“If you take the total cost of the overseas education divided by the months of the bond and added that real opportunity cost to the monthly starting pay in the private sector, what will you get? Better than the private sector starting pay? THINK! After all the tertiary education! Wasted!”
Which is why MAJORITY of the pple on scholarships don’t break bond before serving…
Well…what is “good fortune”? Can I also say that ur generation had the “good fortune” that the other asian countries were not in the mood for progress? :p
Bildungsroman: from childhood to adulthood.
“The Hero with a Thousand Faces”
Developing a Thousand Young Faces (Heros?) in Science by 2020.
1000 Singaporeans and Singaporeans to be.
A Thousand with a thousand dreams and values.
None a clone.
Philip/Crane,
agree with your points. Am ex MINDEF/DSTA scholarship holder. Offered PhD at end of UG studies but came back to serve out bond, not because of LD or any other threat but because I gave my word. Didn’t need LD or some legalese to enforce bond. Gave my word that I will serve for 8 yrs that that’s enough as far as I am concerned. Everything about personal integrity and honour. Legal document was an insult to my integrity.
Stayed on for 2 more years because I gave my word to clean up the place where I was and to finish up a project. Lost opportunities to work in US as well as higher pay outside, but since I gave my word it is integrity/honour at stake. End up 20% pay cut when I finally moved but so be it.
Organisation changed though. Scholars given almost automatic preference for progression now unless they screw up royally. Bad move. See scholars who don’t perform but bosses find excuses for them. That’s another story for another time.
To each their own about scholarship. Don’t like the terms, don’t take it. You take it, serve it out. Break the bond before even serving, then take the fallout like an adult and suck it up. Don’t give dumb excuses. Old enough at 18 years old to get married and carry rifle to kill, so that’s old enough to know the consequences.
Sad thing a lot of ppl taking scholarship for prestige. Maninly PSC types, rich kids whose parents can well afford. Only in it for themselves.
Bond breaking is reflective of what society has become. When $$ is everything, values go down the drain. Integrity and honour don’t seem to count any more, but hey, when you read politicians giving themselves obscene pay rise, everyone else is playing follow the leader. I am digressing though, and this is another topic for another thread
Randy Teo,
A Good chap.
Rare commodity these days.
Your bond is 8 years?
EDB bond reduced from 8 to 6 years.
PSC followed.
Mindef did not follow?
“automatic preference for progression”! Bad. Bad.
A*STAR scholars majority are from HDB.
Where are you working now?
LD is Liquidated Damages.
One may have to “liquidate” one’s physical assets for hard cash to pay the cost of the “real damage” of breaking bond. :’(
Good one, Randy .. refreshing. Bond actually means service obligation, no $$ for nothing.
Philip,
bond was 8 years. MINDEF didn’t retroactively apply, I didn’t hound them either. I gave my word for 8 years, 8 years it shall be.
Moved out last year to private section in aerospace. Find that standards are lower than what I had to perform to and held myself to while in service! Anyway, business almost dropping onto the lap due to general boom in aerospace, so management stupidity gets masked and does not show up. Frustrating >:-(
Left because had enough of BS from bosses, and saw values going down the drain. Takes the pride out of serving. Fought a losing battle for 10 years, finally had enough and gave up.
Had a SMS scholar under me. Rick kid, talk a lot, but cannot deliver. Put some pressure, want to break down and cry. Sigh … Younger ones not as tough. Can’t stand criticism, and I haven’t even raised voice yet. I used to have files thrown at me and get yelled at with abusive language. If you can stand the abuse, anything else in life won’t faze you, but these softies need tender loving care and soft words. Sad …
Wanted to drop his ranking, my bosses find excuse for him! Wanted to tear my hair out. Also have a PSC scholar, real sad case. Day dream everyday. Want to drop ranking to unsatisfactory, bosses say no way. Nobody can get unsatisfactory in department! What the heck!!!
Same boss told me it is good to have interview with outside companies so I know my market worth. Also said that I would find working in civil service best. Come at 9, leave at 5, no bottom line, do whatever I fancy. He is superscale by the way >:-(
Previous job in weapon and aircraft testing. No margin for error. Screw it up can lose the airplane plus a life, so oldies like me take things more than seriously. Young kids think I am too worked up, never understood the meaning of having to explain to a widow and their family that their husband/father/son bought the farm because of some engineer’s stupidity.
HDB scholars more down to earth, but things starting to change. All talking about leaving when the going gets a bit rough. Lack the mental toughness and strength to grit teeth and stick it out. Worry that Singapore heading down the tube already.
KH, there is no diff in officer or cpl. Values matter most. I also cpl in NS, civilian in service. Seen enough good other ranks and bad officers. Education also nothing to do with values. Have plenty of poly grads who work harder and much better than overseas grads from prestigious US/UK universities.
KH,
rejection could be due to a lot of things, nothing I want to speculate on. One bad thing about general civil service is grades get looked at a lot. Rare to find ppl who will not take grades as first impression.
BTW good grades in engineering does not make good engineer. Some can study but never develop the “feel” for things…
Sat on interview boards before. I try to focus on value system, and look for a wild independent streak. Better to get ppl who have the initiative and drive than those with knowledge but less drive. Knowledge can be learned, values and drive comes from within.
Most ppl give stock politically correct answers during interviews. These I let pass because they will most likely end up as yes man. Prefer ppl who fight back and defend their stand. May agree to disagree but that’s fine. I prefer ppl who would constantly re-examine existing system and rules by relooking at the rationale and assumptions for these. Just like overturning stones once in a while and see if there are creepy crawlies. Basically restless ppl who don’t wait for things to happen, but ppl who “go looking for trouble”
Prevents the organisation from ossifying. Too bad these ppl tend to get thumbed down by bosses 
So I am not the only worrier.
__________________________
Worry that Singapore heading down the tube already.
Crane,
Happens everywhere, unfortunately. It is also happening to the US, and now we are beginning to see the wealth built up by the previous generations get squandered on cumsumption and debt by the current generations. Ppl who didn’t build it but enjoyed the fruits of someone elses labour will never appreciate it the same way. Blood and sweat was not theirs to lose, and the present becomes their birth right. Takes a lot of energy and drive to keep pushing the boundary.
Need to smell roses once in a while though to keep some balance in life
Don’t mean material stuff but things like family time.
Left partly because I saw the downfall coming. Invested too much of myself to build up some of the things, and when the down turn comes, it would have been too painful at a personal level to watch or be around. Ignorance is sometimes bliss ….
__________________________
The Crane // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:22 pm
So I am not the only worrier.
Heavy responsibility. Fully agree with you.
Plane lost can be replaced.
Lost of pilot ~ to his family, parents, spouse or girlfriend is irreplaceable. Heart breaking.
——————————————–
Young kids think I am too worked up, never understood the meaning of having to explain to a widow and their family that their husband/father/son bought the farm because of some engineer’s stupidity.
Good for you to be out.
Not good to have lower standards.
Sloppy management?
Bad for Singapore’s reputation.
Danger to customer/user.
____________________
Moved out last year to private section in aerospace. Find that standards are lower than what I had to perform to and held myself to while in service!
Anyway, business almost dropping onto the lap due to general boom in aerospace, so management stupidity gets masked and does not show up. Frustrating >:-(
Bad boss.
In my Mindef, he would be caught and chopped.
_________________
Same boss told me it is good to have interview with outside companies so I know my market worth. Also said that I would find working in civil service best. Come at 9, leave at 5, no bottom line, do whatever I fancy. He is superscale by the way >:-(
Good bosses hard to find. I prefer working under leaders and not managers
Big difference!
———————————————-
The Crane // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Bad boss.
In my Mindef, he would be caught and chopped.
Company not Singapore owned, so no reputation lost. Management too slow moving, tolerate low standards. No wonder business didn’t grow as fast. Good on the outside, not that great on the inside ….
_________________
236 The Crane // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Good for you to be out.
Not good to have lower standards.
Sloppy management?
Bad for Singapore’s reputation.
Danger to customer/user.
Have to agree with The Crane that if you add the total value of a local scholarship (even if it’s a local mid-term scholarship) to the starting salary, it is definitely comparable to well paid fresh graduates. I did my sums since I am under such a scheme. The value of an overseas scholarship is even higher, by many times (no calculation required), so the argument that the pay is low does not hold any water.
Not only that, it is well-known that certain agencies provide excellent training such that their staff are frequently poached by the private sector. I’m not so sure about A*STAR, since there probably aren’t many options in research outside of A*STAR unless one flies abroad to work, but by and large even the lowest tier scholarships are reasonable - even those offered by GLCs for jobs with very high staff turnover.
I am not surprised that Jol broke her bond. I understand that she had the financial capability to have funded her overseas education, but I warn against stereotyping rich scholars as individualistic and selfish ingrates. If the interview didn’t manage to filter out the wrong people then maybe the process should bear some of the blame as well.
But I think… with 10-15% interest on LD, just send more scholars next time lah! It’s better that these people LD anyway. A smart worker with zero motivation won’t do much better than a mediocre or average worker with above-average commitment.
Despite The Crane’s somewhat anal-retentive posts I have to concede that I agree with him on many points apart from the GPA requirement.
“anal-retentive”
First time use of this adjective?
_____________________
Despite The Crane’s somewhat anal-retentive posts I have to concede that I agree with him on many points apart from the GPA requirement.
poking anon_scholar in his ribs.
I am accustomed to harsher adjectives, but I guess sometimes we have to ignore all the personal insults (frogs, toads, etc) and evaluate if there is any logic in the arguments presented. Fortunately, there is.
I’m a little concerned at the increased amount of press coverage though. I’m not sure if it’s healthy. One might mistake The Crane for the Prime Minister given the number of pages dedicated to this and other related issues!
The Prime Minister is The Dragon.:-D
Started eversince effects of streaming kicked in:
the good ones are really good and are very few, but the mediocre ones are worst and are many.
English language started falling down … more good years, boston of the east … asset enhancement vs asset inflation, not affected by currency crisis - other currencies weaker but countries can become more cost-competitive, …
______________
The Crane SINGAPORE // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:22 pm
So I am not the only worrier.
__________________________
Worry that Singapore heading down the tube already.
Randy
country and/or organizational cultures do not permit ‘no’ men.
put it this way, when there is leadership n guts to take risks, country and/or organization moves forward. Perhaps also only if there good people who can follow, plan n execute well.
too often, ‘no’ men are not positioned properly in an organization - mebbe org already started to ossify? or mebbe top men are leaders and middle top men just wanted to follow .. hard to say.
One ting for sure, if top top ppl dun see n know wat’s really happening on the ground, then **suffer*
heard tis story of LKY when he wanted to get things done, he checked on different ppl from different depts etc, to corroborate. However there are also stories abt how Changi Airport came into being vis-a-vis Paya Lebar Airport.
Actually Singapore does not lack talent or brains. I think the main thing nowadays is whether ppl are listening and ppl are open to discussion and ideas, abuses aside.
___________
Randy Teo SINGAPORE // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:09 pm
prefer ppl who fight back and defend their stand. May agree to disagree but that’s fine. I prefer ppl who would constantly re-examine existing system and rules by relooking at the rationale and assumptions for these. Just like overturning stones once in a while and see if there are creepy crawlies. Basically restless ppl who don’t wait for things to happen, but ppl who “go looking for troubleâ€
Prevents the organisation from ossifying. Too bad these ppl tend to get thumbed down by bosses 
Quoted from Randy:
“Have plenty of poly grads who work harder and much better than overseas grads from prestigious US/UK universities.”
_________________________________
Agree. Many poly grads I know are willing to work hard and not just push pencils all day long 9 to 5. Best friend from pri sch is one of them.
Was wondering if there is anything to do to raise educational status of these folks. Many are strapped for cash when they start work.
Was thinking something along this scheme:
-Poly grads apply for development scheme in company/agency they’re going to serve.
-Serve out OJT period, say 1-2 years.
-Company sends them to pursue local degree. Funded by company.
-On graduation, serve back another 2 years.
-Optional: should there be good performance from these folks, they get herded down scholarship path for postgrad studies. With bond of course.
Opinions?
There are already similar schemes available. Not sure about places, but certainly within SAF. Know of several ppl who are on such schemes. Poly grads, take up sponsored part time or full time degree with bond. Not exactly the same scheme nor the best, but there abouts.
Anyway, regarding breaking bond, I can understand why Crane is angry about it. It is one thing serving out the bond and not completing it due to really divergent objectives and interest, it is quite another not serving a single day and breaking the bond.
For one EDB and A*Star are not unreasonable. I do know of EDB scholars on EDB-Glaxo scheme who had their bond transferred from EDB to Glaxo when they find that their cup of tea was better suited to what Glaxo was doing. It is all subject to availability.
To break the bond without serving a single day is not being fair to the sponsor. On what ground does a person have to judge the suitability of a place without having spent a single day working? To quote any other reason such as serving mankind is just waffling and finding excuses for self serving needs, so if the sponsor gets pissed up, don’t blame them for going public.
In any case as much as the scholars want to be treated differently instead of mere human resources, let’s face it. Nobody owes anyone a living. If the person’s needs coincide with the organisation’s, that’s the best. Otherwise, the organisation’s needs takes precedence. It is always “do our best to meet your interest”, but … Simple as that.
Private companies do that too (I work in US MNC). It is always about what you can bring to the company, as much as the company try to groom the employees. Something job seekers will do well to know instead of the “me me me” all the time.
On a personal note I pay taxes. And as a tax payer I will rather it sponsor some HDB kid who will benefit from an otherwise unaffordable education that some self serving kid who could well have afforded it.
_________________________________
Sparky Twoshoes // Apr 4, 2007 at 11:25 am
Was thinking something along this scheme:
-Poly grads apply for development scheme in company/agency they’re going to serve.
-Serve out OJT period, say 1-2 years.
-Company sends them to pursue local degree. Funded by company.
-On graduation, serve back another 2 years.
-Optional: should there be good performance from these folks, they get herded down scholarship path for postgrad studies. With bond of course.
Opinions?
One of my staff, a poly graduate went off to U of Edinburgh for BS Molecular Biology.
Worked in our labs for 3 years.
Sent to Cambridge Univ for PhD in 2003. Came home in 2006. Bonded for sure.
___________________________________________
Sparky Twoshoes SINGAPORE // Apr 4, 2007 at 11:25 am
Quoted from Randy:
“Have plenty of poly grads who work harder and much better than overseas grads from prestigious US/UK universities.â€
_________________________________
Was wondering if there is anything to do to raise educational status of these folks. Many are strapped for cash when they start work.
Fully agree!
Those who can afford to buy a new Mercedes Benz 350 every 3 years should pay for their smart kids education.
Can give them the “honour” of the scholarship award provided they pay for the education expense.
Then only a token bond.
Save the funds for the smart and HUNGRY HDB kids.
__________________
Randy Teo SINGAPORE // Apr 4, 2007 at 11:21 pm
On a personal note I pay taxes. And as a tax payer I will rather it sponsor some HDB kid who will benefit from an otherwise unaffordable education that some self serving kid who could well have afforded it.
In peacetime, AWOL. In war time, Desertion.
____________________________________________
Randy Teo SINGAPORE // Apr 4, 2007 at 11:21 pm
It is one thing serving out the bond and not completing it due to really divergent objectives and interest, it is quite another not serving a single day and breaking the bond.
Well…pple do change their interests and inclinations while they r in college….and sometimes the change can be divergent enough to make it almost impossible for them to fit back in…and i don’t think pple take up scholarships with the motivation to break it from day one…It is like marriage…pple don’t marry with the intention of a divorce…but it still happens…
Also, the scholarship system in singapore is so overwhelming that the career prospects are skewed so much in favor of scholars just as how Randy puts it…that pple feel that they ought to take up a scholarship for that better career prospect and “blue-blooded” treatment lest they intend to go back to Singapore to work…especially with CEP ratings…
Not to mention that most singaporeans r unaware of other options for overseas education beyond the scholarship….
