<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Nothing wrong with scholarship bonds
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->FIRST of all, let me express my deepest sympathy to the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi. I am sorry for their loss and understand the pain and anguish they must be feeling.
My letter is focused on the 12-year bond for medical scholarship holders in the Singapore Armed Forces, and queries over its 'breakability'. There are two points about scholarship bonds that cannot be overlooked in the current debate.
Although it is said that at the tender age of 17, young people may not have the maturity to 'sign their lives away', it must be remembered that the consideration for a bond is an expensive education with ample allowance for daily necessities. Those who do not qualify for these scholarships have to dig deep into their pockets, or take a bank loan that must be repaid with interest.
Furthermore, scholarship holders are selected because they are regarded as having the potential to be leaders in their organisations. It is common knowledge that they enjoy a career progression in the civil service that is different from that of non-scholarship holders - what is known as the 'fast track'. Upon graduation, they are promoted faster and are therefore better paid than non-scholarship holders.
In other words, there is no deprivation when one enters into a bond as a result of a scholarship. We should not pick on bonds, especially when we bear in mind that for every scholarship awarded, someone else truly willing to serve it out may be deprived of it.
Second, the issue of bond-breaking is not merely a financial one, but also a moral one. True, it is a contract, and all contracts are breakable with a monetary penalty. But when it comes to scholarship contracts, it is well-known that interwoven into the terms is an equitable obligation to serve the hand that groomed you. It is a matter of commitment.
My personal view is that young people today are not as committed to the causes that they enter into as the generation before them. It is cowardice when we do not hold ourselves responsible for the consequences of our actions, especially when we already know what the consequences are, right from the outset.
To find fault with a system that is not a problem is to condone irresponsible behaviour that weakens the quality of our people. Monica Wong (Ms)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->FIRST of all, let me express my deepest sympathy to the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi. I am sorry for their loss and understand the pain and anguish they must be feeling.
My letter is focused on the 12-year bond for medical scholarship holders in the Singapore Armed Forces, and queries over its 'breakability'. There are two points about scholarship bonds that cannot be overlooked in the current debate.
Although it is said that at the tender age of 17, young people may not have the maturity to 'sign their lives away', it must be remembered that the consideration for a bond is an expensive education with ample allowance for daily necessities. Those who do not qualify for these scholarships have to dig deep into their pockets, or take a bank loan that must be repaid with interest.
Furthermore, scholarship holders are selected because they are regarded as having the potential to be leaders in their organisations. It is common knowledge that they enjoy a career progression in the civil service that is different from that of non-scholarship holders - what is known as the 'fast track'. Upon graduation, they are promoted faster and are therefore better paid than non-scholarship holders.
In other words, there is no deprivation when one enters into a bond as a result of a scholarship. We should not pick on bonds, especially when we bear in mind that for every scholarship awarded, someone else truly willing to serve it out may be deprived of it.
Second, the issue of bond-breaking is not merely a financial one, but also a moral one. True, it is a contract, and all contracts are breakable with a monetary penalty. But when it comes to scholarship contracts, it is well-known that interwoven into the terms is an equitable obligation to serve the hand that groomed you. It is a matter of commitment.
My personal view is that young people today are not as committed to the causes that they enter into as the generation before them. It is cowardice when we do not hold ourselves responsible for the consequences of our actions, especially when we already know what the consequences are, right from the outset.
To find fault with a system that is not a problem is to condone irresponsible behaviour that weakens the quality of our people. Monica Wong (Ms)
