<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Scholarship bonds need exit clause
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->RECENT issues of The Straits Times have discussed scholarship bonds, liquidated damages and additional moral obligations. May I, a doctor who benefited from such a scholarship, share a few thoughts?
A patient considering a specific treatment must have enough information to genuinely make an informed decision. For example, an elderly patient with prostate cancer needs to know how aggressive his type of cancer is (some kinds progress only over years or decades), and realise that some treatments may cure him but risk permanent side effects.
His doctor must offer adequate information, but only the patient can apply personal insight to assess how his life may be impacted, and decide accordingly.
Scholarship applicants are told of the work expected of them upon return. But they must also be told explicitly how much say they may have in their career path, and (if this ever becomes necessary) whether they can exit by paying liquidated damages, or will 'moral obligation to serve' constitute an inflexible imposition.
Many scholarship applicants are young, with little work experience. Therefore, the best of intentions at application will not be matched by true understanding of the practical implications of agreeing to serve under a bond.
Why can we not incorporate into all bonds an exit clause that compensates both liquidated damages and the attendant 'moral obligation to serve'? Youthful naivety or unexpected changes in personal circumstances can make this provision necessary. Simultaneously, guarantors should be told whether they will still be liable if circumstances change unexpectedly so serving out the bond becomes impossible.
In recent months, society maturely discussed a monetary sum offered to a kidney donor, because we acknowledged that it is impossible to foresee at the time of decision if any donor's health might be adversely affected in the future. Is there not a parallel with scholarship bonds? Beyond full disclosure, should not an exit plan - even one based purely on monetary compensation - be built into scholarships? Sometimes it is truly impossible to foresee changes in the personal circumstances of an applicant, so serious that he cannot serve out the remainder of his bond. In that case, a fair exit option prevents the scholarship bond from actually becoming bondage, if his superiors disagree and do not release him.
Dr Lee Pheng Soon FORUM NOTE: Dr Lee is a former president of the Singapore Medical Association.
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->RECENT issues of The Straits Times have discussed scholarship bonds, liquidated damages and additional moral obligations. May I, a doctor who benefited from such a scholarship, share a few thoughts?
A patient considering a specific treatment must have enough information to genuinely make an informed decision. For example, an elderly patient with prostate cancer needs to know how aggressive his type of cancer is (some kinds progress only over years or decades), and realise that some treatments may cure him but risk permanent side effects.
His doctor must offer adequate information, but only the patient can apply personal insight to assess how his life may be impacted, and decide accordingly.
Scholarship applicants are told of the work expected of them upon return. But they must also be told explicitly how much say they may have in their career path, and (if this ever becomes necessary) whether they can exit by paying liquidated damages, or will 'moral obligation to serve' constitute an inflexible imposition.
Many scholarship applicants are young, with little work experience. Therefore, the best of intentions at application will not be matched by true understanding of the practical implications of agreeing to serve under a bond.
Why can we not incorporate into all bonds an exit clause that compensates both liquidated damages and the attendant 'moral obligation to serve'? Youthful naivety or unexpected changes in personal circumstances can make this provision necessary. Simultaneously, guarantors should be told whether they will still be liable if circumstances change unexpectedly so serving out the bond becomes impossible.
In recent months, society maturely discussed a monetary sum offered to a kidney donor, because we acknowledged that it is impossible to foresee at the time of decision if any donor's health might be adversely affected in the future. Is there not a parallel with scholarship bonds? Beyond full disclosure, should not an exit plan - even one based purely on monetary compensation - be built into scholarships? Sometimes it is truly impossible to foresee changes in the personal circumstances of an applicant, so serious that he cannot serve out the remainder of his bond. In that case, a fair exit option prevents the scholarship bond from actually becoming bondage, if his superiors disagree and do not release him.
Dr Lee Pheng Soon FORUM NOTE: Dr Lee is a former president of the Singapore Medical Association.