In fact, the amount of prestige placed on scholarships has just been ridiculous and that results in increase in pple taking up for the scholarship because of that prestige and not for the job/orgnanisation per se…
KH
We only ourselves to blame. Those ‘OJT’ schemes would have been very helpful to both the org n the ’scholar’ - something like cohabitation first (not that I actually approve of it).
This is as far as ensuring that the person can decide he is keen and that he comes back to serve. He can also size up the organization culture etc to determine beyond prestige, if there is hope or probability of prospects in the future.
Desertion w all the ammo
_____________
The Crane SINGAPORE // Apr 5, 2007 at 1:31 am
In peacetime, AWOL. In war time, Desertion.
The question of whether scholarships should be given to people who could otherwise afford to go overseas to study is a separate question from the question of whether any given person, who has a scholarship as it stands, be that person rich or poor, is doing the right thing by in certain circumstances by breaking their bond. It’s possible to believe scholarships should be primarily available only to people who can’t otherwise afford tertiary education, while also believing that with any given person, if certain conditions are met (e.g. developing wholly different aspirations despite an initial good faith intention to serve the bond), breaking the bond is a reasonable action to take.
If someone breaks their bond for bad reasons, then they break it for bad reasons, and deserve criticism, be they rich or poor. The converse must be equally true if they break it for good reasons. The real question then is whether you believe any good reasons could possibly exist. The other issues just muddy the water.
Many people, as I think you guys are pointing out yourselves, also _serve_ the bond for all the wrong reasons. So is it the act of bond breaking per se that is the problem — or is it the reasons, the mentality of the people concerned?
Ppl must be hungry for the right reasons to begin with.
Then bond breaking or null service obligation would not become an issue.
Quoted from Jol:
“If someone breaks their bond for bad reasons, then they break it for bad reasons, and deserve criticism, be they rich or poor. The converse must be equally true if they break it for good reasons. ”
_________________________________
It seems like you’re full of ‘good reasons’.
Give examples of those ‘good reasons’, that can be stomached by the people who funded you. You were a PSC scholar I believe? The people who funded you would be the taxpayers.
And you’ve evaded the question nonetheless:
Would you have been able to afford your studies in the UK without scholarship funding?
Agreed.
Question is not whether one’s interest has gotten so divergent from what they signed up for that it is no longer reconcilable, and whether that is a good reason or not. It is tax payer’s $$ that you took (and I took). I gave my word that I will serve my country, so I did, regardless of whether my interest was in sync or not. My word is my honour, and that was it. To each their own. Whether that is a good reason or not is not for the scholarship recipient to decide. It is the taxpayers’ decision.
Taxpayers $$ go towards funding ppl who will serve the country later in public capacity, not to fund their own self interest and broaden their horizon. For that, go use some other charitable bond-free scholarships or F&M scholarship.
Do what is right because it is right, esp if the $$ or flesh did not come from you. For the record when I was in service, I put my career on the line to defend what I felt was right for the country, in deviance of what I thought were selfish decisions. If I get sacrificed because I refuse to yield on these issues, so be it, tough for me.
_________________________________
Sparky Twoshoes // Apr 5, 2007 at 8:48 am
It seems like you’re full of ‘good reasons’.
Give examples of those ‘good reasons’, that can be stomached by the people who funded you. You were a PSC scholar I believe? The people who funded you would be the taxpayers.
And you’ve evaded the question nonetheless:
Would you have been able to afford your studies in the UK without scholarship funding?
Jol wrote:
Erm…I don’t think scholarships are given out on the basis of if one person rejects it in time, the next most qualified guy on the list will get it…The scholarship board has a certain quota but neither does it have to fill out the quota…So the arguement that if one person taking scholarship will deprive another from getting it is flawed because pple are judged based on individual’s merit and it doesn’t mean that if the scholarship was not given to Person A, perosn B down the list would have gotten it…
Target of X awards.
At the end of all the interviews, there are some reserve candidates.
They would be considered when some successful applicants withdrew.
___________________________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 5, 2007 at 10:56 am
Erm…I don’t think scholarships are given out on the basis of if one person rejects it in time, the next most qualified guy on the list will get it…
The scholarship board has a certain quota but neither does it have to fill out the quota…So the argument that if one person taking scholarship will deprive another from getting it is flawed because pple are judged based on individual’s merit and it doesn’t mean that if the scholarship was not given to Person A, person B down the list would have gotten it…
“good” excuse?
Honour does NOT have two flavours: good and not good.
____________________
Jol UNITED KINGDOM // Apr 5, 2007 at 6:38 am
The converse must be equally true if they break it for good reasons.
So, just curious, would you guys support making bondbreaking a criminal offence? I mean why have it as a possibility (however expensive) at all in the way things are set up, if you think it’s so categorically heinous? If there are no possible good reasons, shouldn’t punitive sanctions be in order?
I don’t see any reason to answer questions about my personal life, incidentally — I will continue to “evade” all quizzing about my private affairs because quite frankly it’s none of the business of anonymous and semi-anonymous strangers on the Internet (are you going to ask me about my health records, my familial relations and my sex life next?) Anyway, it seems to me we’ve got to the nub of the question, whether there are any good reasons, to which, I have already suggested (without specific response, I think), the finances of the person concerned are not relevant. Here we can only part company, and I wonder two things: (1) if you have ever actually considered the backstory of any bondbreakers, because without knowing how can you really be so certain? Is this so clearcut, like murder? (and if so, again, maybe criminalisation is the answer…) and (2) if any of you believe divorce (for example) is ever in any circumstance justifiable, or if people always need to be tied to earlier bad decisions and unfruitful relationships because “it’s their word”?
I only really wanted to clarify in my previous post that I think two unconnected issues are being conflated; I don’t think much more is to be gained from my continuing to post now. So long and good eating.
Whoops, missed Bill’s post, so one last reply. About ‘choping’ the place beforehand… if someone fully intends to serve the bond and they take the scholarship, they’ve already deprived someone else of the place. As and when, several months or years down the line, things are such that they later are faced with the decision whether to break their bond, that hypothetical other person has already been deprived and will never have the scholarship whether you serve or not. Bondbreaking doesn’t change whether that person got the scholarship or not. I completely agree that if, at the time of taking the scholarship, you already intend to break your bond, then it’s ethically dubious. It’s the cases when life intervenes which strike me as at least ambiguous, and not clearcut as you guys seem to think it is.
I’d add I also agree entirely with you that it’s unethical to put the scholarship on your CV when applying for jobs to break your bond.
On serving a bit or not serving at all, I thought about this a lot as well (bondbreakers don’t just do it without a thought, you know!). As I’ve said, I’m not going to go into personal considerations here, but bear in mind that most scholars do some kind of internship at their scholarship organisation, and for some people at least the reasons why working there might be problematic can already be visible at the time, and to determine that good faith effort cannot reconcile those problems. Of course, if you believe that none of the problems matter because “your word is your word”, then I realise you will not find this convincing. But insofar as you think breaking the bond is okay at some stage because of divergent interests, I think this is relevant.
Jol wrote:
A scholarship uses public funds. So how come the reasons surrounding the taking of public funds and breaking the bond without serving a single day — all that should be private and nobody’s business, according to you?
Is Philip Yeo who replied to you a semi-anonymous or anonymous nobody?
I guess for all us taxpaying nobodies, and the nobody who lost out on a scholarship because you took a place ahead of him, it is all none of our business.
I don’t think bond breaking is akin to murder. But in society there are many dishonourable things which are not illegal. That does not stop these acts from being dishonourable.
Perhaps the truth is that you do not want to share your reasons, because you know that the nobodies of Singapore might see the truth — that you are the supreme nobody!
If your reasons are so noble and ideal and defensible, state them and let us nobodies decide.
Or should we get out of your elite, uncaring face?
Jol wrote:
It is true that the moment you take the scholarship, you have deprived somebody of the place. But what you do with your scholarship decides whether that other person’s loss is meaningless.
Let’s say a man died, and his liver is available for transplant. Regardless of who takes the transplant, it will not bring the dead man back.
The doctors say to various candidates: We are going to give you this man’s liver, but you must recognise the liver is a precious thing.
Now what happens if the transplant recipient - despite accepting in good faith - subsequently decides he wants to lead a life where he has some drinks, enjoys himself, at the expense of this liver. Eventually the liver fails.
Of course you can say either way the donor is not coming back to life. You can say that there was no intention to abuse the new liver at first. You can say the change of opinion was later. Maybe the new lifestyle (cannot drink at all) was not to the liking of the recipient.
But the donor’s sacrifice now has less meaning, doesn’t it?
Quoted from Jol:
“I don’t see any reason to answer questions about my personal life, incidentally — I will continue to “evade†all quizzing about my private affairs because quite frankly it’s none of the business of anonymous and semi-anonymous strangers on the Internet (are you going to ask me about my health records, my familial relations and my sex life next?) Anyway, it seems to me we’ve got to the nub of the question, whether there are any good reasons, to which, I have already suggested (without specific response, I think), the finances of the person concerned are not relevant.
_________________________________
Personally not very interested in your sex life. Just the answer to that question that was posed. No need to slide down that slippery slope.
I would beg to differ with regard to your suggestion that the finances of the person concerned are not relevant. I think John Rawls would agree with me as well, with his difference principle in Theory of Justice.
Good dose of moral philosophy in the morning can make your toilet visit more pleasant. Hehheh. J/K on that last line.
I think it’s enough said for you too. Hasta Luego. People who have followed the discussion can form their own logical judgements from your responses.
Bill,
“stranger” =/= “nobody”
I took the trouble to respond to your post specifically because I thought you raised good points. I’m very sorry to hear that despite this you think I’ve not found you guys worth taking seriously. I think we’ve reached an impasse, but it pains me to think that this should be seen as being dismissive.
Ok, really going now. Bye!
Quoted from Bill:
“If your reasons are so noble and ideal and defensible, state them and let us nobodies decide.
Or should we get out of your elite, uncaring face?”
_________________________________
Fwah fierce.
I don’t think it’s an impasse like what Jol thinks. The conclusions are pretty clear cut.
The tone of post #276 really strikes me as her being Elite-Girl, who goes around kicking people in the gonads.
Elite uncaring face indeed.
Well put.
_________________________________________________________
Bill SINGAPORE // Apr 5, 2007 at 2:55 pm
But in society there are many dishonourable things which are not illegal.
That does not stop these acts from being dishonourable.
Presumably “On the Job Training” ?
__________________________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 4:19 pm
James:
What’s OJT? (Paiseh… I not very good with these short-form thingies.)
Wow KH, dun blur blur
Even Mr Yeo knows OJT, kekeke. I was just picking up from Randy’s point. Well it might take a very sensitive 18 yr old to be very aware of his surroundings. *sigh*
otherwise (as an off topic joke), the scholar-designate could just hang around in the org in the sense of SAF parlance .. KLKKBTCC aka kua lai kua ke bo tai chi cho or walk-here-walk-there-no-business-to-do.
Agreed. Some can study well (As) but are “blur king” in life.
Sent bright poly kids working at DSO for their overseas BS and thereafter.
They are usually hungry.
___________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Yes, I’d like orgs to give more consideration to poly grads who are ‘best improved’ as opposed to ‘being the best aka rank tops like scholars with a 3.8 GPA.
kh I think it’s important to have both types of people in a team. Some are better thinkers while others are better doers. Thinkers have a vision and chart a direction. Doers will chiong all the way to make sure that everybody gets to their destination. Of course, it’s best if our administration is staffed with people who are exceptional at both, but such talent is few and far between. Interestingly society tends to reward thinkers more than doers (hence scholars over farmers) because it is “cheaper” to find labour (work horses) than it is to find great thinkers (innovators). But the truth is that we can’t have one type and not the other.
And the cross-over is not always easy. Some very hard workers may not do well as thinkers, and some thinkers can conceptualize great things the whole day and never get anything done. This probably explains why not many top poly/ITE grads eventually become scholars, but those that do are truly exceptional (doers AND thinkers).
Wow KH
*wink* *wink*
______________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’m pure Hainanese…
“Agreed. Some can study well (As) but are “blur king†in life.
Sent bright poly kids working at DSO for their overseas BS and thereafter.
They are usually hungry. ”
well, pple at that stage of their life are prob more likely to go back since they prob already have a family and so on and so forth and r really familiar with the organisation….
the prob with scholarships nowadays is that they r so organisation specific…I mean how would what person know from day 1 for sure that that is THE organisation that he or she wants to for the rest of the his or her life…
What do u guys think of bond transfer by the way?
I betrayed myself:
KLKKBTCC aka kia lai kia ke bo tai chi cho or walk-here-walk-there-no-business-to-do.
1970- t0 1904. Mindef to Chartered Industries, Singapore Technologies.
From 2001, EDB to A*STAR.
Now Spring.
From 2001, with PSC for BS who want to do PhD at A*STAR funding.
Body trading.
____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 5, 2007 at 8:25 pm
What do u guys think of bond transfer by the way?
Oops! X-eyed by 12 inch screen!
1970 t0 1994. Mindef to Chartered Industries, Singapore Technologies.
Still on a light-hearted momentary note, your hope is totally misplaced.
Let’s get back to business
_____________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm
BTW, is James, none other than James Kwek of Mindef?
btw, I am also veri pure
I am not sure if in today’s context, civil servants are expected to be pure anymore, for that matter most of Singapore.
Let’s see how the M pay issue pans out. It may change the psyche of S’poreans.
_______________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Too bad then, that the govt ignored the pleas of this very, pure Hainanese.
Most bonds are 6 years only.
Not for life. That IS slavery.
For Singapore girls, graduate with BS at 22 years old.
Plus 6 years. Only 28 years old.
Your generation will live to possibly at least 78 years old.
So 50 years ahead.
______________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 5, 2007 at 8:25 pm
the prob with scholarships nowadays is that they r so organisation specific…I mean how would what person know from day 1 for sure that that is THE organisation that he or she wants to for the rest of the his or her life…
Interesting classification. Cannot sue. Judge will die laughing.
__________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 5, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Ahhh…!
To James:
The thing that’s really lovely about PY, ya know… is that he’s really an Ah Beng at heart (Dear PY: Please don’t sue me!)
kh
Sure PSC scholars can pretty much go to any govt organisation but a lot of the scholarships r very organisation specific that I wonder if it is even possible to transfer…unless they r related somehow..like EDB to Astar.
But those 6 years r prob when a person is most productive and most able to focus on his or her career without distractions of family and whatsoever…
But seriously, the no. of pple who actually break their bonds r in the minority…most pple actually do go back to serve…whether grudgingly or not….
True, much less than 5 %.
But the local press make them up like heroes and not villains. >:-o
Not equitable to let the few who can afford to get away with bond breaking without censure.
The 99 who honour their oblation will feel they are unlucky to be poor.
These 99 are also silly to grudge.
They should THINK first.
They have had the opportunity of a life time and the first secure job.
Once their bond is done, they are free to leave for greener grass or worse hard soil.
Quote: “I have not been invited to any interview sessions despite sending out near to 30 companies for various positions. ”
____________________________________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 9:19 am
But seriously, the no. of pple who actually break their bonds r in the minority…most pple actually do go back to serve…whether grudgingly or not….
Disagree.
The first 6 years are green years. Still wet behind the ears.
After 6 years of working experience and a good education, your market value appreciates.
———————————
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 9:19 am
But those 6 years r prob when a person is most productive and most able to focus on his or her career without distractions of family and whatsoever…
I don’t even think the local press should even attempt to paint any picture of bondbreakers whether as heroes or villians…
And honestly, I feel that as a scholar, my position would to work out the best I could do for my agency whether or not there is any alignment of interest and if really not, maybe a bond transfer or sth like that…
Yes, I did ask the question of whether I should stay or go back but really have never ever seriously considered not going back…just a question of what I am going back to….
