- Fundamentally, a government scholarship recipient takes up a commitment
to serve Singapore and Singaporeans through service in the public sector.
- Government and statutory board scholarships represent a use of public
funds to train promising young men and women, to take up leadership or
specialist roles in the public sector. They are not bursaries, given to
needy students who otherwise could not get a university education. They
are not general education subsidies, which anybody who qualifies to go
to university is entitled to. Nor are they academic prizes, merit awards
for good performance without any strings attached.
- The cost of an overseas scholarship is high – about $250,000 per scholar.
There must be an accountability to the public for such a large investment
in a single individual. A scholar who fails to return to serve his bond
has used public funds merely to serve his personal ends. He has thwarted
the state’s purpose in investing in his abilities. More reprehensible,
he has deprived another student of the opportunity of studying at an outstanding
university, who would have made more contribution to his sponsor and to
Singapore.
Legal Obligation to Serve
- It is impossible to compel scholarship recipients to serve, if they
have made up their minds not to do so. The fundamental principle of law
is that the courts will not compel specific performance of personal service
contracts. This is for a basic reason: if a person does not want to fulfil
an obligation he has entered into, it is beyond the powers of any court
or anyone else to force him to do so. This is unlike for example a contract
to buy or sell a property. Once a person enters into a sale or purchase
agreement, he has to go through and complete the deal. Otherwise the other
party can go to court to compel him to do so.
- Therefore the remedy for non-performance is payment of damages. In
the case of scholarships, this takes the form of a scholarship bond.
- Both parties to a scholarship award need to be committed to the arrangement
which they have embarked upon together. The Government, and statutory boards
offering scholarships, will make every effort to offer scholars and other
public officers rewarding careers. They implement good human resource policies
and practices, offer challenging assignments, provide training and development
opportunities, maintain conducive work environments, and give timely recognition
for effort and enterprise.
- But the scholar also has to live up to his end of the deal. He has
to make an honest, conscientious effort to fulfil his obligation, and to
serve the organisation which has given him the opportunity, invested in
him, and expects in time a contribution from him.
Moral Responsibility to Serve
- But apart from the legal obligation, scholarships also carry a moral
responsibility. A scholarship is not simply a study loan, with an option
to serve in lieu of repaying the loan. Nor is it a commercial contract
which may be settled purely by paying liquidated damages.
- No applicant at a scholarship interview explains that he will treat
his scholarship purely as a legal obligation, and that he will be off as
soon as another opportunity presents itself. Every one explains how anxious
he is to contribute to the organisation, and why he and not another candidate
should be given the chance to do so.
- So when a scholar breaks a bond, it is not just a matter of contracts
and liquidated damages. It involves deeper issues of right and wrong, moral
integrity, a sense of shame at breaking a solemn personal undertaking.
It is not just a legal, but also a moral obligation. There is a qualitative
difference between the two. Without the moral sense of duty to family,
friends and society, no society can thrive. No army can win battles if
every soldier only does his minimum duty. It is the altruism and heroism
of outstanding leaders and soldiers, from the commander in chief down to
the private soldier, which differentiates the victors from the vanquished.
- Students also seek scholarships because of the prestige they carry.
Some apply for PSC scholarships not because they want one or need one,
but just to measure themselves against PSC’s standard. I believe some parents
tell their children that they will pay for their overseas education, but
only if they are good enough to be offered a PSC scholarship.
- Schools, principals, teachers, relatives, the media, all hold up scholars
as success stories to be proud of and emulated. This public recognition
carries with it an obligation to serve. When the obligation is refused,
shame is brought not only to the scholar, but also to his family, his principals,
teachers and everyone else who shared in his success.
- I showed a draft of this speech to the Ministers. RADM Teo Chee Hean
emailed me back his views as follows:
Even in a purely commercial contract, there is an element of
obligation.
Suppose I sign a contract to supply bricks to a housing contractor.
Come the appointed day of delivery, I turn up and say that I am unable
to supply the bricks, and he can have his liquidated damages.
The contractor is not interested in my LD – he wants the bricks; his
building schedule depends on it.
There is an expectation even in purely commercial deals that contracts
will be fulfilled. This contractor will never buy another load of bricks
from me – and may even tell his friends not to do business with me (so
that they will not be similarly left in the lurch).
The government debars contractors and publishes their names when they
default for no good reason.
Suppose the contractor found out that I was actually able to
deliver the bricks, but had decided to sell them to someone else that day
because he had offered me a few cents more per brick. He would blow his
top.
I don’t think anyone will say that what I did is OK since my bricks
are still being used to build houses.
If anyone treated commercial contracts that way, that person will soon
be out of business.
Taking a scholarship involves even more of an obligation than offering
to sell bricks.
