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