I do admit that my current course doesn’t really coincide perfectly or beautifully with my agency but neither do I have the desire not to return…
Breaking bond, i think, is an action pple tend not to take lightly and a lot of consideration goes in before one does it…It is not an easy decision to make and pple don’t do that lightly…It is upsetting on both sides so therefore, i don’t even think the press should glorify it or paint a grosteque picture of it…it is just like a divorce…both sides r hurt…
and to me, the value of going back to serve only makes sense if the scholar is really excited about what he or she is going to be doing in that organisation instead of a begrudging i have to go back and work for 6 damn years…that is really no point in that…
At least give it a try for first two years.
After that, no one will stop anyone from leaving so long as he/she paid up the expensive LD. Which is illogical or stupid.
Might as well keep the LD money as seed capital for a doing a start up.
_____________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:22 am
and to me, the value of going back to serve only makes sense if the scholar is really excited about what he or she is going to be doing in that organisation instead of a begrudging i have to go back and work for 6 damn years…that is really no point in that…
Starlet
You dun noe yet what it feels to be damned … dun tink too much, u oredi hv a good opportunity. As u said “really no point in that …”
Mr Yeo oredi shared some hard core experience.
The alternative is to not take up scholarship, step into the open n find out for yrself wat r the opportunities in the world, fend for yrself n go thru thick n thin.
Watever it is, just move on even if it is not easy. Trust me on this.
______________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:22 am
and to me, the value of going back to serve only makes sense if the scholar is really excited about what he or she is going to be doing in that organisation instead of a begrudging i have to go back and work for 6 damn years…that is really no point in that…
I suppose…this is personal and I am not going to discuss it on this blog…
Land too expensive for Singapore pigs.
No smell no noise.
Kangaroo pigs can fly?
Air flown “fresh pork” do come from KangarooLand to Singapore supermarkets.
Customers here are strange.
They buy these “fresh pork” and put them into cold freezer.
______________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 6, 2007 at 3:26 am
But then how come pigs can fly?
hahaha…like ur sense of humor…:P
Guess that is why i ask the question on bond transfer…:p
What tis means is opportunity costs vs reserves.
In life, if u dun hv enuf reserves, u cannot even afford to dream, let alone create an opportunity.
You may not die or go hungry, but u simply cannot move unless u trade or sacrifice. And u must hv resolve n not be troubled by dark thots n fears.
For that matter, once u settle down n in, n dun or can’t watch out for commitments n responsibilities, then things will change. Nothing wrong, just do watch out for that.
So u may choose to be hard-nosed n practical, n build up reserves b4 u invest, spend or splurge. It’s like buying insurance from young. Set aside at least 30% every mth.
Last but not least, u will never know all the answers to all the questions u hv. But at least u hv buffered time n resources to do homework, though personal $$ always not enuf, unless u hv backing.
_________________
The Crane SINGAPORE // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:38 am
At least give it a try for first two years.
After that, no one will stop anyone from leaving so long as he/she paid up the expensive LD. Which is illogical or stupid.
Might as well keep the LD money as seed capital for a doing a start up.
Playing w the mind successfully.
_____________________
The Crane SINGAPORE // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:46 am
Air flown “fresh pork†do come from KangarooLand to Singapore supermarkets.
Customers here are strange.
They buy these “fresh pork†and put them into cold freezer.
It’s ok.
As an aside, go for a workout, if need be. Staying too long in front of the computer is unhealthy.
___________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:43 am
I suppose…this is personal and I am not going to discuss it on this blog…
Except that i actually have work to do on the computer…:p
So do I, so do I
There is some truth that multi-tasking whether on the computer or running around is not good for the mind n soul.
I hv my laptop running for days now - time to shut down n let all of creation get a breather, at least for an hour
Cheers
_____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:06 am
Except that i actually have work to do on the computer…:p
I disagree that pple who go back to serve r pple who r too poor to break bond…Also, choosing to break bond or not, just like choosing a scholarship is a choice to be responsible for.
Both have their pros and cons and really, there is no point in grudging about it or feeling jealous about bond breakers when one chooses to serve the bond. hence in the same note, there is really no point in further vindicating bond breakers especially after they have paid their costs…not to mention that they r usually the minority…
And no one can really predict what they want to do for the rest of their life or in given next x years…Things change and pple change and the environment change…
We’re talking bond of 6 years. That the case, not that long if you count time.. post-JC/NS to Phd.
My simple logic to those bond breakers is.. if only the fervour/commitment persuing the higher degree on someone’s generous seed money is matched on the same scale as when performing the bond period.
Bought the 15 inch MacPro early this year.
Daughter, with DELL 17 inch, took a look and hijacked it.
_________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Wonder why he’s not using a MacBook Pro—should try selling him one
Personally prefer PC to Mac even though I am currently a Mac user. Simply because there r more PC programs than Mac. Only got my Mac because my college was selling it at half the price…But the graphic interface is pretty cool…
but yeah, between a Dell and a MacBook Pro, of course I will go for a Mac book pro…It is just more unclear if it is sth like an IBM…
EDB brought Apple to manufacture in Singapore.
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak came.
John Scully kicked Steve Jobs out.
Apple dived into almost oblivion.
Apple Singapore closed shop.
Bought Apple PC for son when he was a kindergarten kid to play games.
Apple PCs in home and office. First Apple notebook.
Son “swears” by Apple.
G5 in his lab, La Jolla apt and 15 in MacPro for lugging around.
I bought the 15 inch here.
Daughter hijacked it and brought back to Boston. :’(
Ok, ok, got the message. Will go and buy Mac.
Agree. Our SMEs can really learn from Apple’s industrial product design.
Visit Apple shops when I am in US and have some spare hour or two.
Like to “spy” around looking for new toys.
Apple products and accessories have “class”.
Like G Armani products. New Black 15 in MacPro too.
_______________
Plus, as the Big Spring Bird, I’m sure you see how SMEs can learn a thing or two from Apple.
I think a lot of times, how successful a product is on the market is ultimately about image, packaging and marketing…requires good understanding of target audience and keeping a consistent brand image that is appealing to the target audience…
Starlet,
See http://www.ices.a-star.edu.sg/ices/research_and_development/research_programme/chemical_synthesis.do
In the market place, Maslow’s higher needs always prevail.
Like Louis Vuitton bags (show off) versus Samsonite (function).
__________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 1:19 am
I think product category cycles follow the same transitions/processes as Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.
The customer is always king.
Smart chaps can create new demand too.
__________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I think a lot of times, how successful a product is on the market is ultimately about image, packaging and marketing…requires good understanding of target audience and keeping a consistent brand image that is appealing to the target audience…
Dear Sir:
May I ask if your son has a passion for graphics development? I know most people who are into graphics development would take an Apple Mac any time.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dee:
I believe Mr. Yeo’s son is in the life sciences.
Macs have been able to make inroads into the life sciences industry based on Mac OS X’s ability to run conventional biz apps like MS Office as well as the UNIX-based software that the life sciences researchers use to analyse their data.
The new Samsonite range looks classier and but expensive for its Samsonite name and image
Not the TUMI brand name, quality and price yet.
I knew the previous owner who sold Samsonite and made a bundle.
New owner changed the product positioning and image.
Head on with luxury goods market.
Versus its earlier functional image and pricing.
——————
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 1:38 am
But Samsonite is already high-class functionality leh…
I got look at their bags. Their build quality and design actually very good. As in… if the product has poor build-quality standards, it’ll still come across as kitsch-looking and low-class.
Interesting. I will go take a look.
I used to support La Salle.
______________
If Big Bird got time can go and chat with a couple of art teachers who have studios along Perumal Road and look at their handmade books. (Request for contact here.)
He is a computational neuroscience chap.
Number cruncher.
Steve Jobs is a stage performing passionate salesman.
Can sell ice to Eskimos.
___________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 1:42 am
Can. Steve Jobs’ halo effect loh.
Even his notes on presentation very interesting. See here (second-last pic) and here.
Will do that. Many thanks!
__________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:13 am
Ask for ‘Momo Books’.
“Starlet,
See http://www.ices.a-star.edu.sg/ices/research_and_development/research_programme/chemical_synthesis.do”
Thanks a lot. It is really helpful and interesting. Sounds like something within my field of interest.
personally interested in methods of creating molecular diversity and novel forms of drugs…:)
Well…it think it depends on the product life cycle…When a product first appears on the market, of course the first mover gets all the advantage…as it proceeds along the cycle, initially pple will tend to go for the quality stuff…but as the production methods get more efficient, pple will tend to go for low cost…
of course, marketting around style is a good strategy but usually that is not style for style’s sake but rather u r trying to hit a target audience which in many cases, might not even be a majority…even for the computer industry, i bet the PC is prob more commonly used but because Mac has established its style and image among the academics, that is why it tends to be popular among academics but not necessarily outside…
But ultimately, there has to be a clear definition of target audience and catering to them…Once that is recognized, it is more straightforward…and brand dilution in a lot of cases can be deadly…Kinda explain how some US airlines went bankrupt because they try to combine being a budget airline while still giving prority services…And also explain why the HP and compaq merger was such a bad idea…
By the way, looking at the ices website, it seems like the synthetic facilty at biopolis is not as well-developed as the other aspects of the institute. Do you have any thoughts on that? I can brainstorm possible directions and projects that will be interesting and applicable but of course I can’t come up with anything concrete since i am here and i have hardly any knowledge about the facility and the institute…but definitely something interesting to look at from my perspective…
It is brand new. Your ideas most welcome.
Free green tea and more.
____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 5:58 am
I can brainstorm possible directions and projects that will be interesting and applicable but of course I can’t come up with anything concrete since i am here and i have hardly any knowledge about the facility and the institute…but definitely something interesting to look at from my perspective…
Starlet,
See http://www.merlionpharma.com
Also
http://www.ices.a-star.edu.sg/ices/home.do
Nice…then maybe I should pop by astar to look u up the next time I go to Singapore…:)
But there r definitely a lot of things ICES(the biopolis site) could do especially with all the other institutes in close proximity…:)
oops…i meant fusionpolis…
ICESs on Jurong Chemical Island.
The Syn Chem Lab is at Biopolis.
I should be at Fusionopolis when it is ready in early 2008.
__________________
#
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:48 am
Nice…then maybe I should pop by astar to look u up the next time I go to Singapore…:)
But there r definitely a lot of things ICES(the biopolis site) could do especially with all the other institutes in close proximity…:)
#
370 Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:59 am
oops…i meant fusionpolis…
Computer Science (number crunching) with Neuroscience (brain neuron cells, lah!) combo.
_____________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:26 am
Er, what do computational neuroscience people do?
Always be nice to nice people.
________________________
kwokheng AUSTRALIA // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:27 am
Thanks for being so nice to me.
Went to look at the merlion webste…pretty promising except that i thought drug companies usually do not put information of drugs in the pipeline online for fear of competition and being scooped…What do u think?
Starlet,
http://www.scripps.edu/phd/skoxford/
Focus on synthetic chemistry,
First scholar at La Jolla. Doing very well.
Off to Oxford in 2008.
Second scholar at Oxford end.
Wow…that is amazing…heard that program is quite prestigious…
Dual PhD in 5 years.
Program takes in 2 grad students per year.
Like bikini.
Enough display show to “stir” interest only.
____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at
except that i thought drug companies usually do not put information of drugs in the pipeline online for fear of competition and being scooped…What do u think?
I like ur analogy….
Quite a cheeky analogy thought..:P
5 years in US and UK.
The Skaggs Oxford Scholarships are a joint five-year program of study in biology or chemistry at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and biochemistry at the University of Oxford in Britain leading to the award of a joint Ph.D./D.Phil. degree.
Looks good on good shapes only.
Some with no good shapes, look like barrels with rings.
__________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 10:26 am
I like ur analogy….
Quite a cheeky analogy thought..:P
I definitely heard of it while applying to grad schools but was too lazy to write another essay for it, not to mention I already had one place in mind that i really wanted to go to alot. Come to think of it, I actually cancelled my interview I was supposed to have with Scripps because I had too much stuff to do at the end of the semester…
“Looks good on good shapes only.
Some with no good shapes, look like barrels with rings.”
Haha…that is an interesting comment…guys…too cold for that here though…
Scripps is a good R&D outfit in “cool” place.
Beach and bikinis. Surfing.
If you have time to spare from labs…..:-D
http://www.scripps.edu/phd/biograd/calindex.html
Sent first scholar there, from IMCB, for Chemistry. Now working at Merlion.
Second scholar now doing cancer biology research.
haha…yeah..time to spare from labs…heh…
Dear Sir:
Is the chemical synthesis lab @ A*STAR into peptide synthesis? Nowadays, they are using peptides like the innate arm of immunity as anti- microbial and anti-viral compounds, like one anti-HIV peptide that targets the GP120 of HIV. Can the same be done for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C (a pet topic mentioned not too long before, apologies if it brought back some memories)?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Sir:
I know of a principal investigator who received the EDB-Glaxo scholarship and went to the Scripps Institute. She is now in NNI. I thought you might know her since you selected the EDB-Glaxo scholars.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Except that peptide drugs tend to have bad oral bioavailability so typically not good candidates…unless hitting targets that r extracellular…
Yes, I do.
Interview all EDB Glaxo chaps from 1990 to 2000 unless I happen to be on the road.
Then VC, NUS Prof Lim Pin interviews them.
Same GPA rules. Ha!
_____________
She is now in NNI. I thought you might know her since you selected the EDB-Glaxo scholars.
Biologics done by: http://www.bti.a-star.edu.sg
Also at Biopolis.
hahaha…so if i work on both, where should i go? :p
Two jobs in same area with one pay. Ha!
Two jobs in same location with one pay. Ha!
Can double up?
Sigh…that sounds like a good deal for the organisation…:P
Dear Starlet:
Yeah you are right. Oral bioavailability is poor because of the peptidases and proteases in our guts. Usually, the route of administration for peptide drugs is intraveneous. Yeah of course, peptides are better for hitting extracellular targets. That’s why there is some research interest in hitting viral particles themselves with peptides. The same goes for the other microbes.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
The experience and knowledge belongs to you.
Your Personal Intellectual Property (PIP).
No one can “dig it out” of you or “zap dry” your neurons into a thumb drive.
Your market value must increase with each data bit of know how that your neurons store up.
Someday, someone will come along and give you an offer that you cannot refuse.
Hopefully we who advise you here will get a free meal be it fish or frog legs soup.
_________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Sigh…that sounds like a good deal for the organisation…:P
Dear Sir:
Speaking of fish soup or was it fish head soup, heard from friends there’s a popular stall in Chinatown or something like that.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Newton Circus has two fish head soup stalls.
Have not been to Chinatown stall.
Omega 3.
“The experience and knowledge belongs to you.
Your Personal Intellectual Property (PIP).
No one can “dig it out†of you or “zap dry†your neurons into a thumb drive.
Your market value must increase with each data bit of know how that your neurons store up.
Someday, someone will come along and give you an offer that you cannot refuse.
Hopefully we who advise you here will get a free meal be it fish or frog legs soup. ”
Sure….if that day does come along…Although to be honest, I will prob be contented enough to serve in an organisation where I could put my experience here to good use. :p
“Someday, someone will come along and give you an offer that you cannot refuse.”
Hopefully that doesn’t constitute u giving me advice to break bond…:P Just kidding…
But I do feel that there r plenty of opportunities to be explored in singapore…and a lot of things to be developed and improved upon….
“Dear Starlet:
Yeah you are right. Oral bioavailability is poor because of the peptidases and proteases in our guts. Usually, the route of administration for peptide drugs is intraveneous. Yeah of course, peptides are better for hitting extracellular targets. That’s why there is some research interest in hitting viral particles themselves with peptides. The same goes for the other microbes.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee”
Well…if u think carefully about where the virus/microbe is by the time someone is actually sick, u will realize that oral bioavailability is going to be an issue…and pple do not like IVs in general…
Fire and brimstones will fall on those who dare tempt you.