- This does not mean that every scholar must always serve till the very
last day of his bond, come what may. Between the award of the scholarship
and the end of the bond period may be 10 years or more. Many unforeseeable
events may intervene, which may make it awkward for the scholar to continue
to serve, either for the scholar himself or for his employer. In which
case, the break clause provides a way out for both parties. Mr Leong Horn
Kee was candid in telling this House that he too once paid off his scholarship
bond. Other MPs have also have done so.
- There cannot be a blanket condemnation of all scholars who break their
bonds. But in each case the circumstances have to be examined, and a judgment
made.
Flexibility in Deploying Scholars
- MPs and members of the public reported in the media have asked the
Government to administer its scholarships flexibly, and allow scholars
to fulfil their obligations in different ways. The Government is keen to
develop its scholar talent pool to the full, in order to maximise their
contributions to Singapore. It has gone out of its way to help scholars
pursue careers which fit their inclinations and aptitudes. It has often
allowed scholars to proceed on Masters and even PhD courses, as well as
industrial and research attachments. However, the overriding criterion
is always: how will Singapore benefit from this further investment of time
and/or money in the individual? That the further degree benefits the individual
or his faculty is not sufficient reason.
- The EDB has been particularly flexible with its scholars, because it
has a wide range of scholarship schemes, which it awards together with
private sector organisations. For example, it allowed one scholar doing
an undergraduate degree in electrical/electronic engineering to proceed
to a master’s degree. It also arranged for him to work with an MNC in Singapore
to gain industrial experience, at his request. In another case, it allowed
a scholar to defer his bond for 3 years. The scholar arranged to take up
a Research Fellowship in the US, so that on his return he would be able
to contribute in the area of research. He was also accompanying his wife,
who was going to the US for a posting.
- So far 72 EDB scholars have been placed outside of EDB. Some teach
in tertiary institutions, others work in private industry. Still others
serve in statutory boards and ministries.
Naming Bond-Breakers
- But sometimes despite all our efforts, it proves impossible to accommodate
the scholar’s request. Or the scholar makes up his mind that a career with
the Singapore Government is not for him, and will not be shaken. This has
happened more frequently in recent years. Nowadays scholars receive many
other job offers. Quite a few scholars, or their families, also have the
means to pay back the bond without difficulty.
- Bond breaking has become a problem, especially with the Singapore Inc.
scholarships, awarded by the participating agencies – EDB, NCB, CAAS, and
Singapore Technologies. Hence EDB announced in August last year that it
would tighten up the terms of the bonds for the Singapore Inc. scholarships.
It also warned that it would publicise the names of those who broke their
bonds.
- There is a precedent for this. The US Government recently published
the names of 1,402 health care professionals who have defaulted on their
Health Education Assistance Loans. Their names are posted on a special
web page on the internet, together with the amounts they owe, to shame
them.
- All MPs who spoke have acknowledged that it is wrong to break scholarship
bonds. Dr Tan Cheng Bock described it as "ungentlemanly". But
they questioned whether we should shame such scholars publicly. EDB does
not automatically publicise the name of every scholar who has broken his
bond. If there are extenuating circumstances, EDB will take them into account.
But in egregious cases, publishing the name lets the public know the facts.
If indeed the scholar had good reasons for acting as he did, and feels
that he has done no wrong in breaking the bond, then he has no reason to
object to having his deed publicised. But if he has not done the right
thing, then the only question is whether publishing might be too harsh
a punishment in his case. That is a judgment which the awarding organisations
have to make, case by case.
- When EDB and NCB learnt that the three scholars intended to break their
bonds, they reminded the scholars and their parents of the warning EDB
had already given, that the Government would have to name them if they
proceeded. They asked them to reconsider. Regrettably, the scholars did
not change their minds.
- EDB and NCB officers deliberated extensively and carefully before deciding
to proceed to name these three. It was not a matter of the three "incurring
the wrath of some government official", as Mr Chng Hee Kok put it.
The two statutory boards consulted PSC, PSD, and the other agencies which
award and handle scholarships. Unfortunately, there were no extenuating
circumstances. All three were still studying, and had not even started
work. They had no difficulties with their courses, or medical problems,
or family difficulties. They made no effort to try to serve EDB or NCB.
- So finally EDB and NCB decided that these three scholars had to be
named. I vetted and approved the press statement.
PSC Scholars
- There have been very few cases of students on overseas PSC scholarships
breaking their bonds. This may partly be because the men have to return
to complete their full time National Service, unlike the statutory board
scholars, many of whom have completed their NSF before going overseas.
In the last 5 years, only 0.3% of PSC overseas scholars broke their bonds
before they started work. However, as and when cases arise of scholars
breaking bonds, PSD will study them, and decide whether it is necessary
to publish their names. We expect these cases to continue to be few.
Hector Yee
- Hector Yee’s case has been widely publicised in the media. Questions
have been raised whether the Government was too rigid in handling his case.
