Agreed with your observation. If our educational system and scholar scheme have been effective as touted by the Gov, we would not need to have external people to run our state-funded corporations. These scholars aren't supposed to be groomed to be in the helms? It's a total failure that there isn't any notable candidate that can fuel our imagination. In the States, the government can easily form a "star-studded" team.
When it first began, I had a lot of hope and it seemed to be a no-brainer. Best of class identified early and nutured early. Surely they will do better than the 1st Gen Ministers aleast in policy if not in politics. I really don't know why it failed. What surprised me even more is the lack of entrepreneurial materials of significance.
My opinion is that these scholars aren't trained in the real-world enough to take up the huge responsibilities. It's a dog eat dog world out there, where it's totally different from the safe cocoon these guys are hidden, especially those SAF scholars who spent almost an entire of their career in a regimental environment.
They actually have placement programs with MNCs. I mean real jobs. Know a chap who worked for Standard Chartered Bank for nearly 20 mths doing what other staff do.
The SAF scholar program seems out of whack with the real world with none of them showing any real corporate mettle.
I seriously think that it's high time we revamp the scholarship scheme. At least when they start working, they need to prove their worth for promotion and not on the merit that they are scholars. Their career path should not be different from ordinary folks who join the same company.
Wholeheartly agree. After 35 years, it has to be revamped. Nothing spectacular has been achieved.
Your point about promotion on merit is relevant. My views on the scholars are these
1) usual 2 year postings does not allow sufficient depth and avoids accountability. It is common knowledge that "project of significance" that last 18mths are done with baked in expected results and you are rated on it. By the time the actual effects are known, one is probably is already in the 3rd posting.
2) A clear progression pathway assured by a set of remuneration will surely create a group that will attemp to avoid any form of risk that will curtail movement along this path.
3) The high bonuses for top performers has the wrong effect as avereage or poor performers will continue to stick to the given progression path.
4) Remove scholars from Political roles such as Unionism, People Association, SPH, etc.
5) Premised heavily on the fallacy that, without highly renumerated scholars, the civil service will collapse. Emprirical evidence from the 1st world shows otherwise.
6) nPremised on the fallacy that Singapore is an "Unlikely" country to survive unless special people are identified, given special treatment from cradle to grave to keep this country above water.
Conclusion
Its is clear to see that nothing spectacular or even iconic has been achieved from the scholar program.