With working experience, pharmaceutical companies will gladly hire you.
Told our pharmaceutical chemistry scholars that they will be highly prized than molecular biologists.
A*STAR will gladly share our bonded talent with the pharmaceutical companies operating in Singapore. But not in La Jolla.
_____________________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 7, 2007 at 11:42 pm
and give you an offer that you cannot refuse.â€
Hopefully that doesn’t constitute u giving me advice to break bond…:P Just kidding…
But I do feel that there r plenty of opportunities to be explored in singapore…and a lot of things to be developed and improved upon….
It is kinda interesting that my interest is actually somewhat of a mix between the two. Personally see chemistry not just as an art on its own but also a very useful toolbox to solve biological problems…
But yeah, the drug industry has always been appealing to me…
i think the desirability of a pharmaceutical chemist or a molecular biologist depends on which stage the drug developement program is at and the approach the company is taking…one is important for identifying targets and designing assays while the other one is important for making and designing the drugs…:P
Dear Starlet:
Of course, if taken orally very little of the therapeutic peptide would reach its intended target. Besides, intaveneous introduction of drugs, there’s some work done on improved drug discovery systems.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Oral and Nasal spray drug delivery being explored. Mucosal targets.
Yep, definitely heard of other methods of delivery…
But the problem with developing drugs for infectious disease is that it has to be cheap and therefore u have to make sure that whatever delivery methods u use is convenient and cheap. Just think of ur target audience…
See http://www.novartis.com/research/research-centers/nitd.shtml
Definitely heard about it and one of their guys is giving a talk at my class…
Paul Herrling and Alex Matter (Gleevec) are the key chaps at NITD.
If they find small molecules for TB, Dengue and Malaria, Spore can manufacture high volume. Our forte.
WHO and my friend Tachi Yamada, ex-GSK and now at Gates Foundation will help provide low cost availability.
Hmm…I didn’t know Singapore had the ability to do synthesis in bulk…sorry if i sound ignorant…:p
Yep, Alex Matter is supposed to be giving a lecture some time end of this month… or at least that is what is written on the schedule…
We have been slogging here.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5821/38
Not making crash helmets for head injuries though.
Alex Matter is a good chap.
Climbs Swiss mountains.
Climbed Mt. Kinabalu at his age.
(I prefer to go by helicopter).
Say Hi! to him.
That is a great article and really positive.
Like ur comment on helmets. :p And yes, I do agree with u that with money/resources put in life sciences, Singapore is definitely in good position to target major diseases and markets.
Will try to say hi to Alex Matter if I get a chance to.
Dear Sir:
Is Singapore doing any research locally on say muscoal delivery of drugs? I read papers of work done on methods of drug delivery, but this is confined to research circles in Europe.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Sir:
Is Singapore working on improving methods of drug delivery? I did read a few papers on mucosal delivery (nasal) delivery of peptide drugs, it’s largely confined to research circles in Europe.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Sir:
Regarding the Science article, I think you need to subscribe to the journal in order to read the article.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dennis Normile wrote a 2002 article too
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5586/1470?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=philip+yeo&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Amazon sells Bell Radar Bicycle Helmet for US14.99. Cheap.
IBN does drug delivery. http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.s
Not on nasal mucosal delivery
Medimmune (www.medimmune.com) does for flu.
A flu vaccine with oral or nasal (better) delivery will be great.
GSK is building a large RSV vaccine plant here FDA ready by 2010.
_______________________________________
Dr Dee SINGAPORE // Apr 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Is Singapore working on improving methods of drug delivery? I did read a few papers on mucosal delivery (nasal) delivery of peptide drugs, it’s largely confined to research circles in Europe.
Oops! I thought only the research papers are not free.
News should be.
A*STAR scholars have journal freebies. Lucky kids.
_________________
Regarding the Science article, I think you need to subscribe to the journal in order to read the article.
Ooops!
IBN does drug delivery.
http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg
Not on nasal mucosal delivery
Medimmune (www.medimmune.com) does for flu.
A flu vaccine with oral or nasal (better) delivery will be great.
GSK is building a large RSV vaccine plant here FDA ready by 2010.
Well, i think as long as u go to a reasonably rich instituition, u can always access the subscription from the school.
“IBN does drug delivery”
Yep yep, think I saw those stuff on one of their brochures before. Kinda more on nanoparticles though and drug discovery is one of the applications of the nanoparticles they were/are working on.
Even cosmetics companies are selling “nano cosmetics”. Nano mania seeing macro dollars.
_______________________________
Kinda more on nanoparticles though and drug discovery is one of the applications of the nanoparticles they were/are working on.
Yep, yep definitely heard about that… :p
But I guess Singapore’s investments in nano is still much less than in bio and understandably so…
remembered a funny comment my friend told me about how to get grants…write “bio”, “nano” and add “cure cancer”…
True.
The smart grant review panels should be experts in waste paper throwing skills.
Into the large dust bin at the far corner of the room.
——————-
remembered a funny comment my friend told me about how to get grants…write “bioâ€, “nano†and add “cure cancerâ€â€¦
Hmm…isn’t it more convenient to put the dustbin closer…:P
I would…
Takes away the physical exercise needed to remain sane reading the tortuous papers asking for grants.
_____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 9, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hmm…isn’t it more convenient to put the dustbin closer…:P
I would…
Hmmm…so i guess that is how the dustbin is postioned in ur office…far far away so that u get ur exercise?
Was having a discussion with my friend on what is the best area of disease to go into…We synonymously agreed that metabolic diseases and lifestyle related dissease are most profitable because pple have to be on it their whole life…:P
Don’t know…just rambling….Side effects on having two Novartis chaps talking about metabolic diseases in lecture…:P
Metabolic diseases (Type 2 diabetes, collateral heart disease) will be the biggest market in the US.
Americans eat too much. Obesity. Airline seats now too small.
Even in Asia.
In India, growing richer and more Type 2 diabetes.
Rich, fat and paying customers for drugs for chronic metabolic diseases.
http://www.imb.a-star.edu.sg/
Just looked at the website. Looks pretty exciting.
Thought it should have covered more disease areas but I suppose it is still pretty new. Does it conduct clinical trials and animal model studies?
http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/biomed/action/biomed_strategic_initiatives.do
http://www.sics.a-star.edu.sg
http://www.imcb.a-star.edu.sg
Biopolis Phase One has 150,000 mice. Also other small animals.
Phase 2 opened in Oct 2006 will have another 150,000 mice facility by end 2007 hopefully.
———————–
April 9, 2007
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
By BRAD STONE
Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers “gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what’s acceptable online,†said Mr. O’Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company’s site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
“If it’s a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,†Mr. Wales said.
The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. “The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,†he said.
But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Distraught over the threats and manipulated photos of her that were posted on other critical sites  including one that depicted her head next to a noose  Ms. Sierra canceled a speaking appearance at a trade show and asked the local police for help in finding the source of the threats. She also said that she was considering giving up blogging altogether.
In an interview, she dismissed the argument that cyberbullying is so common that she should overlook it. “I can’t believe how many people are saying to me, ‘Get a life, this is the Internet,’ †she said. “If that’s the case, how will we ever recognize a real threat?â€
Ms. Sierra said she supported the new efforts to improve civility on the Web. The police investigation into her case is pending.
Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.
Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.
But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.
As many female bloggers can attest, women are often targets. Heather Armstrong, a blogger in Salt Lake City who writes publicly about her family (dooce.com), stopped accepting unmoderated comments on her blog two years ago after she found that conversations among visitors consistently devolved into vitriol.
Since last October, she has also had to deal with an anonymous blogger who maintains a separate site that parodies her writing and has included photos of Ms. Armstrong’s daughter, copied from her site.
Ms. Armstrong tries not to give the site public attention, but concedes that, “At first, it was really difficult to deal with.â€
Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.
People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein’s name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.
“I’ve been assaulted and harassed online for four years,†he said. “Most of it I can take in stride. But you just never get used to that level of hatred.â€
One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.
As Ms. Trott spoke about improving online conduct, a heckler filled the screen with personal insults. Ms Trott recalled “losing it†during the speech.
Ms. Trott has scaled back her public writing and now writes a blog for a limited audience of friends and family. “You can’t force people to be civil, but you can force yourself into a situation where anonymous trolls are not in your life as much,†she said.
The preliminary recommendations posted by Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly are based in part on a code developed by BlogHer, a network for women designed to give them blogging tools and to guide readers to their pages.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,†said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.
Robert Scoble, a popular technology blogger who stopped blogging for a week in solidarity with Kathy Sierra after her ordeal became public, says the proposed rules “make me feel uncomfortable.†He adds, “As a writer, it makes me feel like I live in Iran.â€
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make  believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,†he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.â€
The New York Times
Thanks for the websites and the wealth of info.
In fact, really grateful for sharing all the exciting opportunities in Singapore except that I am not sure whether the options really do avail to me though…:)
Ah well…bonded for 6 years…:p
But I guess it is always nice to know what is available…
Six years of assured employment.
Did 6 years of 4 years BS (Canada gives no credits for A levels) and 2 years MBA that landed me with 10 years!:-D
Six years for 8 years of BS to PhD funding is very generous.
During the 5 years PhD part, additional Spore stipend. Lucky chaps.
Program started in 2001 and ends in 2010.
One time 10 years program only.
____________________________
alright alright…u r just making me jealous/envious…:P Not that i am unhappy with my position…:)
Maybe I can be a job consultant.
hahahaha….how much will u charge? :p
cheap cheap for poor students.
share of their next 6 years earnings (like bond)…:-D
That sounds expensive…
0.001 % share enough? cheap!
enough to pay good quality green Japanese tea.
That sounds reasonable…:)
Is that ur favourite tea? It tends to be mine too…:p
Dear Sir:
How about chimps? Closely related to humans and they are also used as subjects for pre-clinical testing.
To Starlet:
It also happens to my favorite tea too.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Sir:
I am curious, but I was wondering how would you advise Life Sciences graduates who got a second lower Honors and below (almost impossible to qualify for a Ph.D. program unless……)?
The thing is that we are producing too many Life Science graduates but the sad thing is that NOT all eventually qualify to do a Ph.D. It’s indeed a Life Science conundrum, as the papers put it, as far as these Life Science graduates are concerned.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
http://www.Maccine.com
____________________
How about chimps? Closely related to humans and they are also used as subjects for pre-clinical testing.
Rhesus Macaque.
Rhesus Macaque.
_____________________
How about chimps? Closely related to humans and they are also used as subjects for pre-clinical testing.
Dear Sir:
Notice that you are in Dubai. How is it over that? Heard it’s blazing hot in the day and cold at night. There was an article written about Singaporeans being in demand in Dubai.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
You all know why the majority of scholars are not here dont you? And over the other side, you know the dark side that I am not allowed to talk abt - you know dont you.
Hot but getting hotter by July. Then 40 degrees C plus.
Can fry eggs on road pavement. Sunny side up.
Chaps here offered my 6 figure bucks to come and work here.
At US$60 plus per barrel of oil… peanuts to them.
NUS is producing BS Life Sciences chaps like Chinese saugages. Told them so! As early as 2002.
BS LS chaps who are not able to go to grad school have to look for jobs from non-research sectors.
We need BS/MS chemists, biochemists, chemical engineers etc to meet pharma needs.
Ooops!
Chaps here offered my staff - 6 figure bucks to come and work here.
In outer space???
____________________
You all know why the majority of scholars are not here dont you? And over the other side, you know the dark side that I am not allowed to talk abt - you know dont you.
Dear Sir:
I read your comments produced below. I don’t like to generalize but the instinct of stability is really hardwired into the female brains. Although there are exceptions, females go for stability in general. With a scholarship, females scholars are at least offered an “iron rice bowl” for the next few years. Obviously for one who go for stability, a female would tend to see her scholarship obligations through.
However, for males the wiring of their brains is completely different. There is higher tendency for males to venture out of their comfort zones into unknown territories, even if the endeavour is a risky one. Thus, even as a male scholar breaks his bond and join an MNC, there is still some inherent risks (e.g. employer relations, economic climate) in working within the chop-and-change climate of the coorperate world. There is also a substantial amount of uncertainty involved in the male bond breaker’s future because of the stigma attached to a scholarship bond breaker here in Singapore, which makes them unlikely to return to Singapore. However, it’s still a tendency for males to take the big risk into the unknown, which is why the Alexander The Greats, Genghis Khans, Admiral Zheng Hes, Napolean Bonapartes, plus other great explorers and conquerors are all males. Due to the way the male brains are wired, I don’t find it surprising that you find more male bond breakers than female ones.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Of course, I hope I don’t get misunderstood as an advocate of scholarship bond breaking. I am just trying to offer a rationale why there more male bond breakers than females.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
_____________________________
Singapore boys do their NSF and then go off for their scholarship funded studies at 22 years old. Not wet babies.
PSC makes the mistake disrupting 18 year old wet boys from NSF.
Thus PSC suffers the most in bond breaking.
Singapore girls at 18 years old are at least 2 years older in maturity.
When they go off to study, they are 19 years old and in maturity 21 years old alcohol imbibing legal age.
Dear Sir:
Actually do you believe our universities are that autonomous? Seemed to get the impression that they tailor their undergraduate programs inclusive of intake and curriculum according to the targeted flavor of the day industry.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear Sir:
I don’t find it surprising. The folks at UAE have a favorable impression of Singapore. They think that Singapore is small but rich, and tend to have a favorable impression of Singaporeans. There are job agencies that connect Singaporeans to their prospective employers at UAE. BTW did you visit Al Burj and Palm Jumeirah? I have seen on National Geographic that the UAE Clown Prince intends to embark on another project to construct a group of man-made resort islands known as ‘The Globe”.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dear all:
Sorry for my spelling error in my previous message. It’s UAE Crown Prince, not Clown.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Number of opportunities for Life Science grads in BMS manufacturing sector where they don’t need PhDs.
The pharmbio sector will create at least 1,500 new jobs over the next 3-5 years with the new projects coming on-stream
Companies keen to take on new hires from the engineering and science fields.
LS BS graduates usually don’t consider a career in manufacturing. Assume wrongly that research is the only route.
Strong demand from pharmbio companies expanding or setting up new operations in Singapore.
EDB BMS staff working with the universities to generate greater awareness of these opportunities during their Career Days/talks.
There was a report that in Iceland, the boys want to be macho Whale hunters. Captain Ahab caught Moby Dick.
The Iceland girls want to pursue PhD studies.
Different role models.
BIG difference!
———————————–
It’s UAE Crown Prince, not Clown.
No time this time.
Energy matters.
________________________
BTW did you visit Al Burj and Palm Jumeirah?
Tailor to what their current faculty can teach.
Like plant and fish biology.
Like IMA, rice and cotton research.
___________________________
they tailor their undergraduate programs inclusive of intake and curriculum according to the targeted flavor of the day industry.
Dear Sir:
Your entourage is visiting the energy provider industries in UAE? Anyway, UAE is a good model to solve water shortage problems., especially with the use of desalination technology. Don’t know if Singaporeans are comfortable with New-Water.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
The Crane // Apr 12, 2007 at 8:01 pm
No time this time.
Energy matters.
________________________
BTW did you visit Al Burj and Palm Jumeirah?
Dear Sir:
I am curious but does A*STAR carry out Virology research, I mean really research on LIVE Viruses? I know there is a Biosafety Level 3 lab at DSO and one at Science Park, but is there such a lab at A*STAR research institutions?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Biopolis labs are all BSL2.
Focus on Immunology.
http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/biomed/action/biomed_strategic_initiatives.do#sign
Singapore is doing a good job to reduce dependency on imported water in the long term.
Newater used primarily by industry.
http://www.pub.gov.sg
Risk takers have no relation to values and bond breaking.