Hence I shall provide a chronology of the discussions between Hector Yee
and NCB. It shows that NCB made every effort to accommodate Hector Yee’s
requests, and was taken by surprise when Hector Yee decided to break his
bond.
- Hector Yee is studying Computer Science at Cornell University in the
US. He requested to continue beyond his undergraduate degree, to do a Master’s
degree in computer graphics. He wanted to spend 5 years, longer than the
4.5 years which NCB normally allows. But after deliberation, NCB agreed
to this.
- On 9 January 98 NCB met Hector Yee, and told him that it had approved
extension of his stay to 5 years. Hector Yee said that he was considering
a PhD after his Master’s degree. NCB HR advised him to get some working
experience before pursuing his PhD. Past NCB scholars had found it useful
to get some working experience first. Hector Yee said that he had been
offered a fully funded place in Cornell, and if he obtained a PhD, he would
want to pursue an academic career. At the meeting, he did not request NCB
to allow him to continue to complete his PhD without a break. Nor did he
enquire about postings to research institutes.
- But one week later, on 17 January 98, Hector Yee emailed NCB HR to
say that he had decided to break his bond. It was only now, after he had
made up his mind to quit, that he told NCB for the first time that he thought
that his field of study – computer graphics, was "not really relevant
to the focus of NCB".
- Subsequently on 26 January 98, Hector Yee sent an email to NCB HR,
explaining his desire to do research in computer graphics. I am releasing
the email. It read:
"I believe it would be a great evil to deprive the world of research
whose by-products could significantly change the way we live. I work to
benefit all humanity, not any one organisation or group of people. … Thus
I’m saddened that NCB has reacted in this way, but I cannot deprive the
world of the potential benefits that can be derived from my research."
- So it was only after Hector Yee had decided to break his bond that
he told NCB he wanted to do research, and that NCB could not accommodate
the career he had in mind. It was not the case of his trying to persuade
NCB to let him do this, and NCB refusing to do so, thus forcing him to
quit.
- I was saddened to read Hector Yee’s email. Despite his unquestioned
intelligence and academic brilliance, he has not understood one simple
fact: that Singapore gave him this chance to study in Cornell and that
he owed something to the rest of Singapore, to strengthen Singapore’s chances
for the future.
Duty to Singapore
- Singapore is not China. China has millions of talented young people.
It can afford to lose tens of thousands of them overseas, and yet have
many more to spare. It has to accept this as the price of modernisation.
Singapore needs all the talent that we can find. We do all we can to help
each one achieve the best he can, within the resources we have. But this
investment is for the advancement of Singapore.
- For many of our scholars, going overseas to study is a heady experience.
They do brilliantly academically, because they are extremely bright and
well prepared. Their professors see them as star pupils, and strongly encourage
them to continue in an academic career. Hector Yee is not the first Singapore
scholar to have been made such an offer.
- Without Singapore and the Singapore system, our scholars would never
have had the opportunities which made them what they were, took them to
the top universities in the world, and opened the door to fascinating careers
in research, finance, or industry.
- It takes maturity for scholars to remember why they were sent overseas
in the first place, and to feel the pull of their obligations and responsibilities
back home. They need to understand that despite having all these boundless
opportunities, as Singaporeans, their first duty is to Singapore. Fortunately
most scholars do return, and soon adjust back to life in the real world.
As they grow older and their views mature, they come to realise where their
youthful ideas of what is important and what they hope to achieve in life
were naïve or mistaken.
Mr Chng Hee Kok’s meeting with Mr Philip Yeo
- One extraneous issue has been introduced into this debate – the meeting
between Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mr Philip Yeo on the question of bond breakers.
- Members have heard Mr Chng’s account of the meeting. Other members
too have commented on the matter, although they were not present at the
meeting, notably Dr Tan Cheng Bock.
- I urge Members to exercise restraint in criticising civil servants,
especially in this House. The civil servants are not here to defend themselves,
nor can they answer back. If MPs have problems with individual civil servants,
they should take the matter up with the Minister in charge. And if they
are still not satisfied, they can raise it with me or the Prime Minister.
MPs and civil servants both play crucial but different roles in our body
politic. Without mutual respect and appreciation between them, the government
cannot work.
- Mr Chng had spoken to me earlier about his meeting with Mr Philip Yeo.
He had complained about Mr Philip Yeo asking him to resign. I therefore
called for the file note of the meeting.
- It was a breakfast meeting, which took place on 19 January 98. Besides
Mr Chng and Mr Philip Yeo, 4 others were present: Mr Ho Meng Kit, MD EDB;
Mr Stephen Yeo, CE NCB; Mrs Shirley Chen and Mr Timothy Sebastian, both
EDB staff. The file note was recorded by Mr Timothy Sebastian, vetted by
Mrs Shirley Chen, and approved by Mr Ho Meng Kit. The note was classified
Confidential, because EDB had no intention of publicising the meeting with
Mr Chng. But since Mr Chng has made the matter public, I am releasing it
to Members.