I read the biographies of all these great men.
Men who had high values and honuor their obligations.
They did not break their bond to their people whom they lead.
I do not see brave men following bond breakers to the war front or crossing the oceans 7 times.
_____________________________________________________________
However, it’s still a tendency for males to take the big risk into the unknown, which is why the Alexander The Greats, Genghis Khans, Admiral Zheng Hes, Napolean Bonapartes, plus other great explorers and conquerors are all males. Due to the way the male brains are wired, I don’t find it surprising that you find more male bond breakers than female ones.
Bond breakers have their brains wires really messed up.
Would you follow such dishonorable chaps to the front line and entrust your lives with them???
For those travelling to Middle East.
Careful with the water there especially with washing the eye area. Been advised that Tracoma common cause because of it. Got me long time back. Take care.
Many, many thanks!
____________________________
lkh SINGAPORE // Apr 12, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Careful with the water there especially with washing the eye area. Been advised that Tracoma common cause because of it.
Reproduced here for the benefit of those with no access.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5821/38
Science 6 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5821, pp. 38 - 41
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5821.38
An Asian Tiger’s Bold Experiment
Dennis Normile
As Singapore embarks on a billion-dollar second phase of its makeover as a research hub, critics wonder whether the island nation is really getting its money’s worth
SINGAPORE–From the crest of a low hill in a southern corner of this island state, Philip Yeo makes a sweeping gesture toward a scientific Emerald City: nine gleaming new research buildings teeming with more than 1000 biomedical scientists. “We’ve gone from nothing to this in 5 years,” says Yeo, chair of Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR), a government agency that runs Biopolis, as the campus is known.
Thanks in no small measure to Yeo’s wizardry at winning government support and wooing overseas talent, Biopolis has put this tiny Southeast Asian nation on the biomedical research map. As one indicator of success, the number of papers produced at the flagship Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) zoomed from 82 in 2000 to 165 in 2006, according to Thomson Scientific. Citation rates rival those of institutions with longer histories. Other Biopolis centers are still coming up to speed. But in building up a research capacity from scratch, boasts Yeo, “no other country has ever moved so fast.”
That claim has a number of prominent backers. What’s happened in Singapore in just 5 or 6 years “is pretty darn remarkable,” says Edward Holmes, formerly dean of the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). By comparison, says Holmes, deputy chair of Singapore’s Biomedical Research Council, it took San Diego 40 years to become a biomedical hub. The research enterprise has progressed “beyond my wildest expectations,” adds molecular oncologist Edison Liu, director of the Genome Institute of Singapore.
But some now question whether A*STAR is heading in the right direction. Late last year, in an opinion piece in the influential Straits Times newspaper, Lee Wei Ling, head of Singapore’s National Neuroscience Institute, wrote that “if the present approach is followed without modification, a coherent body of research and success in a series of related fields is unlikely to develop.” Among other things, Lee is skeptical of the reliance on imported scientific talent and believes the overall effort lacks a coherent focus. Her article triggered a rare spectacle in this prim city-state: a public debate over research and development (R&D) policy waged in dueling editorials and opinion pieces.
Yeo brushes off the criticism. “I’m not very good at listening,” he admits. “My forte is getting things done.” But the debate has raised questions about when Singapore can expect to receive an economic payoff from the 2 billion Singapore dollars ($1.3 billion) spent so far on building and staffing Yeo’s field of dreams. And A*STAR can expect closer scrutiny as it embarks on the $1.3 billion second phase of its biomedical initiative: another batch of institutes with links to hospitals to extend the research to patients.
Whale hunting
In June 2000, Singapore unveiled a National Biomedical Science Strategy to make this research area a central pillar of a knowledge-driven economy (Science, 30 August 2002, p. 1470). The first phase called for creating a public research infrastructure that would generate discoveries, train personnel for big pharma R&D, spin off start-up firms, and generally build up local expertise in biomedical sciences.
Tapped to implement the strategy was Yeo, an engineer with a Harvard University MBA who was named chair of the National Science and Technology Board, which became A*STAR. A career civil servant, Yeo is credited with having led Singapore’s drive into semiconductors and specialty chemicals while chair of the Economic Development Board. A colleague describes Yeo’s lifestyle as “ascetic” and giving new meaning to the word “workaholic.” He is relentlessly cheerful, peppering facts and numbers with wisecracks.
When the biomedical strategy was launched, Singapore had a single life sciences institute, IMCB, affiliated at the time with the National University of Singapore, plus a center on pharmaceutical technologies under the Economic Development Board. A*STAR took charge of both and created three more institutes, building Biopolis to house them. To staff the labs, Yeo started luring scientific stars from abroad, in some cases spending years to fill a strategic post.
A big catch early on was Liu, imported in 2001 from the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, to head Singapore’s newly minted Genome Institute. Researchers there quickly made their mark, becoming the first in the world to sequence the SARS virus at the height of that crisis in 2003.
Since then, Liu has been joined by an array of world-class scientists. For example, David Lane, renowned for his work on the p53 tumor suppressor gene, is on a sabbatical from the University of Dundee, U.K., to head IMCB. In addition to an international standing, Lane brought to the job wide-ranging contacts and industrial acumen–in 1996, he founded Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, which is developing novel cancer drugs. Lane says the contacts are important for an institute so distant from established research centers of the United States and Europe. And his Cyclacel experience helps when exploring interactions with pharma executives.
Yeo lured others to Singapore by dangling irresistible research opportunities. Nancy Jenkins and Neal Copeland, a wife-husband team of mouse geneticists, say they opted for Singapore to escape tightening budgets and restrictions on consulting work at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In the United States, says Copeland, “there wasn’t a lot of new money to do new things.” At IMCB, he says, they are assured of generous funding for their work developing mouse models for human cancers, and they’re encouraged to interact with companies.
Yeo has also imported heavyweight administrators to run institutes and develop policy. The roster includes the husband-wife team of UCSD’s Holmes and Judith Swain, who was the university’s dean of translational medicine; Philippe Kourilsky, former president of the Pasteur Institute in Paris; and George Radda, former chief of the U.K.’s Medical Research Council.
Yeo calls these senior figures “whales” who have schools of ambitious young researchers–”guppies”–trailing in their wakes. So far, roughly 75% of the 500 or so Ph.D.-level Biopolis researchers are foreigners. Aiming for a 50-50 balance among A*STAR’s institutes, Singapore plans to send abroad and fund some 1000 students to earn undergraduate to Ph.D. degrees at top foreign universities by 2015. The full ride costs more than 900,000 Singapore dollars ($590,000)–his “million-dollar kids,” Yeo says. The presence of senior scientists in Singapore, Lane adds, ensures that scholarship students “will continue to have outstanding mentoring when they come back here.”
Building a research effort from scratch has made it easy to create institutions with complementary aims, says Lane. “In most countries, the rivalries between institutions can hold them back from working together in a successful way,” he says. Another Singaporean strength is a small, pragmatic government to oversee the initiative, argues Yeo, who professes disdain for bigger and messier democratic systems. “Look at how the guys in California are fighting [over plans for] stem cells,” Yeo says. “Nothing is moving!”
A*STAR claims to be nearing its economic goals of generating 25 billion Singapore dollars ($16.4 billion) in biomedical manufacturing and 15,000 jobs in the sector by 2015. Last year, manufacturing output hit S$23 billion, having almost quadrupled in the past 6 years. Biomedical employment grew 3.9% to reach 10,571. The agency figures that investment commitments in 2006 will add 1800 jobs when facilities come online. And private spending on biomedical R&D in 2005 reached 35% of the nation’s total R&D spending, up from 28.5% in 2001.
A voice in the wilderness
Not everyone buys that rosy picture. Lee’s broadside in The Straits Times last November questioned the strategy of hiring “foreign stars and then letting them decide for themselves what areas of research to engage.” She criticized the initiative as lacking coordination and called for a lead agency to take control and identify niches in which Singapore could excel. Examples she gave included hepatitis B, liver and stomach cancer, autoimmune diseases, and head injury. “Smaller countries with limited resources have to be more focused on how those resources are used,” Lee wrote.
The critique carried particular weight in Singapore, given Lee’s membership in what one researcher refers to as Singapore’s “ruling family.” She’s the daughter of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s revered first prime minister.
Lee’s piece “created a stir in the entire A*STAR community,” says IMCB’s Copeland. But neither A*STAR nor Yeo made a formal response. So a week before A*STAR held its annual press briefing on the biomedical initiative on 6 February, Lee repeated her claims in an interview with Reuters. Not surprisingly, questions about Lee’s comments dominated the briefing. At the time, Yeo said that he intended to “just ignore” criticism from “one voice in the wilderness.” And he mocked Lee’s recommendations. Childhood vaccinations have vanquished hepatitis B among Singaporeans, Yeo says. And rather than spend money on head-injury research, he told Science, “it would be cheaper to give every child a crash helmet.”
Lee declined to comment further, writing in an e-mail to Science, “The points have been put across to the small number of individuals I was targeting.” Her views have gotten oblique support from Ting Choon Meng, a physician and founder of medical device maker HealthSTATS. In a January Straits Times article, Ting argued that Singapore’s researchers are “putting the cart before the horse” by overlooking the practical payoffs of research. “As a nation and as individuals, we have begun to showcase our innovations. But we may still end up not fully reaping the rewards of our IP ideas,” he wrote.
Yeo may have little time for critics. But his star scientists, perhaps more used to defending science policies, are keen to make the case that research in Singapore can be both globally significant and locally relevant. “Everybody agrees, it’s a small place and you need to focus,” says Copeland. But “people are focusing,” he says. Cancer is one target, and a majority of Yeo’s recruits work on themes related to cancer. Swain adds that as translational medicine extends to work with patients, it is imperative to align with local needs. One example is gastric cancer, which for genetic and dietary reasons is prevalent in Asia.
Whether the initiative is giving the economy the desired kick is trickier to assess. Singapore had big pharma investment before the initiative: Production at drug company plants reached S$6.4 billion in 2000. And most observers agree that pharma investment would have continued to grow even in the absence of the biomedical strategy. A*STAR officials counter that their bootstrapping efforts have boosted the value of the manufacturing, moving from simple molecules to biologics: drugs cultured from living cells. And they maintain that the growing pool of trained researchers is attracting additional interest from big pharma. Within the last few weeks, GlaxoSmithKline opened a $13 million medicinal chemistry outfit at Biopolis that will double the firm’s research corps in Singapore to 60; and Eli Lilly announced a 5-year, $150 million plan to boost its drug-discovery efforts in Singapore in part by tripling its R&D staff to 150.
Last November, the World Bank published a report examining how six Asian cities–Bangkok, Beijing, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, and Tokyo–are seeking new strategies for economic growth. World Bank economist Shahid Yusuf says that he and co-author Kaoru Nabeshima are impressed at how quickly Singapore has put together an infrastructure resembling that of San Diego and other hot spots. But he notes that research budgets are rising across Asia, and other rivals have biotech strategies. “When all of them get into this business, how will that affect the others’ prospects?” he asks. As for Singapore, which has invested more heavily than others in biotech, Yusuf says, the questions are: “How much longer do they need to wait, and will [the returns] be large enough to provide a major engine of growth for Singapore?”
Yeo dismisses the report. “I don’t believe World Bank people are competent to make recommendations to Singapore,” he says.
Safe for now
In the wake of the debate touched off by Lee’s article, Singapore’s leaders have signaled their confidence in the National Biomedical Science Strategy. Most recently, in a 14 February speech unveiling the fiscal 2007 budget, Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said, “It is too early to evaluate the results of our R&D initiatives. But from [the Ministry of Finance's] perspective, I am satisfied that this is a good use of public funds.”
That’s A*STAR’s reading as well. It’s forging ahead full-speed with phase two. A pair of new centers, the Institute for Clinical Sciences and the Singapore Immunology Network, will link bench researchers and staff at local hospitals to pursue clinical studies. The Ministry of Health is developing programs to enable clinicians to devote part of their time to research. And it plans a new medical school in cooperation with Duke University.
Swain, head of the Institute for Clinical Sciences, believes Singapore’s unique mix of Indians, Malays, and Chinese “could be a competitive advantage” for studies of how different ethnicities respond to drugs. One disadvantage, however, is a small population size. Alan Colman, CEO of ES Cell International, says his firm is likely to go to the United States or Europe with their cardio stem cell therapy when it is ready for trials.
Whether Singapore can sustain its rapid development in biomedical science is another open question. Much may depend on the success of Biopolis managers in keeping senior scientists rooted to the island. Lane says he will move back to Dundee at the end of 2007, although he plans to spend “considerable time” in Singapore for research and to advise A*STAR.
One looming uncertainty is whether Biopolis can continue on its present trajectory without the energy of Yeo, who stepped down as A*STAR’s chair on 1 April. Yeo is not going far, however. He will chair an arm of the Ministry of Trade and Industry that promotes small and medium-sized businesses. He will also serve as a policy adviser to the prime minister.
Striding across the hill near Biopolis, Yeo doesn’t sound as though his interest in biomedicine is waning. He points to two just-completed Biopolis buildings now being fitted out for new labs. Nearby, several low-rise buildings will soon be demolished to make way for a Biopolis daycare center. A bit farther, cranes are topping out the two towers of Fusionopolis, a S$550 million Biopolis clone in which A*STAR is gathering six institutes that work on information and communications technologies. Yeo can’t contain his enthusiasm. “Come back in another few years and see what’s here,” he says.
Thanks. I like the last part, CRANES and all that
_______________
The Crane // Apr 13, 2007 at 1:50 am
Reproduced here for the benefit of those with no access.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5821/38
Science 6 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5821, pp. 38 - 41
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5821.38
An Asian Tiger’s Bold Experiment
Dennis Normile
Dear Sir:
You have a point there. Great men do not run away from their obligations. Most of the time they honor their obligations to whatever ostensible clause.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
The Crane // Apr 12, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Risk takers have no relation to values and bond breaking.
I read the biographies of all these great men.
Men who had high values and honuor their obligations.
They did not break their bond to their people whom they lead.
I do not see brave men following bond breakers to the war front or crossing the oceans 7 times.
Dear Sir:
Apparently Singapore has a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory at DSO. Singapore also has a mobile BSL 4 laboratory for conducting autopsies, one of the first kind in the world.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
The Crane // Apr 12, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Risk takers have no relation to values and bond breaking.
I read the biographies of all these great men.
Men who had high values and honuor their obligations.
They did not break their bond to their people whom they lead.
I do not see brave men following bond breakers to the war front or crossing the oceans 7 times.
Perfer not to have BSL4 at Biopolis which will be a community of 3000 - 4000 plus eventually.
—————————————————–
Without Cranes, there will be no high rise buildings.
No Biopolis and Fusionopolis.
The Crane flying high sees a bird’s eye view.
Frogs and toads see “well view” only.
Leaders of men lead and sacrifice for their men.
Cowards (bond breakers) run away from their men with excuses aplenty.
_________________________
You have a point there. Great men do not run away from their obligations. Most of the time they honor their obligations to whatever ostensible clause.
Dear Sir:
I have noticed you have touched down in Singapore. Back to home sweet home!
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Leaders of men in some Arab tribes get to eat the bbq spiced lamb’s eye in ” desert powwow”. So do guests of honour who visit these proud people. If you happened to be there honoured, it’s nice to have a non bond-breaking guy standing by to gulp that on your behalf
No place like home.
Speaking of which, I doubt I will be home till I don’t know when…
Great to be home.
.
On road again in one week’s time.
Should be compensated by long air mileage on the butt and walking on the sore feet.
Well…it can’t be that bad since u get to fly first class or business class…:p
Try sitting on your butt for 18 plus hours from Spore to NY. A dozen trips a year. Sore butt. Back ache. No massage/chiropractor allowances.
I stick to Lamb Chop.:-D
Poor you.
Don’t miss Singapore food?
______________________
Speaking of which, I doubt I will be home till I don’t know when…
Good idea! It will be bonus payment.
_____________
it’s nice to have a non bond-breaking guy standing by to gulp that on your behalf
Welcome back.
As long as you don’t fly on some obscure airlines. Many years back, on transit landing in a Tanzanian airport, the fuel tank leakage on one wing of plane was sprinkling onto our portholes. Scared stiff.
After repairs (probably with chewing gum..joking), it was about to take off again, and two passengers were standing inside without seats. Pulled off by security to the relief of those lucky musical chairs winners.
Dear Sir:
I think SIA would be ordering a fleet of Airbus A380 from Boeing. It’s a luxury flight and you are guaranteed not to be on your butts for 18 hours! You have a shopping centre, a casino and many other facilites on board!
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
I imagine they can provide several threadmills, sauna cubicles and individual bubbly pools. That would be nice for long haul flights. And, on pay to use, so every class travellers can have a go at it. Just predicting
For me the most important facility is wireless Internet access.
That will keep me happy as I can “harass” my chaps 24X7.
Unfortunately, Boeing Connexion wireless service, being unprofitable, has been cancelled. :’(
Back massage services will “make up” for lack of Internet access.
“Poor you.
Don’t miss Singapore food?”
I don’t know…I am pretty used to the food here, being here for years and I tend not to eat very much to begin with…:p
yeah…those flights between Singapore and the US are long…Prob explains why I tend not to go home too often…hopefully u get more luxury service when u fly the next time….:P
If you can cook (not me!), you can buy almost all the Singapore cooking ingredients from Prima in Boston, NY, SFO and even in San Diego.
No matter how luxurious or comfortable, 18 hours on the butt dulls the brain.
April 16, 2007
Virginia Tech Shooting Kills at Least 20
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and ANAHAD O’CONNOR
At least 20 people were killed today, some of them students, and more were injured during shootings at Virginian Tech University, some of them at a classroom on the campus, the police said. The gunman was also shot to death, officials said at a news conference, but details about the incident and about the identity of the gunman were still unfolding.
“Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions,†said the university’s president, Charles Steger.
There were two shootings, and in each case fatalities with “multiple shooting victims,†he said.
A police official said there were “at least 20 fatalities,†and that some of the victims were shot in the classroom. News of the number of the fatalities sent up an audible gasp in the news conference, said on television reporter in the broadcast.
The shooting was partially captured on a student’s cellphone video camera showing grainy black figures on the street outside of campus buildings. Popping sounds from the gunfire were audible.
“This place is in a state of panic,†said a student who was interviewed on CNN, Shaver Deyerle. “Nobody knew what was going on at first.â€
A few details emerged from the news conference. At 7:15 a.m., an emergency 911 call came in to University police department about a shooting at a campus building, and then another call reported a shooting in Norris hall. The shooter there is deceased, the police said.
#
9.
April 16th,
2007
1:15 pm
absolutely horrible. Why an avg college student can get his hands on automatic weapons or hand guns is beyond me. Those guns simply should not be available. There is no rational reason for them to be allowed. None. I pray for those families and those who have to go back to campus. It will never be the same for sometime.
— Posted by jose
#
7.
April 16th,
2007
1:11 pm
This is an absolutely appalling tragedy. What are we turning into, al-Qaeda itself? Time to kick the NRA to the curb and do something about America’s gun mania. Good thing the shooter was killed, but it doesn’t go far enough. I would be all for irreversibly sterilizing all of his close family members (I’m sure it was a male shooter), and continuing that group punishment until this type of human is removed from the gene pool. They are not needed by our society, and just like smallpox, it’s time we eradicated them.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
Yep, definitely heard abt the shooting at Virginia Tech…Interestingly one of the guys in my research group is currently a faculty there…scarry…
Virginia Tech is a good school.
Poor kids there. Sad for parents of the innocent victims.
They should ban NRA and all guns.
Yeah…I would have been traumatised if I were one of the students in the school…just so shocking that such things happen in college…
Dear Sir:
Indeed it’s a sad event. Condolences to the victims
I hope there are no Singaporeans on the Virginia Tech campus at the time of the shooting and if they are, hope they are safe and sound.
Think it’s time they beef up school security by placing metal detectors at strategic points.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
April 17, 2007
32 Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus
By JOHN M. BRODER
BLACKSBURG, Va., April 16 Â Thirty-two people were killed, along with a gunman, and at least 15 injured in two shooting attacks at Virginia Polytechnic Institute on Monday during three hours of horror and chaos on this sprawling campus.
The police and witnesses said some victims were executed with handguns while other students were hurt jumping from upper-story windows of the classroom building where most of the killings occurred. After the second round of killings, the gunman killed himself, the police said.
It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history and came nearly eight years to the day after 13 people died at Columbine High School in Colorado at the hands of two disaffected students who then killed themselves.
As of Monday evening, only one of the Virginia Tech victims had been officially identified. Police officials said they were not yet ready to identify the gunman or even say whether one person was behind both attacks, which wreaked devastation on this campus of 36,000 students, faculty members and staff.
Virginia imposes few restrictions on the purchase of handguns and no requirement for any kind of licensing or training. The state does limit handgun purchases to one per month to discourage bulk buying and resale, state officials said.
Once a person had passed the required background check, state law requires that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies. However, no regulations and no background checks are required for purchase of weapons at a Virginia gun show.
“Virginia’s gun laws are some of the weakest state laws in the country,†said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “And where there have been attempts to make some changes, a backdoor always opens to get around the changes, like the easy access at gun shows.â€
Weak gun licensing. And to think you need a licence to fish with a rod in SFO bay. A friend remembers he went fishing with son and applied for one. Was “hauled” to court anyway when spotted by cop for having another fishing gear (his little kid’s). 2 permits required
Amazing logic!
Cheaper to buy fish in the market. ha!
__________________________________
Was “hauled†to court anyway when spotted by cop for having another fishing gear (his little kid’s).
2 permits required
Well…I guess it is hard to understand but the US is so huge that every state feels almost like a different country with its own laws and such…
Be careful in the current Anti-Asian mood because of the S Korean killer.
Warned my kids too.
———————————————-
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 19, 2007 at 7:46 am
Well…I guess it is hard to understand but the US is so huge that every state feels almost like a different country with its own laws and such…
Dear Sir:
I came across a plethora of news websites on the Virginia Tech shootouts, and the impression I get is that they are focusing on his regional origin. Probably you can print some T-shirts with the words “I am SINGAPOREAN and PRO-AMERICAN!” and get your kids to wear them outside to tell the Americans that they are on the American side
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Well…haven’t felt the impact of any anti-asian sentiments yet though the journalism was somewhat irresponsible in its unwanted emphasis of his race…
I am a Singaporean. I do not like guns. Ha!
The wicked news chaps keep harping on his origin ~ to sell more papers.
Poor S Koreans. One bad apple and the whole barrel is condemned.
It is really unfortunate. Any sensible person will not look associate race in this tragedy. The newspapers will later shift the focus to faulty gun laws and high school bullying. Something like this will not be viewed in a single dimension by the US media, they are more sophisticated than that.
Sometimes the public wants fast answers and quick solutions like banning firearms. While such ’solutions’ might seem right and would certainly work…it will mask other underlying problems like rising violence in computer games and movies. They have allowed guns for 100+ years, it is only recently that we see such senseless acts of violence. Without guns, these murderers might run amok with a chopper and kill fewer people in the rampage.
I don’t like guns, I think they should be banned too. I also don’t like the increased sex and violence in our popular culture. I blame hollywood, the need to catered to an audience whose threshold is rising every year.
True. In video games, the virtual victims can re-start.
Not in real life.
Liberal violence rating in Hollywood (Moneywood).
_________________________________
it will mask other underlying problems like rising violence in computer games and movies.
VT Killer’s Hammer Pose Resembles Movie
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:33 a.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) — One of the photographs in the Virginia Tech killer’s ”multimedia manifesto” may have been inspired by a bloody South Korean movie, adding to the debate over the influence of pop culture on heinous crimes.
”Oldboy,” from the respected director Chan-woo Park, is about a man mysteriously imprisoned for 15 years. After escaping, he goes on a rampage against his captor. In one stylized and plainly unrealistic scene, he dispatches more than a dozen henchmen with the aid of a hammer.
In the package of materials that Cho Seung-Hui sent to NBC News, one photo shows Cho brandishing a hammer in a pose similar to the movie’s signature image, which was splashed across its promotional posters.
The photograph with the hammer stood out from the other 42 photos, which generally showed Cho posing with handguns in a military-style vest and backward baseball cap.
The second film in Park’s ”Vengeance Trilogy,” ”Oldboy” won the Grand Prix prize at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. It was hugely popular in South Korea, where more than three million people saw it.
The connection was spotted by Professor Paul Harris of Virginia Tech, who alerted authorities. The similarities have prompted speculation, especially in online forums, that Cho’s massacre may have been partly inspired by ”Oldboy.”
There was no apparent link between Cho and ”Oldboy” besides the lone photograph among the 28 video clips, 23-page written message and 43 self-portrait photos that he sent to NBC. Cho killed the 32 victims with a handgun and a pistol, and did not seem to reference the film in any of his notes or messages.
A screenplay written by Cho, however, did feature killings with a hammer.
Col. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, said investigators had reviewed Cho’s photographs and videos and said he knew of no connection between Cho and the movie.
Tartan Films, which distributed ”Oldboy” in the U.S., said in a statement Thursday: ”To be associated in any way with the tragic events that occurred at Virginia Tech is extremely disturbing and distressing. It is clear from news reports that the individual who perpetrated this heinous crime was deeply troubled. We believe that anyone would find it hard to explain his motives or actions.”
Notorious killers are commonly linked to movies or music. The trench coats worn by the Columbine murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were seen by some as reflective of those worn in ”The Matrix.” Some also assigned blame to Goth rocker Marilyn Manson, who later criticized the media in his song ”Target Audience (Narcissus Narcosis).”
The late rapper Tupac Shakur was claimed to have inspired a number of killings, including the murder of four students and wounding of ten others in Jonesboro, Ark. in 1998 by Mitchell Johnson.
One of the earlier examples of pop culture being connected to a mass homicide was the link between the Beatles and Charles Manson, who was captivated by the song ”Helter Skelter.”
Loren Coleman, author of ”The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines,” says that he’s gradually coming to see Cho as a ”copycat of many things,” especially Columbine. In one missive, Cho referred to the Harris and Klebold as ”martyrs.”
”This in-depth analysis of his manifesto and this document, we may get some hints there, but this was a person that was terribly imbalanced,” Coleman said. ”To look for clues rationally in such an irrational document is really a fool’s game.”
Writing for the Huffington Post, filmmaker Bob Cesca dismissed Cho’s ”Oldboy” connection as ”the most ridiculous yet,” and noted many other popular culture references that feature images of a raised hammer.
”It seems like a cop-out, like an easy way out to explain away a tragedy like this,” Cesca said Thursday. ”Clearly I think the primary issue here is mental illness. It could be any number of things that maybe had a small part in this, but to create (a movie) as a trigger is missing the bigger picture.”
During my time, there was this game called “Rise of the triad” where there is a large amount of gore involved. When you blast the virtual victimes, all his entrails will come flying out. In more recent times, there is this game called “Half Life counterstrike”. Also lots of shooting and killing.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Sane people know that these games are not real.
But a few insane people take it to be real.
VT was aware of this insane chap.
But the hot potato was passed around.
32 lives gone. Sad.
Anger of Killer Was on Exhibit in His Writings
By MARC SANTORA and CHRISTINE HAUSER
BLACKSBURG, Va., April 19 Â More than anyone else on the Virginia Tech campus, it was the professors and students in the English department who knew of the mental turmoil of Cho Seung-Hui.
Where the Virginia Tech police only heard scattered reports of his harassing behavior, and mental health professionals knew of his suicidal tendencies, it was the English department  where he was a major  that read his writings and saw the images of persecution, revenge and anger that they revealed, many months before he erupted into violence on Monday and killed 32 people, as well as himself.
And those English professors and students appear to have worked harder than anyone to intervene in his life. Trying to balance the freedom needed to be creative against the warning signs of psychosis, as many as eight of his teachers in the last 18 months had formed what one called a “task force†to discuss how to handle him, gathering twice on the subject and frequently communicating among themselves.
On at least two separate occasions they reached out to university officials, telling them as recently as this September that Mr. Cho was trouble. They made little headway, however, and no action was taken by school administrators in response to their concerns.
The students also made their fears known, some even refusing to attend class as long Mr. Cho was there. Others tried to reach out to him.
Ross Alameddine sat a few feet from Mr. Cho for months in a class examining contemporary horror films and literature. Both students were required to keep what were known as “fear journals,†where they chronicled both their reaction to the material covered in class and their own fears.
Mr. Alameddine, according to classmates, made an effort to speak to Mr. Cho on several occasions, trying to draw him out of his closed world and his refusal to interact with other students.
On Monday, Mr. Cho shot and killed Mr. Alameddine.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Cho targeted his classmate, but it is the first time one of the victims has been connected to Mr. Cho before the shootings.
The class they took together was new, offered for the first time last fall. The students studied movies like “Friday the 13th†and read Stephen King, H. P. Lovecraft and Patricia Cornwall novels. “We had a whole discussion on serial killers,†said one student, who asked that she not be named because she wanted to avoid a crush of attention from the news media.
Mr. Cho never spoke during the discussion, she said, but he took notes.
The student and Mr. Cho were in another class as well, a small class on playwriting, during which she grew fascinated by him.
“In all honesty, I took a huge interest in him last semester,†she said. “I never heard him speak a word, and I was so curious about him. I actually tried to follow him after class one day, but he got on a bike and I couldn’t keep up. He had a red bicycle.â€
In interviews with six members of the English faculty who had Mr. Cho in a class or had been in close contact with him, they described how as early as September 2005 and as recently as September 2006, they found themselves struggling to define the line between a legitimate work of self-expression and one of violent or sick imagery that needed to be restrained.
“Sometimes, in creative writing, people reveal things and you never know if it’s creative or if they’re describing things, if they’re imagining things or just how real it might be,†said Prof. Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the English Department. “But we’re all alert to not ignore things like this.â€
Lisa Norris, an English professor, said that, outside of an explicit threat that was rooted in reality, it would be impossible to have some kind of standard by which to judge whether a student’s work was so alarming as to warrant intervention.
“If the student seems abnormal in his behavior or affect and is writing about violence, then there could be something to worry about  particularly if the resolution of the story includes suicide or murder for major characters or otherwise ends in despair,†she said. “It is not necessarily the work alone that raises concern, but the work plus the student’s affect and behavior.â€
In Mr. Cho’s case, she was alarmed before he had written a word.
When he signed up for the 10-person workshop she taught this year, Professor Norris was worried that he simply would not communicate, and in September she reached out to one of her superiors, Mary Ann Lewis, the associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. She said Ms. Lewis was helpful but had no information about prior problems, including his hospitalization at a mental health facility in 2005. Ms. Lewis said she had no comment on the conversation.
But Mr. Cho’s bizarre behavior was evident to students, faculty and police going back to 2005.
“Nobody took too much notice of him except for that’s the kinda weird quiet kid who never talks,†said Steven Davis, 23, a senior who was in a drama class with him. “Until we read his work. And then it was like whoa, something is off.â€
One woman, an English major who was in a contemporary British fiction class with Mr. Cho in the fall of 2005 and who asked not to be identified, said he sent her unsolicited electronic messages after seeing her in class and then looking her up on the Facebook Web site.
Mr. Cho, she said, also stalked another girl in the class, scaring her so badly that she went to the police that December.
That matches the campus police account of a woman who came to them in December 2005, part of a series of events that culminated with Mr. Cho being held for psychiatric evaluation and later released.
She said Mr. Cho knew things about her family that would be difficult to know without serious effort. For instance, he knew what sports her siblings played in high school.