- I am also releasing the letter which EDB wrote to Mr Chng after the
breakfast meeting, inviting Mr Chng to say who were the MPs who had views
different from Mr Yeo’s, so that Mr Yeo could arrange a meeting with them
to discuss the issue further. Dr Tan Cheng Bock described this as EDB trying
"to summon MPs for a meeting to answer to him why they disagree".
He will see that it is in fact a very courteous letter, which unfortunately
did not receive a reply.
- Mr Yeo did indeed tell Mr Chng that MPs who held such views should
resign. It was wrong of Mr Yeo to say this. I have told him so. I have
reminded him that it is for the party leadership and the Whip, not Chairman
EDB, to take an MP to task.
- But this exchange between Mr Chng and Mr Yeo did not take place out
of the blue. It is relevant to read the discussion between Mr Chng and
Mr Yeo which preceded this.
"Taking up the point of honour and integrity, Mr Chng said that
he did not agree that scholars who broke their bonds lacked these qualities.
He said that as long as they paid what was owed to the organisation, they
had fulfilled their obligations. Chmn disagreed. He said that as an MP,
Mr Chng should uphold values such as honour, integrity and commitment.
… Mr Chng reiterated that this was Chmn’s view, and it was not necessarily
a correct one. He reiterated that he did not see anything wrong with scholars
who broke their bonds without serving a single day, so long as they paid
up their liquidated damages.
"Chmn cited the example of his son, Eugene, who had asked him about
taking up a scholarship prior to entering university in USA. Chmn advised
him to do so only if he was genuinely committed to returning to serve his
bond … Chmn asked Mr Chng whether he would advise his daughter who was
studying in Yale any differently. Mr Chng said that if his daughter wanted
to break bond, he would not be against it."
At this point, according to the note, "Chmn said that MPs who held
such views should resign as they were sending the wrong signal to Singaporeans".
- In other words, the issue was not whether or not we should publish
the names of bond breakers, which is a matter on which we may reasonably
disagree. The issue was a fundamental one: whether or not there is anything
wrong with breaking a scholarship bond, especially without making the slightest
effort to fulfil it. It is clear from the file note that Mr Chng had
argued that it was quite alright to break a scholarship bond, because it
was just a matter of a legal contract and liquidated damages, and this
is what provoked the dispute with Mr Yeo.
- No MP has argued in Parliament that there is nothing wrong with breaking
a bond. On Monday, Mr Chng Hee Kok, to his credit, no longer maintained
that there was nothing wrong. Instead he argued:
"Certainly, scholars do have an obligation other than legal to
serve their bonds. We cannot encourage scholars to terminate their bonds.
Moreover, a scholarship in Singapore brings much honour and prestige to
the scholar and the family. Hence terminating a bond must bring with it
some dishonour."
- Mr Chng has told me that he had thought the matter over and modified
his stand. Had Mr Chng taken this more responsible line in his meeting
with Mr Philip Yeo on 19 January 98, I do not think he would have
provoked the reaction that he did. The view that he actually expressed
in his meeting with Mr Yeo, and recorded in the filenote, is wrong, and
dangerous if it becomes widely held. MPs are opinion leaders. The views
they propagate in public speeches set the tone for society.
Conclusion
- A bond does not enslave a scholar. It develops his potential to his
maximum. By his early 30s, his bond is over and he can decide on a change
of careers. However the training, the discipline and the moral values that
he has imbibed in the years working out his bond will remain with him:
that sense of the larger mission in life, and the basic instincts and values
to do the right thing by his country and his community. These will enable
him to do well in whatever field he chooses.
- Scholars had no problem with bonds for over three decades, from the
1950s to the middle 1980s. This flow of trained talent into the public
sector carried Singapore up to its present levels, the least bureaucratic
government in the region, the leading container port, airport, airline,
telecommunications centre, and so on. These scholars include Lee Yock Suan,
Lim Boon Heng, George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang, Teo Chee Hean, Kishore Mahbubani,
Lim Siong Guan, Philip Yeo, and many others. Among the younger generations
of scholars we can count several MPs – David Lim, Lim Swee Say, and S Iswaran.
- Since the 1980s, with increasing affluence, the sense of urgency for
Singapore’s future has dissipated. More parents and students are now driven
by self-interest rather than public duty. Unless we check this tendency,
Singapore cannot maintain its present standards of excellence. We need
that sense of dedication among our brightest and best, that commitment
beyond themselves and their families, to the larger community and society.
- Our scholars owe their academic success to the system that affords
everybody an equal chance to achieve his maximum. They owe a duty to preserve
and sustain the system.