Beyond that, he simply acted strange. On the first day of class the teacher asked everyone to stand up and introduce themselves.
“When it was his turn, he didn’t stand up and he said his name was Question Mark,†she said.
Professor Lucinda Roy, who was the head of the English Department in the fall of 2005, chose to deal with Mr. Cho by removing him from a group class and tutoring him. She also passed along his writing, which she described as “angry,†to both the Virgnia Tech police and the university counseling service.
Prof. Edward Falco, who last semester had him in a playwrighting class, did not make the other students read or critique two of Mr. Cho’s plays that contained violent images and profane language. But he alerted other faculty members, and learned that they, too, had been concerned.
After the shooting Monday, Professor Falco’s students began sending him messages about how they felt guilty for not doing or saying something earlier. Professor Falco responded in an e-mail message, hoping to help put their minds at ease.
“There was violence in Cho’s writing  but there is a huge difference between writing about violence and behaving violently,†he wrote. “We could not have known what he would do.â€
Speaking of games, I see some people getting pretty engrossed, spending hours, skipping meals and sleep as they get addicted. Isn’t good for their social development too.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee for a doctor you seem to talk a whole of shit. Perhaps I should take a special interest in your post from now onwards.
Care to give me a haircut and a pedicure?
Definitely a foul mouthed toad.
Listerine would not help.
_____________________________
darkness SINGAPORE // Apr 21, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Dr Dee for a doctor you seem to talk a whole of shit. Perhaps I should take a special interest in your post from now onwards.
Care to give me a haircut and a pedicure?
Dr Dee should shave “darkness” totally bald.
fouled mouth but very adorable. I think Dr Dee has taken a very long sabbatical. BTW they r all bond breakers every single one of them
Hey, Phil. You know why 99% of the scholars dont come here dont you. Bc we dont need to suck to you or even find anything you or anyone here say remotely interesting enough to allow us to identify with it. There are only a few sucker guppies here, the ones who can really swim by themselves dont need to listen your boring rants, thats the reason why all of them are over the other side. Now you know why none of us come here.
14-year old kids having nothing else to do after school and decide to leave some nonsensical graffiti on this post.
Go watch cartoons or something.
Hey, jian hai. I agree with Sparky Twoshoes.
Dear Sir:
Yeah. If I ever lifted the hairdressers’ shaver/scissor, that’s the only style I know, of course the fellow has to go through some pain.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
LKH:
Don’t understand who are the sucker guppies here. Never did remember you, me or the other Singapore tagged posters claimed to be working for A*STAR, save for a scholar or two who contributed a momentary post and has since moved on. Some people just bash for MISINFORMATION’S sake like a blind cyborg who has lost his bearings. If half truths are really terrible, then I must say that false truths are really the 18th level of Hell. Sigh.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
Dr Dee,
Just as perplexed here. You meant these foulmouthed blind toady cybord? lol.
Dr Dee,
Just as perplexed here. You meant these bald foulmouthed blind toady cybords? lol.
ooops. Intentional, sorry.
personally no interest in name-calling…each to his own…
frogs are nice and cute
one can always kiss them and they will turn into charming princes 
Put one next to your pillow.
Starlet,
Tickles my already funny bones.. spontaneous reaction without the (!)… but you’re right in most civil environment, yours.. a good principle.
Wud’nt mind my betterhalf calling me ” sexy frog prince” in jest tho.
He is a mournful toad. Just look at the way he rants on and on abt writing. So cute. I just really like the way he writes bc there is really no one like him in the Sing blog scene. My mother warned me against guys like that.
Hi,
You see I think it has everything to do with earning power.
When I was in Uni. I noticed there were two types of scholars. The fliers and the fallen. The latter were the guys who were always the rebellious type. Eventually they ran into trouble with their grants, forcing them to work and study at the same time.
Generally, it was easy to spot out the fallen, they would sit at the back of the class, smoke and drink etc. If they even bothered to come to lectures. Some of them never even bothered.
Later on in life when I started working I realized life is very fair.
This flier I know is doing comparatively well. He commands a five figure salary every month, but he is still a salary man.
This other fallen star I know however is a business man who never ever seemed to hold on to a job. So one day he started a business in the bay area in the US.
Todayand he makes roughly what the flier makes in a month by just playing a round of golf with his clients.
So I think when those ppl hear you talk about life. They will just say it is “unreal” or maybe an “admirable sentiment.”
At the end of the day. I am not a scholar or anything. I dont even have a degree, just a diploma but in my opinion, if I had to do it all again.
I rather put my money on the fallen than the flier. So I wonder really, who really is the real frog? Just my 2 cents
Ermm…
I don’t get it.
Quoted from caleb:
“When I was in Uni. I noticed there were two types of scholars.”
Quoted from caleb:
“I dont even have a degree, just a diploma but in my opinion, if I had to do it all again. ”
So… you came from uni or got a diploma or….
Anyway, what if you had 1000 fallen and 1000 fliers. Would you put -all- your money on -all- the fallen?
I know of fallen who are earning lots today, and fallen who like what you said, cannot hold on to a job, cannot even start own business, riddled with debt. Likewise there are fliers who lack life skills, what some people would call high-IQ-low-EQ, and there are fliers who achieve. They don’t have to be salary-people too, at that.
Point is, anecdotal evidence may not be representative of actual trend. My 2 baht.
ST,
Just imagine where would you be today if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs came to you twenty odd years ago and said,
“Will you run with me? I have an idea that will change the world.”
I think Caleb’s point is simply this. You dont need a thousand Microsofts or even a thousand Apple Computers.
All you really need to make the quantum leap is the power of one.
You are right in saying
“anecdotal evidence may not be representative of actual trend.”
But that incidentally is also the same reason why there will never ever be a Singaporean Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
They aren’t even in the trend.
Think about that.
Dear Ex-Chairman,
It’s good to hear that you have started your new life in SPRING.
We are doing fine here at Stanford and working hard to finish our studies. Some guy from the Silicon Valley has asked us to break our bond and join them such that we can create million dollar companies like Google.
After serious thought and since you have left A*STAR, we thought that we should give it a go. We thought about it because we think carefully about our future. Although we have been bootlicking to you for the past few years, these are our real thoughts:
Your ex-management are a bunch of mean people. They are just a group of yes-men and I often see the fear in their face around you. They are all ball-less and we cannot create new innovations when we have constant bunch of assholes looking over our back.
We don’t being guppies, because we have backbone. Those whales are just free-loading in Singapore especially they dined in the stupid Bristo Bar, and we think that you have whored us to them. So, being slaves to some “whales” are not what we want for our lives.
We enjoy the passion of studying science here and we just think that it’s waste of time to go back to biopolis and be a slave. Singapore is neither building the large hadron collider nor sequencing the monkey genome. We might as well break our bond and have brighter futures.
It’s easy to imagine A* without you because we are sick and tired of your antics. Our other Singaporean friends are ashamed of your rude and arrogant behaviour. Sometimes, when I have dinner, I have to tolerate your bullshit. I want to punch you in the face or slap you on the face to wake you up to the real world.
So, THANK YOU for paying us to go overseas and then dump your kindness to the drain. We are sure that your efforts in SPRING will be unappreciated like the old days.
and have a happy Labour day.
With warmest regards,
Air*STAR scholar
Fall Guy,
Agreed. Food for thought.
Post 462 is just plain rude, evil and petulant. It spoils the whole mood of a civil discourse. If the webmaster con’t doing nothing short of removing it. I will just have to go somewhere else, I am afraid.
HAL 9000,
Suit yourself. Nobody is stopping you. Welcome to the internet.
The full of Air guy behind Post462, 465,
You mean ..hide behind the internet with this threat?
_____________
I want to punch you in the face or slap you on the face to wake you up to the real world.
Air guy behind Post462, 465,
You mean ..hide behind the internet with this threat?
_____________
I want to punch you in the face or slap you on the face to wake you up to the real world.
oops ..duplicate, so be it.
Huh?
Is this ballerina discovering her new love interest or ex? Joking?.. me too. Cute.
______________
ballerina // Apr 24, 2007 at 10:48 am
He is a mournful toad. Just look at the way he rants on and on abt writing. So cute. I just really like the way he writes bc there is really no one like him in the Sing blog scene. My mother warned me against guys like that.
Air-Star Scholar is a mad fictitious chap. Definitely a wimp.
With regards to the topic on fliers and fallers…I just feel that everyone has his/her own dreams and aspirations, and as to what extent you would go to fulfill that, will pretty much help determine what you get in life. Of course, different pple with their different analysis of risk and value will end up with different things…Of course, it is easy to admire every person with a success story but who knows of every success stories, how many stories of failures there r…Life is unpredictable…But u do still have a good degree of control over it…
By the way, is it true that scholars are restricted to only work for the specific government organisation that fund their studies…heard Novartis in Singapore had problems trying to get a Singaporean scholar to work for them…
Air-Star Scholar must be a sad frustrated failure masquerading as an A*STAR scholar at Stanford.
Ignore the nut.
——————————————————–
HAL 9000 SINGAPORE // Apr 24, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Post 462 is just plain rude, evil and petulant. It spoils the whole mood of a civil discourse. If the webmaster con’t doing nothing short of removing it. I will just have to go somewhere else, I am afraid.
There is no free lunch in this world.
Maybe in the next world.
All sponsors of scholarships require returned scholars to work in their organizations for the contract period since they have paid heavily for the scholars’ education.
A*STAR is looking into the possibility of exposing some scholars to Pharma R&D labs located at Biopolis after the scholars have worked in A*STAR research institutes for a minimum period of their contract period.
Here it will be a privilege and not an entitlement.
_____________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:24 am
By the way, is it true that scholars are restricted to only work for the specific government organisation that fund their studies…heard Novartis in Singapore had problems trying to get a Singaporean scholar to work for them…
I see I see…Makes perfect sense…Yep, I did say Hi to Alex Matter…His lecture was great. Nice to hear him describing the setup in Singapore…:)
Nicely put n tend to agree. Its not as though n often said ..for every successful or failed guy, there is definitely a woman or man…behind it.
________
Starlet // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:17 am
With regards to the topic on fliers and fallers..
But u do still have a good degree of control over it…
The Crane = Philip Yeo.
Good! Meeting his boss here at Basel, Switzerland this morning.
___________________________________
Starlet UNITED STATES // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:53 am
Yep, I did say Hi to Alex Matter…His lecture was great. Nice to hear him describing the setup in Singapore…:)
Dear Sir:
You galloping all across Europe? Noticed the multitude of EU flags tagged beside your name this few days.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
From Wikipedia.
The Crane : They eat a range of items from suitably sized small rodents, fish, amphibians…
Working for the next (better?) generation.
Off to London this evening..
Q: What predators might prey on cranes?
A: Crane predators vary from place to place since cranes live on so many of the continents. In the United States, animals such as raccoons, fox, and bears may prey on the eggs or young. Wolves prey on unfledged whooping cranes at Wood Buffalo National Park. Adult cranes can usually escape these predators, but cannot escape large birds of prey such as golden eagles. The crane’s large size, aggressive disposition, and its ability to fly provide protection from predators. Humans are the most dangerous predator of cranes. Direct predation occurs in the form of hunting. Twelve western states in the U.S. have hunting seasons on sandhills, along with two Canadian provinces. Furthermore, there is some subsistence hunting in Mexico and Russia, as well as in some areas in Asia. Indirect influences, more difficult to guard against, include disturbance and habitat loss.
You are not invulnerable, definitely someday to be eaten up. That’s the nature of things.
True.
That is Nature’s food chain ecosystem.
Are you my breakfast, lunch or dinner? Or tea time? And vice versa.
Have yet to find time to visit US Parks since I was student there in 1974. Seen far too many factories and labs.
Yet to see a real whale….:-D
Big Bird should subsidise The Eternal Idealist for his Bandwidth…
At least u visited the parks while u r a student. i think I have only been to a couple…:p
Have not been to any park yet.
————————————–
At least u visited the parks while u r a student. i think I have only been to a couple…:p
Hmm… Indoor air not very good for soul.
darkness,
I just want to ask you a simple question, what do you think abt all these “fliers” and “fallers” description.
Hope you reply sir.
Greets,
To me this distinction between fallers and fliers is just a pile of bs - at the end of the day it all boils down to the fit – if suits some people. Nothing wrong with that - if the fit is there – I say, go ahead.
Others - call them what you like, indiscipline, ungrateful or even just plain destructive, but that is how they are hard wired and the harder you try to make them fit in, the more they are going to malfunction and their supervisors will just get high blood pressure - its lose / lose either way you cut it, if you don’t believe me go and do some heuristics and probability analysis - so its best to just smoke a peace pipe and say bye bye.
One way forward is for both grantors and grantees to spend more time clarifying and sharpening the “fit” along side the need to meet long term strategic goals of both parties. I personally feel this should be strategic precondition in the selection process.
Otherwise both are just going to buy into a whole lot of grief two or three years down the road. That’s the case for not only scholarship programs but also marriages, businesses and car maintenance.
When it goes bad, it’s hardly a matter of choice though for some strange reason everyone seems to dress it up as one.
But having said that whatever life choices one makes - you are ultimately responsible for it. Pls remember this, I don’t mince my words here. You are responsible!
Having said that it’s nice to have a sexy level headed bitch like ballerina to rest your tiger beer on in the evenings and give you regular head massages, it takes the edges out of life.
So your main squeeze plays a role here too, you go and figure that part out bc I am not too comfortable with advising ppl on how to lead their personal life.
We live in a world of implications and consequences, so if you find yourself with just your two guli’s sitting down in a trailer park watching the wheel of fortune when you are old because you never bothered to think abt where you’re going.
Don’t go blaming the gahmen or some guy you listened too on TV, aint no one going to break it in two for you except yourself. I want it to be crystal here.
I am just being dead beat honest about it. That’s it, that’s the low down.
Having said all that. You really need to know your sense of worth, aint no one going to give you squat in this planet - thats the first rule.
Doesnt squat matter whether you have a cure for lung cancer, if u dont know deep within yourself what your sense of worth is - you are just worthless and some corporate shark is just going to come along and cap your value.
Thats why I think it is very important to cultivate attitude. You can never have too much attitude in my opinion - a sense of confidence, doesnt even matter whether it is delusional, but attitude is important bc in the business world that is what ppl respect.
So in my view it makes a whole of sense to learn the art of how to slam the table ten or twenty different ways to make yourself larger than life.
That I feel is a key to being financially independent, anything else just reduces you to a salaried slave and it doesnt matter how much you get, 2.2 or 3.0 or even 10 mil - slave you r, but once you take control of your financial destiny things start to change, you see the valence between work and reward - there is a direct co-relation and that goes a long way to give you a sense of confidence.
Thats why when I see an inventor the first question I ask is how much do you think your invention is worth?
If he cannot produce an answer in 2 seconds flat, I will just take it away from him. I will do that, I want to be honest with all of you! I will exploit this man, I will dumb him into servitude - is it fair?
No, but that is life.
I wonder if Sir Darkness would assent to coffee.
I happen to like fallers a lot.
Yet at the same time, to be fair, I think one ought recognise that The Crane was also not in the trend.
If you check back, he does find technocrats distasteful.
And most govt scholars are technocrats: Just because one is in public service doesn’t mean that one must be a technocrat.
Just as I do find it very difficult to admit that I studied political science. It’s not something I see as, me.
It helps to buy a lot of popcorn, methinks.
Because between recent passer-bys, it’s not a case of fallers vs. fliers, but a case of where they work; of where they are at/in.
Placed within the context of industrial demarcations, they’d be fallers for those paradigms; placed within the larger context of Singapore, they’d be fallers within the context of Singapore.
For their characters are the same: eloquence in the manipulation of symbols, can only convey so much.
It’s not a case of who/what you all are, but a case of where you are.
And of course, a matter of being at the right place at the right time with mentors that befit you.
Me? I just watch. If it be true that Darkness and all are scholars too, then I surely have no place in such a discussion.
Because I don’t even qualify.
p.s. I think salaryman vs. non-salaryman is over-rated. Very often, the more power you seem to have, the less you can exercise it. To me, being a salaryman means I have less to worry about and more that I can do for myself in all my silliness.
p.s.2. Maybe it’s just a pity, that none of you play weiqi. I love Literature, yes. But nothing ever did come close, to weiqi.
Maybe I’m just weird, for preferring the Golden Mean.
Doctrine of the Mean. Confucian.
Easy to spot an actor in multi personality guise, ..why? you kno it, darkness or
steamboy, scholarboy, ballerina..same n weird all
lkh,
Hey I don’t even know you and you start the discussion by throwing mud at me? I say you are not giving it a chance. Think abt that.
Calligrapher,
“Being at the right place at the right time.” Granted 10 points. That reminds me after this I need to buy 4 D.
“mentors that befit you,” disagree strongly! 2 points. OK la give discount 2.5 points.
The whole idea of mentoring is passe.
I am not saying for one moment it doesnt work, sure its way of moving forward, like throwing canon balls to propel a boat forward or steam power.
Only the traditional master and apprentice compact raises the issue of long term operational efficiency – does it produce a good return on energy? How cost effective is it? What is it’s underlying operational features?
Knowledge used to be power that no one denies, but let’s look deeper into the whole issue of what mentoring actually is at a systematic level beyond the simple Kung fu master and apprentice relationship; what are the aggregates here? How do they interact with sum which makes up the whole?
Well in a nutshell the whole idea of mentoring leverages on application expertise. That is to say it is mainly an issue of talent and experience rather than theory. A large chunk of mentoring is based on pattern matching; monkey see, monkey do, which is why it’s so dependent on leveraging on past experience. You say what is wrong with that darkness? That’s how knowledge has been traditionally leverage to produce results! I say a whole load of baggage comes with the word “traditional†that suggest to me that it will disable rather than enable producers.
Because I don’t see how it adds any value to the conversion process – mentoring basically is formulaic methodology for lack of a better word. Now I don’t doubt its suitability in certain vocations like candle making, ikebana or how to wear a tuxedo but in the field of engineering, I really question its efficacy and relevance.
What I am saying is it pays dividends to appreciate the limits of mentoring i.e it only works if past performance (necessarily) = future performance. That’s how the relationship is expressed mathematically i.e whenever slight traces of a usability issue is observed, you “must†deduce the underlying implications for design based on an orthodox methodology or error proofing. The ‘must’ here functions as a denomination limiter – I have a problem with that, but then again it could just be me, so I have to insert a caveat here and say, I am not completely certain of the creative process.
So again we are stepping into another quadrant of the hall of mirrors – its one that ask how much of future is predicated on our capacity to cont doing things in the traditional way?
I can talk all day about this but I really wonder who in his right mind would care to listen to such unmitigated diatribe, but you get the general drift.
Ok good the traffic is moving again.
darkness:
By mentoring I don’t mean industry-specific mentoring.
I mean ‘life mentoring’.
My problem is that I can’t find anyone in Singapore thematically similar to my situation. Whereas in Oz, I’d have a much better chance of that.
It’s a bit like why Literature is better than Philosophy.
Oh, and er… My other life is that of a Diatribe Writer. I suppose that’s (partly) why people write stories.
The Crane:
More Taoist than Confucian.
lkh:
Weird is good.
If there were no weirdos then The Crane ought be paid much, much less, no?
cf. Foucault.
darkness
Very powderful stuff like a strong coffee
I think the gist of what you seem to be saying is that mentoring in the context of eng res & dev just perpetuates the status quo.
I don’t want to come across as silly
, but isnt that the whole idea of how acadedemic progress is benchmarked, that is defining a standardized conceptual frame work of a paradigm to reduce it into a constant. 
Then moving ahead based on a fixed constant assumption to prove or disprove.
Otherwise how would we make progress if we all defined a thing as so many things or variables?
ps:I happen to know obby personally
thx
btw could you keep your reply as non-technical and jargon free as possible as there r a few arts and philosophy students who are also expecting to read yr response thx
really hope you will answer us darkness
A weirdo is born every second!
Need a fair $/weirdo rate.
————————————————
If there were no weirdos then The Crane ought be paid much, much less, no?
too cheem…. even for techies.
_______________
btw could you keep your reply as non-technical and jargon free as possible as there r a few arts and philosophy students who are also expecting to read yr response thx
At Imperial College at noon time.
If you understand a construct precisely in one way, say what does the word “understanding†mean? It’s a difficult word because no sooner do you claim you understand it. You run straight into a philosophical hall of mirrors.
Here’s what I think “understanding†really means and I will try my level best to gut out the jargon. Most of us know how to add, subtract and multiply numbers. It’s a language of sorts to express the size, quantity or volume and how they may behave under a given set of conditions.
So if I asked you what is 2 times 2, you will say 4, that’s the traditional benchmark of “understanding†in the traditional sense. But if I asked you what do you “understand†from this video (and pls take yr time bc if you miss this part. I will lose you!) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_N-lRyltM
Now again what is 2 times 2? Now we are all in Babeland. Here the familiar is taken away and replaced by the alien – so again, what do you understand?
So if you understand something in only one way, then I claim you don’t understand it at all: you know it by rote i.e like a monkey trained to pick coconuts or a parrot repeating meaningless words. Where is the value added there?
So you could even say that what you consider to be understanding in this 2 times 2 context is a product of memorization or mugging. You don’t really understand it not at the level of abstraction that allows you to comfortably manipulate it or imagine how it would behave under a set of parametric conditions. Again where is the value added there?
Now just in case some of you think that’s a math trick, lets use another imagery; what do you understand about the Singapore river? Again if your understanding is limited to just a lined drawing in geography book – where is value added there?
Alternatively you might have an image of seeing someone dump a dead body in the middle of the night or some of you may even have rowed your dragon boat there. Images like that are very good for helping you to make sense of stuff. So each of you probably has a dozen different ways to formulate your “understanding†of the Singapore river. The point is that if you have 5, 10, 20 or 40 different meanings or representations of the river, then when you hear somebody talking about it you won’t be having a fuzzy image in your mind. You’ll probably get stuck, but in a few seconds your brain will reboot and scan through 5, 10, 15 of various scenarios to filter the most accurate terms of reference that completes the jig-saw.
This is why philosophers and very literal people constantly mull over the meaning of “understanding,†80% of what Socrates wrote was just based on words, like “meaning†or “what is it?†So if you understand something in just one way, then you don’t functionally understand it at all.
Again how does this relate to creativity and innovation in the context of product development? You go figure it out yourself! All I am saying is if you understand something in just one way, then you are like a man who only knows how to use a hammer. You are just not going to make money – impossible. Think about that!
Again I really wonder what sane person would even take what I say seriously? I don’t even take myself seriously enough to even believe in what I write so why should any of you?
I am stuck in the traffic again!
Greets ICM bum buddies,
Why am I not surprise to see Chandra’s ICM wing of the light bulb brigade turning up in Aaron’s blog even using our SLF to even post!
Firstly let me just say to all of you in the ICM. I consider AI robotics research a dead end. If I had my way I program all of them to head towards the sea to repopulate the coral reef in the West coast in the US. What perplexes me no end is all over the world there are probably three thousand Phd students working on making robots doing the things humans are already doing using 1/100,000,000 of the brain juice to pick their noses, yawn and wink with their programming. Nothing seems ever to be learnt from all this and for some reason the IC mafia troupe for some reason continues to insist that it is ground shattering research.
Every time, I visit Chandra, he rolls out his robots and invites me to either play chess or ask whether I would like to see a striptease. It became clear to me when I asked a few pointed question, these nuts and bolts couldn’t do very much except clap like seals and walk through walls or give some obese student a slip disc.
Since the late 80’s robotics has returned in full force - I can’t for the life of me understand why this should be the case. Because in the last 20 years, maybe there have been less than 7 interesting refereed papers, the rest you use as BBQ starters. Chandra will tell you all sorts of things about AI, how he has pioneer genetic algorithms to zero the decision heuristics, but till today he can’t even replicate results at a consistency or level of reliability that makes all this stuff commercially viable.
That’s why you’ll find that these robotics people always have the best video cams, they treasure their videos - because if it works, it’s a one off wonder tomorrow everyone is on their knees praying again for the same results.
Pls don’t believe me go and verify this yourself. You put a physical robot snake or dinosaur over the same failure analysis parameters. But in every trial run you will never be able get to do the same thing twice. There’s no science there, no mystery here. There’s no replicable experiment. It’s just like studying tea leaves, meaning usually outcomes are the controlled based on tweaking parametric highs and lows to yield a desired outcome, it works only because the parameters are set to allow it to do so – in my book, that’s cheating.
Now that to me is the whole crux of why we keep getting this question you asked cropping up like the return of the zombies regularly in my inbox (what I cannot seem to understand is every time I knock u guys dead, he just sends more zombies. Despite that nice to see you chaps again. ICM pls join us for our weekly cycling rides in BT and do send my warmest to Chandra – he knows I like trash his robots in Urbana from time to time)
“Where is your point to view?—Foucault’s ’subject’ vs. ‘object’; McLuhan’s ‘figure’ vs. ‘ground’”
At the end of this exercise, you should be able to define ‘object’ and ’subject’, as well as ‘figure’ and ‘ground’.
Step 1: Get paper and pen.
Step 2: Draw stick figure of a person with pen on paper.
Step 3: Show diagram to audience and ask, “What is the person doing?”
Step 4: (NB. Instruction to demonstrator: Confirm-plus-guarantee-plus-chop people will say he’s standing somewhere.)
Step 5: Question audience: “How do you know he is standing up? Why can’t he be lying down and I drew a diagram of him from the vantage point atop a building?’
Step 6: Draw a straight line just under stick figure. Repeat #3; note #4.
Step 7: Question audience: “Why can’t he be lying down with his feet to the wall?”
Step 8: Repeat steps as necessary.
Tea leaves where got fun??!! I just eat termites. They taste like freshly-ground pepper. Yum-yum!
The weirdos irritate the technocrats.
The technocrats overwhelm the weirdos.
And then weirdos-plus-weirdos-plus-weirdos annoy the technocrats and their weirdos.
[Technocrats' weirdos smile to themselves.]
Repeat.
—Fun wat.
This kind of thing money cannot buy: We make you feel young again!
______________________________
The Crane // Apr 26, 2007 at 4:56 pm
A weirdo is born every second!
Need a fair $/weirdo rate.
Dear Uncle Darkness,
Please inform Chandra that AI can play chess, yes. But AI cannot play weiqi.
Interestingly, those who play very well at it—in my experience at least—are the Ah Bengs. I taught the Ah Bengs in my NS camp how to play.
In weiqi, if you have to eat your opponent’s stones to win, then you’re not a good player.
And pro players sometimes play a game over a span of two days.
(See; article did exist on NYTimes. Checked with Factiva.)
p.s. When you say that mentoring is over-rated, I believe that you underestimate yourself.
Fascinating! Tq for the article. Mmmmmh there is $ huh!
$?
You mean me?
I don’t get any money. And my diatribes are definitely NOT as poetic nor polite as yours.
If you meant mentoring: I’ll treat you to coffee lah. Me still poor international student in Oz.
Forget kopi I will buy you a nice jap dinner, heard of nobu? He is a buddy of mine - I mean this “go” thing - there is a bounty right - $1.4 mil????
I need more current links pls. pls supply
triple post
double post
Thanks in advance for the jap dinner!—But how do I contact you to claim it?
As for Go, the best way to know it is to play it. It’s one of those things which you cannot know much about unless you do the thing.
You can learn how-to in 5 mins or less.
For a good site on how-to:
http://senseis.xmp.net/
For Go Servers to play online:
• KGS
• IGS
To connect to IGS you need a client program. Use GNU Go:
• For PC
• For Mac OS X
GNU Go is also a program to play Go on your own computer.
Have fun!
darkness,
Some of yr posts via steamboy rapping, ballerina cooing…the lot meant for disrupting. Now all Iggied.
——————————————–
Hey I don’t even know you and you start the discussion by throwing mud at me? I say you are not giving it a chance. Think abt that.
But maybe you’re more interested in this:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ComplexityOfGo
I can’t understand the mathematical whatevers of course.
lkh,
I didnt step off the banana boat from yesterday.
Some of our readers have been following us for over 5 to 6 yrs - and they run into the thousands - u have made up your mind so stick to it - it is a life choice - I never ever self post, go and ask inspirid, Aaron etc (we never ever hide anything from them), they know how we work - I do not have the time explain - no time means no time- it is all there in the internet if you google hard abt our history how we typically manage our communication and why it has to be this way, but if you never bothered with the homework - what can I say? - I am very sorry, I dont want to come across as rude, but I just do not have the time.
Calligrapher (Amateur)
Ok this is very good work - I like to deal with ppl who r on the ball. Let me go thru the stuff you linked, give me 48 hrs - meanwhile leave a message with inspirid in his inbox in the IS- I will get harphoon or someone to contact u.
darkness is so money face
darkness dear bad boy can you pls share with me how post 504 works. I couldn’t sleep leh last night, tossing around left and right. Pls
why iggied? Here’s one scholahboy in daylight poses a question and then comes darkness changes into skirts n answers himself. Beats me. lol
lkh, maybe you can answer the question?
lkh
why dont u ask aaron deary whether tis is a double post.
I am starting to notice a pattern here, everyone who disagrees with the crane is a frustrated failure who is pretending to be someone they are not.
lkh. I am sure darkness bambie bad boy wouldnt mind stepping aside for you to take the limelight.can you tell me what is happening in 504?
lkh,
Pls tell us all LKH, bc I really want to learn. I am still young and curious. So I really if I dont know something. I dont have any qualms asking.
LKH you really seem to really know so much abt aaron, crane, darkness, the brotherhood and everything in the singapore blogosphere etc.
So I guess you must really know what is happening in 504. Can you please share with us all: what is happening? Is Bambi boy taking us for a ride? Or is he doing something terribly naughty to all of us?
lkh,
dont bother googling alredi did it lah…nothing leh
lkh pls dont make us wait too long
sphgirl:
Surely that depends on whether The Crane called them toads?
It’s where you have your point to view, surely?
________________
sphgirl // Apr 27, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I am starting to notice a pattern here, everyone who disagrees with the crane is a frustrated failure who is pretending to be someone they are not.
Dear lkh,
Yes lkh can you pls enlighten us abt post 504. Pls dont accuse me of being darkness. Or say that I am disrupting this thread. Or another scholar in a skirt? Maybe you can check with the webmaster.
What is happening in post 504 lkh. I too want to learn and since you seem to have incredible ESP powers. I am sure we can all learn alot from you.
“lkh SINGAPORE // Apr 27, 2007 at 11:58 am
why iggied? Here’s one scholahboy in daylight poses a question and then comes darkness changes into skirts n answers himself. Beats me. lol POST 520″
Excuse me lkh, I also want to know what bambi bad boy meant by what he shared with us all in 504.
You see unlike you, I wished iggied. But really I am not as smart as you. Because yesterday when I read 504. I said to myself, OK, this is not going to be anything new, after all what is two multiplied by two. Oh sure this will really make me feel stupid. But at the end of it all. I found myself reading 504 again and again and again. So wished iggied i.e I get it like you lkh. Perhaps you can share with us your perspective on 504. Since you seem to know virtually everything that is happening in darkness brain, the blogosphere and even the whole wide world. Or are you going to accuse me of being another cross dressing scholar? Bc I have already volunteered to make this IP public, so may I very respectfully ask you lkh what is 504 all abour Now I dont even mind for the post master here to make my IP public, I just dont want to be part of bambi bad boys game!
Pls tell me . Pls lkh. Karen Teo